c-span has unfiltered coverage of congress, the supreme court and public policy events. watch c-span programming online or listen on our free radio apps and be part of the conversation through c-span's daily program or our social media feed, c-span created by america's cable television company is a public service and brought to you today by your television provider. >> the senate is about to continue work on a bill that sets defense program for fiscal year 2021. a final vote on legislation affected by the end of this week before the july 4th research -- recess. now live to the senate for.

the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will open the senate with prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. mighty god, you are the strength of our lives, our safe fortress and shelter from life's storms. during this season of a raging tempest, speak your peace to our senators.

remind them that you continue to rule your universe through the unfolding of your prevailing providence and that your truth continues to march on in our nation and world. lord, prosper the works of the hands of our legislators, as they strive to glorify you with their thoughts, words, and actions. may faith replace fear, truth defeat falsehood, justice triumph over greed, and love prevail over hate.

we pray in your great 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. mr. grassley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask one minute for morning business.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: if reports are true that russia has been paying a bounty to the taliban to kill american soldiers, this is a very serious escalation of what russia expert edward lutkus dubbed, quote-unquote, the new cold war. mr. lutkus said that back in 2008. this sort of movement by russia, if it's proven -- there's a lot of belief russia is possible to do it -- it demands a strong response, and i don't mean diplomat inning response. -- deepic response. we've had previous things happen like this with russia. president bush tried to play nice with russia, then talking

tough when putin showed his true nature. president obama repeated this cycle. you know the word resetting relations. and despite that, russia occupied parts of our ally georgia and then switching gears, president obama did when russia invaded ukraine. putin is the k.g.b. guy who only understands strength. his popularity has taken a hit lately. kind of makes him very unpredictable. that may be why he's doing these things. even though russia has a reputation for doing them all the time. so we need to increase deterrence on nato's eastern flank. we should also hit back where it hurts. dictators like putin fear their

own people and, of course, for good reason. putin and his cronies have enriched themselves at the expense of ordinary russians. this week russia is having a referendum on waiving term limits, allowing putin to stay in power when this term is up. of course, russia will probably be conducting a rigged election. we should point out to the american people -- no, i'm sorry. we should point out to the russian people that they don't have to accept that. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i'd planned to speak first today about the ndaa. i had planned to discuss our work to ensure american service members can protect our nation and secure peace for the united states. but, unfortunately, the inex-politiccable -- inexplicable pa sift of leaders in our country has denied some peace and security right here at home. here we are in congress equipping our armed forces to protect the homeland. yet some local leaders have apparently felt it would be too politically incorrect to do their jobs and keep the peace. it's now been 22 days since radical demonstrators seized control of several blocks of downtown seattle. drove the police out of a

precinct and declared an autonomous zone which the mob itself would rule. it's worth pausing to consider how the mainstream media and leading democrats might have reacted if tea party protesters in 2009 had forcibly created a breakaway zone within a major city and barred the actual authorities from entering. somehow i'm skeptical the press would have pent over backwards to find -- would have bent over back reasonable doubtwards to find a -- would have bent over backwards. but we're talking about the american left in 2020. so instead what we get is a major newspaper lavishing praise -- prays -- on the, quote, liberated streets and a mayor and local government that have expressly declined to restore order and the equal protection

of the law. the mob has gotten its way. there have been numerous shootings in this lawless place. about a week ago a 19-year-old was shot and killed. last weekend yet another shooting, a 16-year-old is dead and a 14-year-old was injured. some reports suggest these two boys were shot by self-appointed security squad. these are miscellaneous citizens who roam the area with guns drawn after the occupiers drove the real police out. we're talking about seattle, washington, in the united states of america? madam president, the rule of law cannot fade in and out with fashions of the radical left. no leader should have sacrificed small businesses to riots and mobs a few weeks back. and no leader should let threats or left-wing gar gone persuade

them to tolerate occupations for weeks on end. i understand that just this morning seattle's mayor finally released an order to bring an end to this. so let's hope the new law finally -- finally -- prevails. on a different mate, the senate has turned to what will be the 60th an awful national defense act. it appears we've done so not a moment too soon. after months much threat, president xi finally delivered the punch in the mouth to the city of hong kong that they're calling a national security law. as i and others have warned for months, it tramples all over the freedoms and autonomy that have set hong kong apart. today marks the 23rd verse of hong kong's handover from the

united kingdom. normally this would have occasioned peaceful demonstrations. instead the new law has brought scores of arrests and boasts from local authorities about how many peaceful demonstrators they have jailed. new harsh penalties for hong kongers for new and vague offenses, new authorities for beijing to intervene at will. it happens to directly -- it appears to directly violate china's international promises and effectively end the one-country, two-systems policy. i've discussed at some length the specific consequences china will face for this. i'll continue discussing them in the future. this same week we received new confirmation that china's ethnic cleansing campaign against the uighur people includes forced abortions, forced birth control, and state-enforced sterilizations on a systematic scale. all this in addition to the

international provocations that china has only stepped up during this pandemic, which they helped worsen, against taiwan, against india, against the philippines, and so on. and china is not our only adversary occupying the spotlight. recent days have intensified questions about russia's role in the middle east. i've longed that russia will exploit any american passivity or refree trade this region, whether this syria or afghanistan. the question is whether we will stand our ground and exert our influence and allow iran, russia, and terrorists to literally push us out of the region. sadly, as the senate turns to the ndaa and the need to continue making swift progress on national defense strategy is staring us plain in the face. fortunately, chairman inhofe, ranking member reed and our colleagues on the armed services

committee have put forward a bill that raises to the challenge. the bill establishes the pacific deterrence initiative. it lays out a clear vision for making our pacific joint force more adaptable and our commitments to regional partners more feasible. smarter basing for forward-deployed men's, more supplies and equipment. it will encourage more streamlined technologies so that from weapons platforms to information security, america and its allies in china's backyard stand ready to counter aggression altogether. this ndaa authorizes full funding for the european strategic initiative, doubling down on our nato alliances. the bill will further limit the information putin gets pertaining to missile defense. bring more focus on tracking russian support for terrorist proxies and despotic regimes and

renew our commitment to have u.s. forces support, train, and keep watch alongside our partners. but it isn't enough to check our adversaries today. we also needed to outrun them toward the future. so this legislation will also support critical research to help us secure a decisive edge in everything from hypersonic weapons to 5g communications. threats to our nation are pulling american service members in all directions. fortunately, this ndaa has all of their backs. now, madam president, on one final matter, while the senate maintains the serious approach that builds bipartisan successes like the cares act and the great american outdoors act, the house democrats appear addicted to pointless political theater. well, our absentee neighbors have finally arrived back in the capitol. and they've wasteed no time resuming old tricks. the speaker has chosen to spend

the house's time this week on a maulty thousand-page cousin of the green new deal, masquerading as a highway bill. you don't have to take my word for t the chair of the house transportation and infrastructure committee said some of the he said, quote, this is the application of the principles of the green new deal. and he's right because here are the four pillars of the green new deal. number one, spend an insane amount of money. number two, check every far-left ideological box. number three, propose bad policies. and, four, forget about making law from the very beginning so you can legislate in a world of pure fantasy. pure fantasy. well, check, check, check, check. this so-called infrastructure bill would siphon billions in funding from actual

infrastructure to follow into climate change policies. by putting a huge thumb on the scale for mass transit and electric vehicles, it revives the old obama-biden focus on disproportionately helping major metro areas leaving less for the rest of our country. no wonder it came out of committee in the house on a purely partisan vote. no wonder the white house has declared it not a serious proposal and made clear this will never become law. so naturally this nonsense is not going anywhere in the senate. it will just join the list of absurd house proposals that were only drawn up to show fealty to the radical left. here in the senate, we'll keep at the serious work of our nation. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved.

morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 4049, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 483, 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. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: are we in a forum? -- quorum? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. schumer: i've come to the floor to talk about an idea to extend and enhance economic conditions as long as conditions in the country are warrant it and i'll speak about that legislation more in a moment. but first two other issues. first, last night president trump threatened to veto the national defense authorization act, the bill on the floor this week, because it contains a provision to rename military bases named after confederate generals. let me make a prediction. first, that provision will not

change in this bill as it moves through the house and senate. second, let me predict, president trump will not veto a bill that contains pay raises for our troops and crucial support for our mill. -- for our military. this is typical bluster from president trump. the ndaa will pass and we will scrub from our military bases the names of men who fought for the confederacy and took up arms against our country. now on a second matter before i get to the main topic of this morning, all week democrats have been trying to force action on the senate floor to make progress on crucial issues related to the covid-19 pandemic. as senate republicans continue to mindlessly delay the next round of covid relief, we have tried day after day to jolt the senate into action, and last night we made notable progress. in the late hours of last

evening we were able to pass a month-long extension of the payment protection program whose loan authority expired at midnight with over $130 billion left in the program. we had to force our republican colleagues to act on this very simple and noncontroversial extension, a date change, to help small businesses across america, particularly underserved businesses, minority-owned businesses who had trouble accessing the p.p.p. program in its early days. throughout the day we heard, to our surprise, that our republican friends might block the legislation, but when the time came senator cardin's consent request was agreed to. it's certainly something to celebrate, but i would have hoped that our two parties could have worked this out before last night, as a small part of much broader legislation to address the many challenges posed by covid-19. rather than a consent request

forcing republicans to act. but senate republicans unfortunately seemed dead set on delaying almost any action on covid until after july, after they have had time, in the words of leader mcconnell, to assess the conditions in the country. the obstruction is deeply regrettable and impossible, impossible to explain. we have other deadlines before us, not just the p.p.p. today is july 1, with the first of the month comes a new rent payment for millions of american families who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. senate democrats, led by ranking member sherrod brown, are going to ask the senate to pass rental assistance and an extension to the moratorium on evictions. will senate republicans agree to our request or leave millions of renters out in the cold? i would say to my republican friends, let the extension of the p.p.p. program be a metaphor. democrats are going to keep pressing for senate action on

covid-related issues. let the republican response be quick and generous, not stingy and halting. senate republicans are going to have to respond one way or the other and either support urgent and necessary pieces of legislation or explain to their constituents why they're blocking. it would be far better to pass these measures earlier rather than later and be more generous rather than stingyer. now on the main topic this morning, again, where i'm proud to join senator wyden and senator bennet. as the number of covid-19 indicateses accelerates -- cases accelerates across much of the country, the economic toll of this pandemic continues to fall hard on american families and american workers. over 33 million americans, at least one-fifth of the entire workforce is applied for unemployment assistance.

democrats asked for an extra $600 a week which according to a study by columbia university permitted as many as 12 million americans, 12 million americans from slipping into poverty. by the end of this month those emergency unemployment benefits will expire, but unfortunately the high levels of unemployment will not. without an extension of enhanced benefits, americans struggling without work will have their legs cut out from under them at the worst possible time, in the middle of a raging pandemic. so i am joining with my colleague, ranking member wyden of the senate finance committee, to introduce a bill that will both, a bill that will serve as both a short term to this solution and a bold long-term strategy to keep americans working, american workers and the american economy afloat. and i thank senator wyden for his help and senator bennet for his help. together we have put together a

very strong piece of legislation. our bill, the american, the schumer-wyden american workforce rescue act would do something very simple. it would tie the extension of enhanced noit -- unemployment benefits to economic data, not arbitrary political deadlines. as long as unemployment remains over 11% enhanced benefits will stay in place. when unemployment goes down, the benefits will phase out appropriately. this automatic stabilization for unemployment benefits would be one of the first programs of its kind. but at its core, this policy is basic common sense. when americans truly need the benefits, the benefits will be there. and when the economy gets better, those enhanced benefits will be reduced. the impetus for this legislation is common sense. we should not allow the economic security of the american people to depend on the political whims

of the legislatures, federal or state. when we passed the cares act over two months ago, democrats knew the extra $600 in weekly unemployment assistance was only a temporary salve for struggling americans. we had hoped that the economy would be able to bounce back and unemployment would quickly go down. clearly that is not the case today. experts are warning us that the economic drag from this crisis will take years, if not a full decade to fully abate. further action is very, very needed and very, very necessary. but for months republicans have doubled and tripled down on their strategy of delaying action on covid relief legislation. they have kept the american people needlessly wondering if the help they rely on will remain in place much longer. we need to take the next step and tie unemployment benefits to economic triggers that will ensure that so long as americans are hurting, a safety net will remain in place, whether it's

covid or any other economic disaster in the future that causes unemployment to rise. that is how you give the american people the kind of peace of mind they need, that they will not needlessly fall into poverty this year or next year or the year after. no doubt this is a new idea. it would be one of the first programs of its kind. but we need to take this bold step forward to guarantee the federal government effectively serve the american people in times of crisis. there is a long road ahead before the u.s. economy gets back on its feet. in many parts of the country states are reimposing restrictions on businesses, restaurants, and other places of employment, to halt the renewed spread of the disease. americans will continue to wonder when can i get back to work. so i'm proud to join my colleagues and champion this legislation to provide unemployment benefits for as long as americans need them, to

provide unemployment benefits for as long as americans need them. and before i yield, i want to thank my colleague, senator wyden, for championing this legislation as well. he's been the, a leading and fierce advocate for this policy in our caucus. and i'm both grateful and proud to stand with him this morning. and senator bennet who's always thoughtful and thinking on into the future, one of the first members to alert it this chamber and the country to the disparities in economic, in income and wealth distribution, has had vital input as well, and we thank him. this policy is smart, it is timely, and it is forward-thinking. so it is no surprise that my colleagues, senator wyden, is one of the authors, and senator bennet has had great input. i ask unanimous consent that senator wyden and then senator bennet be allowed to speak immediately after me for as much

time as they may consume. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: leader schumer, thank you very much, and it is a pleasure to be with you to advance the schumer-wyden legislative proposal today. and i'm very pleased that we're joined by senator bennet, a particularly valuable member of the senate finance committee who has worked on these issues for many, many years. as senator schumer outlined, we are talking about a fresh approach as we look to extending super charged unemployment benefits for as long as our economy suffers under the covid-19 pandemic. as the ranking democrat on the finance committee that produced the $600 extra benefit each week until july 31 and the breakthrough to cover for the

first time gig workers and the self-employed and part timers and others, i'm going to take just a few minutes to explain why this next step to create a dependable safety net in america is a no-brainer. we know tens of millions of americans are out of work due to covid-19. the pandemic is in fact getting worse. dr. tony fauci yesterday talked about the prospect of having 100,000 new confirmed cases per day nationwide. madam president and colleagues, we don't even want to imagine what the unemployment situation is going to look like with 100,000 new coronavirus cases every day. you cannot have a healthy economy in a country suffering

from mass death. i know the president got up in the rose garden and celebrated the last jobs report like it was the greatest news since the end of world war 2, but you've got to be living in a country called fantasy land to believe that this economic crisis is anywhere close to ending. tens of millions of americans today are out of work. in states with covid hot spots, there are reports that people who went back to work in the spring are getting laid off for a second time. the numbers showed that it disproportionately harms black and hispanic people suffering in this crisis, and the layoffs are hitting those americans especially hard, in industries that pay modest wages. this is a recipe for injustice and for long-term economic hardship. our proposal is desperately needed because the country is not on a straight line to

recovery. now, democrats demanded the supercharged unemployment benefits because workers are not to blame for the crisis. doctors don't yet have a cure for covid-19, but the congress does have a way to address the financial strain of joblessness. that's why democrats demanded full wage replacement during the negotiations on unemployment benefits in the cares act. secretary scalia told those of us negotiating this issue that state u.i. systems, unemployment systems were too outdated to make it work any time soon. these are federal benefits, but under employment law, the states administer the program and get the benefits out. so we knew that there would be some challenges, and we proposed a simple solution. $600 extra per week across the board, adding up to full wage replacement for the typical

worker. and it was clear that was the only possibility of getting the supercharged benefits out to millions of workers quickly. now, it hadn't been easy. in a number of tights, the unemployment systems are run on bronze-age technology. in some other cases -- and leader schumer and i are inquiring into these right now -- it's a case of republican sabotage. that's why for the long term, it's certainly worth looking at a federal approach for administering unemployment benefits as a better strategy. but in today's economic conditions, dealing with the suffering we're seeing right now, the suffering that tony fauci talked yesterday that could hammer this country from sea to shining sea, if you're dealing with today's conditions and you want to get full wage benefits out on time, there is

no throorn to $600 per week across the board. furthermore, there is no good argument for cutting or eliminateing benefits for as long as the pandemic is raging and getting worse. now, on one hand, we have heard secretary scalia and other republicans repeat the old line, and they have been talking against unemployment for ages, and they always say the problem is lazy workers dependent on government can drag the economy down by collecting unemployment instead of going back to their jobs. on the other hand, republicans have repeatedly said the economy is roaring back to full employment. so there is no need for extending benefits any longer. madam president, you can't have it both ways. you can't have it both ways. that these workers are dragging the economy down and then talk about how everything is booming. regardless of how these arguments conflict, neither one holds any water to begin with,

and i believe it's an insult to american workers to say they would rather sit at home than work hard and earn their pay. our workers have a strong work ethic. how can anybody believe in the greatness of america that the president is always talking about and think so little of its workers? second, it's time to quit pretending to know whether the crisis is anywhere near over. the number of people filing new unemployment claims every week even now is two and three times higher than the worst single week of the great recession. senators have a right to stake out whatever ground they want on this issue, but i'll tell you, madam president, the american people overwhelmingly support extending supercharged unemployment benefits. you see it in poll -- polls done by centrist organizations, but more importantly, you hear about it when you're home. americans don't bisect scalia's line about lazy workers or

dependence on the government. i can sure tell you based on the conversations i have had with oregonians, they don't want any handouts. they understand the country is facing a severe historic crisis of joblessness, and they want the congress to act you cannot have a healthy economy in a country suffering from mass death, particularly in the middle of a pandemic. it would be an act of sabotage, and i think unthinkable cruelty to slash these benefits and send all these jobless families into destitution. that's why senator schumer and i have outlined this proposal to extend the supercharged unemployment benefits in a manner that is tethered to economic conditions on the ground. we always hear our colleagues talk about policies and the need for policies that really mirror what's going on in the real-world economy, in the private sector. that's what this proposal does. this proposal says we're going

to tie the economic benefits -- we're going to tether them to economic conditions on the ground. i saw our colleague from south dakota, a member of the republican leadership, senator thune said, you know, maybe the benefits ought to taper down when unemployment goes down. and i looked at that and i said well, democrats share that view. that's what our trigger proposal is all about. you have got to have them in a way that is going to make sure people can pay rent and groceries, which is what the $600 benefit made possible and will in the future, but when unemployment tapered down, then under our proposal, we make an accommodation for that. what we're going to do is common sense, provides certainty and predictability for american workers, but it also sends a message across the country that there is a policy that's going to make a more dependable safety

net, but it will also do what the head of the federal reserve just said, which is to make sure that family budgets, which are the ones that drive the american economy, are ones where people can pay the rent and buy groceries. bottom line, we have a moral obligation to not turn our back on those who are suffering. and i'm telling you, the senate is going to go home here in a day or so for several weeks, and senators are going to hear loud and clear that workers are concerned about whether after july 31 they're going to be able to pay rent, they're going to be able to buy groceries. i think they are worried -- and i hear it from all parts of my community -- about a tsunami of evictions and people simply not being able to feed our families. so i think those that disagree with the schumer-wyden proposal, they ought to come out here and say what are they going to offer those people that are hurting,

because influential, objective thinkers about the economy like jerome powell are saying that these kinds of benefits are absolutely key to making sure that the family budget which drives the american economy is going to be positioned to pay the rent and buy groceries, and i gather from leader schumer's remarks, i guess i can yield to our good friend from colorado and a particularly valuable member of the finance committee who has been working on safety net issues for many, many years. mr. bennet: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado is recognized. mr. bennet: thank you, madam president. i, too, would like to thank leader schumer and the ranking member of the finance committee, senator wyden for bringing this commonsense proposal to the floor. i have long advocated for the idea that we should tie benefits to the conditions of the economy

rather than to just simply politically convenient dates or inconvenient dates that don't matter, don't make any sense to working people in our country. and create idiotic fights here that don't help the people that we have been sent here in theory at least to serve. and right now, we are facing an unprecedented set of conditions in our country. we are being wracked by an economic downturn that's different from any that we have ever seen before and at the same time we're facing this incredible health crisis. one in six workers in this country are unemployed. one in six workers is unemployed today. but for once, thankfully, we are able to come together in a bipartisan way in march and pass the cares act which is benefiting these workers in two ways. first, we expanded unemployment benefits to cover almost

10 million self-employed workers. gig workers and others that are usually left behind in circumstances like this. that's something we should have changed a long time ago, but we finally got it done and we did it in a bipartisan way. second, we added, as leader schumer and senator wyden said, we added $600 per week to the normal unemployment benefit for all 30 million workers claiming benefits. that $600 weekly benefit has prevented a level of severe hardship that is almost impossible to describe. it's paid rent and prevented evictions. it's kept food on the table so families don't go hungry. it's kept the lights on and paid for the internet so our kids can learn. the bottom line is that the $600 weekly payment has been a central lifeline to families in the middle of the worst economic

crisis since the great depression. in colorado alone, over 450,000 workers are receiving the expanded benefit, and it's put a total of nearly $2.5 billion into our economy. nationwide, the numbers are staggering. one analysis showed these additional payments helped keep 12 million americans out of poverty and keep poverty rates from falling. without these payments, wages across the entire economy would have declined by 10% from february to may. we completely offset that decline. and do you know what that means? is that working people actually were able to continue to buy things in this economy. the leader might be interested to know i was talking to an economist recently, raj cheti from hazard who has -- from harvard who has done a study

including from other places in new york, and that study shows the biggest loss in consumer spending has come from the wealthiest areas in new york, and that's resulted in the biggest unemployment. in other words, if you have a small business in a wealthy area of new york, your small business is cratering because wealthy people aren't spending money on services because they are scared of getting covid. in other parts of new york, there has been much less destabilization, and that's because of these unemployment benefits. directly because of these unemployment benefits. because where the unemployment rate has gone up, people's incomes have been able to be stabilized. and i don't think first to say that not everything we have done with the cares act has been perfect. as we know, the cares act left out too many families, too many states have been too slow to get these benefits out, and that's the result of delivering benefits through 50 different systems that have been underfunded and undermined for

50 years. but once they have gotten out, these benefits have made a transformational difference. everyone in the senate should be proud of that. i come out here all the time to complain how terrible this place is. i was amazed to hear the majority leader this morning talk about the, quote, incompetence of local officials. there is no body in the world more incompetent than this senate. but here is a moment when we can actually be proud of something that we did here. even president trump has been running campaign ads touting these benefits. but even as he is running these ads -- which as senator wyden said he's running because this unemployment is popular -- he's threatening to take away the benefit by allowing the $600 to sunset at the end of july. that would be a profound

mistake, madam president. right now, even with these benefits in place, even with these enhanced benefits in place, 17% of american families can't cover three months of basic expenses. without the extra benefit, that number wouldn't be 17%. it would be 43%, almost half of the families in our country. today, nearly 10% of americans can't make the rent. without the extra benefit, that number would double or triple. if we let these benefits expire, we're going to throw tens of millions of americans who rely on them into a profound financial crisis. we'll be cutting their monthly income by $2,400. if we go over that cliff and completely cut off benefits, not only would it cut incomes by 50% or 60% or 70%, for literally

millions of americans who can't go back to work, it would cause extreme damage to the economy. nothing has kept our economy afloat more than this investment in unemployment. allowing these benefits to expire would remove $50 million a month from the economy, reducing g.d.p. by 2.5% in the second half of this year. that would lead to two million jobs lost and a significant increase in the unemployment rate. so we'd be right back here again. we shouldn't be doing that. at this point, in this very fragile economy, when covid-19 is spreading in far too many places. some of the industries are facing extreme crises. in my state as well as across the country. hotels are projected to suffer revenue losses of almost 60% in 2020. between march and may 2020,

total restaurant sales were down $90 billion from expected levels. 90% of independent concert venues are at risk of permanently closing down in a few months without additional relief. we can't tell people working in all these industries there's no way -- where there's no way they are even close to -- where the businesses are not even close to being 100% in the near future that they're just on their own. that's why we need to pass an expanded employment benefit that continues after july. and we should tie that expanded benefit to the unemployment rate, as senator schumer and senator wyden have designed, so it steps the benefit level down as the economy heals. that makes sense. nobody here wants to be in a place where the unemployment benefit is disincentivizing people from working. that's why they step it down. but it needs to stay in place until this economy heals. it's the wrong approach for the country and for working people

in this country to send them over the cliff right now. and tale be the wrong approach to send people over the cliff in six months or even in two years in the up employment rate is still elevated. we need to extend expanded unemployment benefits, and we need to do it until the economy recoveries. it's the right thing for workers and families who are wondering how they're going to get through one of the most difficult challenges of their lives. i.t. the right thing to do -- it's the right thing to do for the broader economy, to come back as strongly as it can, as we work towards a vaccine. so i want to thank my colleagues again for their tremendous leadership. i hope that we'll be able to work on this in a bipartisan way, as we did before, and that we'll be able to pass these extensions for the american people. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the democratic whip is recognized. mr. durbin: thank you, madam president. madam president, i come to the

floor this morning on an issue that is topical. it is an issue that within the last several days has become a national centerpiece of conversation. it reflects a decision by the supreme court just a few days ago that rejected president trump's efforts to repeal deportation protections for dreamers, young immigrants who came to the united states as children. in an opinion by chief justice john roberts, the court held that the presidents decision to rescind daca, the deferred action for childhood arrivals program was, quote, arbitrary and capricious. it was ten years ago that i joined with republican senator dick lugar of indiana on a bipartisan basis to call on president obama, begging him to use his legal authority to protect dreamers from

deportation. president obama responded by creating the deferred action for childhood arrivals program known as daca. it provides temporary, two years at a time, protection from deportation for dreamers if they register with the government, pay a substantial fee, and pass criminal and national security background checks. more than 800,000 dreamers came forward and received daca protection. daca unleashed the full potential of these dreamers who are contributing to our nation in a variety of ways -- as soldiers, as teachers, as nurses, as small business owners. more than 200,000 daca recipients are currently -- currently -- quote, essential critical infrastructure workers, end of quote. that's not my term. it's the way president trump's department of homeland security

describes the work of these daca recipients now. 200,000 of them, essential critical infrastructure workers. and among those, 41,700 daca recipients in the health care industry. this includes doctors, intensive care nurses, paramedics and respiratory therapists. they are the health care heroes we salute, and at the same time they are the daca recipients this president loathes. on september 5, 2017, president trump repealed daca. hundreds of thousands of dreamers face losing their work permits and facing deportation to countries many of them barry remember -- barely remember, if they remember at all. thankfully, the supreme court stepped in and rejected the strategy by president trump.

and what was the president's reaction? to no surprise, the president responded by attacking the court and threatening to try to repeal daca even again in the closing months of his first term. congress must step in immediately. after that supreme court decision, president trump tweeted, quote, i've wanted to take care of daca recipients better than the do-nothing democrats, but for two years they refused to negotiate. well, here's the reality, mr. president. you've rejected numerous bipartisan proposals to deal with daca and the dreamers. may i be specific. february 15, 023018, the senate considered bipartisan legislation offered by republican senator mike rounds and independent senator angus king, a bipartisan measure.

the bill, which included a path to citizenship for dreamers, supported by a bipartisan majority of the senate. why did it fail to reach 60 votes? because president trump openly opposed it. that's why. he said i've got a better idea. on the same day that the senate voted the president's immigration proposal, we found his so-called better idea failed by a bipartisan supermajority of 39-60. on june 4, 2019, the house of representatives passed h.r. 6. june 4, 2019, more than a year ago, h.r. 6, the dream and promise act, is legislation that would give dreamers a path to citizenship and it passed the house with a strong bipartisan vote the dream and promise act has been pending in the senate for more than a year. i've come to the floor day after day and her the republican leader -- and heard the lean

leader, senator mcconnell, bemoaning the fact that we are so busy here in the senate and the house is not doing their work. the house has sent lots of legislation to the republican leader and he refuses bring it to this empty senate floor so that we can do our job. and one of those measures, sadly, is the dream and promise act. the bill which would solve at least part of the immigration challenge we now face in america. last week i sent a letter signed by all 47 democratic senators calling on senator mcconnell to immediately schedule a vote after the supreme court decision. as of today, the senator has not replied. over the years, i've decided that the only way to tell the story of the dreamers and the story of daca is to introduce them here in the senate. i've asked them to come forward

if they wish, to provide me with a photograph and let pee tell their -- and let me tell their stories. this is the 124th story that i'm going to tell. it is the story of 56 remarkable -- it is the story of a remarkable young woman named cynthia ramirez. cinthya ramirez came to the united states at the age of four. she grew up in nashville, tennessee. moving to the united states gave me the gift of education. i learned english by the first grade and that's when i learned that i loved schools and i loved learning. well, in high school, she was on the track team and a student counsel representative and a great student. she graduated it he top of her class with the highest honors. she went to lipscomb university,

a private christian college in nashville. she graduated with a nursing degree and today, thanks to daca, cinthya works as a cardiac nurse at vanderbilt, the largest hospital in nashville, tennessee. cinthya is on the front lines of the covid-19 pandemic. here's what she says about this experience. quote, i'm a very spiritual person. and i pray a lot. i remind myself that this is the job that i was meant to have. if the time comes for patients to die and they cannot have their families with them, we have to be there for them. cinthya's greatest fear? bringing the coronavirus home to her family when she comes home after her nursing shift at the hospital. here's what she says.

i take every precaution before entering the house. i take off my clothes, clean my phone, go straight to the shower. the rest is in the hands of god. i want to thank cinthya ramirez, a daca recipient, for her service. she is an immigrant, a health care hero. she is a daca health care hero. she is putting herself and her family at risk to save the lives of others. she also should not have to wake up every morning in fear that actions taken by the trump administration will lead to her being deported back to a country she can barely, if at all, remember. this is an example, a classic example, of this debate and what it's about. to think that we have in a year

not even taken up this issue that was sent to us by the house while it winds its way through our judicial process, all the way to the highest court in the land where the rules with was in favor -- where the ruling was in favor of cinthya and the daca recipients who have this protection, and in that year did we step forward in the united states senate, the so-called greatest deliberative body on earth, to even debate the bill that passed the house of representatives? no. no, there was no time for that. as you can see, we are so busy here on the floor of the united states senate. there's so much more that we could do here, and shouldn't we start with the highest priority -- protecting americans in the midst of this pandemic? this woman, cinthya a here ease -- ramirez, undocumented,

protected by daca, risks her life every single day because of this pandemic. can we risk ourselves politically for a minute in the senate and actually take up a measure that can have a direct impact on the lives of the 800,000 daca recipients and the thousands of others who could have applied for that protection during the months that we've debated this in court? sadly, we've been unable to do that. and it's all because of a decision being made by the president of the united states and by the republican majority leader. it's a decision which needs to be addressed directly. in a few moments, i am going to offer a unanimous consent request when it comes to moving this bill that was sent over by the house of representatives more than a year ago. i'm really going to call the bluff of this president who

says, why doesn't congress act? why don't you come up with a bipartisan proposal? well, mr. president, here's our chance. here's an opportunity. we have a bill that's been sitting here for a year that would address cinthya ramirez's future and the future of thousands of others and the question is whether or not the members on the other side of the aisle, the republican side of the aisle, will at least let us address this issue now, will give us an opportunity to bring before the united states senate a measure which is no surprise and nothing revolutionary and new. it is a measure that we've considered in various forms over the last 20 years. but it's a measure that would address this issue and do it in a thoughtful way. this is an opportunity which we should seize. wouldn't it be remarkable, maybe a headliner, if the senate

actually did something, if we actually took an issue of the day that affected real people, real lives in the middle of this coronavirus epidemic and actually decided that this young woman and thousands like her are worth the effort? i think america would be shocked that this united states senate responded that way. and don't tell me we have better things to do. i'm all for doing the military authorization bill. we can get that done, be back in two weeks and take this up immediately. we know the bill is here. we know that the bill is prepared and covers the areas that would protect this young lady and so many others and give them a future in the united states of america. at this point it is really up to us. now there may be an objection when i make this unanimous consent request.

listen carefully to the objection. it has nothing to do with resolving the issue before us. the issue of the future of this young woman and thousands of others just like her. but we're in a position at this moment where we have to act. i'm waiting the arrival of a republican member who i hope is on the way. so at this point i'm going to suspend, madam president, and yield the floor with the hopes that we can return to another colleague coming to the floor momentarily. so i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. schumer: the democratic leader is recognized. the presiding officer: the democratic leader is recognized. mr. schumer: are we in a quorum? sorry. i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. shoim i am h here to urge my --. mr. schumer: i am here to urge my colleagues on the republican side, follow last night's example and allow this simple, humane and good for our economy amendment to go forward. i want to salute senator durbin. there has been no voice of any elected official that i know who has add a stronger, longer, and more passionate defense of the daca kids, many of whom are now adults. and he has pricked the conscience of the nation so that now the daca kids and their families are really, by most americans respected and by many americans just loved. i'm one of those in the latter category.

i love these kids and their families. i've watched them on the front lines during the covid crisis in new york risk their lives, even though they're not allowed to be full americans, to help. and now we have an opportunity here to simply say stop harassing them. let them do their jobs. let them live their lives. let them be with their families here in america so that they can help us in our economy recover from covid, as they have been doing without looking over their shoulder and worrying about being deported or having one of their family members being deported every five minutes. it's such an important amendment. it's so good for the country. the idea that immigrants are bad for america, that daca kids are bad for america is a regressive, nativeivity and often -- nativist and often

bigoted idea some use for political purposes, but nothing, nothing, nothing could be further from the truth. so i urge my colleagues not to object to senator durbin's fine amendment to help america live up to its ideals and its dreams. that lady in the harbor in the city in which i live, give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses learning to be free, that's been part of the american fabric for centuries. this is a chance to bring us back to that wonderful fabric that has been so good for our country for those centuries. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: i want to thank my colleague and friend senator schumer. we've been fighting this battle for a long time, senator. eight of us came together to put together a comprehensive immigration reform bill which should have passed seven or eight years ago. 67, 68 votes on the floor of the united states senate. it was a bipartisan measure which was joined with senator

mccain to put together and bring to the floor. i thank you for your heartfelt comments. i'm going to speak a little longer and make the unanimous consent request. this measure that i'm asking for unanimous consent on, the american dream and promise act, was introduced by a representative, mr. allard in 2019. it would provide dreamers and individuals with deferred enforcement departure with protection from deportation and an opportunity to obtain permanent legal status in the united states if they meet certain requirements. it passed the house of representatives 237-187. seven republicans joined the 230 democrats who were present to support the legislation. protections in the american dream and promise act would allow nearly 700,000 daca

recipients as well as another 1.6 million eligible dreamers brought to the u.s. as children to stay in our country legally. the bill's protections would also allow over 300,000 temporary protected status holders and 3,600 individuals that i described earlier with the same opportunity. it would create a conditional permanent resident status valid for up to ten years that would protect dreamers, including daca, from deportation and allow them to work legally in the united states. cinthya ramirez could continue working as a nurse long after this pandemic is gone. to qualify for this the dreams would need to meet requirements. they must have come to the united states before the age of 18. she came at the age of four. and continuously lived here for at least four years. they must demonstrate that they have been admitted to an institution of higher education, earned a high school diploma or the equivalent or currently in the process of doing that.

