[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 209 (Thursday, December 10, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7381-S7393]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

  NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021--Conference 
                            Report--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 6395, 
which will be stated by title.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on disagreeing votes of the two 
     Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     6395), 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, 
     having met, have agreed that the House recede from its 
     disagreement to the amendment of the Senate and agree to the 
     same with an amendment and the Senate agree to the same, 
     signed by a majority of the conferees on the part of both 
     Houses.

  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of December 3, 2020.


                   Recognition Of The Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                              Coronavirus

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, with each passing day, we get another 
round of news underscoring how costly this pandemic has been. 
Yesterday, over 3,000 Americans--3,000--died from COVID-19, the highest 
single-day death toll to date.
  If you were making a list of some of the deadliest days in American 
history, your mind would jump to Gettysburg, Antietam, Pearl Harbor, or 
9/11. You can now add to that somber list last Thursday, Wednesday, 
last Tuesday, last Friday, and yesterday. Each day, nearly 2,500 
Americans or more lost their lives to COVID in the course of a single 
day.
  Now time is running out for Congress to finish our most pressing 
priority: passing an emergency COVID relief bill to help American 
families in need.
  Right now, there is one clear path to getting an outcome: a 
bipartisan group of Senators and House Members who have reached an 
initial agreement on another emergency relief bill. In the spirit of 
compromise and for the sake of getting something done for the American 
people, Speaker Pelosi and I have endorsed those efforts as a framework 
for a final bill.
  Everyone knows that this bipartisan proposal is the only real game in 
town at the moment, the only proposal with enough bipartisan support 
to, hopefully, pass both Houses of Congress before the end of the year. 
Everyone knows that, it seems, except Leader McConnell, who continues 
to stand in the way of bipartisan progress and who seems to wake up 
each morning with a new round of outlandish reasons why Democrats are 
somehow to blame for all the world's ills.
  As the bipartisan group of Senators continue to work toward a final 
agreement, I want to address an incredibly false equivalency that has 
been drawn between two provisions: providing aid to State and local 
services--essential State and local services--and granting sweeping 
immunity to corporations that put their workers in harm's way during 
the pandemic.
  You will hear voices say: Democrats want to fund State and local 
services while Republicans--that is, Leader McConnell--want a corporate 
liability shield. Each side wants something that the other side doesn't 
want to accept. But as I said, this is a false equivalency, incredibly 
false, for two reasons.
  First, State and local aid has broad bipartisan support, totally 
unlike the Republican leader's liability provision, which is expressly 
partisan. Let me say that again because it is important. There is 
strong bipartisan support for State and local aid. There is not the 
same broad bipartisan support for sweeping corporate immunity.
  Second, the two policies are not remotely equivalent in terms of 
importance or relevance to what is going on in our country right now. 
When we talk about providing Federal aid so the States don't have to 
cut essential services, we are talking about saving lives, and we are 
talking about saving jobs. We are talking about boosting the economy. 
According to the Congressional Budget Office, money for State and local 
government creates the best bang for the buck for the economy from any 
spending Congress is considering.
  State and local aid is a policy with a nationwide reach. It would 
solve a real, immediate problem. On the other hand, when Republicans 
talk about giving corporate indemnity, they are talking about a 
solution in search of a problem. To date, there have been 20--only 20-
some-odd personal injury lawsuits filed in the entire country.
  The bottom line is, one provision solves a real problem in our 
country; the other does not. The two sides are not remotely equivalent, 
and it is not a trade that makes any sense in terms of the well-being 
of the American people.
  Now, I know the Republican leader and Senate Republicans want to help 
small businesses and re-up the popular PPP to help prevent businesses 
from folding and American workers from being laid off. So do I. So do 
Democrats. Well, guess what. State and local relief is also about 
American workers

[[Page S7382]]

getting laid off too. If you want PPP so small businesses don't lay off 
people, why wouldn't you want State and local aid so governments don't 
lay off people? They are the same people who need to feed their 
families, pay their rent, pay their mortgage, and get on with life.
  State and local relief is about American workers getting laid off. It 
is about firefighters getting laid off. It is about first responders 
getting laid off. It is about teachers getting laid off, busdrivers, 
sanitation workers, essential employees--men and women who have been 
working since the pandemic began and risking their lives to keep our 
country moving. It is impossible to imagine any community in this 
country functioning without them.
  And this morning we learned that an additional 1.4 million Americans 
filed new unemployment claims--a huge spike from the previous week. If 
you want to save jobs, if you want to make sure those numbers don't go 
up, we need PPP for small businesses, and we need State and local aid 
for our governments because both aid those entities and prevent people 
from being laid off and unemployment from going up.
  The liability provisions of the leader have nothing to do with that 
and in fact only affect a very small number of lawsuits.
  So if we are going to be here on the floor and talking about saving 
jobs, we have to talk about saving the jobs of essential public 
employees. They deserve our help too. They are no different than anyone 
else, whether they are in a red State or a blue State.

  Make no mistake, right now there is one person--just one person--
standing in the way, and that is Leader McConnell.


                         Presidential Election

  Madam President, now on another matter, despite the fact that the 
Presidential election ended well over a month ago and that, by now, 
every single State in the country and the District of Columbia has 
certified results, there are still many on the political right who 
refuse to accept reality.
  Today, amazingly enough, 17 Republican attorneys general will meet 
with President Trump to discuss their desperate and wildly 
irresponsible lawsuit, which aims to literally overturn the will of the 
people on the grounds they didn't like the results.
  This has gone beyond ridiculous. No court in this country has found 
any of President Trump's claims of widespread voter fraud credible. No 
serious State election official, Democrat or Republican, has found them 
credible. Even the Trump administration's Justice Department, so 
browbeaten into political activities over the past 4 years, has not 
found a scrap of evidence that would affect the final result.
  Yet, rather than accept the simple truth that Joe Biden will be the 
next President of the United States, there are actually sitting 
Senators and Congress Members who prefer to undermine our democracy by 
indulging President Trump's wild conspiracy theories about a stolen 
election.
  Here in the Senate, the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee 
announced yesterday that next week he will convene a hearing on 
``election irregularities.'' When is this nonsense, detrimental to our 
democracy, going to end? When?
  It is already deeply irresponsible for my Republican colleagues, many 
of them, to stay silent about President Trump's deliberate attempts to 
poison Americans' faith in our elections. It is deeply irresponsible 
that there hasn't been a full-throated defense of the validity of our 
elections by Republican Senators and the Republican leader, who still 
refuse to call Joe Biden ``President-Elect.'' But to go one step 
further and use a Senate committee as a platform to spread 
misinformation about our own elections is beyond the pale.
  So, in conclusion, Chairman Johnson should call off this ridiculous 
charade of a Senate hearing immediately. If he won't, Leader McConnell 
should intervene to ensure that the committee does not indulge such 
quackery and conspiracy theories, and he should acknowledge the results 
of the election and make clear it is time to move on, just as he was 
happy to do so when the shoe was on the other foot. Doing otherwise 
would add fuel to the fire that is undermining faith in our wonderful 
democracy.


                         Tribute to Pat Roberts

  Madam President, finally, just a note: I, too, want to bid a fond, 
fond farewell to the Senator from Kansas, a wonderful guy and a great 
guy.
  I learned how good he was when we met on the basketball courts in the 
House. He set the best picks of anybody. He would quietly sneak up on 
you, you would be dribbling or moving, and boom. He knows.
  But as good as he was at picks, he was very fine at legislating, and 
he is just a fine human being whom I think just about every Member on 
this side of the aisle will very much miss.
  So, Patty, we wish you and your family the very, very best.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Kansas


                         Farewell to the Senate

  Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, my colleagues, first, I thank the 
leadership on both sides for this opportunity to give a Pat Roberts 
``adios, amigos'' speech.
  The story of how I got into politics is a pretty straight family 
path. As a fourth-generation Kansan, my great-grandfathers on both 
sides of the Roberts-Patrick family were pioneer newspaper editors who 
came to Kansas as crusading abolitionists. To say I bleed fourth-
generation printer's ink would be very close to the truth.
  However, the main influence that drew me to public service was my 
dad, Wes Roberts, who was a newspaper man. And soon journalism led to 
politics. He served as chief of staff and adviser for several Kansas 
Governors, becoming then the State Republican chairman.
  In 1952, my dad was asked to head up the Citizens for Ike campaign, 
which was a genuine army of volunteers made up of legions of veterans, 
women's groups, and mostly Republicans who wanted a candidate who could 
win. Plus, they really liked Ike.
  At 16, in my dad's tow, I was the sergeant at arms at the 1952 
convention, back when conventions actually chose the nominee for 
President. I vividly remember two lasting experiences: The renowned 
Senator from Illinois, Everett Dirksen, was a key leader in the Bob 
Taft campaign. Senator Dirksen, known for his long, eloquent speeches, 
was in the midst of his convention remarks when the entire New York 
delegation, led by former Governor and Presidential candidate Tom 
Dewey, marched in, and with considerable noise they took their seats.
  Dirksen paused and, pointing directly at Dewey and with his booming 
voice, said this: You, sir, have led this party--this Republican 
Party--down to defeat in 1944 and again in 1948. Don't do it again.
  Whereupon, the entire New York delegation stood up and gave Dirksen 
the raspberry, and I thought: This is what adults do at a convention?
  (Laughter.)
  One morning I was in a meeting with my dad with the top Ike campaign 
brass--Dewey, Lodge, Brownell, and other GOP movers and shakers. He 
told me to sit and be quiet. He was in the midst of suggesting the 
``fair play'' amendment, given that the new Ike delegates from the 
solid South had surprised the old guard and won delegate seats at the 
State convention, only to be replaced by the old guard at later 
surprise conventions. Unlike MacArthur, old guards never die or fade 
away.
  My dad said there was no downside if they lost, and he believed they 
could win a majority of delegates. The ``fair play'' amendment passed, 
and Ike won on the first ballot. I thought to myself: Wow. My dad 
actually helped Ike win.
  I met the general. I shook his hand--and then again at the 1953 
inaugural ceremonies when my dad became the Republican national 
chairman.
  It was these reflections, told to my great friend and Medal of Honor 
recipient Senator Danny Inouye, that prompted him to say: Pat, I fought 
for Ike. You met him. It is up to you to get this memorial done.
  And after a 21-year effort, we did just that, with help from Bob 
Dole, Jim Baker, Susan Eisenhower, the Eisenhower family, and Senator 
Lisa Murkowski, who kept the Ike commission going through these tough 
years. Finally, we now have an appropriate, if not stunning, memorial 
to the Kansan who saved Western democracy and World War II and led 
America onto the world stage.

