are you for staying in afghanistan for another generation? are you for continuing at war that's lost its purpose? today we get to vote. up or down. are you for the war or against the war? does the war still have a mission? the american people know better. they are ready to declare victory and come home. it's why president trump's message resonated with so many. he said it's time to come home and the people agreed. not only is it time to end the war and focus on our needs at home, but it's time to reward those who fought the battle. we're spending $50 billion a year over there in the savings in the first year, we will provide -- senator udall and i will provide in our bill a $2,500 bonus for anyone who has been deployed in the long war on terror. that's a pretty good bonus and our soldiers deserve it but they also deserve to come home because there's no military mission left. instead of spending another $50

billion in afghanistan next year, let's give some of that money to the soldiers who fought the war and let's begin saving some money from the massive deficit that we face here at home. this is the senate's chance to show that it's time to declare victory, it's time to come home. i urge support for my amendment, and i also remind senators, this is your chance to vote to end the war. thank you, mr. president. mr. udall: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: thank you, mr. president, for the recognition. and i thank senator inhofe. i talked to him. i would ask consent, as senator paul did, to complete my remarks and consent to complete my remarks here on the floor right now before we have a vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: thank you. now, i am a strong supporter of the afghan service arctic which i introduced with senator -- service act, which i introduced with senator paul. it's been nearly 19 years since the united states entered in war

in afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks. and we've had several presidents -- one a democrat, one a republican, -- say they want to end thisment. we announced we don't want endless wars. we want to end this war. our current president has said he wanted to do this for the last three and a half years. he hasn't gotten it done. president obama wanted to end it. and this is the way, the responsible way, to end this war. give a year time frame, we make absolutely clear we are not against our american soldiers. we give them a bonus, and we say, you've done a good job. so don't listen to the distortions that are going to be talked about what this amendment is about. we have soldiers who are having to fight in this war who weren't even born when it began.

and most of the soldiers i have talked to who have come home from afghanistan believe we should be out of there. that's one of the most persuasive things i've seen. several of those soldiers have been elected to the united states congress and have spoken up very, very strongly about continuing our war in afghanistan. you know, it's been nearly ten years since i first came to the senate floor in 2010 to call for the withdrawal of u.s. combat forces from afghanistan. we have accomplished our goal of routing al qaeda and killing osama bin laden. those were two of the big things that were talked about originally when president bush went in and basically said, we have the short-term objectives. we're going to get them ad chieved and then we're going to be out. and we've achieved those objectives. there is no reason for delay and

to continue this endless war. the longer we stay with an ill-defined mission, the greater the risk of a wider war in the region. and i believe -- and believe me, i listened to believe back home. they don't want a wider war. they want us to bring our troops home. the recent news that has gripped the capitol only underscores that our men and women in afghanistan remain in harm's way. they should be brought home and focused on our core national security. after 19 years of war, peace in afghanistan will need to come from negotiation and the u.s. can and should continue to play a role in those diplomatic efforts. this legislation ends the u.s. involvement in the war in a responsible way, with a year-long time frame. it also sunsets the 9/11 aumf,

which has been stretched beyond recognition to justify wars we never considered. even to this day, some in this administration envision using the 2001aumf to justify a war with iran rather than actually standing on the floor and introducing a proposal, as required by the constitution to get in a war, as it is congress' authority. on the aumf, this isn't something sudden either. it would give congress a year to consider a new aumf, if needed. it's long past time for congress to make the difficult decision and stop ducking the votes on whether to send our troops into harm's way. finally, this amendment rewards the veterans of these wars. we owe a lot more to them, but

this is a start. i hope you will join me in supporting the end of the u.s. war in afghanistan and support the restoration of congressional war making authority and vote against tabling this amendment. this is an amendment which deserves -- this deserves an up-or-down vote, not a tabling vote. so vote no to table this amendment. and i say this in great respect to senator inhofe, and i know that senator inhofe has been very courteous in terms of the time. and so i would at this point yield the floor. thank you. mr. inhofe: all right, thank you. mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: there is another side to this story, and i think when you hear those in promoting this particular amendment, it's one -- we all agree. we want an end to the war.

we want this to happen. but there's some other reasons that this probably is not the best way to do it. first of all, the amendment directs a calendar-based withdrawal from afghanistan rather than a conditions-based. we talked about this quite often. it's something that you can't just say, it's going to happen by this day. but under these certain circumstances. it undermines peace negotiations in the trump administration's afghan strategy. he's talked about that publicly. i think a lot of people agree with that. i do. it would also undermine the february 2020 u.s. agreement with the taliban that ties -- tries to map out a path to peace. according to the plan, u.s. forces' reductions must be tied to taliban counterterrorism commitments. that's part of the plan. repealing it, the 2001 authorization for the use of military force would undermine the president of the united states' authority for countering

terrorists in afghanistan but also would undergo -- would undermine the gitmo detention and other global counterterrorist efforts. the d.o.d., the white house would oppose this because it removes an authority for using military force and would significantly is undermine counterterrorism authorities. so i move to table the paul amendment number 2011 and i ask for the yeas and nays. a senator: mr. chairman? the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change his or

her vote? if not, the yeas are 60, the nays are 33. the motion to table is agreed to.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: thank you, mr. president.

i rise to speak to s. 3669, the covid-19 international response and recovery act of 2020. as of this weekend, there are an estimated 10 million confirmed cases of covid-19 worldwide. more than 2.5 million of those cases are right here in the united states. the disease has claimed over 125,000 american lives. for anyone who questions why we should care about what happens elsewhere in the world, this pandemic has certainly been most assuredly a wake-up call. the virus didn't start here, but it came here, and americans are now suffering from the effects of an epidemic that shows no signs of stopping. and even if we bring it under control in the united states in the absence of u.s. leadership for a truly global response, the

virus can and will return. we cannot safeguard american lives without one, but we cannot lead or even meaningfully participate in a global response when we don't have a coherent and effective domestic separate describe. the president's desperate denial, his refusal to take this pandemic seriously, his seeming inability to care about the health and well-being of all americans is as shocking as it is dangerous. as opposed to a pandemic response strategy, the white house seems to have a dangerous public relations strategy focused on perpetuating a false narrative that insists the pandemic is almost over, blames china, and the world health organization for its own preparedness and response failures, overstates the administration's domestic and international response, and refuses to be candid with

congress and the american people about the consequences of its irresponsible actions. make no mistake, contrary to what the white house would have us believe, the covid-19 threat is far from over. as dr. anthony fauci testified, it is a lack of serious response and that is some in the white house would have us believe more tests that is leading to skyrocketing case numbers and hospitalization rates we are seeing today. unfortunately, the haphazardness that has characterized the white house's response at home has also shaped its response abroad. secretary pompeo's right. the american people are the most generous on the planet, but that belies this administration's actual response. the reality is that when it comes to discussion about what it is doing to end the pandemic globally, the administration is

trumpeting programs it has spent three years consistently and aggressively cutting. which explains perfectly why secretary pompeo to this day refuses to come before the senate foreign relations committee to defend his proposed f.y. 2021 budget. america, the world needs a strategy to end this pandemic, not a p.r. blitz to cover inaction. the blame game won't help us either. yet instead of taking care of the business at hand, the administration is channeling its energy toward fault finding and divisive racially inflammatory rhetoric. first the white house tried to say that the u.s. epidemic was the world health organization's fault. despite the fact that the u.s. was regularly communicating with and receiving information from the w.h.o., including through u.s. government employees

embedded at the w.h.o. headquarters in geneva. in may, the administration announced a 30-day plan to review the organization's handling of the pandemic response. but less than two weeks after it announced that sham review, the president said he was going to withdraw from the organization, so so much for the 30-day review. next, the administration doubled down on blaming china. the president, the secretary of state, a deputy administrator of usaid have all used racially stigmatizing language to describe covid-19 in direct contradiction to guidance issued by our own centers for disease control and prevention. and the insistence that the rest of the world agreed to use such language has prevented us from reaching consensus on statements at the g-7 and in the national -- and in the u.s. -- i'm sorry. and in the u.n. security council and seriously weakened our

standard. if this administration is truly concerned about china's maligned intent of the w.h.o. and elsewhere, there is a simple answer -- take action. if the u.s. leads, others will follow. if we leave the field open, others like china will step into the vacuum. isolationists -- isolationist, go it alone tactics are not the way to end a pandemic. at a time when the united states should be leading the global response to one of the greatest threats we face in the 21st century -- and this pandemic will most certainly not be our last -- i have to wonder if instead what we are witnessing is the death of american leadership and the end of american exceptionalism brought about by the intention and ineptitude of the trump administration, both here and abroad. meanwhile, the rest of the world is stepping up and stepping past us. for example, when chinese

president xi jinping addressed the world health assembly in may, he pledged $2 billion over two years to combat covid-19. secretary azar used the opportunity to attack the w.h.o. and cast blame on china for the pandemic. the european union held a pledging conference on vaccines in may at which $8.2 billion was raised. the united states was invited to participate, but the white house declined the invitation. is this what the president means by america first? well, if this e.u. consortium comes up with a vaccine before we do, it will mean america last as we wait for them to share it with us. this approach is not only isolationist, shortsighted and foolish, it's dangerous. it's clear that the administration response is not keeping the american people safe, and it's just as clear that there are actions we can take to effectively respond to

this pandemic and better prepare for future pandemics. since the administration doesn't seem to have any ideas, democrats on the foreign relations committee introduced a bill to provide some. s. 3669, the covid-19 international response and recovery act, or sirra, presents a clear strategy to confront the ongoing pandemic and prepare the united states to deal with the next. it compels the trump administration to constructively engaged with other countries, international organizations, and multilateral flora to stop the spread of the coronavirus. specifically, our bill authorizes an additional $9 billion in funding to fight covid-19 pandemic through contributions towards vaccine research at the coalition for preparedness and innovations. a contribution to the global fund for aids, tuberculosis, and malaria for its covid-19 response mechanism.