she's a graduate of lipscomb university. they must pass security checks, demonstrate good character with no felonies, misdemeanor offenses or multiple misdemeanor convictions and register for selective service if applicable. she has already met all those standards by the examination she's been put through for daca. and of course pay their application fee. daca recipients and other daca-eligible dreamers who still meet the requirements needed to obtain daca would automatically qualify for conditional permanent resident status. when the president ended daca in 2017, we stopped accepting applications from those who were eligible. now these young people would have their chance if they meet the requirements and the test that is required of them. they must complete one of three tracks -- graduate from college

or university or complete at least two years of a bachelor or higher degree program in the u.s., complete least two years of honorable military service or work for a period totaling at least three years while having valid employment authorization, maintain continuous residence in the country, demonstrate an ability to read, write, and speak english, understand american history, principles and forms of government. it's a high standard but it's one that they're prepared to meet and they should meet to become part of america's future. how important are they? well, they're extremely important in every single state. we know that there's some 780,000 daca recipients across the united states. there are 109,000 of them in the state of texas. 109,000. the average age of arrival for them is seven. they came here as kids. their annual tax contributions are in the millions. i could read the numbers.

in the state of texas, there are 30,000 of these daca recipients who have been characterized by the trump administration as essential workers. 30,000 of them. 4,300 health care workers, daca health care workers in the state of texas. the state of texas, arizona, california, and florida and others are going through a resurgence of infection and death from this pandemic. these daca young people, many of them are on the front line fighting this disease, as c cinythia ramirez is in tennessee. the notion we want them to leave now, 4,300 leave texas now, health care workers, unimaginable. it makes no sense. it's time for us to do something. at a minimum, for goodness

sakes, in this empty chamber, can we come together and debate this issue? the president has challenged us to do it. let's do it, not be afraid of it. put it through an amendment process on the floor. i've lived through that before. it actually would resemble the united states senate, which many people remember from the history books, where people actually came to deliberate and vote on amendments. that's all we're asking for. bring this under unanimous consent to the floor. let's do it. the president has challenged us. i'm going to make a unanimous consent request. i see the senator from texas is on the floor here, and i want to make sure i get the right copy. here it is. i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar 112,h.r. 6, the american dream and promise act, further the bill be considered read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas is recognized.

mr. cruz: reserving the right to object. you know, someone watching this at home might think that congressional democrats, senate democrats want to actually enact amnesty for the so-called daca recipients. of course they could have done so earlier. president trump offered senate democrats a deal that would have granted permanent amnesty for all the daca recipients, and the democrats turned it down. they didn't want the deal. they hoped instead to have an issue in november. you know, we're right now at a time of crisis in our country. we've got a global pandemic and we have 44 million americans out of work. this is on the economic side, the greatest crisis our country has seen since the great

depression. and yet, what we're seeing in the senate is a continuation of something we've seen for several years, which is that today's democratic party doesn't value working men and women, american men and women. last week we saw a decision from the supreme court of the united states on amnesty. it was a particularly disgraceful opinion. unfortunately it was authored by chief justice roberts. it was joined by the four liberals. and it concerned president obama's illegal amnesty. dabbing when it was -- daca when it was issued was illegal and actually for years president obama admitted that. when activists asked him will you decree amnesty unilaterally, as an executive he told them over and over again i can't do that.

i'm bound by immigration laws. i am not a king. i am not an emperor. that's what president obama said repeatedly. but then as the election approached, i guess they reassessed and decided that being a king or emperor sounded pretty good, and so daca the day it was issued was directly contrary to law. federal immigration law says on the statute books that if you're here illegally, it's illegal for you to stay, to get work permits. and the obama administration i go noard federal immigration -- ignored federal immigration law and printed what were called work authorizations. my friend from illinois has a picture of a lovely young lady that he's spoken about. what he doesn't have a picture of is what happened after executive amnesty was granted for those who came illegally as kids. which is that the number of unaccompanied children skyrocketed. the state of texas, i've been

down to the border many, many times. i've visited with the border patrol many, many times. you know, you go online and you see cages with children in them. but many of the people online don't tell you it was the barack obama administration that built those cages. and it was executive amnesty that resulted in tens of thousands of little boys and little girls being sent alone with violent drug traffickers, with coyotes. far too many of those kids were physically assaulted, sexually assaulted. you are not helping children by incentivizing little boys and little girls being in the hands of traffickers. that's not humane. i have seen child after child after child abused by this system, and every time the democrats offer more amnesty, the predictable result is more

children are going to get physically assaulted, sexually assaulted. amnesty is wrong, and it's also the wrong priority. today's democratic party, their priority is on people here illegally and not on american workers, not on keeping american workers safe. what we should be doing in just a moment, i'm going to ask unanimous consent for this body to take up and pass kate's law. i'm the author of kate's law in the senate. kate's law is commonsense legislation named for kate steinland. a beautiful young woman in california who was murdered on a california pier by an illegal immigrant who had come into this country illegally over and over and over again. he had multiple violent criminal convictions over and over and over again, but our revolving door system kept letting him out.

and kate steinle died on that california pier. her father held his daughter in his arms, and her last words were, daddy, please help me. i've had the opportunity to visit with kate steinle's family. what happened to her was wrong. it shouldn't happen. and the reason it happens is because our broken system keeps letting go violent criminal illegally aliens -- illegal aliens. what does kate's law provide? commonsense legislation that says that aggravated felons, people with serious felony convictions who repeatedly enter the country illegally face a mandatory minimum prison sentence. in other words, we're not going to let them out and allow them to commit murders, rapes, and assaults, not going to let them

out to abuse and threaten children. kate's law is overwhelmingly bipartisan common sense. if you go into the great state of illinois and ask the voters of illinois does kate's law make sense, overwhelmingly, they say yes. that's true in every state in the country. by the way, it's true of voters who aren't just republicans. it's true of democrats, it's true of independents. it's true of everyone except the 47 elected democrats in this chamber and their colleagues in the house of representatives. because the reason kate's law is not the law is because every time i have tried to bring it up, the democrats have objected. if kate's law had been on the books, kate steinle would still be alive, because the violent criminal who kept coming in over and over and over again illegally would have been in jail instead of murdering that

young woman. amnesty is wrong. illegal executive amnesty is wrong. and we need to have as our first priority protecting the american workers and keeping the american people safe. i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. durbin: madam president. the presiding officer: the democratic whip is recognized. mr. durbin: madam president, it is my understanding that the senator from texas was going to offer a counterconsent. is that correct? mr. cruz: yes. mr. durbin: i think that was the moment to do it. mr. cruz: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of kate's law, which is at the desk. i 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? mr. durbin: madam president, reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the democratic whip is recognized. mr. durbin: madam president, listen carefully to what we just heard from the senator from texas. first he talked about amnesty. amnesty, as i understand it, is a blanket forgiveness for the commission of a crime. cinthya ramirez has daca, daca protection that i have described here for two years at a time, brought here from mexico at the age of 34, paid her fee, gone through her background check, and receives two-year protections to continue in this country. according to the senator from texas, that's amnesty for a crime, amnesty for a criminal. it's certainly not that. this young woman has been as open with our government as she could possibly be, and for it, she has received two years at a

time to build a life, and what a life she has built. undocumented, uncertain of her future, a person who is doomed by the trump administration policy, finishes her medical education in nursing school at lipscomb university, a christian college in nashville, works at one of the best hospitals in the whole region, saving people's lives who are facing covid-19, and in the eyes of the senator from texas, just another criminal looking for amnesty. really? i'm sorry, but that doesn't add up. it doesn't add up at all. to say that today, because we are seeking help on daca, democrats do not value american workers, another statement made by the senator from texas. i remind the senator that all of the people we are talking about from the daca program are currently in the united states, legally working because of daca.

it's not as if they are taking jobs away coming into this country and displacing. many of them i am sure are unemployed because of the economy, too. but they are here. she is doing work which most people would be afraid to do. to he can pose herself to the coronavirus every single day. you heard the routine she goes through when she comes home from work, taking off her clothing, rushing into a shower, cleaning off her cell phone before she faces her family. and this is a person who is a criminal? she is a criminal for what she does? cinthya ramirez, really? i don't understand that thinking. to call the decision last week and the week before before the supreme court is disgraceful is to say she should have no chance. she should be gone. what has she got to offer to the united states of america? to the state of tennessee, to our future? well, she has a lot to offer,

and most americans, even an overwhelming majority of republicans, get that part of it. now, the senator comes before us today with a consistent record on dreamers. every moment that he has been in the united states senate, whenever he has been given a chance, whenever to help the dreamers or to help daca, the junior senator from tennessee has voted no. time and time and time again. he's consistent. bless you for your consistency. today he's not even offering an alternative that would give this young lady a chance. no. no alternative to the dreamer process. instead, he offers his own bill which has nothing whatsoever to do with daca and the dreamers. the cruz bill would increase penalties for immigration offenses, but anyone who commits any of the offenses which have been described by the senator from texas is already ineligible under daca.

ineligible. daca requires applicants to clear criminal and national security background checks. cinthya ramirez has done that. to say she is even close to committing a crime is an outrage. let's be clear. the junior senator from texas is in the majority in the united states senate. if he was serious about advancing his bill, he could ask the chairman of the senate judiciary committee to hold a committee vote on the bill. the senator from texas serves on that committee. then he could ask the majority leader to schedule a floor vote. but he hasn't done that. this bill that he brings to the floor today, he has not even introduced as a bill in this session of congress. in this session of congress, with the republicans in the majority, the immigration subcommittee chaired by the other senator from texas has held one hearing. the senate judiciary committee has voted on one immigration

bill. there has not been a single vote on an immigration bill on the floor of the united states senate. clearly, the senator from texas has no intention of trying to advance this bill that he passionately defended on the floor. he's offering it today to try to muddy the waters. and somehow tie this wonderful young nurse in tennessee up with a horrible crime that was committed in california. she had nothing to do with it. there is nothing in her life that is even close to that crime. and to put that as the alternative to daca in the dream act is fundamentally and totally unfair. as long as i'm in this senate, i'm going to come to the floor of the senate to advocate for cinthya ramirez and all the dreamers. what an american tragedy it would be to deport this brave and talented young nurse who is saving lives in the midst of this pandemic. america is better than that. we must ensure that cinthya and

hundreds of thousands of others in our essential workforce are not forced to stop working when we need them now more than ever, and we must give them the chance they desire to become citizens of the united states. madam president, i object to the consent requested by the senator from texas. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. durbin: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: thank you. i would vitiate the quorum call.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: thank you for the recognition, mr. president. mr. president, covid-19 has taken a wrecking ball to our nation's health and economy. no corner of the united states has been spared. but, mr. president, communities of color are being hit the hardest. we here in congress must focus our work on helping these communities. we must take on the long long-standing systemic reasons that these communities entering this crisis are entering at a greater risk and we must enact real reform so that the "time," when the next pandemic o. economic downturn hits, it's not these same communities that once again bear the brunt of the disaster. today, mr. president, i want to focus our attention on american

