Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in a few moments we are going to vote on the motion to proceed to H.R. 8337, the Continuing Appropriations Act of 2021 and Other Extensions Act of 2020. I will speak a little bit about what is in there, but I will urge all Members to vote aye. The bill provides funding for the government through December 11 at fiscal year 2020 funding levels. It will be under the same terms and conditions contained in the fiscal year 2020 appropriations laws. These were the laws that Chairman Shelby and I brought to the floor and have been voted on. It includes several authorization matters to extend programs that otherwise would expire, including some important health and veteran programs. So as vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I support the bill, but I am disappointed that it is needed at all. As I have said many times, we had ample--ample time in the Senate to complete our work on the 12 appropriations bills, but we didn't mark up a single one. In June, July, we could have passed all 12 of them, but the majority leader wouldn't even bring up a single one of them. Apparently, he is more interested in confirming extreme rightwing judges than moving legislation to address the needs of the American people, including appropriations bills or critical legislation to combat the COVID virus and its impact on families and the economy. I chuckle, too, in a way ruefully because, of course, my friends on the other side--especially if there is a Democratic administration--say they must follow the Thurman rule, named after their revered former President pro tempore from the Republican side, that you cannot have any confirmations after the first of July. But, of course, they have forgotten their own Republican rule when they have a Republican President. We all know the facts on that, but I think what the American people have to understand is that because of the time we spent on that, because of the refusal to even allow 1--even 1--of the 12 appropriations bills to come up for a vote and allow everybody to either vote for it or against it--and with Republicans having a majority, if they didn't like anything in it, they could vote it down. But saying that, no, we want to talk about it, but we are kind of afraid to actually have to vote on it--I don't know why we are afraid to vote. That is what we get elected to do. I have cast over 16,000 votes in this body. Actually, I was told today that is more than all but 1 of the nearly 2,000 Senators who have served here. But what we have done is we have conceded we can't do our most basic job of completing appropriations bills on time, and in doing that, we have failed to address an unprecedented health and economic crisis for months. Last week more than 870,000 Americans filed for unemployment benefits for the first time. It is not 870,000 Americans who have filed in the past; this is 870,000 Americans filing for unemployment benefits for the first time. That is because of this pandemic. Kitchen cabinets across the country are bare as families struggle without enough to eat. Schools do not have enough resources to teach our children at home or protect them inside the classroom. This is infuriating. I think Senator Shelby and I could have gotten those 12 bills. On some parts of them, some would vote for it; some would vote against it. But we were ready to vote back in June and July. In the meantime, we now have 200,000 Americans who have died, and we have yet to vote. I am afraid that what the President wants to do--and my friends on the Republican side--is cast aside the desperate needs of the American people in favor of government on autopilot. Apparently, right now, they are more concerned with securing a hyperpartisan Supreme Court than the health and safety of the American people and are doing the most basic job of Congress. It is that simple. I will have more to say about the continuing resolution in the coming days as we move forward toward final passage. But the last thing our country needs is a government shutdown in the middle of a global pandemic and an unprecedented economic crisis. I regret that leadership would not allow us to vote on these appropriations bills because I am convinced we would have had enough Republicans and Democrats who would have come together and passed all 12 of them if we had been allowed to vote, even though it means that some would have to cast difficult votes, but that is what we are here for. For this one, while it is far from perfect, I will urge all Members to vote aye on the motion to proceed Mr. President, I see my distinguished colleague on the floor is ready to speak, so I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, agriculture has always been at the heart of Vermont's economy. For generations, families across Vermont have made a living through agriculture, tilling our rocky soil and raising livestock on our hillsides. Farming in Vermont has always been a challenging yet very rewarding way of life. Now more than ever, it is clear to see the obstacles faced by farmers. I would like to take a moment to recognize Gold Shaw Farm, a farm founded by a husband and wife team in northeastern Vermont. Morgan and Allison Gold, the owners of Gold Shaw Farm, have found a very interesting way to meet these challenges, supplement their agricultural income, adapt their practices, and share their work with the world. Morgan and Allison Gold moved to Peacham, VT, and established their farm in 2016. On their 150-acre plot, the Golds raise chickens, geese, ducks, and sheep and cultivate a variety of vegetables and berries. Soon after they started farming, the Golds began filming their daily activities and posting them on YouTube. The farm may be small, but over the years, Gold Shaw Farm has amassed a very large and loyal fan base that tune in regularly to watch as Morgan and Allison collect eggs, chase ducks, and play with their dog, Toby. Some of the farm's fans have even driven all the way to Peacham to buy eggs and visit the farm. With the help of their growing audience, the Golds hope to expand their farm into a larger sustainable operation. Starting and maintaining a farm is challenging work, but in the Golds' model, we see innovative and creative ways to not only document farming experiences, but share those experiences with the world and hopefully inspire a new generation of farmers. I look forward to tuning in to watch their progress. Earlier this year, the Golds were profiled in The New York Times, and I ask unanimous consent that the article, ``In a Wistful Age, Farmers Find a New Angle: Chores'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am here with an incredibly heavy heart. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg--a tireless, legendary champion of equality who reshaped our society for the better--passed away on Friday, the first eve of Rosh Hashanah. Adherents of the Jewish faith believe that a person who passes away during the High Holidays is a person of great righteousness. Truer words could not be spoken of Justice Ginsburg. Standing just over 5 feet tall, she was a giant among us, a moral beacon whose life and legacy have inspired millions of Americans to do their part to bring upon a more perfect and just union. We are all forever indebted to her. The Brooklyn-born daughter of working-class Jewish parents, the young girl who would become just the second woman to serve on the Supreme Court knew from early on she had to fight for a place in the world. And what a fighter she was. When she entered Harvard Law School in 1956, just 1 of 9 women in a class of over 500, the United States was truly a man's world. Women were expected to stay home and out of the workplace. Even when they had jobs, they could be fired for getting pregnant and they otherwise earned barely half of what men earned for the same work. Women couldn't get credit cards without their husband's consent. As Justice Ginsburg remarked some years later, these and other gender- based rules helped to ``keep women not on a pedestal, but in a cage.'' Justice Ginsburg refused to accept the status quo. She believed unwaveringly that equal justice under law fundamentally required gender equality. When she joined the ACLU's Women's Rights Project in the early 1970s, she waged a systematic legal campaign against gender discrimination, and she ultimately won five out of six of the cases she took to the Supreme Court. She eloquently and incisively convinced the then all-male Court to see--and strike down--the visible and invisible lines that kept the genders unequal. In Reed v. Reed, she convinced the Supreme Court for the very first time that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment barred discrimination on the basis of sex, enshrining constitutional protections for generations of women and men. During oral arguments, she spoke quietly yet confidently, piercing through dense legal arguments with moral clarity. In Frontiero v. Richardson, in which she convinced the Court to end gender discrimination in the administration of military benefits, her words resonate powerfully today. She said: In asking the Court to declare sex a suspect criterion . . . ``I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.'' Within a few short years, Justice Ginsburg had already empowered millions of American women through her zealous advocacy, granting them more autonomy over their lives, their bodies, and their careers. She was widely hailed as the Thurgood Marshall of women's rights. She could have simply rested on her laurels from that point forward. She was just getting started. In 1980, President Carter nominated her to be an appellate judge on the DC Circuit. I was so proud to vote for her confirmation back then, 40 years ago. There she developed a reputation as a pragmatic consensus seeker, often finding common ground and building friendships with conservative judges. One of the best known of those friendships was hers and Justice Antonin Scalia. It was no surprise that in 1993, President Bill Clinton selected Ruth Bader Ginsburg to be Justice of the Supreme Court. He called her--and I am rather proud to say that she and her husband were visiting Vermont, my home State, when she received the call. I still vividly remember her confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee as head Judiciary of the committee. She was the embodiment of humility and grace and strength and wisdom. She endured 4 long days of, at times, intense questioning from Senators of both sides of the aisle. Never once did she lose her poise. I remember that so well. I thanked her for fighting for a world in which my daughter would have opportunities equal to those of my two sons. Unsurprisingly, she was confirmed by a 96-to-3 vote, becoming just the second woman to ascend to our Nation's highest Court. My vote for her confirmation to the Supreme Court is among the most consequential and impactful I have cast as a Senator. This weekend, my wife Marcelle and I drove here to the Capitol. We walked over to the Supreme Court. We saw all the people around writing notes in chalk on the sidewalk, praising her, leaving flowers, leaving pictures. I really was struck by the number of teenagers and people probably in their early twenties who were just standing there sadly. I talked to a couple. We were all wearing our masks. I am sure they had no idea who I was. I talked to them. They all said in one word or another: She was our inspiration. I think of my own daughter when, a year ago, Justice Ginsburg was being honored by a congressional group against cancer. She asked my wife to introduce her. My wife is a cancer survivor. My wife brought our daughter as her guest, and they sat there. My daughter has told me so many times that it was one of the most meaningful times in her life to sit with a woman who had always been her hero. Marcelle and I just stood there in silence and thought of the memories of the times we had been with her and what she has done for this country. Over the course of nearly three decades, Justice Ginsburg secured a place as one of the most ardent defenders of equal rights for all Americans in Supreme Court history. She never tired of being a voice for the voiceless. She always tried to use her power--her power--to uplift the powerless. She authored the landmark majority opinion in United States v. Virginia, which struck down the Virginia Military Institute's male-only admissions policy as being unconstitutional. Her words still read like a treatise on what equality must mean in America: Laws or policies are ``presumptively invalid,'' she wrote, if they ``den[y] to women, simply because they are women, equal opportunity to aspire, achieve, participate in, and contribute to society.'' I think of my wife and my daughter, and I think of my three wonderful granddaughters. Even when she was in the minority, Justice Ginsburg did not go quietly. She always left an impact. In the Lilly Ledbetter case, where the majority ruled the claim of unequal pay was barred by an arbitrary statute of limitations, Justice Ginsburg retorted that the majority ``does not comprehend, or is indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination.'' She urged Congress to correct the Court's ``parsimonious reading.'' Two years later, we did just that. We passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, a copy of which she proudly hung in her chambers. It is a bill that I was so proud to help bring to fruition on the floor of this body. In Shelby County v. Holder, the disastrous decision to validate key provisions of the Voting Rights Act, Justice Ginsburg's dissent spoke truth to power. She wrote that throwing out key provisions of the Voting Rights Act ``when it has worked . . . to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.'' Of course, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was right. Since that decision, we have witnessed a torrent of voter suppression laws because the Supreme Court did not listen to her. That is why I championed the bipartisan John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to restore the Voting Rights Act. These drives for change, and many others, often began with two words from the Justice wearing the bejeweled collar: ``I dissent.'' All the greatness of Justice Ginsburg was matched in spades by her authentic goodness. I will always remember the Action for Cancer Awareness event I mentioned earlier that she and my wife Marcelle spoke at together last year. She was so genuinely kind to Marcelle, to me, and to all the people she interacted with. She loved people, so