additional funding for emergency over seas humanitarian assistance in response to the pandemic, ensuring that these funds are provided both to the u.n. for its global response plan as well as directly to n.g.o.'s working on the front lines. and a new surge financing authority at the u.s. international development finance corp, d.f.c. that will allow the d.f.c. to expedite decisions and make strategic investments quickly to aid in covid-19 reconstruction efforts. cirra also puts in place mechanisms to help us prepare for the next pandemic. it requires an annual national intelligence estimate on pandemic threats, and it establishes a white house advisor for global health security to coordinate a whole of government u.s. response to global health security emergencies aimed at improving both domestic and international capacity to prevent, respond,

and detect epidemic and pandemic threats. it clearly delineates the roles for the state department, usaid, and the center for disease control and prevention in responding to pandemic threats, and it directs the u.s. executive director to the world bank to begin negotiations to establish a trust fund at the world bank designed not to compete with or supplant the world health organization, but to work in tandem with the w.h.o. on incentivizing countries to mobilize their own resources for epidemic and pandemic preparedness. now, my republican colleague on the foreign relations committee finally did introduce a modest bill in response to the pandemic. in keeping with the republican effort to pretend the pandemic is over, it completely ignores the current crisis. instead, it focuses on giving legislative cover to elite proposals from the white house

that seems to strip essential pandemic response functions from usaid and put them in the state department and sets up a structure at the world bank that would allow the white house to channel funding meant for the w.h.o. into another multilateral mechanism. colleagues, to say that that approach is inadequate to meet the crisis of the century would be so much of an understatement as to almost be a lie in and of itself. the chairman's legislation completely ignores the current pandemic while setting us up for failure, we are confronted by the next pandemic. we quite simply must do better. mr. president, more than 700 americans a day are dying. neither the finger pointing, blame game, race-baiting statements linked to the origins of the disease nor strategy centered on denial will win the battle against covid-19. it is painfully apparent that

congress will have to lead in this effort just as it led domestic relief and recovery efforts. if we fail to develop a proposal that boldly and robustly addresses the current crisis, ensures that we are adequately prepared for the next one, and aids countries around the globe with recovery, we will have failed the american people, fallen painfully short of the legacy created through initiatives such as the president's emergency plan for aids relief and the marshall plan, to name a few. we must understand that there it report that came out of a potential swine flu. well, whether it's that or something else, we have the risk of the next pandemic. our engagement globally is not just about being a good global citizen. it's about security and health here at home. when we can engage abroad to

stop the flow of a virus, then we ultimately achieve success on behalf of the american people and we leave the -- lead the world with a better response. that's what we will do and we will come back to the floor at the appropriate time to seek to move that legislation. turning to a different topic for the moment, one that my colleague from louisiana is also here to join me in -- and i appreciate him being here -- i come to the floor today in addition i have spoken about the covid-19 international legislation to seek unanimous consent on h.r. 5084, the improving corporate governance through diversity act of 2019. this is a bipartisan piece of legislation aimed at increasing transparency in america's corporate board rooms and ultimately lead to greater diversity in the upper tiers of america's companies. we know that corporate america has a diversity problem.

boards and executive offices across the united states do not look like the customers they serve. multiple studies, including my own, have demonstrated this hard fact. since 2010, i have conducted four surveys fortuned at the -- looking at the fortune 500 companies. i'm grateful to the companies who have participated. my latest survey revealed that since 2010, women and people of color have only made marginal gains in reputations on corporate boards. for example, in 2018, women held only 25% of corporate board seats on fortune 100 companies, despite making up over half of the entire united states population. they were only 25% of corporate board seats and only 5.8% of that 25% were women of color.

and while men make up 75% of fortune 100 corporate board seats, only 13.7% of those are men of color. if we wanted to take a broader look, the picture's even bleaker latinos make up 25% of the population yet they held 2.7% of corporate board seats in fortune 100 companies. i could go on and on, but i think i made the point. i was hopeful that the security and exchange commission would help address this problem through its 2009 diversity disclosure rule. but the 2009 rule failed to even define diversity and gives companies far too much discretion on what they report. that's why i introduced a bill last year with representative

meeks to improve the s.e.c. bill. the bill does three main things. one, it requires public companies to disclose specific information related to the racial, gender, ethnic makeup and veteran status of corporate boards and senior management. simple disclosure. two, it requires public companies to disclose whether they have policies in place to promote diversity in their leadership. and, three, it requires the s.e.c. to establish a diversity advisory group composed of government, academic, and private sector representatives to study gender, ethnic diversity in corporate america. now, let me be clear. the bill does not force companies to be more diverse, but it does require them to be

more transparent about their numbers and their practices. that's valuable information that the public and potential investors should have when deciding where to put their money. the house passed this bill on a bipartisan vote in november, and it enjoys bipartisan support here in the senate. it's supported by a fantastic coalition that includes the naacp, the national urban league, the latino corporate directors association, and the united states chamber of commerce. corporate diversity's not just morally right. corporate diversity makes financial sense. mckenzie and company, their studies have consistently found that greater diversity on executive teams has led to greater profitability. the need for increased corporate diversity is not an act of be nevada lens, it is a -- be

nevilleence, it is to compete in a diverse 21st century economy. i would like to yield to senator kennedy for some remarks he has on this issue and then i will proceed to that consent request. mr. kennedy: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. kennedy: thank you, mr. president. thank you to my colleague from new jersey for yielding me some time. i sit on the banking committee with senator menendez. it is my privilege. i have learned a lot listening to him, along with our chairman, senator crapo. while convictions are important to us on the banking committee, so is data. i believe that as much as we can

be, mesh is and -- america is and should be colorblind. i believe in that. i loss believe in data. i believe in facts. this is a data bill. this is a fact bill. this doesn't make anybody do anything except be transparent. this bill applies to public companies. some may call them wall street companies, but they are spread throughout america. i make that point simply to reaffirm that this does not apply to small publicly held companies sometimes called mainstream businesses. this bill is endorsed by the

u.s. chamber of commerce. this fact and data bill passed overwhelmingly in the house with a bipartisan coalition. and, as senator menendez he'll queenly pointed -- eloquently pointed out, it simply requires public -- usually large, but not always, but publicly held corporations to report data with respect to their board of directors, nominees to the board of directors and their executive offices. the data that these companies are -- are being asked to report is data with respect to gender, data with respect to veteran status, data with respect to ethnicity, and data with respect to race to the extent that the

board members and the nominees and the executive officers themselves report that data. and, frankly, i'll end on this note. i was very surprised that we didn't have this data. in fact, when i first read congressman meeks's bill and senator menendez's bill, i said surely this can't be necessary, surely we have this data at the securities and exchange commission. we do not, but we will if this bill becomes law, and for that reason i rise in support of congressman meeks's legislation and senator menendez's legislation, and i support it. and, with that, i would like to yield to senator menendez. mr. menendez: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i appreciate the senator from louisiana's words and his support. and, as he said, i wish -- i wish we had this already.

it's not very difficult, transparency, information which consumers can make decisions, investors can make decisions and you would think in the 21st century that would not be a problem. i ask unanimous consent that the committee on banking housing an urban affairs, that the senate -- i further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. lee: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: reserving the right to object. the purpose of the securities and exchange commission is to protect investors and maintain orderly efficient markets. this bill would change that deal. it would change the entire premise of the s.e.c. it would use the s.e.c. to pressure people to disclose personal information that has

nothing to do with the financial health of the company. and information that people would prefer to keep private. why? because it's no the public's business. it's theirs. the bill requires businesses to probe their race, gender, ethnicity, and veteran status of not only those already on the -- the senior payroll of their companies, but also anyone who is even considered for those positions. second, the free market already provides a way to achieve these goals. if investors prefer to invest in companies that have stern kinds of people -- certain kind of people on their boards and certain kinds of people in executive positions, then companies have a financial incentive to disclose information. no one is stopping them from doing that and many companies do, in fact, disclose that information. many companies are already providing this information because their customers and their investors are demanding

it. government is neither not a deety. it's just force. it's just organized, collective official force. that's all it is. we should not use the heavy hand of government for things that the american people already have the opportunity to do on their own and many, in not -- if not all cases are doing on their own. finally, the bill co-ops employees to have a diversity advisory group of academics who advise congress on policies that increase ethnic and surrender -- gender diversity on corporate boards. we have a diversity advisory group. to think that bureaucrats at the s.e.c. could inform congress of the inclusion of diversity better than the american people

is wasteful and to think that it is appropriate to invest in the s.e.c. to keep investors from fraudulent activities is just the wrong conception not only of the s.e.c. but of government in general. for these reasons, mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: well, i'm not surprised but i'm deeply disappointed that my colleague takes that position. first of all, the s.e.c. has a diversity rule. 2009, it has a diversity rule. the diversity rule, as they devised it, doesn't do anything about transparency of information so we're not creating something at the s.e.c. that the s.e.c. itself wasn't pursuing in the protection of

investors. if i was an investor, i'd like to know whether a company is diverse or in the. latinos represent 20% of the entire country, the fastest growing minority in the nation. i would like to know if the money i put into buying the stock of a company, does it reflect the understanding of that community in any way? african americans does that reflect that understanding. does it reflect the understanding that 50% of the population are women? and the free market, yes, the free market works on information. you make decisions in the free market based on information. but when the information is hidden from you, when you can't find out, in fact, what is the diversity of a corporate board senior executive management procurement and other things, well, then, the free market doesn't work very well, does it? and the heavy hand of government, oh, my god.

