Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. The last word will be very brief if I am recognized, Mr. President.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Let me commend the chairman. I don't think we would be here without Chairman Inhofe's leadership. I have never seen anyone work so diligently and so constructively. We want to thank the staff. They do a remarkable amount of work. Also, we have to recognize our colleagues in the House--Chairman Adam Smith, who did a good job, and Ranking Member Mac Thornberry, whose name is on this bill. I urge passage, and I commend the chairman. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I also want to thank the chairman for his extraordinary leadership in getting us to this point. For 59 years straight we have passed the National Defense Authorization Act, and I think, honestly, without the chairman's leadership we would have failed this year. So he is owed a great debt of gratitude by all of us and appreciation, particularly from the men and women of the military. Let me speak a bit about this year's bill: the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. We reached a conference committee report which was fair and bipartisan. In fact, I think the best testimony of that was the vote last evening by the House of Representatives--335 to 78, with 1 Member voting present. That is, by definition, bipartisan, substantive, overwhelmingly supported by both sides as a fair--not only fair but extraordinarily beneficial piece of legislation for the country. You don't get that vote on something that is partisan and narrowly defined and divisive. This bill is bipartisan. Again, Exhibit A: the vote last night in the House of Representatives. We have passed it for 59 years. There should be no exception this year. This is the 60th. And I hope we complete that and I expect we will complete that tomorrow. And, indeed, this whole effort, like everything else in this country, has been twisted and exacerbated by the COVID virus. We have to deal with that, but we recognize that, despite all the complications, despite all of the issues that come before us, one of our most important constitutional duties is to provide for the security of this Nation and provide for the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States. This bill does that. This important bipartisan legislation enhances our national security, strengthens military readiness and defense capabilities, protects our forces and their families, and it supports the defense industrial base. This bill authorizes the active and reserve component end strength necessary to meet national defense objectives, provides a 3-percent across-the- board pay raise for the troops, and authorizes a number of bonus, special, and incentive pay authorities necessary to retain and recruit the highest quality individuals for military service. The conference report, as I indicated, passed by an overwhelming margin in the House, and I hope and believe we will have that same outcome tomorrow in the Senate. Despite everything in this bill to support our forces and bolster our national security, there have been threats to veto the bill by the President. That is his prerogative as President of the United States, but our responsibility and our prerogative is to pass legislation which is sound, we hope bipartisan, and serves the needs of the Nation and, particularly in this case, the troops. And I believe we have done that. There has been some discussion by the President of a repeal of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Obviously that is not in our jurisdiction. It is a complicated issue. To simply, at the end of this process, stick it in does a great disservice to the committees of jurisdiction, as well as to the complexities involved in taking away a major factor in the operation of social media companies all across this country. So, once again, I think it was wise to resist trying to insert a repeal of section 230 into the bill. Indeed, our national security and our troops should not be held, in a sense, hostage to a very specific business concern, and our legislation does not do that. As I mentioned a moment ago, the crisis affecting every citizen is an exponential spread of the COVID-19 virus, and our military is not immune. As of last Wednesday, more than 31,000 military personnel were infected. If you add their families and Defense Department civilians, the number is over 48,000. These infections undermine our readiness, including the ability to train and to deploy safely. To respond to this health crisis--again, the most serious crisis we have faced in 100 years, with respect to the pandemic--the conference agreement requires the Department to develop a strategy for pandemic preparedness and response, maintain a 30-day supply of personal protective equipment, and to have the capability to resupply such equipment rapidly and review the Military Health System's response to COVID-19. The conference agreement also requires the creation of a registry of TRICARE beneficiaries diagnosed with COVID-19 and provides transitional health benefits for National Guard members and their families. I can't think of a more timely and necessary provision than this provision in our legislation, which addresses this pandemic that faces us today. Now, there has been one very high profile--there are several high profile but one high profile issue that is surrounding the bill this year, and that is the conference agreement inclusion of the Senate provision renaming military installations that are named after Confederate leaders. This provision establishes a commission to make recommendations for the renaming or removal of names, symbols, displays, monuments, and paraphernalia that honor or commemorate the Confederacy or any person who served voluntarily with the Confederacy. The provision also requires the Secretary of Defense to rename and implement the commission's plan within 3 years of enactment. Now, I know the President recalls this, but this passed our committee by voice vote with one, I recall, objection by the Senator from Missouri. It came to the floor, and there were some attempts to make changes, but changes were not made. The bill passed overwhelmingly for--I believe over 80 votes--including the precise language that is in this conference report. So we went from committee to the floor, to the conference with the same language that was not objected to significantly by anyone. I think that should be pointed out. The senior Department officials at the Department of Defense are all open to changing these names. There is bipartisan support and cooperation on this issue, and I think it will be something that will be implemented and will be appropriately implemented. The conference agreement also includes a number of provisions aimed at increasing diversity and inclusion within the Department of Defense and military services, including the creation of a Chief Diversity Officer within the Department and the inclusion of programs at the Department to respond to White supremacist, extremist, and criminal gang activity within the Armed Forces. I say with some sense of remorse and regret that, unfortunately, there are some--I don't think significant numbers but some of these individuals. We have to respond to them, and we are responding to them. The conference report also includes the Elijah Cummings Anti- Discrimination Act of 2020, which expands and enhances anti- discrimination employee protections for Federal workers. Also, the conference agreement strengthens the Department's civilian workforce by including technical fixes and improvements to the Paid Parental Leave Program authorized in last year's Defense bill. As the Presiding Officer recalls, last year was a major breakthrough, giving Federal employees the incentive of paid parental leave. It has been extremely well received. Now we have made sure that no one has been left out. We are all, I believe, disappointed that, as we look at the record of all the services dealing with sexual assault in the military, they have not made the progress I think we all deem necessary. To reduce barriers and encourage victims of sexual assault to report that they were assaulted, the conference report requires the Secretary of Defense to establish a safe-to-report policy that would allow victims to report sexual assault without being punished for minor misconduct related to the assault. We are also concerned about the issue of domestic violence affecting our military families. The conference report requires the Defense Department to contract with a private sector independent entity to assess the Department's domestic violence program and to recommend improvements to enhance the prevention of and response to domestic violence in the military. Let me turn to the requirements of specific military services. The conference report supports a number of programs necessary for modernization, including robust funding for the Army's Future Vertical Lift Program and long-range precision fires. For the Navy and Marine Corps, the bill would add roughly $3 billion to authorize a number of unfunded priorities identified by the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant, including funding for the CNO's top unfunded priority, the 10th Virginia-class submarine in the current multiyear procurement program. It also mandates changes in the oversight and execution of shipbuilding and unmanned systems development programs--changes that should help instill more rigor and discipline within the Navy's efforts. With respect to the Air Force, the bill helps improve oversight of the Department by requiring the Secretary of Defense to submit an annual 30-year plan for the procurement of aircraft across the services--all the services--which is similar to the 30-year shipbuilding report that is already in statute. The bill also supports the Department's efforts to achieve reduced operating and support costs of the F-35 program. Turning to science and technology, I am pleased that the bill increases funding for important research activity such as artificial intelligence and quantum computing. It also includes several provisions that strengthen our domestic manufacturing and industrial base, including in critical sectors such as microelectronics, pharmaceuticals, and rare earth materials. The conference report adopts a large number of recommendations from the Cyberspace Solarium Commission, which was cochaired by Senator King. I must applaud him for his extraordinary work. They did remarkable work, Senator King and his colleagues in the Senate and the House of Representatives. The conference report establishes the National Cyber Director position within the Executive Office of the President to provide national leadership for cyber security, which cuts across many different agencies and jurisdictions. This is one of the key recommendations, but we have many more recommendations included in the report. As we turn and look at the world outside of the United States, particularly with regard to Russia and Europe, the conference report enhances our ability to deter Russian aggression, maintains strong support for Ukraine, and reaffirms our commitment to the Transatlantic Partnership by calling for a strong U.S. force posture and capabilities in Germany. The conference report also expands sanctions on entities engaged in the construction of the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline and a requirement to impose sanctions under the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, CAASTSA, on Turkey for its purchase of the Russian S-400 air defense system. Turning to China, our other major adversary--and as the chairman pointed out the two major features in the new national defense strategy authored under the guidance and direction of President Trump--turning to China, the bill established the Pacific Deterrence Initiative, a new authority for the Department of Defense modeled after the European Deterrence Initiative, and authorizes an additional $150 million in funding. And I give great credit to the chairman because it was his idea, and he asked me to participate with him. But it is a great recognition of the world as it is today--China in an adversarial position--and we responded to it. I believe this is one of our strongest bills yet on countering the threat that China poses to the United States and our partners and allies, including India, Taiwan, and other countries in the region. With respect to countering the continued threat posed by ISIS, the conference report extends the Iraq and Syria train-and-equip programs at the requested funding level, while ensuring appropriate congressional oversight of the use of such funds. Specific to Iraq, the conference report continues efforts to normalize security assistance to Iraq by transitioning funding to enduring authorities and not other temporary authorities we have been using over the last several years--many years, frankly. For Afghanistan, the bill extends the authority to train and equip Afghan security forces and enhances congressional oversight. It requires an assessment of the progress made on such issues as anti- corruption, recruitment and retention of security forces, and commitments made by the Afghan Government in support of intra-Afghan negotiations. It also includes a restriction on funding to reduce U.S. forces in Afghanistan until the administration submits an assessment of the impact of such actions on U.S. interests. In addition, the bill includes a provision to enhance congressional oversight of the administration's negotiations with the Taliban to ensure the Taliban is in compliance with the commitments made on February 29, 2020, and to address current and projected threats to the homeland emanating from Afghanistan. The key commitment is that we would be able to maintain a counterterrorism presence that would be adequate and sufficient to suppress any threat emanating from Afghanistan, and that has to be confirmed. We are still waiting for that confirmation. I am also pleased the conference agreement includes several provisions, collectively known as the United States-Israel Security Assistance Act, to extend foreign assistance, cooperative development programs, and other support to Israel. These provisions demonstrate our unwavering commitment to Israel. Turning to our nuclear triad, the conference report authorized the President's request to continue the modernization of our nuclear deterrent, which is quickly nearing the end of its use life, and the President recognizes that very precisely. The conference report will also ensure the continuation of much needed modernization efforts to continue to rebuild our aging National Nuclear Security Administration infrastructure. The conference report does not support additional testing, as the directors of our weapons labs have assured us and certified that it is not necessary at this time. The bill before the Senate is bipartisan, with strong support in Congress. This bill is critical to our national security, but more importantly, it provides the resources our troops need in order to do their job and return home safely to their loved ones. Any discussion of vetoing this bill undermines the commitment, I believe, that we have made to our servicemembers and should be off the table. Vetoing this bill would send the wrong signal to our forces, our allies, and our adversaries at exactly the wrong time. It is not necessary, and it should be avoided. Let me close in the way that I began. Let me commend Senator Inhofe. He has worked this bill tirelessly, and I believe he has been fair and transparent throughout the process. As I said before, the reason we have this bill for the 60th year--assuming our vote is strong tomorrow--is because of the chairman and several others, but it is the chairman principally. I would also like to take a moment to commend Mac Thornberry. The bill is named after Mac. He is an extraordinary gentleman. I had the privilege of serving with him for 2 years in the House of Representatives. He is an individual whose wise counsel, whose integrity, whose decency, and whose dedication to the men and women of the armed services is unparalleled. He is an extraordinary gentleman. I can't think of a more fitting tribute and a more apt tribute than naming this bill after Mac Thornberry. I have to conclude by saying that despite the appearance we have done all this work, our staff is extraordinary. John Bonsell and Liz King-- the staff directors--did superb work. Let me recognize my staff, my Democratic staff: Jody Bennett, Carolyn Chuhta, Jon Clark, Jonathan Epstein, Jorie Feldman, Creighton Greene, Ozge Guzelsu, Gary Leeling, Maggie McNamara Cooper, Kirk McConnell, Bill Monahan, Mike Noblet, John Quirk, Arun Seraphin, Fiona Tomlin, and last but not least, Elizabeth King. Again, this Fiscal Year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act conference report is the culmination of months of hard work. It is a good bill. I would say, in fact, it is one of the best bills that we have had in many, many years, and it will provide for our national security and our men and women in uniform and their families. I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, it is an honor to join my colleagues from Maryland, Senator Cardin and Senator Van Hollen, and my colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, to take a moment to recognize and remember my esteemed former colleague and dear friend, Senator Paul Sarbanes, who passed away last Sunday. Paul Sarbanes spent 30 years in this Chamber doing what he knew was right. In that time, he built a legacy most could not achieve in two lifetimes. Paul's work on banking, the economy, housing, transportation, and so many other issues had a profound and significant impact on our country. But, more importantly, his work had a direct impact on so many families whose lives were made better because of his unsung efforts over three decades. I had the distinct honor of serving with Senator Sarbanes and working directly with him on the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee and the Joint Economic Committee. Senator Sarbanes was a constant and steady champion of commonsense fiscal policies to help create jobs, expand our economy, and increase consumer and investor protections. Indeed, he used his power and influence to help those with the least power and influence in our society, which is a hallmark of our finest public servants. And Paul still remains one of our finest public servants--indeed, one of the finest of the finest. Many would agree that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 stands among his best work. Responding to a number of major corporate accounting scandals, Senator Sarbanes' legislation began the process of trying to restore investor confidence in corporate America and our securities markets. Eighteen years later, this law continues to be a critical pillar of our financial system. During his tenure as chair of the Joint Economic Committee in the late eighties and early nineties, Paul framed many of the important economic issues and debates that the country was experiencing at the time. He held timely hearings on income inequality, trade deficit, and unemployment during a time at which the country was only beginning to come to grips with the notion that there needed to be a different direction in our economy. Unfortunately, our Nation is now battling a pandemic that is furthering economic inequalities, and both the Senate and the country could use and greatly misses Senator Sarbanes' thoughtfulness, incisiveness, and compassion during these difficult times. Senator Sarbanes was also one of our Nation's greatest champions for affordable housing. He fought his entire career for our Nation's working families, trying to make it possible for more families in our country to have decent, safe, and affordable housing. Most notably, Paul was one of the original authors of the Home Investment Partnerships Program, known as the HOME Program. This program has provided critical funding to our Nation's States and localities, helping them maintain or expand their supply of affordable housing for many Americans. Paul also fought aggressively for funding of the section 8 voucher program and was one of the chief supporters of improvements to our Nation's public housing programs during his Senate tenure. Senator Sarbanes also recognized the essential role that public transportation plays in bringing communities together, fostering economic development, and promoting a cleaner environment. As ranking member of the Banking Committee, he led the effort to reauthorize the Nation's transit programs and the fight to ensure that transit received its fair share of funding. Time after time, Paul Sarbanes did the right things for the right reasons. He could not care less whether he got the credit, the press, or the fanfare. His primary motivation was simply knowing that he made a meaningful difference in the lives of his constituents and the American people, and, in this regard, there are few who are as accomplished as Paul Sarbanes. His keen intellect, his extensive knowledge of the issues, and his concern for Americans across this great country all contributed to his impressive body of legislative accomplishments. Now, I had the occasion to speak with John Sarbanes, Congressman from Maryland, who is carrying on the proud tradition of the Sarbanes family, and he said his dad was best described as a workhorse, not a show horse, and that is right. Paul Sarbanes did the work of the people. He did not try to garner the praise and the acclaim; he just wanted to make sure the work was done and done well. And he did throughout his entire career. My best wishes go to Paul's family, including his sons Michael Sarbanes and Representative John Sarbanes; his daughter Janet Sarbanes; and his grandchildren. They have lost a father and a grandfather. The country has lost one of its greatest champions. And I have lost a dear and precious friend. May he rest in peace. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong opposition to the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Senate has never confirmed a Supreme Court nominee while a Presidential election was already underway. Indeed, this is the situation before us with early voting taking place in multiple States and over 50 million ballots already cast. So while those in the far- right fringe might be cheering these lifetime appointments, the vast majority of Americans are the ones who lose out, and they do not get a fair say. Make no mistake. Today's vote isn't about one individual; it is about taking away healthcare from 20 million Americans in the midst of a pandemic. It is about eliminating protections for people with preexisting conditions that over 100 million Americans depend upon. And that is what we fear happening once this vote is cast, the lifetime appointment is given, and the case is heard after the election. President Trump and his allies purposely set the schedule that way. They didn't want American voters to have any recourse to take out their anger at those responsible for taking away their healthcare. My Republican colleagues should listen to their own words. Go back and look at what you said about Merrick Garland and apply it consistently. Our fidelity is to the Constitution, not a caucus, not to the Federalist Society, not to special interests. Everyone deserves equal justice under the law. The Supreme Court was not designed to become an extension of the Republician National Committee. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee pledged, in his own words: ``If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term and the primary process has started, we'll wait till the next election.'' The obvious truth is Republicans broke their word. This process itself is broken. Their pattern of obstruction and abusive partisanship over the years threatens the credibility of the Supreme Court and pushes Senate norms of fairness and accountability beyond the brink. My decision, however, to oppose this nomination rests not only on this unprecedented use and abuse of power but also on the standard that I have applied to nominees of the Supreme Court on numerous occasions. It is a simple test--one drawn from text, the history, and the principles of the Constitution. As I have said during previous confirmations, a nominee's intellectual gifts, experience, judgment, maturity, and temperament are all important. But these alone are not enough. In addition, a nominee to the Supreme Court must live up to the spirit of the Constitution. A nominee must not only commit to enforcing the laws but to doing justice. A nominee must give life and meaning to the great principles of the Constitution: equality before the law, due process, freedom of conscience, individual responsibility, and the expansion of opportunity. It is these principles that ensure full and fair and equal participation in the civic and social life for all Americans. A nominee to the Supreme Court must make these constitutional principles resonate in a rapidly changing world. My colleagues on the Judiciary Committee spent a great deal of time and effort questioning Judge Barrett and trying to elicit responses about her basic worldview and judicial philosophy. Unfortunately, her answers were largely nonresponsive, and, at times, she demurred on issues on which she herself had already made public statements. Despite her lack of responsiveness, Judge Barrett's judicial record and public statements suggest that she does not meet my test, and her placement on the Supreme Court will further tilt the Court away from these constitutional principles. In understanding how Judge Barrett would not meet my test, I am cognizant that she will follow in the mold of her mentor Justice Antonin Scalia, with whom she shares an originalist approach to constitutional interpretation. In her article titled ``Congressional Originalism,'' Judge Barrett talks about the core principles underpinning originalism. The first principle, she writes, is that ``the meaning of the constitutional text is fixed at the time of its ratification.'' The second is that ``the historical meaning of the text `has legal significance and is authoritative in most circumstances.' '' The trouble is that the Founders and Framers did not leave us a blueprint to answer every new question of law. Nor did the delegates to the Constitutional Convention demand that all future judges be ``originalists.'' The laws and norms when the Constitution was ratified would alienate and exclude many Americans today, particularly women and racial and other minority groups. We have seen the devastating effects of the originalist line of thinking in the Supreme Court's recent history. A focus on this mode of interpretation has played a crucial role in undoing labor rights, curtailing environmental regulations, and allowing unlimited dark money to influence politics. In the end, a strict originalist approach tends to favor the executive over the individual, the employer over the employee, and the corporation over the consumer. Also relevant to whether Judge Barrett passes my test is her criticism of stare decisis, a core concept in Supreme Court jurisdiction under which a court generally adheres to its prior decisions--absent a special justification more than a belief that the precedent was wrongly decided. Part of the reason that maintaining precedent is so important is that it ensures the rule of law and legitimacy of the judicial process. As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 78, there is a long tradition of being bound by precedent, in his words, ``[t]o avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts.'' A practical reason for following precedent is that--once it goes into effect, people then organize their lives based on the law and make decisions with the assumption that that law will stay in place. The public expects judges to understand this need for stability and to approach the law with the appropriate humility and respect for its authority. They do not want judges to elevate their own views over the law or to change the law simply because the composition of the court changes. That is why, in deciding to overrule precedent, a court generally undergoes a serious analysis of numerous factors, including its consistency with other decisions, the reliance interests at stake, and historical developments since the decision in question. Therefore, I am troubled that Judge Barrett's writings indicate that she is more likely to see opportunities to revisit precedent than other judges. In an article titled ``Precedent and Jurisprudential Disagreement,'' Judge Barrett argues that there is a weaker presumption of stare decisis in constitutional cases, which could make these cases more vulnerable to review In another article titled ``Stare Decisis and Due Process,'' Judge Barrett argues that the current standard of stare decisis has become too rigid in modern times and favors a more flexible stance on reexamining precedent. In particular, I take seriously that Judge Barrett indicates that she is more willing to elevate her originalist interpretation over precedent. Overall, when there is a tension between precedent and jurisprudential commitment, Judge Barrett writes that she, in her words, ``tend[s] to agree with those who say that a justice's duty is to the Constitution and that it is thus more legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she thinks is clearly in conflict with it.'' She similarly casts doubt on the importance of reliance interests-- which are the interests of stakeholders that depend on the continuity of an affirmed law or right--stating that ``when precedent clearly exceeds the bounds of statutory or constitutional text, reliance interests should figure far less prominently in a court's overruling calculus.'' Judge Barrett's views on originalism, textualism, and stare decisis could bring about a seismic shift to the Supreme Court, reshaping modern American life and weakening rights to which many Americans have become accustomed. Given that Judge Barrett's approach is shared by several of her future colleagues, she will help move the Court's center of gravity to the far right. I will now walk through issues in Judge Barrett's judicial record that inform how she, in conjunction with fellow conservative judges, could and likely will rule on future cases. I am deeply troubled about the implications of this nomination on the Affordable Care Act, the ACA. The ACA has given individuals and families control over their own healthcare and has brought the uninsured rate to a historic low. The ACA has been the law of the land since 2010 and is now woven into the fabric of our healthcare system. Despite consistent sabotage of the ACA by the Trump administration, premiums for health insurance plans on the individual marketplaces have decreased for the second year in a row. Yet President Trump and my Republican colleagues want to repeal the ACA in its entirety, taking with it protections for people with preexisting conditions, bans on lifetime and annual limits on coverage, billions of dollars in tax credits to make coverage more affordable, and efforts to close the doughnut hole for seniors needing prescription drugs, just to name a few key provisions. The ACA is a relevant--indeed, critical--aspect of the nomination because the Supreme Court will begin hearing oral arguments in the case of California v. Texas on November 10, which will decide the fate of the ACA. This is not a theoretical debate over how Judge Barrett may interpret a case in the future. This is a real case that could eliminate health insurance coverage for millions of Americans and increase costs for everyone in the next year. It is no surprise that my Republican colleagues are breaking with their own precedent to consider this nominee with a week to go until the election. This is their chance to repeal the ACA once and for all. In fact, President Trump has said many times over in the last several months that he hopes the ACA is overturned by the Supreme Court, referring specifically to this case. And don't just take his word for it. The Department of Justice, under his leadership, has taken the extraordinary step of deciding against defending the law of the land, the ACA, and instead siding with the plaintiffs in arguing that the ACA and its protections for people with preexisting conditions, among other provisions, is unconstitutional. President Trump and congressional Republicans are very clear about their intentions. They want to repeal the ACA. They have been saying it for a decade. They failed to do it when they had complete control of the White House and Congress because of overwhelming public opposition to their efforts and a few brave votes. They are relying on the Supreme Court to do their dirty work for them and get rid of the ACA. They even petitioned to have the case heard by the Supreme Court after the election, knowing that the American people would not be happy if the Court decided in their favor and struck down the ACA. It is not hard to follow the logic here. President Trump and congressional Republicans have been working methodically to lead us to this moment for years. Now I will return to the nominee for a moment. President Trump has made it clear that he intends to have the courts do his bidding for him and has committed to nominating judges who will side with him. In her hearing, Judge Barrett refused to discuss how she may handle a case on the ACA. However, in early 2017, she authored an article criticizing the ACA, specifically arguing that the 2012 Supreme Court case, NFIB v. Sebelius, was wrongly decided when a 5-to-4 majority ruled that the ACA's individual mandate was, in fact, constitutional. In particular, Judge Barrett criticized Chief Justice Roberts' deciding vote in that case, claiming that he ``pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.'' Instead, Judge Barrett has praised her mentor, the late Justice Scalia, in his criticism of the ACA, as displayed in his dissents in both the NFIB case as well as the case of King v. Burwell, related to the tax credits provided by the ACA. So while the nominee has not said how she may rule in the case of California v. Texas on whether the ACA is constitutional, she didn't have to. We already know that, had she been on the Court in 2012 when NFIB v. Sebelius was decided or in 2015 when King v. Burwell was decided, she likely would have voted to invalidate key elements or all of the ACA. Between her public writings and President Trump's commitment to appointing judges who are hostile to the ACA, I don't think it is a stretch to imagine how a future Justice Barrett may vote in California v. Texas. The stakes for millions of Americans are just too high to support this nomination to the Supreme Court. I am also concerned by Judge Barrett's extreme views on the Second Amendment and the constitutionality of limits on gun possession. To understand her position, one must first understand the test set in District of Columbia v. Heller. This case involved a challenge to the District of Columbia laws that generally made it unlawful to possess an operable firearm in the home. Justice Scalia authored the majority's opinion and was joined by Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito. In Heller, the Supreme Court struck those laws down and affirmed the right to keep guns in the home for self-defense, while making clear that rights secured under the Second Amendment are not unlimited. The Court provided a nonexhaustive list of gun restriction laws that were presumptively lawful, including prohibitions on firearms possessed by felons and the mentally ill. However, in the case Kanter v. Barr, Judge Barrett filed a dissent laying out a rationale that could lead to the striking down of even commonsense gun restrictions. In this case, the plaintiff was convicted of felony mail fraud and was subsequently prohibited from possessing a firearm under both Federal and State law. When he challenged these laws as violating the Second Amendment, the majority concluded that Federal and State governments were entitled to bar firearms possession by people convicted of felonies. Judge Barrett disagreed and concluded that barring nonviolent felons from possessing firearms is not allowed under the Second Amendment. She reasoned that, in her words, ``History does not support the proposition that felons lose their Second Amendment rights solely because of their status as felons. But it does support the proposition that the state can take the right to bear arms away from a category of people that it deems dangerous.'' Her position lies outside the widely accepted view that gun restrictions for public safety are constitutional under the Second Amendment. Her opinion puts her to the right of Justice Scalia, who delivered the majority opinion in Heller. Her vote in Kanter makes it more likely that Judge Barrett would vote to strike down similar restrictions on firearm possession, even by individuals with serious criminal histories. This outcome alone is concerning. Beyond that, her views, coupled with the originalist approach to the Second Amendment endorsed by several sitting Justices, portend that a conservative majority could create stricter standards of scrutiny for Second Amendment cases. It is important to note that Justice Ginsburg joined other Justices in declining opportunities to revisit Heller's application. That includes the denial of ten certiorari petitions this past term that called for the Court to review, and possibly invalidate, challenges to State gun safety laws, including State concealed-carry laws, gun permit requirements, and assault weapons bans. Given that only four votes are needed to grant certiorari review, Judge Barrett could play an important role in deciding whether the Supreme Court adds Second Amendment cases to its docket. This could generally put commonsense gun safety laws, even those that have been upheld for years, at an increased risk of being overturned. Furthermore, as part of a conservative majority, Judge Barrett could initiate major rollbacks of privacy rights in one's own home life. During her confirmation hearings, Judge Barrett declined to say whether the Supreme Court cases--Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges--were correctly decided. The Griswold case from 1965, in particular, is a foundational case in this arena. Griswold, holding that marital privacy extends to the right to buy and use contraception, led to cases extending privacy in other reproductive decisions. In her refusal, Judge Barrett took a departure from past nominees who have affirmed that Griswold is settled law, including Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Kavanaugh, and Kagan. Instead of giving a straightforward answer, Judge Barrett contended that it is unlikely that a related case would come before the Court and tried to frame this issue as well settled. However, in Little Sisters of the Poor V. Pennsylvania, it is notable that the Supreme Court has very recently allowed Trump administration rules to go into effect, allowing virtually any employer to deny contraceptive coverage based on religious and moral objections. Therefore, it is clear that this issue is not beyond dispute and could come back before the Court. Obergefell and Lawrence were landmark cases that established privacy rights around marriage and intimate relations between consenting adults, regardless of their genders. While it may be unthinkable that these and similar rights, which are integral to a person's ability to construct their personal and family lives, could be undermined, there are worrying indications that they may come again before the Court. Just this month, Justices Thomas and Alito wrote that they see Obergefell--which granted the right to same-sex marriage--as something the Court needs to fix and that the decision has had ``ruinous consequences for religious liberty.'' Given that Justice Ginsburg was a crucial vote in the Obergefell 5- to-4 opinion, it is conceivable that a 6-3 conservative Court could chip away at equality were these rights to be relitigated. A conservative Court may also act as a bulwark against further expanding privacy protections in family life. For example, a case is set to come before the Court this term, Fulton v. Philadelphia, in which private agencies that receive taxpayer funding to provide government services, such as foster care agencies, could be determined to have a constitutional right to deny services to persons on the basis of sexual orientation. The next area of concern is how Judge Barrett's record will impact workers' rights. Unfortunately, Judge Barrett has a record of voting in favor of business interests. Judge Barrett voted to reject an en banc review in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. AutoZone, regarding an employer's policy of assigning Black and Latino employees to stores in neighborhoods with people predominantly of their same race--creating a ``Black store'' and a ``Hispanic store.'' Judge Barrett's colleague who dissented called this a ``separate but equal arrangement''--a type of unlawful discrimination, which was well settled by Brown v. Board of Education. During her confirmation hearings, she agreed that Brown was correctly decided and beyond overruling. However, Judge Barrett's decision in AutoZone indicates she is willing to accept racially segregated actions by an employer, even when they would be difficult to reconcile with the core holdings of Brown. In another discrimination-related case, Kleber v. CareFusion, Judge Barrett joined the en banc decision allowing an employer to post a job application with maximum years of experience, essentially barring applicants older in age. The majority took a narrow view that the ambiguous language of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act did not apply in this case, reasoning that it applied only to current employees and not to job applicants. In both AutoZone and Kleber, Judge Barrett has opened the door for employers to run afoul of our country's civil rights laws. This is particularly concerning because the Supreme Court will likely take up cases deciding who is protected from workplace discrimination. For example, the Court could face legal challenges in the wake of Bostock v. Clayton County, which confirmed that title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employers from discriminating against LGBTQ people. The majority's opinion, however, warned that future cases will determine whether businesses could use religious freedom claims to ``supersede Title VII's commands.'' Judge Barrett had additionally ruled against employees and gig workers by limiting their ability to hold employers accountable through collective arbitration in the cases, Herrington v. Waterstone Mortgage and Wallace v. Grubhub Holdings. Given that disputes around the rights of gig economy workers and the prevalence of forced arbitration agreements are only increasing, related cases are likely to come before the Supreme Court. It is notable, in coming to her conclusion in Grubhub, Judge Barrett cited Epic Systems v. Lewis, in which the Supreme Court held that arbitration agreements in which an employee agrees to arbitrate any claims against an employer on an individual basis--rather than as a class--are enforceable. In that case, Justice Ginsburg took the rare step of reading a particularly strong dissent from the bench, saying that the Court's ruling was ``egregiously wrong'' and ``holds enforceable these arm-twisted, take- it-or-leave-it contracts--including the provisions requiring employees to litigate wage and hours claims only one-by-one.'' Were a similar case to come before the Supreme Court again, it is likely that Judge Barrett and a conservative majority would take a sharp turn away from Justice Ginsburg's legal position and make it harder for workers to get their day in court. I am further concerned that a 6-3 conservative majority Court could have a drastic impact in limiting voting rights. Voter suppression has a long history in this country, with Black voters being subjected to violent intimidation and legally sanctioned disenfranchisement. In recognition of this history and after decades of activism on the part of many, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act, which in part required jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to get approval before changing its voting rules. This process, known as preclearance, was intended to prevent voter discrimination before it occurred. This law had an immediate and positive impact in increasing Black voter registration and turnout in the decades after it passed. However, in Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court's conservative members argued in a 5-to-4 ruling that the preclearance formula was no longer necessary and outdated, exactly because it was successful. In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg famously pointed out the absurdity of the majority's reasoning. She wrote that ``throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.'' Predictably, the ruling in Shelby opened the floodgates for States to enact restrictive and insidious voting laws, including strict voter identification, excessive voter purging, and gerrymandering. In the wake of Shelby, the awesome power of the Supreme Court to restore or further damage voting rights has become apparent. That is why it is troubling that in her dissent in Kanter--which I have already referred to--Judge Barrett framed the right to vote as a lesser right and argued for States' ability to limit civic participation. As I explained earlier, in the Kanter case, she disagreed with the majority's opinion that found that all individuals with felony convictions could be legally restricted from possessing a firearm. The majority reasoned that Second Amendment protections belong to virtuous citizens, meaning that persons who commit serious crimes may forfeit those rights. Judge Barrett used this opportunity to elevate the importance of Second Amendment rights in contrast with voting rights. After evaluating the historical record, she concluded that ``while scholars have not identified eighteenth or nineteenth or century laws''--and it is interesting to note that we are being guided by 18th and 19th century laws under Judge Barrett's legal theories. ``While scholars have not identified eighteenth or nineteenth century laws depriving felons of the right to bear arms, history does show that felons could be disqualified from exercising certain rights--like the rights to vote and serve on juries--because these rights belong only to virtuous citizens.'' She explained that, in her view, gun rights are individual rights conferred by the Second Amendment, and exclusions on nonvirtuous citizens do not apply to individual rights. Judge Barrett then distinguished the right to vote and sit on juries as belonging in a different category called ``civic rights.'' She upheld the ability of States to limit this class of rights based on virtue exclusions. In doing so, she cited a history of State laws going back to 1820 that excluded felons from voting. Judge Barrett, however, failed to include in her analysis the very history of voter discrimination that led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act and which would have given important context to the laws that she cited, which sought to disenfranchise individuals with criminal records. I am also concerned because Judge Barrett refused to answer several questions on voting and elections during her confirmation hearings. Even when asked to confirm voter protections already enshrined in Federal law, she was not able to give a straightforward answer. These exchanges gave me pause that Judge Barrett has not displayed an appreciation for the norms that make our democratic and electoral institutions function. I would next like to focus on Judge Barrett's potential in limiting the authority of the Federal and, indeed, State governments. If confirmed to the Supreme Court, Judge Barrett's judicial philosophy of originalism is poised to diminish the role of Congress as effective policymakers. This method of interpretation could disregard the commonsense application and spirit of Federal laws. An example of this is the case I discussed earlier, NFIB v. Sebelius, where the Court decided with a 5-4 majority that the ACA's individual mandate is constitutional. The Court, however, created a new limitation on Congress's authority to act under the Commerce Clause. Using an originalist approach, the Court found that Congress can regulate commercial activity but rejected the idea it could compel an individual to engage in it. The majority did uphold the Congress's power to do so under its article I powers to levy taxes. Alarmingly, four dissenting Justices--Justices Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito--expressed the view that neither the Commerce Clause nor Congress's taxing powers supported the individual mandate. I will note that, had Judge Barrett been on the Court, she likely would have joined the dissenting Justices, and this case might have gone the other way. The implications of this case are significant. Taken together, Chief Justice Roberts' opinion and the dissent are centered around the idea that the use of a Commerce Clause and/or Congress's taxing power under the ACA was a major legislative overreach. It signals that the Court increasingly sees these and potentially other congressional authorities as having more limits. So in the future, when Congress tries to use its power for a novel purpose, it may be susceptible to challenges in the courts. If the Court continues to shift in this direction, it will have consequences for Federal legislation beyond the ACA. As a result, Congress's authority to robustly address climate change, civil rights, new technology, and other national challenges through legislation could be stymied or diminished over time. And with Judge Barrett's fascination with the exact meaning of the original writers of the Constitution, I wonder what their thoughts were about nuclear energy, satellites in space, a U.S. Air Force, which was not specifically authorized in the Constitution. I think we will find ourselves in a very difficult position where when we face the challenges of climate change, cyber warfare, that a Court that looks back will not grant Congress the authority to protect the American people. Also limiting the authority of the Federal Government, a 6-to-3 conservative majority could take on a more aggressive judicial review of agency actions. Several members of the Supreme Court have already called for the reconsideration of the Chevron decision. This is a legal doctrine that instructs the Federal judiciary to defer to a Federal agency's reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous or unclear statute that it administers. If the Supreme Court overturns the Chevron deference, it could strike down agency rules that do not comport with the Court's interpretation of the statute. This could make toothless environmental, food and drug safety, labor, and a host of other regulations enacted for the benefit of the workers and consumers. It would also shift the Court's decisions in favor of the corporate and special interests that tend to challenge these agency regulations in the first place. One of reasons that the agencies were given the authority to implement our laws--given by Congress to the agencies--was their expertise, an expertise that in most cases far exceeds that of the U.S. Supreme Court. Now, I intend to vote against the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court because I am convinced that she will not guard core constitutional principles, that she will not interpret the law to protect the rights of the vulnerable, and that she will read the law with a backward-looking perspective, not consistent with the realities of our time and the growing dangers that we face in the future. As my Republican colleagues accelerate this nomination at a breakneck pace, it speaks to the deeply misplaced priorities of this body. We simply should be not be undertaking a Supreme Court nomination at this time, especially when it should rightfully take place during the next Presidential term after the voters have made their decision. The Senate's foremost priority right now should be to provide additional pandemic relief. My colleagues have displayed a profound lack of urgency to address the many challenges Americans face due to the pandemic. This is despite the repeated warnings from public health experts and economists about what will happen if we do not enact additional fiscal aid. However, my Republican colleagues continue to turn a blind eye, even as COVID-19 cases spike, businesses close, unemployment remains high, and States consider deeper budget cuts. Under these extraordinary circumstances, I cannot support Judge Barrett's nomination to the Supreme the Court of the United States. I urge my Republican colleagues to stop this shortsighted rush. Let's put the best interests of the country first. Let's wait a few more days and let the American people have a say. Let's focus on the COVID-19 crisis, which demands our immediate attention. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you are doing the right thing. I strongly believe my Republican colleagues are making a major mistake that will be doing lasting damage to both this institution and the Supreme Court, and I urge them to reconsider. Instead of pushing forward with this ill-suited nominee, let's get to the business at hand: addressing the great challenges we face due to the pandemic and beyond, as well as working together to fix the Senate so that we no longer break faith with the people who sent us here, the people we represent. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Ensuring Access to COVID-19 Vaccines for Seniors Act with Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia. It is critical that a future COVID-19 vaccine be made available to Medicare beneficiaries with no cost sharing, which is the goal of our legislation. The CARES Act, which Congress passed overwhelmingly and was signed into law at the end of March, included provisions requiring Medicare to cover FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccines with no-cost sharing. These provisions are designed to ensure that as soon as there is an approved and available COVID-19 vaccine, seniors across the Nation would be able to get the vaccine for free under Medicare. Vaccines are one of the best public health interventions in our lifetime and we must do everything we can to encourage everyone to get the vaccines recommended by their doctors. One of the most effective ways to improve vaccination rates is to remove barriers such as cost. In fact, working with my colleagues, I was able to include provisions in the Affordable Care Act to ensure that vaccines are covered by insurance with no cost-sharing. This not only makes our population healthier, but it also saves money in the long-term. While the COVID-19 vaccine development and testing protocols are ongoing, it is very likely that the first vaccines will be made available under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by FDA. An EUA may be granted to one or more COVID-19 vaccines in order to get vaccines to those who need them the most, while the pharmaceutical companies continue testing and evaluating vaccine candidates and pursuing full FDA approval. While I have concerns that the Trump Administration may attempt to interfere in the vaccine approval process, most public health experts believe that the first vaccine candidates will be made available under an EUA. In this case, the CARES Act provisions requiring Medicare to cover COVID-19 vaccines would not apply, as vaccines made available under an EUA would not yet be considered FDA- approved. Our bipartisan legislation would address this oversight and ensure that COVID-19 vaccines would also be covered by Medicare if made available by an EUA. I am pleased that the House of Representatives has already passed this provision as a part of the much broader Heroes Act. It is my hope that the Senate will follow suit immediately. It has been more than six months since the CARES Act was signed into law, and the need to provide additional relief to combat the health and economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic has only increased. We are far overdue for another robust relief package, and it is shameful that the Senate has not yet acted to pass such a measure. It is critical that the Ensuring Access to COVID-19 Vaccines for Seniors Act be considered swiftly in the Senate, along with a number of other critical efforts to help the American people during this difficult time.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act of 2020 along with my colleague Senator Whitehouse. This legislation seeks to address a longstanding inequity in our Nation's fisheries management system which denies Rhode Islanders a voice in the governance of many stocks that local fishermen catch and rely upon for their livelihoods. The Magnuson-Stevens Act granted Rhode Island voting membership on the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC), as NEFMC-managed stocks represent a significant percentage of landings and revenue for the State. However, Rhode Island has an even larger stake in Mid- Atlantic fisheries. Yet, it does not have voting representation on the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC), which currently consists of representatives from New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. According to data provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), between 2014 and 2108, Rhode Island accounted for approximately a quarter of the commercial landings by value from stocks under the MAFMC's sole jurisdiction, and its commercial landings were greater than the total landings of all of the states currently represented on the MAFMC with the exception of New Jersey. As the rest of the Nation learned during the Democratic National Convention, the Rhode Island State appetizer is calamari. That is squid. And while squid is our number one landed species, Rhode Island doesn't have a formal say in the management of this stock. This legislation offers a simple solution with sound precedent. North Carolina was added to the MAFMC through an amendment to the Sustainable Fisheries Act in 1996. Like Rhode Island, a significant portion of North Carolina's landed fish species were managed by the MAFMC, yet the State had no vote on the council. Similarly, the Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act would create two seats on the MAFMC for Rhode Island: one seat appointed by the Secretary of Commerce based on recommendations from the Governor of Rhode Island, and a second seat filled by Rhode Island's principal State official with marine fishery management responsibility. To accommodate these new members, the MAFMC would increase in size from 21 to 23 voting members. In short, Rhode Island would be guaranteed the same minimum representation as every other State on the MAFMC. With mounting economic, ecological, and regulatory challenges, it is more important than ever that Rhode Island fishermen have a voice in the management of the fisheries they depend on. I urge our colleagues to join us in supporting this commonsense legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Timely Reauthorization of Necessary Stem Cell Programs Lends Access to Needed Therapies (TRANSPLANT) Act of 2020 with Senators Richard Burr, Tina Smith, and Tim Scott. This bill offers promise to the tens of thousands of individuals diagnosed with leukemia and lymphomas, sickle cell anemia, and rare genetic blood disorders. Our bipartisan legislation renews the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program and the National Cord Blood Inventory (NCBI), the only programs in the country that maintain donor registries for individuals in need of a bone marrow and umbilical cord blood transplantation. Over twenty-two million Americans are registered bone marrow donors resulting in nearly 6,500 transplants just last year. In the years since NCBI was established, more than 300,000 cord blood units have been collected, facilitating more than 100,000 blood stem cell transplants. The TRANSPLANT Act would reaffirm the commitment to these life-saving programs, which have been helping to connect individuals in need of bone marrow or umbilical cord blood transplants with donors for more than two decades. The public registries, made up of donors from all over the country, have been a true lifeline for the Americans who have found an unrelated match. By strengthening and enhancing the important programs operating these registries, many more Americans will be afforded the opportunity to find a match if they are ever in need. I look forward to swift consideration of this legislation in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and working toward passage in the full Senate.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise today to honor the life of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and to express my grave concerns at rushing to fill this Supreme Court vacancy rather than focus on the pandemic and its health and economic devastation. The passing of Justice Ginsburg is a monumental loss for our country, but she will leave an indelible mark as a historic and brilliant jurist, civil rights trailblazer, and personal hero to countless people. We can all take inspiration from her stalwart and lifelong crusade for equality, shaped by her own struggles facing gender discrimination as a young lawyer, despite her outstanding education and obvious talent.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the Senate resolution sponsored by Senator Duckworth, which condemns the denigration by President Trump of our Nation's Armed Forces and veterans. I also want to commend Senator Duckworth for her extraordinary and heroic service as an Army aviator. She inspired all of us with her courage and her sacrifice. In a September 3 article in The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg catalogued a list of disparaging comments President Trump has made about members of the U.S. military and wounded warriors. Such remarks are not unusual for this President, and most are public knowledge. However, we should not become numb to such behavior, so some of the comments bear repeating. The Atlantic article states that the President refused to visit the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery in France, the final resting place of 2,289 Americans who died in battle, ensuring our freedom and the freedom of our allies against the march of totalitarianism, authoritarianism, fascism, and communism over the past century. He refused to visit because he said the cemetery was filled with ``suckers and losers.'' Several years ago, in planning a military parade to honor himself, he refused to include wounded war veterans, stating ``no one wants to see that.'' When he visited the grave of Gen. John Kelly's son who died in Afghanistan at the age of 29 and is buried in Arlington National Cemetery, he wondered to General Kelly why his son joined the Marines: ``What was in it for him?'' When impressed by a presentation by Gen. Joe Dunford, then the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he asked his staff why such a talented person would join the military. Donald Trump is a man who cannot conceive of service to others before oneself. His view of the world is transactional. The only thing of value to him is money--not ideals or principles or the lives of our fellow Americans. He simply doesn't understand the words of one of his predecessors, President George Herbert Walker Bush, who said: On this day, we must tell the stories of those who fought and died in freedom's cause. We must tell their stories because those who've lost loved ones need to know that a grateful Nation will always remember. We must tell their stories so that our children and grandchildren will understand what our lives might have been like had it not been for their sacrifice. Donald Trump does not think deeply about what it means to be in the military; to be deployed in a battle zone, wondering if every day would be your last day; to be a family member waiting anxiously at home; to be a young, healthy person suddenly disabled or a Gold Star family who wakes every day, mourning their lost son or daughter but understanding the great cause they died for. Donald Trump only cares about the next ``win'' for himself, his fortune, or his popularity. Donald Trump deferred service in Vietnam five times, including one deferment for a diagnosis of ``bone spurs,'' which is remarkable, given the propensity he has to play golf, given such a debilitating injury. He has said that those who served in Vietnam were ``suckers'' for not finding a way out, never able to acknowledge that his privilege of birth and race were largely responsible for being able to avoid service in that war. Furthermore, President Trump, true to his character, has doubled down and denigrated the military service of past Presidents and military officers, including, as has been referred to repeatedly, Senator John McCain, my close colleague on the Armed Services Committee and my chairman. He referred to Senator McCain as a ``loser'' when he died and wondered why the Nation should honor him with flags lowered to half- staff. He said he prefers those who were never captured in war. He would prefer those who never served to a man like Senator McCain, who survived over 5 years in a Vietnamese prisoner-of-war camp, who refused to leave his comrades behind when given the chance, and who endured well-chronicled torture and humiliation that made him an inspiration to so many. In fact, one of the most moving moments in my life was to be in the Hanoi Hilton with John McCain and to have Senator McCain talk about the torture, the humiliation, and the degradation that he endured each day but maintained his courage and his commitment to this Nation. The President also does not understand the good order and discipline that are the hallmark of a military in a democracy, ensuring that our military men and women remain firmly tethered to our Nation's moral and ethical principles in the most demanding wartime environments. That is why he saw nothing wrong with intervening in the legal process to pardon a servicemember accused of war crimes. That is why he was able to stand on the steps of the White House and make comments intended to drive a wedge between the men and women in uniform--the junior officers who enlisted and their senior leaders--impugning the motives of senior military officers who have dedicated their lives to the service of the country and who have bled, in some cases, for this country. Never in this Nation's history has a President held the military and those who served in such disdain and disregard--never. His support for the military is hollow. He touts pay raises that were scheduled to happen anyway and congressional increases in defense spending for readiness which he then diverts to build an ill-advised and wasteful wall on the southern border. He falls short in caring for our men and women in uniform and their well-being and lives--and thinks instead of how they might be useful to him to further his own interests and image. Donald Trump cannot relate to those who serve in the Armed Forces or understand what would motivate them to choose the harder road of a life of service, of discomfort, and the arduous experience to defend this Nation. While I know that every American, especially those in uniform, listens to the words of the President, it is my fervent hope that our uniformed personnel do not take the President's words on this issue to heart. As a person who has had the privilege to have led paratroopers, I can tell you there is no greater honor to be among those who serve and protect our Nation, who sacrifice every day so that Americans can live in freedom and peace. As President Theodore Roosevelt famously said: The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who at best, if he wins, knows the thrills of high achievement, and, if he fails, at least fails daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat. I guess President Trump would say ``the losers.'' Our men and women in uniform, who fight, die, and are wounded for our Nation and its ideals, are in the arena, not President Trump. As all other public servants who are trying to make our country a better place, they--particularly those in uniform--deserve all the credit. A President who is proud that he has always stood on the sidelines and denigrates them does not deserve much credit. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Thank you very much, Senator, for those very thoughtful remarks. Twenty-one days--that is how long one Florida public school teacher was on a ventilator after contracting COVID this spring. Plasma transfusions and anti-viral medication ultimately saved her life. And now she is being asked to return to the classroom--a job she loves, teaching kids she loves. She wants to go back but is afraid to go back while the virus is surging, while more people in her community are being sent to the very same hospital. In Arizona, a small school district lost a teacher to COVID despite following all the protocols. The superintendent called a safe reopening a fantasy, saying: ``Kids will get sick or worse. Family members will die. Teachers will die.'' Yet children will be denied needed education funding unless classes are in person, according to the President. Should the majority, which has failed to take action on the House- passed Heroes bill for months--should the Trump administration itself have done a better job making it safe for kids and teachers to return to school? Absolutely. And the continued failure to act, to lead, to do a better job of containing COVID will cost people their lives and children their education. What is the Republican plan to avert this catastrophe? ``OPEN THE SCHOOLS!!!'' the President tweets in all capital letters. The Republican plan is to open the schools for in- person learning--or else. Open the schools even when the transmission of the virus is not contained. Open the schools even if testing and contact tracing are inadequate to manage the spread of the virus. Open the schools even if your facilities do not have adequate ventilation. Open the schools or we will privatize the public school system. Open or else. We know what happens when things reopen when community transmission remains high, when proper public health safety measures are not in place, when we do not have the rapid-result testing and contact tracing necessary to contain the virus. We get outbreaks. People get sick. Hospitalizations and deaths increase. What is the President's response? He said: ``It is what it is.'' What has Senate Republican leadership prioritized? Shielding businesses from liability and being sued for negligence. In other words, if reopening too quickly results in more sickness, ``it is what it is.'' This approach is appalling and unacceptable and must be rejected. School is a lifeline for children in the communities hit hardest by the pandemic and the ensuing economic fallout. The Federal Government must step in with a comprehensive plan and the resources to make sure that school is there for these children, the teachers, the custodians, the parents, the family. We know this school year will be like no other. School districts will need to redesign the school day and be prepared to switch to distance learning, as necessary. There will be new protocols for sanitization, transportation, and staffing. Teachers need training on how to stay safe in the classroom. You will recall that many in this body wanted to add firearms training to the list of teacher duties. It is disheartening to note that many of the same Members who wanted to equip teachers with guns and firearms training are now unwilling to provide them with basic cleaning supplies and personal protective equipment. They are denying them the resources and training they need to keep themselves and their students safe from a very clear and present danger: COVID-19. Schools will have to reengineer the use of space in and around the school building and reconfigure classrooms to ensure that social distancing can be maintained. With the recent Government Accountability Office report showing that over half of school districts nationwide need to update or replace multiple systems in their schools, such as heating, ventilation, air-conditioning--HVAC--and plumbing, dedicated funding for infrastructure is needed as well. In fact, we need significant money for school infrastructure. We needed it before COVID. We need more of it today. More critically, schools will need to increase their capacity to support children's well-being--including nutrition, health screening, and mental health support--whether in person or at a distance. The first step in any reasonable plan to reopen schools starts with robust, rapid-result testing and contact tracing to contain the spread of the virus. There is no path for safe in-person schooling without it. That is step one, and the President has not taken that step yet. A comprehensive plan for schools would also stabilize State and local budgets, ensure equity and access to technology and broadband, enhance nutrition services, and provide support for our broader educational ecosystem, including afterschool programs, museums, and libraries. For example, without a robust investment in our public libraries, we will continue to struggle to close the digital divide and the homework gap. Many, many, many, many school systems today are beginning their classes on a remote basis. The children need an electronic device--some type of laptop, something--and they also need access to Wi-Fi. Many families don't have that. And unless we step in with the resources to support the localities and States in providing those capacities, those children will be denied an education. One way, as I suggested, to do that is through our public libraries. As I have gone through Rhode Island, it was encouraging to see in the afternoon, throughout the State--in small libraries, everywhere--young people doing their homework. They don't have Wi-Fi at home; they have it in the library. This is just part of what we have to do, and libraries can be at the heart of that. We have to put the resources, the commitment, the plan, the leadership, the force, and the momentum behind this effort, and we have seen none of that in the administration. The most fundamental aspect of all of this is that it does come down to the resources--the substantial, dedicated resources that have to go to our public schools to meet these additional costs, to meet these additional demands, to serve this generation of young Americans who, if they are denied these services, will be denied an education. And that is not just a momentary loss; that is a cumulative, lifetime effect that will not only deny them a chance at opportunity, it will deny this Nation their talent. These are the issues that we are struggling with at this moment. These are the issues we must confront. We--the Democratic caucus--have been calling for $175 billion to support our public schools, to put education in a place in which this generation of students can learn, to make this country or continue to keep this country what we always thought it was: a special place in which anyone with the ability and the desire to learn would have the opportunity to do so. And that would mean their success and our community's and our country's success. We are counting on schools being able to deliver for students despite the challenges caused by this pandemic. Yet the Senate majority and the Trump administration are unwilling to commit the resources necessary to avoid a potential generational catastrophe. State and local governments are reeling from the loss of revenue due to the economic shutdown caused by the pandemic. There is no Governor in this country-- Republican or Democrat--there is no county administrator or city leader who I think would stand up and say: ``We are fine. We don't need any help. We are in great shape.'' No. They all have one message, and it has been coming through from the National Association of Republican Governors and the National Association of Democratic Governors: You must give us resources and flexibility to use these resources to fulfill our obligation to the people of our States. That is the message. We are seeing school districts across the Nation starting to lay people off in anticipation of budget cuts. Even if they are able to maintain current levels of staffing and financial resources, it would not be enough to meet the upcoming challenges. Even if they could keep their staff in place, where do they get the extra money for the infrastructure repairs, for the traditional Wi-Fi, for the additional teaching changes that have to take place, for the different approaches to education one must take in order to be effective in social distancing? The School Superintendents Association of the United States estimates that the average traditional COVID-related cost per student will be $490. We need at least that. We must go forward with a package that includes provisions of the Childcare Educational Relief Act, the Library Stabilization Fund Act, and the State and Local Stabilization Fund Act to ensure that this generation of Americans can overcome the pandemic and reach its full potential. This is a generational crisis. Just as Americans of previous generations have been called upon to sacrifice and to commit themselves to the young of this country so that they could have a better future, we are being called upon to do that, and we are waiting for an answer. Thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, we are heartbroken for the more than 155,000 Americans we have lost in this pandemic. We are grateful for those on the frontlines--the doctors, nurses, the healthcare workers who have served and sacrificed, and we are committed to finding a better way forward. There is no excuse for how this virus has spread here in the United States. We have the capacity, the expertise, but we have not demonstrated the coordinated strategy or Presidential leadership to overcome this pandemic and economic disaster. Instead, the President engages in a pattern of denial and delay, downplaying the scope of this crisis. This failed approach has led to thousands of premature deaths, double-digit unemployment, shuttered businesses, and spiking infection rates throughout the country. The economy will not snap back until we get COVID-19 under control and until States and communities have the resources they need to get a handle on this public health emergency. The costs of fighting COVID-19 is rising. State and local budgets are now under severe strain while demand for essential public services, including medical care, safety, and sanitation, is going up and up and up. Moreover, schools need additional resources to reopen and support students, and the revenue that is coming in to our States and cities and towns is insufficient. Without more help, they will be forced to make drastic cuts which, in my State, could mean cutting critical funding for hospitals and nursing homes in a State with one of the oldest populations in the country, zeroing out the State's job training program, closing a prison facility, cutting Medicaid eligibility for vulnerable adults, and reducing childcare reimbursement rates, impacting working families and childcare providers throughout the State. With State and local governments forced to lay off more workers, the unemployment crisis worsens, the customer base for Main Street shrinks, and the economy slides even further away from rebuilding. Indeed, the U.S. economy shrank at a 32.9-percent annualized pace between April and June. We must break this vicious cycle by passing another emergency relief package that is right-sized to the challenge. The CARES Act is about $1.7 trillion, a huge number--difficult to fathom. It wasn't enough. Not even close. In fact, the pricetag was smaller than the 2017 Republican tax bill. Those who now claim they can't afford to help the unemployed and the communities throughout America are the same who quickly passed that $1.9 trillion tax bill in 2017, which largely benefited big businesses and the very wealthy at the expense of the average taxpayer who needs our help now. If there was a will then to spend so much so quickly on an ill- conceived and misdirected tax bill, the majority should have no qualms about spending whatever it takes now to beat this virus that is attacking our citizens and our economy. For starters, we need improved testing and contact tracing, more support for our hospitals and healthcare providers, and an effective approach to vaccine development and distribution. All while preserving as much of our economy as we can to have a strong foundation from which to rebuild and rebound. As Federal Reserve Chairman Jay Powell said last Wednesday, ``The path of the economy is going to depend to a very high extent on the course of the virus, on the measures that we take to keep it in check. . . . We can't say it enough.'' That is why we need additional and flexible Federal assistance for State and local governments that are fighting this virus on the frontlines while also trying to keep their local economies afloat. I said before the CARES Act passed, we needed $750 billion for State and local governments to do both. The CARES Act included $150 billion, and I have new legislation to provide $600 billion more. We should support our State and local governments because they support our economy and, just as importantly, they protect our constituents from COVID-19. By standing in the way of additional Federal funds for State and local governments, Republicans may force these governments to raise taxes on our constituents, make additional cuts to critical services, or worst, do both. Let's avoid more self-inflicted pain. Getting a handle on COVID-19 also means keeping families in their homes and avoiding waves of evictions and foreclosures that would lead to a major spike in homelessness, which would likely mean more infections. At the same time, we should continue expanded unemployment benefits and provide nutrition assistance so people in desperate circumstances, through no fault of their own, can afford to pay their bills and eat. We must provide relief for the hardest hit businesses, many of which will continue to be shut down for the foreseeable future, including relief to the transportation sector. Any agreement should also include more help for childcare providers, public schools, and college campuses to safely reopen, and support for libraries to keep our communities connected. We must do all of this so that once we have gotten a better handle on the coronavirus, we have enough workers and businesses with which to rebuild our economy. We also can't lose sight of the need to safeguard our election infrastructure. Our Nation and our economy can't take any more uncertainty. Hand in hand with that is supporting the U.S. Postal Service and its employees, who will play an integral role in delivering mail ballots and are continuing to provide a lifeline to Americans. For the past 60 consecutive years, Democrats and Republicans have come together to strengthen our national security by passing the National Defense Authorization Act. I hope we can carry this same spirit of courtesy and cooperation as we craft the next fiscal relief package. Indeed, our national security also depends on the critical pillar of a strong and vibrant economy. We need to act sooner rather than later on a comprehensive and robust fiscal package. With that, I yield the floor in the hopes that we will move quickly to legislation that will satisfy the needs of our cities and towns of all Americans so we can move forward together. Thank you.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I recognize Chief Richard S. Tamburini for his longstanding service and dedication to Rhode Island and our Nation. Chief Tamburini has serviced as chief of police for the town of Johnston for the past 25 years and will retire at the end of next month. Chief Tamburini's public service began almost 60 years ago when he served with the U.S. Army's 72nd Signal Battalion. While with the Army, he advanced to the rank of specialist 4th class. After leaving the military, Chief Tamburini returned home to Providence's Federal Hill neighborhood and joined the Providence Police Department--again committing himself to serving and protecting others. He spent his first 29 years in law enforcement there, rising to deputy chief of police and earning degrees from then-Bryant College and then-Roger Williams College while with the department. After he ascended to the rank of lieutenant, Chief Tamburini gained distinction in combating organized crime, gambling, and narcotics trafficking. His integrity and skill led him to become the first sworn police officer outside of the Rhode Island State Police to be granted authorization to conduct court- ordered wiretapping in Rhode Island. In 1995, Chief Tamburini assumed his current role in Johnston, where he has become both the town and the State's longest serving chief of police. In his 25 years leading the Johnston Police Department, he has continued to serve as a role model for his fellow officers and has worked to strengthen the community's relationship with his department. His many accomplishments include instituting several popular programs, such as Walk with Cops to keep the department connected with Johnston's senior citizens, the Johnston Police Explorers program to help train the next generation of police officers, and the Johnston Citizens' Police Academy to give local residents a better understanding of the day-to-day operations of the police force. Chief Tamburini, who is a member of the Rhode Island Criminal Justice Hall of Fame, has called his time in law enforcement his ``life's work.'' Time and time again, he has been recognized for his innovative and outstanding police work, earning recognition from the Rhode Island Governor's Office, the Rhode Island General Assembly, and the throated U.S. Attorney General's Office--to name a few. I think we can all agree it has been work well done. I join my colleague, Senator Whitehouse, in expressing my heartfelt gratitude for Chief Tamburini's years of exemplary dedication and service to Johnston, Providence, and our entire country. I wish Chief Tamburini, his wife Marie, his children and his grandchildren, the very best in the years to come.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, the unemployment crisis we are facing due to the pandemic has devastated the lives of tens of millions of Americans--many of whom may not see their jobs come back for the foreseeable future. The expanded unemployment insurance we passed in the CARES Act--especially the coverage for gig workers and the self- employed and the $600 weekly boost--have enabled workers to keep a roof over their heads, feed their children, and pay for health insurance. If these benefits expire or are drastically reduced, it could cause an eviction and hunger crisis. It could also tank consumer spending while increasing business closings that will lead to even more unemployment. Additionally, it could further exacerbate this public health and economic crisis by forcing more Americans into desperate situations, instead of ensuring that people can return to the workforce when it is safe. And yet knowing this, the Republican have proposed to slash weekly benefits to $200 a week for the next two months, after which benefits would be limited to no more than 70% of previous wages. This plan, which would cut the average worker's unemployment benefits by roughly 43%, would take states months to get up and running. This would further delay benefits at a time when some workers are still waiting for assistance. Instead of this half-baked, inefficient, and disingenuous proposal, we must work together on a bipartisan basis to enact targeted, effective, and smart measures that will offer families, businesses, and the economy the needed stability to get us through this crisis. That is why I am introducing the Worker Relief and Security Act, along with Senator Bennet and Congressman Beyer. Our legislation, which reflects input from top economists, would take politics out of the equation, basing continued enhanced unemployment insurance benefits on ``automatic stabilizers'' that are tied to the public health emergency and economic conditions. Specifically, this legislation would automatically extend the $600 weekly boost and additional benefit weeks, on top of regular state unemployment, through the duration of the public health crisis. Once we begin to enter the recovery phase, this legislation would continue providing supplemental weekly compensation and additional benefit weeks until national and state total unemployment rates get closer to pre-crisis levels. Time is of the essence, so I urge our colleagues to join us in pressing for immediate action on this legislation. We must extend and enhance unemployment insurance benefits, tying them to economic and health conditions--as well as expand work sharing as I have discussed previously--to help keep families, businesses, and states solvent through this crisis. Mr. President, I yield back.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. President, I rise, once again, to express my support for the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2021. I want to commend the chairman for his leadership and his thoughtfulness throughout this whole process. I am pleased, as we all are, that we will be voting soon on passage. I believe this is an excellent bill. I believe it provides the men and women of our military with resources and the authorizations needed to defend our Nation, while at the same time taking care of their families. It was crafted after a series of thoughtful hearings, discussion, and debate on both sides of the aisle. It was passed out of committee with strong bipartisan support. Most importantly, I am very pleased that this bill has had such full consideration on the Senate floor. For the first time in a long time, we were able to come to an agreement to debate and vote on several amendments. In addition, we were able to adopt over 140 amendments from Members on both sides of the aisle. I want to, again, thank Senator Inhofe for his leadership getting the Defense authorization bill to this point, overcoming the many challenges posed by the pandemic and by other factors that made this a very unusual year. I look forward to working with him as we go into conference. Finally, I would like to thank the committee staff who have worked so hard. I specifically want to recognize, as the chairman has, the staff director, John Bonsell, for the Republicans and the staff director for the Democrats, Elizabeth King. They worked together. They are diligent. They are bipartisan. They are thoughtful. They are the best examples of a staff member of the U.S. Senate. I would also like to thank my staff on the Democratic side: Jody Bennett, Carolyn Chuhta, Jon Clark, Jonathan Epstein, Jorie Feldman, Creighton Greene, Ozge Guzelsu, Gary Leeling, Kirk McConnell, Maggie McNamara Cooper, Bill Monahan, Mike Noblet, John Quirk, Arun Seraphin, Fiona Tomlin, and, once again, staff director Elizabeth King. Also, let me thank the floor staff and the leadership staff. You have been part of this process for the last several weeks, and you have done a remarkable job. We thank you for that very, very much. You facilitated our efforts. Finally, I would urge all of my colleagues to vote for this very excellent bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, this is a meritorious issue, obviously, involving veterans. But at this late juncture, after the weeks we have spent in deliberation both in the committee and then on the floor, it is not yet--this particular amendment--ready so that there is no opposition on my side. Since there is opposition, I would like to inform the Senate and the chairman of that situation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, with the U.S. economy reeling, millions of families struggling, and COVID-19 cases soaring in states around the country, this is exactly the wrong time to cut off or massively cut back unemployment insurance as Republicans are proposing. Unemployment insurance is a financial lifeline to tens of millions of Americans. And it also provides a big boost for small businesses . . . and communities. Because in addition to helping those who've lost their jobs, it effectively injects needed spending into local economies. Cars don't run without fuel, and the economy won't run without consumers. The President failed to listen to public health experts and that hurt public health and the economy. He downplayed the pandemic, derided the science, and tried to force states to rush their re-openings. Now he is failing to listen to economic experts across the spectrum who widely agree that four months into this crisis, the jobs picture is worsening. Experts are once again warning the President and Republicans now is NOT the time to cut off unemployment insurance. Today, more than 31 million Americans--roughly one out of five workers--are collecting unemployment and thousands of businesses are shutting their doors. More than 1.4 million workers filed for unemployment for the first time just last week. Those who predicted a quick V shaped recovery . . . who misled Americans that the virus would just disappear on its own were wrong. There will be no economic recovery until we get the virus under control. Congress needs to end the shortsighted approach and start taking the long view. We need a smarter, coordinated, evidence-based approach that recognizes reality: things are bad. Cutting off UI would make them exponentially worse. But look: Hope is not lost. We have the tools, the assets, the advantages to turn things around. There are proven, effective measures that we can take, both on the public health front and the economic front. Let's focus on the economic front: Economist Mark Zandi of Moody's Analytics notes that unemployment benefits are the most effective dollar-for-dollar stimulus to the economy, with each dollar of UI translating into $1.61 of economic activity. Cutting off $600 would slash the weekly income of 20 million households in half or more overnight. In a recent study, Ernie Tedeschi, a former economist at the Department of Treasury, projects that what will follow is a two percent decrease in the nation's gross domestic product and 1.7 million fewer jobs by the end of this year. This is not surprising. If Senate Republicans let the enhanced pandemic unemployment assistance expire, it could tank consumer spending while increasing business closings that will lead to even more unemployment. It could also further exacerbate this public health crisis by forcing more Americans into desperate situations. That is why I, along with Senator Michael Bennet and Congressman Don Beyer, have proposed the Worker Relief and Security Act. This legislation would take politics out of the equation and use ``automatic stabilizers'' based on actual unemployment rates to ensure the help goes where it is needed, when it is needed, and expires when it is no longer needed--rather than leaving it up to Congress and an arbitrary date. And look, it's not just individuals who are struggling. Businesses need help too. That is why I have backed the bipartisan RESTART Act and today I am introducing the Workforce Retention Act, which would strengthen and expand work sharing programs that many businesses are effectively using to keep their workers. This program is a win-win that offers businesses increased flexibility and payroll support, while keeping more Americans attached to their jobs. Right now, business owners who want to keep their doors open are facing the prospect of having to let go some percentage of their workforce because of circumstances far beyond their control. Businesses that are particularly dependent on foot traffic, such as the hospitality and tourism industries, are only looking at re-opening later this year or early next year. In many cases, businesses are also set to lose out on the considerable expense and time they have put in to hire and train these workers. With work sharing, struggling companies can reduce hours instead of their workforce and it helps employers save money on rehiring costs, while employees who participate in work sharing keep their jobs and receive a portion of unemployment insurance benefits to make up for lost wages. Especially in this pandemic, work sharing programs would allow businesses to retain their employees, easily putting them back on full-time status once business picks up, and avoid having to lay them off in the first place. As part of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, Congress enacted legislation that I authored, the Layoff Prevention Act of 2012, which provided temporary federal financing for 100% of work sharing benefits paid to workers. According to the Department of Labor, work sharing saved approximately 570,000 jobs in the wake of the Great Recession. Multiple studies have found that communities that adopted more robust work-sharing programs weathered the recession with lower unemployment rates. Mark Zandi estimates that temporary financing of work share offers a very high ``bang for the buck'' of $1.69 . . . making it a critical companion to traditional UI benefits. It's another win-win policy that has been field-tested and demonstrated to work well in more than 20 states across the country. Simply put, work sharing helps more workers, businesses, and communities stay afloat, and positions them for a stronger economic recovery. The Workforce Retention Act that I am introducing today along with Senators Whitehouse, Merkley, and Van Hollen, enhances the program and encourages states with existing work share laws to utilize them more frequently. It incentivizes states without work sharing laws to stop denying their businesses an easy and effective way to retain employees. This legislation is supported by the National Employment Law Center and the Economic Policy Institute. It builds off the $100 million initiative included in the CARES Act, stemming from my Layoff Prevention Act of 2020, by extending federal financing for states with permanent and temporary work sharing programs by two years. It would incentivize states to structure their work sharing laws to reduce barriers to entry for companies . . . particularly for small businesses that have been hard hit by this pandemic. Our bill also provides much-needed federal grants to state unemployment agencies to improve implementation and administration. States would also qualify under a new grant program for meeting certain enrollment incentive benchmarks and increasing the number of work share claims as a percentage of their overall unemployment insurance weekly claims. This is a cost-effective job preservation program and we need to invest in ensuring it is accessible to help more businesses, preserve more jobs, and save taxpayers billions of dollars in the long run. Our economy can't afford more of the same mistakes that have deepened this crisis and steepened the economic climb back out. America controls its own destiny, and we have the tools and know-how to succeed. Other nations have fared much better during this crisis because their elected leadership took COVID more seriously. They encouraged people to wear masks. Other heads of state didn't taunt regions into reopening before it was safe to do so. And they invested in unemployment insurance and economic stimulus. Ending unemployment insurance in the midst of a surging pandemic could make a desperate situation worse for individuals and harm the economy. Being jobless in these uncertain times and relying on unemployment is stressful enough. If Congress cuts benefits off too soon and tries to prematurely push workers into unsafe environments, it will cost families, businesses, and communities alike. It is beyond the pale that the Administration and Senate Republicans purposely put off action for months. Everyone knew the virus was not going to disappear. It's a perfect example of the Trump view of one set of rules that provides benefits for him, and nothing for everyone else. Incompetence and willful avoidance is not a policy, and it's time for Republicans to stop drawing up new ways to seem like they're helping people and come to the table with solid ideas that actually do something meaningful. It is my hope that we can proceed in a bipartisan manner on another round of coronavirus legislation. This next relief bill must include extended and enhanced unemployment insurance benefits tied to economic and health conditions, and expanded work sharing, to keep families, businesses, and states solvent through this crisis. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting these needed initiatives.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to comment, along with my colleague Senator Durbin, about the Sanders amendment. I must commend how thoughtful and knowledgeable Senator Durbin is about all these subjects. He has pointed out how there are too many military programs that are not well moderated and that have cost overruns that result in excess cost to the American public. We have to do something about those things, and we also understand that we have huge demand with respect to nondefense spending that we have to meet also. The Sanders amendment, as Senator Durbin pointed out, would impose an across-the-board cut to the Department of Defense, except for military personnel accounts and the defense health programs. What he would call a 10-percent across-the-board cut, when you take out health and personnel, becomes really a 14-percent cut to all the accounts at the Department of Defense. The danger, as so well illustrated by Senator Durbin, is that this type of indiscriminate getting rid of the good and paying for the bad that doesn't really work. It doesn't make sense. It reminds us all of the battles we had over sequestration, where Departments--not only the Department of Defense but the civilian Departments--had to fund programs because they met the cap and then cut other programs that were much more valuable because they exceeded the cap. That is not a way, as they proverbially say, to run a railroad, nor the Department of Defense. So we do have to look for specific areas to cut, and, as Senator Durbin said, a great deal of that is done and will be done in the Appropriations Committee where he is the ranking member. I am a colleague on the committee, and each year we have the challenge of taking the authorization that says ``you may do this'' and actually putting in the money to do it, and that effort is usually valuable, as is the authorization effort, and critically important. We have to make sure that a result of our deliberations is, first, the resources that are necessary to protect the men and women in the Armed Forces who protect us and also provide for the quality of life of their families and ultimately, of course, that we are able to deter any threat, and if not, defeat that threat decisively. This is a very important endeavor, and, again, suggesting that we just cut across the board and then put it someplace else is not, I think, commensurate with the kind of approach that we must take and we have to take going forward. The other factor, too, is that there are real ramifications for this that are not sometimes obvious. There are literally thousands and thousands--not just military personnel but civilian workers and construction workers and equipment manufacturing workers--who, in this indiscriminate, across-the-board cut, would lose their jobs at a time when we can't lose any jobs. This approach would be disruptive. I would not want to make a point to the disadvantage of the thousands and thousands of men and women who are working hard to take care of their families all across this country. Again, we do have to make serious investments in communities across this country that have been neglected, and I have been consistent in support of those efforts. We do have to make investments in our infrastructure for our economic liability and our economic efficiency. We do have to provide support in many, many different ways that transcends and goes beyond just the Department of Defense. In fact, one could say that just as vital a part of our national defense as our military budget is our education budget and our healthcare budget because our strength is not just military forces; our strength is knowledgeable citizens, our strength is healthy citizens, and our strength is an efficient economic system. But I think this approach, as I suggested today and I think the suggestion from Senator Durbin also was that this just across-the-board approach is good for a headline, it is good to make a point, but we are here to make policy, and I hope we do make policy. I hope we can continue in this National Defense Authorization Act to try to argue about issues that people feel are not appropriate spending or if, in fact, we need more spending and that in the appropriations process we will do that once again. Just as a reminder, this bill adheres to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019. It is the final year of the Budget Act. So the numbers we are talking about today for the Department of Defense are not willy-nilly; they were not negotiated without the context of nondefense spending. It was a bipartisan agreement to set the levels of spending for both defense and nondefense, and that is what we are doing here today. We need a serious discussion about national spending priorities, not just defense spending priorities but priorities that look back to poor communities, industrial policy, infrastructure, education, daycare, the impact of artificial intelligence on the workplace. We have a lot to do, and I think we should get on to doing it but not with the shorthand message of ``let's cut everything here, and put it over there.'' Let's look at the serious issues, and let's confront them, and let's propose serious solutions. So because of these indiscriminate cuts, I will be forced to oppose this amendment by Senator Sanders. There is another amendment that will come before us today proposed by Senator Tester, and that is one I do support. Senator Tester's amendment will add additional diseases to those that the Veterans Administration already presumes are the result of exposure to Agent Orange by veterans during their military service in Vietnam. We know that exposure to the toxic chemical Agent Orange has had severe health consequences for veterans who answered the Nation's call to military service during the Vietnam conflict. Recognizing this, the Veterans Administration already presumes that certain diseases affecting these veterans are service connected as a result of the exposure to Agent Orange. These diseases include non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, soft tissue sarcoma, respiratory cancers, myeloma and type 2 diabetes. We also know that there are other diseases that are not yet covered and that there are veterans who suffer from these diseases, and this conclusion is supported by a scientific review by the National Academy of Medicine. Parkinson's, bladder cancer, and hypothyroidism should share the same presumption of service connection as the diseases already presumed to be service connected. Our Vietnam veterans should not have the burden of proving by independent evidence that their diseases were caused by exposure to Agent Orange. The failure to add these conditions to the Veterans Administration's presumptive list continues to deny sick and aging veterans the healthcare and compensation that they have earned through service to our Nation and that they desperately need. Senator Tester's amendment begins to remedy this inequity, and I urge all Senators to vote for the Tester amendment. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise, together with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, to talk about the chairman's plan to conclude the deliberations of the legislation before us today. As you well know from being in the committee, this was a process that was bipartisan, thoughtful, extremely well-orchestrated by the chairman, and we accomplished a great deal. As you know, the members of the committee--we considered literally hundreds of different amendments by the members as we marked up the legislation. Then we passed the bill out of committee, we brought it to the floor, and at that point, a total of 880 amendments were filed on the legislation--446 Republican amendments, 422 Democratic amendments, and 12 joint amendments. So we had a rich field to pick from in terms of trying to improve the legislation. The first substitute that was introduced on the floor to begin formal deliberation included a total of 79 amendments--34 Republican amendments, 34 Democratic amendments, and 11 joint amendments. Then we proceeded forward. Last week we came up with another unanimous consent to allow the votes that took place this week on several very important amendments, but in addition to that, we incorporated another legislative proposal including 62 amendments. So from the introduction of the bill to the floor and to this moment, we have adopted 141 amendments. They are bipartisan, both Democrats and Republicans. Now we are at the point--and the chairman, I believe, has a very thoughtful way to conclude the legislation--to consider another round of amendments and then be able to move to final passage very quickly. Again, let me conclude by saying that the chairman has done a remarkable job. I commend him for his bipartisanship, his thoughtfulness, and his consideration, and I am completely supportive of his proposal to bring this bill to a conclusion. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Murkowski, we are introducing legislation to provide relief to all Federal student loan borrowers during this public health and economic crisis. The bipartisan Student Loan Fairness Act, which is also cosponsored by Senators Murkowski, Jones, and Tillis, will correct an inequity in the CARES Act that left out millions of Federal student loan borrowers from benefits to ease the burden of repayment as we continue to fight COVID-19. The CARES Act benefits are restricted to borrowers of student loans that are held by the Federal government. This leaves out the borrowers whose Federal Family Education Loans (FFEL) are still held by commercial and State agency lenders, and those with Perkins Loans that are administered by institutions of higher education. In fact, nearly 6 million borrowers were left out under the FFEL Program and another 1.9 million under the Perkins Loan Program. This disparate treatment by loan type is as confusing as it is unfair. In April, a broad group of more than two dozen organizations representing educators, borrower advocates, veterans, lenders, guaranty agencies, and student loan servicers implored Congress to remedy this inequity. They wrote, ``A Federal loan borrower--regardless of the origination of that loan, be it Part B, D, E, commercial, or government-held--should receive equal, immediate, and critical support in this unprecedented time . . . Already, borrowers are confused as to why their Federal loans are treated differently than others.'' The Student Loan Fairness Act will extend the CARES Act relief to these borrowers by covering the cost of interest and suspending monthly payments for the period of March 13 through September 30, 2020, and suspending all involuntary collection, such as administrative wage garnishment or offsets from tax refunds, for this period. This legislation is one component of what should be a comprehensive package of student loan debt relief. As the crisis continues, we should extend the repayment relief until health and economic conditions improve sufficiently for borrowers to be able to begin repayment. Additionally, we should forgive at least $10,000 of debt for each student loan borrower to help speed the recovery and reduce the drag of the roughly $1.6 trillion in outstanding student loan debt on economic prospects for over 40 million Americans. Going forward, we must reduce the need for student loan borrowing by expanding need-based grants, such as the Pell Grant, and ensuring that states and institutions do their part to lower the cost to students and families. We should work together to build on the important steps Congress took to provide relief to student loan borrowers in the CARES Act. However, we need to ensure that all Federal student loan borrowers have access to this relief. I hope that my colleagues will join us in cosponsoring the Student Loan Fairness Act and pushing for its inclusion in the next COVID-19 relief package.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise today in support of the Schatz amendment. The Schatz amendment would make changes to one of the Defense Department's surplus property programs, known as the 1033 Program, which allows the Defense Department to disperse excess military equipment to Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies. The 1033 Program has provided the Defense Department a way to reuse taxpayer-funded equipment it no longer needs by providing it to law enforcement agencies. This, in turn, saves State and local governments from having to buy new equipment. This program is almost 25 years old, and it has been the subject of continued scrutiny and modifications. I would first like to review what is in place. DOD requires that all requests for equipment from law enforcement agencies include a justification of how the property will be used. This justification is a key factor in determining if a requisition is to be approved. Next, according to the Defense Department, 92 percent of the equipment transferred during fiscal year 2019 was in the category of uncontrolled property--things like office equipment, first aid kits, hand tools, computers, and digital cameras. After 1 year from transfer, items in this category become the property of the law enforcement agency and are no longer subject to annual inventory requirements. The rest of the property transferred under the 1033 Program is considered controlled property and is given to law enforcement agencies on a conditional or ``loan'' basis. This includes things like small arms, demilitarized vehicles, and night vision equipment. Typically, small arms weapons only make up about 5 percent of the property transferred in the 1033 Program. When a law enforcement agency no longer wants or needs this controlled property, it must be returned to the Department of Defense. To ensure that this program is run responsibly and effectively, the Government Accountability Office has provided several reviews of this program that have been helpful in past years to tighten the requirements on participants in the 1033 Program. The committee report accompanying the bill before us requires another GAO review of DOD's disposal of military vehicles, which could inform additional reforms when we receive the results of the review. I also know that the Defense Logistics Agency requires annual audits of participating agencies to ensure they are accountable for the equipment they have received. If an agency is delinquent or doesn't meet the requirements, then they can be suspended or terminated from the 1033 Program. While this Program is an effective way of reusing equipment that taxpayers have already paid for, we continually need to ensure that our civilian law enforcement agencies do not end up looking like or acting like our military when they patrol the streets. Given some of the incidents that have occurred in recent months, I believe that additional modifications are necessary. The Schatz amendment adds some reasonable requirements and limitations to the 1033 Program. For one thing, it would codify the prohibition of certain items from being transferred under the 1033 Program, things like certain kinds of ammunition, grenades, and drones. This amendment would also prohibit the use of transferred equipment against First Amendment-protected activities, such as the right to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances. I know that the Defense Department has some concerns about how this amendment would be implemented, but I believe these concerns can be addressed during conference with the House. I believe it is important and timely to make such changes to the 1033 Program today. I support the Schatz amendment and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Murkowski, we are introducing legislation to provide relief to all Federal student loan borrowers during this public health and economic crisis. The bipartisan Student Loan Fairness Act, which is also cosponsored by Senators Murkowski, Jones, and Tillis, will correct an inequity in the CARES Act that left out millions of Federal student loan borrowers from benefits to ease the burden of repayment as we continue to fight COVID-19. The CARES Act benefits are restricted to borrowers of student loans that are held by the Federal government. This leaves out the borrowers whose Federal Family Education Loans (FFEL) are still held by commercial and State agency lenders, and those with Perkins Loans that are administered by institutions of higher education. In fact, nearly 6 million borrowers were left out under the FFEL Program and another 1.9 million under the Perkins Loan Program. This disparate treatment by loan type is as confusing as it is unfair. In April, a broad group of more than two dozen organizations representing educators, borrower advocates, veterans, lenders, guaranty agencies, and student loan servicers implored Congress to remedy this inequity. They wrote, ``A Federal loan borrower--regardless of the origination of that loan, be it Part B, D, E, commercial, or government-held--should receive equal, immediate, and critical support in this unprecedented time . . . Already, borrowers are confused as to why their Federal loans are treated differently than others.'' The Student Loan Fairness Act will extend the CARES Act relief to these borrowers by covering the cost of interest and suspending monthly payments for the period of March 13 through September 30, 2020, and suspending all involuntary collection, such as administrative wage garnishment or offsets from tax refunds, for this period. This legislation is one component of what should be a comprehensive package of student loan debt relief. As the crisis continues, we should extend the repayment relief until health and economic conditions improve sufficiently for borrowers to be able to begin repayment. Additionally, we should forgive at least $10,000 of debt for each student loan borrower to help speed the recovery and reduce the drag of the roughly $1.6 trillion in outstanding student loan debt on economic prospects for over 40 million Americans. Going forward, we must reduce the need for student loan borrowing by expanding need-based grants, such as the Pell Grant, and ensuring that states and institutions do their part to lower the cost to students and families. We should work together to build on the important steps Congress took to provide relief to student loan borrowers in the CARES Act. However, we need to ensure that all Federal student loan borrowers have access to this relief. I hope that my colleagues will join us in cosponsoring the Student Loan Fairness Act and pushing for its inclusion in the next COVID-19 relief package.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to express my support for the Cornyn amendment, which would, among other things, authorize a Federal grant program to enable the leading global chip companies to manufacture in the United States. I want to commend a bipartisan group of Senators who have worked so hard on this issue: Senators Cotton, Cornyn, Schumer, and Warner. The semiconductor manufacturing story is similar to many other industries in America. The United States invented the technology and still leads in research and development, but the manufacture of the product itself has steadily migrated to Asia. Over time, not just the manufacturing expertise and capacity are lost but also the science and engineering necessary to invent the next generation of products. While this has happened to too many industries, the impact is particularly acute in electronics because electronics power the modern economy, fueling all the critical technologies on which our future prosperity depend. Asian nations--and, in particular, China, Taiwan, and South Korea-- have for decades pursued aggressive industrial policies to gain control of the electronics industry. These policies directed large subsidies and protections for fledgling companies that have now become global giants. While South Korea is an ally, and Taiwan is a partner, the plants in those countries that make the world's most advanced logic and memory semiconductors are highly vulnerable to disruption or destruction by China and/or North Korea. In a confrontation in this region, China could threaten to bring the western economy to its knees by halting the flow of semiconductors. China itself is investing hundreds of billions of dollars in new semiconductor fabrication plants in a relentless bid to dominate this industry. In 10 years, Chinese companies may dominate the production of the chips that power 5G wireless networks, artificial intelligence, cloud computing, the Internet of Things, and autonomous vehicles. In America, there is one remaining company that is globally competitive in logic chips--Intel Corporation--but Intel is at least a generation behind its main competitors and historically has designed and produced chips only for its own product line. Its major global competitors--the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation, or TSMC, and Samsung--provide manufacturing services for chips designed by other companies. These are typically so-called fabless chips companies, and they include the names of some of our most famous tech companies: Qualcomm, Xilinx, Nvidia, and Microsoft. TSMC and Samsung, together, have close to a monopoly on the manufacturing of leading-edge semiconductors for fabless chip companies. Recently, there was the good news that Intel announced in a letter to the Defense Department its intent to compete with its Asian rivals in manufacturing chips designed by fabless companies. Again, these are companies that would design the chips and the electronic processor but would not produce the chips. That would be left to these other major companies. In addition, TSMC and the administration announced an agreement to bring TSMC to America to produce leading edge chips. It is suspected that Samsung can be persuaded to set up a major manufacturing facility in the United States, as well. The Defense Department has two major studies nearing completion, one by the Defense Science Board and one conducted in partnership with industry by the Under Secretary for Acquisition, Ellen Lord. They are both expected to plead for urgent and large-scale action to revive U.S. semiconductor manufacturing, but none of this is going to happen without funding and without a plan. We did not lose chip manufacturing to Asia simply due to cheap labor, especially in the chip industry, which is not manpower intensive. We lost this market sector because the investments required are massive and constant and because foreign governments heavily subsidize them. We all prefer to let markets govern where competition is fair and mutually beneficial, but relentless actions by foreign governments to dominate specific industries regardless of economics and where they succeed, like in the semiconductor industry, must be countered by U.S. government action because of the threat to our national security and prosperity. While this amendment does not include funding authorizations, it is an important first step. This amendment will serve notice that the U.S. Senate recognizes this very serious issue and intends to take corrective action. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to commit to finding funding solutions. Our economic well-being and our national security depend upon it. Madam President, I would now also like to speak about Senator Shaheen's amendment, which will be considered this afternoon, with your permission. I rise in support of Senator Shaheen's amendment to increase fiscal year 2021 funding by $5 million for the ongoing CDC human health study on the effects of PFAS substances in drinking water sources. As most of you are aware, PFOS and PFOA are chemicals that are very effective for extinguishing fires and have been used in firefighting foam in the Defense Department since the 1970s. Unfortunately, the fluorine bonds never break, and environmental problems are presented, which are very dangerous to people. The lifetime health advisory for PFAS is the equivalent of one grain of sand in an Olympic-sized swimming pool. The WHO found that these chemicals are likely carcinogenic, especially in children and pregnant women, and that they can decrease the effectiveness of vaccines, and they are known to cause cancer in animals. PFAS has been found in the drinking water at over 650 military installations in almost every State in the United States and overseas. Thousands of Americans in many States across the United States have already found elevated levels of PFAS in their blood. Beginning with the fiscal year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, the Department of Defense has been authorized to transfer funds to the CDC for a human health study on the effects of all PFAS substances in drinking water sources for people. Specifically, it seeks to determine the exact types of cancers and other toxic effects drinking water with PFAS has on human beings. For example, years ago, the CDC determined precisely how much lead can be ingested before cognitive impacts can occur in children. They can and should do the same thing with respect to PFAS. The study should take 7 years to complete. So this fiscal year 2021 NDAA will fund year 4. The CDC study received $7 million in fiscal year 2018, $10 million in fiscal year 2019, $10 million in fiscal year 2020, and there is $10 million currently in the fiscal year 2021 NDAA amendment. Senator Shaheen's amendment would increase it to $15 million. It would accelerate our ability to find these critical answers that affect the health and safety of the American people and are particularly associated with military bases all across the country, which means in every one of our States. We all recognize the urgent need for the CDC to better understand the toxic effects of PFAS chemicals on the human body, and supporting this amendment will accomplish just that. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Once again, I commend Senator Shaheen for her work in developing this amendment with respect to PFAS, and I commend Senator Cornyn and his colleagues for working very, very diligently and perceptively about building up our industrial base in order to produce microchips so we will be the leader in the world and not the follower. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, to help libraries respond to and recover from the COVID-19 pandemic and continue providing communities with needed services, resources, technology, and broadband access, I am introducing the Library Stabilization Fund Act along with Senators Brown, Booker, Blumenthal, Udall, Cardin, Warren, Whitehouse, Heinrich, Van Hollen, Menendez, Wyden, Hirano, and Markey. Our bill would provide the $2 billion the American Library Association has estimated is necessary for a library stabilization fund under the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS). COVID-19 has wreaked havoc on every aspect of our daily lives. Libraries, which anchor our local communities, are no exception. Local budget shortfalls have left libraries to grapple with severe cuts, furloughs of staff, and reduced operations just when communities need their services the most. In addition to providing additional resources to enable schools to reopen safely, close the homework gap, and strengthen the social safety net, we need to invest in libraries to help our communities recover. Libraries are a critical piece of our education, economic development, and social infrastructure. Although many libraries remain closed or have limited hours, libraries are meeting urgent community needs by increasing technology access (including boosting WIFI and lending hotspots, tablets, and computers), offering digital content, providing books and materials for delivery or pick-up, and hosting online story times, classes, and discussion groups. In this way, libraries are providing enrichment to our young people, ensuring students can connect to remote and summer learning, enabling those with jobs to telework, helping job seekers find employment and receive training, and offering a lifeline to vulnerable adults and seniors who need health information, a portal to government services, and ways to avoid social isolation. To strengthen the ability of libraries to serve communities affected by COVID-19, our bill would provide funding to states on a formula basis, with a minimum allotment of $10 million; to tribes; and on a competitive basis. The funding could be used to support general operations, including paying staff and ensuring the safe handling of library materials; to offer greater access to technology, including expanding digital networks and enabling the purchase and lending of hotspots, laptops, and digital resources; to strengthen services and resources, including those relating to literacy, distance learning, adult education, workforce and economic development, and health information; and to link patrons to government, community, and cultural resources. This legislation will help ensure libraries can continue to find new ways to bridge the digital divide and safely provide information, programming, and services that people of all ages need to stay engaged and informed. This smart investment in our libraries will keep people and communities connected and contribute to our economic recovery. I thank the supporters of the bill, including the American Library Association; Association for Rural & Small Libraries; Association of Research Libraries; Chief Officers of State Library Agencies; Common Sense Media: International Dyslexia Association; National Association of Elementary School Principals; National Association of Secondary School Principals; National Coalition for Literacy; National Digital Inclusion Alliance; National Humanities Alliance; National League of Cities; Reach Out and Read; Reading Is Fundamental; and Urban Libraries Council. Companion legislation is being introduced on a bipartisan basis in the other body by Congressman Andy Levin. I urge our colleagues to join us in pressing for the inclusion of the Library Stabilization Fund Act in the next COVID-19 response package.