[Pages S2253-S2267]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following 
nomination which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of William 
R. Evanina, of Pennsylvania, to be Director of the National 
Counterintelligence and Security Center. (New Position)


                   Recognition Of The Majority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.


                              Nominations

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the core business of our Nation does 
not stop while we fight the coronavirus. This week, Senate committees 
are conducting oversight and holding hearings. Members are tracking the 
implementation of the CARES Act. We are discussing how Congress could 
do everything from further strengthening the health response to 
ensuring that a second epidemic of frivolous lawsuits does not redirect 
the national recovery into a trial lawyer bonanza.
  Here on the floor, we are filling major vacancies in the Federal 
Government. Today, we will confirm Bill Evanina to lead the National 
Counterintelligence and Security Center. As our Nation grapples with 
challenges at home, it is critically important that a full complement 
of skilled professionals keep a close watch on our foes, adversaries, 
and competitors.

[[Page S2254]]

  

  Mr. Evanina's nomination will make him the first Senate-confirmed 
Director of the NCSC. This role represents our government's senior-most 
expert in counterintelligence. Fortunately, this nominee has served for 
3 decades as special agent with the FBI, as chief of the CIA's 
Counterespionage Group, and as one of the principal advisers to the 
Director of National Intelligence.
  Mr. Evanina's long professional experience has given him a well-
trained eye. He has made clear he is focused on the most serious 
espionage threats facing our country today: China's insidious efforts 
to steal our industrial, governmental, technological, and political 
secrets and Russia's continuing efforts to meddle in our democracy. We 
have a qualified professional who is tailor-made for an important job. 
Our colleagues on the Intelligence Committee have reported him out on a 
unanimous bipartisan basis twice. The vice chairman, Senator Warner, 
said: ``Bill Evanina should be confirmed without further delay.''
  But even still, our Democratic colleagues chose to obstruct his 
nomination on the floor this week and require a full day of floor time 
to confirm. Ironically, at the same time, we have also heard some of 
our Democratic colleagues complain that we spend too much time voting 
on nominations. It is bad enough to spend 3 years delaying nominations 
to a historic degree and deliberately making the process painful, but 
it reached a new level of irony for our Democratic friends to do all 
that and then complain that their own strategy is inconveniencing their 
schedules.
  Essential matters of government do not cease because of the 
coronavirus. They do not cease because of partisanship either. As long 
as Senate Democrats continue to make incredibly qualified nominees 
travel the hard way, including someone whom their own Democratic 
ranking member openly praised, then, I will assure them they will need 
to continue to show up and cast votes. The country's business will not 
go undone.


                      Nomination of Justin Walker

  Mr. President, speaking of nominations, this morning our colleagues 
on the Judiciary Committee are examining the qualifications of Judge 
Justin Walker. Judge Walker is a fellow Kentuckian. He is a district 
judge of the Western District of Kentucky, and he is President Trump's 
nominee to serve on our second most important Federal Court, the Court 
of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
  I am grateful to Chairman Graham and all the other chairmen who are 
finding creative ways to conduct important business. The Senate is 
demonstrating that the work of governing must and can continue, albeit 
in new ways.
  So to respect this time of social distancing, I am going to offer my 
introduction here on the floor instead of over in the committee. Since 
Judge Walker was tapped to serve the people of Kentucky on the Federal 
district bench, he wasted no time in expanding his strong reputation 
for intellectual brilliance, legal acumen, and total fairness and 
impartiality.
  In just the last few weeks, Judge Walker has won national attention 
for an eloquent and persuasive opinion that forcefully defended 
Kentuckians' basic First Amendment freedom of religion, and he has 
earned a ``well-qualified'' rating from the left-leaning American Bar 
Association that Senate Democrats, like my friend the Democratic 
leader, have frequently described as ``the gold standard.''
  Let me say that again. In the span of just a couple of weeks, almost 
simultaneously, Judge Walker has won praise from religious freedom 
advocates nationwide and the approval of the ABA, which Democrats call 
``the gold standard.'' That illustrates the kind of impressive 
individual the committee is considering this morning.
  Already, Judge Walker's reputation as a brilliant legal rising star 
precedes him. Yet, when you consider the full scope of his education 
and experience, it is hardly a surprise. Judge Walker graduated from 
Duke University summa cum laude. He graduated from Harvard Law School 
magna cum laude, and he edited the Law Review.
  He had prestigious clerkships at the DC Circuit for then-Judge Brett 
Kavanaugh and at the Supreme Court for then-Justice Anthony Kennedy. He 
learned at the elbows of legal giants. Then, he moved on to skilled 
performance in private practice, and then to distinguished scholarship 
at the University of Louisville Law School, with particular expertise 
in national security, administrative law, and the separation of powers.
  Indeed, it is an impressive record. As Kentucky's secretary of State, 
Mike Adams, put it recently, ``Judge Walker is more than just a 
[C.V.].'' Hence, the outpouring of praise from his peers, colleagues, 
and neighbors in Kentucky who know him well. One hundred Kentucky 
lawyers, many of whom have practiced before Judge Walker in the 
district court, wrote to praise his ``courage to apply precedent 
faithfully.'' Sixteen State attorneys general wrote to share their 
confidence in Judge Walker's ability to ``weigh the facts against the 
law as it is written . . . not as he wishes it to be.''
  I am confident our colleagues on the committee will find that this 
nominee possesses a generational legal mind, a kind heart, and total 
judicial impartiality.
  President Trump made an outstanding choice when he asked this 
Kentuckian to take his public service to the next level. I am confident 
Judge Walker will not disappoint. I urge the committee to approve his 
nomination. I look forward to voting to confirm him soon here on the 
Senate floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                      Nomination of Justin Walker

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, the Senate is here, open for business. 
The janitors and food service workers, police officers, and all the 
staff who operate the floor are here. They are all here. Capitol Police 
are doing their usual excellent job.
  The Republican leader called us back despite the obvious health 
risks, but we are ready to do the business our country demands. So 
there is a question that looms: Why isn't the Senate focused on 
responding to the COVID-19 pandemic? There hasn't been a single vote 
here on the Senate floor related to coronavirus--not even a nominee 
related to coronavirus.
  Rather than focusing on COVID-19 with laser-like intensity, the 
Senate Judiciary Committee today will waste precious time on the 
nomination of Leader McConnell's protegee, Justin Walker, to serve on 
the DC Court of Appeals, the second most powerful court in the country.
  Mr. Walker is a 37-year-old Federalist Society disciple who has more 
experience as a cable news commentator than he does trying cases in 
court. Mr. Walker's qualifications pale in comparison to those of 
previous nominees to the DC Circuit--Democrat and Republican. Nominees 
by Democratic Presidents and Republican Presidents all were deeply 
steeped in the law--just about every one--and here we have this?
  What Leader McConnell is doing to the courts is nothing short of 
disgraceful. The judges currently sitting on the second highest court 
in the land had decades of experience in Supreme Court advocacy, 
appellate work, criminal law, private practice, academia, and so on, 
prior to their nominations. Mr. Walker has been a district court judge 
for less than a year--less than a year. He had no trial experience 
prior to that.
  Inexperience aside, bad enough as that is, Walker's views are way out 
of the mainstream. In 2018, he described Chief Justice Roberts' opinion 
upholding our healthcare law as ``indefensible'' and ``catastrophic.'' 
Meanwhile, he praised a dissenting opinion by then-Judge Kavanaugh as a 
``roadmap for the Supreme Court'' to invalidate it.
  Every Republican who votes for this nominee, Mr. Walker, will be 
voting to dismantle the ACA and take millions of people's healthcare 
away from them if his statements prove to be how he judges things, 
which seems very likely given previous experience of other nominees 
like this.

[[Page S2255]]

  This week, legal briefs are due in the Supreme Court case that will 
determine the future of our healthcare law. In the midst of a global 
pandemic, at a time when our healthcare system has never been more 
important, Senate Republicans are preparing to jam through a judge who 
believes it should all be crashing down. Tens of millions of people 
would lose their health insurance, and protections for Americans with 
preexisting conditions would be eliminated.
  Mr. Walker's nomination would be controversial in normal times, to 
say the least--less experience in the court than on TV. During this 
public health crisis, his nomination is nothing short of a disgrace. 
The Senate should be focused on helping the country--hospitals and 
doctors, nurses and healthcare workers, essential employees and small 
businesses and families suffering from huge financial hardship.
  There are millions of newly unemployed Americans, but the only jobs 
issue the Republican majority seems to be focused on this week is the 
jobs of rightwing judges who wish to dismantle healthcare at a time 
when healthcare is needed more than ever. Let me say that again. There 
are millions of newly unemployed Americans, but in the Senate, the 
Republican majority is spending time giving jobs to rightwing judges.
  Now, let's get back to what matters. Democrats are focused on helping 
workers, small businesses, and American families. In times of crisis 
and economic hardship, these average Americans, working people--they 
take it on the chin. That is where our focus needs to be--not on legal 
immunity for big corporations, not on big oil or gas companies, not on 
juicing the markets. The focus should be on average folks. That is who 
all of us in Congress should be focused on helping right now


                          Trump Administration

  Now, on the administration, Congress can only do so much. I have 
actually been very proud of how both parties have come together over 
the past few months to pass historic legislation 96 to nothing--96 to 
nothing--with a great deal of input and improvement by the Democratic 
minority. But to make this legislation work, we need a competent, 
steady, focused administration to not only implement our laws but 
coordinate our national response.
  It is no secret that the Trump administration has been anything but 
focused, anything but steady, anything but competent. President Trump 
seems to spend more time deflecting blame, attacking others, pushing 
quack medicines, and hiding from the truth than he does actually 
leading our Nation's response to this crisis.
  Last night, in an interview on ABC News, the President said that his 
failure to prepare our national stockpiles with medical equipment was 
because ``he had a lot of other things going on.'' The national 
stockpile for the vital PPE that our frontline workers need and other 
materials--the President failed to prepare our stockpiles with this 
equipment because he had a lot of other things going on? That is a 
President?
  Vice President Pence yesterday confirmed that the White House was 
winding down its Coronavirus Task Force long before the disease has 
been contained, waving the white flag of surrender to COVID-19 long 
before the battle is over.
  A report in today's New York Times details the failures of the 
administration and Mr. Kushner in particular to procure critical 
supplies at a time when we lack masks, gloves, and other protective 
equipment. Instead of appointing a military person with experience in 
command and control, as I suggested, Mr. Kushner recruited a team of 
consultants who had ``little to no experience with government 
procurement procedures or medical equipment.''
  Now we are reading reports of a whistleblower from the Department of 
Health and Human Services who reports that there was ``pressure from 
HHS leadership to ignore scientific merit and expert recommendations 
and instead to award lucrative contracts based on political connections 
and cronyism.'' This whistleblower is scheduled to appear before a 
House committee next week. This whistleblower should come before the 
Senate as well. Senators have many questions to ask him. I believe 
Senators on both sides of the aisle would have those questions.
  So this was and is a time when the American people need the executive 
branch to lead a coordinated response to this evil virus, to listen to 
medical experts, to heed their advice, to respect and listen to 
science, but President Trump seems unwilling and unable to handle the 
truth, and it is hurting our country each and every day.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered


                          National Nurses Week

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today is the first day of National Nurses 
Week--an annual commemoration each May celebrating the contributions of 
nurses--so today seemed like a fitting day to come down to the floor 
and talk about the contributions of nurses and other essential workers 
over the past couple of months.
  When we think about heroism, we tend to think of striking actions 
that take place in extreme circumstances--running into burning 
buildings, jumping onto a grenade to save a fellow soldier, racing out 
under fire to rescue a wounded comrade. And it is right that when we 
think of heroism, we think of such acts--acts of superhuman courage, 
generosity, and self-sacrifice.
  The past couple of months have also reminded us of another kind of 
heroism--the quiet heroism of doing one's duty, of getting up and going 
to work and doing your job day after day in difficult circumstances, 
even when you are tired, even when you are scared, even when you know 
that doing your job could place you in danger. We have seen a lot of 
that heroism over the past couple of months.
  A lot of Americans have been able to telework during the coronavirus 
crisis, but many, many more have had to go out and do the work that 
can't be done from home: police officers, first responders, 
pharmacists, grocery store employees, farmers and ranchers, food supply 
workers, cleaning personnel, bank employees, utility workers, delivery 
drivers, and most of all, doctors and nurses.
  Over the past few weeks, we have come to realize how much we rely on 
these individuals and that society couldn't operate without them. All 
the food in the world won't do us any good if it doesn't make it to 
grocery store shelves. That prescription from the doctor for lifesaving 
blood pressure medication is useless without a pharmacist to dispense 
the drug. We tend to take our utilities for granted, but what would we 
do during this crisis if no one was picking up our trash or making sure 
that the water keeps running and the electricity keeps flowing?
  Sometimes heroism looks like running into a burning building, and 
sometimes it looks like putting on a mask and gloves and stocking the 
shelves with bread and pasta and cereal.
  I want to say a special word about medical personnel. Of all the 
essential workers who have gotten up and gotten on with their duty in 
these days of the pandemic, medical personnel have displayed a special 
courage. They have been on the frontlines of this battle, the ones 
directly confronting the disease. Every day when they go to work, they 
go to work knowing that day could be the day they catch the virus from 
a sick patient, but they go to work anyway. They have read about and 
sometimes seen colleagues die from the disease. At times, they have 
lacked adequate protective equipment, but they have gone to work 
anyway.
  Those nurses we are celebrating this week have worked 12-hour shifts 
providing medical care in a high-stress environment and have still 
found time to sit with and comfort patients. I have read more than one 
story about nurses making sure coronavirus patients separated from 
family and friends don't die alone.
  To our Nation's doctors and nurses and other medical personnel: Thank 
you. We are so grateful for your courage and for your sacrifice.
  Before I close, I want to say a special thank-you to the essential 
workers around the Capitol Complex here in Washington.
  While Senators have been able to do aspects of our job remotely, we 
have

[[Page S2256]]

also had to be here in the Capitol to do the critical work of 
responding to the crisis, and we simply couldn't be here without the 
contributions of a number of individuals: the men and women of the 
Capitol Police, the cleaning staff, the food service workers, the 
maintenance technicians and other support staff, the staffers who have 
to be in the office for the Senate to be able to operate, and the 
staffers right here on the floor--the doorkeepers and cloakroom staff 
and individuals from the Offices of the Secretary and the 
Parliamentarian.
  I know these are stressful days to be coming to work. I know you have 
been asked to exceed your normal duties. I am incredibly grateful and I 
know that all of my colleagues are incredibly grateful for everything 
you have done to keep the Senate operating safely. It is because of you 
that we are able to get keeping our work done for the American people.
  Sooner or later, we are going to get through this pandemic and life 
will return to something resembling normal, but I hope we will still 
remember to be grateful for the people who have kept our society 
running during this crisis, who have shown us, in a difficult and 
challenging time, how to get up every day and do our duty.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                    Nomination of William R. Evanina

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the confirmation of 
William Evanina, whom we will be voting on shortly. Because of his 
failure to protect whistleblowers, leading whistleblower protection 
organizations support the opposition to Mr. Evanina's confirmation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the statements of two organizations, 
true advocates of whistleblower rights at this crucial time, be printed 
in the Record
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       [From the Government Accountability Project, May 6, 2020]

 Senator Wyden Opposes Senior Intelligence Official's Nomination Over 
                             Whistleblowers

       Washington--Today, Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) opposed William 
     Evanina's nomination to serve as the Senate-confirmed 
     Director of the National Counterintelligence and Security 
     Center (NCSC). Sen. Wyden's opposition comes days after 
     Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) lifted his 2018 hold on Mr. 
     Evanina, placed in part because ``Mr. Evanina was responsible 
     for developing policies and procedures to address retaliatory 
     security clearance actions'' taken against whistleblowers. 
     Mr. Evanina has yet to produce those policies and procedures, 
     leaving government investigators with little guidance.
       Government Accountability Project's National Security 
     Analyst Irvin McCullough said,
       ``Losing your security clearance means losing your 
     livelihood for many Intelligence Community employees. These 
     folks' whistleblowing protections were specifically designed 
     to give special care to whistleblowers whose security 
     clearances are revoked in retaliation for making protected 
     disclosures. However, the Director of National Intelligence 
     never implemented uniform policies and procedures for these 
     whistleblowers, meaning agencies can act as their own 
     fiefdoms when adjudicating these complaints. While a 
     whistleblower at the CIA has the same rights as a 
     whistleblower at the NSA, one may find it much harder to 
     enforce their rights simply because their agency is free to 
     apply harsher standards than the other. That is unacceptable. 
     Bill Evanina was directed to issue universal guidance for all 
     agencies to follow when investigating these types of 
     retaliation complaints, but he hasn't done it. While Mr. 
     Evanina is a dedicated public servant who has contributed 
     greatly to our country's national security, this is his job 
     and he needs to do it. We thank Senator Wyden for taking a 
     stand to protect whistleblowers and ensure accountability 
     inside the Intelligence Community.''
       Contact: Andrew Harman, Communications Director.
                                  ____


  Statement from Liz Hempowicz, Director of Public Policy, Project On 
                          Government Oversight

       ``POGO commends Senator Wyden for standing up for 
     whistleblowers by refusing to confirm Mr. Evanina until this 
     critical issue is resolved. Any security clearance action 
     must be based on the national interests of our country, not 
     personal bias or retaliation. Retaliatory security clearance 
     actions undermine the security clearance process, this is why 
     Congress made it unlawful to retaliate against a 
     whistleblower by restricting their access to classified 
     information. ODNI charged Mr. Evanina's office with the 
     creation of uniform guidance for investigating retaliatory 
     actions, but he has failed to fulfil that mandate even after 
     several years. Thank you to Senator Wyden for standing up for 
     whistleblowers and their right to a fair and equal 
     investigation.''

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it is currently open season on 
whistleblowers under the Trump administration. Donald Trump and those 
around him have made it clear that anyone who speaks up about waste, 
fraud, abuse, or lawbreaking can be punished. If you are a 
whistleblower under the Trump administration, Donald Trump himself and 
his echo chamber will publicly call you a liar. They will threaten to 
make your name public, even at the cost of your physical security. They 
will prevent your complaints from getting to the Congress, and they 
will fire the inspectors general who investigate your complaints.
  Now, more than ever, courageous whistleblowers deserve leaders who 
are going to protect them, defend them, and vigorously advocate and 
work for them. They deserve leaders who are going to stand up to Donald 
Trump and anybody else who tries to punish those who are going to speak 
truth--truth, especially, to those in power.
  I am rising today, taking this time of the Senate, to speak on behalf 
of whistleblowers who feel under siege right now. I am on the floor to 
oppose the confirmation of William Evanina's track record of inaction 
and why he should not be the Director of the National 
Counterintelligence and Security Center.
  The fact is that Mr. Evanina has failed, repeatedly, the key test on 
protecting whistleblower rights. Specifically, he failed to enact 
whistleblower protections that the Congress required in 2014. Think 
about that--all those years to get the job done and he didn't do it. 
That is a 6-year track record of letting down whistleblowers and 
failing to follow the law.
  Today, Congress ought to stand up for whistleblowers, protect our 
democracy, and the rule of law. And when Congress does act and pass 
whistleblowers' protection legislation the way this body did in 2014, 
the Congress must not reward those who ignore the whistleblower 
protection laws. Here, you have a case of exactly that, refusal to 
implement it for almost 6 years, and the person we are discussing with 
that track record of not being there for whistleblowers at a crucial 
time is being considered for a job promotion in the Senate.
  I want to unpack, for a few minutes, what the world looks like now to 
a potential whistleblower in today's intelligence community. One of the 
biggest threats faced by whistleblowers who work with classified 
information is that their bosses are going to retaliate against them by 
revoking their security clearances. Without clearances, they can't do 
their jobs, their livelihoods are ruined, and their families suffer. 
That threat has a chilling effect on potential whistleblowers and makes 
it less likely that abuses are going to be investigated and brought to 
light.
  The Congress has cared about this for years. It is why, in 2014, the 
Congress passed legislation specifically prohibiting the revocation of 
security clearances as a form of retaliation against whistleblowers.
  Here is what the questions were. What happens if a whistleblower's 
boss simply insists that they revoked the clearance for some other 
reason? What if they say it wasn't retaliation for being a 
whistleblower? Does the whistleblower have any recourse? Is there an 
appeals process? Or are whistleblowers, who stick their neck out to 
report waste, fraud, and abuse, just out of luck?
  The Congress then stood with whistleblowers. In that same 2014 law, 
Congress required the Director of National Intelligence, in 
consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense, to 
develop and implement policies and practices to make that appeals 
process for whistleblowers a reality. In other words, the Congress 
recognized that if whistleblowers were truly going to be protected from 
retaliation, there had to be a meaningful process for them to defend 
themselves against agencies that always have all the power and always 
have an obvious incentive to silence and remove those who speak up 
about abuses
  This important law was passed by Congress in July 2014. As of that 
day in 2014, the Director of National Intelligence should have been 
drafting those