[[Page S7383]]

  With the final dedication of the Dwight David Eisenhower Memorial at 
the end of my Senate career, it is a full family-circle accomplishment. 
If my dad helped elect Ike, then the least I could do was to lead the 
effort to make the memorial on the Mall to a great general and 
President a reality.
  In a homecoming address, Eisenhower famously said: ``The proudest 
thing I can claim is that I am from Abilene.'' He was a small-town 
Kansas boy who saved Western democracy and led the Nation for 8 years 
with peace and prosperity.
  Well, I too come from a small town in Kansas. So how did this boy 
from Holton, KS, become the longest serving Member of Congress in 
Kansas history? Like father, like son. I graduated from K-State with a 
degree in journalism. My father joined the Marines in World War II and 
saw action in both Okinawa and Iwo Jima. I joined in peacetime and 
served in Okinawa and was part of the first Marine contingent to return 
to Iwo Jima on the 15th anniversary of that battle.
  So from Marine captain to newspaper editor and news director of a 
radio station in Arizona, I dropped everything and drove to Washington 
when Senator Frank Carlson asked me to come and work for him. Within 
weeks of leaving Phoenix, I was the chief of staff for Senator Frank 
Carlson, a venerable and highly respected Senator who made his mark on 
Kansas history as the only person to serve our State as Congressman, 
Governor, Senator, UN delegate, and the founder of the National Prayer 
Breakfast
  Life changed dramatically at that time. I always thought a bachelor 
was a man who did not make the same mistake once.
  (Laughter.)
  Then into my life came a tall, blonde, blue-eyed magnolia blossom 
from South Carolina. Franki and I have been married for 51 years and 
have been blessed with three children and eight grandchildren. I am who 
I am because Franki is my wife and we are parents to David, Ashleigh, 
Ann Wesley; Papa Pat to Lorena, Patrick, Sayaka, Lilly, Charlie--
Charlie bear--Miles, Oliver, and Graham.
  My family is my crowning--my crowning--achievement.
  Senator Frank was a great mentor. He always said: There are no self-
made men or women in public office; it is your friends and family who 
make you what you are.
  He taught me a great lesson: Your true friends stand behind you when 
you are taking the bows and beside you when there are any boos.
  Following the 2-year stint with the Senator, I was privileged to work 
12 years for the newly elected Congressman from the big First District 
of Kansas as his chief of staff.
  Keith Sebelius was a wonderful man, a leader on the House Agriculture 
Committee and the Interior Committee, especially with regard to 
improvements and restoration of our national parks. Upon Keith's 
retirement, a group of party stalwarts encouraged me to run. I thought 
about it, talked to Franki. Franki simply said: Well, this is what you 
always wanted to do. Let's do it.
  So for 9 months, with no paycheck or health insurance and limited 
savings, with three young children, Dodge City became our home. Most 
sane candidates would not attempt to go door-to-door in a district 
larger than most States; however, with a lot of help, we won a tough 
primary and a not-so-tough general election--the first of 24 straight 
victories.
  I was ranking to Chairman Kika de la Garza when the 1994 revolution 
put Republicans in the majority after being in the wilderness for over 
40 years. Suddenly I was chairman.
  In 1996, we achieved a major farm policy reform, changing 40 years of 
farm bill policy. To this day, farmers still have the freedom to farm 
what they want.
  I have had the honor and privilege of representing Kansas for 16 
years in the House and now 24 in the Senate. The Pat Roberts of 1980 
was fighting for Kansas values and for the issues that affected the 
daily lives and pocketbooks of all Kansans.
  As the Pat Roberts of 1996, I promised that if elected to the Senate, 
when Kansas spoke, Washington would listen.
  I have held six gavels in the House and Senate, and that in and of 
itself might be a record, but it is what happened during my tenures as 
chairman that I believe I have had the most lasting effects. It is not 
just having the gavel; it is what you do with it.
  Taking part and leading eight farm bills in the House and the Senate, 
I have touched and improved many lives, and I have always been mindful 
of what farm families do for our Nation and a troubled and hungry world 
as we crafted each bill.
  I was fortunate that my first committee assignments were to serve on 
the Armed Services Committee as well as Agriculture. Strom Thurmond was 
the very senior chairman who, as the country song goes, never even 
called me by my name. I was recognized as ``the Senator who had the 
good sense to marry a fine, beautiful, South Carolina girl.''
  (Laughter.)
  My role on the Armed Services Committee was simple. It was to collect 
the small change left by the Air Force to enable the Marine Corps to 
continue to be our Nation's force in readiness, not to mention the new 
Warfighting Lab.
  I also had the privilege of being the Senate Intelligence Committee 
chairman for 4 years during the Iraq war and led the committee's 
investigation that exposed a worldwide intelligence failure--and it 
resulted in a blueprint of the 9/11 Commission and a better 
intelligence community that did keep our country safe.
  As chairman of the brandnew Emerging Threat Subcommittee within the 
Armed Services Committee, I traveled to cities within what remained of 
the former Soviet Union. In one of the Soviet Union secret cities, we 
discovered a lab that had developed strains of pathogens that could do 
irreparable harm to our Nation's food supply. Talk about an evil 
empire. I caution my colleagues: That threat still exists, even as we 
endeavor to continue the worldwide fight against COVID-19.
  It has taken over 20 years to respond to this threat with a 
biological containment and research lab, and we are still not done. I 
have put a lifetime of work into NBADF, the National Bio and 
Agriculture Defense Facility--Paws from Manhattan, KS--home of Kansas 
State University with the ever optimistic Wildcats, Manhattan, KS. It 
will soon serve as the first line of defense to protect American 
agriculture and the world's food supply.
  I have also been privileged to serve on the HELP Committee. Thank you 
to Lamar Alexander and to Patty Murray for supporting my amendments, 
especially with regard to rural healthcare.
  And, finally, I have chaired the Senate Ethics Committee for 24 
years. I have tried to resign twice. I don't know what I have done 
wrong, but I have been a member of that committee for what I am sure is 
a record 24 years. I think they just want somebody there to say: Wait a 
minute. Fifteen years ago, we tried that, and it didn't work. Maybe we 
ought to start over.
  As I move out of my office--formerly a veritable museum of pictures, 
awards, and stuff that we all collect--all that remains are the barren 
beige walls, full of memories and stories--all of which, of course, are 
classified. However, I still have my Marine Corps bumper sticker: ``To 
err is human, to forgive is divine.'' Neither is Marine Corps policy. 
Marines never give up. We take the hill. The discipline and focus I 
learned in the Marine Corps never failed me in my toughest battles here 
in the Senate. Semper fi. Semper fi, Dan. And still in the office, of 
course, is a framed statement with the advice of LBJ, Lyndon Baines 
Johnson: ``Sometimes you just have to hunker down like a jackass in a 
hailstorm and just take it.''
  On that note, if you want to avoid a hailstorm, get a good staff. You 
are only as good as your staff--and I have the best staff in 
Washington. I know everybody thinks that, but I really do because they 
always--they always took the hill.
  My chiefs of staff, Leroy Towns, Jackie Cottrell, and Chad Tennpenny; 
my DC deputy chief of staff, Amber Kirchhoefer; and my Ag Committee 
staff directors, Mike Seyfert, Joel Leftwich, and James Glueck--they 
led the posse. And they always checked to make sure that the herd was 
still there and we didn't ride into any boxed canyons.
  To the staff currently in this Chamber with me, and those watching on 
C-

[[Page S7384]]

SPAN, thank you. It has been an absolute privilege and an honor to have 
you call me boss. Always remember you are a family. I couldn't have 
asked for a more loyal and dedicated or talented staff.
  To be a Member of this U.S. Senate is a true privilege--a working 
family. It is the greatest deliberative body in the world. But today as 
compared to when I first came to the Senate, it is the deliberative 
part that gives me great concern. I regret the loss of comity--the 
ability to work together or just to get along. Sadly, gridlock appears 
to be the new normal. However, it doesn't have to be this way.
  I am very proud, I have had the privilege of being chairman of a 
committee that does get along, and we do get things done--the Senate 
Agriculture Committee. And it is really not that hard. First, we 
represent the best of our Nation--farmers, ranchers, growers, and the 
entire food value chain. We know that we have a collective job to do on 
their behalf--and we do just that. Second, we convene in a small 
hearing room--in pre-COVID times--right across the table from each 
other. Third, for the most part, we actually know one another.
  I used to be the ranking Republican when Senator Stabenow was the 
chairperson. We worked together on the 2014 farm bill. In 2018, this 
wasn't our first rodeo. We knew, regardless of what each of us wanted, 
passing a farm bill was paramount. We had an agreement--no surprises, 
no press the other one did not know about. And we held hearings 
together, all over the country. I went to the campus of Michigan State 
and wore green and white; Deborah came to Kansas State and wore purple. 
We not only agreed to work together, we gave staff marching orders to 
do the same. We also became friends. I protected her and she protected 
me in conference. And we got 87 votes, setting a record for a farm 
bill--standing right there now where our leader is now sitting. I was 
trying for 90. He said: What do you want? I said: I want justice. He 
said: No, you want blood.
  Now, ordinarily, we do not vote alike--Senator Stabenow and myself--
but we remain friends. And that is the way it should be. Friendship and 
comity is the norm for the Ag Committee. It could be for the whole 
Senate. Though, things in this great country are rocky, I have a news 
flash: These really are not the worst of times.
  When I first came to Washington in early 1967, our Nation experienced 
the tragedy of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King. Within 
hours, Washington was on fire, marines on the Capitol steps with 
sandbags, automatic weapons with live ammunition. Advised to leave the 
beltway, I mistakenly thought I could get to my parents' apartment 
house. This was BF, before Franki. I wanted to take the Rock Creek 
Parkway. No traffic was moving, tear gas in the air, random gunshots. I 
decided to jump the curb and drive on the sidewalks and eventually on 
the Mall itself. I was in a little Volkswagen. The police told me the 
parkway was closed. When they focused on the next drivers, I jumped the 
curb, and I took off on the parkway.