to disclose, to be transparent, that is the heavy hand of government. well, if government doesn't work to make our systems more transparent so that investors and consumers can make decisions, who will do that? the free market? i don't think so. gentlemen, i know -- the gentleman has been in advocacy in transparency and other matters, somehow in this one it seems to be a problem. and protecting investors, yeah, i want to protect investors because i think investors who would be making investments in a company that who are -- who are devoid of african americans, devoid of latinos, devoid of the reputation of who america is today, they may think twice about that. large pension funds, other entities may say, wait a minute, that's not the type of company i want to invest in. but the investor won't know that

unless they have that information. so i would think that in the 21st century when we see the national debate that is taking place today on the questions of race, on the questions of ethnicity and other things, that we would want at least to have the data so that we can make intelligent decisions. and, by the way, the u.s. chamber of commerce came -- now the chamber of commerce is not normally on my side. they came and testified specifically in support of this provision. they represent business in america. and they came forth and said, we believe that, in fact, this is good for business. if it wasn't good for business, they wouldn't be there. they wouldn't be advocating for it. so we will succeed at this. we may not have done it today by this process, but we will

succeed at this because the -- you know, the nation requires it. it's good accountability, it's good transparency, it's good for the free market to know what the information is so people can make decisions. and it's certainly at the end of the day about protecting investors. so i look forward to making that happen at the appropriate time. mr. lee: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, i have deep affection for my friend and colleague, the senator from new jersey. i do respectfully but strongly disagree with his position on n. he made the point several times if you were acting as an investor, he very much would like to know the composition of a corporate board or of an executive team within a corporation. this is great. a lot of people feel the same way. that isn't the question.

no one is stopping a corporation from disclosing that information. in fact, a whole lot of corporations do. some may not want to do that. some might want to disclose some of this information but not all of it. some might not want to be in the position of asking probing questions regarding the gender and ethnicity and race of their employees understanding that it will then be disclosed to the public. under the crushing force of federal law. there are legitimate reasons why a company might not want to do that, some of which have to do with that company's own ability to treat its employees and its board members and its executive team with dignity and respect. in some circumstances not everything is the government's business. transparency, yes, absolutely something that i believe in. transparency usually refers to what we need when it comes to government action.

transparency is what we demand when we require open public hearings, when government does business. transparency is what we require when we allow government documents to be made public and allow the public to see into what the regulatory process is doing. transparency doesn't mean that everything that everyone does in america that has a tie to economic activity is the public's business. the fact that it's publicly traded doesn't mean that it's owned by the government. so the statement made by my colleague to the effect that when information is hidden from you, then the free market doesn't work very well, i don't understand what that means. if what he's suggesting is that it's hidden from them in violation of law, that's not the case. if what he's suggesting is that the free market can't punish those who refuse to disclose information about the boards and reward those who do, that is

exactly what the free market does. the free market has every opportunity to work here. it's not as though nobody is providing this information, but it's not their business. as to the suggestion that because the chamber of commerce supports this, therefore it's pro business and because it's pro-business, we should all support it. i would respectfully but strongly disagree. i know as a republican i'm supposed to automatically agree with what the chamber of commerce agrees. sometimes i do. but, you know, mr. president, a whole lot of the time i don't. this goes back a long time, back to the time when the u.s. chamber of commerce opposed massive tax reform bill that was proposed by president calvin coolidge. i found some relief in the fantastic hip po hippopotamus bb coolidge about president coolidge and his proposal of that reform. a reform that biff the way helped build america's middle

class and resulted in explosive economic growth. the u.s. chamber of commerce opposed that reform and the u.s. chamber of commerce gets a lot of things wrong and it's wrong here. this isn't the government's business. these businesses are not government. they can do what they want and it's not our place to say otherwise. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, i appreciate the intellectual exercise we're going through on the floor. i'll make some comments because i know my colleague is anxiously waiting to talk about the urgently need about being able to put food on the table. look, the securities and exchange commission exists, yes, to protect investors and the marketplace but they make all types of demands upon the companies that are publicly traded in terms of disclosure of

information. i don't know what's so difficult about this. i will say this. the nation will have a rude awakening if it thinks it can continue with business as usual, a rude awakening. something as simple as simply knowing what is the information about diversity on a corporate board that every study shows actually improves the bottom line and that investors should be able to have to make those decisions and we're not talking about the employees. we're talking about the corporate board members. my god, the people who make billions of dollars in decisions who ultimately decide where they go to a community or don't go to a community to invest in, who ultimately get the dollars from the communities that i'd like to see represented. there's -- it's good enough to take our money but it's not good enough to have us have any representation. and evidencely in this body -- evidently in this body it's not good enough to have the

information. so i know who's taking my money without representation. that cannot be, that cannot be the american way. i yield the floor. mr. lee: mr. president? the. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: the fact that as my distinguished colleague from new jersey says, the fact that they make all types of demands on publicly traded companies is not a substitute from an actual logical or legal argument as to why they're entitled to information that is not theirs, information that they may not choose to collect is not their business and isn't the government's business and sure as heck isn't the government the fact they make all types of demands on publicly traded companies doesn't prove the point here. we have to remember something and yes, we have to remember it right now in this moment, not in spite of this moment but because of it. government is force. we've seen the catastrophic consequences of people who lose sight of what government is for, what its limitations are.

and the fact we don't have access to angels as james madison described it in federal list 51. if we add access to angels to run our government, we wouldn't need all these rules. because we're not angels, we don't have access to them to run our government. we have to have rules and there have to be limitations on what is and isn't the role of government. now, look, there are all kinds of businesses that keep track of this information of their corporate board members and those considered for those positions. there are executives and those considered for those positions. it's not our role to tell them about the information they have to exstract from each -- extract from each and every person they interview for those positions and demand they be publicly disclosed. why? because it's none of their darn business and in many cases it's none of ours. that's the business of the individual. we shouldn't be punishing companies, businesses, hardworking americans, and yes, some of them are rich.

a whole lot of them are not rich. we shouldn't be punishing them just because they don't happen to share our view of ow they ought to be operating their government. i find it curious he says over and over again that this is how he will be more successful, this is how they will make more money. that's not our place to decide. they're free to operate their business in a foolish way, in a way that might cost them money. it doesn't make it our place to decide this. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you very much, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today and will be joined by colleagues as well. i'm very grateful -- i see the senator from ohio here and thank you so much for being on the floor and other colleagues will join to speak this evening on behalf of millions of american families who are struggling to make ends meet and feed their families at this incredibly challenging time.

the covid-19 crisis is taking a profound toll on our economy and the quality of life of millions of families. as businesses have closed and millions have lost their jobs, the number of people in need of food assistance has soared. food banks have seen a 70% increase in demand. 70% increase in demand. we've all seen the photos of lines of families and cars stretching on and on for miles waiting in parking lots with moms and dads trying to get food for their children. and even though donations have gone up, we're a generous people in this country. donations have gone up. the need has far outpaced the funds that are available. as the pandemic swept across our nation, one in five adults

experienced food insecurity. one in five, one in five. more than three months later, even more americans in every state are struggling to put food on the table. these are laid off workers who lost their jobs due to the pandemic and aren't sure they'll be able to find employment. many of them need food assistance and for the first time in their life that they've needed to ask for that help. these are single moms and dads who are worried about getting their kids fed before they even think about themselves. these are veterans who are willing to put their lives on the line for the country. now they're struggling to find work and make rent and just need a little extra help getting the food they need to survive. these are senior citizens who are at high risk of covid-19 and have had to make drastic changes to their day-to-day life just to

stay safe. these are children who relied on school meals for breakfast and lunch, possibly after school as well who have gotten used to the pain of an empty stomach since their school closed. to these people hunger is not a partisan issue. it is not a political issue. for them it's a daily reality that they face. for many of them snap is a vital life line that keeps them fed in times of need, and today that need is even greater. and if we are looking at the direction of covid-19 and what's happening across the country, i'm concerned but i think it's realistic to say that the need is even going to go higher. in any crisis, it's just common sense to make sure affected families have tear basic needs

met. basic needs, when i think of my friend from ohio who is our champion on housing and we talked today -- we talk about housing as being a basic need. i don't know anything more basic than a roof over your head and food on the table. food, housing, pretty basic. we would all suggest that those are things that you start with, that you want for yourself and your family. when people's lives are turned upside down through no fault of their own, americans -- we have americans coming together to provide a temporary safety net to help them get back on their feet. that's what the supplemental nutrition assistance program is, snap. it's not there to be -- when folks don't need it, it's there when they do it. during every past disaster we've acted to make sure as americans that people don't go hungry. on a bipartisan basis we've

increased snap benefits when families are in need. in cases of natural and economic disasters like after the 2008 financial crisis. i do know that my dear friend and chairman of the ag committee who i think is on a different side of what we're going to be asking for tonight but he and i have come together over and over again on a bipartisan basis and will continue to do that, to work together on these issues. but we provide additional help to people in need. that's the first thing we do. we know that increasing snap benefits in addition to helping people in need should be number one. put people first. that should be number one. the great news is with snap, it also boosts the economy, mr. president. this is a two-fer.

snap is one of the best investments we can make. for every dollar you put in to snap benefits, when someone walks in the grocery store and buys food, you roughly see a dollar 70 more in the economy. it's the most efficient way to help farmers and to help the food industry. it's to allow people to have money to buy food for themselves and their kids, for their parents. and we know that every additional billion dollars in snap supports nearly 14,000 jobs. usually families spend their benefits immediately so it's very crick. you don't spend a lot of time -- if you're hungry, you're not going to be waiting a couple of weeks before you use your snap benefits. you're going to immediately go to the store. this is an immediate economic impact. and when families buy food at grocery stores and markets, as i

said, they are strengthening their local economies and the supply chain as a whole. from farmers to truck drivers to the stockers to the cashiers to the folks who invest in the supermarkets. in fact, farmers understand better than anybody that families are their customers. that's why when we write a bipartisan farm bill, which i'm proud that we have been able to do, we make sure it helps both farmers and families. the farm bill is about a farmer safety net. farmers need additional help right now. it's also about a family safety net, and families need help right now, families. across the country need help right now. and this time is no different. nearly 2,500 farm and food advocates agree with that.

in a letter to senate leadership, these groups, including the national council of farmer cooperatives, national milk producers, national farmers union, thousands of organizations have urged us to increase snap benefits for families in need right now with what is happening right now in this crisis. we're asking for something very simple and very reasonable, a 15% boost in snap benefits. this increase means an additional $25 a month per person. that may not seem like much unless you don't have any food, unless you can't feed your children, unless you're a senior and you can't get food. and the fact is it may mean that a mom can actually give her

children some fruits and vegetables so they can stay healthy while they are staying at home through this crisis. it means maybe one less skipped meal at the end of the month. one less skipped meal. that's what we're talking about. this modest increase will help ensure that families most affected by the pandemic will be able to cover the cost of food while they stay safe, while they look for work, and while they rebuild their lives, which many families are needing to do. we also need to increase the minimum amount of snap from $16 to $30 per day. again, for all of us, that doesn't seem like a lot. the reality is this may be life saving, life saving, this difference, especially for our seniors who live alone.

we must also waive the trump administration's harmful regulations that will take food assistance away from hungry americans when they need it the most. at a time when our neighbors and our economy is struggling, it's unconscionable to move forward with rules that would cut and deny benefits to millions of americans. rules that would take away school meals from up to a million children. the senate has the power to provide quick help to millions of people in every state across the country right now, right now. what a great way to spend a wednesday evening to be able to help millions of families during this crisis. this is urgently needed. this is urgently needed to help for the millions of families who are wondering where their next meal is going to come from. this is urgently needed help for

the millions of people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own in this crisis. when an unprecedented emergency has put american lives and livelihoods in danger, we have an obligation to act. it's not only our sworn duty, it's the right thing to do. it is just plain the right thing to do. boosting snap benefits is a tried and true, effective way to strengthen the economy and help americans put food on their tables. the united states senate should not look away in the face of so much need. therefore, mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill to make temporary modifications to the supplemental nutrition

assistance program, which is at the desk. i further ask that the bill be considered read three times and passed, that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. roberts: mr. president, reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: i rise to respond to this unanimous consent request to call up and pass a bill to make modifications to the supplemental nutrition assistance program, known as snap. over the past few months, congress through the enactment of both the families first act and the cares act, has provided both funding and flexibilities for nutrition assistance during this pandemic emergency. the funding from the families first and cares act has included the following -- $15 billion for the supplemental nutrition assistance program, $8.8 billion for the school and child nutrition programs, $1 billion

in food distribution programs like the emergency food assistance program, t-fap, and the food distribution program for indian reservations, $500 million for the special supplemental nutrition program for the women, infants, and children, or the w.i.c. program. in addition, congress provided emergency snap benefits, allotments and pandemic e.b.t. benefits for children while schools are closed. the department of agriculture has been steadily distributing both food and benefits, and the department has granted and extended many flexibilities to state and local organizations to get food to those in need. now, the distinguished senator from michigan, with whom i have a great deal of respect and friendship, we have a history of working together in the agriculture committee to help those in need. in fact, just last week, we wrote the secretary of agriculture, sonny perdue, about

some of the w.i.c. frebilities, and the department of agriculture has already acted to extend those flexibilities. this is just a recent example of the good work we can accomplish together. but i respectfully object to this unanimous consent request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. ms. stabenow: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: mr. president, i would agree with my friend from kansas that we work together in many ways and have been able to get a lot of good things together by working across the aisle. i want to focus just on a couple of things to expound on what he said, though, that while we, in fact, did add dollars for some emergency snap in the original families first response act, unfortunately about 40% of the households didn't get any extra help at all, and these were our

poorest citizens. these were those who are already getting -- because their income was so low, the maximum benefit and then they got no help at all. so 40% of the folks didn't see anything that was just described. and for others, we are very concerned about the temporary nature of this and the fact that it was not enough to sustain what's happening for families. and so the 15% that we are talking about, which is something that has been done back during the economic recession and has been done in various ways in the past is an important response to make sure that every single family and individual who needs food assistance -- not just some, but that every single one can get the help they need at this time. what has been done to this point was a start, surely not enough.

surely not enough. and at the very beginning of this process, it was not clear how long this is going to go or how deep this is going to go, and the united states senate needs to respond to what we are seeing now and how families are being affected across the country. i'm going to now yield to senator brown and then senator klobuchar i believe i saw on the floor as well. senator klobuchar and then senator wyden as well. three tremendous advocates, and thank you so much. senator brown. mr. brown: thank you, senator stabenow. mr. president, thank you for introducing this bill, senator stabenow, and your leadership on all issues, agriculture especially. the importance of snap and feeding people. this is the united states of america. when senator stabenow said one specific thing that really caught me, she said it's pretty

simple. people should have a roof over their head, people should have food on the table. think if you don't. i don't think that probably most of us know imminently people who don't -- intimately people who don't have enough to eat and people who get evicted. i don't think we feel the anxiety they feel every night wondering about the next meal. today is july 1, wondering about the rental for the rent payment. senator klobuchar said this earlier today. 25% of -- before the coronavirus, 25% of americans who rent spend more than half their income in rent. so one thing goes wrong in their life, one thing goes wrong, their car breaks down, they have a problem their roof leaks, the, they get hurt on the job and miss two weeks of pay, and their life turns upside down. do we think about them? do we think about their anxiety? apparently not. this today could have been a

really, really, really good day for workers in this country, for fast food workers, for the people who change the linen in hospitals, for custodians, for data entry people, for home care workers, people who are on their feet all day long, working for little pay. it could have been a big deal day. it could have been a red-letter day for them, because we could have assured them that they won't get evicted, that they won't get foreclosed on if their hours have been cut back or if they are laid off, and we could have assured them that they will get a little more food on their table. but under the leadership of senator mcconnell, we don't ever do that. i don't know that -- senator mcconnell's office is back there. i don't know if he never thinks about people like that. lincoln used to -- one of my favorite lincoln quotes, he said i have to get out of the hospital -- i have to get out of the white house and get my public opinion bath. i have to see how people are living. i want to hear about people's lives. i can't imagine senator mcconnell does any of that. otherwise, he couldn't make these awful hardhearted

decisions to eliminate unemployment when it ends at the end of this month. maybe he will decide to compromise, but right now if you're an unemployed worker and you can't find a job in detroit or in portland or in eugene or in st. paul, if you can't find a job, you wonder if your unemployment is going to just stop and you're going to get evicted and you don't have enough food and we won't do a damn thing about it here. it's just -- this is the united states of america. couldn't we help hardworking americans? instead, we see an objection to rental assistance, we see an objection to increasing food benefits. and i don't get it. the united states of america, that this would possibly happen. we should take up and pass senator stabenow's bill right now to increase snap benefits. at a time when the country finally is focusing on racial justice, we have to recognize these issues are all connected. you all know this pandemic has been the great revealer. it's revealed income inequality. it's revealed racial disparities. it's revealed life expectancies. if you look like me, your life

expeck expectancy is a good bit longer than if you are african american or a latino in this country. that our earning power is more, that our educational opportunities are greater. are we doing anything about it here? no, we are not. the president of the united states has put all that behind him. he doesn't care about the pandemic. he never mentions the 120,000 people in this country, our brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers and children and grandparents who have died from this, he never mentions them. he's forgotten about that. he just doesn't want it to affect the stock market. and it goes on and on and on and on. the increased demand in food banks. we hear it all the time. we see the stress on employees and the volunteers at food banks. the national guard, governor dewine to his credit, a republican, i appreciate his doing this, he sent the national guard in to help at food banks. why? because many, many food bank volunteers are older and they couldn't risk getting exposed to so many people that are coming in for food. the lines are hours and hours

and hours. food insecurity rates have doubled since march almost. we're realizing why we have a safety net in this country. we're realizing the importance of government. but apparently my colleagues under senator mcconnell and president trump don't want to recognize that government has a role in our lives. the house did its part, it passed the heroes act. a 15% across-the-board increase in snap benefits, but, as always, leader mcconnell is standing in the way. leader mcconnell said no to rental assistance. he says no to helping state and local governments. wait until the layoffs in michigan and ohio and in oregon and minnesota and north and south dakota, wait until the government and the local government layoffs come. then what are we going to do? people shouldn't have to always fend for themselves in the middle of a crisis. we should not have people starving or risking their health to get food. people shouldn't be hungry in this country, in this rich country. it's time for us to step up. it's time to lead. where the president has failed, it's time for senator mcconnell to let us do our jobs. debate this.

let's pass it. let's move forward. i yield the floor. ms. stabenow: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you. i want to thank senator brown for his eloquence and advocacy and thank him for being an incredibly member of the nutrition, agriculture and forest ri commission. and also the next senator who is also on the agriculture, nutrition and forest ri commission. i would yield time to senator klobachar. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president. thank you. i want to thank the senator from michigan for her leadership on the agriculture committee, helping to pass the last farm bill in the senate, along with senator roberts, and so many of us who are on that committee. we understand that rural america is hurting right now and rural america is actually part of the

solution as well for so many people who are hungry and who need help. this pandemic and its economic impact has left 41 million americans unemployed and strained the financial security of hundreds of thousands of families across this country. i've always worked to ensure from the minute i got on the ag committee that we focus on nutrition and programs like the supplemental nutrition assistance program, or as it's known, snap, are the place to do this, to provide meaningful relief to families, children, senior citizen, veterans, people all over this country, people who never thought they would be out of a job, people who used to and i heard this story in minnesota, volunteered in food banks and now they are standing in lines in food banks because they unexpectedly lost their jobs. many of us have seen this. i have visited these food banks even before the pandemic, more than 37 million people,

including more than 11 million children were living in a food-secure household. analysts released by the national nonprofit feeding america in april predict these numbers will increase to 54 million people, including 18 million children. the 350 food -- operated by second harvest heartland have seen double or triple the number of visitors. so this weekend on sunday when i visited one of our biggest food shelves, with the director, allison o'toole, the number of people working there around the clock, they just released the study. and what the study said was before the pandemic, one in 11 minnesotans were living with hunger. now what they project for august, only a little over a month from now, one in eight minnesotans will be food

insecure. one in eight. and they said tracking our state's history back to the great depression, they have never seen anything like this since the great depression, not even the economic downturn ten years ago, not the ups and downs in unemployment that we've seen in our world, the farm crisis, up in northern minnesota, nothing like they are projecting to happen. july begins with the fourth of july. the fourth of july is when we celebrate our country. we celebrate what america means. well, my hope is that we end july by actually passing the heroes act. i know we're going to negotiate it, colleagues. i know we'll make changes over what passed in the house, but we cannot let our states go bankrupt. we must help local areas. i was on the phone today with friends in the fargo moorhead area and we've seen it there too. we've seen it all over our state. the snap program was originally

designed to respond to changes in the economy by expanding to meet increased need during economic downturns and contracting as economic recovery alleviates a need for food assistance. under the farm bill that was signed into law under senator stabenow's leadership in 2818 -- 2018. this passed with 80 votes in the senate and 369 votes in the house of representatives avoided to making cuts to benefits or changes to eligibility that would take away benefits or create obstacles. at this difficult time we should ensure we are giving assistance to all of those who need it, not put up new barriers, not what we're seeing with more covid cases in the southern part of this country, in the western part of this country. in fact, the facts and the numbers bear out that we should be increasing those benefits. the house has taken action to do just that by passing a 15%

increase in snap benefits during the pandemic. that's what they did in the heroes act. that's what we should do here. at the same time, the middle of a pandemic is the wrong time to be cutting snap benefits or kicking participants out of the program, and that's why i called on the administration to withdraw rules that would take these benefits away from families in need. food deserts, again the pandemic has simply put a big fat magnifying glass on a problem that already existed and that is 23.5 million americans live in fa food desert where an -- in a food desert where it is more difficult to purchase fresh, nutritious food. low income americans, people of color much more likely to live in food deserts, and people in rural areas live in these food deserts all over america. that's why senator brown and i wrote a letter with 20 senators urging the department of

agriculture to prioritize these programs intended to minimize food deserts and support local and regional efforts for these projects. we cannot overlook the capacity needs of food shelves, and that's something i talked about with our friends at second harvest heartland just this weekend. the work now act is something that i appreciate senator wyden is here, one of the cosponsors, along with senator brown, senator schatz, to support nonprofit organizations, to make it easier for them to hire people who are actually out of work who can then help other people. it's why i joined senator stabenow and several of my colleagues in the agriculture committee in introducing the food supply protection act to help food banks increase their capacity and strengthen partnerships to prevent food waste while feeding more families. it was one of my predecessors, vice president hubert h. humphrey, whose desk i stand in

front of today, his name is carved in the desk. he served on the agriculture committee, he grew up in a small town in south dakota and became a professor eventually, but in a farm that was a family -- that was a pharmacist and he understood the importance growing up in that family, seeing the ups and downs of rural america. he understood the importance of stable government policy for both agriculture producers and families struggling to put food on the table. he was a leading advocate of food nutrition programs and paid an instrumental role of the food stamp act of 1964 which turned what was then just a pilot program into the permanent program we know today. he knew that the moral test of government is how government treats its most vulnerable citizens, those in need, those who are seniors, those with

disabilities. he once said this, we will be remembered not for the power of our weapons but for the power of our compassion, our dedication to human welfare. in these times of uncertainty and with rising food insecurity, we need to work to ensure that the nutrition needs of our most vulnerable citizens are met. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. stabenow. ms. stabenow: i want to thank my friend from minnesota for his wonderful words. again, think about all the need that is there and we're here just trying to make sure that people can get the basics like the food on the table for the kids. i'm going to turn -- we're very fortunate. i feel very fortunate to have both senators from oregon here on the floor this evening, and i'm going to first yield now to senator wyden. but i -- i want to say first,

senator wyden is chair of the finance committee, as we know. i have -- i think that's a pretty powerful committee and we're grateful for your leadership. i'm particularly grateful for the work you're doing and have done on unemployment compensation and what needs to be done and the importance of tying all of this together for somebody having enough income to be able it pay the rent and then getting enough help to put food on the table and i'm proud to be your partner and very much appreciate all that you're doing to put people first. so, senator wyden. mr. wyden: thank you, senator stabenow, my seatmate on the senate finance committee. we're a bit more socially distant now, but we still have spent this time plotting and thinking and trying to imagine a future that provides the kinds of priorities that we've been

talking about today. and your reports, particularly these wonderful reports that document the cost of inaction, i have rm almost -- i have almost made them a reference tool on my desk so when i have to look at a particular area, i can turn to one of those stabenow reports. always understandable. always cutting right to the heart of the issue which is how are you going to give the opportunity for everybody in america to get ahead, not just the people at the top, but everybody in america to have a chance to get ahead. and i'm not going to take but a few minutes. i do want to note that i believe that oregon is the only state to have produced 100% of its united states senators on behalf of the cause tonight. this is something senator merkley and i enjoy doing when there's an opportunity to speak for justice. and i want to reflect for a

minute on how the day started because i guess it was almost 12 hours ago our democratic leader, senator schumer, stood right there. i stood where i am. and he outlined the schumer-wyden proposal for the next steps on dealing with this crushing unemployment we've got in our country. 30 million people, i mean, the number is almost so large that the experts can't get their arms around exactly how many people are unemployed. but what we know is that every week it goes up far more than that kind of similar period during the great recession. and we talked about what's going to happen on july 31. july 31, if the senate does not act, we're going to have a tsunami of evictions. we are going to have families,

just as senator stabenow said, basically sitting in their living room, sitting in their kitchen and trying to figure out how they are going to make ends meet that month. and without super-charged unemployment, without the snap benefits that senator stabenow is talking about, without the help that senator brown is talking about with respect to housing and evictions, there are a lot of people who are just going to fall between the cracks. and i thought, it being 12 hours we began this, that i might just connect the dots for a few minutes. in the face of an historic public health emergency, we know that millions of americans have their health on the line. and because donald trump has failed to get the covid-19 virus under control, we've now got