[[Page S2257]]

policies, but they didn't do it in 2014, or in 2015, or in 2016, or in 
2017, or 2018, or 2019--all those years of inaction--and certainly they 
haven't done it in 2020, especially because of the pandemic, because 
this is a crucial time when whistleblower protection is needed, now 
more than ever, because we need those folks to be speaking truth to 
policymakers.
  I ask the Senate: Who is at the helm every single one of those years 
of inaction? The person the Senate is thinking about promoting today, 
William Evanina. Six years have passed, and Mr. Evanina has not 
produced those whistleblower protection policies required by law.
  During that time, there had been five Directors of National 
Intelligence. The Congress made the Director of the NCSC a Senate-
confirmed position. Mr. Evanina kept his job, becoming both Acting 
Director and the nominee. Meanwhile, Congress reached out to ask: What 
is the story on these policies? Is anybody actually moving to protect 
the whistleblowers, as Congress required in 2014?
  I want to say it again. On Mr. Evanina's watch, nothing happened in 
2014, nothing happened in 2015, nothing happened in 2016, and nothing 
happened in 2017, 2018, 2019, and not in 2020--no policies, lots of 
empty rhetoric and no policies. Without the actual policies, 
whistleblowers are vulnerable, and when they tell the truth and push 
for accountability, they suffer.
  Every day, Donald Trump steps up his attacks on whistleblowers, on 
inspectors general, and on the whole system of accountability that has 
traditionally been bipartisan. Congress has pushed back, passing laws 
to protect whistleblowers, but the laws have to mean something for the 
sake of whistleblowers and the rule of law. Congress should not reward 
those who ignore the law and leave whistleblowers vulnerable. That is 
what Mr. Evanina has done for 6 years. That is why I cannot support his 
confirmation. He has defied the law and failed to protect 
whistleblowers.
  I am going to state the obvious. When the Congress passes a law, it 
has to be implemented. When Congress directs the government to protect 
whistleblowers, that is something that is priority business. In 2014, 
this body tried to protect whistleblowers. A law was passed. Mr. 
Evanina has ignored it all these years. That is just not acceptable.
  Now, with Donald Trump and his administration feeling free to 
publicly attack whistleblowers again and again and conduct an 
unremitting assault on the entire whistleblower system, laws to protect 
them are especially important to our democracy. Day after day, we see 
the costs of a campaign to silence people who speak up about abuses. We 
see it in his efforts to cover up his failed, often corrupt, responses 
to the COVID-19 crisis. We see it across the board.
  Now is when this country needs officials who are going to demonstrate 
leadership, who are going to stand up for the brave and the people who 
are willing to put their neck out to report misconduct. Whistleblowers 
deserve it, and the country deserves it.
  Now, the last point I am going to make--my colleagues probably have 
heard it, and they are going to hear it, I believe, again--is that Mr. 
Evanina is going to promise once more, after 6 years of empty promises, 
to complete these critical whistleblower protection policies. What I 
would ask Senators is this: Enough is enough, right? After 6 years--6 
years of unfulfilled promises--the Senate ought to say: The country 
deserves better. The country deserves action, and the country deserves 
real protection for whistleblowers.
  Mr. Evanina remains the Acting Director. I want him--even after he 
hasn't done it for 6 years, I want him to complete those whistleblower 
protection policies. When they are completed and the law Congress 
passed is implemented, it seems to me that is the time for the Senate 
to discuss again whether Mr. Evanina should get a promotion.
  Now, last, I just want to come back to how I started. I am not the 
only one who feels this way. The country's leading whistleblower 
organizations have made it clear they oppose Mr. Evanina's confirmation 
due to his failure to produce policies. They include such organizations 
as the Government Accountability Project, the Project on Government 
Oversight, Whistleblower Aid, and National Security Counselors. It is 
not just one Member of the U.S. Senate who is here to say that it is 
time to finally ensure that these courageous Americans, these patriots, 
who are willing to come forward when all the incentives in American 
Government are to stay quiet, not put yourself at risk, don't put your 
career in jeopardy--when all the incentives are for them to stay quiet, 
in this country right now, we need them speaking truth more than ever 
before. I oppose this nomination because there is a long, long track 
record of not being willing to stand up for these courageous 
whistleblowers, and I intend to vote against the nominee
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of William 
Evanina to be the first Senate-confirmed Director of the National 
Counterintelligence and Security Center, or NCSC. I believe Bill is an 
American patriot and an American success story.
  He was raised in Peckville, PA, with very modest means. He was the 
first in his family to go to college. Prior to joining the FBI in 1996, 
his first job was with the General Services Administration in 
Philadelphia. Over his 24-year long career with the FBI, Bill 
investigated organized crime and violent crimes. He investigated the 9/
11 terrorist attacks, the anthrax attacks, and the Daniel Pearl 
kidnapping. Bill also led the counterespionage group at the Central 
Intelligence Agency. He earned a reputation as the consummate 
counterintelligence and security professional, fiercely dedicated to 
the mission with unquestionable honor.
  Then, in June 2014, then-Director of National Intelligence, Jim 
Clapper--someone whom I know and respect very much--appointed Bill to 
serve as the Director of the NCSC. Many technical and complex 
activities fall under NCSC, including personnel security policy, 
information technology protection standards, CI cyber operations, 
supply chain risk management, threat awareness for the U.S. critical 
infrastructure, and damage assessments from spies and unauthorized 
disclosures. I have partnered, in my role as vice chairman, with Bill 
on many topics, to include educating industry about the threats posed 
by China and reforming an antiquated personnel vetting system.
  The Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2016 recognized 
the vital work that NCSC does and made the position subject to 
Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation. In February 2018, 
President Trump nominated Bill to be the first Senate-confirmed 
Director. The Senate Intelligence Committee considered the nomination 
in May of 2018 and unanimously--unanimously, with some concerns from my 
colleague from Oregon, but unanimously--recommended his confirmation to 
the full Senate.
  His nomination didn't get taken up because a Member on the opposite 
side had a concern. We considered his nomination again in February 2019 
in the new Congress, and, again, our committee voted unanimously in 
favor of his nomination.
  Unfortunately, over the last 2 years, despite universal recognition 
of Bill's qualifications for the position, his nomination became 
entangled in unrelated matters. Despite the delay--and I think Bill had 
plenty of opportunities to leave the government--Bill stayed the 
course, committed to the mission above all else.
  Now, I share my colleague from Oregon's concerns about 
whistleblowers. I have seen this administration and this White House's 
disregard for whistleblowers. I tell you this: I believe I have Bill's 
commitment that the matter of processing the procedures on 
whistleblower protections will be dealt with. I also feel 
extraordinarily strongly that at this moment in time, when there is not 
a single Senate-confirmed appointee in the whole Office of Director of 
National Intelligence, now more than ever, we need at least one career 
intelligence professional with a good record, confirmed by this Senate, 
standing guard over an operation that right now, unfortunately, seems 
to be directed too often by political appointees that, both, disregard 
protection for whistleblowers and, in my

[[Page S2258]]

mind, too often disregard protections for our whole intelligence 
community.
  With the fact that we have now gotten rid of the unrelated matters 
that were precluding Bill's confirmation by my colleague on the 
majority, I think we deserve to give this nominee what he and the 
country deserves--a vote. And my hope is a very strong vote of 
confirmation so that we can send someone who, as a career professional, 
has a commitment to holding truth first and foremost above political 
interference. We need Bill Evanina confirmed in this position.
  I look forward to Mr. Evanina's confirmation today so that he can 
continue addressing the many important counterintelligence and security 
challenges facing our Nation.
  I yield the floor.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The bill clerk read as follows

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination 
     of William R. Evanina, of Pennsylvania, to be Director of the 
     National Counterintelligence and Security Center. (New 
     Position)
         Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, Chuck Grassley, Josh 
           Hawley, Joni Ernst, John Barrasso, John Cornyn, Shelley 
           Moore Capito, Deb Fischer, Rob Portman, John Thune, 
           Roger F. Wicker, John Boozman, Roy Blunt, Cindy Hyde-
           Smith, Mike Braun, Marsha Blackburn.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of William R. Evanina, of Pennsylvania, to be Director of 
the National Counterintelligence and Security Center (New Position), 
shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran) 
would have voted ``yea''.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the 
Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. 
Murray), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from 
Hawaii (Mr. Schatz), the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow), the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren), and the Senator from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cramer). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 83, nays 7, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 82 Ex.]

                                YEAS--83

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Braun
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harris
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Lee
     Loeffler
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Menendez
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Warner
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--7

     Blumenthal
     Duckworth
     Hirono
     Markey
     Merkley
     Van Hollen
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Brown
     Burr
     Leahy
     Moran
     Murray
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Stabenow
     Warren
     Whitehouse
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 83, the nays are 7.
  The motion is agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.


                              Coronavirus

  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, early last December or at least sometime 
later last year, people in Wuhan, China, began showing symptoms of what 
was at that time an unidentifiable respiratory disease in increasing 
numbers. We now know that virus as COVID-19, and it has completely 
upended our way of life in the United States and around the globe. This 
virus has infected over 3.5 million people around the world and killed, 
tragically, over 68,000 people in the United States, and that includes 
over 900 incredible and great Coloradans, my home State. We certainly 
mourn with those families who have lost loved ones, and we will keep 
fighting for a path forward as we get through this together.
  I want to commend in the strongest terms possible our frontline 
workers, whether it has been our first responders, our healthcare 
professionals, or those who have allowed us to continue to enjoy a safe 
and secure food supply; people in the essential businesses who each and 
every day don't complain but go to work to help make sure our 
communities can get back to work. The list of heroes in our 
communities, those who have given so much, goes on and on and on.
  I think it is important to recognize that as we have addressed the 
coronavirus challenge in this country--the measures we have taken, the 
steps that have been laid out by mayors and governors and the 
President--they have been to comply with guidances and health 
directives and to comply with the best science and scientists our 
country has, not out of fear of the coronavirus, not because people are 
afraid of COVID-19, but they have done it out of love--love for their 
community; love for their parents and grandparents, whom they hope to 
keep safe and healthy; love for our country, to stop the spread and 
flatten the curve.
  So to all of our incredible healthcare workers, the frontline 
workers, essential workers, grocery store clerks and gas station 
workers, mechanics at farm equipment dealerships that have remained 
open to keep tractors running during planting, to our ranchers and 
farmers who have kept our food supply flowing: Thank you.
  People everywhere across Colorado are hurting, obviously, because of 
this pandemic. I have heard numerous stories across our great State. I 
have held telephone townhalls in every congressional district in 
Colorado, speaking directly with Coloradans who have lost their jobs, 
who are unsure about how they will feed their family, and who have 
endless questions about what the future holds for them.
  I have heard from restaurant workers in Denver who were laid off when 
their restaurant closed. I have heard from restaurant owners who have 
done everything they can to keep their restaurant workers employed--
preparing meals and providing them to the hungry and the homeless.
  A small business owner in Monument, CO, shared with me how difficult 
it was to lay off 35 dedicated staff members but not having a choice.
  I have talked to businesses in El Paso County near Colorado Springs 
who used the last prepaid minutes on a cell phone to participate in our 
townhall to try to figure out where they could get food.
  I have talked to elderly Coloradans who were afraid to go to the 
grocery store because they didn't know if they had special hours. They 
had an underlying condition, and they didn't know if they could go 
safely. Our staff was able to help this person get the groceries they 
needed and the disinfectant they had requested and leave some 
information about the special hours that grocery stores around the town 
were holding for people who needed a little bit more social 
distancing--more space, more time, a safer environment to go out.
  But the effects of the coronavirus aren't because somebody 
intentionally decided to hurt our economy, but they are hurting because 
of the necessary public health actions their government has taken. It 
is in large part the government's responsibility to help get them 
through this because it was the government that said to them: Stay at 
home. Close your doors. Don't go to work.
  It is our responsibility to provide the help that our economy needs 
to get

[[Page S2259]]

moving again, to get people back to work, because it was the advice of 
governments, from the local levels to the Federal level, that said: 
These are the things you need to do to stop the spread and flatten the 
curve.
  Throughout this entire health epidemic, I have approached it with a 
three-prong strategy. Throughout this process, this three-prong 
strategy has been the focus I have used to approach what we as a 
country must do to get through. These are not steps that should be 
taken one at a time. You don't accomplish step 1 and then attempt to 
accomplish step 2 and then maybe get to step 3. These are things that 
need to be done all at the same time as we move on our path to 
recovery.
  First, we must obviously address the immediate health crisis. The 
second prong is, we must make sure we are providing real-time 
assistance to real individuals who are really hurting across the State 
of Colorado and the country. The third prong is to make sure that we 
are supporting our businesses through this crisis, to make sure that 
when the health emergency is over, we have an economy that is able to 
snap back and run strong.
  These steps have to be done all at the same time--not step 1, then 2, 
then 3--but the first prong, the steps taken to flatten the curve and 
stop the spread, has been absolutely critical and will continue to be 
critical.
  Congress has taken many steps to support the health response, 
including $175 billion to support healthcare providers, $17 billion to 
the Strategic National Stockpile for medical equipment and supplies, 
and a recent infusion of $25 billion to support testing, including 
dedicated funding for States and Tribes. We have also spent money to 
support scientists as they rapidly developed and produced new testing 
technologies and worked to get them to the market as quickly as 
possible. But it is going back to that bravery of our frontline 
healthcare workers, our first responders, our public health experts, as 
well as the innovation of our scientists who have served as beacons of 
light during this difficult time and will help us get through this 
health emergency.

  On prong 2, providing individuals with the assistance they need, we 
have continued to do that and must continue to do that to address this 
health emergency because when we started the very first steps, we said 
to every American: Please stay home. Figure out how to socially 
distance.
  As a result, unemployment claims have skyrocketed to record numbers 
as Americans grappled with work reductions, job loss, and overall 
changes to our daily lives.
  It is important that Congress acted quickly to provide individuals 
with immediate assistance. In the CARES Act, we provided direct 
individual assistance to millions of individuals and married couples 
across the State and across the country. We allowed Federal student 
loan borrowers to defer payments for 6 months without interest or 
penalties. We established a temporary Pandemic Unemployment Assistance 
Program for those who are self-employed or independent contractors 
whose livelihoods have been impacted by the pandemic--people who 
otherwise might not have had a place to go.
  One consistent message I have heard from countless Coloradans as I 
have spoken with them during the pandemic is that they appreciate our 
bipartisan efforts. It is beyond that. It is not simply a bipartisan 
effort where Republicans and Democrats are working together; it is 
actually nonpartisan because Republicans and Democrats realize there is 
no reason to bear that mantle of ``party'' because so many people are 
hurting, and we know what needs to be done for the country to work 
together, to be nonpartisan, and to provide the relief real individuals 
need in real time.
  We have to keep fighting in this nonpartisan way and this bipartisan 
way to make testing more widely available, to support State and local 
governments, to advocate for frontline and essential workers, and to 
set up our economy to return as strong as it was before the pandemic. 
Thank goodness our economy was as strong as it was when we went into 
this. Imagine where we would be if we had a weak or struggling economy 
as we entered the health emergency.
  Prong 3 requires support for businesses. The economic relief that was 
provided through the Paycheck Protection Program under the CARES Act 
continues to be an essential tool for our small businesses and families 
across all four corners of Colorado. Over $10 billion in round 1 and 
round 2 of the Paycheck Protection Program has been delivered to keep 
people on the payroll in Colorado. The Paycheck Protection Program was 
created to keep employees on the payroll and to help keep bills paid so 
that workers can keep their jobs, salaries, and benefits--they can keep 
them--and so small businesses can hit the ground running when they are 
able to resume operations. Think about the millions of small businesses 
in our country responsible for over $6 trillion in salary every year in 
this country.
  We often talk about small businesses being the backbone, the 
foundation, and the bedrock of our economy, and it is absolutely true. 
Small businesses employ nearly half of all American workers, and they 
make up 99.5 percent of all Colorado businesses, employing more than 
1.1 million Coloradans.
  Because of clarifications to the program I fought for, just last week 
I heard from three rural hospitals in Colorado that received Paycheck 
Protection Program loans through their local community bank. They were 
within a matter of a week or weeks of having to lay off employees and 
in some cases, shut down. The access to the Paycheck Protection Program 
was an absolute game changer for these critical and vital rural 
hospitals. Now these hospitals can continue to provide both critical 
healthcare services to their communities and jobs for their employees, 
and in many communities, these rural hospitals are the largest employer 
in that community.
  These actions and programs are essential cornerstones to our 
recovery, but we must finish laying the foundation to ensure our 
economy snaps back and runs strong. While governments can allow 
businesses to open, the American people simply won't return--they won't 
fully return to the economy until they have confidence that the virus 
is under control.
  The first step to tackling any problem, of course, is seeing it, and 
that is especially true with COVID-19. How do we see it? Through 
widespread testing. Widespread testing is key to seeing the bigger 
picture in the fight against this virus. Our country's well-being both 
medically and financially relies on our ability to see where the 
illness is and where it is not and where it is spreading and where it 
is declining. That, in turn, depends on our ability to ramp up testing 
capacity.
  Rapid testing for COVID-19 and further research into the benefits, 
applications, and development of that body of testing will help show 
which Coloradans have been exposed to COVID-19 and the percentage of 
our population that has already recovered. This will better inform 
local schools, businesses, and governments as they make their own 
determinations about the path forward. It will help provide peace of 
mind for Coloradans as they start to visit their families, reschedule 
doctors' appointments for routine preventative services, and return to 
their jobs. It will also help States and local health departments 
decide what type of other responsive measures are necessary.
  My approach to this pandemic has been an all-hands-on-deck approach. 
When the Governor calls me and says our State needs more tests, more 
masks, or more equipment, I get to work fighting to find that 
assistance. Working together with the Governor, leaders at the Federal 
level, and our allies abroad, we have been able to secure hundreds of 
thousands of masks and tests for our State, and we are working around 
the clock for more.

  Without effective widespread testing and a corresponding strategy 
that leverages and improves public health infrastructure to support 
monitoring, we cannot have a real-time response to the virus. Rapid 
testing and the ability of public health departments to inform 
individuals with positive cases quickly so they can take appropriate 
action and further prevent the spread is critical to making sure our 
entire economy is not forced to shut down in the future.
  The dollars we have provided through various phases of action as it 
relates to the health emergency will help provide

[[Page S2260]]

that testing to help mobilize new testing, to invent the kind of 
testing we need--an antigen-based test, an antibodies test--the 
opportunities we have to rapidly let the people of this country know 
what is happening, what is not happening, and how we should tailor our 
public policies to fit the spread of the virus and the decline of the 
virus and the reopening of our economy.
  We need a test that is so ubiquitous that people can buy a Big Gulp 
at 7-Eleven and buy a COVID-19 test and keep it in their car or keep it 
in their first aid kit so that if they wake up in the morning with a 
sore throat, they can test and they can have the actual results. 
Instead of shutting down a household or a community or a country, we 
can get the results to implement better public policies then and there.
  Congress must also make sure that the Paycheck Protection Program 
continues to be funded and improved where needed to better support 
America's small businesses and the employees they are able to keep on 
the payroll as a result. We must make the program flexible enough to be 
effective, and we must make the rules so clear--so clear--that people 
will be competent that they can use it.
  I have seen the headlines about big businesses taking this money when 
they might not really need it, but I have also talked to 15-employee 
companies that have needed $30,000 or $40,000 to pay their workers and 
that are now terrified of crossing Federal prosecutors.
  I heard from a Coloradan I have known my entire life who is working 
with her son's business. This is an essential business that has 
remained open because of the role they play in our food supply. They 
went to the bank, and they got a loan under the Paycheck Protection 
Program. They were very excited that they would be able to keep their 
doors open, and then they received a letter that said: Hey, are you 
sure you needed this loan? Maybe you didn't. Now they don't know 
whether they should keep it. They are terrified to use it.
  While we have to make sure our programs aren't abused, we also have 
to make sure we don't create a chilling effect on businesses that truly 
need it. I understand the need to be careful about who gets this money, 
but when we are scaring businesses that we all agree need assistance 
the most, maybe things have gone too far and Congress is no longer 
helping.
  Congress should act to make rules that are clear. We should help 
guide those rules to be clear and bring confidence to the program to 
make sure that people can be at work, keep their jobs, and keep their 
benefits.
  When the foundation is secure and we have this foundation secure, we 
should then explore the immediate opportunities for economic activity 
and employment--the opportunities that will benefit every American and 
create the conditions for a quicker recovery. Until the American 
consumer is fully back, with confidence in our economy, we need to look 
for ways to fill the gap.
  We have long talked about the need to refurbish our infrastructure. 
Now is the time to do it.
  This health crisis has laid bare the cyber desert that exists in many 
of our rural communities. We should make a concentrated effort to make 
rural broadband a reality.
  We should fully and permanently fund the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund and put funding towards our deferred maintenance projects across 
our Federal lands that we all cherish so much. That will create 
immediate jobs building roads and maintaining trails and creating the 
kinds of job opportunities that many of our high mountain towns 
desperately need as a result of this health emergency and now economic 
emergency.
  I have introduced a bill that has the President's support and both 
sides of the aisle, and certainly the ideas are supported across both 
Chambers of Congress--the Great American Outdoors Act. Communities 
throughout the Nation would benefit, and these funds would help 
contribute to a strong and growing outdoor recreation economy--one of 
the largest drivers of our economy in Colorado and in many States.
  In short, we need to take some big and bold steps to make sure that 
our economy is back on track and to help accelerate it once again. We 
need these big steps because we have taken a hard shot in the last 
couple of months.
  We also need to support mental health efforts. Prior to the pandemic, 
70 percent of Colorado's mental health need was unmet, and on average, 
one Coloradoan died by suicide every 7 hours. Before COVID-19, I was 
working on a number of legislative efforts to improve mental health 
support, and COVID-19 has only underscored just how time-sensitive 
these matters are--particularly my legislation, the National Suicide 
Hotline Designation Act.
  In a mental health emergency, it is almost impossible to remember the 
current 10-digit hotline. Sometimes there is more than one 10-digit 
hotline. So establishing 9-8-8 as a national suicide prevention hotline 
will save lives and help more Americans in need to access critical 
mental health support.
  S. 2661, the National Suicide Hotline Designation Act, is more than 
smart policy that will help save lives; it is a statement that our 
government recognizes the crisis and is working across party lines to 
address it. Establishing 9-8-8 as a national suicide prevention hotline 
will save lives and help more Americans who need access to critical 
mental health support.
  I have been proud to push for this three-digit hotline and funding 
for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, and I will keep fighting 
to make suicide prevention services more accessible. Let's come 
together, and let's get this done.
  Access to mental health care is especially important during this 
trying time filled with grief and uncertainty for so many people, and 
we must ensure we are doing everything we can to prevent these 
devastating outcomes from occurring.
  But no matter how bleak our situation looks, it is important to 
remember that America has faced its fair share of challenges. Together, 
we have persevered and persisted through world wars, economic 
disasters, the September 11 terrorist attacks, and much, much more. 
While this virus will not be the last challenge our country faces, we 
know that this, too, shall pass, and together, we will make it to the 
other side stronger than ever. I have faith and confidence in the 
American people and in our ability to pull together and to continue to 
meet this challenge head-on. Colorado has been that shining example of 
resiliency in so many instances, and it will continue to be.

  Over these last several months, I have spoken directly to countless 
Coloradans, all unsure of what the future holds, but they are certain 
we will get through this by looking up to that great Rocky Mountain 
horizon. Coloradans everywhere are stepping up and meeting this 
challenge in the spirit of our great country. They are donating food, 
they are donating personal protective equipment, and they are donating 
time, talents, and their blood. Individuals and businesses across 
Colorado and across the country are seeing needs and responding to 
those in need.
  To the brave healthcare providers fighting around the clock, the 
reliable farmers and ranchers working day in and day out to keep food 
on the table, and all the essential workers who continue to selflessly 
put themselves at risk to ensure others are taken care of first, I give 
my deepest thanks and praise.
  In Colorado, we have lost two first responders on the frontlines in 
the fight against COVID-19.
  Deputy Jeff Hopkins served in the El Paso County Sheriff's Office, 
and he had been serving there since 2001. On April 1, he passed away 
from COVID-19 at the age of 41--1 day after he was diagnosed with 
COVID-19. His death was determined to be a line-of-duty death, which is 
a reminder to all of us that our brave first responders are in harm's 
way every day but especially during this pandemic.
  We also recently lost Paul Cary, who worked as a firefighter and 
paramedic in Aurora for more than 30 years. Paul was 66 years old, and 
he selflessly drove--selflessly drove--27 hours straight to New York in 
an ambulance to help out in the battle against COVID-19. While there, 
he was tending to patients and transporting them to hospitals. After 
falling ill with the virus, Paul died on April 30. Coloradans lined the 
streets to give him a hero's farewell.
  To Deputy Hopkins, to Paul Cary, and to the countless heroes like 
them

[[Page S2261]]

who are risking their own lives for our health and safety every day, 
thank you.
  First responders and medical professionals all across our State 
continue to make countless sacrifices on our behalf.
  The long hours and time away from family and loved ones, the 
undeniable mental toll this pandemic takes on those on the frontlines 
and the health risks--these sacrifices don't go unnoticed. We must do 
everything we can to make sure the first responders of COVID-19 have 
the resources, the support, and the personal protective equipment 
needed to fight this pandemic.
  We will never be able to fully show our deep appreciation for our 
healthcare providers, frontline employees, and first responders who are 
working to keep vital parts of our country moving. We have to do 
everything we can to try to make up what they have done for us in big 
ways and small ways every day.
  In Colorado, we don't look back; we look forward. We look out across 
the Great Plains, the Great High Plains, up to that majestic Rocky 
Mountain horizon for that next optimistic day.
  In the middle of the health emergency, a couple of weeks ago, I 
received a letter in the mail, and it had a pair of pliers in this 
letter, and I really didn't know what it was. It sat on my desk, and I 
opened it up not knowing what it was.
  I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to share an item on the 
floor that was sent to me during the health pandemic.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Romney). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, in the letter, this pair of pliers came, 
and I opened it up, and here is what it said:

       Senator Gardner, I want to thank you and everyone at your 
     office profusely for everything that you have done for me. 
     You have allowed for me to continue receiving uninterrupted 
     benefits and care for combat injuries I have sustained while 
     serving as an Officer in the U.S. Army.
       In 2014, you came to visit me in the Ward of Walter Reed, 
     while I was still bandaged and pretty beat up, missing my 
     dominant hand and looking overall pretty haggard. You told me 
     a story about the Korfs (My Mom's side) [of the family] in 
     Yuma County.

  At this point, I realized who the letter was from, and I remembered 
very clearly the story I had told this young soldier.

       You told me a story about the Korfs (My Mom's side) in Yuma 
     County walking into your family's hardware store and stress-
     testing pliers.

  It was a story I had received from my granddad about these two 
brothers who would come in years and years ago--decades ago. They would 
grab a pair of pliers on the parts counter, and they would squeeze 
them, and they were so strong that they would snap the pin in the 
pliers. I told him that story.
  He wrote in his letter:

       Apparently my ancestors wouldn't buy a pair if they didn't 
     stand up to the grip of the man that I can only imagine was 
     pretty strong in the arms. While I'm sure they only broke a 
     few sets and got away with it by being [expletive], I've 
     enclosed a pair as recompense.
       After you visited, I took that story with me. After 5 years 
     as an amputee, I've been an Infantry Officer and I spent 
     years training as a Special Forces Officer--the only amputee 
     to ever pass Assessment and Selection. It's been inspiring to 
     grip this set of pliers and try to snap them.

  And then he wrote:

       Sometimes our tools break, sometimes it's our fault, 
     sometimes they're not flat sturdy to begin with, sometimes 
     these tools have just been used to the point of failure. 
     Every time, though, what really matters is what we do once 
     that tool is broken. We fix it, get a new one, or we 
     improvise something better. Either way, we figure out how to 
     finish the job, because people are depending on us to get it 
     done.
       Carey G. DuVall, CPT U.S. Army, Ft. Bragg, NC.

  We face a tremendous challenge unlike we have ever faced in our 
lifetimes, and, while we are going to use every tool we have to help 
fix what has happened, we know that every one is not going to be 
perfect. But we have to keep trying because that is what the American 
people do every day. They make it work. They fight. They get back on 
their feet. We have to be in this fight with them.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I think all of us are in awe on a daily 
basis of those who we have a responsibility to serve. The people of 
Colorado, the people of Texas, and the people of Connecticut are doing 
just absolutely extraordinary things, and I hope that over the next 
several weeks we get to hear more of those stories.
  At the end of last week, I got a chance, with my Governor, to go down 
to a healthcare facility in Bridgeport, CT. It is a healthcare facility 
that has been designated to serve only COVID-19-positive patients. The 
nurses and staff came outside into the parking lot area to have a 
socially distanced, masked conversation with us.
  While they have struggles, and while they need help, they have a 
sense of mission about them that is impressive. They are working double 
shifts. They barely get to see their kids. They know that their lives 
are in danger every time they go into a facility where there are only 
patients who have tested positive for COVID, and yet they know they are 
doing something with their life today that they will be able to tell 
their kids and grandkids about. They are making a difference.
  I think about those individuals who aren't a first responder, who 
aren't a healthcare worker but have found a way to do heroic things 
just in their neighborhoods.
  Luciana Vera was already making a difference. She was a bilingual 
teacher in the Stamford, CT, public school system, but she heard about 
a crisis that one of her students was having. One of her student's 
mother had contracted the virus, had gone into a coma, but was pregnant 
and delivered a child while she was in a medically induced coma. Her 
husband also had the virus, as did one of her children. So do you know 
what Luciana did? Do you know what this teacher did? She took the baby 
into her home. While she taught her students online during the day, she 
warmed up bottles and fed that baby at night.
  Jerry Sicardi is 100 years old. He lives in Stratford, CT. Even at 
100 years old, he decided to get together with his daughter Judy and 
start making masks. We all have these stories from our States, just 
folks who started sewing masks and giving them out to people who needed 
them. Jerry gave them out to his neighbors. He sent some to the 
Bridgeport Correctional Center. He gave them to former students. Then, 
when folks learned that Jerry was pretty good at making masks, they 
would call, and he would make them on order.
  These are the stories that could, frankly, fill up the whole day from 
each one of our States.
  While my constituents in Connecticut, who are as generous as that, 
would have undertaken those actions regardless of the effectiveness of 
the response from their government, their actions are all the more 
important, given the failures of their Federal Government to do the 
right thing by them.
  I want to spend a few minutes today talking about the Trump 
administration's response to the crisis that we are facing. If we are 
going to be here in Washington, I think it is important for us to talk 
about what is missing.
  There has been a lot of ink spent already criticizing the Trump 
administration's response to the crisis--that the strategy was wrong, 
the focus was in the wrong place, or that the level of activity wasn't 
high enough. But I really think that this is the wrong paradigm. It is 
the wrong lens through which to have this discussion because the 
problem really isn't that President Trump's response to coronavirus has 
been ineffective. It is that he hasn't responded at all. For all 
intents and purposes, there has been no response to coronavirus from 
this administration. There have been press conferences. There is a 
social media presence, but they aren't running a national response.
  From the beginning, the response has been left to States, to cities, 
to counties, to hospitals, to school districts, to nursing homes, to 
shelters, to food banks, to charitable organizations--really, to every 
public-facing entity that isn't the administration. We shouldn't lose 
sight of how remarkable that is--that in the face of the most serious 
national crisis since 2001, perhaps since Vietnam or World War II, the 
administration has effectively chosen to stand down and let others 
lead.
  I know that sounds like hyperbole because there is a task force, 
right?

[[Page S2262]]

There are press conferences on TV every day. But hear me out.
  At the beginning, the President didn't do nothing. He fanned the 
flames. He called coronavirus in the early days a ``hoax'' perpetuated 
by his political opponents. He telegraphed to the country that this 
wasn't something we needed to be prepared for because it was just going 
to go away, despite all the experts telling him differently.
  On 12 different occasions, he praised the Chinese response and said 
that President Xi was doing an excellent job responding to the crisis. 
He praised, specifically, their transparency. At a moment when the 
international community was trying to get into China to find out what 
they knew so that we could start developing vaccines and treatments, 
the chief apologist in those early days for the Chinese response was 
our own President.

  Arguably, the most significant action that the Trump administration 
undertook--really, the only action that the President mentions to this 
day, when pressed for tangible things that he has done--was the set of 
travel restrictions. But public health experts told the President that 
the restrictions wouldn't work, especially since they were filled with 
loopholes. We now know that 400,000 people ended up getting into the 
United States from the countries that were subject to the restrictions 
list. The travel ban was feckless. It was a failure. And after that, 
the administration effectively gave up. They gave up.
  What could they have done? As the travel ban started to prove 
ineffective at stopping the virus and cases started to mount, what 
could they have done? Well, they could have decided to lead a national 
effort to make sure we have the supplies necessary to fight the virus. 
Members of Congress told the administration early on that we needed to 
appropriate dollars to make sure that we had things like masks and 
gowns and ventilators. They could have created a national effort to 
ramp up domestic production of personal protective equipment. They 
didn't do that.
  The administration could have come up with a national testing plan. 
They could have done an early assessment of how many tests were going 
to be needed and taken control of the supply chain necessary to make 
those diagnostic machines and the cartridges that go inside them. They 
didn't do that.
  They could have begun the work of building a national public health 
workforce. Every expert told the administration that it wasn't just the 
machines and the equipment, that we were going to need public health 
workers to do the testing, to then trace the spread of the disease, and 
to help support quarantines. They could have started to put together a 
plan to build that workforce at a national level or at least a plan to 
help States build that workforce. But they didn't do that.
  They could have, early on, worked with States to create uniformed 
standards for school and business closings. This didn't have to be left 
to States and municipalities and individual superintendents. The 
administration could have chosen to lead on the question of how and 
when we chose to close our economy and our school systems down, but 
they didn't do that.
  They could have joined with other countries to jointly produce a 
vaccine. In fact, there was an entity set up at the beginning of the 
Trump administration specifically for that purpose, the Coalition for 
Epidemic Preparedness Innovations. They could have made an investment 
in that international organization after having refused to join early 
on during the President's term, but they didn't do that.
  They could have increased aid for developing nations or refugee 
camps. They could have gone on the international offensive, like 
President Obama did during the Ebola epidemic, and made sure that we 
were helping every country beat the virus because, as we know, due to 
the failure of the travel restrictions, if you don't stop it 
everywhere, you really are not stopping it anywhere, but they didn't do 
that.
  They could have made sure that everybody in this country had 
insurance. The Trump administration could have stopped pushing junk 
plans. They could have, at least temporarily, put on hold the lawsuit 
to try to end the Affordable Care Act and the 20 million who are 
insured through it, but they didn't do that.
  They could have worked to create a national commitment to make sure 
that every student has the ability to distance learn and has internet 
access, or they could have proposed a plan to ramp up special education 
funding to make sure they are protecting kids with disabilities during 
this crisis. They didn't do that.
  Finally, they could have proposed any of the various programs that 
Congress developed and passed: the PPP program, the State stabilization 
fund, the hospital relief fund, the national testing program fund. None 
of these were initiatives from President Trump.
  Early on, as negotiations were beginning on these relief packages, 
the President's only idea was a payroll tax cut. Frankly, it is still 
the President's only idea.
  The President didn't need to leave all of the legislative leadership 
to Congress. He and his team could have laid out detailed new programs 
to combat the virus or to save the economy and pressed Congress to pass 
them, but they didn't even do that.
  I am not saying there aren't meetings. I am not saying there aren't 
press conferences. But my State, one of the hardest hit in the Nation, 
has had to effectively fend for itself.
  When I talk to State leaders, or hospital executives, or food pantry 
directors, none of them talk to me about all of the help they are 
getting from the Trump administration. They talk about the programs 
that Congress has passed, but they don't talk about any meaningful, 
impactful responses to this crisis run by the Trump administration. Do 
you know why? Because they don't exist, and even when the Trump 
administration tries to do something meaningful, they screw it up.
  Take, for instance, the much-heralded plan to reopen America. Now, 
that was a good idea, a serious set of guidelines for States to use to 
judge when the right time is to reopen. I may have quibbles with 
certain elements of that plan, but I thought they were generally on the 
right track, giving States some specific guidelines so that we can have 
some consistency across the country as to when States decide to reopen 
schools and businesses.
  The administration stuck with that plan for about a week, and now 
President Trump is calling on States to reopen, regardless of whether 
any of the benchmarks have been met in his own plan. Now he is talking 
about healthcare workers and cafeteria workers as warriors, apparently 
preparing them for a summer during which his experts tell him there 
will be 3,000 coronavirus deaths a day because of these early 
reopenings. If that is true, the President's so-called coronavirus 
warriors would be dying at a daily total 10 times that of the warriors 
who fought in World War II.
  Not all of this was avoidable. China, where the virus started, bears 
serious responsibility for the global spread, but the epidemic did not 
have to become the crisis of the magnitude we have witnessed today.
  A normal President would have been able to take steps early on and 
throughout that could have controlled the spread. Our President 
effectively chose to stand aside and leave 50 States and thousands of 
cities and hospitals to manage the response instead. They were left 
largely helpless, without significant Federal support, competing 
against each other for scarce resources, and now our country is in 
desperate straits. So, once again, it is up to Congress to lead
  I agree with my friend from Colorado that there has been remarkable 
bipartisan support in this body in order to fill the vacuum that has 
been created by the refusal of our President to lead, and so we will 
have to do it again. Let me leave my colleagues with a few suggestions 
as to the path that we should take going forward to build upon those 
suggestions proffered by my colleague from Colorado.
  First and foremost, we have to admit what is true. The States and the 
cities are in charge of the response. The Trump administration is not. 
I have heard my colleagues talk about aid to States or municipalities 
that are fighting the virus as a bailout. That is nonsense. It is more 
accurate to talk about what the States and cities are doing as a 
bailout of the Federal Government.
  When the Trump administration refused to run a national response, it 
was

[[Page S2263]]

the States, like mine, and cities, like those in my State, that stepped 
up to lead the response. All we are asking is that we share in the cost 
of the States' and cities' efforts to save lives.
  Second, our schools are going to be overwhelmed with need when they 
reopen. I am one of the few parents of school-aged children, children 
who go to public school. My kids are lucky enough that they don't have 
special learning needs, and they have two parents who are able to 
telework from home and support their distance learning. But there are 
millions of kids who have learning disabilities, who have needs totally 
unmet during this time who are going to show back up at school way 
behind and in crisis. We need to appropriate money right now, 
especially for special education, so that school districts across the 
country can start to do planning now, this spring and this summer, so 
that there are supports around those kids when they show back up. Every 
kid is going to have to catch up. But especially for kids with serious 
learning disabilities, they are going to need extra help. And States 
that are going to have expended all of the money available to them to 
fight the virus and that have cratering revenues because of the 
shutdown of the economy are not going to be able to fund those special 
education needs themselves. It is going to have to be us. It is going 
to have to be us. So why wait until the fall? Let's make a downpayment 
on that assistance for kids with disabilities and do it now.
  Food banks in Connecticut are running dry. They are running dry. We 
need more support in the next bill for nutrition assistance. We have to 
start thinking creatively about how to make sure that everybody has 
access to food. Right now, if you are on a SNAP benefit, you have to go 
to a grocery store. Well, those aren't safe places for everybody on 
SNAP benefits. Some of the corner bodegas have closed down. So the only 
place that might be open is a long way away. So restaurants can be a 
lifeline right now. Traditionally, we don't allow you to use your SNAP 
benefits in restaurants, but I think we should temporarily allow for 
that in the next package we pass. And guess what. That would be a win 
for people who are on assistance who need more food options. It would 
also be a win for restaurants that are looking for customers.
  Fourth, we have to build that public health workforce. Again, States 
will not be able to afford it themselves. Every medical expert tells us 
that it is not just testing. It is tracing the contacts that that 
individual had. It is quarantining those they had contact with. And 
that can't be done just with an act. There have to be workers who help 
do that tracing, who help support the quarantine. We have to build that 
workforce. Again, there is just no conceivable way that States can pay 
that by themselves.
  Then, lastly, we need to get back into the game internationally. It 
was a fallacy from the beginning to think that we can just shut our 
borders and protect ourselves. That is not how viruses work. In an 
interconnected economy today, there is no practical way to completely 
shut down your borders from individuals or products that move across 
international boundaries.
  We have offers right now to engage with our partners internationally 
on ways that could end up helping to save lives in the United States. I 
mentioned the Trump administration's refusal to join CEPI, which is the 
international body working on a vaccine. Why? Why is Europe and Canada 
and Australia and Japan and Saudi Arabia and India all working jointly 
on a vaccine, and we are on the outside? It doesn't mean that we would 
have to stop doing our own congressionally funded work to develop a 
vaccine, but why not also join the international effort so that we are 
not on the outside if they develop that vaccine? An easy thing we can 
do in this next bill is make sure we are both working on a vaccine 
domestically but also working internationally.

  When this crisis is over and life has returned to relative normal, 
there will be a grave, serious accounting of how badly the Trump 
administration failed this Nation that it was sworn to protect. I am 
grateful for my colleagues stepping up time and again in a bipartisan 
way to try to fill the gap created by the failure to lead by the 
executive branch. Hopefully, when we do that accounting, it will allow 
us to learn lessons. For now, this Congress has to soldier on and do 
our best to muster a Federal response that, if not for our actions, 
would be practically nonexistent.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, like other Senators, around this time of 
the year, I am used to being with folks from home who are traveling to 
Washington, DC. Between spring break trips and industry fly-ins, spring 
is normally a very busy season here at the Capitol. I always look 
forward to seeing both new and familiar faces and spending time with my 
constituents and talking about the challenges they are facing and the 
changes they would like to see coming out of Congress.
  Yet, as we all know, this is not a typical springtime in Washington. 
Normally busy sidewalks and hallways are largely empty, as our 
constituents hunker down at home while we continue working to get them 
the help they need. Just as Texans have adopted new routines to meet 
social distancing requirements, so have I, as have all of us.
  I know I am not alone among my colleagues when I say that over the 
last few weeks, I have logged some serious hours on phone calls and 
video conferences with folks across Texas. Actually, I have been a 
little bit surprised at how efficient it is in terms of reaching large 
numbers of people, and I think it will probably change some of the ways 
we work here and some of the ways we act with our constituents here in 
the future.
  I spoke with those in the medical field about the ongoing challenges 
to our frontline healthcare workers, the progress toward developing a 
vaccine, antibody tests, and the like.
  I have talked with the Texas Farm Bureau, our farmers and ranchers, 
our grocery store workers, and our food bank employees about the need 
to make sure that all Texans can access the food they need, especially 
during a time like this.
  I have talked with mayors, county judges, and other leaders in our 
communities about the work they are doing.
  I was listening to our friend and colleague from Connecticut who 
believes that the response needs to be coming out of Washington and 
that we all need to simply fall in line according to the dictates of 
the national government. Well, it raises interesting questions about 
the Constitutional Convention and the agreement to have a Federal 
system, not a national system. We have sovereign States that have their 
own sphere of responsibility. Our cities and counties are best able, in 
my view, to respond to local conditions.
  Rather than a command and control response, what we have had in Texas 
and I dare say in most other places has been a collaborative approach. 
Working with the national government to provide the resources and some 
of the guidance is very important. But our Governors, who control the 
National Guard, which has come out to help do testing, help stock food 
banks, and help build temporary hospital facilities, and our mayors and 
county judges and local officials have really done an outstanding job. 
I am very proud of the work they have done. We haven't just taken 
orders on high from the Federal Government; we worked together, hand in 
glove, with the Federal Government.
  Of course, I talked to countless small business owners across our big 
cities and small towns and everywhere in between about the financial 
strain caused by the pandemic, and it is significant, to say the least. 
Many, of course, were forced to close their doors or dramatically scale 
back their operations, and many have had to make hard decisions to stay 
afloat.
  I was just emailing with a friend of mine in Dallas who has ownership 
in a company that just declared chapter 11 bankruptcy. Our small 
businesses are the heart and soul of our communities. They are our 
favorite locally owned restaurants; the florists we call upon on 
anniversaries, birthdays, and other holidays; the drycleaners, the 
barbershops, the gyms, the pharmacies--all the places we have been 
going for years. They feel like an extended part of our family. They 
are part of what make our communities unique, and they are a huge 
driver of our economy.

[[Page S2264]]

  In Texas and across the country, small businesses employ nearly 50 
percent of the local workforce. For many of these workers, the closures 
and cancellations brought on by the coronavirus have put their 
livelihoods in jeopardy, with many losing some or all of their income 
and many, their jobs entirely.
  As the Senate was working on our third response package back in 
March, we knew that without a serious investment in our small 
businesses, the result would be catastrophic. That is why we created 
the Paycheck Protection Program through the CARES Act to provide cash 
flow assistance for our small businesses. As we know, those low-
interest loans can be used to cover everything from payroll, to supply 
chain disruptions, to rent or mortgage. And if the employers are able--
I underline the word ``able''--if they are able to keep their employees 
on the payroll until June, then much of those loans can be turned into 
grants.
  During my calls and video conferences with chambers of commerce and 
small business owners throughout Texas, I have been able to talk about 
the benefits of these loans and how to access them. Small Business 
Administration staff have joined me on dozens of these calls to answer 
technical questions about the loan program and other types of 
assistance offered by the SBA, which has been really valuable and 
appreciated by everyone.
  Small businesses in my State have jumped at the opportunity to take 
advantage of the PPP loans and start talking with their banks and 
gathering up paperwork and going through the formal application 
process.
  As we know now, it became quickly obvious how popular the PPP program 
was and that it would exceed the funding levels after 2 weeks. That 
indicates the kind of demand and the kind of need and that our response 
was actually hitting the target. But after 2 weeks, the first $350 
billion was exhausted and depleted. From that first $350 billion, 
135,000 small businesses in Texas received loans--more than any other 
State. That program brought approximately $28.5 billion to Texas small 
businesses and protected thousands of jobs.
  Well, we know, after a little bit of jockeying back and forth with 
the House, Congress finally replenished the Paycheck Protection Program 
with an additional $320 billion, and that money is flying out the door 
as we speak.

  You don't have to look far to see why this program is so popular.
  Valerie Gonzalez-Handly owns Delicious Tamales in my hometown of San 
Antonio. Like other restaurants across the country, her business 
struggled as the stay-at-home orders were put in place. Delicious 
Tamales closed for 2 weeks last month but was able to reopen because of 
the $232,000 loan they received through the Paycheck Protection 
Program. All 38 employees returned to work. Valerie called the Paycheck 
Protection Program a ``life saver.''
  For patients at a clinic in Tyler, TX--another PPP loan recipient--
these loans could be a literal life saver. Bethesda Health Clinic 
provides healthcare services to low-income and uninsured Texans in the 
Tyler area. The clinic doesn't receive State or Federal funding, and 
one-third of their budget comes from the Hangers of Hope thrift stores 
they operate, which were forced to close. The clinic had to furlough 
their employees in order to survive the financial squeeze but was able 
to take advantage of the Paycheck Protection Program. Krysti McWha is 
the chief financial and operations officer, and she said this has 
erased a lot of worry for the clinic and allowed the furloughed 
employees to return to work. It has also enabled them to continue to 
serve the public during a time of heightened healthcare concerns.
  The Paycheck Protection Program has been vital to Texas small 
businesses and I dare say to the Nation's small businesses. I am glad 
Congress, working together as we should during a time of national 
emergency, was able to provide this lifeline and replenish these funds 
when they ran dry.
  That is not to say, though, that this program has been implemented 
without a hitch. When you do something this big and this fast, there 
are bound to be some hiccups. We expected there would be these small 
holes and gaps in what was needed, and over the last few weeks, those 
have become pretty clear.
  One of those issues is the tax deductible expenses for the businesses 
that take advantage of these loans. Businesses are normally able to 
deduct wages and other business expenses from their taxable income, but 
the notice issued by the IRS said small businesses cannot deduct these 
expenses, which is exactly the opposite of what we intended to do. Just 
to give an idea of how harmful this could be, if a small business's 
payroll during the 8-week period covered by a loan were $100,000, that 
amount could not be deducted as a business expense when they file their 
taxes.
  Our goal with this legislation was to help--not hurt--to help small 
businesses remain solvent and keep their employees on the payroll so 
they can recover from this pandemic as soon as possible and be ready 
for what I hope is a v-shaped bounceback in our economy once we defeat 
this virus. We certainly didn't intend to make next year's tax season a 
nightmare or to add to the burdens of these small businesses. Yet, 
based on the IRS's guidance, that is the path we are headed down.
  We have to right this wrong. Yesterday, I introduced the bipartisan 
Small Business Expense Protection Act with the chairman and ranking 
member of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley and Senator Wyden, 
along with Senator Rubio, who chairs the Small Business Committee, and 
Senator Carper, who serves, as I do, on the Finance Committee. This 
legislation will clarify that small businesses can still deduct 
expenses that were paid for with a forgiven paycheck protection loan 
from their taxes. Without this clarification, small businesses will be 
up the creek without a paddle when they file their taxes next year.
  This program was created to reduce the financial barriers our small 
businesses are trying to overcome, not to add more. This bipartisan 
bill has already received support of the American Institute of CPAs--
certified public accountants--and is critical to ensuring America's 
small businesses receive the full benefits intended by Congress in the 
Paycheck Protection Program.
  As we continue to provide relief for America's workers and small 
businesses, it is critical that this fix be included. Texas small 
businesses saw the Paycheck Protection Program as a lifeline during 
this incredibly challenging time. Let's not make them regret grabbing 
ahold of it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia
  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I ask permission to speak for up to the 
full 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KAINE. I rise to discuss the next steps the Senate should take in 
dealing with the COVID-19 global pandemic.
  I applaud the bipartisan result Congress has shown in passing four 
important pieces of legislation to provide trillions of dollars of aid 
to Americans in the midst of this catastrophe.
  My heart goes out to people who are suffering. When we were last here 
voting sort of near midnight on March 25 or early in the morning on 
March 26, 675 Americans had then died of coronavirus. Now, more than 
72,000 have. In the few weeks we have been away, the number of deaths 
has increased by more than 70,000. Millions have been diagnosed. Those 
numbers are rising every day.
  The crisis has been the most severe economic shock our Nation has 
experienced in decades, even more severe than the economic collapse of 
2008-2009.
  Madam President, just a personal privilege. I know four people who 
have died of coronavirus.
  Jeanette Galliano, my brother Steve's mother-in-law, died in a senior 
facility in New Orleans in the last few weeks.
  Lois Shaver. Lois is the mother of one of our closest friends, the 
godmother of our middle son. Lois died in a nursing home in Fairfax 
County in Northern Virginia in the last few weeks.
  Gerald Glenn was a minister, a bishop, and pillar of the Richmond 
faith community. He was somebody I appointed to boards when I was 
Governor. Senator Warner did the same. Bishop Glenn passed away of 
coronavirus right after Easter.
  Dolson Anderson was a longtime friend. His wife Linda was one of my

[[Page S2265]]

agency heads when I was Governor. As Dolson was providing care for 
Linda after knee surgery, he contracted coronavirus, and after 16 days 
on a ventilator, he died.
  There are two other names. My next door neighbor, Dean DeForest. My 
wife Anne and I have lived next to Dean and Mary Ruth for 28 years. 
Dean died after 2 weeks, after a long battle with lung cancer, not 
coronavirus. But what coronavirus meant for Dean and so many like him 
was he couldn't have family with him in the normal way. He couldn't 
have a funeral or a memorial service or family gathered to grieve in 
the normal way because of people's worry about infection.
  Then there is Lorna Breen. Lorna was a Charlottesville native who was 
working as an emergency room physician in New York Presbyterian and was 
so stressed out by what she saw. She developed coronavirus. She went 
back to the hospital to work as soon as she could, and it was too much 
for her. She went home to be with her family in Charlottesville, and 
about 10 days ago, she died by suicide after facing the tremendous 
burden of being a first responder.
  I want to mention all of them. All of us--everyone in this Chamber, 
everyone who works here--have direct personal connections. The 
suffering is massive, and it is likely to continue. Because it is, 
Congress should do more. The American public expects us to, and we 
shouldn't let them down.
  What should be our next priorities? One way to look at the 
legislation we already passed is that Congress has provided aid to five 
basic pillars: aid to individuals and families; grants to small 
businesses and nonprofit organizations; loans to medium and large size 
businesses; aid to local and State governments; and aid to hospitals, 
healthcare providers, and the healthcare system.
  The three bills we passed in March made major investments in each of 
these five pillars. By April, we realized that the depth of the crisis 
was so great, we needed to do more. While we realized that our action 
was going to be partial rather than comprehensive, we did step up to do 
more to provide support for two of those five pillars--small 
businesses, hospitals and healthcare providers.
  After providing $350 billion in forgivable loans for small businesses 
under the CARES Act, we added another $370 billion in April for small 
businesses through additional loans, through the PPP program, SBA's 
EIDL grant-loan program, and a new set-aside directing resources to 
small businesses through smaller financial institutions.
  And, recognizing that this is fundamentally a public health 
emergency, we also added $100 billion in new health funds--$75 billion 
for healthcare providers and $25 billion to enable the United States to 
finally support development of a competent and comprehensive testing 
program.
  We did not hesitate to act in providing more resources to two key 
pillars--small businesses and our health system--and that tells me what 
our next step should be. We should show the same willingness to direct 
more resources to individuals and families, as well as State and local 
governments.
  Individuals and families are hurting. Thirty million Americans have 
filed for unemployment. People have lost jobs. Some have businesses 
that may never reopen, and they have seen other unplanned expenses for 
healthcare or childcare, as local schools have closed. Rent and 
mortgage payments, car payments, utility bills, food and medicine--
these expenses continue, and the pressure on working Americans is 
intense.
  When we passed the CARES Act in March, I was struck by the fact that 
the PPP program for small businesses was $350 billion, but the total 
direct payments for families was only $295 billion--about 85 percent of 
the business grant program.
  Given that we just added another $370 billion in aid for small 
businesses, I think we should add an equal amount for individuals and 
families. Whether this is a second round of direct payments or a 
combination of direct payments and other supports--childcare, rent and 
mortgage assistance--we should show the public that we value the needs 
of families and individuals as much as we value small businesses.
  And the second thing we should do is to provide more assistance and 
flexibility to State and local governments. The CARES Act provided $150 
billion in block grant funding to States and localities, but this $150 
billion was limited for use to only deal with unanticipated costs 
connected with COVID-19.
  Here is an odd thing. The funds for businesses were specifically 
designed to help them deal with revenue losses so that they could 
remain in operation and avoid layoffs. The hospital and healthcare 
provider funding was designed to help deal with revenue losses 
experienced as we postponed elective surgeries and clinical visits. The 
funds were designed to avoid layoffs. The aid to individuals was 
designed to help families cope with lost wages and lost salary.
  But the CARES bill would not allow State or local governments to use 
funds to backstop lost revenue, and that is having serious 
consequences.
  I was a mayor and a Governor. I know that 46 States have a fiscal 
year that starts on July 1, and that means that most States and local 
governments are working on their budgets right now. They have to 
project income and expenses for the next year and write their budgets 
accordingly.
  So what are State and local governments seeing? Massive declines in 
tax revenue. Sales taxes are declining. Meals taxes, lodging taxes, 
income taxes--all are declining. Jurisdictions are trying to figure out 
the extent of the likely decline, and though it is hard to know with 
certainty, the revenue drops are sizeable.
  In Virginia, the town of Abingdon is predicting a revenue loss of 
about 15 percent; Fredericksburg, more than 10 percent; Blacksburg, 
nearly 18 percent. The list goes on and on. The Commonwealth of 
Virginia is predicting revenue losses of $2 to $3 billion over the next 
2 fiscal years.
  If cities, towns, counties, and States lose revenue, what are their 
options? Since most government costs are personnel, here is what they 
will be forced to cut--teachers, police officers, firefighters, EMTs. 
That is already happening in Virginia and all over the country.
  Staunton is proposing furlough days for all city employees, including 
first responders. Prince William County has removed 31 police, fire, 
and sheriff positions from their budget. Abingdon is laying off 13 
full-time and 64 part-time employees.
  Every State, city, county, and town in this country is making the 
same decisions right now, and it shouldn't be this way. We provided 
funds to businesses to backstop revenue losses so they could avoid 
layoffs. We provided funds to hospitals to backstop revenue losses so 
they could avoid layoffs. We need to allow our State and local 
governments to backstop revenue losses so they can avoid layoffs.
  It is never a good time to lay off teachers, firefighters, police, 
sheriffs, EMTs--never. But I can tell you that the worst time to do it 
is a national health emergency. The overwhelming majority of our first 
responders work for State and local governments. Why would we want to 
lay them off?
  President Trump has said he doesn't want to bail out States and local 
governments, and he has criticized them. He didn't name-call businesses 
that wanted help. He didn't say: We will not bail you out. Instead, he 
wanted to extend the helping hand. His attacks on State and local 
governments are particularly insulting since the American public is 
much more satisfied with how their State and local leaders are handling 
this crisis than how the administration is.
  Senator McConnell advanced the idea that States and local governments 
should consider bankruptcy. He didn't say that about businesses that 
wanted aid. Promoting bankruptcy, which would mean layoffs and broken 
promises to pensioners, is heartless.
  America needs its teachers and its first responders. This isn't a 
Democrat or Republican thing. There are as many Republican Governors as 
there are Democrats. There are as many cities and counties managed with 
Republican leadership as there are Democrats.
  The CARES Act had $150 billion for general State and local government 
relief, but we have now done over $1.2 trillion in relief for 
businesses. I am glad we are helping our businesses get through this, 
but don't the communities where we live and work, send our

[[Page S2266]]

kids to school, pray and play deserve help to get through this crisis 
too? Does anyone really believe that we will be better off as a nation 
in fighting this emergency if teachers, firefighters, police, sheriffs, 
and EMTs are laid off all over this country?
  So I will close in just saying to my colleagues: We stepped up big to 
refill the tank for small businesses and hospitals. It is now time to 
step up for State and local governments and individuals and families.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). Under the previous order, all 
postcloture time is expired.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Evanina 
nomination?
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran) 
would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the 
Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. 
Murray), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from 
Hawaii (Mr. Schatz), the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow), and the 
Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 84, nays 7, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 83 Ex.]

                                YEAS--84

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Braun
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harris
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Lee
     Loeffler
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Menendez
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--7

     Blumenthal
     Duckworth
     Hirono
     Markey
     Merkley
     Warren
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Brown
     Burr
     Leahy
     Moran
     Murray
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Stabenow
     Whitehouse
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the 
President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
  The Senator from Illinois.


                                  DACA

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I spent 5 weeks in my home in Springfield, 
IL, following orders--good ones--to suggest that I had to get out of 
circulation and so should everyone else. It was an interesting moment. 
My wife and I think it may have been the longest stretch we had ever 
spent under the same roof together. We got along, which is good, and I 
got to field the neighborhood a little more than I usually do as I 
travel back and forth almost every week.
  I got to know the people a little more, waving from a distance. I 
looked around and noticed that almost every lawn had a sign on it 
saying: ``We love healthcare workers.'' Many people had signs in their 
windows to back that up too, and we should. These doctors, these 
nurses, and these people who work in nursing homes caring for the 
elderly and making certain they are in a good, safe environment are 
important, and they are risking their lives for the people whom we 
love. We thank them over and over. But there is one part of that group 
that I would like to highlight for just a few moments on the floor of 
the Senate. I want to spend a few minutes talking about one special 
group of healthcare workers--immigrants.
  One in six healthcare and social service workers--3.1 million out of 
18.7 million--are immigrants. When they come on television and give us 
a breakdown of what is going on in emergency rooms and the likelihood 
of our success in communities in dealing with this coronavirus, you 
must notice so many times and think that they may be newcomers to the 
United States. Many of them are.
  These immigrants are playing a critical role in the battle against 
this pandemic. Yet the President of the United States and many around 
him continue to disparage immigrants, falsely claiming that they are 
just a drain on society, that all they are doing is taking our jobs 
away and we really wouldn't miss them if they were gone. So I came to 
the floor today to tell a story about one of them, an immigrant health 
hero. I will be joined by some of my colleagues who have similar 
stories to tell.
  We are inviting people to share their own stories on social media 
using the hashtag ``immigranthealthheroes.'' I will put up the hashtag 
here so that if anyone wants to check in, they can do so.
  Many of these healthcare workers are young immigrants who came to the 
United States as children. They are known as Dreamers. They are 
American in every way except for their legal immigration status. They 
were brought here at an early age by parents who didn't give them a 
vote on the decision, grew up in the United States, went to our 
schools, sometimes all the way through college and professional school, 
want to make a life in this country, have no criminal record, and are 
just looking for a chance.
  It was 9 years ago when I joined Republican Senator Dick Lugar on a 
bipartisan basis asking President Obama to use his executive authority 
to protect these Dreamers from deportation. He responded and created 
the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA.
  DACA provides temporary protection from deportation for Dreamers if 
they register with the government, pay a substantial fee, and go 
through a criminal background check. More than 800,000 Dreamers came 
forward and received President Obama's DACA protection.
  DACA unleashed the full potential for these Dreamers that they never 
dreamed they would have, and they started contributing to America as 
soldiers and teachers and small business owners.
  More than 200,000 DACA recipients are now categorized as ``essential 
critical infrastructure workers''--``essential critical infrastructure 
workers.'' Who came up with that name? It is the definition of 
President Trump's own Department of Homeland Security. One out of four 
of these DACA protectees are essential critical infrastructure workers, 
and among these essential workers are 41,700 DACA recipients in the 
healthcare industry. They include doctors, intensive care nurses, 
paramedics, and respiratory therapists.

  But on September 5, 2017, President Trump repealed DACA. Because of 
that action by the President, hundreds of thousands of Dreamers face 
losing their jobs, but, more importantly, they face being deported, 
many to countries they barely remember, if they remember at all.
  The courts stepped in and blocked the President from enforcing this 
DACA decision, but he took on the appeal of that decision, and now it 
is in the Supreme Court, just across the street.
  I was proud to lead 172 current and former Members of Congress on a 
bipartisan brief asking the Supreme Court to rule against President 
Trump's repeal of DACA. These young DACA recipients are being protected 
while the case is being considered by the Supreme Court, but a decision 
could come down any day--could come down any day--that basically makes 
these young people subject to deportation and takes away any legal 
right

[[Page S2267]]

they have to work. If the Court rules in favor of President Trump on 
DACA, 200,000 essential American workers will be sidelined and 
deported, even as we fight this pandemic.
  Last month, I sent a letter to the President--37 of my colleagues 
joined me--urging him to extend the work authorization for DACA 
recipients, not to make their future depend on what happens in the 
Court. The President has the authority to say that, at least until the 
end of the calendar year--or beyond, I hope--we are not going to deport 
these young people, and we are not going to take their jobs away, 
particularly those in the healthcare industry.
  But if you consider President Trump's attitude toward immigrants, you 
know he is likely to forge ahead with his decision to deport the 
Dreamers. That means we have to do our part.
  I worked with Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, chairman of the 
Senate Judiciary Committee, to include a provision to automatically 
extend work authorizations for DACA recipients in the CARES Act that 
Congress just passed a few weeks ago. We presented it to the leaders on 
a bipartisan basis. We had the approval of Senate Democratic leader 
Chuck Schumer and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, but not the 
Republican leader in the Senate. He stopped us from extending this 
protection. I don't know what his situation is in Kentucky, but I can 
tell you that in Illinois, we need every one of these healthcare 
workers we have today. We can't afford to lose them. To think that 
41,000 DACA recipients and another 11,000 TPS critical healthcare 
workers would be deported would mean that many Americans who count on 
these great professionals are going to get less care and perhaps 
terrible results.
  As Congress debates the next legislation to address the COVID-19 
pandemic, I will continue pushing for this provision. It is not too 
much to ask that if these people simply want to be working in ERs and 
hospitals, risking their lives for all of us, that they at least have 
the peace of mind to know that they can stay until the end of the 
calendar year. That is all I am asking for. Is it too much to ask? Some 
of them are suffering, and their families are suffering too. All they 
want is the authority to stay here.
  Last year, the House of Representatives passed the Dream and Promise 
Act, based on the Dream Act, with a strong vote. Senator McConnell has 
refused to call it in the Senate. It could help us. I wish he would 
consider it.
  I have come to the floor over 100 times and told the stories of 
Dreamers. I don't think there is any better way to make the case--meet 
them, know them, realize what they brought to America and what they 
bring each day.
  Today, I want to tell you the story of this man. His name is Manuel 
Bernal. He works in the emergency department at the Advocate Christ 
Medical Center.
  Manuel was brought to the United States when he was 2 years old. He 
grew up in Memphis, TN. He always wanted to become a doctor. He wrote 
me a letter, and he said:

       Early on, I developed an appreciation for the medical 
     profession when I witnessed the compassionate care received 
     by a loved one at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital.

  Manuel graduated in the top 10 percent of his hospital class. He was 
a leader of several high school honor societies. In his spare time, he 
was a swimmer, a football player, and volunteered at the St. Jude Club 
and the Key Club.
  He continued his education at the University of Tennessee at 
Chattanooga. He graduated summa cum laude in biology with a minor in 
chemistry. In college, he worked as a medical scribe for doctors in the 
emergency room at a small community hospital in Chattanooga. After this 
experience, he decided he wanted to go all the way. He wanted to become 
an emergency room physician. He continued his education at Loyola 
University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine.

  Allow me a few seconds to praise this wonderful school. He was one of 
dozens of DACA recipients at Stritch, which was the first medical 
school to admit DACA students. They do not receive any special 
treatment in the selection process, and they are not eligible for a 
penny in Federal financial assistance. Many of them borrowed money from 
the State of Illinois to complete their medical education in the hopes 
that once they are licensed, they can come back and practice in our 
State, which they promise to do.
  Here is what Manuel says DACA means to him:

       DACA has undoubtedly opened up many doors for me. It meant 
     allowing me to obtain my dream of serving others through 
     emergency medicine. If DACA ended, I would be forced to stop 
     doing not only what I love doing but what I trained so hard 
     to do.

  Today, Dr. Manuel Bernal is an emergency room resident at Advocate 
Christ Medical Center in Chicago, one of the busiest trauma hospitals 
in our city. His supervisor told him he did not have to treat COVID-19 
patients because he is only a resident, but he stepped forward and 
volunteered to do it anyway.
  Manuel's DACA is set to expire in October, 5 months from now. Will 
America be stronger if this doctor leaves? Will they be better at 
Advocate Christ Medical Center, the trauma hospital, if Manuel was 
forced to leave this country? I can't imagine anyone would answer yes.
  Manuel and hundreds of thousands of other Dreamers are counting on 
the Supreme Court to reject President Trump's abolition of DACA and 
counting on us who serve in the Senate to solve this crisis President 
Trump alone created. As long as I am a U.S. Senator, I will continue to 
come to the floor of the Senate to advocate for Manuel and for 
thousands of others who simply want a chance to prove themselves to 
earn their way into America's future. It would be an American tragedy 
at this moment when we face this national emergency to lose these brave 
and talented young people. They are saving lives every day, and they 
are risking their own to do it. Can we ask anything more of anyone else 
in this country? We must ensure that Manuel and hundreds of thousands 
of others in our essential workforce are not forced to stop working 
when their services are needed now more than ever.
  Ultimately, we need to pass legislation that is just common sense, 
that says these young people who came here as kids and have worked 
doubly hard under the greatest of pressures and have made a success of 
their lives, like this young man, can stay in America and be part of 
our future. He is truly a healthcare hero, and he is an immigrant. He 
is an immigrant healthcare hero, and there are thousands just like him 
across America. We need them now more than ever.
  I see that Senator Cortez Masto is here. I know she wants to speak on 
this subject.
  I yield the floor to her.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). The Senator from Nevada.

                          ____________________