  As bad as that period of time was, it was not as bad as the military 
march on thousands of World War I veterans demonstrating on the Mall 
and setting up camp in the mid-1930s and demanding bonuses. President 
Hoover ordered them removed by the military--led by none other than 
Douglas MacArthur, complete with a tank, horse cavalry--with swords--
and armed troops. The ``bonus'' vets were quickly dispersed and rounded 
up.
  Fast forward, the 1968 Chicago riots, Kent State and the horrible 
shooting of students by untrained guardsmen.
  Senator Bobby Kennedy, running for President, only suffered the same 
fate as his brother.
  And then came Watergate. Those days were tough. It was almost 
impossible not to face the bitter splits over our political parties and 
even families.
  Today, we are in the midst of a worldwide pandemic, and even that has 
fallen into politics. But it doesn't have to be. At home, Kansas has 
been dealt its fair share of hardships, but in Kansas--as Jerry Moran 
knows--we don't let disasters define us. We grab our bootstraps and get 
to work. That is our normal. Jerry will remember multiple prairie fires 
that have ravaged Kansas farms and ranches: the Anderson Creek fire in 
2016, the Starbuck fire in 2017. Folks, these flames were 60 feet high 
and moving 60 miles an hour. Those folks have learned to adapt and 
build back with the help of USDA disaster programs.
  Then we had the tale of Treece, KS--once a boom town, turned toxic 
waste dump. It was an extremely unsafe and unhealthy place for folks to 
live. We worked with the Obama administration and its EPA. I mean, 
really. No less, we relocated them to safer places, literally, and 
greener pastures because working across party lines is what we do in 
Kansas.
  Let's not forget about the EF tornado in 2007 that completely 
destroyed, wiped out the community of Greensburg, KS. I immediately 
called President Bush. He was up at Camp David. I called from a 
McDonald's in the next town and asked for help. When I hung up, there 
were 25 people gathered around me listening.
  One old-timer, in his bib overalls, said to me: Pat, was that the 
President of the United States?
  I said: You bet.
  He turned to his wife and said: Mother, I told you. I told you Pat 
was a talking to the President, and we would get help.
  And FEMA was there the next day.
  In a FEMA-issued tent, I talked to the graduating senior class, whose 
school and homes were but a pile of debris, and told them: You are the 
class of hope and destiny. The following year, President George W. Bush 
spoke at graduation in Greensburg. The size of that audience matched 
the size of hope that Kansans had for their future and the rebuilding 
of their lives.
  I am reminded of the optimism of those speeches and the optimism that 
I have for our country. We endured these hardships. We came out on the 
other side. We did it by changing the old normal and creating a new 
normal.
  Here in the Senate, only we can decide what our new normal is, and we 
ought to get to know one another. We don't know one another. We don't 
have to let the apparent gravitational pull of more and more politics 
and pursuit of power to change what our Founders gave us--the creation 
of a nation, of liberty and freedom, the envy of the world, and to 
literally move the U.S. Senate from the moorings of its historic and 
great past to simply be a rubberstamp for radical change.
  The beauty is that we can decide what our normal is. We don't have to 
let circumstances dictate our future. Let us, once again, become a body 
of respect, humility, cooperation, achievement, and, yes, friendship. 
That can and should be our new normal. The entire country could use a 
little bit of what we say in Kansas: ad astra per aspera; to the stars 
through difficulty.
  So as my time in the Senate draws to a close, I have done my best to 
improve the lives of Kansans and all Americans, for decades, to 
accomplish big and small things so that this generation and future 
generations might live and achieve the American dream.
  To Kansas, I say a humble thank you. Thank you for the privilege of 
representing you in this great body.
  To my colleagues, thank you for fighting on behalf of our great 
Nation and alongside me to preserve this Chamber. It has been such a 
privilege. As I ride off into the sunset to create a new normal for 
Franki and me, I will be cheering for the Senate to rebuild the bridges 
of comity that will create a new normal.
  My colleagues, my time is up. Thank you for yours.
  I yield the floor.
  (Applause.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott of Florida). The Senator from 
Kansas.


                         Tribute to Pat Roberts

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, thank you.
  Senator Roberts, thank you for your comments.
  I am nervous today, and more nervous now that I have heard you speak, 
because I am concerned that this may be for the first time in our lives 
that I have ever spoken longer than you. That makes me nervous.
  ``I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution 
of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I 
will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.''
  These are words spoken by Pat Roberts more than once, but on 
September 15, 1958, age 22, Pat Roberts

[[Page S7385]]

joined the Marine Corps, and he has lived by his oath, by his promise 
to do exactly that every day thereafter and in every job he pursued 
here in the Congress of the United States, in the House and the Senate.
  He indicated he served as the chief of staff for Senator Frank 
Carlson, one of those Kansans who served the U.S. Senate and is so 
highly regarded even today. He served as the chief of staff for 
Congressman Keith Sebelius.
  I met Pat Roberts 50 years ago, in 1969. A few years later, in 1974, 
I became an intern in the office of Congressman Sebelius. Pat has been 
my boss for 45 years.
  When I describe Pat, I tell people our most common conversation is 
never spoken. It is symbols. Pat does this: Come here; sit down. Every 
time I tell Pat this, he, in his Jack Benny voice, will say: ``Now cut 
that out.'' But for 45 years: Come here; sit down.
  And Pat, while you discount that and I highlight it, it has been some 
of the most enjoyable time in my life, where I have had the opportunity 
to be your friend and to listen to what you had to say. I suppose if I 
thought long and hard, I might find something that wasn't good advice, 
but I can't remember it. So everything in those circumstances was 
something that I continue to value today. I learned something in every 
conversation.
  Knowing Pat for 50 years, I told him that he just keeps me around and 
he puts up with me because I have at least heard of the people he 
knows.
  He does know people. Pat and I both grew up in times of politics in 
which your relationship with voters, your relationship with 
constituents, your relationship with Kansans was paramount. Pat knew 
the school superintendent in every community. Pat knew the executive of 
the chamber of commerce and the newspaper editor. He knew the president 
of the county Farm Bureau.
  I don't know how many times I heard Pat say: I am going home to talk 
to the coffee klatch in Dodge City or I am going to sit on the wagon 
tongue and I am going to hear from Kansans what they have to tell us.
  Politics, as you heard from Senator Roberts, is in his blood and in 
his family--Wes Roberts, the chairman of the Republican National 
Committee; Frankie Roberts, the staff person for Strom Thurmond. It is 
in his blood and in his family. It is not just politics, but public 
service.
  In 1980, Pat Roberts decided to be an office holder, not an office 
staffer. The first letter I ever wrote to an editor of a Kansas paper 
was to my hometown, where his primary opponent lived. I supported Pat 
Roberts in a letter to the editor when his opponent was somebody who 
was highly regarded and a friend of mine. But Pat Roberts' friendship 
and his commitment--who he is as a human being and his sworn oath--told 
me that Pat Roberts was the person I wanted to be my Congressman. The 
constituent in me said: This is the guy I want serving me and my fellow 
Kansans.
  He won that election in January of 1981 and became a House Member 
representing the First Congressional District of Kansas, known in our 
State as ``The Big First.'' The geography of that district today--and 
almost true when Pat was the Congressman--is the size of the State of 
Illinois. The largest city is Salina, which then had a population of 
about 35,000. It is a rural place, and it fit the Pat Roberts' mode of 
representation, which was, I know them and they know me.
  He was elected with a significant majority of voters. He won seven 
times to be reelected to the House of Representatives. He never 
received less than 60 percent of the vote, and in his last election to 
the House of Representatives, he received nearly 78 percent of Kansans' 
approval. Sitting on those wagon tongues and listening in on those 
coffee klatches had its consequence.
  It is the kind of politics that Pat described that I hope we return 
to, in which it is all about taking care of Kansans, taking care of 
Americans, setting aside our differences and finding common ground, 
just as Kansans--particularly, rural Kansans--have to do in their 
community.
  On January 3, 1997, Pat was sworn in as a Member of this body. I 
asked Robin, my wife, what it is I might say today. She said she 
remembers in about early 1996--maybe late 1995--she answered the phone, 
and it was Pat Roberts. What he said was, Tell Jerry to put his running 
shoes on.
  Pat Roberts gave me the advantage of knowing his plans well in 
advance of the public or potential opponents, and set the stage in my 
life as somebody whom you would look at and think there is no chance of 
ever being a U.S. Senator, but Pat Roberts found value in me and gave 
me the opportunity to serve where I serve today. I never thought I 
would catch up with Pat in the House of Representatives. I never 
thought I would catch up with Pat Roberts in the U.S. Senate, but 
because he and his friends took an interest in me and because this is 
America, that became possible.
  Pat is only the 34th Kansan to serve a term in the U.S. Senate. I 
like that number. Pat will recognize that 34 is special to Kansans. We 
are the 34th State admitted to the Union, and he is the 34th Senator to 
serve a term from Kansas in this body.
  Pat Roberts told me to put my running shoes on, gave me a chance, and 
we have had those running shoes on for a long time thereafter.
  Pat is that fourth generation Kansan who knows us. I would say one of 
his greatest contributions to our State, to the Midwest, and to the 
country has been his distinguished career in leadership in agriculture. 
The farm bills that he mentioned, the work with Democrats and 
Republicans coming together, fighting for competitive and fair 
markets for our producers, the support for crop insurance--there is no 
question that Kansas and American farmers, ranchers, and producers had 
a strong voice in Congress as a result of Pat Roberts being here.

  He is distinguished by being the first Member of Congress to chair 
both the House and Senate Agriculture Committees. In the next Congress, 
we will begin the process of writing another farm bill, and it will be 
the first farm bill since the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 that 
will be written without Pat Roberts' direct influence.
  However, Senator Roberts' legacy and impact on farm policy will be 
felt for generations to come as a result of his work in the 1996 
Freedom to Farm Act, the 2000 Agriculture Risk Protection Act that 
modernized crop insurance, and many, many other pieces of consequential 
legislation.
  In his early years in the Senate, as Senator Roberts indicated, he 
led the Intelligence Committee. This was during the 9/11 attacks. Under 
his leadership, the committee conducted a sweeping and exhausting 
review of U.S. intelligence, which led to critical reforms to put us in 
a better position to know more and protect Americans better. That work 
in intelligence reform earned him a spot in a very distinguished guest 
speaker program, the prestigious Landon Lecture Series of Kansas State 
University.
  Combining his experience in agriculture, intelligence, and in 
defense, Senator Roberts has laid the groundwork for the National Bio 
and Agro-defense Facility at his alma mater in Manhattan, KS. It brings 
great opportunity to our State, and we are so pleased to have Pat's 
accomplishments benefit the country and our State for generations to 
come.
  Pat Roberts deserves great credit for the Eisenhower Memorial. I have 
been around this issue for a long time. It has been challenging from 
the get-go. Nothing was easy, and controversy apparently follows every 
new memorial on the National Mall. I have no doubt that in the absence 
of Pat's leadership, his bringing people together and perhaps, yes, his 
sense of humor, Kansans' President Eisenhower would never be seen 
honored and respected at the memorial we now have.
  He, Senator Roberts, advocates for policies he believes in. He 
compromises when necessary, and he always has a way of bringing 
everyone together, often with a joke ready to ease the tensions when 
things get stressful.
  I always used to tell him: I saw that, once again, you became the 
funniest Member of Congress. You got an award.
  He always would correct me: No, I am not the funniest Member; I am 
the most humorous Member.
  Many times he has been designated the most humorous Member of 
Congress.
  Some of the most important work he has done for Kansans won't be 
memorialized in laws passed or signed into law here in Washington, DC, 
but in the

[[Page S7386]]

meaningful change he made back home among the people whom he and I care 
for and love. How about the rural hospitals he fought for to keep their 
doors open or the family farms that are still operating because of 
decisions and efforts he made? He has consistently, continuously fought 
to get farmers and ranchers, to get rural communities, to get the 
people of Kansas the right resources at the right time.
  I have had the challenge of following in politics in my life, in both 
the House and the Senate, those humorous people--Pat Roberts being one. 
The greatest challenge, probably for both of us, is Bob Dole. How can 
you ever follow Bob Dole in any way and how can you compete with his 
sense of humor and, particularly, his wit? So I asked Senator Dole what 
it is I might say on this floor to honor Pat Roberts. As usual, he took 
my responsibilities away from me and said: Here, just read this.
  So these are the words of Bob Dole:

       One of my first memories of Pat was when he worked for the 
     late great Sen. Pat Carlson. Of course that was well over 50 
     years ago, when Pat was just a young child and I was . . . 
     well . . . maybe just a teenager. Pat has the best sense of 
     humor of anyone in Congress--I'm not sure how he acquired it, 
     but I know it serves him well today. Pat--I honestly don't 
     know what it is like to be retired, but people tell me it's 
     great. Be forewarned, though, the rest of the world doesn't 
     operate exactly like the Senate . . .
       If anything goes wrong or breaks at home, your trusted 
     Chief of Staff isn't on speed dial to put out the fires. 
     Plus, there's nobody to dial your calls for you anyway.
       Put your alarm clock up for sale on eBay--(1) somebody out 
     there might want to buy a beat-up clock once owned by a 
     famous Senator and (2) you won't need to wake up early ever 
     again in your life . . . unless you just want to go sit in 
     the D.C. traffic for old time's sake.
       You'll have to brew your own coffee . . . so buy one of 
     those space-age looking contraptions or make friends with 
     your local barista.
       You'll have to share elevators with the rest of the world 
     now, so just stop looking for that ``Senators Only'' sign.
       Your grandkids are now your information technology 
     department, so reward them accordingly if you want your 
     computer to be up and running. Or just ask Alexa.
       But in all seriousness, Pat, you've earned some time off 
     for a job well done in Congress over these past 40 years. 
     Kansas has certainly benefited from your steadfast 
     leadership. You care about the Sunflower State, and you care 
     about our nation--and that's always been what matters most. 
     Your strength of character, plain-spoken optimism, and 
     determination to make a positive difference in people's 
     lives--that's what people will remember about your legacy of 
     public service here. You're a great American and a dear 
     friend, and Elizabeth and I wish you nothing but the best for 
     you and Franki from here on out. One important point of 
     clarification, though--the filibuster simply doesn't work at 
     home.
       God Bless America,
       BOB DOLE.

  I know that all of us and Kansans have great regard for Senator Dole. 
I also know that Kansans and all of us have great regard for Pat 
Roberts. My guess, in knowing Pat, is that his role model--the person 
he may admire the most--is that Kansan Dwight Eisenhower. In the book 
``How Ike Led,'' which Pat gave us all a copy of, I read that Ike led 
with a sense of humor as part of the art of leadership of getting along 
with people and getting things done. He also said the supreme quality 
for leadership was, unquestionably, integrity. Without it, no real 
success was possible no matter whether it was on a section gang, a 
football field, in the Army, or in an office.
  Pat Roberts, I have no doubt that you have lived up to that role 
model--that Kansan who is esteemed around the world--and you have led 
like Ike led. I thank you and your staff for all that you have done for 
Kansas and for America. I thank you for what you have done for me and 
our team. Your mom and your dad--your dad, you say, got you started in 
this politics world. I knew your mom; I never met your dad. They would 
be so proud of you for the service that you are completing this term.
  To Franki, David, Ashleigh, and Anne-Wesley, thank you for your 
support and engagement. It is not Pat Roberts--it is the family--and 
you have all been engaged in his politics and his public service day in 
and day out.
  Robba and I wish you and Franki absolutely the best.
  I told a Kansas farmer what I was doing but didn't ask him for any 
advice as to what to say. His last comment--he is a rancher from 
Elkhart--was, ``As a Kansan, I would want to know that my Senator 
fought for my values in DC and that the Senator did everything he could 
to ensure our part of the world was a priority to the Nation.''
  To the rancher in Elkhart, Pat Roberts is exactly that--a Kansan who 
fought for our values at home while in Washington and did everything he 
could do to ensure that our part of the world was not forgotten in this 
part of the world.
  So, Pat, I guess you said thank you to Kansans, and you said thank 
you to this Senate. I think it is time for me to say in return, on 
behalf of all Kansans, thank you for your service to our Nation and to 
our State. For a life being well lived, you are the example. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to someone who has 
been more than a colleague, who has been more than just a friend. In 
fact, he has been a true partner in this Senate, and that has paid huge 
dividends for farmers and families and communities across our country.
  Senator Pat Roberts has been here in the Senate for a long time. Some 
might even call him an institution. In fact, at a recent Ag Committee 
event, I joked that, as a young man, he advised George Washington on 
farm policy. That might be a bit of an exaggeration, but his legacy can 
hardly be overstated. He has left a lasting imprint on farm and food 
policy in this country. As has been said, he is the only person to have 
written a farm bill as both the chairs of the House and Senate 
Agriculture Committees.
  Those of us who have had the honor of working alongside Pat on the 
Senate Agriculture Committee know there is no other place like it. It 
is a place where we leave politics at the door and focus on ways we can 
improve people's lives and livelihoods in rural America. We do that 
because we know agriculture isn't a red issue or a blue issue. 
Agriculture and food policy affect all of us--everyone--and nobody 
knows that better than Senator Roberts.
  Senator Roberts and I have never given up on farm bills, and we never 
gave up on passing the 2018 farm bill even when it got tough. At the 
beginning of the negotiations, we made a commitment to work together. 
We visited each other's home States. In fact, twice we visited. I 
arrived in the Little Apple of Manhattan, KS, wearing K-State purple, 
which, again on his behalf, I am wearing today. Then, a few weeks 
later, Pat came to Frankenmuth, MI, and wore an MSU green tie.
  Around this time, we also made a commitment to each other to write a 
bipartisan farm bill. Throughout the entire process, I never doubted 
that Pat had my back, even when negotiations got tough, and he knew I 
had his back as well. Thanks to this partnership, we achieved the most 
bipartisan bill in history. As he said, the first time around, it was 
86 votes, and then the final bill was 87 votes. That was the most 
``yes'' votes on a farm bill ever. We were able to do that because we 
had a unique partnership built on trust and mutual respect, and the 
outcome was a strong, bipartisan bill that provided certainty for 
farmers--from wheat farmers in Kansas to cherry growers in Michigan. 
Part of that certainty was with special crop insurance, and nobody 
deserves more credit for the foundation of that important safety net 
than Senator Pat Roberts.
  Pat is also a champion for food security and agriculture exports and 
agriculture research, which is why he and I worked together to 
establish the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research in the 2014 
farm bill. He also understands the importance of protecting food 
assistance for children and for families. I was honored to share the 
Food Research and Action Center Distinguished Service Award with 
Senator Roberts last year for our teamwork
  Above all, it has been an honor working with Pat because he is truly 
one of a kind. From the moment I met him, it became abundantly clear 
that he was not the run-of-the-mill politician. Some say it is his 
unflappable nature. Others say it is his unique sense of humor. Yet, to 
me, Pat Roberts is defined by his loyalty, his integrity, and his 
dedication to the people of Kansas.

[[Page S7387]]

  He started his career as a first lieutenant in the Marine Corps. It 
is clear he has carried that courage and conviction with him throughout 
his entire life. As he said, he was also a newspaper reporter, which 
makes sense when you think about his dogged determination and, for 
better or worse, his ability to be exceptionally quotable. As a public 
servant, he is so beloved in his home State of Kansas that he has never 
lost an election--a record 24 and 0. If only his K-State Wildcats could 
be so lucky.
  (Laughter.)
  Senator Pat Roberts, it has been an honor to be your partner and an 
even bigger honor to be your friend. So, while your retirement is well-
deserved, you will be deeply missed on the Agriculture Committee and in 
the Senate. Thank you for all you have done for farmers and families 
and for the American people. I wish you only continued happiness and 
success as you and Franki and the family move to this next piece of 
your life.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, my seatmate here, Pat Roberts, is going to 
be missed not just by the whole Senate, not by the Nation, not by the 
people of Kansas, but by a lot of us he keeps going day-to-day and has 
for a long time.
  I first met Pat Roberts in 1979. I had just been elected in 1978 to 
the U.S. House of Representatives. As has been said here today, he was 
the chief of staff of distinguished Congressman Keith Sebelius, who was 
well recognized and well respected on both sides of the aisle. Pat was 
his chief of staff. Our paths crossed later when he was elected to the 
Senate. We served on the Intelligence Committee together and on other 
committees.
  He is unique. That wit of his, I think--the humor--is genetic. He has 
a daughter who is like that, which is wonderful, I think. I told Pat 
one time: That must be an inherited characteristic. He smiled. He 
understood. Yet Pat Roberts is a lot more than just a little humor to 
me; he is a serious person. He has had, as you know, a distinguished 
career as a Kansas State graduate, a Marine officer, a staffer, a 
Congressman, and one who has chaired both Ag Committees in the House 
and Senate, which has never been done--40 years of elected office 
between the House and the Senate.
  We are going to miss you, Pat. I am going to miss you. I have sat 
here with you, and I have sat all over the Senate with you.
  I will tell you, if you are feeling down about something or if you 
are feeling bleak that day, Pat will either straighten you out or make 
you think that this is not all bad, that America is coming together, 
and that it is always coming together.
  So, Pat, you have your great family up here with you today. Franki 
has been unique for you. She has been a great influence on you. We are 
going to miss you. I am going to miss that humor every day. Godspeed
  Mr. President, today, I would like to speak about my longtime 
colleague and friend, Senator Pat Roberts.
  Pat and I have served together in Congress for 40 years. It comes as 
no surprise that he is the longest-serving member of the Kansas 
delegation.
  Born in Topeka, Pat graduated from Kansas State University (K-State) 
and served as an officer in the U.S. Marine Corps, achieving the rank 
of First Lieutenant.
  He went on to work for Senator Frank Carlson and later Congressman 
Keith Sebelius, whom he succeeded in the House of Representatives in 
1980.
  Pat and I were colleagues in the House. It was there that we first 
became friends.
  In 1996, Pat was elected to represent Kansas in the U.S. Senate and 
is currently finishing his fourth term.
  Pat Roberts has had quite the career in public service. Over his four 
decades in Congress, he has served as chairman of the House Agriculture 
Committee, the Senate Ethics Committee, the Senate Intelligence 
Committee, and the Senate Agriculture Committee.
  Pat Roberts is the first Member of Congress in history to have 
chaired both the House Agriculture Committee and the Senate Agriculture 
Committee.
  He has also served as the ranking member on each of those committees.
  In 2018, Senator Roberts became the first Member of Congress to write 
and pass farm bill in both Chambers.
  Over the years, his dedication to the people of Kansas has been 
extraordinary and inspiring.
  He arrived on Capitol Hill as a staffer in 1967--and is leaving 
Washington as the longest serving Member of Congress in his State's 
history.
  It is also worth noting that he never lost a race. Not once.
  Pat Roberts will undoubtedly be missed in the Senate by his peers on 
both sides of the aisle.
  Senator Roberts is currently my deskmate on the Senate floor. I know 
I will miss his congeniality and humor during our conversations.
  Annette and I have enjoyed spending time with Pat and Franki over the 
years. We wish them all the best.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I first met Pat Roberts when I was running 
for the U.S. House of Representatives for the very first time. I had a 
friend who worked for Pat, and he got me a meeting with him, which, at 
the time, was a pretty big deal because he was the chairman of the 
House Ag Committee, and I was in a Republican primary, where I was over 
50 points behind. So the prospects weren't really bright that I was 
ever going to be somebody who would make it through and end up serving 
there, but nobody could have been more encouraging or kind. I had a 
great meeting with him. We talked about agriculture. I am grateful that 
I have had the opportunity to get to know him pretty well here during 
my time in the Senate.
  One of the reasons we have so much common ground is we both come from 
States where agriculture is incredibly important. It is the No. 1 
industry in South Dakota. I have had the privilege of serving on the Ag 
Committee with Pat now for more than a decade. I call him ``my 
chairman'' since he has been my chairman on the Ag Committee for so 
long. He calls me ``Coop''--a moniker he gave me very early in our 
acquaintance because he says I look like Gary Cooper. Now, I have to 
admit that the first time he called me that I had to look up some 
pictures to see if that were a compliment or not, but I know that he 
meant it that way. Whenever he introduced me at the Ag Committee, it 
was always, ``Coop, it's high noon. You're up.'' ``High Noon'' was a 
famous movie in which Gary Cooper starred with Grace Kelly.
  Of course, Pat is, I would say, somebody who is very accomplished in 
talking about movies from that era and stars from that era. He knows a 
little bit about everything and a lot about a few things. I call him 
``my chairman,'' as I said, because he has been there for an awfully 
long time, and he never minds the stories and nicknames. They are 
quintessentially Pat. It is just the way that he conducts himself.
  Somebody talked about his sense of humor here this morning. I think 
Senator Moran talked about Pat's being a funny guy in the Senate and of 
Pat's saying he was not a funny guy but a humorous guy. I would say he 
is a funny person. He is a comedian by nature, and he keeps all of us 
entertained with his repertoire of country music lyrics, his old movie 
quotes, and just a storytelling flair. You can be sure that, if you are 
going to be around Pat for very long, you are going to have a few belly 
laughs.
  I always tell him--and I think it is true, and I think you have kind 
of heard it today--when he gets up on the floor and speaks or when he 
speaks at a committee hearing, that when you close your eyes, you kind 
of hear Paul Harvey. Senator Moran said he sounded like Jack Benny once 
in a while, and maybe that is true, too. What I always knew when I was 
growing up was that Paul Harvey was a voice that was on the radio 
pretty much every day in our house, and I hear that same sort of 
Midwestern, resonant, and commonsensical voice whenever I hear Pat get 
up and talk.
  But I will tell you that Pat may have a great sense of humor--he does 
keep us constantly smiling around here, which is something we don't do 
near often enough, particularly these days--but he is also very, very 
serious when it comes to getting things done for the people of Kansas, 
and they couldn't have a better advocate.

[[Page S7388]]

  As I said, both Pat and I come from States whose lifeblood is 
agriculture, and Pat Roberts' heart has always beat with the farmers of 
this country. His advocacy for American agriculture resulted in his 
serving as chairman of both the House and the Senate Agriculture 
Committees during his career, and, as already been noted, he is the 
first Member of Congress in history--first in history--to have served 
as the chairman of both the House Agriculture and the Senate 
Agriculture Committee.
  He is also the first Member of Congress to have written and passed a 
farm bill in both Chambers. I think he has worked, as was said earlier, 
on eight farm bills in all, which is an incredible number. And I am 
proud to have worked with him on three farm bills in the Senate, 
including the 2018 farm bill, which passed the Senate with the greatest 
number of votes of any farm bill in Senate history--a tribute to the 
hard work that Pat and his staff put into building consensus and 
reaching out to Members from all across this country who represent 
different areas, different commodities, different crops, and bringing 
them together to write a farm bill.
  I have been around here long enough and been associated with enough 
farm bills to know that they tend to be kind of controversial because 
some people represent cities and maybe don't have agricultural 
constituencies. So the fact that Pat was successful in getting a farm 
bill across the finish line here in the Senate with a record 87 votes 
is a remarkable accomplishment in and of itself.
  Of course, Pat's leadership, as has already been pointed out, hasn't 
been limited to agriculture. Among other things, he has served as 
chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, where he led a sweeping 
review of the U.S. intelligence apparatus and advanced a number of 
reforms to shore up our intelligence and our national security. Then 
there is his work on biosciences, military issues, education, 
healthcare, and the list goes on and on and on.
  Pat has proudly represented the people of Kansas in Congress for 40 
years--16 in the House of Representatives and now 24 in the U.S. 
Senate--but, as has already been mentioned as well, his public service 
began long before that with his time as an officer in the U.S. Marine 
Corps. Once a marine, always a marine. Pat has proudly represented the 
marines here in Congress. He is currently the most senior marine 
serving here on Capitol Hill.
  The motto of the Marine Corps is ``Semper Fidelis''--always faithful. 
Pat has lived out that motto over his long career of service to our 
country, and I hate to think of a Senate without Pat Roberts. He will 
be sorely missed, but he has more than earned his retirement and a 
chance to spend more time with his wife Franki and his children and 
grandchildren. I know how much they have contributed to his success 
here. There aren't any of us who are here who don't have a supportive 
family, supportive spouse. We are truly grateful for the many 
contributions that Franki and the family have made to Pat's 
accomplishments here, his success in the Senate, and I know he is 
looking forward to spending more time with them in the future.
  Pat, thank you for your leadership, for your friendship. May God 
bless you in your retirement. I will miss you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I rise also to say farewell to a truly 
great Senator, Senator Pat Roberts.
  He has been a friend and a mentor of mine in the U.S. Senate. He has 
been a leader, and there is no doubt--we are hearing it all--about all 
his accomplishments. He is certainly one of the great State of Kansas's 
most accomplished Senators ever.
  But I would be remiss if I didn't mention that he is also a great 
Senator for another group of proud Americans, and that would be the 
U.S. Marine Corps. Senator Roberts has taken care of the U.S. Marines 
during his entire tenure here. If the marines needed something, they 
knew where to go--the great Senator from Kansas.
  As you know, most Senators wear their Senate pin here, indicating 
that they are a Senator. We are proud to wear that. For the years I 
have known Senator Roberts--he is probably doing it again today--he 
wears his pin, but sometimes and usually he actually wears the Eagle, 
Globe, and Anchor, showing--and I think he has one on right now--where 
so much of his loyalty lies--with the U.S. Marine Corps. So I know that 
the marines are certainly going to miss Senator Roberts. I am certainly 
going to miss Senator Roberts.
  You know, just like in his remarks today, he is a man of great wit, 
great stories, and I have had the honor to hear so many of these 
stories, and a lot of these stories, of course, for me, involve Alaska 
and the late great Senator Ted Stevens, who was also a very close 
friend of Pat's, in the seat which I am honored to hold here in the 
U.S. Senate. I have learned so much from these stories that I heard 
from Senator Roberts.
  Most importantly, he has been a great example for me and so many 
other Senators. He is a statesman, a marine, an optimist. You heard it 
in his remarks today. We need more of that. He is a family man, a 
dedicated husband for over 50 years to a beautiful, wonderful wife; a 
leader in the Senate--six chairmanships--who gets things done for his 
State and for his country; and finally, a man of integrity--of 
integrity.
  You know, it is tough duty to be the chairman of the Senate Ethics 
Committee, but the Senate Ethics Committee is much needed here, and to 
chair that committee for 24 years is a testament of every single 
Senator here saying how much they believe in this man's integrity.
  I was honored a couple of years ago when Pat asked me to serve on the 
Eisenhower Memorial Commission. It was a true honor for me, and I will 
say I saw again one of the great qualities of Senator Roberts' 
tenacity. On a rainy night a few months ago, I attended the dedication 
ceremony of President Eisenhower and watched as America celebrated a 
great American, a great Kansan, and there is one person who really made 
that a reality--Senator Pat Roberts.
  So today we say farewell to another great Kansan and a great 
American, my good friend Senator Pat Roberts.
  Thank you, sir, for the example, for the mentorship, for the 
friendship, and your great service to the Senate, to Kansas, to 
America, and to the U.S. Marine Corps. Semper Fi.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               H.R. 6395

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I sound a little redundant here because we 
have been talking about this bill for a long time now, for several 
months. People don't realize how long it takes to get a defense 
authorization bill all the way through the system. There is no doubt in 
my mind that this is the most important bill of the year, every year, 
and the importance, I think, is pretty well demonstrated by the fact 
that we have successfully passed a defense authorization bill every 
year for 60 years. And I feel we will do the same thing. It could be 
today, it could be tomorrow, but nonetheless, it is a bill that has to 
pass.
  Now, when President Trump came into office 4 years ago, we had a 
problem. He inherited a military that had serious problems. In fact, 
during the last 4 years of the previous administration--that would have 
been 2010 to 2015--the President depleted the budget or reduced the 
budget for military by 25 percent.
  I don't say that really critically of President Obama because he had 
different priorities. He was up-front about it and didn't consider this 
to be high enough of a priority. Now, the sad thing about this is that 
at the same time that he was reducing our military spending by 25 
percent, Russia was increasing theirs threefold and China's was 
increased by 83 percent. So we dropped ours by 25 percent, and at the 
same time, China increased theirs 83 percent. That is really serious.

[[Page S7389]]

  People have this assumption that America has the best of everything 
and that we don't have any problem out there, but we do, and we found 
several systems where they were actually getting ahead of us. So, 
working with Congress, we passed the NDAA appropriations bill. We 
secured nearly $3 trillion in funding for our Nation's defense. This 
year alone, the administration will provide more than $740 billion for 
resources our military needs to keep our country and our troops safe.
  The fiscal year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act cements 
President Trump's hard work to restore our military to be the best 
fighting force. That is what we are supposed to be doing in America. 
The NDAA authorizes critical investments to protect our military 
advantage across all domains, from the skies to the seas and even now 
through space, a whole new program.
  With the President's leadership last year, the NDAA created the Space 
Force. It is the first time there has been a new branch since 1947, and 
that happened this year. This year's NDAA makes sure that it is set up 
successfully.
  One of the things about the Space Force that I think people who are 
somewhat critical of--we were doing a good job in space before without 
the Space Force, but the fact that we can concentrate all those efforts 
in one force and be on equal footing--because that is exactly what our 
primary problem is out there with China and Russia. They both have what 
would be in their interpretation a space force, so it was important 
that we did, too, and that was the right thing to do.
  This also authorizes the procurement of 93 F-35s, the Joint Strike 
Fighters, to continue the rebuilding of our overworked combat aircraft. 
It also includes authorizations for C-130J aircraft, which will 
modernize our fleet, used for transportation of personnel and also for 
refuelers and things that we have to do in the military. That is an 
upgrade of the old version. The J model of the C-130 is a great 
vehicle. We have to have it authorized and all of the priorities set. 
That is what this bill does.
  We also have authorized the procurement of nine new battle force 
ships, including the Virginia-class submarines. We talked about that 
for a long time, and now we are finally doing that.
  Another area that we have been doing is our nuclear forces. Our 
President has been a champion for our nuclear modernization efforts--
and for good reason. Our nuclear deterrent is the cornerstone of our 
national security. The NDAA ensures that our Nation wields a safe and 
reliable nuclear deterrent by authorizing the resources needed to 
modernize.
  Now, we didn't do this for a long period of time. We fell behind. 
This bill is reversing that, and we are getting back into the 
competition--the nuclear competition. That is where the real threat is. 
Everybody knows that.
  I think having the best weapons and equipment is critical, to be 
sure, but we also need the infrastructure and manpower to support it. 
Over the past several years, Congress has provided the military with 
significant funding increases and authorizations to begin and continue 
critical military construction projects overseas, as well as in our 
country.
  These military construction projects can be found everywhere--from 
Arkansas to South Carolina, Oklahoma to California, and Missouri to 
Massachusetts, and all across the country. These investments will also 
build on our improvements to family housing.
  I have heard people complain about what we do for the military in 
this country, and they try to say that we are spending more on our 
military than both China and Russia put together. Yeah, that is true, 
but there is a reason for that, and the reason for that is that the 
most expensive thing in building a military is individuals--what we are 
spending on individuals, on housing, and on all these things.
  Now, when you are dealing with it, and looking at Communist 
countries, and you look at Russia and you look at China, they don't 
take care of their people. They don't have that expense, and that is 
why we spend more than they do. You know, just in the last 2 years, 
what we have done to improve housing for our troops--troops and their 
families--other people don't do that, but we do it. So that is why it 
is so significant that we do this.
  I have a concern that I would like to share, and I hesitate to do 
this because it will take a little bit of time. People out there don't 
realize, in a bill like this, what all goes into it. I looked at the 
people who are heading this thing up, and, yesterday, Senator Reed 
talked about the Democrats and the Republicans and their staff people, 
who worked so hard. Let me say this: We could not have done this 
without the cooperation and the love that we have for each other, with 
Senator Reed. I mean, he heads up the minority, and I head up the 
majority, and we want, together, to make sure we have the best product 
in the world and that we get the best of everything for our troops in 
the field.
  So I want to really single out Senator Reed for all the work that he 
has done. He has been a great partner and friend throughout this 
process. And we want to thank our colleagues in the House also--
Congressman Smith and Congressman Thornberry. We all worked together.
  You know, I have been involved in a lot of these things, and they 
always end up in the Big 4. That is where you have the leading Democrat 
and Republican in the House and Democrat and Republican in the Senate, 
insofar as defense is concerned, and we iron these things out. But in 
the meantime, this long bill is one that has taken just a lot of work. 
And I know that, yesterday, Senator Reed got a chance to mention the 
names of and show his appreciation for the Democrats that worked in the 
minority, and I want us to do the same thing for the Republicans in the 
majority.
  John Bonsell--I don't think there is a person in Washington, DC, who 
knows more about the military than John Bonsell does. And he put 
together a group of people. These are all experts. They all work--you 
know, people don't understand this, but I am talking about weekends, 
Sundays, times that they have to work to get these things done and to 
get that bill into position, because you have to pass it through the 
Senate, and you have to go onto the Senate floor. Then you have to go 
to the House and the House committee and the House floor, and then you 
have to have a conference.
  There are some things in this bill that we avoided having--and I am 
thankful that we did, quite frankly--that the House wanted and the 
Senate didn't want. We were able to iron out these differences and get 
them done. But to do that, we had to work long hours. I can assure you 
that the staff worked a lot longer hours than I did.
  So I single these people out as really experts, and I want to show 
them appreciation, and I am just going to read them off to you here: 
John Bonsell. We know about John Bonsell. We know what he has done. He 
has been with me since he was, years ago, stationed at Fort Sill in my 
State of Oklahoma. He has been with me, and he has been heading up this 
group and putting the group together.
  This group consists of: John Wason, Tom Goffus, Stephanie Barna, Greg 
Lilly, Marta Hernandez, Rick Berger, Jennie Wright, Adam Barker, Adam 
Trull, Al Edwards, Sean O'Keefe, Brad Patout, Jason Potter, Katie 
Sutton, Eric Trager, TC Williams, Otis Winkler, Gwyneth Woolwine, Katie 
Magnus, Leah Brewer, Debbie Chiarello, Gary Howard, Tyler Wilkinson, 
John Bryant, Griffin Cannon, Keri-Lyn Michalke, Soleil Sykes, Brittany 
Amador, and Jillian Schofield
  Now, these people, they are just names to a lot of other people, but 
each one has just really performed long and hard hours. There has been 
more staff work go into this bill than any other bill that is before 
us, than anytime year round.
  So I just appreciate so much the hard work that has gone there, and 
we will pass this bill. It is one that if we don't pass it, we are not 
going to give the resources necessary for our kids in the field to have 
the safety that we can provide them and to have the equipment.
  We want to get to the point where we have the very best of everything 
out there, and right now, we don't. China and Russia are knocking at 
our door. We have to do a better job than we have done in the past, and 
I am going to be working with the administration to do everything we 
can for the coming

[[Page S7390]]

year. But right now, we need to get caught up and go ahead and pass 
this.
  This bill is the roadmap for the next year, and that is why this is 
important. So I encourage all of us to do what we have to do to get 
this bill done--hopefully, today, but definitely by tomorrow. I believe 
that will happen because people do care about our troops. There is no 
one more deserving in America than our troops who are out there in 
harm's way, and we are going to make sure that we do the right thing 
for them.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to floor today in complete 
support of Senator Inhofe, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, and I come in support of the National Defense Authorization 
Act. I come to speak to that, and I am so grateful for the Senator from 
Oklahoma and for his ongoing, determined leadership in making sure that 
our Nation remains safe and secure and free. And it is because of the 
work done by Senator Inhofe and his committee and this body and this 
legislation that we will be voting on. I am so grateful for the 
leadership of the chairman, and I want to talk, specifically, about the 
reason I think it is important that we do pass the legislation that the 
committee has worked so hard on.
  So the Presiding Officer knows, as a member of that committee, that 
this critical national security legislation lays out America's defense 
and national security priorities, as the Senator from Oklahoma just 
made up, for the years to come. It sets the policies to defend our 
Nation, and it supports America's service men and women here at home, 
as well as those abroad.
  I was honored to spend Thanksgiving, again this year, with Wyoming 
National Guard troops, members of our Air National Guard, and they are 
serving at this time in Qatar, in the Al Udeid Air Force Base in the 
Persian Gulf. And when I think of the National Defense Authorization 
Act, this legislation before us today, I think of them. I think about 
the members there--Charlie Med, doing medical evacuations and medical 
transport.
  First, I will tell you that, in terms of these Wyoming soldiers who 
are there, if you are in need of medical care or medical transport, you 
would be in very capable hands. You also know they have what they need 
to be able to do the job. I think of them, and I think of their 
families--the sacrifices that are being made by the families at home, 
because the families play a significant and important role in this as 
well
  You know, it is interesting, with so many deployed overseas right 
now, some of them have found that their deployments have been extended. 
Because of coronavirus, they are unable to do the transports of moving 
people back to the United States for the holidays and then back into 
the fields, so that they have many who felt that they would be home for 
the holidays who are going to find that they are not able to be home 
for the holidays. So I think it is very important that the Senate send 
a strong message that we have their backs, just as they have ours.
  This is an incredibly bipartisan piece of legislation--one of the 
most bipartisan pieces of legislation every year when it comes to the 
floor of the Senate. It reflects equal input from Republicans and from 
Democrats. The Senate Armed Services Committee adopted 229 bipartisan 
amendments before it approved the NDAA this summer by a vote in the 
committee, on which the Presiding Officer also sits, of 25 to 2.
  It is also in line with the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019. It 
supports $741 billion in defense funding for the 2021 fiscal year.
  The NDAA is really a proud tradition of this institution and of our 
Nation. This is the 60th year in a row that the Senate has taken up the 
NDAA, and it has passed this body every year. We need to make sure this 
year is no exception. The world may be distracted by other things that 
are going on--certainly, the issue of a coronavirus pandemic--but, make 
no mistake, China and Russia still have global ambitions, and they pose 
grave threats to our Nation's security.
  The Chinese military has actually stepped up its aggression against 
its neighbors, and we see it in the South China Sea. Russia is using 
energy as a weapon against its neighbors, and it continues cyber 
attacks against governments and institutions around the globe. This 
legislation will help keep China and Russia in check.
  It maintains our high-tech edge, as the chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee has just said. It modernizes our nuclear weapons 
system with funding for the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent. It 
invests in new technologies--hypersonic weapons, biotechnologies, 
artificial intelligence, cyber security--all of which are designed to 
help keep us safe and free.
  It implements the National Defense Strategy to promote a strong 
military deterrent and to strive for lasting peace, and it delivers a 
well-deserved pay raise for our troops, along with high-quality 
housing, healthcare, and childcare for military families at home, as 
well as abroad.
  So I do want to thank Senator Inhofe and Ranking Member Senator Reed 
of Rhode Island for their work in bringing this bill to the floor. 
Democrats have a history of opposing sometimes stronger defense 
funding, especially during the Obama-Biden years, but this makes longer 
term funding uncertain, and it becomes even more important to do what 
we need to do now to stand up against our adversaries.
  No, we can't afford to slow our Nation's critical defense investments 
now. This NDAA will protect American leadership and values all around 
the world, and it will give our Nation what we need to confront the 
aggressors that I mentioned, like China and Russia. This legislation is 
strategic, and this legislation is strong. It is smart, and it supports 
our troops, and it stands up to our enemies. The Senate needs to pass 
this, the 60th National Defense Authorization Act.


                              Coronavirus

  Madam President, I would now like to take a moment to discuss another 
topic, and that is coronavirus relief for American families.
  Increasingly, we are seeing communities across the country asking for 
a clear path forward--a path forward to put the virus behind us and to 
help us grow our economy. The takeaway from last Friday's job report is 
we really have no time to waste. For the first time since we passed the 
CARES Act, the jobs report showed signs of a slowing recovery--
recovery, yes, but not as rapid as planned.
  The sectors hardest hit at the beginning of the pandemic are now hard 
hit again--retail and food services. The Republican-led CARES Act 
secured the swiftest, strongest economic recovery in our Nation's 
history. It added more than 12.3 million jobs in the last 7 months. It 
has been a great American comeback.
  At the end of this month, provisions of the CARES Act are expiring--
things like sick leave, unemployment benefits, and tax provisions. We 
need to extend those. For small businesses, I believe we need to 
reestablish and refurbish the popular Paycheck Protection Program. The 
money has gone. I talked to small businesses in Wyoming, talked to 
county commissioners last night, and talked to our Wyoming stock 
growers yesterday. We need to replenish the Paycheck Protection 
Program.
  We need to reallocate unused funds for immediate needs now. 
Republican priorities are American priorities in terms of relief from 
coronavirus.
  We want to make sure, certainly, to fund the distribution of the 
vaccine, which is ready to go. We need to provide relief for 
individuals and small businesses, and we need to get kids back into the 
classroom safely so they don't fall further behind.
  The job we need to do is significant, it is serious, and relief is 
necessary. We need to get a bridge to the point where people have 
either received the vaccine or there is immunity in communities. 
Republicans are offering a path forward. We are doing it legislatively.
  What we have heard from the Democrats are hard lines, all-or-nothing 
demands. We have heard them for the last 7 months. Democrats have 
offered no new proposals for COVID relief. They passed their $3 
trillion Fantasy Island bill in May and never lifted a pen after that.
  In the last 6 months, Democrats have blocked relief that we have 
offered on the Senate floor four different times. Last week, Speaker 
Pelosi said--admitted--that she had held up all those

[[Page S7391]]

6 months of coronavirus relief for the American public for political 
gain, for politics. And we heard it from the minority assistant leader 
just yesterday, admitting the same, punishing the American people for 
politics. It is a sad commentary on where that party has been as the 
American people are asking for relief. Democrats don't have a plan. 
They played politics with the pandemic.
  Again, our path forward is to do the things that we know need to be 
done: distribute the vaccine, provide Americans with relief, and get 
Americans' lives back on track. What we hear from Democrats are more 
lockdowns, more taxes during a pandemic, and more special projects for 
the far left. It is sad. The Democrats' policies don't meet the moment. 
We need to get relief to the public now. Democrats are ignoring where 
we really are in terms of the cost the Americans have borne and the 
progress that we have made in the recovery, and they have done it for 
political purposes.
  Scientists and researchers are within several days of approval of the 
vaccine and a distribution nationwide. The country is soon going to 
have several highly effective vaccines distributed to every State.
  In Wyoming, we are looking forward to 5,000 vaccines as early as 
Monday and 15,000 by the end of the month. I talked to the head of the 
intensive care unit at the Wyoming Medical Center just the other day--
the hospital where I had been chief of staff, where there are 
increasing numbers of patients in the intensive care unit on 
respirators, where the staff is exhausted. They say: We need the 
vaccine for the staff, for the frontline workers, for the healthcare 
workers, for the elderly, and for the nursing home patients so they 
don't end up in the hospital and on ventilators.
  These are the healthcare heroes of the day, the doctors and nurses 
taking care of these sick patients. We are going to administer vaccines 
to them, to the nursing home patients, and to those at high risk. Over 
the next 3 months, over 1 million people will be vaccinated.
  Relief is necessary. In our State, we have lost 299 citizens to 
coronavirus--a number that I would have thought would not have 
occurred. This is with people trying to social distance, people trying 
to do the kinds of things in terms of wearing masks--a behavior that we 
know, with hygiene, would minimize the spread--but still the disease 
continues to spread.
  The vaccine is the solution, but between now and the time the people 
can get vaccinated, help is needed, and it is up to this body to act. 
We still have work to do on behalf of the American people. I hope that 
the Democrats will join us in this effort this holiday season to get 
that relief to folks who need it. In the meantime, I say let's continue 
to do the things that we know work so we can stay safe and our 
businesses and our country can stay open.
  With that, I thank you.
  I yield the floor
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, this country faces an unprecedented 
crisis in terms of the pandemic and the economic meltdown. I understand 
that negotiations are currently going on in terms of coming up with an 
economic package dealing with COVID-19 relief, and I applaud the very 
hard work that each of the negotiators are doing, Democrats and 
Republicans. But the truth is that the results up to this point for 
those negotiations are totally unsatisfactory given the economic 
desperation facing tens of millions of working families all across this 
country.
  As I think everyone will remember, back in March of this year, at the 
beginning of the pandemic, the U.S. Congress acted unanimously--
unanimously, Democrats and Republicans--and worked with President Trump 
to come up with an economic package that went a long way toward 
preventing absolute misery and destitution for many of our people.
  Through no fault of their own, COVID-19 resulted in millions of our 
people losing their jobs and their income. That is what the pandemic 
did. Nobody is to blame. That is what happened. And in response, in 
March, Democrats and Republicans in this Congress came together, worked 
with the President of the United States, and in a very significant way 
responded to that crisis. That is what we did in March.
  What I don't understand is that at a time when, in many ways, the 
economic and public health crisis is worse today than it was in March, 
why we are not responding accordingly?
  In March, as you know, we passed the $2.2 trillion CARES Act, which 
included a $600 supplement to unemployed workers, and, my God, what 
relief that was to millions of workers who had lost their jobs. In 
addition, we provided a $1,200 direct payment to every working-class 
adult in this country, plus $500 for their kids.
  Once again--and let me repeat this--we did this unanimously, and we 
did it working with President Trump despite many of the enormous 
disagreements that a lot of us have with President Trump on so many 
issues.
  Now, what I don't understand is, if we could work together in March, 
if we could have succeeded 9 months ago, why can we not do exactly the 
same thing right now? That is why I will insist that any agreement in 
terms of a COVID-19 relief package must include not only strong 
unemployment benefits but a $1,200 direct payment for the working 
families of this country, similarly structured to what was included in 
the CARES package of March.
  I will be introducing an amendment to the 1-week continuing 
resolution to make sure that occurs, that every working-class adult in 
this country receives another $1,200 direct payment, plus $500 for 
their kids. If we could do it in March and it was the right thing then, 
now, at a time when the situation in many ways is even worse, we can 
and must do it today.
  Every Member of this body, I know, wants to get out of Washington to 
get home to their families for the holiday season, and put me at the 
very top of that list. But at a time when so many American families are 
suffering, when so many people don't know how they are going to feed 
their kids or prevent being evicted from their homes or how they are 
going to pay for a doctor's visit, we cannot leave Washington and 
return to our families unless we address the economic suffering that so 
many other families are facing.
  When a national emergency occurs, the U.S. Government must respond. 
And we are in a national emergency today. To get out of Washington, to 
turn our backs on the suffering of so many men, women, and children in 
Vermont and in every other State in this country, would be immoral, it 
would be unconscionable, and we cannot allow that to happen.
  Again, we must make certain that every working family in this country 
receives a $1,200 direct payment, plus $500 for their kids. That is the 
least we can do.
  Let me be as clear as I can be. Today, as a result of the horrific 
pandemic and economic meltdown, the American working class is hurting 
in a way that has not been experienced since the Great Depression of 
the 1930s.
  In terms of public health, yesterday alone, over 220,000 Americans 
were diagnosed with COVID-19--yesterday--and tragically, over 3,000 
died from this horrific virus. We are experiencing now some of the 
worst days in terms of cases being diagnosed, in terms of 
hospitalization, in terms of death. That is where we are today. In 
other words, more Americans were killed by the coronavirus yesterday 
than were killed on 9/11.
  Tens of millions of our fellow citizens have lost their jobs as a 
result of the pandemic. They have lost their incomes. They have lost 
their health insurance. They have depleted their life savings.
  Let me tell you this: We deferred evictions. We prevented people from 
being evicted from their homes. But when at some point that deferment 
ends, all across the country, people are going to owe thousands and 
thousands of dollars to their landlords. They don't have the money to 
pay them. Tens of millions of people are in danger of being evicted.
  You may have noticed that there were reports out there that hunger--

[[Page S7392]]

this is the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the 
history of the world. We are looking at numbers that suggest that 
hunger is at the highest level we have seen in decades. Children in 
America are going hungry, and all across this country, tenants are 
worried that they are going to get a knock on the door from the sheriff 
evicting them from their homes or their apartments and throwing their 
belongings out on the street to join the other 500,000 Americans who 
are now homeless.
  In America today, over half of our workers are living paycheck-to-
paycheck, while one out of every four workers in this country is either 
unemployed or earning an annual income of less than $20,000 a year. I 
don't know how anybody makes it on less than $20,000 a year.
  During the holiday season to come, over one-third of Americans expect 
to lose income and are already having a difficult time paying for their 
basic household expenses.
  I would be remiss if I didn't mention that, at a time when so many 
people in our economy are suffering, it has been far worse for the 
African-American and Latino communities. During this pandemic, nearly 
60 percent of Latino families and 55 percent of African-American 
families have either experienced a job loss or a pay cut. That is just 
an unimaginable number. So the general population is suffering--even 
worse for the African-American and Latino communities.
  I should also add that, in the midst of this pandemic, not everybody 
is suffering. The people on top, some of the billionaires on top, are 
doing phenomenally well. Over the past 9 months of this pandemic, 650 
billionaires--650, not a whole lot of people--have seen their wealth go 
up by over $1 trillion, during this pandemic, and now own over twice as 
much wealth as the bottom 50 percent of American people.
  This is the United States of America, the richest country in the 
history of the world. No person in this great country should be going 
hungry. No person should live in fear of going homeless. No person in 
America should lack the healthcare they need when they or their kids 
get sick, especially in the midst of the worst public health crisis in 
100 years.
  Can you imagine? I mean, it really is unimaginable that we are 
looking at 220,000 people yesterday having been diagnosed with COVID-
19, with the virus, and there are 90 million people in America who are 
either uninsured or underinsured, and they can't even afford to go to a 
doctor. But that is exactly what is going on in America today.
  This is an unprecedented moment in American history, and the Senate 
needs to take unprecedented action to protect the working families of 
this country who are facing extreme economic desperation. If we could 
act effectively in March through the CARES Act, we can act effectively 
today as we enter this holiday season.
  Once again, I very much appreciate the hard work that has gone into 
the current $908 billion proposal being worked on by a number of 
Democratic and Republican Senators, but, simply stated, given the 
horrific extent of the current crisis and the desperation of so many of 
our people, this proposal does not go anywhere--anywhere--far enough.
  In truth, rather than the $3.4 trillion which we on the Democratic 
side called for in the Heroes Act and passed in the House--the U.S. 
House of Representatives a number of months ago passed a $3.4 trillion 
bill, but what is being discussed and negotiated right now with 
Democratic and Republican Senators only allocates $348 billion in new 
money. The remaining $560 billion are funds transferred from the CARES 
Act that have not yet been obligated.
  So what we are talking about now, as opposed to $3.4 trillion passed 
in the Heroes Act, is, roughly speaking, $348 billion in new money 
right now. We are talking about, roughly speaking, 10 percent of new 
money compared to what was passed in the House. That is absurd. That is 
unacceptable. I am prepared to negotiate, but I cannot negotiate in 
good faith when we are receiving 10 percent of new money compared to 
what was passed in the House in the Heroes bill.
  Unlike the CARES Act, which we passed unanimously in March, the 
proposal now being negotiated only provides a $300 supplement for 
unemployed workers rather than $600 a week. Further, unlike the $1,200 
direct payment for every working-class individual and $500 for each 
child, this agreement being negotiated provides absolutely nothing--
zero. Moreover, this proposal does nothing to address the healthcare 
crisis impacting tens of millions of Americans who cannot afford 
medical care and has totally inadequate financial assistance for the 
most vulnerable.
  The American people need help, and they need help now. In fact, there 
has never been a time in the modern history of this country when the 
American people were in more economic desperation and a time when 
people needed help. If a government means anything, it means that we 
cannot turn our backs on tens of millions of families who today are 
suffering. So we have to make sure that every working individual in 
America receives at least $1,200 in direct payment. That is what we 
have to do. We cannot continue the status quo of simply coming in here 
to work and then going home and going back for our holiday.
  So I am going to do everything I can to insist that we make sure that 
every working person in this country gets a $1,200 direct payment, and 
we are not going to go home until that happens.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.


                               H.R. 6395

  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, the best part of any debate is when you 
see people twisting themselves in knots, going against their own 
alleged principles to get their desired result. Today, the subject is 
war powers. The hawks and the neocons somehow want you to believe, in 
contrast to all logic, that the President of the United States has the 
unitary power to go to war anytime he wants, anywhere, free from 
interference from Congress. That is their stated position anytime war 
comes up. Yet, today, in the NDAA, they say they now want a President 
that cannot leave a war without their permission.
  How absurd is that? They believe that a President has the power go to 
war anywhere, anytime, but when a President tries to remove troops they 
say: Oh, no, no. What we really want are 535 generals in Congress to 
tell him he can't leave a war. How absurd is that?
  It is exactly the opposite of what both the Constitution and logic 
would dictate. When Congress tried to impose time limits on troop 
engagements during the Iraq war, the neocons squawked that it would be 
a mistake to have 535 generals. They said the execution of the war was 
a prerogative of the President--until a President decided he wanted to 
leave a war.
  During the Bush administration, Dick Cheney and a team of legal 
apologists argued for something they call the unitary executive theory. 
Professor Edelson at American University describes this theory of an 
all-powerful Commander-in-Chief concept: This unitary executive theory 
claimed to justify, effectively, unchecked Presidential power over the 
use of military force, the detention and interrogation of prisoners, 
extraordinary rendition, and intelligence gathering.
  According to the unitary executive theory, since the Constitution 
assigns the President all of the executive power, he can set aside laws 
that attempt to limit this power over national security. This is an 
enormous power. Critics say that it effectively puts the President 
above the law. But this is the belief of the neocons. They say: ``The 
President is all-powerful,'' until they say, ``Well, unless the 
President is trying to stop a war, then we must shackle the President 
with rules and regulations and make sure that he cannot leave a war 
unless Congress says so.'' That is what the NDAA will do this year.
  These same people who advocated for virtually unlimited Commander-in-
Chief powers have put forth limits in this bill to restrain a President 
from removing troops from a country. Effectively, these neocons put 
forth a belief that the Commander in Chief has virtually unlimited 
power to initiate war, but they are just fine with hamstringing and 
preventing the Commander in Chief from ending a war.
  Hypocrisy, anyone? Without a shred of embarrassment, these neocons 
happily constrain a President from leaving a war theater while they 
also simultaneously argue for a President who can

[[Page S7393]]

start war anytime, anywhere across the globe without congressional 
authorization. Our Founding Fathers would be appalled.
  Primary among our Founders' concerns was that the power to initiate 
war not be in the hands of one person. As Madison wrote in the 
Federalist Papers, the executive is the branch of government most prone 
to war. Therefore, the Constitution, with studied care, vested the war-
making powers in the legislature.
  To our Founders, initiation of war was the sole prerogative of 
Congress. But a great deal of discretion was given to the President in 
article II to execute the war. The neocons forever believed in this 
discretion. They said the war shouldn't be fought by 535 generals in 
Congress; we should give the President the freedom and power to execute 
the war. And, largely, they are correct--until they pop their heads up 
today and say, unless the President wants to stop a war, then we take 
it all back. What we really want is a President who can't execute a war 
or execute the end of a war without the permission of Congress.
  Likely, our Founders would have agreed with the common complaint that 
we don't need 535 generals in Congress. In other words, success in war 
requires most decisions on executing the war to be in the hands of one 
person--the President. Even I, who have been opposed to most of the 
recent overseas activities and wars--even I believe that once Congress 
initiates it, most of the decisions should be made by the President.
  The decision to go to war requires the consensus, the initiation--the 
beginning of war requires the consensus of 535 Members of Congress 
under the Constitution. It is very clear. They debated it over and 
over, and they said: Initiation, declaration of war, should be done by 
Congress. But the execution of the war would largely be left up to the 
President. Many, many current and former Members of Congress have 
agreed.
  Representative Liz Cheney has argued that the nature of military and 
foreign policy demands the unity of the singular executive and that the 
Founders certainly did not intend, nor does history substantiate, the 
idea that Congress should legislate specific limits on the President's 
powers in wartime.
  Liz Cheney, who is also, ironically, the author of this amendment to 
the NDAA, said we shouldn't limit the President's powers in times of 
war and then she authors a limitation on the President removing troops 
from war. So which is it? I guess she is only for this unitary power--
she is only for this all-powerful Commander in Chief when they fight 
war. But if a President wants to end a war, oh, no, Congress has to 
stop them at all costs from ending a war.
  I think what comes out of this is that the neoconservative philosophy 
isn't so much about a unitary executive, isn't so much about an all-
powerful Commander in Chief, the philosophy of these people is about 
war and substantiating war and making sure that it becomes and is 
perpetual war.
  Senator Graham said the one thing he has been consistent on is that 
``there is 1 Commander in Chief, not 535'' these are his words ``and I 
believe this Commander in Chief and all future Commanders in Chief are 
unique in our Constitution and have an indispensable role to play when 
it comes to protecting the homeland. If we have 535 commanders in 
chief, then we are going to be less safe.''
  I guess, except for this bill, which actually creates 535 generals in 
Congress to tell the President, not just this President--and some of it 
is anger. It is partisan anger. People don't like President Trump--but 
this will bind all future Presidents. This isn't just about this 
President.
  When Lindsey Graham says we don't want 535 Commanders in Chief, if 
this is his belief, he should vote against this bill because this bill 
creates 535 Commanders in Chief.
  The late Senator McCain said: ``It would be a very serious situation 
where we now have 535 commanders in chief . . . the President of the 
United States is the only commander.''
  Senator Inhofe, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has 
said: ``We don't need the 535 generals in Congress telling our troops 
how to win this fight,'' except for we are going to pass a bill that I 
assume all of these folks will vote for that actually creates 535 
generals in Congress to say to the President--to this one or any 
President--that he can't leave the theater in Afghanistan without their 
permission. It is a tragedy; it is hypocrisy; and it is a terrible 
bill.
  Of course, there is also former Vice President Dick Cheney, who was 
adamant that the War Powers Resolution, which requires the President to 
simply report to Congress on matters of war, was unconstitutional as 
``an infringement of the president's authority as the commander in 
chief.''
  Senator Alexander also said ``there is a reason why we don't have 535 
commanders in chief or 100 commanding generals each saying charge down 
this street or over that hill.''
  I tend to agree, except for it seems to be one-sided. These people 
seem to believe that we shouldn't have 535 generals in Congress when it 
is about initiating war. But when it comes to removing troops from the 
battle, when it comes to finally coming home after America's longest 
war in Afghanistan, they all say: Oh, no, no, no. You are wrong. We are 
not going to let you come home. We are going to restrict and restrain 
the powers of the Commander in Chief because we don't want to end the 
Afghan war.
  It seems as if the only thing you can conclude is they really don't 
care about their theory of an all-powerful Commander in Chief; they 
care more about perpetuating the Afghan war.
  Until recently, this chorus of voices sang of nothing but the 
almighty, endless powers that Presidents have as Commander in 
Chief. That is, until a President arrived on the scene who wanted to 
reduce overseas troop levels and end America's longest war in 
Afghanistan. Then the promoters of a strong Commander in Chief suddenly 
jumped ship and began advocating the opposite. They began advocating 
that 535 Members of Congress should, indeed, become generals and should 
limit the President's ability to remove troops from Afghanistan.

  Which is it? Are you for this unlimited power of the President to 
commence and execute war or are you only for it when they are 
initiating war, when they are continuing war, and against Presidential 
prerogative if the President chooses to end a war?
  Shouldn't we call out this hypocrisy? Shouldn't someone stand up and 
express and expose this rank demagoguery? Shouldn't someone cry foul 
that the advocates of unlimited Presidential power want it only to 
apply when that President advocates for war? But the moment a President 
advocates to end a war or lessen overseas troops and these deployments, 
he or she must be shackled by 535 generals.
  This Defense authorization bill could more aptly be called ``A Bill 
to Prevent the President from Ending the Afghan War.'' We never 
actually give the real titles to the bill, but that would be an 
accurate title: ``A Bill to Prevent the President from Ending the 
Afghan War.''
  As such, any serious advocate for ending the Afghan war should vote 
against this monstrosity. The neocon advocates for Presidential war 
powers should own up to their hypocrisy and admit that their love of 
perpetual war trumps their oft-stated unitary executive theory.
  In reality, the neocons are enamored of their theory of unbounded 
Presidential power only when that power is used to foment war. The 
minute a President decides to end war, the neocons' true stripes are 
exposed as they beat their chest and proclaim--as 535 generals might--
that the President will not be allowed to remove troops without 
congressional permission.
  This bill sets a very dangerous precedent for limiting a President's 
power to end war and should be vigorously opposed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Young). The Senator from Missouri.

                          ____________________