jobs on the line. and now many people are being forced to choose between feeding their child or paying the rent to keep a roof over their head. so you've got housing, you've got health care, you've got employment, and we're trying very hard to be creative. and i know my colleague from michigan, hardly a day goes by when she doesn't talk to me about the benefit of work share, a way to make unemployment dollars stretch and by the way senator merkley talks about it almost as much as the senator from michigan because he feels so strongly about it. as we connect the dots, as we have over the last 12 hours -- and we talk about housing, health care, and unemployment, i also want people to understand that those challenges were

serious last week and the week before and we ought to put in context what we heard yesterday from tony fauci who said that the trajectory as of right now is one where our country may possibly see 100,000 new cases a day. so let's picture what that means for the snap program and how hard senator stabenow's work is going to be because we heard chairman roberts and you all have worked very well and the like and hopefully we can get that worked out because i don't even want to begin to imagine how much hunger and unemployment and housing challenges we're going to face with 100,000 new

cases a day. so the work that senator stabenow is doing is urgent business and it really also brings us back to how can it be in a country as and good as ours we've got all these kids going to bed at night in our home state, a state that senator merkley and i have the privilege to represent, one out of every four oregonians worries about putting food on the table. and our oregon food bank run by the innimmable susannah morgan is doing a fabulous job but the fact is -- and i was really struck by this -- the oregon food bank has told my office that demand for emergency food has doubled in oregon over the

past two months at oregon food banks five branches. recently i was home and whenever senator merkley and i are home, we try to get out and talk to a variety of community groups. and i was helping distribute food baskets. and i was struck because we were all being socially distant and they were handing me the bags and i was putting them in the back of the car. and i got a chance to have a little bit of a conversation with those people. and i was just stunned because it was clear that many of those people had never ever had to in their car -- and the cars, senator stabenow, were backed up for blocks, blocks and blocks on the east side of our community where senator merkley and i both live.

and they were all people who had not faced this kind of challenge before. and you looked at them and they looked at you, and you could see in their face that they never expected this, that -- and particularly the seniors. my colleague has heard all the great panther stories. poor senator merkley has heard them 50 times. you only heard them 25 times. but a lot of those seniors going through in their cars, it was clear also that was the big outing for the day. they didn't get really dressed up but kind of. and the car was perfectly clean and they came through and they wanted to visit. but you knew that without that food, they wouldn't have a chance to make it through the day. and what this comes down to is

what senator stabenow is basically doing is being in the kind of -- business. that is a word, a phrase that -- it's about perfecting the world. it's about the moral obligation we got in america to do everything within our power to make sure that kids and families do not go hungry. so susannah morgan was real clear about the things that she wanted senator merkley and i to talk about on the floor of the senate and make sure they got out. she wants to make sure that people can get assistance through a regular e.b.t. card. the trump administration, of course, has pushed to impose strenuous work requirements that just don't make any sense,

particularly in a public health crisis when workplaces can be dangerous. we want to expand ways to get food to snap participants, like home delivery and curbside pickup. we want to extend what has come to be known as the pandemic e.b.t. through the summer and any future school closures. this is so important because even before the pandemic, i often would go to various kinds of programs run by community group, and they'd be serving a lunch. and i would shoot baskets with kids for a bit. and then i would see the kids sort of drift away and they would take at least two lunches,

at least two. and so i'd go and visit and it was clear that they were just ravravenous. they were incredibly hungry. and this was pro-covid. i would ask what did you have to eat since you were here yesterday and had to shoot baskets with a senator. and they'd look at you and say, well, i had a milky way. and so that's what we're dealing with in america right now. and why what you're doing, senator stabenow, with these programs is so incredibly important because when we have our priorities straight kids who are eligible for free or reduced cost meals would be able to get that food. and i know that my colleague from michigan has worked hard to make sure that those meals include more fresh fruits and

vegetables, because i've heard her talk about it, and that she is trying to reach out to so many communities where often -- and senator klobuchar talked about it -- it's kind of a food desert. so if you don't have the program senator stabenow is working for, you're just going to have a lot of people like those kids i met going hungry. and then i'm just going to close with one last thought that's important to us in our part of the country. the reality is that for many, many years, none of this was at all partisan. you know, we've all heard about bob dole and george mcgovern and the history books and they made their common cause with respect to agriculture and they would round up urban legislators. and we read about that.

various historical figures from the east. they weren't partisan. and in our part of the world when we talk about the practic practical, commonsense ideas that senator stabenow is offering for feeding hungry people, we just call them the oregon way. people always ask, where where is this oregon way, ron? where is this thing? is it on the top of the capitol dome or pioneer square in portland? i said no, it's would we've tried to do for years. and i just want to thank you, senator stabenow, for bringing heart and a pragmatic approach to this. we saw how you just reached out to senator roberts. by the way, among the intelligence committee -- i'm not going to give out anything classified, but senator roberts walked by and he said we're going to get this worked out. we're going to figure this out.

and so i'm going to end this on a little bit of an upbeat note. because that happened maybe only half an hour ago. and having watched my seat mate in action with chairman roberts often pulled together agreements where nobody thought an agreement was possible, no pressure. don't feel like we're sing naturalling you out -- signaling you out but just know a lot of us are going to be your allies in this fight because it's a fight for fairness. it's a fight for kids. it's a fight for families that are hurting. and it's a fight for an america where everybody gets a chance to get ahead. and thank you for doing that. and i believe the rest of the oregon senatorial delegation -- ms. stabenow: i am going to yield to senator merkley in a second. but first i want to say to the senior senator from oregon, when

you talk about the oregon way, you know, this needs to be the american way, right. this is the american way. right now the average food benefit under snap is $4.17 a day for a person. think about going to the grocery store. $4.17 a day. and we're asking for a 15% increase during this pandemic. and so we ought to all be looking at these numbers and going come on. the american way ought to be to make sure somebody can put food on the table for the children and that they're not eating a milky way until they can get to school. thank you so much. i'm going to now turn to our -- i guess technically junior

senator. i don't think of you as junior. i want to give a shout out to senator merkley who is the ranking democrat on the agriculture subcommittee of appropriations, extremely important and is such a wonderful partner and advocate on all of the food access issues and healthy food issues and so on. we're so lucky to have senator merkley in the position that he is in. so i will turn to you. yield time to senator merkley. mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: i ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my colleague from michigan. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: senator stabenow, it's a pleasure to be here with you in this fight for something as fundamental as hunger. and as i was listening to the conversation, your words and our colleague from ohio, sherrod brown who was speaking and our colleague from minnesota and my partner from oregon, i thought

how many senators have experienced hunger this last week, the inability to have a meal. what's your sense of that? ms. stabenow: well, my guess would be that everyone is like me and no, i've not experienced -- mr. merkley: not one of us in this chamber is missing a meal. ms. stabenow: we are all extremely fortunate. we don't have to experience that. mr. merkley: and i'm pretty sure that down the hall in the house of representatives, nobody is missing a meal. and yet so many people in each of our states are missing meals. in my state of oregon, hunger has doubled since march. i imagine hunger has increased in your home state of michigan. ms. stabenow: absolutely. at least doubled, absolutely. mr. merkley: it's being driven by massive unemployment.

the estimate in april was for families earning less than $40,000 a year, 40% had lost their job. and i think that was april. now maybe it's well over 50%. half of working america, modest incomes lost their jobs and it wasn't that easy to sign up for unemployment benefits. we still have a couple hundred thousand people in oregon waiting for unemployment benefits. you can guarantee you they're very hungry right now. i know those in michigan as well. ms. stabenow: absolutely. mr. merkley: and here the majority leader has decided to send the senate on vacation for two weeks. i guess my question to you is does hunger take a vacation? those that are hungry in oregon and hungry in michigan, hungry

in pennsylvania? is it going to take a vacation for two weeks? ms. stabenow: i don't think hunger ever takes vacation, if it's in the middle ever the night, early in the morning, through the week. the reality is when we're here, there are people around this country that are hungry. and when senator mcconnell adjourns the senate for the week and goes -- and we're not here for the next two week, people are going to continue to be hungry and probably getting more and more hungry as the economic situation gets worse. mr. merkley: you know, we might think of hunger as just kind of a temporary discomfort, something you get through, but my understanding is when children are hungry, when they don't have the basic nutrients on a regular basis, it damages the development of the mind. is that something you've heard? ms. stabenow: absolutely. mr. merkley: so we're talking about millions of american

children who are suffering not just discomfort but damage to their minds because they don't have enough to eat. and the majority leader is sending us on vacation rather than addressing it. well, thank you to my colleague for coming to the floor, organizing, carrying this forward. the work you do in authorizing -- the work the appropriations committee does in funding. we have got to address this. we have to recognize how bad the situation is, how bad things are nationally. more than 40 million people losing their jobs, 120,000 people have died, the rate of infections exploding across the country, and how bad things are in my home state. 243,000 people out of work.

