[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 210 (Friday, December 11, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7437-S7443]
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 the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
  A conference report to accompany H.R. 6395, an Act to authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 2021 for military activities of the 
Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defensive 
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel 
strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the 
mandatory quorum call.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the conference 
     report to accompany H.R. 6395, an Act to authorize 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2021 for military activities 
     of the Department of Defense and for military construction, 
     to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal 
     year, and for other purposes.
         Mitch McConnell, John Thune, Shelley Moore Capito, Thom 
           Tillis, Roy Blunt, Cory Gardner, Roger F. Wicker, 
           Marsha Blackburn, John Cornyn, Mike Crapo, Pat Roberts, 
           Cindy Hyde-Smith, Kevin Cramer, Richard Burr, James M. 
           Inhofe, Steve Daines, Deb Fischer.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 6395, an Act to authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 2021 for military activities of the 
Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel 
strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, shall be 
brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Georgia (Mrs. 
Loeffler), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 84, nays 13, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 263 Leg.]

                                YEAS--84

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Manchin
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--13

     Booker
     Braun
     Cotton
     Cruz
     Hawley
     Kennedy
     Lee
     Markey
     Merkley
     Paul
     Sanders
     Warren
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Graham
     Loeffler
     Rounds
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 84, the nays are 
13.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
postcloture time on the conference report to accompany H.R. 6395 expire 
at 12:30 today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, 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. MURPHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             2020 Elections

  Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, colleagues, we are in the middle of a 
whole bunch of really important debates right now about the National 
Defense Authorization Act, trying to avoid a shutdown by the end of the 
day, and, of course, trying to find a path forward to authorize funding 
to continue to combat this pandemic.
  But it is worth noting today that an effort to overturn the 2020 
election continues and, in many ways, is picking up steam, and we need 
to talk about the consequences for the Nation.

[[Page S7438]]

  Democracies are really fragile things. Ours only continues because we 
make choices so that it can remain. Our government really isn't a piece 
of paper upon which the Constitution is written. Our government--where 
voters, citizens, not kings or monarchs or oligarchs, decide who 
governs--is made possible by a series of decisions that we make every 
single day to put the rule of law ahead of our own political power or 
the position of our political party. That is the history of America--
our decision that democracy comes first, not the perpetuation of our 
own political power.
  Right now, the most serious attempt to overthrow our democracy in the 
history of this country is underway. Those who are pushing to make 
Donald Trump President for a second term, no matter the outcome of the 
election, are engaged in a treachery against their Nation.
  You cannot, at the same time, love America and hate democracy. But as 
we speak, a whole lot of flag-waving Republicans are nakedly trying to 
invalidate millions of legal votes because that is the only way they 
can make Donald Trump President again.
  It is the only way they can make Donald Trump President again because 
he didn't win. Our democracy, the citizens of this country, chose Joe 
Biden to be President of the United States. He won the popular vote in 
a landslide, and he won the electoral college by a substantial margin.
  But now, Republicans have decided--not all Republicans--but far too 
many have decided that if democracy can't keep Trump in power, then 
democracy ceases to have any real purpose because, to Republicans who 
are supporting these continued efforts to invalidate the election, 
their loyalty is to Donald Trump, not to the Nation or our system of 
government. Their No. 1 goal is to keep Trump in power, and if that 
means throwing out the election and turning America into something 
other than a democracy in which the voters get to choose their leaders, 
then so be it.
  Here is the latest. This lawsuit is supported by 106 House 
Republicans. That is more than half of the Republicans who serve in the 
House of Representatives. It is supported, apparently, by many Senate 
Republicans as well. This lawsuit is an attempt to overthrow democracy.
  Now, you can laugh at it; you can scoff at it; you can suggest that 
it has no chance to prevail if it reaches the nine Supreme Court 
Justices. But let's be clear about what it argues, and let's be clear 
about the consequences for so many elected officials at the highest 
level of American Government supporting this lawsuit.
  What it argues is that the votes in four States--Pennsylvania, 
Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan--should be thrown out because Trump 
didn't win. It asks for the State legislatures, controlled by 
Republicans, to appoint electors instead. Now, there are a bunch of 
vague, unsourced claims about voter fraud in this lawsuit, but there is 
not a shred of evidence for these claims. All of the individual 
lawsuits trying to allege voter fraud, trying to create contests about 
how laws were modified regarding voting in these States, have all lost.