indian and alaska native american communities, communities where infection and mortality rates are much higher than the overall u.s. population. communities that can't escape the economic hardships this pandemic has caused. we already knew that pandemics like this take an awful toll on native communities. this was true 100 years ago, during the 1918 flu pandemic when native americans died at four times the rate of the rest of the country. this was true a decade ago during the 2019 h1n1 outbreak when native americans died at the same high rates. it's unforgivable that the administration was not better prepared. the underlying reasons that native peoples, whether living on tribal lands, urban settings or elsewhere, are at risk are

multifaceted. but the they are all rooted in historic, systemic injustice. first and foremost, many native americans do not have ready access to quality health care. despite the federal government's trust and treaty obligations to provide it. trust and treaty obligations taken on by this government in exchange for millions of acres of land and countless lives lost. on the large rural reservations in remote alaska native villages, the latest health care facility might be hours away, and when you get there -- if you can get there -- there aren't often doctors enough or hospitals or nurses enough. this is compounded by the chronic underfunding of the yen health service, which many of us have fought for years to correct. and while we've made progress,

the i.h.s. budget still only covers an estimated 16% of the need. and as a result of centuries of discriminatory land, agricultural, and environmental policies, native communities also face the highest rates of underlying conditions, like diabetes, heart and lung disease, asthma, and obesity that result in worse covid-19 outcomes. battles over water rights and underinvestment in tribal infrastructure have compounded the problems. we all know that washing our hands is a critical measure to prevent the spread of covid-19. yet tribal communities are 3.7 times more likely to lack complete indoor plumbing than other u.s. households. on the navajo makers which is confronting one of the worst coronavirus outbreaks in the

nation, 18% of households don't have complete indoor plumbing. and so, again, it's no surprise that researchers have already found that covid-19 cases are more likely to occur in tribal communities with a higher proportion of homes lacking indoor plumbing. we also know that social distancing is key to preventing spread of the virus. yet almost one in six native households are overcrowded, making social distancing not just difficult but physically impossible for many families. all these institutional barriers create and combine to create a perfect storm. these barriers aren't the result of chance. they're the result of policy. it is these institutional barriers that we must acknowledge and finally address so that this pandemic is not one

more example of the united states' failure to meet our obligations. this time must be different. we must meet our responsibilities and help build a more just and equitable society. throughout this crisis, native communities have fought back. they are resilient. they have fought back hard. for example, in my home state of new mexico, and in arizona and utah, the navajo nation has imposed strict curfews to spread -- to prevent the spread. they've ramped up testing despite the complete lack of testing supplies in the beginning. and they have now, as of today, tested about 25% of their population compared to 10% nationally. but tribal responses to the pandemic have been repeatedly hamstrung by this administration and congressional inaction. as vice chair of the senate indian affairs committee, i've

fought hard for funding targeted for tribes. when the administration offered nothing for tribes, we secured over $10 billion in the cares act. when the administration fumbled distribution of tribal funding, missing the statutory deadline for distribution by almost two months, congress and the tribes pushed back. because tribes are in crisis, days matter. it took a lawsuit and a federal court order for tribes to get their share of the $8 billion set aside for them under the cares act. and today the senate indian affairs committee will hold an oversight hearing on implementation of federal programs to support tribal covid-19 prevention, containment, and response efforts. tribal witnesses will testify that policies and practices at fema, the c.d.c., hrsa and a

number of other federal agencies have made tribal access to federal covid-19 resources much harder. whether it's denying tribes access to coronavirus surveillance data, creating a confusing byzantine democracy for requesting emergency medical supplies, or delaying access to grant funds, this administration continually makes the decisions that disadvantage native communities, decisions that threaten native lives and prolong this country's legacy of systemic injustice. the administration must do better. and congress must do much more. each day we fail to act to advance policies to address the disparities faced by indian country is a day we fail to uphold our oath of office.

the republican senate majority has delayed far too long. up fections are on the rise, the -- infections are on the rise. the u.s. has surpassed every other nation in the spread and death and destruction of this virus. 20 million americans are out of work, the highest unemployment level since the great depression. state, local, and tribal governments and health care systems is across the nation are shuttering essential services and furloughing essential workers. none of this should come as news to the republican majority. inaction in the face of this disaster is unconscionable. this body must get down to business that we're here and we're elected to do. it's long past time we pass another covid relief package. and our next package must include targeted funding and programs for native communities and tribes.

we must infuse i.h.s. with additional funding for tribal health care and ensure it has parity in accessing federal programs. we must provide tribal governments with the resources they need to keep their communities up and running safely by providing $20 billion in additional targeted funding within the treasury's coronavirus relief fund. the senate should pass bills i've introduced that have already been adopted by the house of representatives in its heroes package, which was passed over six weeks ago. we must make our strategic stockpile available to tribes. tribes should be able to access p.p.e., ventilators, and other necessary medical equipment just as states can. we must make sure that tribes have equal access to the centers for disease control and their resources to prepare for public

health emergencies like this pandemic. 70% of native americans live in urban settings. yet the medicaid reimbursement rate for urban indian health facilities is lower than the federal reimbursement rate at other i.h.s. facilities. we need to balance the scales and help the 43 urban indian health facilities across the nation expand their services. and, as so much of our lives move to the internet, we must take sure that native american schools, health care facilities, and government services are not left on the wrong side of the digital divide. all tribes must have access to high-speed broadband. mr. president, this public health and economic crisis has hit us all hard. but we shouldn't deny that some communities have been hit harder. we need to send immediate relief

to those communities that have been so severely hurt, including native communities. and we need to set our sights on genuinely taking on the systemic and institutional barriers these communities have faced for far too long. we can, we should, we must do better. mr. president, i yield the floor. and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. smith: i ask for consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. smith: thank you. mr. president, i rise teared with my colleague, the senator from new mexico, tom udall, to call for you are jept action by congress to respond to the needs of tribal nations and urban indigenous communities during the covid-19 pandemic. we have not done enough. we have not lived up to our shared trust and treaty obligations. and in this moment, we are called upon to respond to the historic injustice and systems of oppression and institutional violence that are harming communities of color and indigenous people. over the last month, people in minnesota and across our country have focused our attention on

the deep systemic inequities that black and brown and indigenous people face. this justice is not new. it is as old as the colonization of our country. but colleagues, this is a unique moment. this public health crisis presents us with an opportunity to show that we are serious about repairing the damage done by our broken promises to sovereign tribal nations and urban indigenous communities. some have said that covid-19 is the great equalizer, but we know that covid hits hardest. those without a safe place to call home. those struggling with low wages and poverty and lack of health care. and black, brown, and indigenous people living with the trauma of having their identity and their very humanity called into question. even before this virus spread. the impact of covid on native communities has been devastating. native people have been hospitalized for covid at five times the rate of white people.

in mid may, the navajo nation reached a higher per capita infection rate than any other hot spot in the country. so why is it that covid is hitting tribal nations so hard? well, despite repeated calls from tribal leaders and urban indigenous leaders, over the past few decades, the federal government has stood by and allowed the budget for indian health services to dwindle. we have neglected indian housing programs. and we have ignored growing health inequities. the federal institutions dedicated to serving indian country are not broken. unfortunately, these institutions have never been adequate to live up to our trust and treaty responsibilities. they represent a broken promise. the federal government's failure has life-and-death consequences for native people, for their health and for their well-being, and for their opportunity to provide for their families. think of this striking statistic. unemployment in the indigenous

community in the twin cities is at a terrible 47%. higher than any other group in our state. within tribal nations, the economic impact of the coronavirus is equally devastating. early this spring, tribal governments in minnesota and all around the country made the difficult decision to voluntarily close tribal enterprises in order to protect public health. as a result, they lost significant government revenue and also experienced massive unemployment, not only for their members but for members from the surrounding communities. and this lost revenue meant the tribal governments were forced to scale back essential services like nutrition assistance for elders, public safety, and education programming. so in the cares act, congress agreed to $8 billion in emergency relief to help tribes respond to covid. even after congressional action, though, tribal governments have

had to continue fighting to get their fair share of those dollars. the trump administration argue that some of this relief should go to for-profit alaska native corporations. and then it took the treasury department 40 days to distribute just the first 60% of the funds to tribes. and not until two weeks ago, almost three months after passage of the cares act, did tribal governments receive the rest. and to be clear, these funds cannot be used to replace lost revenue. so, mr. president, we have so much work to do to fulfill our commitment to indigenous people and the simple proposition that native families should have equal access to health care and housing and opportunity as white americans. when i speak to tribal leaders in my state about this cycle of historic underinvestment and inequity and broken promises, i share their frustration. i don't know how anybody couldn't. indigenous leaders in minnesota know that a lack of housing on tribal lands leads to

overcrowding, which increases the risk of contracting covid, and tribes have asked over and over again for sufficient funding for housing programs, and they shouldn't have to ask anymore. indigenous leaders know a lack of access to health care and substance abuse disorder treatment leads to chronic health conditions like diabetes and heart disease and asthma which worsen covid symptoms. tribes have asked over and over again for sufficient funding to address these health inequities, and they shouldn't have to ask anymore. indigenous leaders know that a lack of access to credit and capital prevents urban indigenous households and folks living on tribal land from building wealth like their white neighbors who can more easily therefore weather the storm of unemployment. native communities have asked over and over again to enforce fair lending laws and to ensure access to credit for minority borrowers, and they shouldn't have to ask anymore. long before covid, these inequities have harmed

indigenous people. our inaction has placed tribal nations in the untenable position of having to ask for what they are already owed. so let's take this extraordinary moment, a terrible moment, but a moment of real opportunity, a moment when our country is called to respond to this terrible pandemic and to reckon with systemic inhe inequities tt has hurt native people and even sought to erase them, and let's turn this moment to good. we have an opportunity to not only address the public health and economic crisis of covid, but also to live up to our obligation to tribes by providing them with the tools to build resiliency in their communities. so first, we need to provide rapid, flexible support to tribal governments so that they can respond to covid-19 and provide essential services to tribal members at the same time. and second, let's live up to our promises and fully fund the indian health service and the hasda housing programs. and when we do this, we will be

addressing the shortage of physical and behavioral health care for young adults and parents and elders. and we will make it easier for families to find affordable, safe places to live, and to build wealth and homeownership. we can do this. it is within our power. we can end this cycle of underinvestment and institutional violence, and this is the best moment in a generation thousand accomplish this. so i'm committed to lifting up the voices of indigenous leaders in minnesota and around this country, and i follow their lead, and i will continue to advocate for these changes because they are so long overdue. and i urge my members -- my colleagues in the united states senate to join me in this work. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mrs. loeffler: 160 years ago abraham lincoln reminded us that all times all american citizens are brothers of a common country and should dwell together in the bonds of fraternal feeling. that bond, our commitment domg together, to move our country forward are embraced of the challenges our country faces because we know we will come out of these moments strong, has made the united states exceptional. as we approach the fourth of july holiday, i want to take a moment to recognize what makes america who she is today and the values that have allowed us to

carry on the great american experiment for 244 years. the united states, this shining city on a hill, the land of opportunity, the land of the free and the home of the brave, the red, white, and blue, our country is exceptional precisely because we have never settled for anything less. it was the very reason that it was americans who first discovered electricity, built the airplane, put a man on the moon, developed chemotherapy, and that other countries look to for leadership during troubled times. it's why we prevailed in two world wars, defeated the axis of evil and have since maintained the greatest armed forces in the world. it's why the ideal of the american dream exists. importantly, it's the american

people, past and present, who have shaped our american character. the 56 men who put their lives on the line to draft and sign the declaration of independence in 1776, the volunteer army of farmers, shopkeepers who defeated the british and today have grown into the best fighting force the world has ever seen. 55 americans came together to write the united states constitution, guaranteeing the freedoms for americans to worship, to speak out, to bear arms, to peaceably assemble. in the years that followed america fulfilled its promise to form a more perfect union while acknowledging it is not perfect but always striving to do better. we ended the injustice of slavery 100 years ago this year gave women the right to vote, overcame the great depression,

fought for equal rights of all americans during the civil rights movement, and persevered after september 11. today we still have those heroes and what make america what she is today. we see these works in our midst every day. our service men and women who protect us across the globe and to keep the enemy away from our shores, the dedicated men and women of law enforcement who work tirelessly to keep our communities and our families safe, our teachers who provide the gift of education to our youth, our doctors and nurses who save lives every day and have bravely taken on the challenge of covid-19. american exceptionalism started with our humble beginnings, and it has endured throughout the challenges our country faces. it is tempting to focus on the divisions in america today, but

we have much more in common that unites us. this fourth of july is a reminder of the blessings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that all americans deserve. president reagan once said freedom is a fragile thing and it is never more than a generation away from extinction. it is not ours by inheritance. it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation. for it only comes once to a people. i agree, and i hope the fourth of july we can stand together proud that we will strive to make this country a more perfect union. i yield my time.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: i rise to address a glaring inequality in the law, one that leaves our service members with fewer protections from discrimination than civilians. on june 15, the supreme court

issued a momentous decision, welcomed by members of both parties, extending civil rights employment protections to lgbtq individuals in workplaces across america. that decision, however, does not apply to service members. that means our service members who often come from communities that have for generations bravely sacrificed for the united states currently enjoy fewer statutory protections than their civilian counterparts. think about what that says about our country. the law treats the people willing to risk their lives to defend our freedoms and second-class citizens. it's unconscionable and it's un-american. in this moment of reckoning on civil rights, we must ensure

those rights extend to all of our military service members. to push for desegregation of our troops, for jenner integration into combat, and for the repeal of don't ask, don't tell, we're all met with similar arguments about how increased opportunity for the group in question would hamper readiness, unit cohetion, or otherwise weaken the military. those arguments have been proven wrong every single time. it is, in fact, the lack of protections for these groups that hamper readiness. without protections, an able platoon sergeant can be stigmatized and driven from the military because he's transgender. his years of experience and the immense investments the military has made in him can be erased with the stroke of a pen. our military has only grown

stronger as it better represents our country. but right now, in the year 2020, people who are willing to make extraordinary sacrifices for our freedoms are being told no simply because of who they are. we must do better, and we can. we can make sure the national defense authorization act includes discrimination protections for all service members. my amendment with senator collins would codify in the law that service members of all races, religions, and sexes are protected from discrimination. mr. president, i would affirm that americans of every race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and national origin have the right to join and serve and sacrifice

in our military. i was proud to have senator john mccain join me in leading similar legislation to protect transgender troops three years ago. the late senator said, quote, any member of the military who meets the medical and readiness standards should be allowed to serve, including those who are transgender. i hope this will be the year that we deliver the results he wanted for our troops. placing language, safeguarding this right into the ndaa can help us begin to overcome an unfortunate legacy of creating artificial, blatantly unfair barriers to service, but underrepresented groups. it's a legacy that continues to

this day with the trump administration's ban on transgender service members. that discriminatory ban is not only an insult to members of the transgender community who have served our country, it's an insult to every lgbtq person who has given their life to protect it. arguments against open transgender service have no basis in experience or in science. transgender individuals served openly in the military for more than two and a half years without any readiness or cohesion issues. i know because i asked all four service chiefs and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, and they all confirmed it. chairman of the joint chiefs of staff mark milley, who was then

chief of staff of the army, told me that he had received, quote, precisely zero reports of issue of cohesion, discipline, or morale caused by transgender individuals in the service. the american medical association, the american psychiatric association, and other experts agree there is no medically valid reason to exclude transgender individuals from military service. anyone who can meet the military standards should be allowed to serve and serve in an environment free from discrimination. it is that simple. our armed services should reflect the best of what this country has to offer in their values and in their ranks. we cannot allow for laws that unnecessarily limit their ability to recruit and retain

the best person for the job. i ask my colleagues to support our troops with more than lip service. i ask my colleagues to extend to them protection from discrimination based on race, religion, or sex. these are people who are willing to fight for our country. these are people who are willing to die for our country. this body and our country must be willing to fight for them. my amendment will do exactly that. i ask all of you to support its inclusion in this year's ndaa.

mrs. gillibrand: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: now i rise again to address another issue. i rise because according to the pentagon's most recent by annua, almost 21,000 service members were sexually assaulted in the year 2018. that was a 38% increase from the year before. i rise because the current climate of retaliation in our armed services and the lack of justice provided by the chain of command meant nearly three

quarters of those assaults went unreported, and less than 10% of cases considered for command action went to trial. less than 10%. i rise because i stood in this very chamber in 2013 and shared essentially the same statistics. mr. president, year after year, the leaders of our armed services come to congress and commit to making things better. they commit to us in hearing after hearing we'll get this right. yet, year after year, thousands of service members are raped and sexually assaulted, and their assailants are not held accountable. in many of those cases, the assailant is someone in the survivor's chain of command, the

same chain of command who will decide the case, picking judge, jury, prosecutor, defense counsel. all decided by a commander in that chain of command. there is no other judicial system in america that would ever allow this to happen. this system is not delivering justice. the chain of command is not delivering justice. these decisions, these fundamental civil rights decisions need to be made somewhere else. they need to be made by trained, impartial military professionals , prosecutors, lawyers, people who are trained to make this very hard decision.

we are asking survivors to come forward in an environment where they know that less than -- that there is less than a 10% chance that the chain of command will try their assailants for crimes and, worse, that there is only a two in three chance that they themselves, they themselves will face retaliation. despite repeated efforts to stamp out the scourge of retaliation against military sexual assault survivors, the most recent pentagon survey found that 64% of these sphriefers have experienced some form of retaliation for reporting the crime. this figure is statistically unchanged from 2016.

it's unacceptable. so i ask you, mr. president, who is this system designed for? i think so often about a marine veteran who told me, quote, when i reported the assault, my command responded with retaliation, ostracism, intimidation, and isolation. the humiliation of the retaliation was worse than the assault because it was sanctioned by those same leaders i once would have risked my life for. the climate of retaliation comes from the top.

it comes from the chain of command. they should not be deciding these cases. they do not have the background or the impartiality necessary to deliver justice. this system is broken, and it is failing our service members. this congress has passed and spent hundreds of millions of dollars on incremental reforms since 2013. during that time, an estimated 137,000 service members have been assaulted. let me say that again. during that time, 137,000

service members have been sexually assaulted. what are we doing here? can we not hold the u.s. military accountable? can we not do our jobs? can we not stand up for the men and women who risk their lives for us every day? incremental changes that leaves the power in the hands of the chain of command is not enough. we have the proof and the evidence. we've got this, ma'am. we've got this. they say it every year. they don't have it, and they haven't had it for the last seven years. we have been focused on this very issue. it does not do enough to protect our service members from sexual assaults in the ranks or to punish perpetrators who commit these violent crimes. just for a minute, mr. president, imagine this is your daughter or your son.

imagine just for a minute that your children decide to go into the military. do you think they will be protected? my bill, the military justice improvement act, is being offered as an amendment to the ndaa. this amendment will professionalize, it will professionalize how military prosecutors, how the military prosecutes serious crimes like sexual assault and it will remove the systemic fear that survivors have to report these crimes. survivors don't report these crimes because they fear the retaliation against them.

this bipartisan and commonsense reform leaves the majority of uniquely military crimes as well as crimes punishable by less than one year of confinement within the chain of command. it would only move one decision, literally one decision that only 3% of commanders actually have the right to make. and that decision will be made by a trained military prosecut prosecutor. these prosecutors are military jags. they're military jags that are required to be licensed attorneys in good standing with their state bar associations and are subject to professional rules of ethics. those are commonsense standards, but they are not the standards that commanders have. commanders aren't typically

lawyers. they're not typically criminal lawyers. they're not trained in how to make this fundamental decision about whether a crime has been committed so why wouldn't you let military police investigate the crime just as they do today? they take that investigation and instead of putting it on the commander's general counsel's desk, they'll put it on a military prosecutor's desk. the military prosecutor gets to make a decision. yes or no, i can prosecute or i can't. then that file goes right back to the commander. so when the commander wants to do nonjudicial punishment, he gets to do it. every time a prosecutor says there's no case here, he gets to have the same authority he has today. and under today's standards, today's standards, only 10% of these cases go to trial. that would mean the commanders only don't get to make that one decision, that one decision that 3% of them get to make 10% of the time because 90% of the time

it comes right back to the commander to do whatever nonjudicial punishment he or she thinks is appropriate. so this is a very small but important change because when you make this change, the survivor sees the decision isn't being made within her chain of command. she sees or he sees that the decision is being made by somebody trained to make the decision, someone who's actually a prosecutor. he or she will then believe it is worth reporting the crime. so many of these crimes don't even get reported. and sadly the percentage that are being reported, it's going up, the percentage of those who report confidentially. it doesn't show that there's any faith in the system if people will only report if they don't

name their perpetrator. this reform is nothing new. this reform has been done all across the world by our allies. our allies in the united kingdom, canada, israel, germany, norway, us a trillion ya have -- australia have all removed reporting and prosecution of violent sex crimes out of the chain of command. leaders in those militaries have reported that these changes have not diminished their ability in any way. it has not diminished their commander's ability to maintain discipline, to train their troops, and to do what they are there for. congress owes our service members a debt of gratitude that can never be fully repaid. these brave men and women who are experienced the unimaginable

are counting on us this year to finally, to finally take real action. until we do, we continue to fail in our responsibility to protect them. madam president, this is something we have worked on together over seven years. this is something that on a bipartisan basis this chamber has worked on for seven years. we've been denied a vote on this over the last five years, denied a vote on this for the last five years. the military has fought tooth and nail to not put in these fundamental reforms. they ask us over and over, madam president, trust us. we got this. trust us. we got this. they don't have it. they haven't had it. and they don't focus on it. if you just look at the report from this year alone, we are up

to 20,000, over 20,000 sexual assaults in the last year. the percentage of cases that are being reported confidentially is going up. the percentage of cases that are being reported openly are going down. the percentage of cases that are going to trial is going down. the percentage of cases ending in conviction is going down. so under no measurable today has the military succeeded in this mission, under none, under absolutely none. they say they got this. they don't have it. never have. and if we don't do our job this year, they never will. this is not something new. this is something other countries who are allies have done. it professionalizes the military. it gives hope to survivors. it creates permission for them to report these crimes.

if more crimes are reported, more prosecutions will be completed. more cases will end in conviction. send a message. convict perpetrators. protect survivors. honor the sacrifice and legacy of every man and woman who serves in the military today who will give their life for this country. that is our responsibility, madam president. i urge everyone in this chamber stand with our troops, stand with the men andwomen who sacrifice -- and women who sacrifice everything and do the right thing. it's our job. we are supposed to provide oversight and accountability over the u.s. military. it is the senate's job. and every year we don't address this fundamental scourge is another year we fail. i'm tired of this chamber failing our service members. i'm tired of our commanders and our military failing our service

members. they owe, we owe everything to them. i yield the floor. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. collins: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: madam president, i ask that proceedings under the call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: thank you, madam president. madam president, last night the senate approved legislation to

extend the paycheck protection program better known as p.p.p. through august 8. while we continue bipartisan negotiations on a bill to provide additional assistance to our small businesses that have been especially hard hit by covid-19 mitigation measures. i very much hope that the house of representatives will act quickly to extend this important life line for our small employers as new p.p.p. loans cannot be issued until the bill that passed the senate last night is enacted and signed into law, even though approximately $130 billion remains available for the program. let me again commend my partners

in this endeavor, senators marco rubio, ben cardin, and jeanne shaheen for their continued work on this vital program. back in march, the four of us formed a small business task force. we looked at ways that we could help our small employers and their employees survive this pandemic. we put forth a bold plan, the paycheck protection program, to help small employers and their employees. our concept, madam president, was straightforward. provide forgivable loans to small employers to help them maintain that vital connection with their employees so that both could rebound and thrive once the pandemic passes. in some cases that meant that a

small business could retain an employee that otherwise would have been laid off. in others have meant that the small business could recall workers that had already been laid off and in yet other cases, it allowed employers to continue to send paychecks to employees that have been furloughed so that we could keep that link between employers and their employees so that when the reopening occurred, they could be reunited quickly and the business get up and running much more rapidly. madam president, the response to this program has been pheno ten- phenomenal. since its launch in early april, it has provided $518 billion in

forgivable loans to 4.8 million small employers across the nation. according to an ongoing u.s. census survey, nearly three out of every four small business responsible dents reported that they had received assistance under the p.p.p. program. in maine nearly 27,000 small businesses have received forgivable loans totaling more than 2.2 -- $2.2 billion. madam president, just to give you an idea of how much of a stimulus that is, that's equal to almost half of the entire state budget. that works out to an average loan size of $83,400 which translates into a small business

with approximately seven employees. all told, this program is helping to sustain nearly 200,000 jobs in the state of maine. as treasury secretary steve mnuchin testified last month, quote, the paycheck protection program is supporting the employment of approximately 50 million workers and more than 75% of small business payroll in all 50 states. this is an extraordinary achievement, end quote. it is, indeed, madam president. it has made such a difference to our small employers. it has kept our small businesses afloat, prevented them from giving up and shuttering their doors forever, and provided

paychecks to their employees. now, madam president, when we first drafted this program in early march, we did not know how long government-ordered closures would last. in fact, most of them had not even gone into effect at the time that we drafted the law. we also did not know how severe the impacts of these government-ordered closures would be. we did not know how long the pandemic would last. how i wish that we could announce today that covid-19 had been concurred, that america's small businesses were flourishing once again, and that the millions of jobs that they provide had been fully restored. but, unfortunately, that is not the case.

we have a long road ahead of us. according to a survey released last week by nfib, an organization dedicated to providing a voice for america's small businesses, half of its members anticipate needing additional financial support in the next 12 months. madam president, i fear that if congress fails to act, despite our good work to date, millions of our small businesses will be put at risk and millions of jobs will be lost. a case study of how the pandemic has threatened the viability of small businesses can be found in maine's tourism sector. tourism is one of our state's

largest economic sectors. it supports 110,000 jobs. that's one out of every six jobs in our state. in 2018, total tourism expenditures exceeded $6.2 billion. that's $7 million per day. in late march, there was the expectation that the 2020 tourism season would certainly be lower than the norm but active enough for the tourism businesses to survive. but, madam president, as the 4th of july draws closer, near-empty hotels, inns, b&b's, restaurants portend a long-lasting as doesster. as many of our state's seasonal

businesses rely on the busy summer and fall season to pay their major bills for the year, including their mortgage and property taxes, not to mention their all-important employees. just two weeks ago, a maine inn keeper in york county told me that her inn would normally have a 94% occupancy rate at this point in the summer. madam president, she currently has an occupancy rate of 6%. as one observer put it, the word vacationland that appears on you are a license plates in maine might well be replaced with vacancyland. i have heard from so many hotel owners throughout maine and

their stories all have a familiar theme -- reservations made months ago for july and august are being canceled and cancellations for the fall are also starting to come in. in addition to putting hotel staff at risk of losing their jobs or having their hours cut drastically or not being hired in the first place, the vendors that supply these establishments are losing sales, local retailers and restaurants are losing summer customers, planned improvements and expansions are being postponed, causing harm for local trades people. i talked to a restaurant owner who operates a wonderful restaurant in portland, and right now she has to depend on

outside seating and lives in fear of a bad storm, where people aren't going to be able to eat outside. only slowly is maine allowing in-restaurant eating to resume in the most populous parts of our state. and all of us understand that we have to put the health of people first, but these restaurant owners are getting desperate, and they are trying very hard to comply with all the c.d.c. regulations. and there's no doubt that similar disruptions are occurring across the country, and that's why it's so important that we reach bipartisan agreement to allow those small businesses that have been especially hard-hit by the

pandemic to receive an additional forgivable loan. as we continue our bipartisan negotiations on such a plan, i've come to the floor to outline some of my own priorities for a second paycheck protection program loan. first, i do believe that we will achieve bipartisan agreement to allow the hardest-hit small business employers -- those that have seen their revenues decline by 50% or more in any quarter this year compared to the same quarter last year -- to receive an additional p.p.p. loan. this is absolutely essential to the ability of these businesses to survive, as the fight against covid-19 continues. second, because we must stretch the $130 billion that remains in the p.p.p. funds as far as we

possibly can, i support generally limiting eligibility to entities that have 300 rather than 500 or fewer employees, with a special provision for seasonal employers. third, i believe that we need to expand forgivable p.p.p. expenses in some commonsense ways. for example, we should allow forgiveness for supplier costs and investments in facilitate modifications and personal protective equipment that employers are buying to protect their employees and their customers, such as plexiglass shields, patio installations for outdoor dining, masks, gloves, that kind of equipment. it's especially important to

restaurants facing dining restrictions and those struggling to get the high-quality food supply that they need. we should also clarify that employer-provided group health benefits are included in forgivable payroll costs. fourth, we should extend the p.p.p. to small 501-c-6 organizations that are not lobby organizations. i'm talking about local chambers of commerce, economic development associations, and boards of trade which are doing a great job but are struggling to survive themselves. fifth, we should clarify in statute that forgivable loan funds can be spent through december 31 and allow borrowers to apply for loan forgiveness at the time of their choosing, after eight weeks from loan origination.

feithally, to ensure -- finally, to ensure transparency in the pt. p.p. loan program, we should require the small business administration to comply with data and information requests from the government accountability office or federal inspectors general within 15 days. madam president, there are many other idead that the four of us who are members of the small business task force are taking a look at. but today i just wanted to outline for my colleagues some ideas that i'm particularly interested in including in this bill. as the shutdowns have grown longer, it has become clear that millions of small employers need additional help if they are to keep their heads above water and survive. it also has been clear that these employers, many of them, must make substantial investments to modify their

operations, to protect their employees and customers, to mitigate the spread of the covid virus. most of all, we need to always keep in mind that we are talking about employees. it is the small businesses of our country that employ the majority of the people who are working. we're close to reaching a bipartisan agreement, and i know we're going to be working very hard over the recess to do so, and i also know that for small businesses that are struggling, such an agreement cannot come soon enough. again, i want to thank my colleagues, senator marco rubio, senator ben cardin, senator jeanne shaheen, for their dedication and good faith efforts to reach an agreement, and i yield the floor.

thank you, madam president. mr. leahy: independent? the presiding officer: officer the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: madam president, yesterday i came before the chamber. again i made the case for why congress needs to begin negotiations on another covid-19 emergency supplemental bill. and do it now. the needs are real. they're immediate. in fact, when the house passed the heroes act, we should have begun those negotiations the first week after they passed it. we didn't. we should have begun the second week after they passed it. we didn't. we should have the third week after they passed it. we didn't. and the forum and the fifth and

the sixth. -- and the fourth and the fifth and the sixth. now every day i talk with vermonters, sometimes hundreds at a time in statewide conference calls, and i hear their urgent needs, from small businesses to families to schools to hospitals to federal employees. and so today, madam president, i want to talk about just one of those urgent needs -- funding for the united states citizenship and immigration services, uscis. they play an important role in our nation's immigration system. they're processing requests for immigration benefits, american citizenship, and they screen asylum seekers. the agency is staffed by more

than 19,000 dedicated men and women across the country, including roughly 1,700 in my home state of vermont. now, last friday furlough notices were sent out to 13,350 of the 19,000 uscis employees, and they're effective next month on august 3. that's just four weeks from now. in vermont, 1,111 men and women received this notice. that's over 65% of the uscis workforce in vermont. now, these are men and women who day after day do important work for the nation. they have continued to do that work every day, even during the covid-19 pandemic.

they've been told even though they have been doing the work loyally and effectively, after august 3, a month from now, they can no longer do their job. they'll no longer receive a paycheck. nationwide these are 13,350 new and urgent reasons why the senate must act on our nation's real and immediate needs and the senate majority must make that possible now. we've lost six weeks since the house acted on this. it's time the senate acts. i've been ringing the alarm bells for more than a month on this issue. we know that due to declining revenue, immigration-related application fees come into uscis, the agency is facing a budget shortfall of $1.2 billion. and the furloughed notices sent

out last week are a result of the shortfall. uscis is simply saying they can't pay employees with revenues they do not have. but i remind everybody the shortfall is not entirely due to covid-19. the agency has not lived within its budget for the last three years of this administration. and frankly, the trump administration's mismanagement and extreme immigration policies have only worsened the situation. as part of the president's efforts to erase our identity as a nation of immigrants, he has not just tried to shut our nation's doors to asylum seekers and refugees, he's attempted to restrict almost all immigration to this country. he's created obstacles for immigrant workers, created a wealth test for immigrants, even

exploited the current public health emergency to impose additional immigration restrictions. they have nothing to do with public health. and because uscis has not been able to issue visas or process other immigration benefits as they normally do as a result of president trump's antiimmigrant policies, revenue of course has fallen. but no matter the cost, this budget shortfall is real. we have to address it. furloughs would not only disrupt the processing of immigration benefits and american citizenship and other critical services provided by uscis, but it's going to cause unnecessary hardships on thousands of federal employees and federal contractors. it's going to come at a time when our nation is already

dealing with record job losses. the loss of these valuable jobs will also cause hardship to the communities across the nation where these federal workers live and work. these are communities already struggling with the pandemic. and we're dealing with people that have skills that have been built up over years of experience. so let's craft a fair and responsible solution to this problem. that would require emergency appropriations and accompanying legislation to ensure transparency and accountability. time is of the essence. i know as vice chairman of the appropriations committee, we've got agreement on the vast majority of the possible appropriations bills.

there's been a concern by the republican majority not to bring them up because they do not want something on covid. well, every senator go home and talk to their people in their state. they'll hear as i do every single day in my calls with vermonters there is a need to do something regarding covid. now, there's been numerous calls from myself and democratic leadership in the senate and despite those calls, the white house and the republican majority have refused to move forward on a fourth covid-19 emergency appropriations bill where we could address this and other critical issues caused by the coronavirus pandemic. we should not wait any longer. in fact, we must not wait any

longer. madam president, i call on majority leader mcconnell to begin bipartisan negotiations on a covid-19 relief bill now so we can solve this problem before furloughs are necessary. the senate is about to recess for two weeks but that doesn't mean our work stops. with millions of people working from home due to coronavirus, including in the u.s. senate, we have shown we can do our job from wherever we're located. i know on the major covid bill, my staff and i worked seven days a week, sometimes very late into the night, and we're all in separate locations. but we got it done. and we've got an appropriations bill through here that had almost all republicans and democrats voting for it because people work together.

we work together. and we passed legislation this country needed. we've shown it can be done so we can and should begin bipartisan, bicameral negotiations. do it during the next two weeks so that when the senate is back in session, we have legislation to consider and debate. we can enact a bill into law expeditiously if there are -- there are amendments people want or things they want to change, vote them up or vote them down. we should be willing to stand here and vote. and then we can enact a bill into law and do it expeditiously. the american people deserve no less. the dedicated men and women at uscis deserve no less.

but i'd say the men and women of every single one of our states deserve no less. there's a hundred of us here. we've shown we can work together. we've done it before. we've done it on appropriations bills. we've sat here, voted for or against amendments, and then done what's best for the country. let's do it. let's not be afraid to vote. madam president, i see my distinguished friend from texas on the floor so i will yield the floor. mr. cornyn: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president, i thank my friend from vermont for his courtesy. madam president, yesterday texas reported almost 7,000 new coronavirus cases setting a new single-day record.

as cases have climbed in recent weeks, it's become clear that we need to take what we've learned about this virus and adjust our strategy. in the beginning we were still learning about this novel virus and how it's transmitted while also trying to maximize scarce resources. i think the best analogy i can think of, we were trying to -- we were trying to design and build an airplane while we were flying it. because of that only individuals with symptoms or who'd been in contact with a person who had tested positive could be tested themselves. about you we know a lot has changed in the last few months. we've learned that individuals can have the virus, even if they haven't showing symptoms -- they aren't showing symptoms. recent studies in north carolina and new york have shown somewhere between 12% and 20% of people could have the covid-19

antibodies. in other words, they've had the virus and they've recorded but they didn't even know they were sick in the first place. but the problem is they can still spread it to others. and as our knowledge about the coronavirus is increased, so are testing capacities. but i think it's important to take stock of where we are and see how we need to adjust further to again what we have learned by hard experience. on sunday i traveled to dallas, texas, with vice president mike pence for a briefing on the coronavirus response efforts. we were joined by two of those members, dr. debra birx and h.u.d. secretary dr. ben carson. on the flight down i was able to spend some time talking with dr. birx about testing strategies and the ways we can more effectively identify positive cases and stop the spread, especially among

asymptomatic individuals who have no incentive, no motivation to request a test in the first place. if i'm feeling well, why would i go ask for a coronavirus test unless i'm just curious. that's the conundrum. dr. birx talked about the concept of pool testing which is one of the most efficient ways to test large numbers of people using the least amount of time and resources. let's say, for example, a number of employees at a meatpacking plant are tested simultaneously. rather than running each sample individually to see if any of the employees had the virus, you pool the sample together and run it as a group. if the pool sample comes back negative, you know that each individual within that pool is negative. and if it comes back positive, each sample is run individually to identify positive cases. but this is a way to magnify the

number of testing cases we can do by maybe as much as a factor of ten. this pool testing model makes it much easier to conduct repeated tests for individuals in a single setting, such as workplaces, schools, or nursing homes. this is exactly the kind of strategy we are going to need as we contemplate sending our children back to school. dr. birx was recently quoted as saying if you look around the globe the way people are doing a million tests or ten million tests, they're doing pooling. so as we're seeing spikes in texas and a number of other states across the country, it's clear we need to adapt to everything we've learned and embrace a new and different strategy. we need more efficient and effective ways to test broad swaths of people so we can identify positive cases as soon as possible. now, we know this virus is

particularly deadly if you're over 80 years old or if you have underlying health problems. for the rest of us, honestly, if you get symptoms, you're probably going to recover. sadly, some will have to be hospitalized but actually the level of fatalities we've seen from the covid virus infection have remained remarkably low because our health care providers have discovered new treatments and new ways to save lives. a data scientist and associate professor at cornell university named peter frasier has said about pool testing, he said if you don't test people without symptoms and you focus only on symptomatic people, then you miss the epidemic and continued spreading. we need to constantly reevaluate and adapt our strategy to ensure that we're identifying cases as

soon as possible to stop the spread and to protect the most vulnerable among us. i know the administration and the task force are working around the clock on this, but to be frank, we need to up our game. and i hope we will focus on developing a comprehensive testing strategy based on what we have learned from this hard experience to combat the rising cases and community spread we're seeing in places like texas and elsewhere. madam president, this week the senate is fulfilling one of our most basic responsibilities, and that is to support our common defense. passing a strong, strategic, and bipartisan national defense authorization bill is something we've done for the last 60 years. it's how this body has ensured

that generations of service members would be paid, that they'd have the equipment and training that they need as well as the weapons, the planes, the ships to bring them home safely. it's how we've taken stock of the evolving threat landscape and made adjustments to ensure our military remains the very best in the world. it is i believe peace through strength. we know that our adversaries are constantly watching us to see whether we are hesitant or pulling back from our world leadership or maybe we're not investing like they are in modern weapon systems that can defeat our defenses. well, we know for all the technologies and innovation that have made our lives simpler and more efficient, that these changes in technology have made safeguarding our national

security that much more challenging. and we're seeing new technologies on the battlefield and the race to develop next generation weapons such as hyper sonic missiles has allowed our competitors to get a few steps ahead of us. so the bottom line is unless we continue our investment and our determination to remain number one, we're going to be losing ground against our adversaries. we no longer enjoy the across-the-board strategic edge that we used to have, and it's time for us to take bold action to reverse the tide before it's too late. and that's what i believe we can achieve with this year's national defense authorization bill. i appreciate chairman inhofe and the members of the senate armed services committee that operates almost entirely on a bipartisan basis. it really is a great tradition and one we don't want to break.

by passing a defense authorization bill each year. well, madam president, i have some additional remarks which i will be asked -- i will ask be made part of the record. i see chairman inhofe, but i'd ask my remarks as written be put in one place in the record so as to be unbroken. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: and i yield the floor. mr. inhofe: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: madam president, first of all, i make a comment in reaction to our good friend from texas. you know, what you say is true, and the american people are not aware, and i don't say this critically of the previous administration, but during the obama administration his top priority was not really defense. he had his own agenda, and consequently we suffered at that

time. in the last five years that would have been from 2010 to 2015, he reduced the funding of our military by 25%. now what people don't realize is that during that same time frame russia increased theirs by 34%. china increased their funding of their military by 83%. now that put us in the situation we have to do what we're doing and that's why the last bills have been very important. we're still working on the national defense authorization act. i consider that to be the most important bill of the year. i know my colleagues agree with me that this is very significant and this is something that we know is going to -- it will eventually pass. this will be the 60th consecutive year. our military is the best in the world. this week, with this bill we're

going to make sure it stays that way. the goal of having a strong military is to make sure that we don't have to use it, and to send a signal to our enemies that they can't win against us. this message we need to send today, tomorrow, and forever. and that's what this national defense strategy tells us. i don't have the national defense strablg -- strategy book here, but we've been adhering to that. that was a strategy put together a few years ago by 12 democrats, 12 republicans, all experts in the field, and we've been using that as our pattern ever since that took place. so we want to make sure that we have enough ships and planes and everything in place. china and russia have caught up in some areas. i think it's important, the senator from texas said this.

things like hypersonic weapons, hypersonic weapons, we're talking about offense and defensive weapons. we're talking about something that is the state-of-the-art, and they actually are ahead of us right now. with this bill we're going to get caught up, and our superiority rests on us staig ahead of our -- staying ahead of our competition, and we've ceded that advantage during the last administration and we're going to correct that. i see the minority leader here, and i want to propose a unanimous consent request. i ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the democratic leader, the following amendments be made pending en bloc and the senate vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed

without intervening or debate. one, the paul amendment 2011. secondly, the sanders amendment 1790. and third, the cornyn-schumer-cotton amendment 2244. and i ask further that the following amendments be called up en bloc and the senate vote on adoption of the amendments en bloc with no intervening action. and i hesitate to do this. it will take me a minute to actually name all of the amendments, because it's important that our members are watching and are aware of where they stand in line here. so part of the unanimous consent request that i'm making at this time would say that the following amendments be called up en bloc and the senate vote on adoption of the amendments en bloc with no intervening action or debate. moran 1694.

hyde-smith 1881. romney 1883. portman 1891. kennedy 1987. romney 2018. sullivan 2391. johnson 2077. wicker 2178. fischer 2231. risch 2238. gardner 2241. portman 2243. inhofe-reed 2248. peters 1753. warner 1803. coons 1808. warner 1907. tester 1968. bennet 1977. smith 2058. cortez masto 2186. king 2215.

merkley 2251. cantwell 2255. cantwell 2256. hirono 2269. menendez 2270. and peters 2275. the presiding officer: is there objection. mr. schumer: reserving the right to be 0. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: thank you. i know the committee is working hard. i know that the senator from oklahoma and the senator from rhode island are working hard together in a very good way. i know they have been trying to work up an agreement on three amendments to come, as well as a managers' package. but there are certain amendments that our side feels should be debated, and in a moment i'll ask the chairman to modify his request to include reasonable numbers of amendments that we believe should have roll call votes. none of these are gotcha amendments. none of these are extraneous,

not dealing with the impeachments of the president. every one of them is related to the ndaa bill and there is sincere feeling on our side these amendments should be debated and voted on. this is not an attempt to obstruct or block. this is an attempt to come together to make this work. we need bipartisan agreement. all of them as i said are related to the ndaa bill. the modification i'm asking for also includes the two republican amendments, one from senator cornyn and one from senator paul. so i appreciate the chairman's desire to start voting on these amendments, but i hope he'd modify his request so that several more members of the senate from both sides of the aisle can amend the bill as well, and we could move forward. so let me ask this question of my friend, the chairman. would the senator modify his request to include the following amendments to be called up and

voted on in relation to, sanders 1788, in lieu of sanders 1790, the 10% cut to the pentagon. tester on agent orange. shaheen on the pfas study. gillibrand 1755 on transgender policy. manchin 2361 on nnsa. menendez 2396 on the bounty act. van hollen-rubio on the 1845 on the deter act. and schatz-murkowski 2252 on the section 2330 program. i'd ask the senator to modify his request to add those and then members on our side who have serious concerns could have their amendments considered. mr. inhofe: first of all, let me respond by saying that this has been a long process. it's one that has involved the leadership on both sides.

we're attempting to do that. and i think if you look at the list that i read off, you will see a lot of democrats, a lot of republicans there. and for that reason, i think we have an adequate number that several of us have agreed on, so i would object to modification of my amendment. the presiding officer: objection to the modification is heard. is there objection to the original request? mr. schumer: reserving the right to object, i hope we can continue these discussions in a productive and fruitful way, but at this point i must object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. inhofe: i yield the floor.

mr. kaine: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: might i inquire if we're in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. kaine: madam president, i rise to speak about the disturbing reporting regarding russian efforts to harm americans in afghanistan through payments to the taliban and the

haqqani network. this is deadly serious, and we congress and the american public must get answers to a number of questions. when did the u.s. first receive information suggesting that russia was providing financial support to taliban or h.q.n. operatives to kill american troops? what investigation has been done by d.o.d. or intel agencies to corroborate the charge? what investigations have been done into the deaths of u.s. troops in afghanistan during the relevant time period to determine whether they might be linked to russian payments? was information about this allegation contained in the president's daily briefing in late february? if so, why is the president and white house maintaining so

strongly that the president was never briefed? when did the u.s. first brief allies specifically the united kingdom, on the intelligence concerning the russian bounty allegations? what events led to an administrative interagency meeting on this topic in late march? what options were explored at that meeting? were any undertaken? to the extent that there's a difference of opinion about the existence of such a program among u.s. agencies, what ask explains the differing conclusions? did president trump discuss the matter in any of the numerous phone calls he had with russia, president putin, from late march through this month?

if the president knew of the concern, why did he persist in trying to get russia invited as a participant to the g-7 meeting to be held in the united states this fall? why hasn't the president condemned the existence of any such program, or at least pledged that there would be serious consequences if such a program existed? madam president, that russia might behave in a hostile manner towards u.s. troops in afghanistan would not be a surprised based upon russia's track record of bad behavior all over the globe. but what has been surprising has been the administration's actions regarding this explosive allegation. and i believe the senate must get to the bottom of it. with that, madam president, i yield the floor and i note the

absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: