the courts stemming this liberal judicial tide. we have delivered generational change on the bench. we must continue confirming well-qualified judges who will secure our freedoms and our future. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. >> what do you think we can do about that? >> with police reform, protests, and the coronavirus continuing to affect the country, watch our live unfiltered coverage of the government's response with briefings from the white house, congress, governors and mayors from across the country updating the situations. and from the campaign 2020 trail, join the corporation every day on our live call-in program washington journal. if you missed any of our live coverage, watch anytime on demand at c-span.org or listen on the go with the free c-span radio app. >> the senate is about to gavel in to start the day.

lawmakers are expected to work on the 2021 policy bill, a vote to advance the measure scheduled for 1:30 p.m. eastern. now, live to the senate floor on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. black, will open the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. our father in heaven, we sing of your steadfast love and proclaim your faithfulness to all generations. make us one nation, truly wise, with righteousness exalting us in due season.

today, inspire our lawmakers to walk in the light of your countenance. abide with them so that your wisdom will influence each decision they make. keep them from evil so that they will not be brought to grief, enabling them to avoid the pitfalls that lead to ruin. empower them to glorify you in all they think, say, and do. we pray in your holy name. amen.

the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. mr. graps: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: one minute for morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: it's a sad day yesterday when we didn't get enough votes because the democrat leader didn't want democrats to vote. we did get four of those votes from that side of the aisle, but

the prison -- or the police reform bill didn't come up. senate republicans are taking a step in advancing real change on this issue in our country. we have heard calls for prison -- or police reform and are responding. not only because of george floyd's murder in minneapolis a few weeks ago, also because of peaceful demonstrations around the country on this issue calling for police reform. senator scott is the leader of the justice act. i'm a cosponsor. it encourages states to stand as partners in addressing police reform. if state and local police departments don't comply with the provisions of the justice act, such as training officers on de-escalation and use of force and ensuring consistent use of body-worn cameras, they

won't receive federal funding for police action. iowa has made significant changes already, and a number of other states have followed iowa's example. the iowa legislature unanimously passed police reform issues, very much like what's in the scott bill, and working with leaders of color in iowa to accomplish this goal, it went very smoothly through the iowa legislature. i got a firsthand report from my grandson who is speaker of the iowa house, but -- and the iowa house is divided 53-47, but both the iowa -- both houses of the iowa legislature passed these reforms unanimously. why can't senate democrats let us go forward with the scotts bill?

all we need is four more democrat votes. if it can happen in the iowa legislature, it ought to be able to happen here. we have a role then to play in the senate, but let's not forget that while we're doing that, we are also encouraging our state partners to also lead the charge in effecting real change. in fact, 50 state legislatures, every municipality ought to be moving forward on police reforms of not only our type but whatever they might think is best for their states or municipalities. i yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: the american people have been asked to swallow a number of contradictions over the past few weeks. i have already discussed some of them here on the floor. many citizens were told by their mayors and small religious -- that small religious services were just too dangerous.

at the same time, massive political protests were not just allowed but encouraged. americans have been told they should very carefully distinguish good people from bad apples if they are talking about protests and riots. but they must not make the same dissension if they are talking about the police. recently, the country was informed by hysterical journalists that a rational policy essay from our colleague, senator cotton, was just too inflammatory to publish, but the speaker of the house can say senator tim scott and his 48 cosponsors are, quote, trying to get away with the murder of george floyd, and democrats just cheer her on, cheer her on. americans have been ordered to

rethink and relearn our nation's history by a movement that is itself so historically illiterate. they mistake george washington, ulysses s. grant, and a 19th century abolitionist for the enemies of justice and destroy their monuments. one common thread seems to connect all this. the far left wants you to play by one set of rules if you think like they do and a completely different set of rules if you dare to think anything else. well, yesterday, here in the senate, the latest absurdity was added to the list. our democratic colleagues tried to say with straight faces they want the senate to discuss political reform.

they want the senate to discuss police reform while they block the senate from discussing police reform. they declared that senator scott's bill, which contains many bipartisan components, which literally contain entire bills written by democrats, was beyond the pale. senator scott offered a wide-open bipartisan amendment process, and they walked away. over in the house, when democrats shoot down every republican amendment in committee and allow zero amendments on the floor, you can bet it will be anointed a big, big success. now, as an aside, madam president, i could not help but notice that in the democratic leader's lengthy remarks yesterday morning, he did not once address or

acknowledge the junior senator for south carolina as the author of the justice act. not one time. not one time did the democratic leader address senator tim scott as the author of the legislation he was trashing. i didn't see why the democratic leader talks right past senator scott as if he were not leading this discussion, as if he were barely here. all i can say is that it was jarring to witness. especially in a national monument like this. senator scott was the leader of the working group. he wrote the bill. he has been studying and working on and living these issues since long, long before the democratic

leader came rushing to the microphones on this subject a few weeks ago. i can certainly take all the angry comments my colleague from new york wants to throw my way. i don't mind. but if he'd like to learn something about the substance of this issue, he might want to stop acting like senator scott hardly exists. and learn from the expert who wrote the bill. the american people know you do not really want progress on an issue if you block the senate from taking it up. they know that most police officers are brave and honorable and that most protesters are peaceful. and they know our country needs both. we need both.

the american people know they don't need history lessons from common criminals who are dragging george washington through the dirt. they know prayer is no less essential than protests. and they know that a politician who compares a policy disagreement to a brutal murder has just permanently forfeited the moral high ground to the grown-ups who want solutions. some forces are desperate to divide our country any way they possibly can. but if people of goodwill and common sense stick together, the radical nonsense won't stand a chance. now, madam president, on a completely different matter, the

senate does not have the luxury of letting these disagreements prevent needed bipartisan progress on other fronts. while the house has been missing in action on the longest spring break in human history, the senate has been conducting the people's business alone. we have confirmed nominees. we have conducted critical oversight. we have passed historic legislation for our national parks and public lands. and we have kept a close watch on the bad actors abroad who would love nothing more than to take advantage of a distracted and divided united states. today, months of focused work from our colleagues on the armed services committee will let the senate start to move toward this year's national defense authorization act. thanks to chairman inhofe and the committee for a 60th straight year, the senate has an opportunity to lay out our priorities for the u.s. military with a united voice.

chairman inhofe and ranking member reed got into a collaborative bipartisan process. the committee considered 391 amendments and reported out their final bill on a nearly unanimous basis. the result is legislation that honors the unique sacrifices of our men and women in uniform from authorizing a pay raise for active duty personnel to ensuring high-quality housing, health, and child care services for families stationed at home and abroad. their product will help ensure our military continues to attract the next generation of war fighters and leaders and that those men and women will have cutting edge equipment and tools to face off with competitors and defend our security and our interests around the world. in just the last several weeks, china has grown even bolder in its supposed enforcement of disputed waters and picked deadly fights with the world's largest democracy in the

himalayas. russia has deployed aircraft to within eyesight of u.s. airspace and has kept testing the free world's tolerance for cyber attacks. north korea has threatened a new round of the korean war. iron continues to flout international agreements and fuel instability throughout its region. and terrorists prey on the instability to advance their own extreme violence. clearly, those who mean us harm will not wait for america's domestic challenges to fade away. and they certainly will not wait for the united states to quit bickering. so notwithstanding all our other differences, i hope and expect this body will be able to put partisanship aside and honor the bipartisan tradition that has defined this crucial bill for decades.

the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 4049, which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to s. 4049, a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2021 for military activities of the department of defense, and so forth and for other purposes. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. schumer: madam president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: now, madam president, today the house of representatives will pass the justice in policing act, a comprehensive, strong bill to bring lasting change to police departments across america and tackle the extremely large and difficult problem of police bias

-- of police violence, racial bias and the lack of transparency and accountability in law enforcement. unlike the republican policing bill, the justice in policing act will fully ban choke holds. the justice in policing act will ban no-knock warrants in federal cases, not just study them like the republican bill. and unlike the republican bill, the justice in policing act will bring sorely needed accountability to police officers who are guilty of misconduct, including qualified immunity reform, use-of-force standards and policies to end racial profiling. my republican colleagues should look to the house today if they want to see what a serious attempt at policing reform looks like, and if they want to

understand why their bill failed to earn enough votes to proceed yesterday. the republican policing reform bill failed because it wasn't a serious enough effort at reform. the legislation itself was so thread-bare, so weak and so narrow, it could hardly be considered a instructive starting -- a constructive starting point. that's why 138 civil rights organizations who want nothing more to see progress on these issues, strongly urged senators to oppose the republican bill. that's why the leadership conference on civil rights called the bill deeply problematic and, quote, a menial, incremental approach. that's why the lawyer representing the families of george floyd and breonna taylor said he was shocked -- shocked -- that the republican bill could, quote, even be thought of as legislation.

as i said the other day, i know my friend from south carolina is trying to do the right thing. but the problem we have and the problem so many civil rights have is with the substance of the bill and with the way the republican leader, leader mcconnell, who controls the floor, set up the process the republican majority drafted a bill on its own and instead of putting it through committee where members of both parties could analyze and amend it, dropped it on the floor and dared democrats to block it. let me be very clear. the debate on policing reform is only over for those who want it to be over. and maybe those who never truly wanted this debate in the first place. because the truth is, by the end of the day today, the house will pass the most serious policing reform bill in decades, and here in the senate, senate democrats have been clear. we want to sit down with our

colleagues and try to negotiate a bipartisan product that can go through committee and come to the floor. as i said a week ago, i know my friend from south carolina is trying to do the right thing, but leader mcconnell decided to go about this the wrong way, the partisan way. let's start over, the right way, the bipartisan way. and i have no doubt that we can arrive at legislation that, unlike the bill that failed yesterday, would bring comprehensive and lasting change that protesters, civil rights organizations, and the families of george floyd, breonna taylor and ahmaud arbery demand. now, on covid, the covid-19 pandemic continues to spread and swell across the united states. yesterday after noon "the new york times" reported that new cases of covid-19 are now at the highest levels in the united states since the month of april.

35,000 new cases were identified on tuesday alone. the third-worst single day of the entire pandemic. hospitalization rates in arizona and texas have hit daily records, and florida is not far behind. the rise in cases, scientists warn, are not explained by the current rate of testing in this country. one of the main reasons our nation has struggled so to contain the coronavirus is president trump's complete mismanagement of the government's response. in the early days of the virus, the president's lack of attention led to a shortage of p.p.p., ventilators, and a painfully damaging slow rampup of testing. here again, four months into the virus, as the case numbers continue to grow in so many places, the president's lack of attention is causing a national failure to overcome the covid-19

pandemic. the president's gallivanting from state to state, holding political rallies in two of the most affected areas. the president joked -- or perhaps didn't joke -- about instructing his administration to, quote, slow down the testing, please, because the number of coronavirus cases might make him look bad. can you believe that? again, the president urged the administration to slow down the testing, please, because the number of cases might make him look bad? whether it was a joke or not, it's not a joking matter. it's serious stuff. and throughout this struggle with coronavirus, the administration at best has been late to the debate or asleep at the switch, and at worst doing things that actually harm rather than help. yesterday, there were reports that the administration will, in fact, halt federal funding for a

number of community-based covid testing sites, many of which are in texas, a state that's getting hit hard. so the administration is actually preparing to slow down the testing, amazingly enough,. the lesson of so many countries, good, strong testing and contact tracing is the key, but this president seems to be blithely dancing along, going to his events, not paying attention to the crisis and doing what's necessary to get a real handle on it. we are witnessing the highest number of new cases since april, and the trump administration's cutting funding for testing in some of the worst hot spots, a terrible decision at a terrible moment, but unfortunately not a typical -- not atypical of this administration's total ineptitude. to cap it all off today, the trump administration is filing briefs in the supreme court in an attempt to invalidate the nation's health law at a time

when roughly 27 million americans have lost job-based health coverage, and their only backstop are the exchanges in the health care law, and they are proposing get rid of it. it's sort of tim to yesterday with the nomination of somebody so antivoting rights on the floor to go to the fifth circuit. just total contradiction of what they say is what they do. from the beginning, the president has down played the severity of the disease, spread misinformation about how to stay safe, and put his political interests, his desire for credit and avoidance of blame above the medical needs and safety of the american people. as a result, president trump has helped put america first in the number of covid-19 cases in the world. and unfortunately, madam president, the situation's not much better in the senate. it has been two months since the passage of the last covid relief

legislation. democrats had hoped to continue the bipartisan work that produces the cares act in april, may, and now june to no avail. the house passed the heroes act over a month ago, which includes hazard pay, housing assistance, unemployment insurance extended and aid to state and local governments. but as the pandemic continued to spread and unemployment skyrocketed, senate republicans have said they feel no urgency to act immediately. more than 40 million unemployment claims, another 1.5 million this week alone, and still leader mcconnell, the republican senate, doesn't feel an urgency to act? leader mcconnell originally said that another emergency relief bill was likely during june. now he's saying late july. a few days ago, the republican leader said that, quote, if there is something that's going to happen, it will emerge in the

senate, it will be written beginning in my office. once again, leader mcconnell seems to prefer partisan pronouncements to bipartisan legislating. that's the same failed approach that delayed the cares act two months ago and failed yesterday on policing reform. it will only delay another emergency relief bill, and such delays will be measured in hospital beds, deserted storefronts, pink slips. and one other point. the lack of oversight. g.a.o. this morning announced that $1.4 billion of relief checks were sent to people who were dead. where's the oversight? this is a $3 trillion package. and every small bit of oversight that the republicans have done have had to be pushed by democrats. we should be having far more pro bus oversight over what has happened as well as moving forward on a new bill. democrats are not going to wait until july to bring some

attention to covid-related issues. next week, on the floor, we'll ask our colleagues to take up some important legislation on housing and rental assistance, hazard pay for essential workers, small business relief, funding to help schools open safely, and aid to state, local, and tribal governments. with cases rising in more than 20 states, with emergency unemployment insurance for american families set to expire, we cannot wait another month to act. i yield the floor. i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. inhofe: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call in progress be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent that i be recognized for such time as i shall consume. the presiding officer: the senator shall be recognized. mr. inhofe: for the next week, the senate is going to be debating what i consider to be and i think most people consider to be the most important bill of the year, the national defense authorization act. it's an act that we passed and

have passed every year for 60 years. in just a few days, the american families across the country will be celebrating the 4th of july, independence day, the day that honors our blessings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. not all countries share these values. in fact, they reject them. china and russia would rather have an authoritarian world, one where democracy doesn't exist, where the rest of the world yields to them. according to the national defense strategy, -- this is the document that i refer to all the time because this was put together a few years ago. actually 12 really expert democrats and 12 expert republicans came into an agreement on what our defense should look like in the future. and so they said at that time,

they said that china and russia in this book are our greatest threat right now. they are building up their militaries, expanding their influence around the world. fiscal year 2021 national defense authorization act is about sending a message to china and russia. it says there is no way you can defeat us, so don't try. that's a pretty blunt message. we couldn't have sent that message two years ago. we have been building up -- we're still not where we should be. we know the way that we preserve peace is by demonstrating our strength. we have the best military in the world, and our enemies need to know that, but we can't rest on our laurels. we have got to implement the national defense strategy because our comparative military advantage is at risk right now. china and russia are actually catching up and surpassed us in

some areas. here's one big reason. that is that china and russia have invested in their military. now, this is a shocker. -- this is a shocker when you talk to people because they don't expect it. i learned many years ago -- at least i believed that we had the best of everything. this is ever since world war ii. it was true for a long period of time. but they have increased their military spending in china during the period of time between 2009 and 2018 by 83%. that's remarkable. russia has grown its budget by 35%. now, during that same period of time from 2010 to 2015, for that five-year period during the obama administration, we reduced our military by 25%. think about that.

china increased theirs by 83%. we reduced ours by 25% during that same time period. and don't forget, these countries willfully mislead on many things including the actual size of their defense budget. russia is almost three times larger than most people think it is. they look at it and think well, ours is larger than theirs. it's just we don't get accurate information, and we know what -- the threats that are out there. now, because of these investments, china and russia have grown not just the size of their military but the capabilities as well. last october, china paraded a hypersonic weapon. i remember that so well because that was live on tv. we saw it. i saw it on television. hypersonic, that's a state of the art.

both offense and defense. and they had -- they had it up there. some people said they were maybe faking it. but no, i believe they had it. it was in a parade. they showed -- they had something that we don't even have. we don't have it yet. their investments aren't restricted by their borders. i have seen their buildup in action across the world. one prime example -- china recently built its first overseas military base. it was in djibouti. now, prior to this time in djibouti and throughout africa, there was nothing -- there were a lot of chinese presence but not a military operation. in fact, historically, the military operations from china have always started -- were evident in their own city limits. i mean, this is -- not in djibouti, not in northern africa. it was a major -- in fact, i actually flew over it, the area.

it was supposed to be a restricted area. so there is china over there in africa where they have never been before in djibouti and not just djibouti but all the way into southern tanzania. that wasn't going on before. now we see china and russia grow more an tag particular and aggressive. china in particular has used the pandemic to lash out in every direction. they antagonized and harassed the taiwanese, the vietnamese, the vessels in the south china sea and used every tool that they could do to harass them. what they're doing in the south china sea, and i did witness this, they did something most people don't know is going on in china, is actual little built seven islands. when you see what they have on these, they don't hide it. it's as if they're preparing for

world war iii. we saw 20 indian soldiers, they're dead, killed by what are essentially baseball bats with spikes where the chinese conducted a military incursion in territory claimed by china. that just happened. i called and talked to their ambassador and gave them our condolences, but that's what china is capable of doing. meanwhile russia continues to crop up the murderous assad regime. putin sent mercenaries to libya and throughout africa. both countries have been supporting the corrupt maduro regime in venezuela. we've seen warning signs of this for at least a decade, but meanwhile the previous administration let our military take advantage and actually rode. for eight years we had a

president where the military was not a top priority. i respected him because he had other areas where he, that he thought were more significant, and of course he was president of the united states, and he did it. so we went down by 25% between the five-year period of 2010 and 2015. at the same time russia was increasing by 35%, we were reducing 25%. they were increasing. china increasing by 83%. defending america wasn't his top priority, but he was honest about it, and we learned that areas that we're falling behind. now we've started turning behind. now we have a president whose priority is keeping american families secure, and over the past few years we began

rebuilding our military, thanks to president trump, the guy everybody criticizes. we're restoring our military might with new planes, ships, new weapons be. what we're doing, as an example, fort sill is in my state of oklahoma. right now we're outranged and outgunned by russia and china. fort sill is leading the army's modernization efforts on the long-range precision fire to restore our combat advantage. that's what's happening all over the country too. so we're pulling out of this thing. restoring our might is important, but it's not the only thing that matters. we've got to make sure that the planes and the ships and the weapons are in the right places at the right time. and that's what the ndaa does. that's what we're talking about right now. the ndaa, as i stated before, i think it's the most

significant bill that we have all year round, and it's actually, this will be the 60th year. and it makes sure that we have got a credible military deterrent that signals to any potential adversaries that they don't stand a chance. that's what we're in the process of doing. that's what this bill is all about. we introduced and started talking about it yesterday, and we probably should have this thing prior to the 4th of july recess, we should have it passed, although that may be a little bit ambitious. so we are implementing the national defense strategy. that's this book that was, that we're all so proud of. bipartisan, it's saying what we need to do to defend america. this document is one that we are following to the letter right now. it's our road map. the bill establishes the pacific

deterrent initiative. that's kind of patterned after the european deterrent initiative which focuses resources on the indo-pacific addressing key military capabilities in gatt and that's the area we're concentrating on right now, and that's what our document says we should be doing and doing it with the defense authorization bill. the bill assures we have a combat credible forward posture and helps us develop the field and joint capabilities needed to take on the conflicts envisioned by this n.d.s. report. we push back on china's russia and russia's attempt to expand their influence by building new alliances and partnerships and strengthening existing ones. they're busy. they're out there. we protect against intrusion from china and russia in space and beyond. that's what we have in the bill. that's what we're envisioning

we'll be able to do. we safeguard proprietary technology and intellectual property from being infiltrated by the government of china. we also reduce our reliance on foreign countries like china as a source for a variety of materials and technologies, including some of the microelectronics and rare earth men rals that also -- minerals and also medical devices. last but not least, we accelerate investment in research and development into technology that will help us catch up with china and russia. hypersonic weapons, artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and more. we're not leading in all areas. as most people in america think we are, but we're making such great progress. our defense authorization bill last year put us way ahead of where we were before and this bill does the same thing. the bill sends a message, a

strong message to china and russia and anyone else who would try it, we know what you're up to. we know how to stop you. you simply can't win against us. so i encourage my colleagues to put in, to, first of all, get all of their amendments in. we're trying to get our amendments all in by friday. if we can do that, we will be able to probably get this thing done possibly even by a week from today. so we've been working on it all year long, and this is one of the bills that we work on all year long, and we don't, we have a whole team working. liz king and john bonzo, the republican, is the staff director, and liz, the democrat group working with my partner in this, we have worked very well together, and we

should have this bill done and ready to take out. of course let's keep in mind what we want to accomplish. we want to put our country ahead of china and russia and get us out of this problem area that we have, an area where people, our allies believe they're preparing for world war iii. that's what the bill is all about. hopefully we'll get this thing done and have the necessary ingredients in there. this should be the year that we actually go ahead of china and russia. we want to make it happen, and this is the only way to do it. with that, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: the senator from missouri. a senator: i ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hawley: i ask that the committee on help be discharged and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 21663, a -- 2163,

a bill to establish the commission on the social status of black men and boys and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. the presiding officer: i ask unanimous consent that the lankford amendment at the desk be agreed to and the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. hawley: i know of no further debate on the bill as appearedded -- as amended. the presiding officer: if there's no further debate, the question is on passage of the bill the bill, as amended. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bill, as amended, is passed. mr. hawley: i ask unanimous consent that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. hawley: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. toomey: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. toomey: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the foreign relations committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to s. res. 579. the presiding officer: the clerk will report.

the clerk: senate resolution 579, encouraging the international community to remain committed to collaboration and coordination to mitigate and prevent the further spread of covid-19 and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, it is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. toomey: mr. president, i ask that the lee-durbin substitute amendment be agreed to, the amendment be agreed to,, the preamble be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection.

mr. toomey: and i note the be absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. hawley: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hawley: mr. president, a week ago, i stood in this chamber and spoke about the death of democracy. i spoke about how free people are slowly losing their basic liberties right in front of our eyes. i spoke about how a deeply oppressive regime is defiling

laws and tearing up treaties that offer protection and peace. i spoke about how the bright light of a great city is descending into darkness, chaos. i spoke, mr. president, about the plight of the people of hong kong. i'd like to take this opportunity to remind everyone, both at home and those listening abroad, about the urgent and existential crisis that plagues this outpost of liberty in the indopacific. on may 28, the chinese communist party in beijing adopted a resolution and began drafting a new national security law in hong kong. that's what they call it, anyway. but the more we learn about this impending legislation, the more concerned we should be. that's because we know that this is no legitimate law. i'll tell you what this is. it's a dictate from a

dictatorship. it will deal a marty blow to the freedoms and liberties that hong kongers have enjoyed for decades now. it is a permanent break from the one country, two systems principle that has governed that city since 1997, the principle to which beijing committed in the 1984 syno-british treaty, when they also committed to upholding the basic rights and liberties of the people of hong kong. but beijing wants to violate all of that now. they want to weep it aside and they want to do it through so-called legislation adopted through their fake legislature that would roll back the commitments they have made, roll back the protections and rights of the people of hong kong, snuff out this light in the endo-pacific. passage this great city with new restickses on speech and assembly and religion because that's what the chinese

communist party wants. they call it a national security law. it doesn't have anything to do with national security. it has everything to do with ending liberty. it has to do with banning the freedom of assembly. it has to do with squelching the freedom of speech. it has to do with denying the freedom of religion. that's the agenda. that's the substance, mr. president. that's what beijing wants. and it's what they are going to do unless the free world, beginning with the members of this body, stand up and say no. mr. president, this body must take action today to support the people of hong kong. they must speak with one voice. it must tell the world that this is not acceptable and that it must not stand, and free peoples the world over must not silently acquiesce. now, a week ago, i tried to do just that. i asked this body for consent unanimously to pass a resolution

that would condemn this new dictate from beijing and emphasize its clear violation of both hong kong basic law and the syno-british joint declaration. this resolution that i am here again today to offer, sponsored and supported by senators of both parties, would make it clear to everyone that the united states stands with the people of hong kong in this their hour of need. it would encourage the administration to take all necessary diplomatic action to stop this new law, to stop this advance against freedom. and it would rally the free nations of the world to support a free city. that resolution was blocked last week, and you know, mr. president, here in this body, we often have the luxury of time. it seems like that's all we have sometimes. we debate and we wait and we

debate, discuss. but the fact is the people of hong kong do not have time, not anymore. and that means the united states senate does not have time. we must act, and we must act today. this new so-called law that beijing is intent on forcing through is set to pass now on june 30. that's just five days from today. the senate needs to act now, mr. president, to send a clear signal now that we will send up to this aggression, to rally free peoples now in the defense of rights and liberties of hong kong, and to stand up now and protect our own interests, to protect our own needs in the endo-pacific, because there is nothing more dangerous to the people of the united states abroad than an imperialist china intent on imposing its will, imposing its way on the entire globe, beginning in the asia

pacific, beginning with the free people of hong kong. mr. president, a chorus of voices from hong kong and around the world are calling for the passage of this resolution. they are calling for it because they know it will inspire hope in hong kong. they are calling for it because they know it will give pause to the triernts in -- tyrants in beijing. our friends in hong kong know that beijing is watching closely. beijing is finalizing its national security law even as we speak. and hong kongers know, as we must, that this could be our last opportunity to stay beijing's hand before it destroys what is left of freedom in this city. beijing must know that its actions have consequences. this resolution today makes clear that that will be the case. and that is why so many in hong kong are so eager to see it pass and why beijing is so hopeful

that it will fail. as i said a week ago, the struggle of the free people of hong kong is the struggle of all free people everywhere. it is a struggle to stay free from domination. it is a struggle to ensure that beijing does not extend its imperial power around the globe and its influence to free countries and societies across the globe. mr. president, hong kong is the vanguard, and it's vital that we stand up for it now. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the foreign relations committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to senate resolution 596. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. van hollen: reserving the right to object, and i believe that we may have this worked out so there may not be an objection, but i just want to

say a few words before i proceed with this unanimous consent request. as the gentleman from missouri said, he was on the floor of the senate last week proposing a senate resolution condemning the actions of china with respect to hong kong. and as i told him then and i say again now, i fully agree with his assessment. what the government of china is doing in hong kong is unacceptable. they are taking away the rights of the people in hong kong. they are snuffing out the freedoms that exist there right now. and since we were on the floor last week, the standing committee of the national peoples congress reportedly reviewed an initial draft of the national security law which has not been released. so even in this last week, they

are moving forward in their process to take away the liberties of the people of hong kong. so time is of the essence. what i said on the floor last week and what i will say again today is that passage of a senate resolution is not going to deter the actions of the government of china. it's a statement. it's an important statement by the senate. but to believe that the government of china will be deterred one whit in moving forward on the path that it's on to take away the freedoms of the people of hong kong is to not be paying attention to what's happening in beijing. i heard the senator from missouri say, quote, actions have consequences. i agree they should. and the perspective of the government of china passing a senate resolution as a

consequence to their action is hardly going to be taken seriously in beijing. and that's why it's important to actually do something that shows that the government of china will pay a price if it continues down this path to extinguish those freedoms of the people in hong kong, and that's exactly why right after the government of china headed down this path, senator toomey, who is here with us on the floor, and i introduced a piece of legislation that would have consequences, that would actually punish the government of china if it continues down this path. it establishes a set of mandatory sanctions. it requires the administration to identify all those individuals who are culpable and complicit in taking away the rights of the people in hong

kong. and more than that, would sanction those banks that allow those individuals to do business. that's an action that does have consequences. that's an action where at least there is a chance that the government of china will listen, because they understand it's not just a statement by the united states senate. they understand it's a statement with penalties. now, let me make clear that in order for this legislation to be effective eventually, the administration is going to have to follow the law, and it's going to have to impose the sanctions on those individuals who are responsible. and i would be remiss or negligent if i didn't point out that the administration

currently has authority to impose sanctions against china for its actions in hong kong based on legislation that this body passed last year. to uphold the rights -- the human rights and democratic rights of the people of hong kong. so despite some statements from the secretary of state, this administration is still taking no action. now, this legislation that senator toomey and i have proposed, and i really want to thank the senator and salute him for his leadership on this, senator toomey. we worked together in the past on sanctions adopted in the law with respect to north korea, and i think it's important that we work on a bipartisan basis to take action that's meaningful near the united states senate. but the administration should act now on their existing

authority. the senate and the house should pass this legislation, the hong kong accountability act, as amended, here today and send it to the white house. the president, we hope, would sign it and then we hope the president would impose the expanded sanctions that are provided for in the hong kong accountability act. so that is doing something that demonstrates to the government of china that consequences have action. and that's why it was discouraged last week when we proposed this and we had a senator come to the floor and block it. i agree with the senator from missouri. it would have been great to pass this last week, but a senator came to the floor to block it

even though that senator was a cosponsor of this legislation. and when asked why he did it, he said he blocked it at the behest of the white house. that's what he said. i'm hoping that is not the case today. i'm hoping that today we don't at the last minute have a senator at the behest of the white house coming forward. and before i make my unanimous consent request, i would like to yield the floor briefly to the senator from pennsylvania who has been a partner in this effort. mr. toomey: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: so i want to take a quick moment to thank both my colleague from missouri and my colleague from maryland for their leadership on this extremely important issue. in the interest of time, i will not reiterate the many very, very compelling reasons that

we're here on the floor right now. the senator from missouri has done an outstanding job eloquently and passionately explaining why it is our responsibility to stand up for the freedom of a freedom-loving people whose freedom is seriously eroded, systematically being damaged and that is, of course, the people of hong kong. i had the great experience of living in hong kong for a year, learning so much about that society, that culture, the vibrancy of hong kong. it's just absolutely stunning, and it's all possible. it's all possible, let's be clear, because freedom has prevailed in hong kong, or at least it used it, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to practice their faith as they see fit, an independent judiciary and the rule of law. and all of that, all of it, is very, very seriously threatened right now by the chinese communist party because their

greatest fear is that the people on the mainland will observe the freedoms in hong kong and decide maybe they'd like some of those freedoms too and that is the risk the chinese communist leadership cannot tolerate. i want to commend my colleague from missouri for putting a spotlight on this, bringing it to the attention, and calling the senate to defend the people who seek only their freedom. and i very much want to thank my colleague from maryland. as he pointed out, we've been partners on legislation in the past. nobody works heard to get their -- harder to get their objective accomplished than my colleague from maryland. and our legislation, which i think is about to pass jointly with a resolution, i think we're going to have a unanimous consent agreement whereby both measures pass simultaneously. i think that's the optimal outcome here. i want to thank the folks at the treasury department who we worked with extensively to get to the point where we are in

agreement with this legislation. ill certainly hope after this big step of passage here on the senate floor today, this legislation, both pieces, the resolution and the sanctions legislation, are on their way soon to the president's desk for his significant. and with that, i'll yield back to the gentleman from maryland. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. van hollen: continuing to observe the right to object. would the senator from missouri modify his request to also discharge s. 3789, and consider s. res. 596 and s. 3789, en bloc, and the substitute to the bill at the desk be agreed to, and the bill be -- the bill, as amended, be read the third time and that if the resolution is agreed to and if the bill, as amended, is passed by the

senate, the preamble then be agreed to and all motions be considered made and laid on the table. the presiding officer: would the senator correct his number? mr. van hollen: to clarify, it is s. 3798. the presiding officer: does the senator from missouri so modify his request? mr. hawley: i will. the presiding officer: is there an objection to the request as modified? without objection. the question is on the modification of the -- the question is on passage of the resolution. the question is adoption of the resolution and passage of the bill, as amended, en bloc. all in favor say aye.

opposed. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the measures are passed and agreed to en bloc. mr. hawley: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. hawley: madam president, this is a good moment for the united states senate. this is, i think, a moment when we have been able to come together to speak with one voice and to send a clear message to beijing that its attempts to steamroll and destroy the liberties of the people of hong kong will not go unnoticed and will not go unaddressed. and i thank the senator from maryland, ert senator from -- and the senator from pennsylvania for their work on their bill which will give the administration important new tools to address and to counter the actions of beijing. i want to say to the people of hoirng who i've had -- hong kong who i've had the privilege to

meet who have stood up to this violent and authoritarian regime, i hope today's actions will give you an added measure of hope. that the free people of this nation and the free people of the world are with you and that we will not sit idly by, that we will stand up, that we will take action and your cause for your basic rights, your cause for your basic liberties is our cause as well. it's a privilege to stand with you as an american and as a missourian and it's a privilege to see this work accomplished today on the floor of the senate. i thank my colleagues. thank you, madam president. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. van hollen: i want to thank the senator from missouri for bringing this to the floor last week, bringing this to the floor this week, and for working with us to make sure that we could make important changes to an

important resolution that he brought before us today. i agree it's a good day for the united states senate. again, i want to thank the senator from pennsylvania, senator toomey, for his work on this -- bipartisan work on this, and hopefully we can get it to the president's desk as soon as possible and send a strong message to the government of china and send a message to the people of hong kong that we stand with them. thank you, madam president. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: madam president, before i get to the motion that i'm going to make, i want to take a few minutes to discuss the importance of why the senate must pass the coronavirus relief flexibility for students and institutions act, which is s. 3947. this has to do with an action that we took as bipartisan colleagues, a most important action in march, passing the cares act. the cares act included $13.9 million for a higher

education emergency relief for institutions to directly support students facing urgent needs related to this pandemic and also to support the institutions as they cope with the effects of covid-19. from this amount about $12.5 billion was provided to all institutions of higher education and they had to use half the funds for the students and half the funds for institutional expenses and needs. congress was very careful in crafting this bipartisan resolution so that the institutions could make their own decisions about how to use and -- and reward those funds, both to students and how to use them for institutions. unfortunately, the department of education is not following congressional intent and is including additional resphrikses and -- restrictions and conditions that congress did not include that's making had these funds more difficult to access

both by students and the institutions. on the institution side, colleges had to quickly transition their programs online, many doing so on a widespread scale for the first time without the technology capacity and staff training to conduct those classes. colleges have also had to quickly send students living on campus home, bring students home who were studying abroad, clean and sanitize their facilities, provide refund to students for room and board changes. they had to meet greater financial needs and basic needs challenges for students including housing, food, child care costs. this resulted in higher costs for colleges at the same time that covid-19 has led to a sharp reduction in normal revenue streams, fundraising, housing, dining, event space, conferences, including state funding that has been hurt and thee revenue losses are like

likely to continue as students drop out and revenue tuition decreases in the fall. this would come as students implement costly -- many institutions have cut pay and benefits, laid off full-time students and they are organizing athletic programs. this is it in addition to the potential cuts that colleges will likely see from state budgets. i got a letter from the president of one of my community colleges, dr. john downy. he said, we anticipate devastating lost revenue and state reductions and no way with the possible of the cares act to offset the losses. the current cares act means that community colleges will only be able to offset $100,000 to 300,000 of additional p.p.e. expenses with when he open up

but without the ability to offset those looming for 2021, we will have to lay off. moody's changed their outlook for higher education, noting that regional public and private colleges could face significantly intensified financial challenges. in virginia one such institution, sweetbriar college said the impact is likely to be $10 million, v.c.u. said it is likely to be $50 million in the next fiscal year. this is why we acted together as congress to provide cares act funding that could be used for revenue losses experienced by colleges. we didn't specifically exclude using these dollars for revenue losses as we did in the state and local government aid.

we allowed such a use as we did with the p.p.e. program and the aid to hospitals. but the department of education is using a very narrow interpretation of the law and refusing to allow colleges to use money for revenue losses. now on to the student side of the equation, 50% of the money was to be used for student aid. and this is even more concerning. the unauthorized guidance that the d.o.e. has issued outlines that the financial aid for students can only be provided for students who qualify for aid under the higher education act, which would be for any student who hasn't filled out a fasa. these were not conditions that congress put on the aid to students. nowhere in the cares act are these restrictions mentioned. the financial aid director at the university of virginia wrote my office as follows. when the cares act was signed into law we, along with many

others in the financial aid community, believed that the funding sowrts would be available to provide assistance to our students using school discretion. schools have long operated in this manner. because of covid-19 parents of many students who suddenly loss their jobs realized their income changed dramatically and wished to appeal. in other words, students who never had to fill out a fafsa or never did one because their parents were employed are now facing parents who are not complied fl it is not right to put these new requirements on students and bar them from receiving aid. students have written me, a third year student. i was studying abroad this past semester but had to return home in march. my study abroad program is unsure whether they're going to be able to refund any of the semester's research including housing, meals, tuition. due to the travel ban i had to book a ticket home on one day's

notice initially costing me $1,800 but was able to receive a partial refund of $900. my father has been the primary source of income for our family but he loses his job this month. since we don't know when he will be reemployed, this has resulted in significant financial challenge to my family. and there are other similar stories from other students, graduate students and engineering in henrico, undergraduates from halifax. congress intended these dollars to be used flexibly, the d.o.d. is getting in the way. what the act would do that i'm about to call up, it would ensure that the secretary in the department of department of education follow intent. the bill would allow the higher ed funds for lost revenue.

the bill would ensure that financial aid to students is made available to all students in need letting institutions dishied how to make that -- decide how to make that determination. we would better target funds hardest hit by colleges by covid-19. placing arbitrary restrictions on them is a challenge at any time especially now. we should be working together to ensure that the institutions and our students get the help that congress wanted them to get. again, the bill that i have before you doesn't create a new program and it doesn't cost a penny. all it does is ask the secretary of education to simply follow what congress intended. and, madam president, with that, i would ask unanimous consent that the help committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 3947, a bill to amend the provisions related to higher ed emergency relief fund, to clarify the flexibility provided to

institutions and for students under the fund, and that the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. i further ask unanimous consent 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. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. scott: madam president, reserving the right to object. i appreciate my colleague's focus on higher education. we both have the same opportunity as governors to do what we could to drive the cost of tuition down and help make sure all of our students had the opportunity to get jobs. my goal as governor of florida and now as a u.s. senator is to keep education affordable and attainable and make sure students are able to get a job when they graduate. i know we all are focused on giving our students every opportunity to succeed. my colleague has not shown how giving a blank check bailout to higher education studentses helps our students. students that are burdened with mountains of debt from these

same four-year colleges and universities. the solution is not to give more money to support the bloated bureaucracies of our public and private colleges and universities. and these very institutions continue to raise tuition year after year on our students and their families. that's why i'm instead offering my stem act which is a real solution to make higher education more affordable, ensure students are preparing students for jobs. we made similar reforms in florida and are students are getting a world-class education at a price they and their families can afford. my goal is to bring this success to our nation. the stem act does three things. one, eliminates all federal funding for institutions that raise tuition. there's no reason universities should be raising costs on students even one bit. businesses have to get more productive every year. so should our colleges and our universities. second, my stem act holds colleges and universities accountable for a portion of

student loans. by forcing units to take more responsibility, they will have more of an incentive to prepare students for careers instead of encouraging mountains of debt and degrees that don't lead to jobs after graduation. and, third, the stem act creates a metric system for ability to make sure all higher education institutions are doing their most important job, preparing their students for the opportunity to get a great job, build a career, and become more self-sufficient. our higher education system doesn't serve the student and we need to change that. our students deserve more than just throwing money at our institutions with no checks and balances. it's time we get something done to fix the problems in our higher education system and realign incentives, and i look forward to working with my colleagues to do this. madam president, i ask that senator kaine modify his request and the instead of committee on help be discharged from further consideration of senate 2559, student training economic or

education metrics act, and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. further, 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. the presiding officer: is the senator from virginia so modifying his request? mr. kaine: madam president, i appreciate my senate colleague's desire to increase accountability and transparency of student outcomes. and i was a governor doing the same thing with virginia institutions. i view his request as a little bit of a non sequitur. it's not really connected to mine. he mentioned we shouldn't be throwing more money at colleges. let me make plain again, my request does not cost a penny. it is not about an additional penny to colleges. it is about implementing the cares act that was passed on an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote by this body on march 26. senator scott's bill does not deal with something we've

already done. it does not deal with the covid emergency. it does deal very directly with something that we are in the process of doing, the help committee right now is considering the reauthorization of the higher education act. senator scott's proposal dealing with transparency and accountability fits squarely within the discussion that the help committee is currently having about reauthorization of h.e.a., and it's an appropriate and important topic for the committee to grapple with as we work on the h.e.a. reauthorization. but in that sense, i'm a little puzzled because his proposal, there is a venue for his proposal right now in the h.e.a. reauthorization discussion as we go forward, look at what more accountability we would ask of our colleges. i don't think we should jump senator scott's dill ahead of that -- bill ahead of that reauthorization process and

impose new restrictions on universities in the middle of this pandemic as we're trying to help them get through covid. and for that and other reasons, while i would certainly pledge to work with the senator on this matter in the committee on which we both sit during h.e.a. reauthorization, i do not agree to modify the request that i made regarding s. 3947. the presiding officer: is there objection to the original request? mr. scott: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. scott: reserving the right to object. i know, i look forward to working with my colleague from virginia to do what we both tried to do as governors. we were both focused on how -- it's hard to keep tuition down and make sure our kids got jobs at the end. it's a very difficult job. today, what we're doing today with senator kaine's proposal, i don't think it will help students get the jobs they need

and keep tuitions down. i don't think we ought to be giving a blank check to institutions that raised tuitions on our students. we all know the mountains of debt of $1.7 trillion, which is ridiculous. so i think my stem act is a solution to help make our higher education system affordable, ensure our kids have a future. but unfortunately, we're not able to do that today so i respectfully object and look forward to working with senator kaine to do everything we can to try to keep this tuition down and help our kids get jobs. the presiding officer: objection is heard.

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. last year a bit of good news, last year we finally provided certainty to american exporters and their workers by enacting a seven-year reauthorization of the export-import bank's charter. this is a big victory after years of obstruction by a handful of our republican colleagues. we know what happened here in congress, in 2015, during the last debate on reauthorizing the bank, a small group of opponents, supported by far right special interest,

tried to kill the bank all together. when that didn't work, they decided to block all nominees to ex-im bank denying the quorum needed to deny transactions greater than $10 million. their obstruction cost us more than 130,000 jobs a year by 2018. unfortunately a few republicans continued to undermine american manufacturers and our workers by preventing xm from having a full board of directors. it is time that -- today is economic damage from covid builds and senator mcconnell,ed leer of this body, refuses to let us do our job and pass additional help for families and communities in small business. x.m. will be called on more important than ever to ensure the survival of our manufacturing basin thousands of

small businesses and their workers. x.m. added 515 new small business clients in 2009 alone. the stakes are even high qler today. there are more than 100 export agencies, i believe senator reed, more than 100 export credit agencies that support foreign manufacturers, but our greatest challenge is china. china's export activity is larger than all of the export credit provided by all of the g-7 countries combined and we can expect china to use it as a credit to win manufacturing in critical sectors. i asked senator reed about that in committee and she is certain it will continue and grow. the president and many of my republican colleagues want to blame china darn near everything

including the virus that has taken the lives of 120,000 of our brothers and sisters and parents. we are 30% of the world's deaths. and that's not because we don't have good doctors and medical workers, it's because of presidential leadership. china's not been a model of responsibility, but president trump needs to stop blaming china for his own failures to do more at moment -- home to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. from my republican colleagues who profess concern about china, i wish they showed the same concern standing up to china during our fight to support manufacturers. you should support filling x.m.'s board so our manufacturers can better compete with china. we need to educate the business community about how to use the bank's export financing to create more jobs in the u.s.

many small businesses are trying to survive right now. some of them don't know that x.m. is a tool that can work. we need a full board -- a full board that can be proactive about offering support. mr. smotolok is nominated as the first vice president was reported out of the bankruptcy committee -- banking committee, and ms. slasik was voted out of committee four years. mr. smtolok understands how china competes. ms. slasik has more than 30 years of commercial banking experience. they have an excellent banking team, but the bank needs to operate at full capacity during unprecedented crisis, not missing two of their critical members with expertise. this shouldn't be partisan.

banking committee chair, my counterpart, mike crapo supports filling the x.m. board, the national association support it confirming these two particular nominees. and on tuesday x.m. president and chair kimberly reed, nominated by president trump, testified to the banking committee she wants a full board because x.m. is working to make small business transactions and she said it takes a lot of boots on the ground and a lot of work. madam president, i agree with x.m. president completely and senator crapo completely. we need a full board and we also have a qualified inspector general nominee, peter caniglio who is waiting for nomination. these nominations are long overdue. i will ask the senate to consider them immediately. if we want x.m. to compete

against china, there's no excuse for more obstruction. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations, calendar number 127, 336, and 557, that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order, the nomination, that any related statements be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. toomey: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: madam president, reserving the right to object. i think it's worth reminding my colleagues exactly what the ex-im bank is all about. it is a bank where banks are required to subsidize big corporations of the precise way

it works is to provide the subsidy directly to foreign entities, often state-owned entities, often chinese state-owned entities when they buy an american product, when they buy an american export. so the ex-im bank is forced to have they subsidize. and i object to that activity and so do many of my republican colleagues. so this is a controversial entity and it's a controversial idea that we would expand the population on the board because doing so diminishes the likelihood they might be at a point at some point in the future where they might not have a quorum. my own view is that what we ought to be doing is having a mutual negotiation with our trading partners to phase out all of these export subsidy banks all around the world and unfortunately neither this administration nor the previous administration had any interest

in pursuing that. so in the meantime i have asked for improvements in the operations of the export-import bank, operations such as the freans and controlling -- transparency and controlling taxpayer risk and i will say xm xm -- this doesn't solve the mission of the bank. the defenders will some argue xam ex-im bank is essential for our exports, that we need it and jobs depend on it. it's interesting, madam president, because we've got a controlled experiment that addresses that question directly because from 2015 to the early part of 2018, the ex-im bank didn't have a qor so it --

quorum so it couldn't engage in large-scale transactions. so you have a period of four years, and during that time the volume of financing, the volume of transactions that ex-im bank was doing dropped by 80%. that's huge. the ex-im bank was a shadow of its former self. what happened to american exports during the time when the ex-im bank was basically out of business? i'll tell you what happened. american exports grew and hit an all-time record high in 2018. that's what happened. because the fact is americans make great products and we can sell them overseas without having to subsidize the buyer. so buyers and sellers arranged private financing. there's lots of banks and institutions in the business of providing this financing,

taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize it. the proof's in the pudding. when ex-im bank was effectively closed, american exports grew and hit an all-time record high. it's also a fact that when the ex-im bank gets into the business of subsidizing some, it inevitably does damage to others. there is a case where the xm subsidies that ended up costing jobs at delta airlines because the two competed on routes, the air india route was subsidized by their being a -- acquisition of planes, delta didn't get the subsidy and according to the c.e.o. who testified before the house, just that one deal cost 1,000 jobs at delta. so, madam president, i have a substantive objection here. i have an objection to this institution's mission growing

its board is part of advancing that mission. and i have to say this is in contrast to the could be instruction we're seeing from our democratic colleagues with respect to nominees about whom they have no objection at all. the fact is there's been a mission on the part of many of my democratic colleagues to just block president trump's nominees just because they are president trump's, and, in fact, president trump's nominees have had to undergo the delaying tactic of a cloture vote, a procedural vote that is designed to chew up time, prevent us from functioning. in the first year of his presidency, there were over 300. that's more that the cumulative number of these delaying tactics for the first term of his four predecessors. and it continues. in fact, we have earlier this year alone we had our democratic colleagues forced this delaying tactic, this cloture vote on judges and and this voted for

them. some of which were confirmed unanimously. a district judge silva comb was confirmed 96-0, a delaying vote on robert anthony molloy to be a u.s. district judge and then confirmed 97-0. there are still 68 reported nominees on the executive calendar as of yesterday, 13 are over 12 months old and many of them are nominees about whom there is no objection. with this case there is an objection. it is a substantive objection to providing a cushion to the quorum of a bank whose mission i disagree with. people want to go through the process of bringing in this -- this to the floor and filing cloture, it can be processed. but this isn't the way to do it and so i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard.

mr. brown: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i'm disappointed, not surprised that we're not table to confirm the xm nominees today. there is great bipartisan support for this agency. we did a long reauthorization that was close to unanimous in its support. it's a place where we worked together to create american jobs. i think that -- i understand senator toomey's discussion about corporate interest. i'm a bit -- a bit surprised by that when this body passes trade agreement after trade agreement that supports corporate interest and costings worker jobs, when this body passed huge tax cuts for the rich that reduced the

corporate tax rate and reduced it more for companies that shut down in shelby, ohio, and get access to low-wage workers. so i -- i'm just disappointed that we couldn't actually move forward. this is the law of the land to have an ex-im bank. there are two out of five slots that are empty, the director, the president, the chair of the ex-im bank, the director said strongly that she needs more help, more boots on the ground because she could create more jobs that way. last, madam president, i was a bit surprisinged to hear complaints about democrats slow walking nominees. i mean instead of actually doing the people's business here, getting help for unemployed workers, helping people stay in their homes as courts open up and more evictions are on the horizon, as layoffs in local governments and state governments around the country loom, that this country -- that

this senate spends most of its time on confirming judges. my wife and i watched the -- almost the entire rally in tulsa, the first big trump campaign. well, not that big. the first purportly big campaign rally. i watched a number of my colleagues with no masks in an arena where public health officials say please don't do that. i heard the president brag about all of the judges he's gotten confirmed. when i hear any of my colleagues that democrats have been obstructionists trying to stop trump nominees, remember what senator mcconnell did with a supreme court nominee and equally important what that body has done confirming judge after judge after judge after judge instead of in many of -- and many of them young, many of them far right. republicans dutifully vote for them because senator mcconnell tells them to, and we know how that works around here, but we

have so much more work to do than that, yet this senate doesn't seem interested. madam president, i yield the floor.

mrs. blackburn: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam president. are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are not. mrs. blackburn: thank you. madam president, in the early days of the interceptor when we were all just beginning to get online and experience what it was like to have at your

fingerprints an entree to the entire world -- all the information that you could want. you know, everything at that point really felt like a novelty. it had a newness about t technology was new and consumers were able to take their time carving out a comfort zone for what they wanted to do online. they were signing up for facebook, and they were trying to figure out what of their retail merchants they wanted to visit online and how they wanted to shop online and what transactions they wanted to begin to put into that search engine, and then conduct those transactions online. well, at the same time technology firms were cask out their place -- carving out their place in the market. i don't have to tell you that this dynamic has really changed

from those early days and those first experiences with the virtual space. we walk around with computers in our pockets. that level of convenience and connectivity is great, but it has thrown off the balance of power between what is now called big tech and consumers. over the past few years, these companies have treated the american people to a series of scandals that opened the floodgates to mainstream concerns over issues like data privacy, child exploitation, national security risk, and blatant anticompetitive business practices. just this week, i sent a letter to the attorney general about google's latest attacks on

conservative media outlets. as a reminder to everyone, google threatened to remove the federalist and zero hedge from the google apps platform after determining that the google outlet comment section -- did you get that? their comment section, the area where you go to participate in the public debate. they did this after determining that "the federalist" and zero hedge comments sections contained content that violated company policy. well, how about that? a representative from google ran to the press and insisted that both outlets had published dangerous, hateful content.

really makes you wonder, what was their real reason for this threat? and what was the real reason for the google representatives' breathless accusations to the press? in my letter, i encouraged attorney general barr to meet with representatives from both "the federalist" and zero hedge so they could explain firsthand what a permanent ban from google's ad platform could lead you in terms of loss of traffic and revenue. of course, the answer to that inquiry is that a ban would be catastrophic for any outlet. and here's the reason why. guess who dominates online advertising? google. it's called a monopoly. it is called they call those ad

platforms. this friday, state attorneys general are meeting with justice department official to discuss this, and if i were google, i would be a little bit nervous about that. i think it is fair to say that many of these attorneys general have just about had it with some of these online practices. this particular scandal is interesting because it implicates both antitrust concerns and the section 230 protections that are laid out in the communications decency act. lately, we've heard quite a bit about section 230, and we've already discussed at length whether it should be left alone, reformed, or scrapped entirely. now, when section 230 was implemented in the early days of the internet, the vision it is what it would shield emerging

and new technology firms from lawsuits. it would give them the ability to kind of stand up, if you will. it allows platforms to remove content in good faith that they find to be obscene, violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable, even if the material is otherwise constitutionally protected speech. and, at the time, when all these businesses were in their infancy, when they were new starts. this worked pretty well. start-ups were allowed to innovate without having to worry about lawsuits sending their companies into bankruptcy or threatening their ability to raise venture capital. but, as i said earlier, madam president, times have changed. now, as is the case with most

policies involving big tech, heavy-handed government intervention will not fix this problem. still, many of my colleagues here in the senate believe that using strict legislation and policing speech is the only path to reform. and i'll tell you, as someone who has been censored by a social media platform, i fully appreciate and understand their point of view. not only is it frustrating to become a victim of that bias, it's also so disheartening to watch our country devolve into place where people would rather be shielded from debate than learn from the people that they disagreed with. you know, there used to be a time when you would engage yoiet opinion than you. you would engage them and

participate in some point and counterpoint and have a friendly discussion about your take on the issues. but when it comes to reining in big tech, the innovators have got to be allowed to innovate. they need some guardrails. they do not need a straitjacket. this is the same approach that i took when drafting the browser act. that is data privacy legislation i introduced in the senate last year. i have worked on this since i was in the house, and it is the approach that we're taking with the bipartisan technology task force. policies like these take a lot more time and a lot more one-on-one communication to draft, to work through to a resolution. but they're much better for the

industry and innovation than something that is purely punitive. and working closely with the white house and the justice department on a series of changes to section 230 that will allow us to fix the rules we've got without having to start from scratch. first, we can incentivize online platforms to address truly illicit content by implementing three carve-outs that exempt specific categories of speech from immunity. first, facilitating or soliciting third-party activity that violates federal criminal law. we call this one the bad samaritan carve-out. second, content involving child exploitation and abuse, terrorism, and cyber stalking. third and last, we'll revoke

that immunity if a platform is caught failing to act when they have actual knowledge of or were provided with a court judgment regarding unlawful content. we also need to clarify once and for all that section 230 immunity does not apply to actions brought by the federal government. but what about those start-ups, those up-and-coming tech companies that are looking for the next great idea? how will reform treat them differently from the facebooks and the googles of the world? what we can do is limit liabilities based on minimum platform user thresholds. we'd limit those section 230 protections to platforms with fewer than 50 million american users. now, just for reference, google

has 259 million american users. facebook, 221 million. twitter, 64 million users. under this standard, a user alleging harm would be able to move forward with a lawsuit against a platform only if that platform's user threshold was above 50 million u.s. users and a court has reasonable grounds to believe that a platform contributed to the offending post or refused to act on it once notified. these are all simple changes that will rebalance the relationship between online platforms and their customers, and we shouldn't delay in implementing them, because the internet is more than just a place where we post our status updates or photos from what we had for dinner. the digital revolution changed

the way we live our life, consume news. we can't afford to let these platforms leverage their own bias to arbitrarily decide who is allowed to speak or what information we're allowed to consume. but we also can't afford to implement heavy-handed policies that will inevitably collapse the entire industry. i look forward to the senate continuing its work on this on both the commerce and judiciary committees. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. we are in a quorum call. mrs. hyde-smith: i move that we suspend the quorum call, please. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hyde-smith: thank you. madam president, it is a shame the senate has been prevented the opportunity to discuss meaningful legislation to strengthen and improve our law enforcement system. the senate had an opportunity to implement public safety measures the american people believe are needed and the american people want most importantly, the senate was blocked from hard work toward helping bring the nation together.

sadly, this was due to partisan politics by our democratic colleagues. it's disappointing that when given the chance to back up a lot of big talk about reform and change, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle simply walked away. i was under the impression we were all in agreement that the matters addressed in this legislation were at the very least worth debating. by refusing to even consider a debate, senate democrats lead the american people with irresponsible demands to defund the police and destruction of public property. my friend and colleague, the junior senator from south carolina, worked tirelessly to produce very good legislation. he and the leadership offered to work with the democratic colleagues and assure them there

would be an open amendment process. had we had a chance to proceed, i was prepared to file amendment that would have gotten the top federal and state law enforcement officials together from rural and urban areas and develop a best practices curriculum for training incoming law enforcement officers. the amendment would have provided the resources to train the trainers. this simply illustrates that members on both sides of the aisle wanted an opportunity to offer messengerful changes to the bill but only one side of the aisle thought that opportunity was worthwhile. madam president, i am ready to debate on that and any other amendment should we do the right thing and have an open, purposeful conversation on a very critical issue. the tragic death of george floyd

in minneapolis last month exposed an erosion of public confidence in the rule of law and law enforcement practices. there is no doubt in my mind that the vast majority of law enforcement officers who are very good friends of mine, many of them, across the country do their jobs fairly and justly. however, the bad actions of a few are enough to cause us as elected leaders to consider responsible changes to improve police practices and rebuild public confidence in those we trust with ensuring our public safety. i encourage my colleagues to reconsider and engage in this debate. it would be a real tragedy not to use this national movement, this national moment in our history to improve law enforcement through more

accountability, transparency, and better training. let's stop looking for ways to divide the american public. let's bring people together and work together toward meaningful reform that improves law enforcement, public safety, and the confidence americans deserve in the rule of law. i yield the floor. thank you.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for colorado. mr. gardner: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to speak about the republic of korea on this june 25, the 70th anniversary of the start of the korean war. the republic of korea, a long-time ally and partner that resides in one of the most prosperous and one of the most dangerous parts of the world. when most of us hear about korea, we instinctively focus op the threat emanating from the bizarre failed state in the north, and we often forget about the incredible successes and stories of success in the south that was made possible largely by the united states-south korea alliance. when i visited the korean war memorial in seoul in july, 2017, i read the names of americans and coloradans that died answering the call to defend a country they never knew and a people they never met. i think that today we owe it to our fallen soldiers to recognize

what the world has gained from their sacrifice. on june 25, 1950, kim il-sung's army crossed the 58th parallel to invade south korea. in response, the united states mobilized the international community under the united nations flag and sent hundreds of thousands of u.s. troops to defend korea. to this day, thousands of united states soldiers remain unaccounted for. over one million korean civilians perished. most survivors have never seen or spoken with their families across the border. the united states' decision to intervene in that war transformed the future of asia. south korea has blossomed from a war-torn state to an economic powerhouse, a thriving democracy, and in recent months, a global leader in response to a public health crisis. south korea boasts the 12th largest economy in the world and has become a leader in critical future technologies such as telecommunications, electronics,

and semiconductors. they have managed to do this despite having a population of only 50 million people, few natural resources, and effectively operating as an island restricted to maritime trade. the south korea's hard-fought transition from authoritarian governments to vibrant democracy took time. it took perseverance, and it took grit, but they did it. it is now a democracy with a highly educated and active civil society that embraces the rule of law and human rights and stands in stark contrast to its authoritarian neighbors in north korea and china. as our south korean ally has grown more prosperous and more capable, it has also taken on an outsized global responsibility. since the korean war, south korea has fought alongside the united states in all four of our major conflicts. once a recipient of foreign aid, seoul is now a world-wide donor of aid. it has become a critical pillar in upholding the post-world war

orders, playing a valuable role in the global emissions reduction, peacekeeping, cybersecurity, post-conflict stabilization. south korea has also become a key stakeholder in various international organizations, including the united nations, g-20, the asia pacific economic cooperative forums, just to name a few. worked closely with our south korean allies and colorado governor to obtain hundreds of thousands of covid-19 testing kids for colorado which will continue to be vital as we get through this ongoing pandemic. signify weeks ago president trump invited president moon of south korea to the upcoming g-7 meeting. i believe it is time to explore

new avenues to broaden cooperation with south korea on the global stannel, including in global health, the environment, energy security, and emerging technologies. south korea is situated in one of the most precarious neighborhoods in the world. koreans have historically explained their geography of being a shrimp among whales. indeed, northeast asia holds a number of nuclear-capable states, economic mammoths and the largest standing armies in the world. in this our alliance, we vow to defend one another from attack, but it often goes unstated that south korea bears the frontline burden of this defense. while north korea said this, soul has been under the threat of artillery,ing short are short-range missile missiles and for decades. over 2.5% of its g.d.p. it also funded over 90% of the

costs of camp humphries, what is now the largest overseas u.s. military base in the world. these are just a few of the ways in which south korea remains a model alliance partner. against the backdrop of rising tensions in recent weeks we could swiftly conclude negotiations on the special measure. we should and we ought to swiftly conclude negotiations on the burden sharing agreement which would provide strategic stability on the korean peninsula and strengthen the u.s.-south korea alliance. the united states and south korea maintain a tightly integrated combined forces command unique to the world. this demonstrates the immense trust and combined capability between our militaries. this unique structure makes congressional our commitment -- credible our commitment to meet thosing strengths. it allows us to stand shoulder to shoulder and say we go together. but the alliance faces greater threats today than at any time

in the past. chinese coercion in the yellow sea and east china sea as well as militarization of the south china sea increased in years. as china has grown it has become more aggressive. we must come together with regional partners to resist this course of behavior. only with the concerted voice can we preserve global norms and south korea plays a growing role in upholding this regional order. our north korea policy has for decades failed to achieve demilitarization of the korean peninsula, however, the u.s.-south korea alliance succeeded in deterring pyongyang, retaining regional stability, maintaining conditions for growth and prosperities of every country in the region except for pyongyang. we stand ready to welcome the people of north korea into the international community, but this requires pyongyang to commit to economic reform, to treat its people with dignity and to refrain from menacing others with weapons of mass

destruction. i believe u.s. policy toward north korea should be straightforward. until we achieve the denuclearization of north korea, the united states will deploy every economic, diplomatic, and if necessary, military tool at our disposal to deter pyongyang and to protect our allies. pyongyang exploded the office in qasam and began rolling back commitments under the april 218 declaration. since february of 2019, since that summit in hanoi, pyongyang rebuffed working-level negotiations with the u.s. in march of this year kim launched a record number of missiles in a single month and continues to unveil new missile systems that pose novel threats to our allies, south korea and japan. kim jong-un has shown he doesn't want engagement but wants to

build his weapons program. the u.s. must respond with our allies. we must consider restoring military exercises with our partners in seoul and tokyo, enhance missile defense and remain in close consultation to reassure our allies of our commitment to defend them from any aggression or coercion. kim jong-un must not underestimate the resolve of the united states to defend our allies but peaceful resolution of the north korean problem also requires the international community to finally join together in fully implementing united nations sanctions. in this effort we require greater cooperation from beijing. china accounts for 90% of north korea's trade, including virtually all of north korea's exports. the most recent u.n. panel of experts report to the north korean sanctions committee provided a clear evidence, provided clear evidence of illicit ship to ship transfers between north korean and chinese ships. these blatant violations of

sanctions must end now. in 2016 i led the north korea sanctions and policy enhancement act which passed the senate by a vote of 96-0. the donald trump has the opportunity -- the trump administration has the opportunity to use these authorities to build maximum leverage not only with pyongyang but also with beijing. if china will not act to ensure its entities comply with international law, perhaps pressure from the united states treasury and the department of justice will make it a priority for beijing. i was encouraged by the administration's decision in june of 2017 to sanction the chinese bank of dandong. this conveyed a political statement we were serious about the maximum pressure campaign and it got results. however, even as we sought chinese sanctions -- saw enforcements wane, the pace of designations and indictments has slowed tremendously. the administration with congressional support should now make clear to any entity doing

business with north korea that they will not be able to do business with the united states or have access to u.s. financial systems. last month the united states department of justice charged 28 north koreans and 5 chinese citizens with using a web of more than 250 shell companies to launder over $2.5 billion in assets through the international banking system. this is a good sign, but individual indictments have not effectively deterred further sanctions violations. we need pressure. we need to pressure chinese banks that serve as the illicit conduit between north korea and the outside world. as for any prospect of engablingment, we -- engagement, we must make it clear the united states will not negotiate with pyongyang at the expense of the security of our allies. facts should be our number one priority. that's why last congress i

passed the asia initiative reassurance act. it doubles down on engage in the in the indo-pacific to uphold the post war order that benefited the united states, its allies and much of the world over the past 70 years. maintaining peace and prosperity on the korean peninsula and throughout the indo-pacific is an effort that can no longer be and never could be accomplished without allies, without friends. that's why america and what makes america so strong. and so today i hope my colleagues in the chamber will aid me in passing the resolution commemorating those koreans and americans that fell in defense of freedom on the korean peninsula 70 years ago. there is no greater way to honor their sacrifice than to look back on all that our two peoples have accomplished over the past 70 years and to continue to nurture the steadfast alliance between the united states and south korea.

i urge my colleagues to support the resolution, and i yield the floor. mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that the vote scheduled for 1:30 begin now. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed on calendar number 483, s. 4049, a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2021 for military activities of the department of defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the department of energy to prescribe military

personnel strengths for such fiscal year and for other purposes, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to proceed to s. 4049, an original bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2021 for department of defense, military construction and defense activities and the department of energy to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year and for other purposes shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote: