James Lankford

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session to be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. LANKFORD

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

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, this all feels strangely familiar. It is the middle of December. We are facing a government shutdown, arguing behind the scenes over the final details, discussing whether we are going to do a short-term CR, wondering what is going to happen. Everyone has this sense that if we don't get the bill done by tomorrow, then we are going to end up in shutdown and all the problems that causes. Senator Hassan and I stand in the back and hold up our hands and say: In February of last year, we proposed a solution to this that fits this exact scenario to keep us from holding Federal workers and all of our agencies in harm's way. The ending government shutdowns bill is designed for this moment. For whatever reason, we have not been able to agree to pass it. It is a process document. It doesn't solve all of the policy issues we have. We have real policy differences, but we should not have process differences at moments like this. It is not good for the American people. It is not good for the U.S. Senate or the U.S. Congress to stand at the precipice of a shutdown and to say: Maybe we go over; maybe we don't. Maybe we have a short-term continuing resolution; maybe we pass the 12 appropriations bills. We shouldn't ever get to that moment. Our simple idea is not a partisan idea. Senator Hassan and I released a simple, straightforward idea. You get to the end of the fiscal year, whenever that may be, and if we have not finished all the appropriations work, we continue working until it gets done. An automatic continuing resolution kicks in so that no Federal worker is worried that they are going to have furloughs right before Christmas; no agency is panicked about what happens next and who do I have to furlough and who do I have to keep and who is essential and who is nonessential. None of that happens. None of that waste occurs. We continue debating until we resolve the issue. That is all that it is. We have 12 appropriations bills that are not done. Painfully, in this year of COVID, there have been only 22 total appropriations hearings in 12 months--22. That is 12 appropriations committees, 12 months, only 22 hearings total for all of them. We have not completed the appropriations work on time, so now we are struggling with the what-ifs. Senator Hassan and I have a straightforward idea. Let's pass the end government shutdowns bill. Let's continue our negotiations so we don't have to be in the shadow of a shutdown again next year. It is doable. It shouldn't be controversial. It should be obvious. When we get to a time period like this, if we are not complete, we keep working until it is done. In the meantime, we don't leave. It is the exact statement I have heard from everybody in the Chamber so far today. We need to stay until it is done. I agree. That should be the process every time we get to this moment. We stay until the work gets done. Our bill just mandates that, and it keeps us from ever having to say the word ``shutdown'' again. So I would encourage this body again, as I did all of last year, as I did all of this year: Let's end government shutdowns. Let's keep debating the policy. We have differences. We know that. But let's end the thought of government shutdowns. I yield the floor.

Mr. LANKFORD

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

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, four different times in the last 4 months, we have had votes on this floor to talk about COVID relief. There is a real need to be able to give relief to a lot of people in my State, and, quite frankly, in States around the country. There are individual items that need to be done that are unfinished. I think we need to actually finish them. We have this week and next week to finish the task at hand. We have 12 appropriations bills. We have a national defense authorization. But in my State, people want to know most what is going to happen with COVID relief. Where is that going to go? Well, apparently, now we can actually have the debate. After the election was over, Speaker Pelosi announced that she was ready to actually negotiate the bill now that the election was finished. Well, great. Folks in my State have actually been waiting because four times in the last 4 months we brought up bills that were serious bills to be able to actually debate this out and to get the aid that is needed to be done, starting with additional money for distribution for vaccines. The first vaccine will come on market by this Friday. It will be in arms by this weekend or at the latest, Monday, in my State, in Oklahoma. As I visit with the people in my State who are in charge of the distribution, they have a terrific plan that they are engaged in to work with healthcare providers across the State to give them first access. For these folks who have been living in PPE for months and months and months, to now have the opportunity to get a vaccine will be a tremendous gift to them. It is incredibly important that this happen. I do want to congratulate the folks in the science community, the folks who are at Operation Warp Speed in the White House, and so many other individuals who worked so incredibly hard to take a vaccine from first identification of the virus to a vaccine in 11 months. That is remarkable speed to get something done, though I have read recently that the New York Times is now putting out this quiet little accusation that the Trump administration didn't buy enough of the Pfizer vaccine, and the rest of the world is going to get it. The Times just conveniently leaves out that the administration actually purchased 700 million doses of the vaccine from multiple different manufacturers very early on, taking the appropriate risk to say that we don't know which one is going to be successful, so let's try to purchase from all of them, not knowing if six of them will be successful or if one of them will be successful. It was the right strategy then. It remains the right strategy. In addition to the fact that the Pfizer vaccine is coming out first-- which we are all very grateful for--it is 95 percent accurate as far as setting aside the virus. It is 100 percent effective against severe outbreaks of the virus. It is a remarkable vaccine, but it has to be stored at negative 70 degrees. There are very few places in my State and in many other States that have an ultracold freezer that maintains that. It is a great vaccine, but it is limited in the way that you can actually distribute it quickly. There is a Moderna vaccine that is coming a week later that we will actually have twice as much of, but it doesn't require the same ultracold storage. So this first round of vaccines will be coming to my State by this weekend, another round of vaccines from another manufacturer by next weekend, and by the end of this year--in just the next few weeks--we will have 20 million people who will get vaccinated. That is a great start, but, clearly, there are another 300 million people to go. By the time that we get to the end of February, we will have 100 million people who will have been vaccinated, and that doesn't even count the additional vaccines that are coming online. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine is a single-dose vaccine. It should be online in February. That is very significant to us because that will also provide us tens of millions of additional individuals who can be vaccinated. We could very well be completely vaccinated as a country by the time we get to this summer. We could be completely vaccinated with the most vulnerable in our population--everyone in our healthcare, every single nursing home, every single skilled nursing, every single assisted living, and all those with high-risk conditions like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's and individuals with diabetes and heart disease--those individuals could be completely vaccinated by the time we get to February. That is just 2 months away. We are finally getting close. But we do need some additional dollars set aside for the distribution to actually get to that point. We need additional dollars for testing. We have done 200 million tests on COVID-19. I have had several of those. Most everyone in this Chamber has had several. Most everyone across my State has had several to evaluate them. I always tested negative. I am grateful for that. There are many people who still continue to get that testing. We need to continue that. We have individuals across my State and across all of our States who need access to the Paycheck Protection Program. This was a risk that we took in March to try an assistance for individuals in a completely different way, knowing that the unemployment assistance in all of our States is antiquated and would be overrun by individuals. There had to be another way to sustain individuals who would be unemployed and to sustain small businesses to not go out of business as we go through this. What we created was something called the Paycheck Protection Program. I was honored to be a part of that small group who helped write this and dream it out. It was for small businesses and not-for-profits, and for the first time ever, included faith-based not-for-profits, knowing many of them are key safety nets in our communities across the country. We could not lose that safety net during the time of the pandemic. I have had individuals who have asked me over and over again for two key things in the Paycheck Protection Program: No. 1, please make it clear how to get final forgiveness to close this out. There are literally millions of small businesses that have a paycheck protection loan. They want to get forgiven, but the process of going through forgiveness is so complicated they are struggling with closing that out. They want to get it done. There is an easy way to do it that Kevin Cramer has actually coordinated and led in this body. Senator Cramer's work has been remarkable and tenacious to help guide us to a simple solution to get to individuals and businesses that took out loans of $150,000 or less, to get forgiveness for that in a simple process, in a single-page attestation to be able to do that. That needs to be included in whatever we are doing We need to have a second round for those businesses that are the hardest hit. Let me tell you an example of that. I had a business leader of a small business in my State just yesterday, and this is part of his email. He said: It sounds like there is a chance for another relief bill. I hope that is true. We are expecting--our sales have fallen through the floor again. With the change in weather and rising case counts, we have lost over 50 percent year over year, and I hear the same from many of my counterparts. It is highly likely we will have to go through another round of furloughs in January. Honestly, it would probably make sense now, but we are not going to do that to anyone through the holidays. We are hoping for some assistance to keep people on payroll and benefits. At worst case, if there is no relief for us, I hope there is additional unemployment coming so people aren't destitute. It may be April before we are able to support our business based on our own revenue. These comments are not uncommon from many others I have received. They can make this and have a viable business but just not in this kind of environment right now. What are we going to do about that? Well, I have recommended not only the attestation for forgiveness for small businesses but also a second round to allow those who have been through the small business Paycheck Protection Program to go through it again and get a second bite of that apple short term for the hardest hit businesses and also to allow some of those businesses that are legitimate small businesses to actually get a first shot. Many people don't know that not-for-profits, including faith-based not-for-profits and small businesses, all got access to the Paycheck Protection Program if you were supported by donors or by a bank or credit union. But if your business was organized by private equity, and that was your original capital, you couldn't get access to the Paycheck Protection Program. So thousands and thousands of small businesses were out simply based on where they got their original capital from to open their business. That is not right. When we have the second round of paycheck protection, we should at least allow some of those other small businesses to get a first round through this process. We need to continue what we are doing for not- for-profits. Our safety nets are very clear in America. Our families are our first safety net; our second safety net is our not-for-profits; and our third safety net is government--State, local, and Federal. That second safety net that is out there that is so important in our communities, we need to do what we can to support them. In the CARES Act, I helped put in a provision there that would give every American a $300 deduction on their taxes above the line, even if they don't itemize their taxes. They can get a $300 straight deduction from their taxes if they will give to a nonprofit. They can pick any nonprofit they want to give to--the arts community, the homeless community, those that are helping with mental health, those that are helping with food programs, churches, synagogues, mosques. They can choose any nonprofit they want to. If they give to a nonprofit, every single American gets a deduction up to $300. That counts for this year. I would encourage Americans to take advantage of that. Nonprofits around the country desperately need assistance right now. What we have written into a proposal is to double that for next year for individuals, $600, or for a couple filing jointly, $1,200. You could write off your taxes completely, even if you don't itemize, if you would donate that amount to a not-for-profit. What would cause that? Philosophically, for me, it is a couple of things. I believe in the power and strength and efficiencies of not- for-profits. In small towns around my State and around the country, there are local not-for-profits and churches and faith-based institutions, and they are doing the work to help the hurting and hungry and homeless. We should support them. They are in real need right now of our support. There are groups all around our Nation that need people to step up and walk alongside them as they walk alongside the neediest in our communities. The best way we can do that is to incentivize that with taxes. We can either say we could have a larger tax piece here or encourage people to actually give locally. I think that is an efficient way to help people. We need to step up, as my friend who had emailed me yesterday reminded me. If we can't get the paycheck protection extension done-- and I hope we can--we need to make sure the unemployment extension is done because we are going to have more people on unemployment. We should really do both. We can extend paycheck protections to protect those individuals in those businesses and secure them, but we also need to secure our unemployment assistance program. We have many folks with diabetes and other healthcare needs who can't return to work right now. They are not in a position where they can telework, and they need the opportunity to be sustained. Literally, their benefits are running out in days. This is a moment we should extend that out for multiple more months to allow them the gap they need to get through the pandemic to be able to get a vaccine--which is coming soon--and then to get back to work as they have been dying to do. We need to get liability protections. A lot of people have a lot of uncertainty, and they are worried about lawsuits coming down on them. They don't know how to manage around them. I have letters from small businesses, large businesses, and university presidents in my State who are all saying the same thing: Help us just know what the rules of the game are going to be because there is litigation coming at us, and we don't know how to evaluate this because this has never been done before. Help us just know the rules of the road on liability. That is not an unreasonable request for every university, large and small businesses across our Nation. Schools are going to need some additional help. That is based on just that child, no matter where they attend--public, private, faith-based, charter, whatever it may be--it is a child whose parent is a taxpayer. Education is important, and they should all be treated the same. Childcare issues are at the top of the list as well. Childcare facilities are out there in desperate need right now and are open and functioning. They can't have the worker or job ratio they used to have, but the costs are still the same. We need to get additional flexibility to our States. In my State--many entities within my State still have additional dollars left over from the CARES Act. So $1.5 billion came to the State of Oklahoma through the CARES Act. That is an enormous amount of money. They are still working through to be able to handle it efficiently, how they are going to manage that. Thankfully, most towns in my State have had sales tax revenue that has gone up this year. That is not true for all of it, but for many of them, it has been. Their expenses have also gone up. So the challenge at this point would be, how can we get the States maximum flexibility with the dollars they have to make sure they don't have to squander those funds quickly just to be able to get it done because the deadline to use them is December 31? More flexibility would be a good gift both to do wise spending and to be able to give them greater flexibility in the days ahead. That would be for States, counties, cities, and Tribes. We should allow for the reprogramming of funds. Interestingly enough, the Paycheck Protection Program had about $130 billion left over in it when it expired. We all gave it a lot of money not knowing how much would be needed for small businesses, but the vast majority of small businesses that could take it were able to take it. There are many, as I mentioned before, that are wanting to do a second round with it. The best way to do that is to reprogram the unused funds that are there. That would be more efficient. The Federal Reserve has unused funds in the hundreds of billions of dollars. We should cancel out those programs and reuse those funds. That is a wise use of funds to make sure we are not squandering American tax dollars. Every single dollar that is spent on COVID-19 right now is debt money. So we should pay attention to all of those issues of debt money, knowing that we need to be careful with other people's money. There are things that we need to do in the next 10 days here as well as to have conversations in private and in public, like this, to say: Let's get it done. Let's finish the tasks that we need to get done.

Mr. LANKFORD

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

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, in my neighborhood and my community, you can walk down the street and visit with some really great neighbors--Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus. They all live in the same neighborhood and are friends. My kids are grown now. We watched all our kids playing together in the community and in the neighborhood. We can see just from this one community and just from this one neighborhood this beautiful thing our Founding Fathers dreamed of--the right of every individual to be able to choose a faith of their own decision, to be able to live that faith out, to be able to change that faith if they choose to, or to be able to have no faith at all. There are plenty of people in my neighborhood that I have no idea what faith they have. They don't have to post it. They don't have to print it. They don't have to say it because they are an American. They don't have to be a certain faith or be able to maintain that faith. The Declaration of Independence makes known that every person has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our Constitution protects our right to a free press, to speak, to assemble, to petition the government, and to have any faith we choose and to be able to live that faith without fear that the government is going to impose a faith on them. Our founding government documents explicitly state these rights. We know that, inherently, these rights should be for all people. As such, I believe it is the responsibility of every American not just to cherish the freedoms that we have but to also be able to state those freedoms worldwide and to be able to encourage people worldwide to also live those basic human rights and dignities. The Trump administration is heavily focused on sharing these ideals with the world. In fact, right now, Poland is hosting the Third Ministerial to Advance Freedom of Religion or Belief Alliance. The United States has hosted the first two of those. In fact, I was a participant in the second one, and I was a participant online with the third one that was just in process. It was implemented with the help of Secretary Pompeo and Ambassador- at-large for International Religious Freedom Sam Brownback. It brought people of all faiths and of all countries together who choose to discuss religious liberty. This year's ministerial definitely looks very different based on COVID worldwide and its restrictions, but it is remarkable to see Foreign Ministers from all over the world, many from countries that don't practice religious liberty, in the middle of a conversation about religious liberty. Eighty percent of the world's population live where religious freedom is threatened or denied, which puts an extra obligation on those of us who live in freedom to be able to display that freedom to people worldwide. We should condemn religious persecution and work to ensure that all people have the freedom of faith, to live their faith, to change their faith, or to have no faith at all. In addition to the ministerial, I am really encouraged by the growing support of the International Freedom Alliance, which has a membership now of 32 countries. They are dedicated to advancing this basic right of religious freedoms. Not only are we seeing countries gathering in this ministerial to discuss religious liberty, many from countries that don't allow religious liberty, but we now have 32 countries that are dedicating together to say: We do practice religious liberty in our country, and we want to spread that. The alliance of these 32 countries, which we are a part of, has two core functions; the first of which is to enhance global advocacy to protect the right of freedom of religion or belief for all and to hold all accountable to those who violate that freedom of religion or belief; and the second thing is to serve as a platform to better coordinate the efforts of governments, parliamentarians, and civil societies to advance this right. I hope this alliance continues to grow and continues to have gaining influence on the world's stage. I hope they continue to condemn bad actors who facilitate or condone discrimination and violence toward people of faith, while encouraging leaders to protect the rights of their religious communities and neighbors. The United States has a strong history and commitment to religious freedom, but some throughout the world do not have that privilege. One- third of the world's countries have laws that prohibit expression deemed as blasphemous, heretical, apostate, or insulting to religion. Depending on the country, punishment for individuals who participate in this type of expression that they call blasphemy range from fines to imprisonment, to even the death sentence in places like Pakistan. These laws affect Christians, Muslims, Hindus, secularists, and all other groups. They scare people into hiding because of their faith. They punish people for changing their faith, and they remove the most basic dignity of the individual: the right to believe. We should continue to expose those who take away that basic human freedom. That is who we are as Americans. That is what we stand for worldwide. The independent and nonpartisan U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has identified 84 countries that still have blasphemy laws on the books. That is why I joined Senator Coons in cosponsoring the bipartisan resolution to condemn blasphemy and apostasy laws around the world and called for the release of individuals who have been prosecuted or imprisoned for charges of blasphemy. That proposal is ready to go and ready to be passed and has cleared everyone on the Republican side of the aisle and most everyone on the Democratic side of the aisle. To ensure that religious liberty is a core pillar of our engagement with other countries, the President issued an Executive order on Advancing International Religious Freedom--the first of its kind. It is a recommitment of the United States to protecting the freedom to live out your faith, regardless of where you live. Under this order, the United States places an even greater prioritization on religious freedom with our foreign assistance programs of the Department of State and with USAID. It is interesting, in addition to religious liberty, this administration has also partnered with other countries to protect and uphold the sanctity of human life, while prioritizing the rights and safety of women worldwide. Last month, the administration, along with the Governments of Brazil, Egypt, Hungary, Indonesia, and Uganda, led a coalition of more than 30 government leaders representing 1.6 billion people from every part of the planet to sign the Geneva Consensus Declaration. The declaration reaffirms that ``all are created equal before the law'' and that the ``human rights of women are an inalienable, integral, and indivisible part of all human rights and fundamental freedoms.'' This historic document also strengthens our international commitment to the protection of the most basic human right, ``the inherent `dignity and worth of the human person,' that `every human being has the right to life.' '' It seems like that would be just a natural thing to say. It seems like that would be apparent, that we as a nation and that people around the world would recognize this most basic right of an individual to live. We believe in the right for people to be able to practice whatever faith they choose. We should at least agree before they choose whatever faith they are that they are allowed to live at all. This document that was signed by the Governments of the United States, Brazil, Egypt, Hungary, Indonesia, and Uganda has the simple statement, along with multiple others. It says: We ``[r]eaffirm the inherent `dignity and worth of the human person,' that `every human being has the inherent right to life,' and the commitment `to enable women to go safely through pregnancy and childbirth and provide couples with the best chance of having a healthy infant.' '' I am proud of this administration and the 1.6 billion people who are represented by the other governments that have joined into this simple declaration to protect the rights of women, to stand up for the equal rights of those women, and to be able to stand up for the rights of every single child. The historic document strengthens our international commitment to this basic right. This is a critical tool for the United States and like-minded countries to preserve equal rights for all families, for all individuals in every society. It has four pillars: better health for women, preservation of human life, strengthening of the family as the foundational unit of society, and protecting every nation's national sovereignty in global politics. As I have said on this floor before, abortion takes a life; it doesn't preserve it. It is not a right, and we as a nation should not promote an action to the rest of the world that is antithetical to the most basic of all human rights--the right to live, to make your own decisions. I am encouraged that we are partnering with other like-minded nations, that there are people all over the world who are standing up for the rights of women to have equality, the rights to be able to protect human life, to strengthen families, and the rights to be able to protect national sovereignty--something we should be able to stand up for. In the days ahead, I pray we continue to stand up for that because every individual should have the right to live as they live, have the right to be able to have whatever faith they choose to have--to have that faith, live that faith, change that faith, or to have no faith at all. But they don't even get to choose that if they are not even allowed to live first. That is something I would hope that we, as Americans, could also stand for. I yield the floor.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, today in Oklahoma, people are going to work, people are going to school, people are on their job, people are in their yard, people are on bikes, people are going for a quiet run in beautiful weather because tomorrow is Veterans Day. We enjoy freedom and peace today because of what those veterans have done for a very long time. Whatever community you are in in Oklahoma, whether you are in Oklahoma City or in Tulsa, or in Lawton, whether you are in Guymon, or Idabel, Altus, or Waukomis--it doesn't matter--you are going to find drawings; you are going to find displays; you are going to find military hardware; you are going to find memorials and monuments to veterans who have served because across our State we remember extremely well the sacrifice that has been made for the quietness of this day, the ability to have an election, the ability to send our kids to school, the ability to work hard, to fight off a virus, the ability to invent and innovate because 1 percent of our Nation has set aside their life to be able to guard the rest of the 99 percent of us. We in Oklahoma could not be more grateful for the service of those women and men over the years and currently. As a nation, we pause on Veterans Day and remember, but I think about veterans who don't just pause once a year to do it. It is part of who they are. They served our Nation in the military, and they find ways to continue to serve veterans and to serve the people around them in their community every single day. There are people who work at the veterans centers in Oklahoma who are remarkable people who help veterans literally every week to be able to work through and navigate the bureaucracy. Our office works with them to try to get solutions and answers if they have issues with the VA or they have issues with trying to get their medals or whatever it may be. But these volunteers are scattered all across our State. We have staff members today who are working in veterans facilities scattered all over the State who are taking care of veterans who are basically in an assisted living-type environment or in a nursing long- term care environment. Those individuals get up every single day and love on veterans. They look them in the eye, when they are now at their weakest moment of their life since their infancy, and say: Our Nation still cares about you. There are people today in Oklahoma who work on Federal housing programs designed to help veterans who are homeless on the street to get care, to find a place to live, and to get established. There are people in Oklahoma today who are working with Federal programs to help veterans who have struggled with addiction, some who didn't reacclimate well. They are helping them right now because our Nation has not forgotten about them. While we grieve with those who grieve--because Veterans Day also brings back the memory, for some families who are Gold Star families, of the ones they have lost--we remind them again that we have not forgotten, and we say thank you to those folks who are serving our veterans every single day. I also think about folks like Bob Ford, who lives in Okeene, OK. He is working at Shawnee Milling Company and does a remarkable job just providing for the people in the community, but he has also kept alive the memory of fellow Vietnam veterans. In so many ways, he helps not only the park and other places to remember, but he also makes sure on Veterans Day that there are speakers in local schools and that someone is retelling the message. He is the one in the community who is always making sure there is a patriotic display at some point. You see, he is a Vietnam veteran himself who is serving and working in the community but who has also turned around said, though his uniform is not on anymore, he wants to make sure the next generation knows what honorable service really looks like. There are folks like Terry Hill from Kellyville, OK, who enlisted in the Army in 2013 as an engineer and was commissioned as an officer in 2008. He became a Black Hawk aeromedical research and maintenance test pilot. He flew 750 combat missions in Afghanistan over multiple deployments before he came down really, really hard one time and had a medical discharge. You see, for Terry, Veterans Day is not a once-a-year thing. He founded Rapid Application Group in his home. It is an additive manufacturing company. In fact, his is the only additive manufacturing company that has a disabled veteran running it in the entire country. Every Friday, he has a hashtag ``RAG Friday.'' Many of those who work in his company are also fellow veterans. But every Friday, he reminds everyone to watch out for fellow veterans, to watch out for issues like possible suicide senses, to engage with those folks who have made great sacrifices to serve our Nation, and to continue to check on them because some of the things they have experienced and some of the challenges they have faced leave lasting memories for them. As they stood for our freedom and our country forgets those moments, they never do because they have lived them firsthand. So his simple way to do RAG Fridays every Friday and to challenge folks to not forget veterans in your community is his way of being able to serve folks. Again, as a nation, we have not forgotten, but we are exceptionally grateful for those who remind us as a nation not just to remember once a year but to stay engaged with those veterans who have given so much and continue to give so much. Honestly, I don't know a veteran who is not still serving. They find ways to serve each other. They find ways to serve their community because it is in their heart, and it is deep within their soul. They have served our Nation, and they will continue to serve our Nation. And while some need our help, I most often hear from veterans: How can I help? So let me just say from my heart and from my State: Thank you, again, for serving the way that you serve. Allow us to say thank you to you face-to-face today and to tell you once again, we have not forgotten, and we are grateful for the sacrifice you and your family have made. For those Gold Star families, we cannot thank you enough because every day you remember, and you need to hear from us that so do we. When the Israelites crossed over the Jordan, they went back into that dry area and gathered stones. And they set those stones on the embankment for one specific purpose. The purpose was simple. They said: When your children walk past these stones in the days ahead and they say ``What are those stones for?'' you are to remind them of the faithfulness of God. They were to be a permanent reminder. Allow Veterans Day and the military memorials all over the State today to be a good teaching moment for our children so that when they say ``Why is that there?'' we remind them of the freedom that we have and the cost of that freedom and express our gratitude again to the veterans who have served us. I yield the floor.

Mr. LANKFORD

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

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, for the past several years, I have heard some pretty remarkable stories from the other side of the aisle and from the national media. We heard from an Atlantic article that the President called servicemembers killed in action ``losers.'' It was spread all over the place until it was refuted flatly by 14 different officials who were on the trip. We heard claims that the Trump administration has deployed Federal troops to Portland, and they were taking over the streets of Portland, until leadership of ICE and of DHS came to Congress and reported what actually happened, starting with, there were no Federal troops that went. There was Federal law enforcement there, but it is because it is a Federal building that was under attack. And they weren't just aimlessly roaming the streets arresting people, although they did arrest the people who threw Molotov cocktails at the building. I have heard that the post office cannot handle the increased volume of mail, and the Trump administration is intentionally trying to slow down the post office so mail can't come in, saying with frantic, breathless voices: It could be 100 million ballots coming in the mail. Can the post office handle it? Until you find out that 2 weeks before Christmas last year, the post office handled 2.5 billion pieces of first class mail just that 1 week--certainly they can handle 100 million ballots coming in over a month. I heard last summer that the President had taken away toothbrushes from children at the border--until a group of us were actually at the border the very next week and went into that exact facility saying there are no toothbrushes there available for the children and saw a storeroom full of toiletries--yes, including toothbrushes. I read the story and followed up with the ICE leadership about Muslims in our ICE detention facilities being forced to eat pork-- tormenting them by feeding them pork, against their faith--until we actually followed up on the facts of it and found that story was completely false. It seems every day--sometimes multiple times a day--there is a new accusation that comes out to attack the Trump administration and to challenge them on every angle of every direction you can possibly do it. And then for the Presiding Officer--you know this full well because I sat in that same chair for 2 hours last night during our 30 hours of continuous debate, following Senate rules to conclude a confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice, and I was quite amazed at some of the things I heard while I sat in the chair. I heard things like, well, Amy Coney Barrett should have never even come out of the Judiciary because Democrats boycotted coming, actually, to the hearing. If they don't come to the hearing, the nominee cannot come out; the Republicans have broken the rules. In fact, some of my colleagues went dangerously close to say: Because they broke that rule, we are going to break the next rule and pack the Court. Except they leave out one little thing: That has happened multiple times before. They did follow the rules. There wasn't a breaking of the rule in the committee. In fact, one of the Members speaking last night even said so far as, they broke the rules, except the Parliamentarian ruled them in order. And so the Parliamentarian was wrong as well. At least seven times since 2006--most recently in 2014 when Democratic Chairman Leahy sent a circuit court judge and two district judges to the floor, out of committee, when only one member of the minority was present--not fulfilling ``the rule.'' Republicans did not break the rule as they came out of committee with Amy Coney Barrett. I heard over and over again that there has never been a time like this that anyone has brought a Supreme Court nominee during an election year like this--except when you actually go back and look at the history, which I have recounted on this floor before, and multiple of my colleagues have recounted the actual history. But then last night I heard once again: Even Abraham Lincoln, the month before the election, could have put in a nominee for the Supreme Court, and he chose not to, to wait for the election. All I could do was sit with my mask-covered face in the presiding chair and smile and think about the Washington Post article that came out just a few weeks ago when Senator Harris gave the same lesson about Abraham Lincoln and the Supreme Court. The Washington Post, the day after, wrote an article titled ``Kamala Harris's `little history lesson' about Lincoln's Supreme Court vacancy wasn't exactly true.'' No, Abraham Lincoln didn't hold back and say: I will wait until after the election. That is not how that occurred. The Senate was not even in session during that time period. And Abraham Lincoln, in the middle of the Civil War, was waiting it out, trying to keep his fractured Republican coalition together and not fracture it by naming someone. In fact, he shrewdly ended up naming one of his opponents in the Republican Party as the nominee who would come after he was reelected. It is interesting to me how things seem to get twisted around in some of this debate. I heard last night during the debate time that Amy Coney Barrett refused to answer the questions--the most basic questions about what she believes about things. The shocking thing is, Amy Coney Barrett did the exact same thing that Ruth Bader Ginsburg did during her nomination and that every nominee has said. They said: I am a judge. I can't tell you how I am going to rule on it because it has to be based on the facts of the case. It not something I can just make up on the spot. In fact, this is what was quoted from Justice Ginsburg when she was Judge Ginsburg at the time and going through the nomination process. This is from Judge Ginsburg: I come to this proceeding to be judged as a judge, not as an advocate. Because I am and hope to continue to be a judge, it would be wrong for me to say or to preview in this legislative chamber how I would cast my vote on questions the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide. Were I to rehearse here what I would say and how I would reason on such questions, I would act injudiciously. Judges in our system are bound to decide concrete cases, not abstract issues. Each case comes to the court based on particular facts and its decision should turn on those facts and the governing law, stated and explained in light of the particular arguments the parties or their representatives present. A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process. For some reason Justice Ginsburg was celebrated by the left for not saying how she would rule, but Amy Coney Barrett has been shown disdain for saying she is not telling exactly how she will rule on every single issue. The most painful thing I heard last night when I was in the Chair and that I have heard over and over again in the dialogue has been a sad, personal destruction and deception, pushing Amy Coney Barrett over and over again as a closet racist and segregationist. I am disappointed that even this candidate is being challenged as a racist, quiet segregationist. It is the firebomb thrown into the middle of a dialogue. Over and over again, she was challenged by saying what would she do with Brown v. Board of Education, as if quietly she is a segregationist. Over and over again, her concept on originalism was pushed, and here is how it was framed on the debate on this floor: She is an originalist. That means she is backward-looking. That means she is supportive of those White men who supported slavery and would not allow women to be able to vote because, in their perspective, that is what an originalist is. They want to go back to slavery and segregation and removing the rights of women to vote--even saying last night that originalists go back to the time of child labor. It is a smear. It is a personal attack, and it is an act of desperation. It is an attempt to terrify the American people that this mother of seven is to be feared because she will take away your healthcare; she will take away your rights; she will remove every option that protects the rights of individuals in a free society; and, as was stated last night, she is afraid of ``we the people.'' We have a responsibility in this body to set the tone for the debate. We disagree on things strongly, and so do the American people. But this should not be a place of smears and personal attacks and disdain for each other and for labeling people--something that if we were to sit down face-to-face and I were to ask the Members on the other side of this Chamber ``Do you really think that Judge Barrett is a segregationist?'' I have every confidence that Members on the other side would say ``No, but it plays well to the base.'' What have we become? Future Justice Barrett, now Judge Barrett, was labeled over and over again as a person who doesn't have her own mind, who is running big- dollar donors from the Federalist Society and is just a puppet of the right, someone who actually was labeled to be groomed by the right for this position, as if that judge has not studied, worked, and prepared her entire life to serve. She has her own mind. She is well prepared. She is eminently qualified, and she is not a secret racist segregationist coming to take away healthcare from Americans. She is a judge who has heard 600 cases, graduated first in her law school class, taught law for 15 years at Notre Dame University, is well prepared, and, yes, does have this originalist view of the Constitution, meaning you can't just look at it and make it say what you want to. People on this floor can try to put words in her mouth which she has not said, as I heard over and over again, like her desire is to suppress voters. You cannot change how well prepared she is for this task and this moment. I am grateful that America continues to produce great leaders and great individuals who work hard in their personal lives, who study and prepare themselves to be ready to do whatever God calls them to do, and who are intently focused on serving their fellow Americans in the best way they possibly can. We ask of Justices one thing--at least I do: Follow the law. It seems my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are terrified that someone may just come follow the law and that policy arguments may have to be debated back in Congress again. Well, I hope that is true because there are policy arguments we need to resolve as a country, but let's resolve them in this Chamber, not in the one across the street. The one across the street, let's keep it nonpolitical, focus on just helping Americans follow the law. I look forward to voting for Amy Coney Barrett later on tonight, and I look forward to the day when false accusations are seen for what they really are. Let's do the right thing, and let's do it the right way. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I spent some one-on-one time yesterday with Amy Coney Barrett. I had the opportunity to be able to ask her questions about agency deference, about religious liberty, and about the responsibility of the three branches of government and the separation of those. We spent time talking about antitrust laws, Tribal laws, and all sorts of things to walk through some things that were not covered in the hearing time. I walked away even more impressed with her as a leader, her knowledge, her judicial temperament, her sense of responsibility, the awe that she is taking on this responsibility that the Nation would ask her to do. It stands in stark contrast to some of the conversations I have had with some of my colleagues on the other side and from the hearings over the last week where, most of the time, my colleagues spent their time saying that people should be afraid of this mother of seven, that she is a terrifying individual who will take away your healthcare, who will take away your right to be able to destroy your unborn child if you choose to, that she is racist and that she is anti-woman, which I thought were the ultimate challenges to her as a woman herself, obviously, and when she was challenged over and over again about being a racist and a segregationist. She is the mother of a multiracial family. It is a bizarre side-by-side to actually meet the actual person and to go through the law versus hearing the descriptions. Amy Coney Barrett is a native of New Orleans, LA. She is the daughter of a lawyer and a teacher, the oldest of seven children. She has been married to her husband Jesse for 21 years. She herself is the mother of seven children, as I mentioned before--Emma, Vivian, Tess, John Peter, Liam, Juliet, and Benjamin. We got to watch them sitting behind her, quietly watching, proudly, their mom. She graduated summa cum laude from Notre Dame Law School. After graduating from law school, she clerked for DC Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman and for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. She was challenged over and over again, with people saying: You are just like Scalia. She kept responding very calmly to people: ``I have my own mind.'' She practiced both trial and appellate litigation. Judge Barrett also worked for more than 15 years in academia. She was a distinguished legal scholar at the Notre Dame Law School, the University of Virginia School of Law, and George Washington University Law School. She published articles in the Columbia, Virginia, Texas, and Cornell law reviews. Three graduating classes at Notre Dame Law have selected Judge Barrett as the Distinguished Professor of the Year. In 2017, she was nominated by President Trump to serve on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and was confirmed by this Senate with a bipartisan vote. Judge Barrett's colleagues at Notre Dame signed a letter supporting her 2017 nomination, calling her ``a model of the fair, impartial and sympathetic judge.'' Since joining the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in 2017, Judge Barrett has participated in over 600 cases. The ABA Standing Committee issued Judge Barrett a ``well qualified'' rating based on ``the qualities of integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament.'' When confirmed, Justice Barrett will be the fifth woman to serve on the Supreme Court in its history. She will be the first mother of school-age children to serve on the Court. She will be the only sitting member of the Court to have graduated from a law school other than Harvard or Yale. She will also be the second sitting member of the Court to have been born in the South and only the second member in the Court's history to have been born in Louisiana. She will be the only sitting member of the Court to have served on the Seventh Circuit, which hears cases arising out of Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. During the Judiciary Committee hearings, we heard testimony from Laura Wolk, a former student of Judge Barrett's. It was remarkable testimony. She said, in part: [S]hould you confirm Amy Barrett, the country will receive something far greater than simply an unparalleled legal mind. The Supreme Court--and therefore all Americans--will gain the service of one of the kindest individuals I have ever known. Her brilliance is matched only by her compassion, and her honesty is beyond reproach. I do not speak in mere abstractions. Rather, I have experienced these characteristics firsthand, with life- changing results. . . . Judge Barrett described a mentor who gave her a treasured book of literature to commemorate their relationship. Judge Barrett has now passed that torch onto me, giving me a gift of immeasurable value: the ability to pursue an abundant life with the potential to break down barriers so that I can leave this world a better place than I found it. I could not agree more with her or with her colleagues and peers about her superb qualifications and preparedness to serve in this role. As an originalist and a textualist, her commitment to both the role of the Court and the rule of law are clear. To read her opinions from the perspective of the losing party demonstrates her fairness, her empathy, and her temperament as a judge. Beyond her resume and accolades, her character, her commitment to faith and family, and her service to her students and the community should not go overlooked. Judge Barrett has my unqualified, full support, and I look forward to voting for her nomination in the next few days. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, we are once again in a conversation about freedom of religion and the free exercise of religion and what that means. Very simply, I would argue that it means the ability to have any faith, to have no faith at all, to change your faith, and to be able to live it out. The ability to have a faith is a part of who we are. It is our most precious possession within us. If it is not that, if it is something less than that, if the free exercise of religion has limitations on it, then it is simply the freedom to worship or to have a named faith around you but not to actually live your faith. That is not what we have in this country, thankfully. We have a constitutionally protected right to the free exercise of religion. We have more than the freedom of worship at the place of our choosing; we have the ability to live our faith freely, 7 days a week, in all aspects of our lives. The question has become, though, are there certain positions in public life where you cannot have the free exercise of religion; where, literally, if you are elected or appointed into certain offices, you lose your constitutional right. The U.S. Constitution makes that very, very clear. Article VI of the Constitution says that ``no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification for any Office or public Trust under the United States.'' It should be pretty straightforward and clear. In our last confirmation hearing, then-Professor Amy Coney Barrett said, when asked a question about her faith: Senator, I see no conflict between having a sincerely held faith and duties as a judge. In fact, we have many judges, both State and Federal, across the country who have sincerely held religious views and still impartially and honestly discharge their obligations as a judge. And were I confirmed as a judge, I would decide cases according to rule of law, beginning to end, and in the rare circumstances that might ever arise--I can't imagine one sitting here now--where I felt I had some conscientious objection to the law, I would recuse. Three years ago, like today, Judge Barrett's faith--not her judicial philosophy or her temperament--seemed to be front and center. Three years ago, my colleague from California, Senator Dianne Feinstein, said this during Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearing: Why is it that so many of us on this side have this very uncomfortable feeling that, you know, dogma and law are two different things, and I think whatever religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different. And I think in your case, Professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you. Senator Durbin from Illinois just asked her a very straightforward question: ``Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?'' A question like that about the defining of faith and how much of a Catholic are you or how much dogma lives in you is really a question of, how much faith do you really practice, do you have a name on you, or do you practice a little too much faith for my comfort level? See, the free exercise of religion pertains to an individual's sincerely held religious beliefs. It is not about the acceptance of that belief by others. If it were, the free exercise of religion would be dictated by what others believe rather than what you believe. But in America--at least the America that I know--individuals are allowed to have a faith, live their faith, have no faith, or change their faith. For whatever reason, Judge Amy Coney Barrett is being criticized because she is Catholic. There is an AP article that came out just this week that did an in- depth view--it was sent all over the country--about, she is not just Catholic; she is one of those Catholics. It went into great detail about how she attends Bible studies and is on a board of a school and helps educate children and seems to believe that there is a personal relationship with Jesus, as they quoted in the article, as if that were some sort of criminal thing and needs to have some suspicion. It is about her faith that she is being challenged, this undercurrent. However, Justice Ginsburg was not shy about the fact that she was Jewish--nor should she have been. We have heard a lot about the fact that she was the longest serving Jewish Justice and the first Jewish person to lie in state in the Capitol. Why is it OK for Justice Ginsburg to talk about her faith and not Judge Barrett? Why is Justice Ginsburg's faith celebrated and Judge Barrett's faith currently being demonized? It is because those on the left believe their faith is OK, but for people on the right, it is suspicious. Even last night, Vice President Biden introduced himself as an Irish Catholic. That is celebrated on the left. But for Judge Barrett to identify herself as a Catholic, she is asked questioningly: Yeah, but are you one of those orthodox Catholics? One of the most remembered things about Justice Ginsburg--of many-- was her storied friendship with Justice Scalia. On paper, they would be the unlikeliest of friends. She was a Jewish liberal. He was a Catholic conservative. Their differences didn't divide them or offend each other. Of their friendship, Judge Barrett said: Particularly poignant to me was her long-- The ``her'' being Justice Ginsburg-- and deep friendship with Justice Antonin Scalia, my own mentor. Justices Scalia and Ginsburg disagreed fiercely in print without rancor in person. Their ability to maintain a warm and rich friendship despite their differences even inspired an opera. These two great Americans demonstrated that arguments, even about matters of great consequence, need not destroy affection. There is no question that Justice Ginsburg did a lot for the advancement of women in this country. Doesn't Judge Barrett also exemplify that? She is a circuit court judge. She graduated summa cum laude from Notre Dame Law School, first in her class. She has been a professor for 15 years at Notre Dame, has clerked for a Supreme Court Justice, is the mother of seven children, and was three times voted as the top law professor at Notre Dame. Thirty-four Supreme Court clerks who worked alongside Barrett--of all parties--wrote this: We are Democrats, Republicans, and independents, and we have diverse points of view on politics, judicial philosophy, and much else. Yet we all write to support the nomination of Professor Barrett to be a Circuit Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Professor Barrett is a woman of remarkable intellect and character. She is eminently qualified for the job. All 49 full-time faculty members of Notre Dame Law School--all 49 of them--signed a letter stating: [Barrett] possesses in abundance all of the other qualities that shape extraordinary jurists: discipline, intellect, wisdom, impeccable temperament, and above all, fundamental decency and humanity. Seventy-three law professors across the country, including former Obama administration Solicitor General Neal Katyal, stated this: Although we have differing perspectives on the methods and conclusions in her work, we all agree that Professor Barrett's contributions to legal scholarship are rigorous, fair-minded, respectful, and constructive. So she is criticized tenaciously because of her faith. She is criticized because she is not woman enough, whatever that may mean. She has even been criticized this past week and called a ``White colonizer.'' Two of her seven children were adopted from Haiti. She has been accused of using her children as props. How low can this go? This is what Judge Barrett had to say about her family: The president has asked me to become the ninth justice, and as it happens I am used to being in a group of nine--my family. Our family includes me; my husband, Jesse; Emma; Vivian; Tess; John Peter; Liam; Juliet; and Benjamin. Vivian and John Peter, as the president said, were born in Haiti, and they came to us five years apart when they were very young. And the most revealing fact about Benjamin, our youngest, is that his brothers and sisters unreservedly identify him as their favorite sibling. Our children obviously make our life very full. While I am a judge, I'm better known back home as a [room] parent, carpool driver, and birthday party planner. When schools went remote last spring, I tried on another hat. Jesse-- That is, her husband-- and I became co-principals of the Barrett e-learning academy. And yes, the list of enrolled students was a very long one. Our children are my greatest joy, even though they deprive me of any reasonable amount of sleep. Judge Barrett has even been criticized in her faith and been criticized in her relationship in her family. Judge Barrett said this about her husband and her family: I could not manage this very full life without the unwavering support of my husband, Jesse. At the start of our marriage, I imagined that we would run our household as partners. As it has turned out, Jesse does far more than his share of the work. To my chagrin, I learned at dinner recently that my children consider him to be the better cook. For 21 years, Jesse has asked me every single morning what he can do for me that day. And though I almost always say ``Nothing,'' he still finds ways to take things off my plate. And that's not because he has a lot of free time. He has a busy law practice. It is because he is a superb and generous husband, and I am very fortunate. Faith, her family--why are we doing personal attacks on a qualified candidate for the Supreme Court of the United States? First in her class, recognized by the faculty as superior, recognized by judges and leaders across the country as qualified--why are we into this conversation? On September 29, an article from NPR was entitled ``Amy Coney Barrett's Catholicism Is Controversial But May Not Be Confirmation Issue.'' The article said: Never before has the Court been so dominated by one religious denomination. . . . That is, Catholics. ``It's legitimate for senators to be concerned about whether the court is reflecting the diversity of faith in the United States.'' Wow. Now it is maybe we have too many Catholics. Maybe this is one too many, and Senators should consider the greater diversity. As odd as it sounds, the article didn't identify the fact that Amy Coney Barrett would be the only Justice not to have graduated from Harvard or Yale. There doesn't seem to be a desire to have a diversity of opinion or background in that. It is just about this one area--her faith. Imposing a religious test on a Supreme Court Justice is not only antithetical to the Constitution; it is a very slippery slope, and it is one we have been down before and I thought we had cleared. In 1960--1960--then-Candidate John F. Kennedy stood in front of a group of ministers in Houston, TX, who were concerned about having a Catholic President because we, as a country, had never had a Catholic President, and there were all these rumors and innuendoes out there that the President would work for the Pope. So in 1960 JFK stood in Houston, TX, and spoke to a group of ministers and made this statement. He said: I believe in an America . . . where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all. For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew--or a Quaker or a Unitarian or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you-- until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril. JFK said this: Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end; where all men and all churches are treated as equal; where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice; where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind; and where Catholics, Protestants, and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood. [This] is the kind of America . . . I believe [in]. And it represents the kind of presidency in which I believe--a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group, nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a president whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation, or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition of holding that office. I would not look with favor upon a president-- Or in this case, I would say a judge-- working to subvert the First Amendment's guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so. And neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test--even by indirection--for it. If they disagree with that safeguard, they should be out openly working to repeal it. We are a nation that celebrates faith and recognizes faith as a unifying factor, even in diversity of faith. I have had the privilege-- many of us have--to be able to pray with each other. We are Senators of different faiths, different backgrounds, different places. We work to treat each other with respect. Faith is not something that Americans should demand--nor the Senate should demand--that people have to take off to be able to serve the American people. We don't take our faith off. It is not a jersey that we wear on the outside; it is the core of who we are on the inside. That is not something that I just take off to put on public service. You put on public service, but your core faith should not be challenged to be removed from your soul to be a viable person to be able to serve the Court. Let's work on our concept of religious liberty. Whether you are a Christian, whether you are a Muslim, whether you are a Buddhist or a Hindu, you can be a great American and you can serve this great country in any location that you choose because we are a nation that honors and protects the right of free exercise of religion. I yield the floor.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I have 3 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 30, 2020, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 30, 2020, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 30, 2020, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, here we are again. It is late September, and the budget work has not been completed yet. It seems terribly familiar to this body, and it is frustrating. It is not as if no one knew September was coming; it was on the calendar. When I first looked at it in January this year, September already existed on the calendar. It is not as if we didn't know what all the deadlines were. Everyone knew full well what all the deadlines were. We can say it is the pandemic that slowed everything down, except for the fact that all of the appropriations work could have already been done, and much of the committee work could have been done. Some was done by the House but not completed. It can be done by the Senate, but it was not. So here we are again, watching the countdown clock toward a government shutdown as we discuss what happens next. Things have been tied up this week with what is called a continuing resolution. This body knows--others may not--that a continuing resolution is literally taking last year's appropriations bills, changing the dates, and moving them over to the new one. This particular continuing resolution stretches until December 11, when we would have to pick it up and pass more appropriations for another continuing resolution at that time. The fight this week has been over whether we are going to support rural America and agriculture. The House originally drafted a continuing resolution that left out all of the agriculture projects that were in it. The Senate, obviously, threw a fit over that and asked: Why are we supporting everything, including benefits to Sri Lanka to get added to the House's proposal for the continuing resolution, but you won't do so for America's farmers? So, in the back-and-forth conversation this week, the House had to extend. Then it went another day. Then the House finally put the agriculture projects back in--and still left in, by the way, benefit for Sri Lanka. Our ongoing conversations continue, though, about airlines. On October 1, airlines across the country are going to lay off 100,000 people--100,000. We have asked for some engagement on the issue of these airlines. In the CARES Act, back in March, we gave an extension to those airline workers so that the airline workers and the airlines could still stay connected to each other even when we were in this downtime. We are getting very close to a vaccine. It is like we can see the light on the other end of the tunnel, but it is not a train this time; it is actually light. We are going to get through this pandemic, but for whatever reason, the House refuses to deal with the issue of how to help airline workers at all, not even to do half of what was done in the past, not even to do a portion of what was done in the CARES Act. It has been exceptionally frustrating. It has been the same issue with the House in its not wanting to do anything on the Paycheck Protection Program. For the smallest businesses in America and for nonprofits, the House has put out a multitrillion-dollar proposal, and it doesn't even include anything for small businesses. We have continued to ask how we can address the issue of small businesses here. How can we extend the Paycheck Protection Program and give a second round to the hardest hit businesses? We don't think it is that unreasonable. As we are nearing the end, we need to help them bridge the gap at this point, but for whatever reason, it is not included either as we work our way through this process. Now, I don't know what will happen in the next few hours as we deal with the continuing resolution that will come from the House, but there is no reason we should be talking about a government shutdown again. A year ago, I and Senator Hassan, the Democratic Senator from New Hampshire, sat down to talk through how we could end government shutdowns forever so that government workers across the DC region and across the country would not be living in fear of being furloughed and so that Americans who would want to be able to connect with different agencies would be able to do that at all times, but we would still be able to have the arguments that are needed to be able to resolve budget issues. It may be surprising to some people across the country that Republicans and Democrats don't agree on everything in the budget. Shocking, I know. We should be able to have that fight, though, on the budget, but it should not lead to a government shutdown in the process. Government shutdowns cost us money every time it happens. So my and Senator Hassan's simple resolution resolves the issue by just asking one question: Who needs pressure applied to them to deal with the issue, and what is the pressure that needs to be applied? Our straightforward answer is this: Members of Congress and our staffs and the Office of Management and Budget and the White House should have the pressure applied to us to get it done. The easiest way to apply pressure to all of us is to take away our time. It is pretty straightforward. Here is our proposal: If you get to the end of the budget year and the appropriations work is not done, we will have mandatory quorum calls in this body at 12 noon every single day, 7 days a week, until we get all of the appropriations work done. None of us could travel. We would all stay here in DC. I will tell you that I really want to see my family on the weekends. I also have people back in my State with whom I have appointments whom I need to be able to see, and I have responsibilities there. I want to get back to my State of Oklahoma and be with those folks. I am sure all of you would love to get back to Oklahoma, but you would probably head back to your States instead. We want to be home. We want to be able to meet with our constituents. We want to take care of the practical needs that are there. The way to do that is to get our work done here. I have had folks say: Well, just take away everyone's money. Say, ``No budget, no pay.'' It makes a great bumper sticker. The problem is, as many people in this body know, there are a lot of folks in this body who are multimillionaires, and if they were honest, they would say their congressional salaries are rounding errors to their investments every month. Good for you, but it is not a pressure point. Taking away your congressional salary is not an emphasis to actually get the work done. Taking away time is a way to be able to press people to actually get their work done. Senator Hassan and I have worked it through the committee process; have passed it through the Homeland Security Committee; and have set it up. It has already been rule XIV'd, and it is on our Calendar now. At any moment, we in this body could determine to end government shutdowns. We will never have one again. If we get to the end of the fiscal year, a continuing resolution will kick in automatically, and we will all stay until we finish the negotiations for the appropriations work. However heated, however long that may take, we will stay and finish it until it is done. It is the right thing for us to do, and it is the right way to handle it. It is not pressure on the Federal workers. The Federal workers don't have the ability to make the decision here. Some people say: Well, those folks in DC can just tough it out anyway. Well, it is not just those folks in DC, though there are a lot of folks in DC who are working very hard for Americans all over the country. Just in my State of Oklahoma, there are 4,300 Federal employees who work in agriculture, who work for Housing and Urban Development, who work for the FAA--who work for all kinds of entities that take care of families in Oklahoma. They also deserve the privilege of continuing their service to their neighbors, just as always, while we are resolving our differences here. So my request is the same as it was last year: Why are we talking about the possibility of there being a government shutdown again when we could take that off the table forever with a straightforward, bipartisan proposal that says we will never again have a government shutdown? We will work out our differences because we do have differences, but we will not hold Federal workers hostage in the process. We will just stay and work out our differences. I look forward to seeing the vote on the continuing resolution and avoiding a shutdown again, but I look much more forward to never having shutdowns again when Senator Hassan's and my bill is finally voted on and passed I yield the floor.

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

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, a few days ago, Flight 971 took off from Tel Aviv Airport. You may say: Of course the flight took off from Tel Aviv; that happens every day--but not like this flight. You see, Flight 971 took off from Tel Aviv Airport, flew south, directly over Saudi Arabia, which hasn't happened, and landed in Abu Dhabi because the United Arab Emirates has formed a peace agreement with Israel-- recognizing its right to exist, opening up Embassies in Israel and in the United Arab Emirates, beginning trade in commerce. Just days ago, the first cargo aircraft took off and flew, taking supplies, technology, medicine--engagement between the Nation of Israel and the Arab nation of the United Arab Emirates, forming a new alliance in the Middle East. Flight 971 is significant because 971 is the country code if you are going to call the United Arab Emirates. The return flight, by the way, leaving from Abu Dhabi and flying back to Israel is Flight 972--the country code for Israel. That first flight that took off, on the outside of the plane were emblazoned three words--one in English, one in Hebrew, and one in Arabic--all translated, the word ``peace.'' It is a new day. And this week, when President Trump and the Foreign Ministers from the United Arab Emirates and from Bahrain and the Prime Minister of Israel all stood at the White House and spoke of each other in a new partnership and then all sat at a table and signed documents together, beginning a new relationship not just with UAE but also with Bahrain, it was a remarkable day in world history. In 70 years of Israel's history, only two nations that are Arab nations have recognized Israel's right to exist, even--Jordan and Egypt. In 1 day, two more nations joined--the UAE and Bahrain. It was significant to be able to see the journey on that and to be able to hear the Foreign Ministers of Bahrain and UAE compliment President Trump, Mike Pompeo, and Jared Kushner for their leadership and, as the Foreign Minister from Bahrain said, President Trump's statesmanship in this process. It was a negotiation that was turned on its head. For decades, American negotiators have tried to work to solve the issues with the Palestinians first and then to work to solve every other relationship second. That has been the American focus. The Trump negotiations reversed it. They believed that many in the Arab world were tired of the Palestinians holding their foreign policy hostage, and they flipped it and said: Why don't we start negotiating with the Arab world first and see if they want to open up trade negotiations with Israel and be able to stabilize those negotiations? It has worked. Not only has it worked in two countries--in a single day signing an agreement--but there are multiple other nations that are currently looking at this same deal with Israel to say: Yes, we still need to resolve the issues in the Palestinian territory. Yes, that is still very important. But these nations can work toward peace and unity together as they resolve their differences. They signed a document dealing with relationships diplomatically, but they also signed something they called the Abraham Accords Declaration. Let me read this accord to you because it is significant. It begins with this simple statement: We, the undersigned, recognize the importance of maintaining and strengthening peace in the Middle East and around the world based on mutual understanding and coexistence, as well as respect for human dignity and freedom, including religious freedom. That is a significant statement. Nations have spoken of religious freedom, but it has not thrived there. The document goes on to say: We seek tolerance and respect for every person in order to make this world a place where all can enjoy a life of dignity and hope, no matter their race, faith, or ethnicity We support science, art, medicine, and commerce to inspire humankind, maximize human potential and bring nations closer together. We seek to end radicalization and conflict to provide all children a better future. We pursue a vision of peace, security, and prosperity in the Middle East and around the world. It was a document many people said would never be signed, but it is a stake in the ground to say it is a new day in the Middle East in peace negotiations and a pivot, as Prime Minister Netanyahu said. Nations like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Amman, Morocco, Sudan, and Lebanon should take notice and should see the benefit to economic trade and engagement, to confronting Iranian influence in the area that tries to destabilize so much of the Middle East, pushing back on terrorism, and developing partnerships in science and health and technology and prosperity for everyone in the region. That happened this week.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. There is something happening on Monday that much of the world has missed as well in the Middle East. For a year, there has been a process ongoing to be able to confront Iran. Iran has actively stated they are going to continue to pursue their nuclear ambitions. They have actively stated they are going to pursue weapons deals. They have actively stated they want to continue to break the arms embargo. Some of our allies have stood silent, but Iran has discussed purchasing weapons of all types from all places. We used to be united-- regardless whether it was nuclear or not--that Iran should not continue to accelerate that. As the largest exporter of terrorism in the world, we should confront what Iran is trying to do--continue to provide heavy arms. As of Monday, the United States will move into a different mode with Iran. As of midnight Sunday night, snap back sanctions begin on Iran on Monday. And that is a different moment for us as a nation, to say we have stated as a country, now through multiple Presidencies, that we will not allow Iran to be a nuclear power or to continue to arm itself in such a way to do its neighbors harm. When snap back sanctions occur on Monday, all of our allies should be aware that the United States is steadfast in that commitment. We would ask you to join us in that as well. Over the past few months, thousands of troops have come back home from the Middle East--from Syria, from Iraq, from Afghanistan. By the end of this year, we will have 4,500 troops still in Afghanistan; that is from a high just a few years ago of 100,000 boots on the ground. Ongoing negotiations for peace continue between Afghan leadership and the Taliban. Those are problems that have existed for decades and in some areas, generations. While I don't believe Afghanistan will suddenly break out and be a bastion of peace for the world, we do have a responsibility to help them where we can but also an obligation to protect our sons and daughters. Our blood and our treasures spilled in Afghanistan for decades. We shouldn't lose the investment of that blood and treasure. But it is good to see so many people coming home. In Europe, a free-trade agreement is actively being negotiated with the UK. We are pleased to be able to partner with such a special- relationship country like the United Kingdom. We have had a long- lasting friendship with them since we settled a little conflict in 1776 and another dustup in 1812. That special relationship with the UK should continue on with a very good trade agreement. I am pleased that the administration continues to push forward in the area of trade--an area that it is amazing to me how many people didn't even notice was the powder keg of Europe that just recently was resolved. For generations, the area around Serbia, Kosovo have been a hotbed area for conflict. In the past few weeks, the Trump administration has negotiated a peace deal between Serbia and Kosovo that leaves Serbia to actually officially recognize Kosovo. Again, that may not seem like a big deal to many other people, but to Oklahomans--many of whom have served in our 45th and who have served there in Kosovo, helping to protect and stabilize that country and provide security there in that region--it is very significant to us to be able to see peace breaking out between Serbia and Kosovo. I am pleased that, while many people in the world don't even pay attention to what is happening in Serbia and Kosovo, the Trump administration has, and their diplomatic team has been very engaged in negotiating that and bringing to them some stability. Interestingly enough, in the negotiations both Serbia and Kosovo also agreed to designate Hezbollah as a foreign terrorist organization and to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to be able to move their embassies to Jerusalem, which is another affirmation of what is happening in the Middle East in the string of what is ongoing. One last comment that many people may have missed, we all grieve for what is happening in Lebanon. That experiment in multiracial, multifaith, and cooperative government has been a struggle, but they have been a stronghold for religious tolerance in Lebanon. Watching the hundreds of people who were killed and thousands who were injured in the explosion at their docks in Beirut was painful for the entire world. The United States has stepped up as being the top donor to humanitarian aid to Lebanon during this time period, and we are engaging in multiple ways. At the end of the day, if we are going to help Lebanon be stable, we have to help that experiment in democracy there in the Middle East to be able to thrive with transparency. I partnered with Senator Murphy and several other colleagues to help set our Nation's priority to help Lebanon rebuild, including to utilize the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, called the DFC, to help them in their infrastructure projects; to push out China, which is trying to work their way into the Middle East and dominate there; to allow the people of Lebanon to decide their own future; to leverage leadership in the International Monetary Fund to prevent multilateral bailouts that don't allow for real reforms in their banking system; and to push out corruption and push out Hezbollah. There are things we can do that are not of a partisan nature on which Senator Murphy and I cooperate together to be able to help push for Lebanon. It is important that they continue to be a stable force in the region. This is a real time of testing for them as a country. I am proud the administration has pushed our diplomats in Lebanon to be able to find ways where we can practically help now and long term for real reforms for them. There is a lot going on around the world. While we are focused on COVID, rightfully so for our own health, while we focus on our economy, rightfully so, and while we focus on the issues of racial inequality, rightfully so, we cannot lose track of the issues we also need to be engaged in around the world. It is important that America continue to be a leader in diplomacy and a leader in bringing religious liberty and freedom and opportunity for all people. Whether you are in Hong Kong, as we discussed before, or whether you are in Abu Dhabi, all people deserve the recognition of their humanity and respect and an opportunity to be able to live their lives with freedom. Let's continue to stand for the values that define us and define us together. I yield the floor.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, for the past several weeks I have had the opportunity to be able to travel around the great State of Oklahoma. I have literally been from Guymon to Talihina, to Bartlesville, to Lawton to cover as much space as I could and talk to as many people as I could. Obviously, we were in smaller groups, with masks and social distancing and doing all the things we could to take care of each other, but taking the moment to meet with school superintendents, parents, teachers, healthcare providers and hospital administrators, small business owners and employees of large and small businesses, not- for-profits and their volunteers, law enforcement individuals, city managers, mayors, city councilmen, State leadership. I wanted to hear what was happening on the ground in my State in order to know what needs to be addressed because there has been a lot of noise in Washington, DC, about what needs to be done on COVID. There are many people in the national press who are struck by the fact that $3 trillion has already been allocated to deal with COVID-19 and a tremendous number of changes have already occurred. But in this town there are a significant number of people who say: We just spent $3 trillion. That was fun. Let's do it all over again and see how we can spend even more. My focus has been very simple: What is needed to be able to beat the virus? What I heard all over Oklahoma wasn't ``Go do more; just spend more and create new programs'' but ``How can we beat this virus back so that we can actually get to a moment where we can function again economically as a nation?'' People are returning to work, but they are asking very basic questions. The first of those is ``This is a health crisis. What do we do?'' The bill that has just been released, which we are voting on in the Senate tomorrow, has a whole series of issues tailored to actually work on beating the virus back and getting our economy going and helping to protect our families. That is the design of this. It is not just doing something; it is trying to do the right things to actually help us get through this and get to the other side, starting with money for testing--not just additional testing but new types of testing to make sure that we have even faster tests out there and that we have more testing that actually addresses the issue of how we can do it on-site, get an accurate result, and not wait weeks. While we literally have millions of tests that have been done, we have some tests that take a long time to get back. In March, we were dealing with ``Let's get a test,'' and now we are dealing with ``Let's get a faster test.'' That is a lot of the focus of the funding here: faster testing. On vaccines, there are six vaccines right now that are in human trials or that are approaching human trials, which is remarkable, thinking about the history of vaccines and how long it has taken. But there was a significant amount of money invested in this in February and March in previous bills to be able to fast-track the research, and that has made a difference. Now it is a matter of moving it from the research phase to trials to actually implementing it nationwide. So there is significant money for testing, for vaccines, and for treatments. Secondly, how do we get our schools open again? I heard over and over again from parents, administrators, and teachers: We want to get our schools open again--public, private, charter, online, whatever it may be. Those parents who are taxpayers and individuals--regardless of where they choose to send their child to school or if they choose to keep their child at home for school--want to know what is going to be done to help our kids get educated. While the vast majority of funding and authority for education is in the States, there is a Federal connection here that we should be able to help, especially kids with special needs. They have unique challenges during this time of COVID- 19, and we need to be able to get those kids back in school and get them the additional care they need during this time period. What all parents are saying to me is this: I want the best possible moment. I do not want my kid being written off for the future because someone didn't choose to invest in them now. This bill has $105 billion toward education--public, private, charter, homeschool. It has tax credits built in to assist parents to be able to choose where they want their kids to go. It has the ability for more schools to go online to help through this season. It has additional dollars to be used for transportation because many school districts are doing multiple bus routes to keep down the number of people on individual buses. All of those things are helpful. We want to help get our kids back in school and make sure that this is successful. During this moment, it has been interesting. As I talked to many superintendents and educators, they all said to me the same thing: We are working hard to get our kids back to class and to do the things they need to do. Then they would pause and say: For years we have talked about innovation in education, but we have been stuck doing the same thing over and over again and have been frustrated with the results. This pandemic has forced us to innovate in education in ways that we only dreamed about years ago. We need to be prepared during this season not only to continue to educate our kids in the best way possible but to take notes on the best innovations across the country in education because we have said as a nation that we need to be stronger in how we are educating our kids and the end product of that and how we are preparing them for the workforce. This is that moment we should pay attention to, as well, in the education innovations that are actually going on in my State and in many States around the country. There is money in this, as well, for childcare. This has been an interesting challenge. Childcare facilities have fewer people who are actually allowed to be there--the children who are able to be there-- but the profit margin doesn't work for them to have all those employees and fewer children. We want them to be able to be there and be successful and survive this, so we added additional dollars for childcare. We have additional dollars for ag because in some areas of agriculture across the country, they have done very well, but some have really struggled. If we all want to be able to eat at the end of this, we better make sure that ag survives and thrives through this. I met with a lot of small business leaders and heard a lot of different conversations. They were very appreciative of the Paycheck Protection Program. In my State, 61,000 small businesses and not-for- profits took advantage of the Paycheck Protection Program, and many of them told me that they would not be open today if it weren't for that. They are grateful this body came together to deal with the Paycheck Protection Program because it made a difference in my State and many other States around the country. The bill we are putting on the floor on Thursday deals specifically with the next round of paycheck protection, limiting it to the hardest hit small businesses and nonprofits, those that have had the largest amount of revenue loss and that are the smallest of businesses. We need them to be able to survive through this. Nothing is going to make them whole, and the goal of this shouldn't be to make every business whole. We can't financially sustain that as a country, but we can try to get people through this and get to the other side of it. We are all going to have to innovate. Most of the small businesses that I talked to told me about the innovations they were doing and how they used to do business one way, and, within 36 hours, they figured out a way to do it a different way. That is the American system. That is free market and capitalism at their best--that at the moment of struggle, you can go innovate and do things different and be successful with that. That is what we have to continue to protect--not too much government oversight and control of everything that, in the days and moments where we have to innovate, people can't innovate because they have so much government mandates on them. I was grateful to the Trump administration for how much flexibility they gave to the process, not only to waivers for child lunches through the schools and flexibility there, but flexibility for businesses to be able to innovate in a very difficult moment. We will need another round--a smaller round, but another round--for the hardest hit businesses for the Paycheck Protection Program. Our not-for-profits told me over and over how much work they are doing during this time period. We need to make sure those not-for-profits not only survive it but thrive. As I have said to this body before, we have three safety nets in America: the family; churches, not-for-profits, and faith-based institutions; and then government is third. A lot of people look at our safety net as being all the government programs, but that is the last in this cycle. If our families aren't strong, then individuals struggle. If our faith-based entities and our not-for-profits that take care of so much human need are not strong and thriving and those volunteers aren't engaged, there is no way the government can keep up with the issues. So just keeping not-for-profits open can't be the goal for this. We have to keep them thriving. Those not-for-profits around the country are taking care of the homeless, the hungry, and the hurting, and we need to find ways to strengthen them. The best way to do that is not to have some government program to establish the best way to identify good not-for-profits. The best way to do that is to allow the American people to look at what is working in their neighborhoods and their communities, because they will invest their own dollars to do that. In the CARES Act, I pushed for and we got a $300 write-off on your taxes if every American will give $300 to the not-for-profit of their choice. In this proposal, that doubles for the individuals and quadruples for the family. This is a $600 tax write-off for an individual or a $1,200 tax write-off for a family if they will donate to a not-for-profit. Why do we choose to do that? Because not-for-profits are way more efficient at taking care of human need than the government is and because they have a face. They are interacting with a family. They are interacting with an individual directly. They are not dealing with someone on the phone or online. It is not a check that you receive or a form that you fill out. It is a person that you meet with face to face who says: How can I help you? And it is a volunteer that will walk through life with you. Those faith-based ministries and those secular and other not-for- profits out there are making an enormous difference, and the best thing that we can do to make sure they thrive in this moment is to make sure that we incentivize individuals that give to them by saying: You can give this to Uncle Sam or you can give this to a local charity of your choice. Either way, it is going to strengthen individuals. Go engage with that. That is in this bill, and it is important that we continue to walk alongside them and all of those not-for-profits to make sure they thrive because we need them thriving, not just surviving in this moment. There is one other thing that I want to identify. There are a lot of things that are in this bill. It is liability protections. Businesses and universities in my State said: We desperately need the Federal Government to clarify liability protections. Now, there have been individuals on the other side of the aisle that have said: We don't want to do that. We want to just leave that up to the lawyers in the days ahead who have lawsuits. What is occurring is there are many businesses in my State that are holding back and many schools in my State that are holding back trying to figure out what happens next for fear of what could be a series of lawsuits. They just want clarity. They want to do business where they can protect their employees, protect the customers or individuals or students that are there that are around them, but they also want to be able to operate and function again, and they don't feel like they can do that without basic liability protections and liability definitions. This bill provides that. Now, I have heard some in the media and some even in this building who have said this is a pared-down skinny bill. Only in Washington, DC, is a $300 billion piece of legislation considered skinny--only here. Over and over again at home, when I talk to people across the State of Oklahoma and I would present what has already been done in the previous acts--the $3 trillion that have already been spent on COVID in the months before and the proposals that we have now--they would quietly pull me aside at the end of the meeting and they would say almost exactly the same thing: Where is this money coming from? People are worried about the virus, but they are also worried about what is coming next. People are used to taking out a loan if there is a major storm or a major life event, knowing I have to take this loan out to get through it, but they also realize that for every loan they take out, they have to pay that back. The people in my State are saying the same thing: Where is this money coming from? How are we ever going to pay it back? And they are shocked that the House of Representatives and many in this room are pushing a bill that is $3.5 trillion in spending on top of the $3 trillion that was already spent earlier this year, and they just gasp when they think about an additional $6.5 trillion of deficit in a single year. They wonder what happens with that, and I respond to them: So do I. That is why we are trying to be as tailored and as focused as we can possibly be to meet the needs that need to be done but to not just throw a big number out and to say we have to go big. We already have gone big earlier this year. Now, it is not just ``can we throw money out the door from Washington, DC,'' but it is ``what do we have to do to get to the other side of this for our health, for our students, for the basic operations of our economy and survival to be able to get on the other side of this,'' because on the other side of this is a bill that has to be paid We, in this body, should pay attention to that because, certainly, the people in Oklahoma are paying attention to that and so should we. There are things that need to be done, and I look forward to bringing this up to be able to focus on the essential things that need to be done for our economy right now and be able to keep moving from there. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I have 8 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 9, 2020, at 10 a.m. in open session for a hearing entitled ``The Status of the Federal Reserve Emergency Lending Facilities.'' committee on environment and public works The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 9, 2020, at 10 a.m., in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Successful State Stewardship: A legislative hearing to examine S. 614, the Grizzly Bear State Management Act.'' committee on foreign relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 11 a.m., to hold a classified briefing titled ``Update on Eastern Europe.'' Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 9, 2020, at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Vaccines: Saving Lives, Ensuring Confidence, and Protecting Public Health.'' committee on homeland security and governmental affairs The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 9, at 3:30 p.m. in order to conduct a hearing on the nominations of John Gibbs to be Director, Office of Personnel Management, and the Honorable John M. Barger, the Honorable Christopher B. Burnham, and Frank Dunlevy to be Members, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board. Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 9, 2020, at 10 a.m. in room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.'' committee on veterans' affairs The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 9, 2020, at 3:30 p.m. in SD-106 to conduct a hearing titled ``S. 785: Leading the Way to Comprehensive Mental Health Care and Suicide Prevention for Veterans.'' select committee on intelligence The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 9, 2020, from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. in room SD-G50 in the Dirksen Senate Office Building to hold an open hearing on ``Declassification Policy and Prospects for Reform.''

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, I want to ask my colleague if there is a difference between this resolution and the resolution on elections in Belarus that was filed last week, was discharged, and then passed on the hotline yesterday. Obviously there are lots of other issues about elections. There has been a lot of conversation that we have had about elections worldwide and about security of elections, but that particular resolution wasn't held up to go through the Foreign Relations Committee to discuss international elections more. It was discharged, and it was sent to the floor on a hotline, and Republicans and Democrats alike agreed on that resolution and passed it through. Is there a substantive difference between this resolution and that one?

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, thousands of radical Islamists rallied on Friday in Northwestern Pakistan in support of a man who earlier this week walked into a courtroom in the city of Peshawar and gunned down a U.S. citizen on trial for blasphemy. That is how the New York Times started its article on this issue last week. The American, Tahir Naseem, died of his wounds before he could be taken to the hospital while the gunman was taken into custody. The U.S. State Department said Naseem was standing trial after being lured to Pakistan from his home in Illinois. He was entrapped by the country's controversial blasphemy law, which international rights groups have sought to have repealed. The blasphemy law calls for the death penalty for anyone found guilty of insulting Islam, but, in Pakistan, the mere allegation of blasphemy can cause mobs to riot and vigilantes to kill those who have been accused. Pakistani officials said Naseem was charged with blasphemy after he declared himself to be Islam's prophet. That was the accusation that was laid against him. At the rally in Peshawar, which was in support of the person who murdered the American citizen, the demonstrators carried signs that praised the murderer for the killing and called for his immediate release from jail. They said he killed Naseem because the government was too slow in prosecuting blasphemy cases. Last December--8 months ago--I filed a resolution to speak with a unified voice on what I considered to be a nonpartisan issue--a simple statement from this Congress condemning blasphemy laws across the world wherever they exist. We are a nation that stands for the ability of every individual to choose any faith, to change one's faith, or for one to have no faith at all. That is a basic human right. Yet, according to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, 84 countries-- more than one-third of the world's countries--have a blasphemy law on the books, including in Pakistan, where an American citizen was murdered last week under an accusation of blasphemy. This resolution that I filed 8 months ago with the Foreign Affairs Committee has already moved in the House. The House Foreign Affairs Committee worked through the process of this resolution in March of this year and passed it unanimously. It was sponsored by Democrat Jamie Raskin and had the support of multiple Democrats on the Foreign Affairs Committee. It was overwhelmingly moved while this resolution--a mere eight pages--has sat, unmoved, for 8 months. The Vice Chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, who was appointed by Speaker Pelosi, has said that USCIRF-- that is this organization--has noted countless times that Pakistan's blasphemy law inflames interreligious tensions and too often leads to violence. He urges the State Department to enter into a binding agreement with the Pakistani Government that includes the repeal of blasphemy provisions in the Pakistan Penal Code. I could not agree more. The Trump administration has spoken out on this, and the House of Representatives has spoken out on this. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, a nonpartisan group, has spoken out on this. We in the Senate should also speak out on it, and the time to speak out on it is when we have just had an American citizen murdered overseas because of these laws. It is prime time to move this. This is something that, I believe, should be passed by unanimous consent. How could we oppose the movement of something like this? Now, I have heard that, possibly, we should slow this whole thing down because resolutions like this should have a fulsome committee process. They should be heard and marked up and read and reread, and 8 months is not enough time to review them. The problem with that is that, last week, a Democratic resolution on elections in Belarus was filed. It was never heard by the Committee on Foreign Relations here in the Senate. Yet it was discharged, placed on the hotline yesterday morning, and cleared last night. So, for Democratic bills, they don't have to go through the committee process, apparently. They can just move through on their own because the Republicans have not opposed those. The Republicans take the time to read these on their own--to go through the resolutions and make decisions on them. That resolution had a majority of Democratic sponsors, but it also had Republican sponsors. This resolution is sponsored by Chris Coons and me. We also consider it to be a nonpartisan issue. Something that has sat in the committee for 8 months, waiting, surely can move when something that was filed last week and never heard by the Committee on Foreign Relations could move on the hotline in a single day. So I bring this resolution because I think we should speak out on this as the House has already spoken out on it, as the State Department has already spoken out on it, as the Trump administration has already spoken out on it, and as USCIRF has already spoken out on it. Why wouldn't 100 Senators speak out on this blasphemy resolution today Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration and that the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 458. I further ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. LANKFORD

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