it is not surprising they loved her right back. It is not surprising. We saw tears in people who knew her and didn't know her as we stood in front of the Supreme Court this weekend. Justice Ginsburg became a beloved cultural icon, inspired books, movies, and even ``Saturday Night Live'' skits. Some of us did tease her about that, and she took it all in good humor. Her dogged public battle with cancer and her can-do attitude--in fact, she missed less than a handful of arguments despite her yearslong illness--inspired millions across the world. She gave hope to people she would never see and never meet, but they felt they knew her, and she gave them hope. Through it all, she never lost her humility. When asked how she would like to be remembered, Justice Ginsburg simply said: ``Just as someone who did whatever she could, with whatever limited talent she had, to move society along in the direction I would like it to be for my children and grandchildren.'' I am proud to stand on the floor of the Senate, as dean of this body, and say with certainty that she is going to be remembered for that and for so much more. She will be remembered long after any of us are. This incredible life and legacy should be the only story of today. Sadly, that is not the case. Instead of celebrating her life and her many contributions to our society, President Trump and the majority leader have forced our attention to turn to her vacancy on the Court days before she has even been laid to rest. In fact, immediately after the news of her passing, Senator McConnell announced that he would rush to replace her on the Court. Even as her family was standing there, mourning her, he made that announcement. He tossed aside all precedents and principles and declared his intent to ram through a nominee no matter the cost. Despite all of Senator McConnell's talk and promises 4 years ago--that, when a vacancy arises 269 days before a Presidential election, the American people should have a voice in deciding which President fills that vacancy, which is what he said when President Obama was the President--the majority leader is doing everything he can today to deny the American people a voice and, this time, with not 269 days but just 42 days remaining before a Presidential election. Seeking a fig leaf of institutional cover, the leader is trying to conjure up yet another rule today that, essentially, there was an unspoken exception to everything he promised in 2016. I guess I didn't hear that unspoken exception. Apparently, the American people do not get a voice when the White House and Senate are under the control of the same party. Pay no attention to the fact that this contradicts everything Leader McConnell and many other Republicans claimed to believe ad nauseam for 10 months in 2016. Yet even this desperate hair splitting falls flat on its face. If the majority leader's 2016 rule to let the American people decide only applies when there is a divided government, then the unprecedented 10-month blockade of Merrick Garland contradicted the confirmation of Justice Kennedy by a Democratic Senate during the election year of 1988. As did virtually every other Democrat, I was one who voted for this Republican nominee. The majority leader's abrupt about-face is not about following precedent, and it certainly isn't about principle. The blatant hypocrisy--and the belief that norms and principles apply only to the other party or apply only when nothing is at stake--is the result of something even more insidious. It is the direct result of the President's and the majority leader's wanting to bend the courts to their will no matter the cost--no matter the cost for the Senate and, certainly, no matter the cost for all of our courts across the country. I will have much more to say about this. Make no mistake, the actions that we take during these waning days of the Trump administration will forever stain or redeem this institution in which we proudly serve depending on whether we go along with this or not. The 100 Members of this body represent 330 million Americans. We are entrusted to act in their best interests. Through our actions in the weeks ahead, we risk forever eroding the American people's trust and faith in our independent judiciary, and our actions will have a lasting impact for good or for ill on every American's most basic rights--the rights of equality and fairness--that Justice Ginsburg spent her lifetime securing. We all know what we should do. We all know how we can make the U.S. Senate be as it should be--the conscience of the Nation. I fear that we are willing to close America's door on that conscience. Yet, today, I simply seek to honor Justice Ginsburg. She dedicated her life to the causes of equality and justice and made both a reality for millions of Americans. She has left us a rich legacy to cherish and, more importantly, to carry forward. We will be forever in her debt. A generation--actually, more than a generation--of women and all Americans have been inspired by her leadership and courage. Generations to come will have her trailblazing legacy to thank. Let's honor her memory by following her example, by recommitting ourselves to pursuing a more perfect union not just for the few--no, not just for the few-- but for all Americans. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, as we all know, we are in the middle of a public health crisis. The American people are hurting, from every State in our country. Nearly 190,000 people--our fellow citizens--have died. Millions have lost their jobs, and they are struggling to make ends meet. People are being evicted from their homes, and they are struggling to feed their families. The virus is still not under control. We know there is a need for another emergency funding bill. The need to address the COVID crisis is clear. This is something, actually, we could have done in July if we had been willing to actually do our job and vote on the appropriations bills after the House of Representatives had already shown the way, but 4 weeks ago, the Trump administration and the Senate Republican leadership walked away from the negotiating table. Democrats had offered a compromise. Republicans said ``My way or the highway'' and left town. They just walked away from the Capitol when we had all these things that needed to be done. Here we are. We are back 4 weeks later. Is the situation better? Of course not. Across the country, families are sending their children back to school without the necessary resources to ensure they are safe, and still more students are learning from home but often without reliable access to the internet. Evictions are rising. Families are struggling to find childcare. Unemployment is at the highest level I can remember--certainly unacceptable levels. States are preparing for November's elections without the resources they need to make sure people can safely vote. The Postal Service needs a serious injection of funding to deliver mail in a timely manner. It actually has consequences. I am for the right to negotiate. I was 4 weeks ago. I have been throughout the time the Senate has been out of session. I have been prepared to come back and negotiate. But now we find that, no, Republican leadership will not negotiate. Senator McConnell says he has prepared a so-called skinny COVID bill to put before the Senate. He will put it before us on a take-it-or- leave-it basis--no amendments, no debate. This proposal is not skinny; it is anemic. Why are they afraid to vote? Let's have amendments and vote them up or down. Is there any question as to why the American public wonders what is going on when the Republican leadership will not even allow a vote? What are they so afraid of? It is democracy. Vote up or down. The Republicans have a majority. If they don't like the amendments that come up, vote them down, but at least vote on them. Don't hide behind platitudes, tweets, and campaign ads, which you can do because you never actually have to take responsibility. You ought to vote. The bill hasn't been made public, but details are beginning to emerge. The details that have emerged show it is woefully inadequate to meet the needs of the country. In fact, it provides even less relief than the smaller, trillion-dollar package the Trump administration put forward before the Senate adjourned a month ago. I don't know where Republicans spent the last month, but I know where I was. I was all over the State of Vermont talking to Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, hearing what is on people's minds--not lobbyists, not special interests, but the people who have to pay the bills and who have to pay the consequences. I became even more convinced, not less, that we have dire needs in this country because of the coronavirus pandemic, and we have to address them, and soon. How any Senator went back to his or her home State and returned convinced that even less assistance is needed than when we left last month is baffling to me. That is why I am saying that every Senator can say where they stand, but the way they prove where they stand is to vote. Let's have the courage to stand up and vote yes or no, not a take-it- or-leave-it package that will be decided by one person, and nobody else would be able to vote anything differently. What are we? What are we--a bunch of ducks in a row, or are we U.S. Senators? Adding insult to injury, we now find that the bill ultimately provides sweeping liability shields for corporate bad actors who fail to do their part to keep consumers, employees, and patients safe. It tells you everything you need to know about the priorities of this Republican package--big corporations come ahead of struggling American families. Instead of the person who is trying to pay the bills and send their children back to school, who is making out in this bill? The lobbyists for multibillion-dollar insurance companies. They are already making billions of dollars. They don't have to worry about paying the bills. They don't have to worry about their children going back to school. They don't have to worry about jobs. And this bill gives them one more gift? How can we possibly say we support that and then go back home and say we are on the side of our people? If the majority leader wants to put this so-called skinny bill-- including a giveaway to the multibillion-dollar insurance companies-- well, do it the right way. Bring it here. Set up a real debate on the bill--debate that the country deserves and that I think a majority of the Republicans and Democrats would want. Open it to amendment--no limits. Let the process work--not a process that only rewards highly paid lobbyists for multibillion-dollar corporations, but allow Senators on both sides of the aisle to say: Here is where I stand with the people in my State who have to pay the bills, who have to send their kids back to school, who are trying to keep their jobs or keep their farms going, or whatever it might be. Let Members raise issues important to their constituents from any of the 50 States, and then vote on those issues: funding for State and local governments that are facing the brunt of the COVID response; money for schools so we can safely educate our Nation's children; rental assistance and eviction protections to help keep people in their homes; food assistance for hungry families so they don't go hungry in the wealthiest Nation on Earth; funding for our elections so we can ensure that people can safely vote and we can trust the results of the vote; big investments in testing and contact tracing because we know we can't begin to do the amount of testing and contact tracing we need to do today. Our economy is only going to come back when the American people are confident the virus is no longer a threat. I know the President said last winter that of course the virus will go away in the spring. Everybody in this Chamber, Republican and Democrat, knows he wasn't telling the truth on that. Of course it didn't go away. We are not going to have a recovery until we have confidence that the virus is no longer a threat. My friend Senator McConnell's skinny bill doesn't provide that confidence. So I say put these issues up for a vote. Take each one of these issues and vote it up or down. Let the American people see where each Member of this Chamber stands. I know where I stand. Do as Republican leaders in the past have done. Howard Baker, Bob Dole, and others are the great leaders. To my knowledge, with some of the amendments, they would say: OK, we will vote them up or we will vote them down. Why don't we do that? That is the way the Senate was designed. But this majority leader will not do what his predecessors have done. Why? Because on many of these issues, he knows he would lose. Not too many would be willing to vote for his giveaway to the lobbyists for the large insurance companies. A vote simply to move to this bill is just for show. It doesn't provide us an opportunity for real debate. It doesn't solve the problems facing the country. Show votes do nothing to combat the virus or give the American people the confidence to reopen the economy. In fact, I suggest just the opposite. The American people, seeing us doing just political showboating votes here, are going to have even less confidence that things will come back. Absent a real debate in the Senate, which clearly the other side of the aisle is afraid of, Republicans have to come back to the negotiating table. Restart bipartisan and bicameral talks on a comprehensive COVID relief package that can pass both Chambers. I hear Senators say, well, we can't vote on this or we can't vote on that because it might not be popular at home. My response in a case like that is, why do you want to be here? We have had nearly 2,000 Senators in this country. The Senator who voted the most in the Nation's history was Senator Bob Byrd, one of the longest serving Senators. He voted around 18,000 times. He was willing to stand for his vote. Out of those 2,000 Senators, the Senator who comes in second with the most votes is this Senator from Vermont. That is not just for longevity; that means I voted for things that I knew would hurt me politically, but I thought it was the right thing to do. I was willing to state to the people of Vermont: Here is where I stand. You can agree or disagree with me, but you know where I stand. One of the reasons the Senate is held in such disfavor in this country is that we don't vote. We don't have real debate. It is all one way or that way alone. Absent a real debate in the Senate, which clearly the Republican leader is afraid of, why don't the Republicans come back to the negotiating table and restart bipartisan, bicameral talks on a comprehensive COVID relief package that can pass both Chambers? We actually were prepared to do this in July. I remember saying: Why don't we bring up all the appropriations bills? The Republicans have the majority. They can vote them down if they don't like them, but let's bring them up and have a vote on them, one way or the other. No, we couldn't do it. Now Senator McConnell says he wants to do this process piecemeal: Pass a little bit now, a little bit later. Trust me, we can do that. Well, as Ronald Reagan would say, ``Trust, but verify.'' Let's have a real vote. Let's vote on all of it because we know that the majority leader will adjourn the Senate later this month to go home and campaign. It appears all he wants is a show vote on a woefully inadequate bill that he knows can never become law and then to get out of here. That is not a plan for action. That is not a real plan to pass a bill for the American people. It is unacceptable. Why don't we admit that the most important thing before us is what is happening with COVID and how we address it? Now, I know a lot of Republicans who have some very good ideas, and I know a lot of Democrats who have some very good ideas to address it. Let's bring them up. Let's vote on them--vote for them or vote against them. Don't say we are not going to allow a vote because we don't have time. We have plenty of time. We have plenty of time. Let's just stay here every day, go through weekends if need be, and just vote, vote up or down. We are running out of time. Right now, the majority leader intends to adjourn the Senate in just a few weeks. Well, the American people don't have that luxury. They can't just go home for a few weeks knowing their bills are being paid, their salary is being paid. They need our help. Why don't we do our job and vote these things up or down? Have the courage to say what you stand for. We could have, easily, 40 to 50 amendments--realistic amendments from both Republicans and Democrats--vote them up or down, and then have a bill that can go to conference. Every one of us knows we should have done that in July. We didn't. We could have done that in August. We didn't. It is September. Let's at least now do our job, uphold our oath of office, and pass the bill. Let's not be afraid of how we vote. I know, in my own votes, those 16,000-plus, somebody can find votes they disagree with. So what. I have the courage to vote. I call on my fellow Senators: Have the courage to vote. We are supposed to be the conscience of the Nation. Let's try to be. I see other Senators on the floor, eagerly awaiting their chance to give us their news. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as the coronavirus pandemic continues and in some places worsens, every business and public institution faces significant challenges. These entities must make hard choices, adapt quickly, and ultimately find the balance between the safety of their employees and those they serve and their ability to keep their doors open. The leadership and staff of one Vermont nonprofit, ECHO, Leahy Center for Lake Champlain, has been a model of perseverance, creativity, and commitment to serving the community during the COVID-19 pandemic, finding creative ways to bring their important programing and resources to the public. The center, located in Burlington, VT is dedicated to educating people of all ages and abilities about science, the natural environment, and the importance of protecting the Lake Champlain watershed and others like it. Recognizing the importance of equitable access to achieving this mission, the center utilizes several programs that break down financial barriers to its facilities and ensures that these educational opportunities are available to all. Most years see more than 167,000 visitors to this award-winning, LEED-certified facility on the Burlington shores of Lake Champlain. Visitors of all ages come to experience over 100 interactive exhibits and 70 different species of fish, amphibians, and reptiles that inhabit the ecosystem we call home. When COVID-19 began to spread throughout the northeast, the center, like so many businesses and facilities, was forced to close its doors to the public. But though they were unable to welcome visitors into the physical location, the center's dedicated staff were undeterred. After closing their doors on March 14, the staff drew on their considerable skills to quickly adapt to the new remote environment, offering a range of online learning tools, including educational videos, instructions for at-home science experiments, and live video feeds of animal exhibits in order to support local schools and families. They even continued remote programming for adults. including legislative updates on water quality work through the Clean Water Network and an LGBTQIA panel discussion during Pride Week. Some staff took it upon themselves, wearing masks of course, to stealthily clean out the shelves of the gift shop and set up remote centers of commerce from their own homes. Animal care staff reported to work without interruption, and the turtles and fish and frogs that call ECHO, Leahy Center for Lake Champlain home, thrived, all while missing their human visitors. Having helped with our State's great success in curtailing the spread of the virus, ECHO, Leahy Center for Lake Champlain reopened to members on June 29 and to all guests on July 4, with extensive health and sanitary guidelines in place. Just as they were reopening, the center even hosted a wedding on just a few minutes notice, after staff spotted a well-dressed couple looking for a spot on the Burlington waterfront and invited them in for the ceremony. Lake Champlain is one of Vermont's greatest natural treasures, and it has always been a priority of mine to preserve its beauty and the ecosystem it supports, which in turn provides an irreplaceable foundation for our state's economy. I am proud that all Vermonters can look to ECHO, Leahy Center for Lake Champlain for opportunities to instill a passion for scientific discovery, preservation of natural resources, and stewardship of the Lake Champlain basin in the hearts and minds people young and old, even during a pandemic. I especially thank the staff at the center for their resilience, adaptability, innovation, and unwavering commitment to continuing this important work.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Putnam ``Put'' Blodgett's lifetime of service to the Vermont forest industry deserves special recognition. Put personified the essence, values, and traditions of what makes Vermont special. Put's family moved to a Bradford, VT, dairy farm during the height of the Great Depression. He attended Dartmouth College and returned home in 1953 to work on the family farm, which he eventually took over and continued to steward with his wife and children. Put left the dairy business for other endeavors but maintained his connection to the family land, working tirelessly to restore and manage its 700-acre wood lot. Always focused on long-term sustainable management, Put placed the acreage in conservation with the Upper Valley Land Trust, preserving the forest for all generations. Put's son now manages the forest, continuing that legacy. Put and his wife, Marilyn, ran the Challenge Wilderness Camp, teaching children about nature and guiding them on wilderness pursuits. Children would travel from cities to live in an Adirondack shelter, cook over an open fire, learn to canoe, and explore the forest. Put's goal was to assist young people on their journey to adulthood, cultivating their connection with the natural world. Watching our own children and grandchildren play in woods and fields of our farm in Middlesex, VT, Marcelle and I know how crucial it is for children to have the experience in nature that Put and Marilyn provided to so many. A true leader in Vermont's conservation and forestry community, Put was the longstanding president of Vermont Woodlands Association and oversaw the Tree Farm Program. He was recognized twice as Vermont's Outstanding Tree Farmer of the Year. Our farm in Middlesex has been enrolled in the Tree Farm Program for about 30 years, and I am deeply appreciative of the value the program has brought to my land and to Vermont. Forest management discussions can be a tense tug-of-war between environmentalism and timber management, but Put didn't see it that way. He understood conservation as a shared priority--a public and private good alike--and he worked to unite divergent stakeholders around this common interest. I looked to Put for advice when writing Vermont wilderness legislation and Put was a founding member of the Vermont Natural Resources Council's Forest Roundtable, an open forum for Vermonters to exchange information and recommend conservation policy. On many occasions, Put helped opposing sides find that elusive common ground on forest management policy. Putnam Blodgett, as any true forester, worked with a mission to be accomplished on a timeframe much longer than his own life span or a single generation. Put passed away earlier this year, and yet I take comfort knowing that the Green Mountains of Vermont are better for his work here. To the great benefit of my grandchildren and many generations to come, Put's legacy lives in the Northern Forest.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize a storied Vermont business, King Arthur Flour of Norwich, VT, for their accomplishments over the years and their commitment to serving the community during the COVID-19 pandemic Almost as old as the United States itself, this company was established in 1790, just 1 year into George Washington's Presidency. It began in Boston, with Henry Wood importing high-quality flour from England, and has evolved into a nationally recognized resource for home bakers and a beloved Vermont company. In 1984, King Arthur Flour moved to Norwich, where the business grew rapidly. Today, the brand is ranked second in the Nation for overall flour sales. But the rise to fame doesn't mean they abandoned the Arthurian principles that their name was inspired by. In 2004, the family business was officially sold to its employees. Such an act demonstrates the high value the company places on their community and their employees. They also continue to source entirely from American farms, to ensure high-quality production and to support a sustainable agricultural economy. As always, they guarantee quality and purity by promising their customers products free of bleach, bromate, or any artificial preservatives. Through their commitment to their employees, the community, and to delivering high-quality, responsibly sourced products, this company truly demonstrates the values and character of a Vermont business. King Arthur Flour further confirmed their commitment to serving and engaging with the community during the COVID-19 pandemic. In March of this year, Americans were ordered to stay home to slow the spread of the virus. This led millions of Americans to begin baking at unprecedented rates. It was not uncommon to visit a grocery store this spring and see the empty shelves in the baking aisle. Like many other essential services, King Arthur was tasked with the need to fulfill a rising demand, while also keeping their employees safe. True to their character, King Arthur stepped up and did just that. Not only did they get their products to consumers, they continued to staff the Baker's Hotline. For the last several decades, King Arthur has been about more than just selling products; they also want to educate and connect with people. Inundated with calls and social media engagement from home bakers, the company's baking instructors, whose jobs were put on hold, began answering the Baker's Hotline and managing the high quantity of social media interactions. When the country needed an at-home pastime, King Arthur Flour answered the call. I have visited their flagship store in the past and can attest to the quality of their products and services. I applaud them for their commitment to serving the national community during such uncertain times. King Arthur Flour truly exemplifies what it means to be a Vermont business and deserves enormous praise. Marcelle and I visit their plant often in Norwich, and I am so proud of all they have accomplished. King Arthur's story during the pandemic was recently covered by Melissa Pasanen of the Vermont newspaper Seven Days, and I request that excerpts of this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, just 75 days ago today, the Democratic House passed the Heroes Act. The Heroes Act was a comprehensive and I think very bold bill that addressed the very real needs that face this country as we struggle to contain the coronavirus. During the 75 days that passed, we Democrats pressed the Republican leadership to take up the Heroes Act in the Senate, and for 75 days, we have been told no. The point was simple: Bring it up, vote for it or against it, amend it if you want, but let's have some real action. For 75 days we have watched the virus spread. We saw the death toll rise as President Trump stood by, denying the severity of the crisis, attacking the science, and assuring the American public that the virus would just go away on its own. For 75 days we watched as critical deadlines bore down on us for programs that offered a lifeline to the American people, including the expiration of Federal unemployment benefits and a moratorium on evictions. This week, on Monday, after 73 days of waiting, Senate Republicans finally unveiled their proposals to address the coronavirus pandemic, and even some Republicans have said it is disjointed and in disarray. One has to ask, what has been done all this time? Instead of one bill, it is a collection of eight different pieces of legislation, introduced by eight different Members. Instead of a cohesive package to address the needs of the American people and to get the virus under control, their proposals prioritize corporations over people. They put business interests ahead of society. It is unclear whether the White House has blessed this package. It is even less clear whether it has the support of the majority of Republicans in this body. One thing that is clear: The priorities are completely misplaced. My friends on the other side of the aisle seem to think they can fix our Nation's problems by simply forcing a reopening of the economy, forcing people back into the workplace, and forcing children back to school as if the virus isn't still spreading like wildfire. It is a terrible approach and would make us less safe. Everybody wants to get the economy on track. We want schools to reopen, and we want to return to the workplace. But the only way to accomplish that is to contain the virus, slow the spread. That is the only thing that will give people the confidence to emerge from their homes and reengage in society and our economy. To do that, there are certain things we have to do. We have to have quick and efficient testing and contact tracing. We need a vaccine, but we will have to have a way to mass-produce that vaccine, once we have it, to the people. We need to support unemployed Americans until we get through this crisis. We need to keep people from being evicted and losing their homes. We need to create safe working environments and safe learning environments for our children. Where children must learn from home with parents working from home, we need to make investments in the infrastructure they need to be successful. The Republican bill fails on all these points. It has insufficient funding for testing and contact tracing. It has insufficient funding for a mass-vaccine campaign once we have a vaccine. It underfunds education programs. It uses the money as a stick to force school districts to open even if the locality and public health agencies say it is not safe. It fails to provide much needed investment in broadband and internet access for rural areas to allow for distance learning where it is needed. One teacher said to me: If you force us to open, what happens when a week after it opens, two children and two teachers have COVID-19? The school closes down for a period of time. Let's be realistic. There is no increase for SNAP benefits even though more people are going hungry today in America. There is no new funding for State and local governments that are laying off teachers and healthcare workers and first responders as revenues dry up. The Republican proposal inexplicably cuts Federal unemployment benefits to millions of workers. They insist this incentivizes people to go back to work. Where are they going to work? Where are the jobs? People want to work, but jobs are hard to come by. All this does is make more people destitute, put people more at risk of not being able to put food on the table or pay the rent. To show why this proposal is a nonstarter, let me share a few stories from Vermonters who have written or called or come into my office as I have been around Vermont this past weekend. One man wrote to me because he is concerned he will be evicted from his home in the next few days. He has been out of work since March, only able to survive because of the Federal unemployment benefits in the CARES Act, which in this bill have been callously stripped away. His wife is taking classes at the local community college in the hopes of one day getting a better job. In just a few short days, they could face eviction because they can't afford to make their $750 rent payment. Instead of inching ever closer to achieving the American dream, that dream is being snatched away through no fault of their own. Homelessness is now a real possibility for them. He writes: I hope that you and your fellow Senators can find a solution as soon as possible, because we are all affected by what happens in the Capitol. He is right. Whatever is done here affects him and his family and all other families. What are the solutions being proposed? Unemployment benefits slashed, no rental assistance, and the expiration of the eviction moratorium. When is the last time anyone in this room struggled to make rent? Who are we to tell this man he does not deserve continued help from his government in the middle of a pandemic? Another voter contacted me over the fate of her 98-year-old mother. Since March, her mother and the other residents of her nursing home have been confined to their rooms, unable to join each other for dinner and unable to participate in activities. The nursing home staff lack the necessary personal protective equipment and testing capability. She has not been able to even hug her own mother since the pandemic started. She writes: We can't just have a single-state or single-country response to this pandemic. We must all work together to take action now to support the most vulnerable members of our society. I couldn't agree more. We need to work together. We need to protect the most vulnerable among us. We need to prioritize the most urgent of needs, but the Republican proposal doesn't do that. Across our country, children are going hungry because their parents are out of work and the cost of food is on the rise. The Republican proposal includes nothing for SNAP and nothing for child nutrition. But there are multibillion-dollar giveaways to the defense industry. Republicans say they want 5 years of immunity for large corporations so they will not be sued if they force their workers back to work if they get sick, but they have no money in there for the protection of those workers. They protect the owners of the company who probably don't even come in the company. They protect them but not the workers in the company. They take money to replace money that the White House basically took away to build a wall that Mexico was supposed to pay. Then, when I saw this in the proposal, here was $1.7 billion for an FBI building that was going to be built either in Virginia or Maryland--$1.7 billion to protect the aging building and prop it up. Why? Because if it were gone, somebody might build a hotel there. There would be potential competition with Donald Trump's hotel across the street. They are going to put $1.7 billion of taxpayers' money in there to protect his hotel from any competition, but there is no money in it to ensure people can safely vote in our upcoming elections. What is going on? This is ``Alice in Wonderland.'' In the absence of a President who takes this virus seriously or is able to lead this country through the crisis, the American public needs Congress to step up. The Republican proposal fails to do this. It leaves people behind and our country and our economy even more vulnerable. Let's stop playing partisan games and offering solutions only one party can get behind. Let's get something we can all get behind. Let's start bipartisan, bicameral negotiations on a bill that can be sent to the President by the end of next week. Let's make priorities of those programs that help us contain this virus and help us protect the vulnerable families like those I have seen the past several days in Vermont--a bill that puts us on the right track to reopening our economy. Frankly, the American people can't wait any longer. The Vermonters who call and write into my office and stop me in the street to talk with me, they are pleading for help. They can't wait any longer. And to do nothing--to do nothing is an abdication of our sworn responsibility to serve our constituents. But to advance this patchwork series of bills offered by the Republican majority is worse. It is a disservice to the thousands of Americans who have died and the millions of Americans who have contracted this virus and the hundreds of millions of Americans who are looking to their government to do something so they can have their country back. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, every year, the Senate considers sweeping legislation to authorize operations of the Department of Defense and certain functions of the Department of Energy. The fiscal year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act provides a roadmap for spending for national defense, spending which reflects over half of the annual Federal budget. Its importance is enormous, and its consideration important. Regrettably, the Senate in recent years has reduced consideration of the NDAA to a perfunctory exercise occupying a couple of weeks of debate, and little consideration of amendments. While I support much of what is included in this authorizing package, I cannot support its passage. I am most concerned that the FY21 NDAA includes authorization for testing of nuclear devices. Where our President fails to lead in global diplomacy and common decency, he seems enthralled with an approach favored by autocrats and dictators: demonstrations of military might over strategic partnerships and alliances. I am concerned that, under this administration, we are inexorably trending toward a new nuclear arms race, where demonstrations of power have taken the place of treaties that made the use of history's most dangerous weapons less likely. Coupled with authorization to build a new nuclear warhead, the Senate's fiscal year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act goes beyond the nuclear modernization plan set in action by the Obama administration in concert with ratifying New START. Rather, it takes scientifically dubious and strategically unnecessary steps to support the President's seemingly exclusive interest in brandishing-- literally--our military might. Congress and Presidents of both parties have worked for decades to help the world avoid repeating the precarious situation of the 1960s; I worry we are starting a slow march back to that edge. Like many Senators, I am disappointed that a simple amendment I have authored to provide resources through the Department of Defense to communities who are the home to significant military missions through our National Guard did not receive consideration. The men and women of our National Guard are members of our communities. They are our mothers and fathers, our husbands and wives, our coworkers and neighbors. The important missions they serve help not only our communities, but our national defense. The Department of Defense should not only support the men and women who serve in uniform, but also the communities in which they partner. This simple, straightforward amendment would have provided $20 million for the Department of Defense to support multiple communities where certain military missions that serve the national defense are based. As communities across the country support our military's missions, so, too, should our Department of Defense serve their needs. I am also disappointed that the Senate has rejected an amendment to rein in the dramatically escalating budget of the Department of Defense. As the vice chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have worked with the Republican leadership and with Chairman Shelby in recent years to strike budget agreements that have resulted in parity between defense and nondefense spending. At the same time, amid a national and international public health crisis, the time has never been more critical to infuse more resources in public health, education, and business development programs. The Sanders amendment would have maintained full support for the personnel needs of the Department, as well as the critical medical research supported through the Department of Defense. It would, however, have also taken some of the Department's sweeping budget and reserved it for underfunded domestic needs. This is long overdue. The Senate will pass this bill today, and we will need to reconcile differences with the House. While I will not vote for the Senate bill as it currently stands, there are many provisions that merit support. The bill continues a streak in recent years of improving support for the health and safety of military servicemembers and their families and, this year, also authorizes $44 million for vaccine and biotech research support for COVID-19 response that benefits everyone. The bill includes limitations on the use of the military against protestors, following the administration's actions against protestors in the Nation's Capitol, and the photo-op that followed. It includes a provision to begin the process for renaming U.S. military facilities named after Confederate generals. Our bases today should reflect the foundational belief that we are all created equal, not glorify those who sought to perpetuate slavery and destroy the Union. I am also very pleased that a project I have worked on many years to heal the wounds of the Vietnam war has been advanced. Over the last 2 years, we have included an authorization and the Appropriations Committee has funded a project to remediate dioxin contamination at the Bien Hoa Airbase. This year, we also include an authorization for a partnership with the Vietnamese Government for recovering remains of missing in action in Vietnam. For more than 40 years, the Vietnamese Government has provided indispensable assistance in locating the remains of more than 700 U.S. MIAs. This provision will enable the Department of Defense to reciprocate by providing archival data and other assistance to Vietnam. I want to thank Senators Hirono and Kaine for their help in sponsoring this amendment in committee and Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Reed for accepting it. I hope that an agreed upon fiscal year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act will address these concerns. While I cannot vote to pass this bill today, I hope to be able to support a conference agreement that supports our men and women in uniform and their families, meets the defense needs of our Nation, and reflects the values that have made American the beacon of hope for generations.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. Presient, the global community has lost one of our most active advocates for peace. On June 22, John Philip Dunfey passed away. Known as Jack to his many friends around the world, he was a World War II veteran, founder and CEO of Omni Hotels International, and the owner of Parker House. His impact, however, was far wider. Jack was an ardent supporter of social justice issues throughout his life. Jack lead human rights missions to many corners of the world, helping to free prisoners in Cuba, remove landmines in Angola and monitor the election in South Africa won by Nelson Mandela. Jack was the founder and chairman of the Global Citizens Circle, fostering cross-cultural and intergenerational dialogue about important social change. Together with friends on both sides of the aisle, Dunfey was appointed by President Ronald Reagan to the commission that founded the U.S. Institute for Peace. He was also a founding board member of the American Ireland Fund, an organization working to bring peace to Ireland. These important organizations will far outlive Jack, continuing his legacy and helping to improve lives across the globe. He lived a life true to his favorite saying, ``We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give.'' Jack gave abundantly, and the world owes him a debt of gratitude. My thoughts are with Jack's wife, Lisa, and their family during this difficult time. I ask unanimous consent that the full obituary for John Philip Dunfey be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in a few minutes we will vote on the Sanders amendment, which I support. As vice chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have worked with the Republican leadership and with Chairman Shelby in recent years to strike budget agreements that resulted in parity between defense and nondefense spending. At the same time, amid a national and international public health crisis, the need to infuse more resources into public health, education, and business development programs has never been greater. I have heard from my Republican colleagues on the floor objecting to the Sanders amendment. I would say to them that if they feel that strongly-- this is not authorized--but if they feel that strongly, they should tell their Republican leadership to allow the appropriations bill to come up so they can actually vote on the Defense bill. Right now, this is just idle chatter when they object to Senator Sanders' amendment, and yet they are unwilling themselves to actually vote up or down on the appropriations bill for not only the Department of Defense bill but the other Departments. The Sanders amendment, after all, maintains full support for the personnel needs of the Department of Defense, as well as the critical medical research supported throughout the Department. It would also take some of the Department's sweeping budget and reserve it for underfunded domestic needs. This is long overdue. I again call on my Republican colleagues to stop talking about the money you want or don't want to spend. Tell the Republican leader to allow the appropriations bills to come to the floor and vote up or down. Remembering John Lewis Mr. President, on another issue, I have had such an incredibly heavy heart since I heard Friday night my dear friend and hero, John Lewis passed away. I stand here on the Senate floor today to talk about him. When I got a call at our home in Vermont late that night, my wife, my son, and I just sat there and talked about John for hours and cried. We knew America lost a genuine hero--an unwavering lodestar who, over decades of selfless activism and public service, drew us closer to our ideals. I remember when he invited me in to watch actually a sit-in by Democratic Members in the House of Representatives when the Republican Speaker had closed down the House for them to have votes. He saw me outside, and I asked him what is going on, and he said: You are my brother. He took me by the arm, brought me in, and sat me down in the well of the House to watch what was going on. I was always humbled and honored to be called his brother, as he often did when we were together, including an unforgettable visit he had with us in Vermont just last year. I have been thinking so much of what we can say, and there aren't enough words--there certainly aren't--in paying tribute to a man whose life was defined by the relentless and fearless pursuit of equality. John bled, literally, and his bones were broken, literally, for the causes of civil rights. He came to Congress bearing those scars--a living, breathing reminder that our society's progress on racial equality came through the sacrifices of heroes like him. In Congress, John Lewis stood with equal moral clarity, serving as its conscience and reminding us that our work to build a genuinely equal and just society remains unfinished. His thundering words just months ago echo even more loudly today. He said: When you see something that is not right . . . you have a moral obligation to say something. To do something. Our children and their children will ask us, ``What did you do?'' That is a question all of us must ask ourselves. Voting Rights Advancement Act Mr. President, there is one thing I am doing today that I want to share with my fellow Senators and Americans. Today, I am reintroducing the Voting Rights Advancement Act, and we are renaming it the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. This is bipartisan legislation. It has 47 Senate cosponsors. It would safeguard what John fought over a lifetime to achieve: equality at the voting booth. The bill would restore the Voting Rights Act to end the scourge of minority voter suppression. Now, the House already passed a companion to the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act in December. Now let's do our part. We can't claim to honor the life of John Lewis if we refuse to carry out his life's work. Of course, if we stand in the way of that work, that would be the wrong thing to do. So I would urge my fellow Senators, join me in calling on Senator McConnell to allow a vote up or down on the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. Let's do that for John, but let's not do it simply because it is named after him but because it is precisely what John would do. And if we have a moral compass, we should do it and take action to forge a more perfect Union, protect our democracy, and above all, do what is right. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Congress, our States, and the administration talk about ways to handle the immediate consequences of COVIV-19. We must also talk about the aftermath, and Steve Case has written a provocative op-ed about the future. Those of us in Congress should read and discuss it It has to be considered in future planning. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I appreciate the words of the distinguished Senator from Hawaii. Those of us who served in law enforcement know the temptation to seek out this kind of military hardware and the basic uselessness and cost of it when that is done. I will just be very brief in mentioning that we had a small, very safe, and very quiet community. The police chief was in my office when I was State's attorney, and the chief law enforcement officer of the county was all excited because he was going to get an armored personnel carrier. I said: What are you going to do with it? Well, just in case there is an uprising. I said: An uprising is whether somebody is shouting too much on your Fourth of July parades. I said: If you get that, I can assure you that if it is used, I will have an inquiry into why it was used, and no cases from your jurisdiction will be allowed in the court. He decided he could find better uses of their other things. I said: Besides, you are going to get laughed out of town if you get it. Coronavirus I have spoken many times about the need for another COVID-19 supplemental. We see the frightening trajectory of this virus. The terrible human suffering, loss, and economic devastation that is causing families, businesses, and public services in every State and municipality in this country have greatly accentuated the urgency of that need. As the coronavirus continues to outpace the White House's appallingly belated, I would say, incompetent, inadequate, and incoherent efforts to contain it, and while they keep trying to make a sound bite, the number of Americans becoming sick and dying continues to rise. They ought to be worried, first and foremost, about Americans and Americans' health and Americans' safety far more than what might be a political sound bite for this fall's election. I remind those who are running this fall, if you want to make sound bites about this and not do anything, as of yesterday, the virus has infected more than 3.8 million Americans. It has killed more than 143,000. Those are not numbers. Those are people. There have been 30,000 more Americans who have been killed by this virus in the past 5 months than died in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, and Afghanistan combined. What is the President's response? Well, the virus will soon just go away. After dismissing the virus as nothing to worry about and predicting that the U.S. economy would come roaring back in June, our self-proclaimed wartime President has, for all intents and purposes, left the battlefield. Unfortunately, the people who are fighting COVID have not left the battlefield. These are friends of mine. I have known people who have died from this. We all do. Hopefully, we all know doctors and nurses and others who work on the frontlines of this. After months of the President belittling those who wear masks to protect themselves and others, almost nothing he has said about this pandemic has turned out to be accurate or, worse yet, helpful. At this point, his priority appears to be keeping the Confederate flag flying and honoring those who fought to defend slavery and destroy the Union. This is appalling, even for this divisive President who wants to protect the names of people who are traitors to the United States and fought against the United States. Why not put names of people on those forts and those military bases who actually defended the United States and fought for us? Back to COVID-19. We know the virus toll in this country is staggering, and unlike many countries where governments quickly put in place effective controls, and the virus has receded in those countries that put the controls in and their economies have largely reopened, here, it is getting worse. We also need to be aware of what the virus is doing in other parts of the world because that will determine how long it is going to take to defeat this pandemic and how long before life returns to normal in our own country. Any virus is only an airplane trip away from our shores, but that has been ignored by the White House. Last week, the World Health Organization, which the White House blames for favoring China--at the same time, incidentally, President Trump was praising Xi Jinping for China's response to the virus-- reported more than 14 million confirmed infections and more than 600,000 deaths worldwide. The virus has spread to 216 countries and territories. It affected the entire world. Countries with the most advanced healthcare systems in the world are struggling to cope with the flood of sick people. As bad as that is, the situation is far worse in developing countries, where billions of people have no access to quality medical services, and, for that matter, even safe water and sanitation. Their governments have minimal ability to stop the spread of the virus or to shore up their failing economies and to stop the virus from going elsewhere. Without aid from the United States and other donors, the virus spreads out of control. You know, we are not isolated from the rest of the world. We have already seen this happening in our hemisphere. According to USAID; the World Food Programme; the Vaccine Alliance, GAVI; the Global Fund; and other public health and humanitarian organizations, COVID-related needs around the world are spiking in every area. USAID said that whatever amount of resources the Congress provides is not going to be enough. They describe massive gaps in meeting what they foresee as a tidal wave of need in the making, at the same time that they and others are trying to stop the backsliding in other infectious disease programs, which, because we are all on one globe, ultimately affect us. If the current trend continues, 270 million people will be without adequate food by the end of this year, an increase of 150 million due to the pandemic alone. U.S. Food for Peace Program, known as P.L. 480 Title II, has been a lifesaver for over 60 years. More than 3 billion people in 150 countries have received P.L. 480 food aid, and it has been backed strongly by both Republicans and Democrats in this body. It is absolutely vital to the COVID-19 response. The World Food Programme is undertaking the biggest humanitarian response in its history. Does that affect us in the United States? Of course, it does because we are interrelated, and because if these problems continue in other parts of the world, ultimately, they do affect us very, very much. In the United States, we see that our agriculture economy is continuing to suffer. The Trump trade wars have hurt our farmers. The pandemic has accelerated their decline. Actually, additional funding for P.L. 480 will help address immediate global hunger needs, while it would also support America's farm community suffering from the economic crisis caused by COVID-19. The U.N. believes the number of COVID-19 infections are massively underreported and is running out of funds to support the hundreds of passengers and cargo flights carrying international aid and workers' food and medical supplies, and, of course, many of these humanitarian workers are themselves becoming ill. Both USAID and the U.N. have stated that you have to have U.S. leadership to get other countries to help. It is a practice widely understood, apparently everywhere except at the White House. The less prepared we and other countries are for what lies ahead, the worse it is going to be for them and for us. You know, this is not just being good humanitarians on our part; we have an interest in this, too--in the world being healthy. It is not a problem that is going to be solved by an ``America First'' policy or by building a wall and saying somebody else will pay for it or by blaming others. Americans can't safely resume normal international travel and commerce without a successful global strategy to reduce the number and rate of infections. As long as the virus is spreading in this hemisphere and beyond, Americans will continue to become infected and die, and the U.S. economy will suffer, no matter how many tweets and sound bites come from the White House. The amount appropriated for the international response to the virus in previous COVID-19 supplementals totals $2.4 billion, including less than $1 billion for food and other humanitarian aid. That is about one- half of 1 percent of the sum total of those emergency supplementals. I will put much of these numbers in the Record, but there are billions needed for the cost of purchasing and distributing billions of doses of a coronavirus vaccine, as soon as one is available. GAVI will play an essential role in that, protecting the world and protecting us because that distribution is going to be immensely difficult and costly, and we have to be prepared as soon as the vaccine is proven to be safe and effective. The longer Congress delays, then the more costly--in lives and dollars--an effective international response to COVID-19 becomes. The President does not want to be the leader we need at this critical time. So it is up to Congress--an independent branch of government--to actually stand up and do our work. On July 10, the House Appropriations Committee marked up its fiscal year 2021 bill for the Department of State and Foreign Operations, which includes $10 million in emergency funding to respond to COVID-19. That is a good start, but we have a lot more to do. I hope the proposal that will finally be unveiled by the majority leader will include funds for an international response. Senator Graham--a Republican--and I have worked together on this Foreign Ops bill. We are in agreement that we need strong U.S. leadership at this critical time. I am going to be making recommendations to other members of the Appropriations Committee on this. I will close on an entirely different matter. When I see a Navy veteran come and ask masked, unidentified soldiers, police officers--nobody really said who they were--dispersing a crowd in Portland, and he just stands there and says: Look, who are you? What are you doing? He was not being in any way threatening. What is their response to him? They start beating him and beating him and firing tear gas at him. He simply asked: Who are you? Why are you in our town? What are you doing? Will you please tell me who you are. They start beating him, and they break his hand. This is a Navy veteran who has served our country. This is as out of control as anything else. And to hear smug comments from members of the administration saying that we have to do this--no, everybody knows they are doing that hoping that somehow it will help the President's reelection. I want to help the United States of America I have spoken many times about the need for another COVID-19 supplemental. The frightening trajectory of this virus and the terrible human suffering, loss, and economic devastation it is causing families, businesses, and public services in every State and municipality in this country, have greatly accentuated the urgency of that need. As the coronavirus continues to outpace the White House's appallingly belated, incompetent, inadequate, and incoherent efforts to contain it, the number of Americans becoming sick and dying continues to rise. As of yesterday, the virus has infected more than 3.8 million Americans and has killed more than 143,000. Those are not numbers. They are people. Thirty thousand more Americans have been killed by this virus in the past 5 months than died in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, and Afghanistan combined. The President's response? That the virus will ``soon just go away''. After dismissing the virus as nothing to worry about and predicting that the U.S. economy would come ``roaring back'' in June, our self- proclaimed ``war time President'' has for all intents and purposes left the battlefield. After months of belittling those who wear masks to protect themselves and others, almost nothing he has said about this pandemic has turned out to be accurate or helpful. At this point, his priority appears to be keeping the confederate flag flying and honoring those who fought to defend slavery and destroy the Union. That is appalling, even for this divisive President. The virus's toll in this country is staggering, and unlike many countries where governments quickly put in place effective controls and the virus has receded and economies have largely reopened, here it is getting worse. But we also need to be aware of what the virus is doing in other parts of the world because that will determine how long it will take to defeat this pandemic and how long before life returns to normal in our own country. This, too, has been all but ignored by the White House. Last week, the World Health Organization--which the White House blames for favoring China at the same time President Trump was praising Xi Jinping for China's response to the virus--reported more than 14 million confirmed infections and more than 600,000 deaths worldwide. The virus has spread to 216 countries and territories--in effect, the entire world. Countries with the most advanced health care systems in the world are struggling to cope with the flood of sick people. As bad as that is, the situation is far worse in developing countries, where billions of people have no access to quality medical services or even safe water and sanitation. Their governments have minimal ability to stop the spread of the virus or to shore up their failing economies. Without aid from the United States and other donors, the virus will spread out of control. In fact, that is already happening in this hemisphere. According to USAID, the World Food Programme, WFP; The Vaccine Alliance, GAVI; the Global Fund; and other public health and humanitarian organizations, COVID-related needs around the world are spiking ``in every area'' and USAID says that whatever amount of resources the Congress provides ``will not be enough.'' They describe ``massive gaps'' in meeting what they fore see as a ``tidal wave of need'' in the making, at the same time that they and others are trying to stop the backsliding in other infectious disease programs. According to WFP, if current trends continue, 270 million people will be without adequate food by the end of this year, an increase of 150 million due to the pandemic alone. The U.S. Food for Peace Program, known as P.L. 480--Title II, has been a life-saver for over 60 years. More than three billion people in 150 countries have received P.L. 480 food aid. This program is absolutely vital to the COVID-19 response. As countries restrict international travel to slow the spread of the virus, it is disrupting the transport and movement of food. WFP is undertaking the biggest humanitarian response in its history. According to David Beasley, ``[t]his unprecedented crisis requires an unprecedented response. If we do not respond rapidly and effectively to this viral threat, the outcome will be measured in an unconscionable loss of life, and efforts to roll back the tide of hunger will be undone.'' In the United States, the agriculture economy is continuing to suffer. Not only have the Trump trade wars hurt our farmers, the pandemic has accelerated their decline. Additional funding for P.L. 480 would help address immediate global hunger needs, while also supporting America's farm community suffering from the economic crisis caused by COVID-19. The United Nations believes the number of COVID-19 infections is ``massively under-reported,'' and is running out of funds to support the hundreds of passenger and cargo flights carrying international aid workers, food, and medical supplies. Their efforts are also threatened by the fact that many health and humanitarian workers are getting sick. All of this requires large infusions of money, and USAID and the U.N. both say that U.S. leadership is crucial to obtaining contributions from other donors. It is widely understood--at least everywhere except inside the White House--that the less prepared we and other countries are for what lies ahead the worse it will be for them and for us. This is not a problem that will be solved by an ``America First'' policy or by building a wall or by blaming others. Americans cannot safely resume normal international travel and commerce without a successful global strategy to sustainably reduce the number and rate of infections. As long as the virus is spreading in this hemisphere and beyond, Americans will continue to become infected and die and the U.S. economy will suffer. The amount appropriated for the international response to the virus in previous COVID-19 supplementals totals $2.4 billion, including less than $1 billion for food and other humanitarian aid. That is less than one-half of 1 percent of the sum total of those emergency supplementals. Today's appeals from just the Global Fund, WFP, and GAVI total $10 billion, and that doesn't include the needs of agencies like the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, UNICEF, or our own programs administered by USAID and the State Department. Several billion dollars are needed just for the cost of purchasing and distributing billions of doses of a coronavirus vaccine as soon as one is available, in which GAVI will play a central role. The distribution will be immensely difficult and costly, and we have to be prepared as soon as a vaccine is proven to be safe and effective. The longer Congress delays, the more costly--in lives and dollars--an effective international response to COVID-19 becomes. Controlling the outbreak here at home is ultimately a lost cause if we do not act aggressively to assist other countries in the global fight against this pandemic. President Trump has shown that he cannot and will not be the leader we need at this critical time. It is up to Congress. The longer we delay, the more difficult and costly it will be to defeat this virus. On July 10, the House Appropriations Committee marked up its fiscal year 2021 bill for the Department of State and Foreign Operations, which includes $10 billion in emergency funding for the international response to COVID-19. That is a good start, but it is too little. The virus is racing around the world and the costs of stopping it are increasing every day. I hope the proposal about to be unveiled by the majority leader includes the necessary funds for the international response because, to repeat, controlling the outbreak here at home is ultimately a lost cause if we do not act aggressively to assist other countries against this pandemic. I believe Senator Graham and I are in agreement about the need for strong U.S. leadership at this critical time. I will be making my own recommendation to the other members of the Appropriations Committee for the necessary funding to combat the virus overseas, and I urge other Senators to support it.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I came before the Chamber yesterday and made the case as to why Congress needs to begin negotiations on another COVID-19 emergency supplemental bill and to do it now. The needs are real. They are immediate. In fact, when the House passed the Heroes Act, we should have begun those negotiations in the first week after it had passed it, but we didn't. We should have begun the negotiations in the second week after it had passed it, but we didn't. We should have begun the negotiations in the third week after it had passed it, but we didn't--and the fourth and the fifth and the sixth. Every day, I talk with Vermonters, sometimes hundreds at a time in statewide conference calls. From small businesses, to families, to schools, to hospitals, to Federal employees, I hear their urgent needs. So I want to talk today about just one of those urgent needs--funding for the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS. It plays an important role in our Nation's immigration system. It processes requests for immigration benefits, American citizenship, and it screens asylum seekers. The agency is staffed by more than 19,000 dedicated men and women across the country, including roughly 1,700 in my home State of Vermont. Last Friday, furlough notices were sent out to 13,350 of the 19,000 USCIS employees. They are effective next month, on August 3. That is just 4 weeks from now. In Vermont, 1,111 men and women received this notice, which is over 65 percent of the USCIS workforce in Vermont. These are men and women who, day after day, do important work for the Nation. They have continued to do that work every day even during the COVID-19 pandemic. And they have been told, even though they have been doing the work loyally and effectively, after August 3, a month from now, they can no longer do their job; they will no longer receive a paycheck. Nationwide these are 13,350 new and urgent reasons why the Senate must act on our Nation's real and immediate needs, and the Senate majority must make that possible now. We have lost 6 weeks since the House acted on this. It is time the Senate acts. I have been ringing the alarm bells for more than a month on this issue. We know that due to declining revenue, immigration-related application fees coming into USCIS, the agency is facing a budget shortfall of $1.2 billion, and the furlough notices that were suddenly sent out last week are the result of this shortfall. USCIS is simply saying they can't pay employees with revenues they do not have. I would remind everybody the shortfall is not entirely due to COVID- 19. The agency has not lived within its budget for the last 3 years of this administration, and, frankly, the Trump administration's mismanagement and extreme immigration policies have only worsened the situation. As part of the President's efforts to erase our identity as a nation of immigrants, he has not just tried to shut our Nation's doors to asylum seekers and refugees, he has attempted to restrict almost all immigration to this country. He has created obstacles for immigrant workers, created a wealth test for immigrants, even exploited the current public health emergency to impose additional immigration restrictions that have nothing to do with public health. And because USCIS has not been able to issue visas or process other immigration benefits as they normally do as a result of President Trump's anti-immigrant policies, revenue, of course, has fallen. No matter the cause, the budget shortfall is real. We have to address it. Furloughs would not only disrupt the processing of immigration benefits and American citizenship and other critical services provided by USCIS, but it is going to cause unnecessary hardships on thousands of Federal employees and Federal contractors. It is going to come at a time when our Nation is already dealing with record job losses. The loss of these valuable jobs will also cause hardship to the communities across the Nation where these Federal workers live and work. These are communities already struggling with the pandemic. They were dealing with people who have skills that have been built up over years of experience. So let's craft a fair, responsible solution to this problem. That would require emergency appropriations and accompanying legislation to ensure transparency and accountability. Time is of the essence. I know, as vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee, we have agreement on the vast majority of the possible appropriations bills. There has been a concern by the Republican majority not to bring them up because they do not want something on COVID. Well, every Senator can go home and talk to their people in their State. They will hear, as I do every single day in my calls from Vermonters, there is a need to do something regarding COVID. Now, there have been numerous calls by myself and the Democratic leadership in the Senate, and despite those calls, the White House and the Republican majority have refused to move forward on a fourth COVID- 19 emergency appropriations bill where we could address this and other critical issues caused by the coronavirus pandemic. We should not wait any longer. In fact, we must not wait any longer. I call on Majority Leader McConnell to begin bipartisan negotiations on a COVID-19 emergency relief bill now so we can solve this problem before furloughs are necessary. The Senate is about to recess for 2 weeks, but that doesn't mean our work stops. With millions of people working from home due to the coronavirus, including in the U.S. Senate, we have shown that we can do our job from wherever we are located. I know, on the major COVID bill, my staff and I worked 7 days a week, sometimes very late into the night, and we are all in separate locations, but we got it done, and we got an appropriations bill through here that almost all Republicans and Democrats voted for because people worked together. We worked together. We passed legislation this country needed. We showed it can be done, so we can and we should begin bipartisan, bicameral negotiations. Do it during the next 2 weeks so that when the Senate is back in session, we have legislation to consider and debate. We can enact the bill into law expeditiously. If there are amendments people want or things they want to change, vote them up or vote them down. We should be willing to stand here and vote, and then we can enact a bill into law and do it expeditiously. The American people deserve no less. The dedicated men and women at USCIS deserve no less, but I would say the men and women of every single one of our States deserve no less. There are 100 of us here. We have shown we can work together. We have done it before. We have done it with appropriations bills. We sat here, voted for or against amendments, and then did what is best for the country. Let's do it. Let's not be afraid to vote. I see my distinguished friend from Texas on the floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, as I noted before, I was withholding a unanimous consent request until the very distinguished senior Senator was here. So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 140, H.R. 2740; that the Leahy substitute amendment that would provide funding for COVID testing and tracing and is at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, it may seem like a long time ago, but it was only 3 months ago when Congress came together, in a rare bipartisan fashion, and we passed the CARES Act. We did that to help address the unprecedented needs of the country and the American people as we began to address the global pandemic. It was the third emergency appropriations bill Congress has passed this year to address the impact of the coronavirus. Yet despite its scope and size, we knew then, and we all acknowledged then, that absent a miracle, it would not be the last emergency appropriations bill required. At that time, we all knew the number of COVID cases would continue to grow at an alarming rate, as would the number of deaths. Each death has left in its wake friends, family, and loved ones, all devastated by a loss that can never be undone. In those 3 months, we have also seen our economy grind to a halt. More than 47 million men and women have filed for unemployment. Families are struggling to pay their bills. They are worried about putting food on the table, paying their rent, and caring for their children. Lines at food banks are at historic highs, including in my home State of Vermont. For many, the situation is desperate. I wish we could say we were through the worst of it and things could now return to normal. We know that we cannot. Florida, Texas, Arizona, North Carolina, Alabama, and Oklahoma, just to name a few, are seeing an alarming spike in cases. Health experts are ringing the alarm bell, including the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who had previously spent a lot of time trying to defend this administration's anemic response. We all know this virus is far from vanquished. As numbers continue to rise across the Nation and new hot spots emerge, it is clear we are going to need another emergency appropriations bill to address this epidemic, and, frankly, we need it now. At times like this, the country needs real leadership and vision. We need to get out in front of this crisis, not make all kinds of response after the fact. We know our leadership is not coming from the White House. The President has made very clear in his statements that he believes opening the economy and fighting the virus are competing actions. He gives the American people a false choice. I believe that only if we effectively fight the virus are we then able to open the economy, whether in my State or any other State. Now, 6 weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed the Heroes Act. It is a strong proposal. It provides assistance to struggling families. It supports State and local governments. It battles the virus by sponsoring a responsible testing program. It recognizes the sacrifices being made by grocery store clerks, first responders, nurses, doctors, truckers, and more. It makes critical changes to programs such as SNAP, which supports those among us who are struggling the most. Let's talk about what we have done. The first week or the second week or the third week or the fourth week or the fifth week or the sixth week since the House passed that bill, what has the Senate done? Nothing. Despite numerous calls from myself and Democratic leadership in the Senate, weeks have gone by and the White House and the Republican majority refuse to move forward on a bill, or even start negotiations. In fact, the majority leader has publicly stated that he and the White House want to take ``a pause'' before considering any further emergency legislation related to COVID-19. The White House alternates between silence on the issue and sending contradictory messages of what it thinks needs to be done. While we wait, cases continue to climb; the death toll mounts; and people continue to struggle. You cannot tell the people who have COVID to pause and it will go away. You cannot tell the doctors and nurses who are working around-the- clock and to the point of exhaustion to just pause. That does not work. The fact is, they are dealing with this every single day and night, 7 days a week. They would love to have a pause, but the reality is such that they cannot. To those who say it is premature to act on another bill--well, let's look at what we already know. At the end of July, the Federal pandemic unemployment compensation program that Congress included in the CARES Act expires. That is next month. Next month starts tomorrow. This program provides an additional $600 per week in unemployment benefits to more than 28 million Americans. In many cases, the money is the difference between paying the rent and getting evicted. The money keeps the electricity on and food on the table. It feeds the children. At the same time, many State-initiated eviction moratoriums expire next month, which begins in just a few hours, as does the eviction moratorium for people in federally assisted housing included in the CARES Act. It is a one-two punch with the end of Federal benefits and the end of eviction protections, which will potentially displace a record number of Americans into homelessness. As eviction proceedings mount and Americans find they have no way to pay for alternative housing, the homeless shelters will almost certainly swell. But the shelters themselves are already over capacity and ill-equipped to handle an influx. We must act. What about our struggling small businesses? The small businesses in my State of Vermont are the backbone of our economy. What about them? As of today, the Small Business Administration can no longer approve loans for the popular Paycheck Protection Program. Parents are worried about their children. They struggle to find safe childcare. They wonder, Are schools going to open in the fall or not? And when they open, many schools will be using some form of online instruction. Over 16 million children in this country do not have internet service at home, and 12 million children do not have a home computer or laptop to use. This is the wealthiest nation in the world. We need to close this gap by providing reliable internet and broadband service to the millions of households in this country who do not have it. All kids deserve a good education, not just those from families who can afford it. Coming from a rural State, this is something I am particularly concerned about. We can't wait until the fall to figure this out; it will be too late. I know that every Senator here has rural areas in his or her State, and in a lot of those areas there is no internet service. We also know we need to protect our elections. Due to the pandemic, voters are using common sense, and they are choosing to vote by mail in record numbers, something we have already done in Vermont, but many States aren't prepared to meet this demand. They look at us. Every one of us will say, yes, of course we want to protect voters; of course, we want to protect voters; of course, every vote counts; of course, it is the American way to vote; of course, we want people to vote. Ha, ha, and ha. Congress has provided only a fraction of the funding needed by States to prepare for the general election. Voters don't have to choose between exercising their constitutional right of voting or getting very ill. Now, we know States cannot cover election costs on their own. They are cash-strapped already from responding to the coronavirus pandemic. The Wall Street Journal has estimated that State and local governments have already furloughed or eliminated 1.5 million jobs since the pandemic began. That might look like just a statistic to some, but these are teachers; these are firefighters; and these are healthcare workers. Congress, for the sake of this country, needs to enact another tranche of funding for State and local governments. We have to help them deal with lost revenue or our economy is not going to recover. It will never recover. As revenues fall and costs to address COVID increase, Native American Tribes have also been forced to furlough workers, curtail healthcare services, and in some cases close down clinics entirely. There are numerous other examples of urgent needs, too many to list. Due to declining revenues and incoming fees, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services--USCIS--may be forced to cut back drastically on services and furlough at least 13,000 employees, including up to 1,700 in Vermont, by August 2. That is 4 short weeks from now. The notice to these employees went out this week, leaving these dedicated employees and their families in limbo wondering if they will have a job in August and wondering why Congress will not act to prevent it. COVID has caused a 3-month delay in field operations for the Census, and the Department of Commerce needs additional money to ensure we get an accurate count. Our federal prisons, a hotspot for COVID, have already depleted the money we provided to them in CARES and need more if they are to prevent further outbreaks. Even the Senate has depleted the funding Congress provided in CARES to conduct deep cleaning of the Capitol and Senate and House buildings and to provide important personal protective equipment for Senators and staff. It is also imperative for America to step up and address the pandemic abroad. We are part of the world. The COVID-related needs around the world are spiking. We cannot defeat the virus right here at home if we do not act now to assist other countries in the global fight against this pandemic as we have in the past. Senate Republicans and President Trump must demonstrate leadership. You are not going to stop this health crisis by tweets; you are going to stop it by real action. Now, in a few short days, the Senate is going to recess for 2 weeks. If we do nothing else before the Senate goes out of session, we should do what all the experts agree is needed if we are going to defeat this virus: Create a comprehensive testing and contact tracing program and provide the resources needed to implement it for all 50 of our States. This is how other countries have succeeded in flattening the curve and containing the spread. Yet, in a shocking abdication of leadership, the President has thrown up his hands. He has walked away from this issue. He even said at a recent campaign rally that we should be doing less testing, not more. That is not leadership; that is politics. That is not keeping Americans safe. I want all Americans to be safe. I do not care whether they are Republicans, Democrats, or Independents. I want all Americans to be safe. His political Press Secretary tried to say he was kidding, but he said he was not. The Federal Government recently announced it shut down numerous federally funded testing sites across the country, including seven in Texas where cases are rising. It is astonishing. I have been in the Senate with Republican and Democratic Presidents alike, from the time of President Ford. All of these Presidents, in both parties, were willing to show leadership in serious matters, but if this President cannot or will not show leadership, then the Congress must step in and do it. I will tell you what I learned when I came here. I never expected to become the dean of the Senate, but I think about it often. I was told by both Republican and Democratic leaders at that time that the Senate can and should be the conscience of the Nation. I have seen Republicans and Democrats come together and exercise that conscience at times when we so need it. Where is that now? Nobody owns a seat in the U.S. Senate, but we are given 6-year terms in which we should be able to think of doing the right thing and not just worry about the next tweet or the next newsbreak or what is said 5 minutes from now. We have 6- year terms so that we can sit back and do what is right. Let us be the conscience of the Nation. I have always been proud of this body when I have seen Republicans and Democrats come together and do that. The Heroes Act passed 6 weeks ago in the House. It created the COVID- 19 National Testing and Contact Tracing Initiative. It requires the Department of Health and Human Services, in coordination with State and local governments, to develop a comprehensive testing, contact tracing, surveillance, and monitoring system. It provides $75 billion to implement it. If we want to save lives, if we want to reopen the country, and if we want to get our economy going again, we ought to at least pass this initiative. I want my family to be safe. I want my wife and my children to be safe and their children and their spouses to be safe. I want all Vermonters and everybody in all 50 of our States to be safe, and we need testing. I am soon going to ask unanimous consent on a particular item, and I understand that Senator Alexander is going to come to the floor to object, so I will withhold making that request. There are only 100 of us. We represent over 320 million Americans, across the political spectrum. They are all races and all economic backgrounds. They are all ages. But they have 100 people who can speak for them and speak for the conscience of this Nation I am proud to be a U.S. Senator, but I am not proud when we don't stand up and act as the conscience of the Nation. What is the use of being one of the 100 people who represent this great country, who represent and know and hold the history of this country, who have helped shape the history of this country through treaties, through constitutional amendments, and through debates on everything? What does it do to be a Member of the 100 in this body if we cannot reflect the conscience of the Nation? Now, as Senator Alexander is not yet here, I am going to suggest the absence of a quorum, but I want to ask unanimous consent that I be the person next recognized to call off that quorum call.

Mr. LEAHY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. Presisent, according to press reports, the Trump administration plans to nominate Mauricio Claver-Carone to be the next president of the Inter-American Development Bank, IDB. It is also my understanding that a number of Latin American governments have already expressed support for his nomination. As someone who has supported the IDB for decades, including at times when amendments were proposed to eliminate or reduce the U.S. contribution, it is important to be aware that this nomination could jeopardize U.S. support for and cooperation with that institution. Further, if the U.S. Treasury Department and other IDB shareholders believe this nominee will help to build support for a capital increase for the Bank in the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee, of which I am vice chairman, Mr. Claver-Carone is the wrong nominee to make the case for such an increase. This nomination would break a 60-year precedent that a Latin American serves as president of the IDB and a U.S. citizen serves as executive vice president. That precedent exists for a reason. The Bank is an institution working to improve the lives of millions of people in Latin America and the Caribbean, and absent a compelling reason to the contrary, it should continue to be led by a person from the region it serves. There are any number of Latin Americans who are well-qualified for the job and who would be supported by the United States. I am disappointed, albeit not surprised, that the Trump Treasury Department would nominate such a controversial candidate as Mr. Claver- Carone. As senior director for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the National Security Council, he has been the architect of President Trump's most ideologically driven policies toward Latin America, policies that have failed to achieve any of their stated goals. In fact, these ineffective policies have made resolving conflicts with governments we disagree with more difficult, and they have complicated our relations with friends and allies. Mr. Claver-Carone's idea of diplomacy is often to admonish and impose sanctions, which in Latin America more often than not means unilateral sanctions, which have isolated the United States, emboldened those who the sanctions are intended to punish, and harmed people in those countries who we want to help. While there are circumstances when well- designed sanctions make sense, Mr. Claver-Carone seems to believe that even when it is obvious that sanctions have failed the solution is to tighten them rather than fix them. This approach to regional problems is wholly unsuited for the IDB, whose shareholders have traditionally supported the institution, in part, because of its long history of addressing regional priorities. A polarizing American at the helm could intensify divisions, weaken shareholder support, and diminish the Bank's ability to carry out its mission on behalf of the people it was established to serve. I also worry that a Claver-Carone presidency at the IDB would set the Bank on a collision course with its largest shareholder, the United States, should Vice President Biden win in November. Electing Mr. Claver-Carone to a 5-year term just weeks before the U.S. Presidential election, coupled with his unpopularity with some Members of Congress, including key members of the Senate and House Appropriations Committees, would not bode well for U.S. support for the Bank in the coming years. For these reasons, I urge the IDB board of governors to carefully consider the enormity of the economic, public health, political, and other challenges currently confronting Latin America, and the implications of Mr. Claver-Carone's election shortly before the U.S. Presidential election. These challenges have been greatly compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic, which will have grave ramifications for the social, economic, and political stability of the region for years to come. The need for steady IDB leadership that can build consensus during this time of regional uncertainty has never been more evident than it is today. I ask unanimous consent that an article in The Economist on the Claver-Carone nomination be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this afternoon, we heard a lot of rhetoric. I would like to now deal with some reality. As so often happens, the reality is different from the rhetoric. Since I last spoke on the Senate floor in the wake of George Floyd's murder, the American people's calls for justice and accountability have not diminished. Fortunately, they have grown stronger, and rightfully so. Even since then, our Nation has had to confront yet another needless killing of an African-American man, when an Atlanta police officer shot Rayshard Brooks twice in the back when he was fleeing from officers. Now, I know from my own experience in law enforcement that nobody can dispute that police officers have incredibly challenging jobs. No one will dispute that they are faced with difficult, split-second decisions that impact life and death, but that difficulty does not excuse the fact that something is deeply wrong in our country. It does not excuse the fact that people of color have disproportionately suffered from police misconduct. People of color disproportionately are profiled by police, are stopped by police, are arrested by police, and are victims of excessive force at the hands of police. Confronted with the killing of George Floyd, millions of Americans are demanding we do better as a nation. They recognize that longstanding societal prejudices and biases and have created a law enforcement culture and broader criminal justice system that perpetuates these prejudices and biases. They demand that we roll up our sleeves and do the hard work of ensuring that those charged with preserving the rule of law are also subject to it, that no person is above the law. For millions of Americans, the time to act is now, but I think the Senate is acting as though it is not up to the task. On Thursday, the House is expected to pass comprehensive legislation to reform policing, and it is going to do that with Republicans and Democrats voting for it. The Senate has only advanced a patchwork of half-measures that would do little more than to place a handful of bandaids on deep, generations-old wounds. As someone who knows him, I don't doubt at all that the legislation drafted by Senator Scott is a good-faith attempt at finding consensus within the Republican Conference on how to reform policing, but by any reasonable measure, the bill the Republicans have put forward actually fails to reform policing. On many of the most pressing issues, such as addressing true racial inequalities or disparities or discrimination, the Republican bill defers either by doing nothing at all or by leaving it to a future commission to study. The Republican bill purports to create a new grant program to fund and mandate the use of body-worn cameras, which have been instrumental in holding both the police and suspects accountable. Maybe everybody failed to notice, but Congress already created that program 5 years ago, and our Committee on Appropriations, in a bipartisan fashion, has been funding it every year since, all 5 years. This is not something new. The Republican bill would create grant incentives to encourage police departments to change behaviors. The legislation introduced by Senators Booker and Harris would actually change those behaviors. They don't say: Here. Please do it. They say: Here. You have to do it. They do it by banning choke holds, and they ban no-knock warrants. Unlike the Booker-Harris bill, the Republican bill would not address qualified immunity, which allows officers to evade accountability even when a court finds they have violated constitutional rights. Can you imagine anybody else in this country, when violating someone's constitutional rights, standing up and saying: ``But I am in a protected group. You can't do anything about it. Bye, bye now. See ya''? The Republican bill does nothing to address racial profiling. It does nothing to ensure that deadly force is used only as a last resort--not as a first resort and especially not against somebody who, while running away, gets shot in the back and is given the death penalty. It also does nothing to ensure there will be Federal oversight when a local law enforcement agency demonstrates a pattern of violating their citizens' civil liberties. It is well-known that the Trump administration has effectively abandoned pattern or practice investigations and consent decrees, which are proven instruments for positive change within some of our troubled departments. That is why the Booker-Harris bill strengthens these investigations at both the Federal and State levels. At every turn, where the Republican bill provides a talking point, the Booker-Harris bill provides real accountability and real transparency. Sadly and, I think, disturbingly, the fact that the majority leader will not even allow the Senate to debate the Booker- Harris bill reveals that he is interested in neither. For a moment last week, it appeared that some Republicans were serious about finding bipartisan compromise. During a Judiciary Committee hearing on policing reform, Chairman Graham said he would like the committee to work together to find solutions, ``to sit down'' and see if we could ``reconcile [the policing reform] packages and come up with something in common.'' A number of Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee even expressed an openness in reevaluating qualified immunity to ensure that there would be a sense of accountability within police departments. I agree that these are difficult issues, but certainly, based on my experience under both Republican and Democratic majorities, I know the Judiciary Committee is capable of handling them. I know because we have done it before on tough issues. Let me give you an example. Seven years ago, a bipartisan group of Senators--Republicans and Democrats across the political spectrum--put together a thoughtful, bipartisan bill to reform our immigration system, but the bill wasn't put here on the Senate floor with a ``take it or leave it.'' As chairman of the Senate Judiciary, I held three hearings on the bill and then held 5 days of markups, some going late into the night. We considered 212 amendments, 141 of which were adopted, including 50 amendments offered by Republicans and voted on by both Democrats and Republicans. Our process was fair, thorough, and deliberate. What happened when it came to the Senate floor? There were 68 Senators from both parties across the political spectrum who supported the legislation and voted for it. Now, if we could replicate that process for policing reform today--go through committee, have the debate, bring up the amendments, have the hearings, vote on something, and bring it here to the floor with that kind of strong support--I would suspect even more Senators, Democrats and Republicans alike, would support it. Senator McConnell is skipping all of that. He is not allowing the Judiciary Committee to do its work. He is not attempting to build bipartisan compromise. He is, instead, forcing the Senate to take up a wholly inadequate partisan bill or to do nothing at all. ``Here, vote for this deeply flawed bill or you get nothing.'' That is not being the conscience of the Nation. That is not why I and many others came to the Senate. That is not how the Senate gets things done, and every Senator, Republican and Democrat alike, knows that. So I would suggest to the leader, if he is serious about tackling racial injustice and policing reform, that there is a blueprint to follow. This is not it. I urge the majority leader to reverse course. If he is unwilling to bring meaningful legislation to the floor to address these issues today, well then, allow the Judiciary Committee to put in the hard work that is necessary to build bipartisan consensus. I am sure it could be done within a couple of weeks of actual hearings and votes in our committee. Instead, the leader is insisting on a process that is designed to fail. In doing so, the Senate fails. The Senate fails George Floyd, and it fails Breonna Taylor, and it fails countless others who have been victims of brutality or discrimination by a flawed justice system. In doing so, the Senate also fails the American people. I hope this is not the path we take. I voted not to go forward with a flawed process, hoping we might have a real bipartisan process. I believe the Senate should be the conscience of the Nation. Let's be so in this. Let's go to committee, and let's have Republicans and Democrats vote for or against amendments and bring a bill to the floor. Stop these ``take it or leave it'' steps by the Republican leader. Let's have a bill that both Republicans and Democrats have worked on, and then bring it up. Let's vote up or down on amendments. Let's give the American people something they can be proud of and something, finally, the Senate can be proud of. I do not see another Senator who seeks recognition, so I suggest the absence of a quorum.