  Importantly, the lawsuit doesn't ask for another canvass or another 
count; it just asks for the votes in these States to be disregarded and 
for Republican politicians in these States to make the choice instead.
  Already in Pennsylvania, the State legislature's Republican 
leadership has expressed support for appointing electors who would 
choose Donald Trump. Let me say that again. This lawsuit says that in 
Pennsylvania, the State legislature should choose the electors, not the 
people. And in Pennsylvania, the leadership of the Republican Party in 
the legislature has expressed support for appointing electors who will 
choose Donald Trump instead of Joe Biden despite the fact that Joe 
Biden won the State of Pennsylvania by 80,000 votes--80,000 votes. This 
isn't 500 votes, like Florida in 2000--80,000 votes.
  The request of this lawsuit is clear: Throw out the votes in these 
four States that Joe Biden won and just give the election to Donald 
Trump instead.
  Some of my Republican Senate colleagues sent out pretty mealy-mouthed 
statements supporting the general right to count every legal vote and 
to contest illegal votes, but that is not what this lawsuit is about. 
It just asks for the whole vote to be thrown out. It asks for every 
vote in these States to be disregarded.
  Other Republicans who haven't signed on to this suit suggest that it 
won't succeed in the Supreme Court; it is a sideshow, so why really 
care? Well, we have to care. The majority of Republican Members of 
Congress believe that Donald Trump should be named President again 
despite the fact that he lost and lost by a lot. It wasn't close in the 
popular vote or in the electoral college. We should care because this 
attempt to overthrow democracy won't be successful this time--Joe Biden 
is going to be President--but it plainly shows us the direction that 
the Republican Party is heading, and they control governments in a lot 
of really important States and jurisdictions.
  The majority of Republicans in the House of Representatives 
apparently believe that if a Democrat wins an election, it is 
illegitimate by definition. There is no evidence of fraud or stolen 
votes or vote-rigging in the 2020 election. You can be mad about the 
fact that States allow for mail-in voting; but Republican and 
Democratic States allow for it. You can be angry that the majority of 
those votes this year were cast in favor of Joe Biden in many of these 
States, but in previous years, the majority of mail-in votes had been 
favoring Republicans.
  But no matter the lack of evidence about voter fraud, Republicans, 
including the President, have just come to the conclusion that 
Democrats must have cheated because Democrats are evil, and lots of 
people show up to Donald Trump rallies. You know, there is just no way 
that all of these people could have voted for Joe Biden because FOX 
News and Newsmax and RT--they tell us that Trump is just so popular.
  This mindset won't win out this time. Joe Biden is going to be 
President. But what about next time? What if the next Presidential 
election is closer? What if 2024 comes down to just one State? It is a 
lot easier to steal one State. What if these radical anti-Democrats get 
control of more secretary of state offices or election boards and there 
is a close race for Governor in 2022 or the U.S. Senate, and these same 
people who support the Texas lawsuit decide again that there is no way 
a Democrat could have won our State, and so by definition it has to be 
fraudulent, despite the lack of evidence, so let's just throw out the 
result and choose a Republican?
  I know this kind of sounds farfetched, but this is exactly what this 
lawsuit is asking for. It is asking for the vote to be thrown out in 
four States and Donald Trump to be named President regardless of the 
fact that he lost, with no evidence of any voter fraud or illegal 
behavior.
  There is a majority of the U.S. House of Representatives Republican 
caucus who supports this, so it stands to reason that this won't all of 
a sudden stop being their position 2 years from now and 4 years from 
now. If that happens and the voters' will is thrown out--not just in a 
Presidential election but in a Governor's race or a U.S. Senate race or 
a congressional race--then our country will no longer be a democracy. 
If that happens, the American experiment will be done. It will be over.
  That is why this moment is so frightening, no matter the fact that it 
is not going to be successful in an attempt to keep Donald Trump 
barricaded in the White House. That is why more Republicans than just a 
handful in this country need to be standing up to this lawsuit and this 
claim that the vote should be thrown out, because you have a majority 
of Republicans in this country who believe that Joe Biden won the 
election fraudulently when there is no evidence that that happened. 
That belief, as it festers and it grows--this idea that if Democrats 
win, it has to be because of fraud--it does eventually lead to the 
voters' will being overturned, and that will be the end of American 
democracy.
  Don't just assume that this system is going to be around for another 
240 years. It is a miracle that we have held this together thus far. It 
is just a series of choices that we make. The Constitution itself is 
not strong enough, is not durable enough without all of us making a 
decision that even if we lose an election, even if that means that 
temporarily our political power is lessened,

[[Page S7439]]

that we accept the result because what matters most in this country is 
what the voters choose, not how it affects us.
  It is not enough to just punt here and say ``Ah, the President has a 
right to go to court; let's just see what happens'' because when the 
overthrow of democracy is beginning and you are sitting on the 
sidelines, you are a collaborator. And there are way too many high-
profile Republicans who march around the world giving speeches about 
the importance of protecting democracy who are awfully silent when the 
attempted overthrow is happening in their own country. Nobody can stay 
silent right now.
  There are a lot of other important things happening in the Senate 
today. I am engaged in those as well. It is true, this effort to 
overthrow the 2020 election is not going to bear fruit, and so it is 
tempting to just work on the other things and to ignore this lawsuit 
and these attempts because this time, it won't be successful. But all 
of this effort, supported by so many mainstream Republicans, is setting 
a precedent and is creating conditions that could easily overthrow the 
next election. If the Republican Party just allows for this assault on 
the 2020 election to continue, no matter whether it ultimately is 
successful, then by 2022 or 2024, I am telling you, it might be too 
late to save our democracy.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Coronavirus

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, since last fall, right after the new year, 
our country, like the rest of the planet, became embroiled in a 
pandemic, sending fear, shock, illness, and fatalities. As we tried to 
respond, we were forced to make hard decisions--I am talking about a 
collective ``we''--in terms of economic activity, children going to 
school, businesses staying open.
  And many businesses simply could not, and many of the workers who 
worked at those locations simply were out of luck. You can imagine the 
anxiety and the fear of many Americans who, through no fault of their 
own, found themselves fearful of the virus and the consequences 
associated with it, fearful for the possibility that their loved ones--
let's say, a parent or grandparent who is especially vulnerable because 
of their age or somebody because of their underlying chronic health 
conditions--were more likely to be a fatality, to lose their life, if 
they were infected with the virus.
  This is something we haven't experienced perhaps in the last 100 
years, since the great flu pandemic at the turn of the last century.
  Congress responded the best we could. We knew we had to act quickly, 
and we knew we had to act in a big way. I am proud of the fact that, in 
the face of this pandemic, Congress came together, setting aside 
partisan agendas, and we passed four pieces of legislation to address, 
first of all, the public health crisis but, secondly, the economic 
fallout associated with mitigation efforts. In other words, we did what 
Americans always do in a time of crisis: We pulled together.
  I am proud of what we were able to accomplish. But at the end of 
March of this year, when we passed the last CARES Act legislation, we 
didn't have any idea how long this was going to last. We had no idea 
that we would be here now in December of 2020 and still grappling with 
how to contain this virus and dealing with the economic fallout 
associated with it.
  Thank goodness we made a priority of providing resources to our 
medical scientists and the pharmaceutical industry that have now come 
up with therapies and treatments which are saving more lives. Fewer 
people who get the virus are actually dying, thanks to the expertise of 
our healthcare providers and the therapeutics that they are able to 
administer--saving many, many lives.
  But the golden bullet in all of this is the vaccine. I am hopeful 
that we in America--that the Food and Drug Administration will 
promptly, and I expect they will, approve the use of some of the 
vaccines that have been developed, once it is determined they are safe 
and effective.
  So I think this is like the cavalry arriving, and the cavalry is 
nearby and will soon be here. Then we will prioritize the people in the 
country who will get the vaccine, as we should. I think the folks who 
have been on the frontlines, the so-called essential workers--I tend to 
think of all work as being essential, but certainly the healthcare 
providers, the people who had to show up. They couldn't hunker down at 
home. They had to show up for work because we needed them to do that in 
order to protect the rest of us.
  But then we ought to go through the elderly, people with underlying 
health diseases, schoolteachers, and others to help us get our children 
back to school. The list goes on and on.
  But what I am not proud of is the embarrassing insensitivity of our 
Democratic colleagues, starting with the Senator from New York, the 
Democratic leader, when it comes to people's fear about the 
consequences associated with the pandemic that relate to the liability 
that may ultimately be imposed upon them because they didn't guess it 
right the first time.
  I am talking about lawsuits by people who will sue, claiming--I am 
sure many with some merit--that they have suffered as a result of this 
virus and attempt to pin the responsibility on some business, some 
school, some church, some synagogue, some mosque, anywhere where they 
might have gotten the virus. Anybody with a liability insurance policy, 
I am sure, will be fair game by the trial lawyers.

  And I am not here to disparage members of the legal profession. I 
happen to be one. But I do know that we ought to be focused on what is 
the greatest good for the greatest number, and we shouldn't let the 
tail wag the dog when it comes to providing commonsense liability 
protection, which is what brings me to the floor this afternoon.
  I heard the Senator from New York give a fevered speech about what he 
called corporate immunity, as if our desire to provide some 
predictability and some fairness in the context of civil liability was 
somehow a desire to protect nameless, faceless corporations. That is 
wrong, and that is why I came to the floor--to say it is wrong and to 
explain why it is wrong.
  The minority leader tries to frame this as a green light for big, bad 
businesses to ignore public health guidelines and to put every person 
who walks through their door in danger of contracting COVID-19. That is 
a false narrative. That is not true.
  For starters, what we have proposed is not blanket immunity. No one 
wants to give--let's say somebody is running a meatpacking plant and 
one of the workers shows up and says: Boss, I don't feel very good 
today; I think I may have something. And he says: You shut up; go to 
work. And they end up having the virus and infect all their peers and 
fellow employees.
  That is reckless and intentional misconduct, and we do not limit 
lawsuits based on reckless and intentional misconduct at all. So this 
is not a ``get out of jail free'' card or whatever you want to call it. 
This will not protect the people who recklessly put other people in 
danger of this virus.
  In cases of gross negligence or willful misconduct, where the 
applicable public health guidance is not followed, the person who 
suffered a harm has every right to sue and be made whole, and no one--
no one--wants to change that.
  But what we do need to acknowledge is that we are all living through 
what I hope is a once-in-a-lifetime catastrophe for everybody involved, 
so I don't think we should be creating an opportunity for people who 
want to profit off of this pandemic to do so, particularly when a 
handful of people will presumably benefit from what the Democratic 
leader is proposing--no liability shield--and hundreds of millions of 
Americans will benefit from it.
  These are unprecedented times, to be sure, much like we owe the 
American people more support, and that is part of what is being blocked 
by the demands of the Democratic leader to eliminate any sort of 
liability shield. We need to put some safeguards in place to ensure 
that those who are operating in good faith and following all the 
relevant public health guidelines cannot be sued out of existence. 
Imagine if you are a small business, hanging on by a thread. Somehow 
you have applied for your PPP loan, your paycheck protection loan, and 
you have been able to hang on to your business and

[[Page S7440]]

keep your employees on the payroll--somehow, some way.
  Well, if you face the prospect of limitless liability, opportunistic 
litigation is going to cost you a lot of money and all of your energy 
just to defend, even if the claim is meritless. You might think twice--
probably more than twice--about whether you want to stay in business, 
whether you want to keep those jobs, whether you want to contribute to 
our economy.
  We need those people. We need those businesses and those jobs. And I 
am not talking about the trial lawyers. They will be fine. They are not 
disadvantaged by having to hunker down, wondering where the next 
paycheck will come from. They will be fine.
  But there are a lot of people who are hurting, and it causes me great 
distress to see us--at least some of us--oblivious to the pain, the 
anguish, and the desperation of so many Americans.
  The number of suicides is up dramatically. The number of reports of 
child sexual abuse is down because kids aren't going to school where 
their teachers, hopefully, will be trained to help identify those 
people.
  People are self-medicating with drugs and alcohol. People are 
suffering mental health crises. And some folks here in Congress act 
like, that doesn't affect me; it is not my problem. It is shocking to 
me that there are some who seem to have that approach.
  The minority leader knows the facts. When he talks about corporate 
immunity, he wants to frame it in the most negative light possible, 
which, of course, is why he said that.
  What we are proposing will help people. It will help medical workers, 
doctors, nurses, aides at hospitals--those who have been on the 
frontlines trying to save lives. They didn't have any choice but to 
show up. They didn't ask ``Well, are your liability insurance premiums 
paid up at the hospital?'' or ``Maybe I need to up my limits because I 
know I am going to get sued after this.'' They didn't ask those kinds 
of questions; they went and did the job we wanted them to do, and God 
bless them for it.
  What we are proposing will help a lot more people, a lot more 
organizations. And by that, I mean not just businesses; it will help 
nonprofits, and it will help restaurants that have tried to follow the 
guidelines and opened at limited capacity, as they have gotten guidance 
from the local and State and national officials. This will help 
everybody.
  First, it will help, as I said, our healthcare heroes, the brave men 
and women who have led in this battle for months. They have made 
tremendous physical and mental sacrifices to save lives, but without 
some liability protection from Congress, they could soon find 
themselves staring down the barrel of a wave of medical malpractice 
lawsuits.
  I hope the minority leader will see why this can't happen. New York 
State did. His State acted to provide medical liability protection for 
healthcare workers in his State. We need to make sure that the kinds of 
things that his State did for healthcare workers in New York are 
expanded to include others around the country. We need to ensure that 
our healthcare workers aren't taken to the cleaners for doing 
everything in their power in good faith to respond to the crisis.
  Again, the protections his State has provided set a willful 
misconduct or gross negligence standard for coronavirus medical 
liability suits to ensure that only legitimate cases are brought 
against healthcare workers in New York. If that is good enough for New 
Yorkers, for his constituents, why deny the same protection to my 
constituents or the Presiding Officer's constituents or everybody else 
who is on the frontlines of fighting this battle during these 
unprecedented times?
  I know the minority leader got a letter this summer from a long list 
of national medical associations, which represent hundreds of thousands 
of healthcare workers, calling for these very same types of 
protections. That letter detailed the challenges these workers were up 
against and, you can imagine, scarce personal protective equipment.
  It would be the easiest thing in the world to blame those healthcare 
workers for not adequately providing personal protective equipment and 
somehow contributing to the spread of the disease when we know that due 
to China's actions--hoarding a lot of the PPE that they themselves 
manufactured--when they didn't tell the rest of the world that the 
virus was running rampant in China, they were hoarding that PPE, making 
it less available to local hospitals and doctors for the benefit of 
their patients.
  So it would be easy to see, now looking back with the benefit of 
hindsight, that somebody said: Well, you knew or should have known you 
didn't have adequate PPE to take care of your patients. As my dad 
always liked to say--he said: Hindsight is 20/20.
  That is just one example. These groups who wrote to the Democratic 
leader said that these physicians and other healthcare professionals 
are now facing the threat of years of costly litigation due to the 
extraordinary circumstances. And these are the same institutions, the 
doctors and the hospitals, that we have sent hundreds of billions of 
dollars to, and now we want to throw them to the wolves? We can't allow 
our healthcare heroes to wake up in this pandemic only to find 
themselves facing a legal nightmare.
  But as I have said, it is not just healthcare workers who need our 
help. The list of organizations and institutions that rely on this 
legislation is a long one. There are, for example, our public schools, 
our colleges, our universities, which have tried to adapt in trying 
circumstances and are trying to allow our K-12 students and our young 
people who attend our colleges and universities an opportunity to 
continue their education safely, to the best of their ability.
  A number of national groups representing education leaders, including 
superintendents, school boards, and other leaders, sent a letter to 
Senator Schumer and other congressional leaders about the urgent need 
for these protections. They said: ``We believe any protections should 
be limited in scope and preserve recourse for those harmed by truly bad 
actors who engage in egregious misconduct.'' And I agree with that. 
That is exactly the type of protection we have proposed.
  I am looking at a letter--it is dated May 28, 2020--from the American 
Council on Education which I think does a pretty good job of summing of 
what I just described, the challenges that our educators and our 
students and our administrators are facing trying to get back to some 
semblance of normalcy, because we all understand the importance of 
providing our next generation of leaders with a good education.
  In this letter from ACE, the American Council on Education, Ted 
Mitchell, its president, writes:

       Unfortunately, all colleges and universities, two- and 
     four-year, public and private nonprofit, are facing 
     unprecedented challenges as a result of the COVID-19 
     pandemic. The impact on the operations and revenues of many 
     institutions has been catastrophic, for some even 
     existential, which has had a terrible ripple effect in 
     communities large and small. The pandemic is also causing 
     massive disruption to students and families. Many are 
     grappling with sudden changes to their financial 
     circumstances.
       In the wake of prior crises, Congress came together to pass 
     timely and targeted liability protections with strong 
     bipartisan support because lawmakers understood the acute 
     economic threat of lawsuits at moments of maximum economic 
     vulnerability. While Congress has acted to provide some 
     limited COVID-related liability protections for volunteer 
     healthcare providers and some manufacturers of PPE in the 
     CARES Act, much more needs to be done. While some governors 
     and state legislatures have enacted COVID-19 liability 
     limitations, this is a national problem requiring a national 
     solution.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
this letter following my remarks
  The president and executive director of the American Dental 
Association wrote a letter thanking the Judiciary Committee for 
reviewing liability protections and asking Congress to pass these 
reforms. Similar to the other comments that have been made by other 
organizations, they said: ``While safeguarding their patients, their 
staff, and themselves from the spread of COVID-19, dental practices 
must also safeguard their businesses from bad-faith actors pursuing 
frivolous financial gain for coronavirus injuries.''
  We have heard from a long list of groups, and it is not the Fortune 
500, like the Democratic leader has proposed. This isn't corporate 
protection. This is common sense. This is what we have done before--in 
connection with

[[Page S7441]]

Y2K, in connection with 9/11, in connection with providing some limited 
liability protection to pharmaceutical companies that we depend upon to 
produce vaccines that will save lives. Those are all examples where 
Congress has come together with a national response to a national 
crisis.
  We have heard concerns from everything from the U.S. Youth Soccer 
worried about their volunteers being sued, the American Heart 
Association worried about their fundraisers, churches worried about 
their ability to serve their communities with this cloud hanging over 
their heads. So who is acting in bad faith here? Not the schools. Not 
the charities. Not the healthcare providers who are calling for the 
limited protections this legislation would provide. No, it is the trial 
bar. It is the trial lawyers who are trying to use this pandemic to 
make money.
  I am not here, again, to disparage members of the legal profession. I 
am just saying, who are we here going to bat for? Are we going to bat 
for a small group of wealthy lawyers, or are we going to bat for 330 
million Americans? That is the choice, it seems to me. And the 
Democratic leader is carrying water for that wealthy elite minority, 
the members of the trial bar, by mischaracterizing this effort and 
blocking relief for his own constituents.
  Again, Governor Cuomo apparently was able to do this by some form of 
executive action, was able to provide some liability protections for 
medical malpractice lawsuits in New York. I wonder if the Democratic 
leader would come to the floor and call that corporate protection. No. 
It made sense. Good for Governor Cuomo, and shame on us if we don't do 
something similar.
  I want to close on another ironic statement by the Democratic leader 
this morning. He said: The American people deserve an outcome. I agree 
with that. But he said: It is not going to happen if the Republican 
majority insists on getting 100 percent of its partisan demands.
  Well, we are not insisting on 100 percent, but how about the 80 
percent we can agree on? That just makes sense to me. They are the ones 
who are killing the COVID-19 relief bill by their insistence that no 
liability protections be included in this bill. It is the Wild Wild 
West, and they want to keep it just like that.
  The Democratic leader has been the one who has held up negotiations 
over the last several months. By my count, our Democratic leaders have 
blocked at least three, maybe four pieces of COVID-19 relief. That was 
at a time when they could have worked with us to make the bills better 
and to provide timely relief to our constituents, but no--they refused 
to accept anything short of a partisan, multitrillion-dollar bill that 
passed the House earlier this year, that Nancy Pelosi knew would never 
have a prayer of passing because it included such unrelated matters as 
tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires in places like New York and 
California and included diversity studies on the marijuana industry. 
What in the heck does that have to do with COVID-19? They claimed that 
anything less than that $3-trillion white elephant was unworkable, so 
they gave our efforts the Heisman and allowed the distress from the 
pandemic to go on for months and months and months while they blocked 
every attempt to deliver relief to the American people.
  Liability protections--commonsense liability protections for a 
limited period of time, which are not designed to take over State tort 
law on a permanent basis--we can agree on what the timeframe should be, 
but liability protections will allow our most important and vulnerable 
institutions and people to recover from this crisis, and I believe the 
Democratic leader would be wise to acknowledge that and work with us 
and get a result.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                American Council on Education,

                                                     May 28, 2020.
     Re COVID-19 Limited Liability Protections.

     Representative Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Senator Mitch McConnell,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Representative Kevin McCarthy,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Senator Chuck Schumer,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi, Minority Leader McCarthy, Leader 
     McConnell, and Minority Leader Schumer: On behalf of the 
     American Council on Education and the undersigned higher 
     education associations, I am writing today to urge you to 
     quickly enact temporary and targeted liability protections 
     related to the COVID-19 pandemic. While these crucial 
     protections are likely necessary for many sectors of the 
     American economy, this letter focuses on the need to 
     safeguard higher education institutions and systems, 
     affiliated nonprofits, and healthcare providers and 
     facilities from excessive and speculative lawsuits arising 
     out of the pandemic.
       Encouraging, enabling, and supporting the safe reopening of 
     college and university campuses for in-person learning is 
     essential to educating our nation's future workforce, 
     preserving employment for millions, and helping restart 
     America's economy. As colleges and universities contemplate 
     whether and how to safely reopen this fall, their overriding 
     concern is keeping students, faculty, staff, and local 
     communities safe. These decisions are not premised on making 
     a trade-off between safety and the economy. Nor are 
     institutions of higher education seeking a free pass to avoid 
     responsibility, much less immunize themselves for their own 
     or others' bad acts.
       But as colleges and universities assess how quickly and 
     completely campuses can resume full operations, they are 
     facing enormous uncertainty about COV1D-19-related standards 
     of care and corresponding fears of huge transactional costs 
     associated with defending against COVID-19 spread lawsuits, 
     even when they have done everything within their power to 
     keep students, employees, and visitors safe. To blunt the 
     chilling effect this will have on otherwise reasonable 
     decision-making leading to our nation's campuses resuming 
     operations in a safe and sensible manner, we ask that 
     Congress quickly enact temporary COVID-19-related liability 
     protections for higher education institutions and systems, 
     affiliated entities, as well as their faculty, staff and 
     volunteers. These protections should be conditioned on 
     following applicable public health standards, and they should 
     preserve recourse for those harmed by truly bad actors who 
     engage in egregious misconduct.
       Colleges and universities, including their health care 
     facilities and research enterprises, are engaged in every 
     sector of critical infrastructure necessary to support 
     American communities. In addition to educating and training 
     our country's future workforce, they provide health services, 
     cultural resources, spectator sports venues, and recreational 
     amenities to their communities. Our medical schools, teaching 
     hospitals, and research labs are working around the clock to 
     find the best treatments and vaccines for COV1D-19. Moreover, 
     our higher education institutions maintain full service 
     utilities, telecommunications, and computing networks; they 
     provide housing and food services; and they operate 
     transportation networks, hotels, retail shops, daycares, 
     gyms, and museums. To support this broad array of activities, 
     they directly employ tens of thousands of skilled workers in 
     various trades, from electricians and linemen to plumbers and 
     HVAC technicians; from landscapers and painters to carpenters 
     and fabricators.
       Unfortunately, all colleges and universities, two- and 
     four-year, public and private nonprofit, are facing 
     unprecedented challenges as a result of the COVID-19 
     pandemic. The impact on the operations and revenues of many 
     institutions has been catastrophic, for some even 
     existential, which has had a terrible ripple effect in 
     communities large and small. The pandemic is also causing 
     massive disruption to students and their families. Many are 
     grappling with sudden changes to their financial 
     circumstances.
       In the wake of prior crises, Congress came together to pass 
     timely and targeted liability protections with strong 
     bipartisan support because lawmakers understood the acute 
     economic threat of lawsuits at moments of maximum economic 
     vulnerability. While Congress has acted to provide some 
     limited COVID-19-related liability protections for volunteer 
     healthcare providers and some manufacturers of PPE in the 
     CARES Act, much more must be done. While some governors and 
     state legislatures have enacted COVID-19 liability 
     limitations, this is a national problem requiring a national 
     solution.
       Higher education's need for temporary and targeted 
     liability protections and relief is clear. Now is the time 
     for Congress to act.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Ted Mitchell,
                                                        President.

       On behalf of:
       Achieving the Dream, American Association of Colleges of 
     Nursing, American Association of Colleges for Teacher 
     Education, American Association of Collegiate Registrars and 
     Admissions Officers, American Association of Community 
     Colleges, American Association of State Colleges and 
     Universities, American College Health Association, 
     American Council on Education, American Dental Education 
     Association, American Indian Higher Education Consortium, 
     APPA, ``Leadership in Educational Facilities'', Associated 
     Colleges of the Midwest, Association for Biblical Higher 
     Education,

[[Page S7442]]

     Association of Advanced Rabbinical and Talmudic Schools, 
     Association of American Colleges and Universities, 
     Association of American Medical Colleges, Association of 
     American Universities, Association of Catholic Colleges 
     and Universities, Association of Community College 
     Trustees.
       Association of Governing Boards of Universities and 
     Colleges, Association of Independent California Colleges and 
     Universities, Association of Independent Colleges & 
     Universities of Rhode Island, Association of Independent 
     Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts, Association of 
     Independent Colleges and Universities of Ohio, Association of 
     Independent Colleges and Universities of Pennsylvania 
     (AICUP), Association of Independent Colleges of Art & Design, 
     Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, Association 
     of Public and Land-grant Universities, Association of 
     Research Libraries, Association of Vermont Independent 
     Colleges, College and University Professional Association for 
     Human Resource, Commission on Independent Colleges and 
     Universities-NYS, Conference for Mercy Higher Education, 
     Connecticut Conference of Independent Colleges, Council for 
     Advancement and Support of Education, Council for Christian 
     Colleges & Universities, Council of Graduate Schools, Council 
     for Higher Education Accreditation, Council of Independent 
     Colleges, Council of Independent Colleges in Virginia, 
     Council of Independent Nebraska Colleges, EDUCAUSE, Great 
     Lakes Colleges Association.
       Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, 
     Independent Colleges and Universities of Florida, Independent 
     Colleges and Universities of Missouri, Independent Colleges 
     of Indiana, Independent Colleges of Washington, Kansas 
     Independent College Association, Louisiana Association of 
     Independent Colleges and Universities, Maryland Independent 
     College and University Association, Midwestern Higher 
     Education Compact, Missouri Colleges Fund, Inc., NASPA--
     Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education, National 
     Association of College and University Business Officers, 
     National Association of Independent Colleges and 
     Universities, National Association of Schools and Colleges of 
     the United Methodist Church, National Collegiate Athletic 
     Association, Network of Colleges and Universities, 
     Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
       New England Board of Higher Education, North Carolina 
     Independent Colleges and Universities, Northwest Commission 
     on Colleges and Universities, Ohio Foundation of Independent 
     Colleges, Online Learning Consortium, Oregon Community 
     College Association, South Carolina Independent Colleges and 
     Universities, Southern Association of Colleges and Schools 
     Commission on Colleges, Southern Regional Education Board, 
     State Higher Education Executive Officers Association, 
     Tennessee Independent Colleges and Universities Assoc., UNCF 
     (United Negro College Fund, Inc.), UPCEA, Virginia Foundation 
     for Independent Colleges, West Virginia Independent Colleges 
     & Universities, Western Interstate Commission for Higher 
     Education, Wisconsin Association of Independent Colleges and 
     Universities.


                               H.R. 6395

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate has before it today the result 
of a compromise. The conference report that will result in the adoption 
of the National Defense Authorization Act--NDAA--for fiscal year 2021 
is neither the bill the Senate approved, nor the one the House passed. 
I am pleased that this conference report cures many of the problems 
that led to my vote to oppose the Senate bill. Specifically, the 
conference report is void of the authority for funds to support testing 
of a new nuclear device, which was included in the Senate bill. This 
sends an important message to the world about Congress's support for 
U.S. leadership in armed control.
  Further, the conference report advances the progress we have made 
with regard to Vietnam. This NDAA sends a clear message that Congress 
believes in the importance of cooperation with Vietnam, both to advance 
our shared security interests and to address some of the worst 
consequences of that war. The conference report will extend the 
authorization for the Department of Defense to help decontaminate the 
Bien Hoa Airbase from the lingering poison of dioxin, and it includes 
new authorization to help the Government of Vietnam locate and identify 
some of its hundreds of thousands of MIAs, as they have helped us 
locate our own MIAs over so many years.
  The bill will also help the veterans of that war who were exposed to 
dioxin. The expansion of presumption of exposure included in this bill 
will mean that Americans suffering from a number of linked ailments can 
spend their time seeking treatment, rather than jumping through 
bureaucratic and legal hoops. For many veterans exposed to airborne 
toxic substances through burn pits, this bill also includes a number of 
provisions to make it easier to identify their exposure and for them to 
make connections needed while seeking medical care. It continues the 
march towards rectifying the Department of Defense's PFOS/PFOA usage. 
While there is much to be done in both these areas, this is a positive 
step forward.
  This bill is imperfect, but of particular concern to me is the 
addition in conference, without proper vetting or evaluation, of 
several provisions that undermine the Freedom of Information Act, our 
Nation's premier transparency law. Many of these provisions were in 
neither the Senate nor the House bill. For a number of years, I have 
worked in a bipartisan manner with other members of the Judiciary 
Committee to consult with the Senate Armed Services Committee to 
provide the feedback and expertise in FOIA matters, as it relates to 
proposals within the NDAA. That inclusive process, where committees of 
jurisdiction are consulted on their areas of expertise, has ensured 
that the NDAA does not become a vehicle for unwise or harmful policies.
   This time, however, a number of provisions needlessly piercing holes 
in FOIA were inserted during conference negotiations without any 
consultation with the Judiciary Committee. Unsurprisingly, a process 
that took place behind closed doors resulted in policies undermining 
the American people's ability to know what their government is doing. 
Unfortunately, this is slowly becoming a routine practice, and it must 
not happen again. I want to put everyone on notice: I will insist that 
the Judiciary Committee and those of us who worked for many years on 
these matters are consulted on provisions that fall within the purview 
of our committee before they are included in the NDAA. That 
consultation process has produced good outcomes for the American people 
for years. Let's not change it now.
  With these concerns in mind, on balance, this is a defense 
authorization bill that I will support. It advances our efforts to 
reconcile with our history and address the naming of our military bases 
after Confederate generals, something over which the President 
inexplicably threatened to veto the bill. It rejects the President's 
demands to repeal section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 
something that advances his personal war, but which demands careful 
consideration and should not be used as hostage bait.
  This conference report authorizes over $740 billion in spending. The 
defense of our Nation and our international role in providing security 
and promoting stability demand significant investments. I hope, 
however, that in future years, Congress will thoughtfully consider the 
skewed balance of our defense investments against other critical 
domestic needs. These are difficult questions, but ones that demand 
debate and honest review.


   Vote on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021--
                           Conference Report

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all postcloture time 
has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the adoption of the conference report.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Rounds).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 84, nays 13, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 264 Leg.]

                                YEAS--84

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gardner

[[Page S7443]]


     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Loeffler
     Manchin
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--13

     Booker
     Braun
     Cotton
     Cruz
     Hawley
     Kennedy
     Lee
     Markey
     Merkley
     Paul
     Sanders
     Warren
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Graham
     Harris
     Rounds
  The conference report is agreed to
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________