unemployment rate of over 14%. higher than it was at any point in the great recession. food insecurity, hunger doubling since march. food which is at the top of the hierarchy of needs for human life. and all we've done is come to the floor and say let's help, in a pretty modest way. a 15% increase on the $4 and change that you talked about. 60 cents. a small -- i mean, probably we should be doubling it. but that 15% increase in the maximum benefit, it does make a difference. it makes a difference. hunger doesn't take a vacation, and neither should we. we should, as senator stabenow proposed, debate now a bill, pass now a bill, effect these

changes at this moment, not leave this chamber until we have gotten the work of the american people done for the most important need any human being has, and that is basic nutrition. when martin luther king was accepting his nobel peace prize, >> audacity he had the. to believe that people everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality, and freedom for their spirits. let this chamber have the audacity not just to believe that people can have three meals a day, but to make it happen. i am fully in support of your efforts, a full partner on behalf of all those who suffer

hunger in the united states, on behalf of every child who wants a basic foundation to thrive here in the united states of america. we are failing in our job. hunger doesn't take a vacation. and neither should the u.s. senate. let's get the act passed now. thank you, mr. president. ms. stabenow: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: i want to thank my friend from oregon for his comments and his ongoing leadership on the appropriations committee. it's incredibly important. now i want to turn to my friend from pennsylvania, senator casey, and thank him. on so many different issues engaged, from children and what they need in terms of health care and being able to have the support they need to be able to grow and be successful, all the way up to our older citizens and those in nursing homes where he's providing such advocacy now

as we look at what needs to be done to support our seniors and those in nursing homes. so thank you for always putting people first and for joining us tonight. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. i want to thank the senior senator from michigan for her leadership, and i will say more about her work in a moment, but we would not be here tonight talking about this program, what we know by the acronym, but the words are all important, supplemental nutrition assistance program, snap, what we used to call food stamps, but we wouldn't be here without her leadership and so many others in the senate who have made food security and antihunger initiatives a priority. this is a program that's, i believe, core to our responsibility to support american families during this national crisis, the public health crisis and the jobs crisis.

this program, the supplemental nutrition assistance program, is a lifeline for millions of americans to access the food they need to survive. i think that's an understatement. this is about -- as the junior senator from oregon, senator merkley, just said about life itself, about being able to live and being able to survive. no human being can survive without food. and so many go without food on a regular basis, and so many others are food insecure, but that doesn't mean that they have not felt the pain that we're talking about. i wanted to say just a couple of words about senator stabenow because this has been not just an issue for her, not just a program, the snap program, not just a cause of food insecurity. it has really been a passion for her. and some people are mission driven in their work, and she

has been one of those senators who have been mission driven to make sure we're doing everything we can, every opportunity, every budget, every season of the senate that we do everything we can to help the most vulnerable. and someday, many years from now when many of us may not be around, there may be folks who were chronicling or summarizing the history of the senate on particular issues. i'm sure, as we all do, we make reference to work that has preceded us or senators who preceded us. and i have no doubt that when a senator stands up on this floor years from now, maybe even decades from now, and they talk about the supplemental nutrition assistance program, they start to -- if they do itemize or catalog or list the senators who had the most profound impact on

this program, senator stabenow will be one of very few that will be able to -- that would be listed on such a chronicle of the advocacy done for the snap program. william jennings bryan said a long time ago in a different context, but he said it well about a cause, how one person can make such a difference on one issue or one cause, and we have seen some of that lately. americans demanding action on a range of issues, marching and protesting for criminal justice reform or changes to policing or advocates for -- advocating for health care or whatever issue or whatever cause. william jennings bryan said it well. i think he said it in 1896. he said the humblest citizen in all the land, when clad in a righteous cause, is stronger

than all the hosts of error. when clad in a righteous cause is stronger than all the hosts of error. i think what he meant by that was that one citizen can have a -- can have a huge impact. and what we have seen with senator stabenow's work is one senator can have an impact because this has been for her, i know, her righteous cause, and the country is better for her service and better for her work on this issue. so what are we talking about here? when we say safe food and security, that may not sound too threatening to a lot of people. that means you're hungry. and the person we're talking about might be an adult, but all too many times, it's a child. when a child is hungry, it's hard to -- as an adult to really fully understand what that means. i have never lived a day of my life when i was hungry the whole

day or the second day or the third day, so i really can't explain it because i have never experienced it. i think that's probably true of most members of congress. either growing up, for some, they were, but many of course now don't feel that -- that sense of food insecurity. but it's a devastating reality for tens of millions of americans. that was the case before the jobs crisis, before the covid-19 public health crisis. ever more so now in the aftermath of the onset of the virus and while we're still in the grip of this covid-19 disease. what we know and we're describing it worldwide as a pandemic. the pandemic has only made this crisis worse and even more urgent. the crisis of food insecurity and economic insecurity. the unemployment numbers now that we see are further exacerbating what we already --

what were -- i should say the already undeniable realities of hunger, poverty, and food insecurity in this country. i know that, for example, in my home state of pennsylvania -- i haven't seen the may numbers yet, but the april numbers were high. 15% unemployment. 975,000 people out of work. heading toward a million people out of work in one state. and i'm certain that number will be lower in may, and thank god for that and i hope lower in june again, but when you're saying that in one state there are hundreds of thousands more on top of the unemployed numbers for march, you can understand the terrible impact. and when we talk about unemployment, that often leads to food insecurity and then may lead to the kind of desperation that hunger can bring, you're talking about real pain in the lives of people, physical pain. in an adult, but especially in a

child who may not be able to articulate the pain they are feeling, who may not be able to function literally, may not be able to function in any way. certainly can't learn in school. no human being can learn and grow if they're hungry all the time, no one. not the strongest person we know. i come from a heritage of people who left ireland because of hunger. a great hunger they called it at the time. when policies were put in place where actions were not taken and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people starved and millions and millions left ireland, just like people leave their homelands today to escape hunger, to escape poverty and even famine itself, the most extreme version of hunger around the world so that we're talking about real physical pain, we're not just talking about a casual missing

of a meal or being a little bit hungry, as so many of us have never experienced. so it's pain but it's also fear. imagine the fear of a parent. i can't even begin to imagine as a parent, knowing that for a lot of different reasons, job loss or other adverse circumstances in your life, you cannot afford to feed your children, so you might in that one person have both the pain of hunger and the fear, the total fear of not being able to feed your children. and if we're not doing something about that in the united states senate, we're just not doing our job. i know, we say oh, the cares bill did this and the cares, this bill did that. you know what? we have been trying for months now on the democratic side of the aisle in the senate, trying for months to get a couple things done. what are they? number one, they increase the

snap benefits by 15%. why can't that be done in the united states senate? when we know the pain and the reality of hunger. increase the minimum benefit level. why can't we do that in the united states senate? we passed what? five bills for $3 trillion, and we can't add more money to the snap program? i know we did it in an earlier bill, but let's stop patting ourselves on the back for that. let's do something transformative or at least do something substantial. let's not even get to transformative. let's get to substantial help for americans who are hungry right now. folks who are low-income are hungry. folks who had a job and lost their job are hungry. they may benefit from a food pantry, a food bank. we're not doing enough for them either. we're certainly not doing enough for the supplemental nutrition assistance program, the most vulnerable among us.

and thirdly, and in addition to increasing the benefit by -- benefits overall by 15, the minimum benefit level, we should put a stop to the rule that the administration has been cramming down the throats of americans so that less people will get the benefit of the snap program. the administration is dead wrong about that, but they haven't just doubled down on pushing these draconian changes to the program, but they recently appealed a court ruling that put a temporary pause on one of the rules. i don't know the words for that. heartless. callous. but it's not good for any of us. it's a stain on the moral fabric of america when any administration does that. now, i know that senator stabenow and her colleague on

the agriculture, nutrition, and forestry committee -- we should use that middle word more often than we do. not simply the ag committee. it's the agriculture, nutrition, and forestry committee. the nutrition part of it has been the subject of some good working relationships on the committee. and i want to thank senator stabenow for her work again, and i appreciate the work she has done with senator roberts. but we've got to do more than we've done on this program. i was proud a couple of years ago to finally, after attempt after attempt, to finally year after year finally to get the global food security act passed. people were waiting for that from the time that dick lugar served in the senate all the way through the time that i teamed up with now stormer senator johnny isakson. we got the -- former senator johnny isakson. we got the global food act done, which meant the great program that the bush administration started, the obama administration brought to fruition, that was codified in

law. that was a good day for world food security. that was a good day for the world when america showed that we know how to do this, we know how to help countries grow their own food and provide food security. but we haven't done enough here. we never can say we've done enough here if we're not funding at an adequate level in the middle of an pandemic and in an economic emergency. we can't say we're doing enough if we don't invest enough in snap. i have more to say, but i know i'm over my time. let me meac one final point -- make one final point. the moral case is unassailable here. there is no disputing the benefit of this program, especially now. i think the moral question is settled. i hope folks will consider it. but how about the economic -- say that you're a member of congress and you don't like this

program. not many people will admit to that. but you don't like it and you don't want to add more funding to it it that's your position. that's a morally objectionable position, but let's say that's your position. you could also be for the increase in the snap program because it's a good banking for the buck. if all you're interested in is going back home to say, you know what i did today? i paid for a program that will more than pay for itself? it will help everybody. if that is what your game is, going back to your community or state, then fine. this program, the snap program is a great banking for the buck. you spend a buck on snap and i will make sure i cite the source here, the united states department of agriculture's economic research service is spend a buck on snap benefits in an economic downturn, and guess what, you get a buck 50 in return. maybe as high as a buck 80.

but let's go with the conservative number, a buck 50. that's a pretty good return on invest -- investment. if that's all you care about, return on investment, you don't care about the program. you're not really troubled by food insecurity, you're not really persuaded by the pain of hunger, then support it because it's a good banking for the buck. that the would make sense. that's the american way to consider what we should be doing here. consider the moral case. that should be enough, but you can also consider the efficacy, the effect, the value of the program in an economic sense. we are all better off when snap is funded at an adequate level. all of us because of that banking for the buck. because when people get snap dollars, they spend them. guess what. that's good for all of us. it's good for our local economies. it's good for our state economy. it's good for producers and

people transporting the food and people marketing the food. that's why farmers and people in the ag sector of our economy are sometimes the biggest proponents of the snap program. so this is the right thing to do to try to ease some of that pain, that awful pain that a child feels in the middle of the night, in the morning when they wake up, at lunchtime when other kids are eating something, they may not be eating, especially now that they are away from school and at night and whp they go to bed -- and when they go to bed at night. let's come together and get something done. there's some other news that might be in the other bill. let's meet our obligation in the supplemental nutrition assistance program. if others who have been reluctant to do that, vote for this and support this and you can do all the pats on your back that you want. let's do the right thing for america, especially those

suffering from the pain of hunger. with that, i will yield the floor to the senior senator from michigan. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. first, i want to thank my friend from pennsylvania for your passion and for being such a wonderful partner on these issues, and i very much appreciate your speaking about the fact that this is an economic benefit if there's nothing else that someone just wants to look at, how do we help our farmers, how do we help our grocery stores, how do we help those in the food chain? all of which we want to help as well. you do that by the most efficient way possible which is giving people the funds to go buy food directly from the grocery store so that they are able when they have a time of need like this to be able to support their families. and the great thing about snap is that it is setup where the economy gets better, the food

assistance goes down. the economy is worse, it goes up. the challenge for us right now is that there is such a crisis and so many more people needing help, people never in their lives thought they would need help. that we are in a situation where we are called upon to meet that need to be able to increase what we are doing. there was a small effort at the beginning to provide some additional help. nowhere near meeting the need that we have now, nowhere near. and when i think about negotiating the cares act and the fact, again, that the average benefit for food assistance in this country per person is $4.17 a day -- $4.17 a day. and in the cares act, the white house said no to any increase to

$4.17 a day. leader mcconnell said no to any increase in the cares act in $4.17 a day for people. there's something wrong with that. and so we're here on the floor to say we've got to do better. the senate's got to do better. the house did better when they passed the heroes act. they gave some additional support and help. the senate needs to do the same. the senate could have done the same tonight rather than waiting two weeks now when we're not in session, haven't even really started negotiating what comes next and it may take weeks after that and every single day -- every single day there are people going hungry. the pain that senator casey talked about is something being experienced by people tonight, being experienced by people in the morning, and every single day going forward. that is the reality for too many

families in america, in the united states of america, and it doesn't have to be that way. we can at least live some help -- some help. i wish we could do more. we couldn't get a 15% increase in the cares act. i would love to be able to do more than that. but at minimum, we should be doing that. that's what the house did, that's what's been done in other economic downturns and that's what we should be doing to help families in america that frankly just want to know that somebody's got their back right now when everything's coming at them and they are trying to figure out how they are going to keep their head above water and care for their children and make sure that the older adults in their lives have the help and support they need as well. we're going to keep working on this until we get it. there's just no excuse not to be able to meet the need that so

many millions of families are feeling right now. this is a moral moment for the united states senate. could have been a moral wednesday if there hadn't been an objection, we could have gotten it done tonight. wouldn't that have been a great way to go into the fourth of july of weekend being able to provide some small additional food assistance for millions of americans who are in need right now. so that's not going to happen now because of the objection but we're going to keep until we can get help for families that they need. mr. president, i yield the floor. i would suggest the absence of a quorum. mr. casey: mr. president. the presiding officer: the

senator from pennsylvania. will the senator with hold her request? ms. stabenow: yes. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. i ask to speak as if in morning business. mr. president, at the end of a long day, i have a few comments before we close tonight. i wanted to talk about a story that's troubling a lot of americans we just learned about in the last couple of days, and that is the recent events regarding the united states presence in afghanistan and some of the reporting. like many of my colleagues, and i'm sure this is a feeling shared by tens and tens and millions of americans, i am alarmed, as i know they are, by reports of the intelligence community's discovery that the russian government offered to pay taliban militants to target

american troops in afghanistan. "the new york times" broke the story on june 26, and since then, several questions have emerged since how the intelligence was handled, huge decision-makers within the united states government have known about this, and thirdly, what measures the administration is taking to hold russia accountable. obviously there are a number of stories by other news outlets in addition to "the new york times" i'll just refer to one -- one excerpt from "the new york times" june 26 report. it said, and i'm quoting, an operation to incentivize the killing of american and other nato troops would be a significant and provocative escalation of what american and afghan officials have said is russian support for the taliban, unquote. the story goes on to say later.

any involvement with the taliban that resulted in the deaths of american troops would also be a huge escalation of russia's so-called hybrid war against the united states, a strategy of destabilizing adversaries through a combination of such tactics as cyberattacks and covert an deniable military operations, unquote. we learned in recent days that these reports have been circuit lating through the united states -- circulating through the united states intelligence community but there was little to no action taken. the timeline regarding these events is of particular concern to me and i know of many americans, but especially those who represent a state where there's a direct connection. in april of 2019, three united

states marines were killed in a car bomb near an air field in afghanistan. there is specks that this -- speculation that this may be a bounty attack carried out by the taliban for the russians. i'm further reporting on this tracking the dollars by "the new york times" and maybe a few other outlets. in this attack one of the marines killed in that april 19, -- i'm sorry, april 2019 attack, one of those marines killed was a pennsylvanian. if there was credible intelligence raring the russian -- regarding the russian plot and that intelligence was acted upon, one question i have -- and it's only a question, i don't know the answer to this question, but i ask it -- could the death of this young pennsylvania marine and his brothers in arms have been averted?

that's a question. i don't know the answer to it. i hope in the coming days and weeks, and i hope not longer than weeks, we will have an answer to that question among many that trouble so many americans. as of the close of last year, december 2019, 294 service members from pennsylvania were killed in the wars in iraq and afghanistan, the third highest total of any state. so our state -- so our state has sacrificed a lot. if russia had any hand in contributing to these losses to say that this is -- that that is offensive, enraging and deeply problematic is an understatement and it warns a close look at u.s. engagement in afghanistan, but also how we respond, how the united states of america responds to vladimir putin's efforts to disrupt u.s. efforts overseas and take american lives

while doing it. accordingly i have several questions regarding how the intelligence was handled and what measures have been taken to hold russia accountable for these horrific incendiary, unlawful actions contrary to international law. the administration must brief all members of congress immediately -- i think americans are offended when the administration offends -- or briefs one -- one side of the aisle. all members of congress should be briefed. and those briefings should occur immediately in close proximity to the report. in that briefing -- and that briefing should include when they received the intelligence, when the administration received it, when the president was briefed and what actions were considered in response. i also call on the

administration to report to congress on a process for protecting our troops moving forward. you could be justifiably offended by inaction by the administration or the knowledge that -- that preceded that inaction. that they did nothing in response to it. it's especially offensive now to a lot of americans that this information now is on the public record and there seems to be no evidence of any kind of a response. any kind of an action. so i think the administration should report to congress not just on who knew what when but also what we do going forward. the families of these fallen soldiers deserve answers. the american people obviously deserve answers as well. we cannot let russia and vladimir putin get away with this. and with this, mr. president, i

would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

this is a test. ppp. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: i want to thank all my colleagues and my partners, my partner senator reed for working so hard today to come to an agreement. it's been a tough day. we think we have created a package that is acceptable to everyone and we will be hotlining it tonight. the senate will come back into session at 10:00 tomorrow morning. and hopefully we will be able to lock in this -- lock in our deal

here. i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i have seven requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideratio of s. 4148 introduced earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 4148, a bill to extend the chemical facility antiterrorism standards program of the department of homeland security and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. inhofe: 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: without objection. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to s. resolution 629. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 629 designating june 2020 as great outdoors month. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed with the measure. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration and that senate now proceed to s.

resolution 634. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 634 designating july 30, 2020, as national whistle-blower appreciation day. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged, and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. thursday, july 2. further, that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders to be reserved for their use later in the day, and that morning

business be closed. further, following leader remarks, the senate will proceed to the executive session to resume consideration of calendar number 718. finally, notwithstanding rule 22, the cloture vote on the vought nomination occur at 1:30 p.m. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned until -- adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned