Brian Schatz

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, before I talk about the Supreme Court, I want to express my condolences to the families and the loved ones who have experienced the human toll of the coronavirus pandemic. Over 220,000 Americans have died, and millions of others have been forever changed. I am going to read some of the names of those we have lost. The families of these individuals have given permission for their names to be read on the Senate floor, adding them and their stories to the Congressional Record: Mike Hawk, Stephen R. Chatman, Milan Fryscak, Santos Gomez, Jack Larvin, Jeanne Lanson, Wendy Darling-Minore, Rose DePetrillo, Molly Stech, Larry ``Grouse'' Cummings, Sarah Ann Staffa Scholin, Elizabeth Woollett, Lorraine Mallek, Bob Matusevich, Javier ``Chino'' Ascencio, Joel Cruz, Michelle Horne, Juan Carlos Rangel, Laura Brown, Faye Ann Barr, Yoshikage Kira, Patricia Manning, Barbara Johnson Hopper, Harry Conover, Stanley Gray, Mary J. Wilson, Richard Gordon Thorp, Joe Hinton, Angela Chaddlesone McCarthy, Gurpaul Singh, Paul J. Foley Jr., Tim Mulcahy, Kelvin Lurry, Robert Wherry, Fred Westbrook

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I want to be clear about what is going on. I have worked very hard on tech issues and introduced bipartisan legislation actually to reform section 230. We have had hearings in this area. Senator Thune and I have been working in good faith in this space. So I want to separate out the kind of legitimate questions regarding the tech industry's influence on American society, as it relates to privacy, which I have legislation for, as it relates to its impact on journalism, and as it relates to whether or not there can be an appropriate balance struck in terms of preventing the platforms from being hijacked for the purpose of carrying foreign misinformation for the purpose of influencing an election and their legitimate rights under statutory law and their free speech rights. These are complicated issues. Senator Hawley and I briefly had a conversation about these issues. I listened to him talk on these issues, and I basically said: Look, I divide what you are talking about into two categories. I think some of your critique around Big Tech is smart and I agree with, and some of it I consider to be not in good faith and an effort to influence the platforms in order to carry the water for people like Rudy Giuliani. So if there is a sincere effort to work on a bipartisan basis on something so foundational as section 230 or whether or not to establish a privacy right in statutory law, which has never happened at the Federal level, then, I am all in for that. But it is quite unusual for us to take on something so fundamental. The Senator is a Member of the majority. If the Senator could not get a hearing, that is absolutely his problem. I could get a hearing for my bill because I have bipartisan cosponsors. So, on all of the legislation that he is talking about, he has failed to reach across the aisle and to work with a Democrat or two or three and to try to reform some of these institutions through the levers of power that we are in possession of. And fast forward to next Wednesday, I think it is, and the Senate Commerce Committee, through its Twitter feed, is running a campaign ad--literally, a campaign ad--that says: Hunter Biden's emails. This is the Commerce Committee of the U.S. Senate, and they are tweeting out things concerning Hunter Biden's emails. What a sad moment for the institution of the U.S. Senate and the cumulative bipartisan history of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce. It is terribly sad. If there is an effort to work on these issues in good faith, I will be the first in line. I have been the first in line. But if we are going to try to do a unanimous consent--which means, for the public watching, that we are going to pass this bill unanimously without any debate; we are going to pass this bill without it going to a hearing; we are going to pass this bill without any Democratic input--that is nonsense. I object.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, we know that on Saturday the President is likely to announce his nominee for the Supreme Court, and we don't know who that is going to be, but we do know a couple of things. We know, according to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, that they already have the votes. What an extraordinary thing to already know how you are going to vote on a nominee who has not yet been nominated. What an extraordinary thing to turn ``advise and consent'' into ``agreeing in advance.'' What an extraordinary thing. There is another thing that we know about this nominee. No matter who it is, we know that this person is going to come from a list provided by the Federalist Society, an organization that has worked for decades to remake the Federal judiciary in its image. It has a long history of advancing a certain agenda of seeking to roll back progress on civil rights, diminish environmental protections, and eliminate a woman's right to choose. It is an organization that believes in the power of executive authority and advances a particular, unique, novel theory called the unitary executive, which is something that Alan Dershowitz proffered on the Senate floor during the impeachment trial. It essentially says that the executive branch is the President and that extensions of the President's authority can only go so far because the President is a whole branch of government unto himself or herself. The Federalist Society also fights for the corporations and the rich individual donors who quietly fund their work. As Amanda Hollis-Brusky says, who studies this organization from a nonpartisan academic perspective as a professor at Pomona College: ``The idea of the Federalist Society was to train, credential, and socialize a generation of alternative elites.'' That is how we know that any nominee they put forth will have views so far out of the mainstream and far to the right of even the existing Supreme Court. So it is not a rhetorical flourish, and it is not a partisan statement to say that Trump's nominee will not be committed to ensuring our most basic and fundamental rights: the right to privacy, reproductive rights, the right to vote, the right to marry who you love, and even equal justice under the law. Perhaps what is most worrisome is that the President has made clear that whomever he nominates to the Supreme Court will be in favor of striking down the Affordable Care Act. With the Court's hearing yet another challenge to the ACA on November 10, it is not an exaggeration to say that the law will likely be gutted. It is a real risk. Let's be clear about what this means. The whole architecture of our healthcare system could be destroyed during the worst public health crisis in a century. This will, of course, disproportionately impact our most vulnerable communities--communities of color, low-income, indigenous, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian communities. We are talking about repealing Medicaid expansion--the policy that allows people under the age of 26 to stay on their parents' health insurance-- and, most importantly, protections for preexisting conditions. Let's be clear about this, too: If you have gotten COVID, you now have a preexisting condition. So, if you have gotten COVID because of President Trump's inaction and then if his nominee is confirmed to the Supreme Court, your insurance company will be permitted to kick you off of your healthcare plan or at least to increase your rate so high that you will not be able to afford coverage. Ripping away healthcare from at least 20 million Americans and denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions is a crazy and horrific thing to do in normal times, but it is particularly cruel during a pandemic that has already claimed the lives of more than 200,000 Americans, especially because, despite the recent promises and despite the endless promises from both the President and members of the Republican Party, they have no alternative healthcare plan. We cannot and must not impose this catastrophe on the American people. In moments when our country feels torn apart, the traditional role of the Senate is supposed to be to calm tensions and solve our problems, but instead of dealing with the tough issues, the majority leader and the Republican Party are going to inflict procedural violence on the legislative branch with many Republicans pre-announcing their support for the nominee without even knowing who she or he may be. ``President Trump will nominate a well-qualified justice and we will uphold our Constitution and protect our freedoms''--the Senator from Montana. ``I will support President Trump in any effort to move forward regarding the recent vacancy''--the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. ``It is critical that the Senate takes up and confirms that successor before election day''--the junior Senator from Texas. What makes this coordinated effort to stack the Supreme Court even worse is that we heard the majority leader say specifically that he felt no sense of urgency to move on COVID relief. He felt no sense of urgency to move on COVID relief. I believe this was in May. I think it was in May when the House passed the Heroes Act. The House passes a bill, and the Republicans say it is too much. The majority leader decides: Do you know what? We are the cooling saucer. We are the upper Chamber. We are just going to chill out here during this pandemic and see how things play out economically and in terms of public health. Well, things have played out pretty badly economically and in terms of public health; yet there has been no sense of urgency, no deal, no negotiation. Forget a deal for a second. There has not even been a serious attempt to negotiate between the parties or between the branches of government--nothing. Yet, when a Supreme Court vacancy happens--when Justice Ginsburg tragically passes--there is a tremendous sense of clarity, a tremendous sense of alacrity, a determination to fill that seat so that, on November 10, they can take your healthcare away. That is the sense of urgency that the majority leader feels in the middle of a pandemic, and it is a shame. I yield the floor (At the request of Mr. McConnell, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, we are on the precipice of a depression because of politics. Right now, every single State and most counties and most cities are experiencing a budget crisis like they haven't seen in generations. Tax revenues are down due to high unemployment, rising healthcare costs, and the drop in consumer spending and emergency relief costs continue to skyrocket, and that means our States, our cities, and our towns have run out of money or are quickly running out of money. But in the latest proposal, the Republicans allocate nothing at all to State and local government. You heard that correctly. In midst of the biggest public health crisis in a century, Republicans will not send a single dollar in emergency aid to our States, our cities, and to our counties. Economically, this is just ridiculously bad. It will cost roughly 4 million jobs, and it will have a direct impact on GDP and on the programs and services that we need in order to come out on the other side of this pandemic. Budget shortfalls among State and local governments are approaching half a trillion already, and for my home State of Hawaii, we are confronting over a billion dollars in losses. Unlike the Federal Government, our State and local governments are operating with finite amounts of dollars. They don't have an unlimited line of credit. And a majority of States require a balanced budget by the end of the year. So it is one thing for States and counties and municipalities to juggle and survive for a few months by moving money around, using cash flow management, paying bills late, relying on rainy day or reserve funds, but they can't do that forever. By now, many have burned up their reserves, and the cupboard is bare, and the bills are due. The decisions that the Republicans are making right now--the official policy as it relates to funding local governments is to force millions to be laid off in the middle of the worst pandemic in 100 years. Refusing to send aid to States and local governments isn't just cruel; it is bad economic strategy. Moody's released a report projecting that it could shave as much as three full percentage points from GDP--three full percentage points from GDP. There are certain things that are not within the U.S. Senate's control as it relates to GDP, but this is a choice we are about to make--to lay off public service workers, to actually--I mean, we passed the PPP program, which basically subsidizes keeping people employed. We passed this expanded unemployment insurance, which--as Senator Cortez Masto pointed out, we mandatorily said: Stay home, and we will take care of you. Now the official public policy of the Republican conference is to lay off firefighters and nurses and teachers. I know that we get real heated in terms of our rhetoric sometimes on the Senate floor, and we accuse the other side of things that are maybe shading the truth in ways that are unfavorable. But I just want to point out that that is the official public policy of the Republicans right now--that States and counties and cities get zero; firehouses get zero; public health nurses get zero; teachers get zero--and that if they had their way, they would pass a coronavirus aid package that forces us to lay people off--public health nurses, public school administrators, public sanitation workers, teachers--in the middle of a situation where the virus is much worse than it was 3 months ago and the economy is much worse than it was 3 months ago. So I reject the premise that this is some sort of Democratic ask. Now, I could go through the list of the National Conference of Mayors, the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures--all of the organizations that on a bipartisan basis represent governance. They all want State and county relief to come into this package. I could go through that, but I just reject the premise on a human level that we have to demand, as though it is some sort of progressive wish list--it is not a carbon tax, right? It is not criminal justice reform. It is not gay rights. This is allowing firefighters to stay employed. This is allowing our public hospitals not to lay off people in the middle of a pandemic. This is allowing our school systems not to lay off teachers. This isn't a Democratic ask, this is an American ask, and I reject the premise that the leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell, is going to treat this as something that is to be traded for. We don't trade for keeping our firefighters employed. We don't trade for keeping our nurses employed. We just do that because it is the right thing to do, and we especially do that in the middle of the worst public health crisis in a century and the worst economic situation we have had in almost a century. I reject the idea that Leader Schumer and Leader McConnell and Speaker Pelosi and Secretary Mnuchin have to cut a deal on State and local funding. Every single Member of the U.S. Senate, as soon as this ends up in the bill, is going to take credit for it. They are going to say: Look, I got you money. But let the record reflect that the proposal from the Republican conference was that States, counties, and municipalities get zero, and that is not tenable. I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, Senators Murkowski, Harris, Paul, and I are offering a bipartisan amendment that proposes reasonable, commonsense reforms to the 1033 Program. Groups on the left and the right support it, including the NAACP, the National Urban League, OurStreets, FreedomWorks, Concerned Veterans for America, the American Conservative Union, Campaign for Liberty, Americans for Tax Reform, and the Faith and Freedom Coalition. People on the left and the right agree that it is time to start to demilitarize the police. Our amendment will permanently prohibit the transfer of lethal military weapons to police departments. This includes heavy ammunition, bayonets, grenade launchers, explosives, stripped-down tanks, tear gas, and weaponized drones, among other things. Now, think about that list-- weaponized drones and bayonets. Is anybody under the impression that a police department needs a weaponized drone or a bayonet? Our amendment also ensures the police departments can still get access to the equipment that actually helps them to protect the public under the 1033 Program, like first-aid kits, cold-weather gear, flash lights, and high-water vehicles to respond to flood disasters. The last month has made clear that weapons of war don't belong in police departments. Weapons of war have no place in police departments. We saw the terrifying images of police in military gear storming the streets, combat vehicles rumbling down city blocks, rounds and rounds of tear gas shot at peaceful protesters, frequently without warning and often unprovoked. None of this helps anyone deescalate a crisis. Our communities are not battlefields. The American people are not enemy combatants. If our troops can't use tear gas while overseas, police departments shouldn't use it on American citizens. It is really that simple. Across the country, more than 8,000 police departments are stockpiling weapons of war at no cost. The research plainly shows that outfitting our police for war does not help to keep the peace. Militarized equipment actually leads to more violence, disproportionately impacting communities of color. More militarized law enforcement is associated with more civilians killed each year by police. One study found that when a county goes from having no military equipment to receiving about $2.5 million worth of weaponry, civilian deaths at the hands of police are likely to double. To make matters worse, some police departments are misusing this program by selling, trading, or pawning equipment. Often, county and city officials don't even know what weapons and equipment police departments are acquiring because equipment like armored track vehicles are very expensive to store and maintain. This program is actually blowing up local budgets across the country because these tanks are tearing up the streets. Today, we have an opportunity to fix it. It is not to repeal the 1033 Program outright, which, frankly, I would favor, but this amendment is the result of a bipartisan compromise wherein we worked with each Member who was willing to engage--former Governors who served in the Senate, former prosecutors who served in the Senate, Members of both parties--and they specifically came to our office and said: You know, that specific item has an important civilian use, could you exempt it from the list of prohibited transfers? We worked and we worked and we worked, and this is the compromise measure. By passing this amendment, we can prevent the abuse of a 1033 Program, and we can limit the amount of dangerous weapons in local precincts. To be clear, reforming this program is not the only thing we need to do. No single amendment will end police brutality and violence, and alleviating the deep mistrust between police and the communities they are sworn to protect is not easy work, and it will not be solved by one vote. This amendment is meaningful, and it is bipartisan. There is simply no evidence to support the idea that police are outgunned. Criminals are not rolling around with IEDs and armored vehicles. This is an opportunity, given the failure of us to do anything about the relationship between police and communities-- anything at all in this Congress, in this historic moment--this amendment is an opportunity to actually get something done. We have bipartisan cosponsors. This will be a bipartisan vote. We have organizations, frankly, on the far left and the far right supporting this amendment. This is an opportunity for the Senate to actually get something done. So I urge my colleagues to vote yes. I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, just by way of rebuttal to the Senator from Wyoming, to make clear what the Schatz-Murkowski-Harris-Paul amendment does, we were very thoughtful and deliberative and collaborative with Members of the Senate to ensure that the problem he is describing would not occur under this new statute. So let me just be specific. Search-and-rescue equipment, boats, things like that which clearly have a virtuous civilian use are not prohibited transfers under my amendment. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we start the vote now.

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 2252, as provided for under the previous order.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, may I ask the Presiding Officer to remind us of rule XIX.

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I will be very quick. I understand we have work to do on the Defense authorization and the vote coming up, but I am glad the majority leader is on the floor, and I am glad so many Members are on the floor. We have a problem in this institution of the uneven enforcement of rule XIX, and it is hurting this body. I have just by happenstance been on the floor for various violations being called by the Presiding Officer, usually with the advice of the Parliamentarian. It is very clear to me that the rules are not being applied equally to each party, and I think that is something we are going to have to wrestle with if we are going to continue to be worthy of the moniker ``the world's greatest deliberative body.''

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, today is the 1st of the month, and that means the rent is due, but for the 9 million renters who have lost their jobs, they may not be able to pay. Now, in March, we made sure that the CARES Act included cash assistance, unemployment benefits, and suspensions on evictions and mortgage forbearance to help the people who have been hurt the most by this pandemic. Lots of States and counties have set up their own programs, either subsidies or prohibitions on evictions themselves, but we are now 3 months later, and unemployment benefits stand to expire at the end of this month and moratoriums that allowed families to stay in their homes are ending. Eviction courts are reopening. Think about that. Eviction courts are reopening. So what we are facing is a ticking timebomb. We are facing the fact that it is true that people got forbearance on their rent or forbearance on their mortgage, but I remember very well in March and April, as I explained to the people of Hawaii, you are getting forbearance not forgiveness, which means you just simply don't have to pay your mortgage or your rent this month. You do have to eventually pay your mortgage or your rent. So what is going to happen is, for the most economically challenged among us in the United States, they are going to face a huge backpayment at the beginning of August or the beginning of September, and they are going to lose the place they live in. Now, I am very, very hopeful that cooler heads will prevail and that we will intervene in July and incorporate the legislation Senator Brown is leading because the rent is going to be due, and we are going to-- just as we faced this pandemic square in the eyes, we are going to be facing a massive eviction crisis. We have to take action. I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, with the passing of Willie K, Hawaii has lost a music legend. Through his raw talent and unmatched musicianship, Willie K blazed a trail that redefined music in Hawaii and across the country. Born William Kahaialii--and known affectionately as ``Uncle Willie'' throughout our State--Willie K wouldn't be tied down to any single genre or instrument. Instead, he did it all. Willie could play or sing almost anything. Willie's love for music came from his family. Raised in a family of musicians in Lahaina, Willie started performing at just 8 years old. Taught by his father and renowned guitarist, Manu Kahaiali`i, Willie mastered the blues at a young age. He became a virtuoso instrumentalist--learning how to play every instrument that might be needed in a show from a guitar to a bass to a ukulele. And his voice was one of a kind. No style was off limits, even opera. He was able to effortlessly bridge blues and Hawaiian, local and mainstream, music and culture. Over the course of his career, Willie recorded numerous albums and performed with icons like Prince, Steven Tyler, Willie Nelson, and Santana. Always humble, he described himself as ``a working musician''--despite earning 19 Na Hoku Hanohano awards, a Hawaii Academy of Recording Arts Lifetime Achievement Award, and a Grammy nomination. Willie devoted his life to music and understood its power. He went to great lengths to help other local artists in Hawaii succeed and organized his BBQ Bluesfest annually. Even after he began to feel the effects of his illness, he continued to share his music. Willie showed us all so many things. He was talented, energetic, passionate, and authentic. But what really separated him from the rest was his unrelenting zest for life and aloha spirit. My thoughts and deepest sympathies are with his ohana and all those who loved him. He will be well remembered and greatly missed. May his memory be a blessing. May his music live on.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, the American experiment was a radical one. It imagined equal justice under the law. It imagined equal protection under the law. It imagined a cumbersome system in which tyranny could be avoided by the constant struggle between elected and appointed leaders, and it intentionally sacrificed speed, efficiency, and convenience to avoid the abuse of power. And so it is with unending regret that I see what is happening. I grieve for the Senate, an institution both hallowed and flawed, an elite place in the worst sense of the word, and yet still the main place where American problems are to be solved. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, the Senate is the worst legislative body, except for all of the others. There are millions of Americans who have formed a basic expectation about how a trial is to function based on hundreds of years of law and based on their common sense. Make no mistake--what the Senate did was an affront to the basic idea of a trial. And for all of the crocodile tears of my colleagues, all of the fake outrage at the accusation, we must call this what it was--it is a coverup. I don't know what Mulvaney or Bolton or Pompeo would say. I don't know what the documents would illuminate. And I believe it is normally very dangerous to ascribe motives to fellow Senators when criticizing their vote. But it is impossible for me to escape the conclusion that they don't want to know; that they wanted to get this over with before the Super Bowl, of all things. They are afraid of this house of cards falling all the way down. As I look at the Republican side of the Chamber, I know this moment in history has made their particular jobs extraordinarily difficult, requiring uncommon courage. They have to risk the scorn of their voters, their social circle, their colleagues, and their President in order to do the right thing. On one level, I knew the likely outcome, but the bitter taste of injustice lingers in my mouth. On behalf of everyone who couldn't get away with an unpaid traffic fine, is in jail for stealing groceries so they could eat that night, who can't get a job because of medical debt, I say shame on anyone who places this President or any President above the law. The President is not above the law. No one is above the law. The President is guilty on both counts. The Constitution gives extraordinary powers to the President under article II, and that makes sense because without a powerful magistrate, the government can't function. But in granting these powers, the Framers thought carefully about how to constrain them, and they decided that a President could be controlled to greater or lesser degrees by the legislature, by the judiciary, and by the voters. But the Framers couldn't contemplate this level of polarization where, even in the face of the overwhelming evidence of high crimes, one party would not just exonerate him for it but, in fact, ratify these crimes. They didn't imagine that one party would be so uniformly loyal to its President that it could maintain a hammerlock on the Senate, preventing the prospect of 67 votes from ever being available for removal. I don't think we are in danger of the impeachment process becoming routine; I think we are in much greater danger of making the impeachment process moot. And if so, God help us all. But all is not lost. We remain a government of, by, and for the people. If people across the country find this as odious to our basic values as we do, in 8 months the American public can render their own verdict on the Senate. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. Chief Justice, I have a question on behalf of myself and Senators Whitehouse and Heinrich, and this is for the counsel for the President and the House managers.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. As if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from the further consideration of S. 3104, the Federal Employee Parental Leave Technical Correction Act, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. Let's get clear about what is happening here. The first thing is we did something momentous as a group. We, on a bipartisan basis, decided to provide paid parental leave of 12 weeks for the Federal workforce-- 2.1 million Federal workers--so that individuals who are new parents don't have to make that impossible choice between receiving a paycheck and being a new dad or a new mom. Now, this is catching us up with the rest of the world. The rest of the industrialized world understands that this isn't just a humane thing to do for families. This is the right way to manage the workforce because you get higher productivity; you get better morale; and you get lower turnover. This is a smart thing to do. There were 2.1 million people covered by this momentous change of Federal policy agreed upon over the last 48 hours on a bipartisan basis. There was a technical problem, and so the following Federal employees are not going to be covered unless we make this technical fix: employees of the DC courts, public defenders, Presidential appointees, FAA, and CSA employees, and article I judges. Everybody else is going to get 12 weeks of paid parental leave, except for these people. We can solve that today. That is what my unanimous consent request is all about. What the Senator from Pennsylvania has decided to do is take a hostage and say, These are the only Federal employees who are not going to get this benefit because of a technical and drafting error because I didn't get something totally unrelated that has to do with a tax bill that was passed on purely partisan lines in a hurry, written primarily by lobbyists in the middle of the night. Now, I do not mind entertaining a change to the Tax Code to deal with this question of how you expense the renovation of restaurants and retail operations, but I think Senator Wyden is exactly right. I guess the Senator from Pennsylvania thought this was a talking point on the Republican side. Heaven forbid if there should be a negotiation. Heaven forbid something that is as important to the Republicans that is as a result of their screw-up and would cost tens of billions of dollars would not be given away for free. The argument being made is, hey, technical for technical. This is an actual technical fix. This is a bill we just enacted in the last 48 hours. I am not even sure if the President has signed it yet, but it is about to be enacted into law, and nobody is arguing that we should not cover some small portion of the Federal workforce. Nobody is arguing that was the legislative intent. Nobody is arguing that is public policy. What the Senator from Pennsylvania is saying, If I don't get my thing, then these people don't get the help that they deserve. These people, by happenstance of a drafting error, don't get paid parental leave. Now, this has human consequences. I object to the Senator's modification of my unanimous consent request, and I am deeply disappointed that we can't fix this simple thing. I am happy to work with the Senator from Pennsylvania on a quick fix. I think we will get there at some point next year, but this has to be part of a broader bipartisan deal, and he knows that. This is going to cost tens of billions of dollars, and no one gives tens of billions of dollars for nothing. Everything of that magnitude has to be negotiated on a bipartisan, bicameral basis. That is not what he is trying to do. He is trying to say because we made a technical error that was monumentally wrong and, as a result of the flawed process, why don't we trade technical fixes. This is a relatively small technical fix, and he wants to trade it for a massive technical fix that is now 2 years old. The only thing I would say is this may be small in the context of how we operate in the U.S. Senate. It is not small if you work for the FAA and you are a new dad. It is not small if you are an article I judge and you are a new mom. It is not small for these people who deserve paid parental leave like every other Federal employee will get soon.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, 90 years ago, Inter-Island Airways launched the first scheduled commercial passenger air service in Hawaii. Now known as Hawaiian Airlines, it is our State's largest and longest serving airline. Its fleet of 67 aircrafts flies between our islands and connects Hawaii to the mainland and around the world. As a State comprised of islands, safe, reliable air service is critical to the movement of people and goods. Whether it is transporting people and cargo for leisure, medical appointments, business, cultural and sports events or carrying fresh produce, equipment, or other supplies, Hawaiian has and will continue to be a major part of our highways in the sky. From its modest beginnings--a $3-per-person sightseeing tour on a five-passenger plane--Hawaiian transported 11.8 million passengers and 92,000 tons of cargo last year alone. Today, Hawaiian is one of the largest employers in the State, with more than 7,300 employees across its network, including some 6,600 who live in Hawaii. Its impact is felt beyond jobs. Every year, Hawaiian and its employees partner with and help support hundreds of nonprofit organizations. As one example, Hawaiian leads a mentorship program that promotes aviation careers and provides students with hands-on learning about all aspects of the industry. I am particularly proud of the steps Hawaiian has taken to adopt eco- friendlier practices throughout its operations to improve fuel efficiency, reduce carbon emissions, and cut waste. In 2018, despite continuing to grow, Hawaiian lowered annual jet fuel burn by 7 million gallons and reduced annual carbon output by 86,300 metric tons. It is also contributing toward climate research by collecting air samples over the Pacific Ocean. The data is used as part of an international effort to measure climate change and air quality. On behalf of the Hawaii congressional delegation, I wish to congratulate Hawaiian Airlines on its 90th anniversary and wish them continued success in serving the travel needs of our residents and introducing Hawaii to the world.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, this resolution urges the inclusion of the Federal Employee Paid Leave Act in the final conference agreement on the NDAA. This resolution provides 12 weeks of paid family leave for Federal employees in all situations already covered under the FMLA. Too many of our Federal employees have to make the impossible choice of getting a paycheck or looking after a sick child, caring for an aging parent, or recovering from a health condition. As a result, many have been forced to leave their jobs and obtain other employment. Paid family leave is not only the right thing to do for Federal workers, but it is the smart thing to do for our Federal workforce. This is the most practical and fiscally responsible way to provide family leave for Federal workers. I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I want to recognize my friend and colleague Senator Murphy for his moral leadership on this issue and for continuously demanding that all of us do better and that all of us do more to address what is an epidemic of gun violence. We are here tonight and through the night to call on Leader McConnell to do a very simple thing, which is to bring background check legislation and other gun safety legislation to the Senate floor for a vote. Forty thousand Americans had their lives cut short by guns last year. Forty thousand Americans died. It is unthinkable that we would allow mass violence to occur in our country with this type of frequency. What is shocking is that not only do we accept this as part of the American way of life--as though it were enshrined in the Constitution that we must have this amount of violence in order to have our Second Amendment rights--but that we allowed the question of what to do to keep our people safe to turn into a partisan question. The Democrats are out here on the floor saying: Why don't we figure out what we can do to make people safer? And on the other side of the Chamber, there is no one. This isn't the first time this has happened or the second time or the third time or the fifth time. When we come down to the floor to demand action on gun safety, we have no dance partner. It shouldn't be this way, especially given where the public is. I don't just mean Democrats or Independents. Americans of all stripes, Democratic and Republican gun owners, agree that commonsense gun safety reforms are the way forward. This means background checks. It means no guns for violent criminals or domestic abusers and no guns for anyone who could endanger themselves or endanger others. About 90 percent of all Americans support these very sensible reforms. Here is the thing. They support them not for purely ideological reasons or partisan reasons; the reason these things pull 85, 90 percent of all Americans, even among NRA members, is because, A, it doesn't infringe on your Second Amendment rights, and, B, it works. It is no coincidence that the two steepest drops in murder rates in our country came right after the passage of two sets of significant gun laws: The first were the national firearms control acts of 1934 and 1938, and the second were the background checks and assault weapons ban bills in 1993 and 1994. Those legislative efforts, and the decrease in violence that followed their passage, prove that progress is possible. Here is the thing. Whenever we get into this conversation, we get into kind of trying to figure out whether whatever law we are trying to pass would retroactively be able to fix whichever moment of silence we are now focused on and sad about and despairing about. That is not the way to look at this. Sure, there are individual situations, where, if we pass background checks, it would absolutely help, but it is also a matter of the Federal Government putting some parameters on the kinds of guns that you can get and the requirements in order to own a gun. What is happening? Why are we still stuck? Why are we still stuck? Republicans in the Senate are just waiting on the White House. It is as simple as that. This isn't some partisan attack from me, a partisan Democrat. This is literally what Leader McConnell said. He said he will not schedule a vote or schedule a debate on the House-passed bill to expand background checks for gun purchases because President Trump has indicated he will not sign it. According to Leader McConnell: ``[I]f the President took a position on a bill so that we knew we would actually be making a law and not having serial votes, [he would] be happy to put it on the floor.'' Let me just say, that is not actually how the Senate is supposed operate. We are supposed to originate the legislation. We are supposed to be the world's greatest deliberative body. We are supposed to determine what kind of law to make. We are not supposed to play ``Mother, may I'' with the President of the United States and wait for clearance before we even initiate a debate. The idea that, in this body, where today we voted on the UAE Ambassador, the Ambassador to Sweden, I think--not that those are unimportant matters--but we had full postcloture debate time when, basically, we were in a quorum call--we were in a quorum call; no one was talking--we cannot afford to set aside 30 hours or 50 hours or 2 weeks of Senate time to figure out what to do about the gun violence epidemic? Shame on us. Congress should be taking up bills, debating them, passing them, and the President can make his decision about whether to sign or veto them. We cannot wait for President Trump on this because he is deeply, deeply inconsistent, not just generally speaking but specifically on the question of gun safety. In the immediate aftermath of every horrific shooting, the President talked about doing something meaningful to address gun violence, but then he backtracked. In February of 2018, in the wake of the horrific shooting at Parkland, President Trump said: ``[W]e're going to be very strong on background checks.'' A year later and 2 days before the House passed legislation that would require universal background checks for most gun purchases and transfers, Trump threatened to veto the bill if it passed. In February of 2018, during a televised meeting with lawmakers, the President proposed raising the age for buying assault rifles from 18 to 21, and then he backtracked. More recently, following the shootings in Texas and Ohio that left 29 dead and dozens wounded, Trump tweeted on August 5 that Washington ``must come together'' to ``get strong background checks.'' That sounds pretty good. On August 19, just 14 days later, he reversed course. When talking with reporters, he used an NRA-approved talking point: ``[J]ust remember, we already have a lot of background checks,'' and he warned of gun control's ``slippery slope.'' The President has a long history of changing his position on guns. In 2011, he was against gun control. In 2013, he supported background checks. A year after that, he protested against background checks for gun purchases in New York State. This is just how he rolls, specifically, on this issue but frankly on a lot of stuff. You could say the same thing about having an honest broker as it relates to immigration. He is just not reliable. That is how he rolls. We don't have to be downstream from all of that. We are the article I branch. We can do what we decide to do as the so-called world's greatest deliberative body. To make it worse, in the weeks since the attacks in Ohio and Texas, we keep hearing from Republicans that gun violence is not caused by guns. To quote the President directly: ``[M]ental illness and hatred pulls the trigger, not the gun.'' ``[M]ental illness and hatred pulls the trigger, not the gun.'' I want to spend a little time on this one because this one is really offensive and really deeply hurtful. Setting aside the lack of progress on guns, we are also losing 10, 20, 30 years of progress we have made destigmatizing mental health services. Mass shooters and regular people experience mental illness at the same rate. There is no indication that mass shooters or individual people who are homicidal experience mental illness at any higher rate than your general population. Blaming the mentally ill is just factually untrue, but it is more insidious than that. About 20 percent of all Americans at some point need some mental health services. The great difficulty in terms of getting mental health services is not just the availability of care; it is also that people still feel embarrassed to say: I need some help. Shame on the President of the United States to equate someone who may need care for postpartum depression or post-traumatic stress coming back from Iraq or Afghanistan, or who may experience bipolar disorder, or whatever it may be--a kid with autism--to imply that people who need mental health services are somehow dangerous and that they are the ones who should be cracked down on. That is a deeply, deeply dangerous thing to say about 20 percent of all Americans who simply need to get better and who simply need to not be characterized as crazy or dangerous or that they should be ashamed of what they are experiencing. Shame on the President of the United States for equating mental illness with being dangerous to society. Consider for a minute the progress we have made as a society to destigmatize mental health. We have fundamentally changed the way we talk about it, and because of that, we have helped to reduce the shame around living with mental health challenges, and more people are willing to prioritize their mental well-being. People should not be embarrassed or scared to seek the help they need, and they certainly shouldn't be blamed for the gun violence epidemic in our country. I want to read a letter from a Hawaii resident, Elizabeth Sader from Lahaina, Maui. She writes: Two mass shootings in 24 hours. This cannot be our new norm. We need change. . . . We can no longer assume heading to the store, an event, or school is safe anymore. There are places in the United States that make it easier to get a gun than it is to adopt a pet at a local animal shelter. This is not right. We need sensible gun laws in this country. We need better systems in place to prevent this from happening again. I cannot imagine what the world is going to look like for children growing up today. The Senate has the power to save lives and protect more of our kids by enacting sensible reforms. What we need is for Republicans to do the right thing and to rise to the moment. Thousands of people are dying every month. We cannot wait for the President. I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, it is not a rhetorical flourish to say that Senate Republicans are being fully obedient to the President of the United States. The evidence of the last few days has confirmed that Republicans are not standing up for American institutions when they are tested, and they will not defend the American people when it counts the most. Through their silence, through their legislative actions, and through their votes, Republicans are allowing funds appropriated to the Department of Defense--funds that address critical military needs in their own home States--to be stolen in order to pay for the President's wall. Let me explain. The way we do MILCON, military construction, is nonpartisan. It is not bipartisan; it is nonpartisan. That means there is zero politics involved in selecting military construction projects for funding. The process goes like this: The base commanders decide what projects they need in order to support their missions and military communities. These projects are set up through the chain of command from the base command to the installation command. If the installation command says the project meets the cut and is important enough for military readiness, it is sent to the Service Chief, the Marine Corps Commandant, the Secretary of the Navy, and so on. From there, each Service Chief decides what projects to present to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and then the Office of the Secretary of Defense racks and stacks these projects. It is a rigorous process, and not a single Member of the U.S. Senate gets to intervene during this process. They figure out which ones get addressed in the fiscal year, and some projects make the cut and others don't. The only thing we get to decide, once the matrix is sent to us, is how much money we have to deal with all of our military construction needs. Again, there is zero political involvement--no politicians, no side deals, no partisan uniforms. So by the time the Congress receives the final list of projects from DOD, every project has been thoroughly vetted. We recognize that at that point, every project is essential for the safety and security of the Nation, and every Secretary of Defense, every Secretary of the Army, every Secretary of the Navy, and so on looks us in the eye in the Senate Armed Services Committee and in the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and says: This is essential. There is not a penny out of place. We need this, and we need this badly. Shame on the Republicans for allowing this argument over whether to build a border wall to do two things; first, to infect the institution of the Department of Defense with politics and to start to undermine the credibility of the Department and its interactions with the legislative branch; second, and very importantly, to diminish funding for critical military projects. What kind of projects are we talking about? There are 127 projects that are being raided that we funded. We enacted a law, the President declared an emergency, and the Republicans upheld that emergency. Now these projects are being defunded. Let me give you a couple of examples out of these 127. This is the form that comes in. These are the words of the Department of Defense. The first project, Fort Bragg, NC, ``Butler Elementary School Replacement.'' There is a section that is called ``IMPACT IF NOT PROVIDED.'' In other words, this is what happens if we don't provide this funding. This is what the Department of Defense says: The continued use of deficient, inadequate, and undersized facilities that do not accommodate the current student population will continue to impair the overall educational program for students. If a new facility is not provided, the substandard environment will continue to hamper the educational process and the school will not be able to support the curriculum and provide for a safe facility. Let me take this example of the Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, Laurel Bay, SC. The impact if funding is not provided: [Fire and emergency service] personnel assigned to Laurel Bay will continue to work from a significantly undersized and unsafe facility. Because the structure does not meet seismic requirements, complete structural collapse is probable during a seismic event, causing death or major injury to emergency personnel, and thus preventing timely response to the [Marine Corps] housing community following the event. Finally, and this is going to be 3 out of 127 projects rated: Fort Greely, AK, ``Missile Field #1 Expansion.'' These are the ground-based interceptors designed to enhance our missile defense in the case of an attack from North Korea, ``IMPACT IF NOT PROVIDED.'' This one is succinct and scary: Planned enhancements and capabilities of the BMDS to meet emerging threats will not be available for our Nation's homeland defense. Those are 3 out of 127 projects. I just want to ask my Republican colleagues: Where do you draw the line? I understand you can't stand up to the President every time or even most of the time, but my goodness, when they take funding from military families, from bases and installations, from missile defense, from military schools, can't you draw the line there? There has to be a point at which you say enough is enough. There has to be a point when you decide that agreeing with the President under any and all circumstances--and in this case, the most extreme of circumstances--is not how you are going to lead and govern on behalf of your home State. Let me say this in closing: I still hold out hope for a bipartisan solution to this issue. Democrats and Republicans may have very different goals, and we have different ideas about how to reach them, but there has to be a better way forward than raiding military funds for the wall. If there is anything that can bring the Senate together, it should be ensuring the safety, security, and well-being of our Nation's servicemembers and their families. I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. He has done 249, and he is about to do 250, and I will let him get to it. But it will be 250 individual speeches on the Senate floor. Sometimes there are people in the Chamber, and sometimes it is empty and you are talking to these incredible young men and women who serve as pages and the Presiding Officer, who has no choice but to sit there politely. But Sheldon Whitehouse will give his 250th speech on climate, and it is not most of what he has done. It is a small part of what he has done to lead on climate with absolute moral, scientific, political, and pragmatic clarity. I will just say a couple more things about my partnership with Sheldon. You know, I was a very happy Lieutenant Governor of the State of Hawaii, and I was leading the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative, which is our effort to get to 100 percent clean energy by the year 2040. The very unfortunate death of Daniel K. Inouye made a vacancy in the Senate seat, and I decided to pursue this Senate seat because I wanted to do something about climate. I didn't know most of the Members except for the famous ones. When I came to the Senate, everybody told me to talk to Sheldon Whitehouse, and we became fast friends. He comes from the Ocean State, even though that sounds weird to me. I come from the Aloha State, and he comes from the Ocean State, and we have been working together ever since. But I want to report to whomever is watching that I never felt such momentum on this issue. It is because of the young people who have sort of stormed the castle over the last year or so and demanded change and demanded action and demanded the kinds of change and action that are equal to the scale of this problem. People will quibble with the political tactics and the messaging and all of that, but when change happens in the United States of America, it is led by young people, and that is what happened. They stormed the castle. Even those of us who have been working on climate for a long time felt a jolt of energy in a positive way. That is No. 1. No. 2 is a little unfortunate, but it is changing the politics, and that is events--weather events, climate events. We are no longer talking about climate change as a near-term future issue or a long-term future issue; climate change is now. It is happening across the country. It is not just happening to conservation areas or places where you might enjoy the outdoors; it is happening to communities from coast to coast and everywhere in between. There are record heat waves, record floods, record snowstorms, coral bleaching events. It is very difficult to describe something as a 100-year flood or a 500-year flood--which means it is supposed to happen, statistically speaking, about every 100 or 500 years--if that flood is happening every year. It is very difficult to ignore the reality of climate change when the last 8 hottest years on record were over the last 9 years. The weather is absolutely getting weirder and more unpleasant, and our storms are getting more frequent and more severe. Public opinion is moving. Now you have a majority of Republicans, a decisive majority of young Republicans, a huge, vast majority of Independents, and pretty much every single Democrat wanting climate action. The other part of that, which is encouraging, is that Senator Whitehouse has a strategy. He understands it is not enough just to marshal public opinion. Look at what is happening with gun safety. We are not there yet, even though public opinion is absolutely on our side. Sometimes you have to look at what is structurally happening in politics, especially in the U.S. Congress. Senator Whitehouse understands that we have to deal with the structural aspects of the way campaigns are funded, the way information and misinformation is propagated, and we need to engage on that battlefield, as well. I will close with this. A, I have never been so hopeful about the prospect for climate action in 2021, and, B, I have never been so thankful to have a partner who can lead this effort as Senator Sheldon Whitehouse can. I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, in the Senate, in the Congress, and in politics, people are a little too loose with their praise. Everybody is getting applause, everybody is getting thanked, everybody is the greatest, and it gets a little tiresome. So I try to be a little more sparing. I mean you still have to be nice to people, but I try to be a little more sparing because this gets absurd. Sometimes we have caucus lunches, and there are probably 10 or 15 moments when we are all applauding each other. It gets crazy. But I want to take this moment on the Senate floor to applaud someone who really deserves it and who has really displayed extraordinary leadership. Whatever one may think about the U.S. Senate and how it functions, these are 100 pretty impressive people. They have accomplished something probably prior in their life and just to get to the Senate is a real thing. But Sheldon Whitehouse is the single most fearless individual in politics that I ever have met. He is the single most tireless individual in politics that I have ever met, and it is not just with speechmaking. Today is a marker because he has made 250. Is it 250 or did the Senator already do it?