[Pages S2332-S2339]
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 legislative clerk read the nomination of Brian D. Montgomery, of 
Texas, to be Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, 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. 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for the quorum call be rescinded.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.


                              Coronavirus

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, the United States has well over a million 
confirmed cases of COVID-19. We are quickly, unfortunately, approaching 
80,000 fatalities.
  Alongside this great crisis of public health, this shocking and 
heartbreaking loss of life, there is a looming economic catastrophe. 
There are now more than 30 million newly unemployed Americans, over 
one-tenth of the population in the United States and the highest number 
since the Great Depression. Many believe this number underestimates the 
real total.
  Once this crisis is over, there is no guarantee that these millions 
of newly unemployed Americans will be able to resume their old jobs. 
How many people will find new jobs? At what salary? Even the most 
optimistic scenarios predict a period of extended high unemployment. 
Others suggest we are looking at the kernels of a second Great 
Depression.
  Here on the Senate floor, for the second week in a row, we are living 
in the alternative reality of Republican Leader McConnell's making. He 
has scheduled no legislative business here on the floor related to 
COVID-19--none--no measures for the unemployed, no relief for renters 
or homeowners, no legislation to increase testing capacity, no 
proposals to help State and local governments retain teachers, 
firefighters, busdrivers, and police officers.
  Looking at the Senate calendar, you would never know that we are 
working in the midst of a national crisis. It looks like any other 
session--a few executive nominations, hearings on rightwing judges, and 
legislation from previous months that the leader should not have 
delayed. It is just totally, totally divorced from reality.
  Despite the obvious health risks, Senators are ready to do our jobs. 
Why don't we actually do our jobs and focus on COVID-19? For the sake 
of common sense and the good of the Nation, the Senate should be 
focused on COVID-19. We should be holding multiple serious oversight 
hearings every week. Several of my colleagues on the other side, 
including the Republican leader, have said they want to see how the 
legislation we have already passed is working before doing anything 
else. At the same time, the Republican majority is slow-walking the 
hearing process.
  Finally, after a lot of Democratic pressure from myself and many 
others, the leader is sort of eking out, week by week, hearings. We 
have just heard that we will hear from Powell and Mnuchin on the 19th. 
That will be almost 2 months after a bill that let $4 trillion of 
lending authority be released before there is a hearing.
  Why didn't we hold a hearing 3 weeks ago, 5 weeks ago, or last week? 
It is

[[Page S2333]]

just outrageous. How can the Republican Senators say we want to see how 
this is working and not have a whole bunch of hearings to exam how it 
is working, instead of squeezing them out under direct pressure from us 
Democrats?
  Now, tomorrow, in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee there will be a hearing conducted remotely with Dr. Fauci. 
This is the kind of hearing we need, not once a week but several a day. 
The American people need to hear from experts in a fair, open, and 
truthful setting.
  Until now, we have mostly heard from the members of the Coronavirus 
Task Force through the distorted lens of the White House press 
conference, where the President often prevents them from answering 
fully, interrupts their responses, or even contradicts their fact-based 
advice.
  This will be one of the first opportunities for Dr. Fauci to tell the 
American people the unvarnished truth without the President lurking 
over his shoulder.
  Dr. Fauci, let it rip.
  But it shouldn't be this one committee hearing tomorrow, and it 
shouldn't be Dr. Fauci alone testifying, or even with the two he is 
testifying with. This is the routine oversight business of Congress, 
and we are now in a crisis. It should occur in every committee every 
week. There should be testimony from administration officials, ranging 
from Dr. Birx to Secretary Mnuchin, to Secretary DeVos and others.

  We should also be debating another major emergency relief bill. As we 
speak, more and more businesses are going under, more and more people 
are losing their jobs, and more and more families don't have enough 
food to feed their children or are sitting for hours in car lines to 
get to food banks.
  Speaker Pelosi and I completely agree. The new bill should be big, 
and it should be bold, and that is what the House is working on right 
now, while the Senate, under Leader McConnell's leadership, dithers.
  Already, however, we have heard that congressional Republicans are 
telling everyone they want to slow down. Leader McConnell says he wants 
to hit the pause button. President Trump and administration officials 
are saying we might not need to do anything more to help the country. 
This would be a catastrophic mistake.
  At the outset of the Great Depression, President Hoover was also 
reluctant to use national resources to attack the problem. He, too, was 
ideologically opposed to a vigorous and strong response from the 
Federal Government. President Hoover's failure was likely responsible 
for extending the length and deepening the severity of the Great 
Depression.
  If President Trump and our Republican colleagues go the way of 
Herbert Hoover, if they oppose or slow-walk government intervention to 
save the economy that is hurtling downward, I fear the Nation could 
suffer a similar fate--a second depression. We must avoid that at all 
costs. Now is not the time for timidity. Now is not the time for small 
thinking. Now is the time for action--big, bold, continued action.
  There are so many issues that deserve our attention. On a daily 
basis, President Trump talks about the need to reopen our country. 
Well, President Trump, the only way we can safely reopen the country is 
if we have testing. To finally beat this disease, we need testing. To 
reopen businesses safely, we need testing. To reopen schools and 
sporting events, we need testing. To contain a resurgence in the fall 
or early next year, we need testing. Testing is, by far, the No. 1 
priority from a public health standpoint and, maybe, from an economic 
standpoint as well.
  For many countries, mastering the challenge of testing and contact 
tracing their population was their first priority. Here in the United 
States, unfortunately, the Trump administration is still trying to 
catch up. Three months ago--3 months ago--President Trump said: 
``Anybody that wants a test can get a test.'' That is still not even 
close to being true.
  Americans have gotten sick, and because they could not get tested, 
they never knew if they contracted COVID and never knew if they passed 
it on to loved ones, colleagues, workers, or friends. For many who 
could get tested, they had to wait weeks for an answer, long after the 
disease had run its course and potentially spread to others.
  We may never know the full extent of the human consequences that 
resulted from President Trump's administration's failure to rapidly 
develop a testing plan in the early days of coronavirus, but we do know 
that countries that did it successfully--such as South Korea, Germany, 
Australia, and New Zealand--were able to deal with the virus much 
better than we have. And to think the United States, which has always 
been the leader in public health, is lagging behind these other 
countries because of the President's denial and ineptitude should 
bother every single American, no matter what your politics.
  Congress provided $25 billion in the most recent relief legislation 
to increase testing capacity and contact tracing, and we are going to 
need to do more. If President Trump is so keen on speeding up the 
process of reopening the country, we should endorse what Democrats have 
urged him to do: Create a national testing regime immediately.
  On one final matter, education, in the CARES Act, Congress provided a 
little over $30 billion to help States, school districts, and higher 
education systems respond to the coronavirus after many schools were 
forced to close or to move to remote learning. We need more money than 
that, of course, and I think Democrats in both Houses agree.
  It has come to our attention that Secretary DeVos has been using a 
portion of the existing funding not to help States or localities cope 
with the crisis but to augment her push for voucher-like programs, a 
prior initiative that had nothing to do with COVID-19.
  We have also learned that Secretary DeVos has added restrictions to 
the fund that weren't included in the law, including guidance that DACA 
recipients cannot receive aid. Shameful--there is no other word for it. 
Secretary DeVos is exploiting emergency relief funding to further her 
own rigid ideological agenda and deprive students of desperately needed 
Federal assistance. The Secretary of Education should reverse course 
immediately.
  Subsequently, DeVos should testify in Congress as soon as possible. 
As someone who has habitually skipped congressional hearings, Secretary 
DeVos has a lot to answer for. If our students had the same attendance 
record as Secretary DeVos, they would have flunked out of school. 
Secretary DeVos needs to come clean about how her Department is 
exploiting congressional relief efforts intended to help schools 
recover and reopen.
  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. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Ernst). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                              Coronavirus

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, as our Nation's war against the 
coronavirus has waged on, the Senate has taken decisive action to 
provide the resources we need to win the fight. We sent critical 
equipment to our frontline healthcare workers, and we have expanded 
testing resources nationwide. We provided loans to small businesses in 
order to protect jobs, and we sent direct financial assistance to the 
Americans who are struggling the hardest to make ends meet. These four 
bills--now law--passed by Congress have addressed both the public 
health crisis at the heart of the pandemic and the ensuing economic 
fallout.
  Now, with the States beginning to gradually reopen their economies, 
we are staring down the barrel of a second epidemic, one generated by 
opportunistic lawsuits, crushing legal fees, and drawn-out court 
battles.
  According to a database compiled by law firm Hunton Andrews Kurth, 
more than 950 such lawsuits have already been filed in the United 
States. We have seen suits against healthcare workers, nursing homes, 
colleges, governments, retailers--you name it. As our economy begins to 
reopen, unfortunately, so will the legal floodgates. The litigation 
epidemic is shaping up to be a big one.

[[Page S2334]]

  Now, don't get me wrong, lawyers aren't all bad. I confess to being 
one myself. And there will no doubt be some meritorious claims. But 
many suits potentially serve as the cash cow--a chance to shake down a 
business for a nuisance settlement due to the cost alone of defending a 
lawsuit, even if you win.
  With a pandemic that has affected more than 1 million Americans, you 
better believe there are some preparing for a gold rush. You can hear 
the TV commercials now asking if you or a loved one was impacted by the 
coronavirus, encouraging you to call a 1-800 number to see if you could 
be entitled to some money.
  Imagine you are a nurse who is being sued by the family of a patient 
who tragically passed away at your hospital. Even though you acted in 
good faith and you took every precaution to save the life of the 
patient, you could get pulled into a nightmarish legal fight over a 
case that ends up having no merit in the first place.
  Let's say you are a small business owner who closed your doors at the 
start of the pandemic, but then you applied for the loans, and you have 
done everything in your power to stay afloat until you could reopen. 
When that time comes, you take every precaution. Your employees wear 
masks, you reduce the number of customers so as to provide for social 
distancing, you regularly clean your store, and you have hand sanitizer 
available for all employees and customers. But then somebody says that 
they contracted the virus in your store and that they are going to sue 
you. Well, I have no doubt that, unless we provide for some 
limitations, there will be businesses that will say: Why bother? Why 
take on the risk? It is just not worth it
  We know small businesses provide the lion's share of the jobs in our 
economy, and they can get roped into spending all their savings--what 
is left--to defend or settle a nuisance lawsuit. And the fear of these 
consequences could worsen the toll this crisis has already taken on our 
economy.
  We simply cannot allow a flood of frivolous lawsuits to harm our 
incredible healthcare workers or stunt our economic recovery. As we 
speak, I am working with colleagues on legislation to address the 
anticipated lawsuit bonanza.
  Let me be clear. Not all lawsuits are created equal. Without a doubt, 
there will be legitimate claims as a result of reckless wrongdoing in 
the wake of this pandemic. Those are the types of cases we want to make 
sure are heard.
  Last week, the Utah Daily Herald reported that one business required 
staff who tested positive for the COVID-19 to report to work anyway. 
Almost half of the business's employees tested positive. You don't have 
to be Perry Mason or Matlock--I realize I am dating myself here--to see 
that this is an egregious violation of Federal guidelines. There is no 
desire to impede the effort to hold bad actors accountable, period. 
That is my guiding principle. The problem is with the expected 
onslaught of frivolous claims, which will do nothing more than harm the 
very people already hurt by this virus.
  Just because a lawsuit is baseless doesn't mean it will be quick, 
easy, or cheap to resolve, and we can't put our healthcare workers in a 
situation where, after battling this virus for months on end, they then 
have to battle a false claim in court.
  Future legislation should include liability protections for our 
frontline workers and small businesses that are complying with the very 
government regulations designed to protect against the spread of the 
virus.
  More than a dozen Governors have already provided liability 
protections to healthcare workers, but we can't just depend on the 
States to uphold these protections. We can't wait for the dam to break. 
Congress must act to provide the shield for the healthcare workers who 
have done everything in their power to save lives during this 
unprecedented crisis.
  Again, to state the obvious, this would not interfere with liability 
for intentional or grossly negligent conduct. As I said before, no one 
wants to put a stop to meritorious lawsuits. We want to prevent 
baseless claims from tying up our courts, destroying jobs, and holding 
our economy hostage.
  There are several ways to accomplish this, but we need to focus on a 
solution that provides clarity for our businesses and prevents 
gamesmanship in the courts.
  Michael Krauss is a law professor at George Mason University who 
specializes in tort law. He has pointed out that employees can get 
workers' compensation benefits if they become sick or disabled on the 
job. In other words, employees will be covered by existing workers' 
compensation laws. We are talking about third-party claims, not 
employees. Defending lawsuits, no matter how far-fetched, is expensive, 
and litigation costs alone can make the difference between the 
destruction and survival of a business.
  Professor Krauss said that in his opinion, the ideal statute would 
say: ``If you do the following, you may not be sued.'' He said that 
could include a list of requirements, like wearing masks. There could 
be specific regulations for restaurants, meatpackers, or other 
industries.
  Any liability limitations will only protect the individuals and 
companies that comply with Federal guidelines and seek to keep their 
workers and the public safe.
  My colleagues and I have been in discussions about the best way to do 
this, and we are actively developing a proposal that I hope will gain 
bipartisan support. There are fair and reasonable ways to deal with 
this. We have seen this before. This is not a novel concept. Whether it 
is the response to the Y2K paranoia around the turn of the century or 
the attacks of 9/11, there are many more examples where Congress has, 
on a bipartisan basis, responded to a national emergency and provided 
these sorts of commonsense legal protections.
  As we continue to work to support the American people during the 
crisis we are facing today, we can't ignore the onslaught of lawsuits 
that could soon bankrupt small businesses and strangle our recovering 
economy. Congress must act to ensure America doesn't wake up from this 
pandemic only to find itself in a legal nightmare that we could have 
and should have prevented
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                                 Russia

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, in the last several weeks, a lot of 
information relating to the FBI's Russia investigation has been 
declassified and made public. That is in large part thanks to action 
taken by Attorney General Barr and action taken by Acting Director 
Grenell at DNI on declassification of a lot of things that should have 
been declassified a long time ago. Their acts of transparency are 
finally shining a light on the dark corners of the Federal Government. 
The public's business ought to be public. There is too much 
overclassification in the Federal Government. Barr and Grenell are 
doing what they ought to do, and I hope they keep it up.
  In the last several weeks, we have also seen a lot of denial from 
some quarters in the media about the information that has been 
released.
  Also last week, former President Obama said the rule of law is at 
risk because of the Justice Department's dismissal of the Flynn case. 
Contrary to what President Obama believes or the media might say, I 
believe the opposite is true. The rule of law is at risk if the Federal 
Government can get away with violating the Constitution to do what they 
did to Lieutenant General Flynn.
  When it comes to those violations and other misconduct by former 
government officials, Obama and the mainstream media pundits all seem 
to be silent all of a sudden. I have heard no comment from Mr. Obama 
about the independent inspector general's findings that Andrew McCabe 
lied under oath to Federal investigators multiple times or about how 
Department of Justice prosecutors falsely told the court that they had 
produced all Brady material to Flynn. I didn't hear them when the 
Federal Government surveilled an American citizen connected to the 
Trump campaign without probable cause and based on intelligence that 
the FBI knew was questionable at best. There is too much silence on 
something that now is so obvious.
  Since 2017, I have aggressively pursued the Flynn investigation to 
find out more about why the FBI decided to

[[Page S2335]]

interview Flynn, make him a subject of an investigation, and then why 
the Justice Department eventually charged him. From the beginning, I 
wanted to know the facts of the case, and from the beginning, none of 
what I found looked right. Having done good government oversight for 
over 40 years, I know a government foul-up when I see it.
  The public knows a lot more than they did in 2017 when the news first 
broke about this Flynn case. For example, we know that on January 4, 
2017, the FBI wrote a closing memorandum on Flynn, who was code-named 
``Crossfire Razor'' by the FBI. That memorandum said the intelligence 
community could find no derogatory information on the general.
  On the very same day the FBI was ready to close the Flynn case, Peter 
Strzok asked another FBI agent something like this: ``Hey, if you 
haven't closed Razor, don't do it yet.'' So Strzok obviously had 
another agenda. The case was still open at that moment, and Strzok 
asked that it be kept open ``for now.'' Strzok then quickly messaged 
Lisa Page, saying that Razor still happened to be open because of some 
oversight and said: ``Yeah, our utter incompetence actually helps us. 
20 percent of the time . . . ''
  During the course of my oversight activities of the FBI, I have 
uncovered and made public large amounts of Strzok's and Page's 
messages. When reviewing all the faults and disasters of the Russia 
investigation, these text messages are very, very important. They are 
the free expression of these top FBI employees' mindset, unencumbered 
by rules or decorum. They give us a look at what the drivers of the 
Russia investigation actually believed.
  In August 2016, just after the FBI opened the Russia investigation, 
Page said: ``Trump's not ever going to become president, right? 
Right?!?'' She is the one who edited Flynn's 302 summary along with 
Strzok, which contradicted the original 302. Strzok responded to the 
Page quote that I just gave about whether Trump would ever become 
President this way: ``No. No he won't. We'll stop it.'' Their animus 
towards Trump helps to explain why they cut corners and why they didn't 
follow regular protocol in running their inquiry.
  On January 5, 2017, the day after Strzok moved to keep the Flynn case 
open, President Obama met with Director Comey, Deputy Attorney General 
Sally Yates, Vice President Biden, and National Security Advisor Susan 
Rice. At that meeting, they briefed President Obama on the Russia 
investigation. It is unclear to what extent they discussed the details 
of the investigation amongst each other, but given all that we know now 
regarding the fake foundation to the inquiry, it is time we asked: What 
did Obama and Biden know, and when did they know it?
  During the course of my oversight, I acquired an email from Susan 
Rice. She sent herself an email on Obama's last day in office, January 
20, 2017. That email memorialized the alleged contents of the January 
5, 2017, meeting with Obama that I previously referred to. As I noted 
in 2018 when I made the email public, I found it very odd that among 
her activities in the final moments of the final day of the Obama 
administration, that she would write herself an email about a meeting 
that happened several weeks prior about this investigation. According 
to Rice, Obama wanted everything done ``by the book.''
  Of course, we now know that never happened. She also said, in part: 
``The President''--as in Obama--``asked Comey to inform him if anything 
changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share 
classified information with the incoming team.''
  Then, 1 week later, on January 12, 2017, somebody in the Obama 
administration leaked the Flynn-Kislyak call to the Washington Post 
that, for the very first time, ignited rumors about Flynn's association 
with Russians and a possible violation of the arcane Logan Act.
  Now, wasn't this really a perfectly timed leak--one that would help 
to create a fake foundation to interview Flynn?
  Well, guess what happened. Twelve days later, on January 24, 2017, 
Strzok interviewed Flynn in the White House. Prior to that interview, 
Comey chose not to follow normal protocols to inform the White House 
that the FBI intended to interview an employee. Now, we all know that 
the FBI would normally work through the White House counsel to have 
discussions for approval and who would be present at that interview.
  You have seen it on television several times this weekend: Comey 
bragging about getting away with skirting the rules. When he was asked 
in a 2018 interview about how he did it, Comey said--and this is what 
showed up in these last weekends:

       I sent them--

  Meaning he sent the FBI agents to interview.

       I sent them. Something I probably wouldn't have done or 
     even gotten away with in a more organized investigation, a 
     more organized administration.

  According to Comey's former assistant, Comey said: ``We just decided, 
you know, screw it,'' in reference to their breaking protocol with the 
White House.
  Now, I referred to an email that said the President wanted to do this 
by the book. Well, what I just described to you is hardly ``by the 
book.'' Flynn was never told during this interview what he was being 
secretly interrogated for, and the whole thing was done without Flynn 
having an attorney present. In fact, I think I recall they even told 
him he didn't need an attorney.
  Now, we know that the FBI had no real investigative purpose to 
interview Flynn. We also know, based upon FBI notes, that agents 
apparently interviewed Flynn to trick him in a lie so that they could 
prosecute him or get him fired. That prosecuting him or getting him 
fired are very clear in some notes that we got from the FBI, 
handwritten notes.
  Keep in mind that the FBI had prepared to close this case weeks 
before, except it didn't quite get closed because Strzok came in and 
said: Can we keep it open--or something to that effect.
  The FBI already had the transcript of the Flynn-Ambassador Kislyak 
call. They knew exactly what was discussed. So what was the point of 
interviewing Flynn if they already had the transcript?
  Well, lucky for Strzok, the FBI had not technically closed the Flynn 
case. So he figured yet they could lay a trap for Flynn, and they did 
lay a trap.
  In doing so, they didn't warn him that he was under investigation. 
They went around the Justice Department, and I made it very clear how 
they bypassed the White House on interview protocols, because Comey was 
bragging on television about that.
  Under Comey's leadership, the FBI abused government powers in ways 
that our Founders and Framers feared most, because they had had enough 
of George III. They weren't going to let it happen again in the United 
States. That is why they wrote the Constitution the way they did.
  The Russia investigation, in other words, is a textbook example of 
what not to do. At every step of the investigation, the government 
sought evidence to advance it, never got the evidence that they needed 
to advance it, and advanced the investigation anyway.
  That is pretty clearly an abuse of power.
  Let's recall that Comey also leaked his memos of his private 
discussions with President Trump to get the special counsel, Mueller, 
appointed. Comey is pretty smart. He had a plan. It worked. That plan 
worked to get Mueller appointed. Mueller did his work for 2 years, and 
it cost the taxpayers $30 million. In the end, Mueller found no 
collusion and no obstruction, which is exactly the same information 
that the House Intelligence Committee's 50-plus depositions told us. 
Those were done way back--not way back but a little way back--in 2017. 
Mueller finished his job in 2019. That is more than $30 million just to 
reinvent the wheel.
  Now, with respect to Comey, I think it is monumentally important to 
point out a piece of his testimony from 2017, before the House 
Intelligence Committee. Comey said the following:

       . . . we had an open counterintelligence investigation on 
     Mr. Flynn, and it had been open since the summertime, and we 
     were very close to closing it. In fact, I had--I think I 
     had authorized it to be closed at the end of December, 
     beginning of January.

  Now, Comey leaked his memos so that the public would know the 
President allegedly said to him that he

[[Page S2336]]

hoped Comey would let the whole Flynn thing go. That is what the hook 
was to getting a special counsel appointed.
  Not once in Comey's memos did he mention that by the time that 
conversation occurred, he had already authorized the Flynn case to be 
closed. Don't you think that is a material fact that would put the 
proper context on his interactions with Trump?
  Attorney General Barr is exactly right. What the FBI did to Flynn 
cannot be justified by any angle of review. What the FBI did is to 
flout the rules, the law, and the Constitution. Entrapment is 
unconstitutional.
  That is where the outrage ought to be--not on the dismissal of the 
case but on facts that the case was brought in the first place and a 
good man's life was destroyed.
  Mueller had all these facts. He had documents. He had the Brady 
material. He had the FBI notes and contradictory 302 summaries. He had 
the emails. He had all the information that showed Flynn was set up, 
targeted, and pressured to plead guilty in a secret side deal between 
the Mueller team and his former lawyers, only because he was running 
out of money and the government was coming after his son.
  Flynn did what maybe a lot of people would do when your family is at 
stake. Flynn did what he did to save his family from financial ruin and 
his son from reputational ruin. He did what any father would do for his 
family.
  If it can happen to Flynn, it can happen to you. It can happen to any 
American, and, in some ways, this also happened to a person named 
Carter Page and with the illegal surveillance on Carter Page.
  You know, in this business of self-government and this business of 
constitutional safeguards, we still are in a constant battle between 
liberty and tyranny, and we have seen some tyranny in regard to Flynn. 
My fellow Americans, let's use the Russia investigation and all of its 
shortcomings to forever guard against the tyranny of the Federal 
Government.
  On one last thing, people are constantly phoning our offices and 
wanting to know when all the people who did the injustice to Flynn are 
going to be prosecuted, because they think there are two standards of 
justice. You know, they announced yesterday that McCabe isn't going to 
be prosecuted. But Flynn was entrapped to be prosecuted, and how wrong 
that is. A lot of people want justice brought to the people who did the 
injustice, and I think they ought to be prosecuted.
  But even more important than prosecuting him, it is about time that 
these facts get out so the public knows the injustice that is going on 
within our government, within the FBI, in the highest levels of the 
FBI.
  We aren't finding fault with the people in the FBI who are doing what 
needs to be done to bring law and order to our country, but when we 
have these unusual, illegal, unconstitutional, corrupt things that 
happened to Flynn, it ought to wake up the American people. It ought to 
wake up those of us in government to make sure it never happens again.
  I yield the 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. BOOZMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered


                          National Police Week

  Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam President, I rise today to recognize the National 
Police Week in honor of the men and women who serve and protect our 
communities. The individuals called to uphold the rule of law do so in 
times of crisis, and they serve their families, friends, and neighbors 
at a moment's notice. They are selfless public servants who 
courageously face danger head-on.
  Law enforcement officers respond to calls for help while not knowing 
what challenges they will face. We are in a unique time right now and 
experiencing unprecedented challenges in our country. Law enforcement 
officers are working to protect citizens while also safeguarding 
themselves against the unseen enemy of COVID-19.
  The disease has forced departments in Arkansas and all over the 
country to change protocols in order to prevent the spread of the 
disease, but that hasn't stopped the resolve, the determination, and 
the passion of officers to defend the community. Despite this new 
challenge, they continue to serve with the same level of 
professionalism and integrity.
  We are working to provide departments and agencies with additional 
resources to safeguard these public safety officers. I am pleased the 
Department of Justice recently awarded Arkansas near $7 million so we 
can better serve the safety needs of officers in the State and get them 
personal protective equipment--gloves, masks, and sanitizer--that they 
need in order to perform their job safely. This funding is vital as the 
calls for assistance keep coming and police officers continue to 
respond to these emergencies.
  I want to thank our law enforcement officers for their bravery today 
and always. It takes a special person to put their life on the line 
every day to protect our communities. We are fortunate to have some of 
the very best in Arkansas.
  National Police Week is a time that we honor the sacrifices of 
individuals who selflessly serve their community and give their lives, 
if necessary, while in the line of duty. We preserve their legacies by 
adding their names to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in 
Washington, DC, to serve as a reminder of their sacrifices.
  This year, the names of 307 fallen officers will be added to the 
memorial, including five Arkansans. The names of Game Warden Ollie 
Mitts, Deputy Sheriff George Rogers, Deputy Sheriff Ulyss Baldwin, 
Fayetteville Police Officer Stephen Carr, and Stone County Sergeant 
Michael Stephen, Sr. are new to the memorial. We will remember forever 
them as heroes.
  I am a proud cosponsor of the Senate resolution marking National 
Police Week because we must always remember the brave officers whose 
lives were cut short because of their public duty and recognize those 
who continue to selfishly serve to keep us safe.
  I am proud to honor the individuals who are called to serve and 
protect and will advocate for policies that provide our communities and 
officers with the resources they need to protect themselves.
  Thank you to the officers in Arkansas and those all across the 
country for upholding the law, protecting the community, and saving 
lives.
  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.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Boozman). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


              Protecting Human Rights During Pandemic Act

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, to all of my colleagues and to our 
staff here in the Chamber, those who are mothers, I hope they had a 
wonderful Mother's Day weekend, and it is a joy to return to work 
today. I will tell you, I am really blessed to have some of those moms. 
They are policy experts, and they are a part of my staff. I listen a 
lot to what they have to say.
  Like with all of our staff, I admire their dedication and their 
focus--especially now and especially when it comes to discussing how 
this COVID crisis is affecting their children, how they are learning 
and how they are utilizing technology to communicate and practicing 
distance learning and hearing what schools are doing as they are all 
going through a learning curve. We are all going through a learning 
curve on how to utilize technology.
  The thing that is so significant, as I talked to so many of these 
working moms and dads, what we realize and they realize and what they 
highlight with me is that embodied in this technology, we have a lot of 
dangers that exist and vulnerabilities that are being created to the 
privacy of our children.
  Long before students were forced to attend classes via webcam, 
Congress began taking a hard look at how the companies providing 
digital classrooms were protecting what I term the ``virtual you''--you 
and your presence online--how they were protecting that virtual you of 
underage users.

[[Page S2337]]

  As it turns out, what we found in the work that we were doing--some 
of it I did while I was in the House, as chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Communications and Technology of Energy and Commerce, and some of 
that work I continued here. But back in 2015, as we started doing a 
deeper dive on what was happening with protecting privacy and presence 
online, the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a complaint with the 
FTC against Google, alleging that their Google for Education platform 
was exploiting students' personal information and potentially exposing 
it to third parties.
  Think about this. The Google for Education program--kids were logging 
on, and they were using this. Google--what were they doing? Data 
mining. What were they doing with what they were data mining, which is 
your information? They were then sharing that with third parties. And 
guess what. You didn't know. The parents didn't know, and the children 
didn't know. What we found out was that one wrong click, and any 
program administrator could expose a student's virtual you to potential 
outside websites. A 2017 report from the Electronic Frontier Foundation 
confirmed and expanded on these concerns. Even free products can come 
at the cost of student privacy.
  Last month, Google donated 4,000 Chromebooks to students in rural 
California--4,000 Chromebooks. That sounds like a very generous 
donation, a way to help close that digital divide, a way to connect 
students to the internet, to open up the world and bring the world in 
to them. The problem is that this year, the State of New Mexico sued 
Google over a similar program, alleging that Google was using 
Chromebooks to track students. Well, how about that? Here you go. Here 
is a free Chromebook. Use it. But what happens? All of that research 
work you were doing via Google is being data-mined, tracked, and 
shared.
  We need to be wary of these free programs because what we now know is 
that when it is free, you and your information and your child's 
information is tracked, it is data-mined, and it is shared. That means 
that you and your information are the product--the freebie, if you 
will. The Chromebook is simply the way, the mechanism to take your 
information from you and allow Google or Big Tech to have it, and then 
they sell it to somebody over here who is going to do what with it? 
Guess what. They are going to be marketing back to you. That data is a 
valuable resource, and what do they do once they have data-mined it? 
They are going to sell it to whoever is willing to pay the highest 
price so they can use it and market back to you and your kids something 
that they want you to buy. Now, that is what is happening.
  I am sure everyone remembers the video platform Zoom. Many of us have 
probably used it in meetings even today. Zoom was thrust into the 
spotlight as we started this COVID crisis, and after watchdogs 
uncovered not only a research and development presence in China but 
protocols that allowed data, including--now, I want you to listen to 
this. This is one of those buyer beware things--user beware. We are 
talking about Zoom. What was discovered was that Zoom allowed data, 
including screen captures and video--that means you on screen; you, 
your face, and video; what you are saying; the presentation you are 
making; the question you are asking--all of that to flow in and out of 
China.
  Schools, corporations, and even Senate offices have all been forced 
to question this platform, to give up this platform and to find some 
other way to communicate. We know that many of our children are going 
to school in Zoom classrooms every day. In our churches, our choirs are 
singing on Zoom, and sermons are being delivered on Zoom.
  The rise in mandatory use of technology by students prompted me, 
along with Senators Markey, Hawley, Blumenthal, Cassidy, and Durbin, to 
ask the FTC to launch a major investigation into how these platforms 
are protecting student privacy. What we are wanting to know is, what 
are you doing to put that wall there so that the information of these 
underage users, these children, is not going to be shared? What are you 
doing to make certain that their faces, their images, their voices, and 
their questions are not going to be captured? Can you imagine anything 
more frightening than to think your child is sitting in a Zoom 
classroom, and this data is flowing to China, and somebody is capturing 
these images, and then that is going to be shared with somebody you 
don't know. You don't know what they are going to do with it, and you 
don't know why they want it, and you, as a parent, have chosen to 
completely stay off social media because you don't want that kind of 
intrusion into your child's life.
  Don't you think that these corporations ought to figure this out, 
that this is an area of concern for moms and dads and grandmoms and 
granddads, to protect these children? Oh, but it doesn't matter to 
China, does it? All China is interested in is making a buck off the 
American consumer. They feel like, if you use our service, we have got 
that right. I think we need to be sending a message to them.
  Both the education technology and the digital advertising industries 
are notoriously opaque about their privacy policies. I am joined by 
other members of the Judiciary Committee Tech Task Force in having 
conversations with many of these companies, and I will tell you, we 
have made some progress. I have been pleased with many of the 
companies' willingness to share with us some of these policies and to 
look for ways that we can protect unsuspecting consumers and our 
precious children
  Since the FTC is preparing to consider revisions to the Children's 
Online Privacy Protection Act, COPPA, now is the perfect time. It is 
the necessary time for a deep dive into the data collection and 
processing practices of these firms.
  You know what, sometimes we hear the phrase ``Oh, let's do it for the 
children.'' ``This is for the children.'' ``We have to do this or that 
for the children.'' Let me tell you something right now: This is one of 
those things that are absolutely for the children, to protect them 
online so that Big Tech and some of these China-owned companies--and 
bear in mind, colleagues, if you are doing business in China and if you 
are a company in China, who are you owned by? Who do you answer to? You 
answer to the Chinese Communist Party. I will tell you right now, I do 
not want them to have images of our children, data on where they sit, 
where they go to school, and what their interests are.
  These privacy policies have to be reviewed. We want to make 
absolutely sure that the FTC has all the facts they need to be certain 
we keep children safe online. Section 6 of the FTC Act empowers them to 
do this. I urge agency officials to make use of that authority. This is 
an imperative. The pandemic has shown us that it only takes a little 
disruption to prompt bad actors to take advantage of a situation.
  Here in the U.S., even during a pandemic, we have the right to 
challenge laws that we feel are unjust. But in many places around the 
world, the pandemic has provided an opportunity for oppressive regimes 
to enact so-called emergency laws that restrict human rights without 
justification or oversight. China and Russia--two of the big 
offenders--have used the crisis to ramp up their use of surveillance to 
restrict privacy and freedom of movement. ``We have to do it. We have a 
pandemic.'' That is what they say.
  In Bolivia and the Philippines, government officials are using the 
pandemic as an excuse to silence their legislative bodies and punish 
critics. ``Oh, leave it to us. We are going to be able to solve this. 
You don't need to weigh in.'' That is what they are saying.
  In Cambodia, Venezuela, Belarus, Egypt, Turkey, South Africa, and 
many other countries, officials are following China's playbook and 
preventing the journalists from publishing news that contradicts 
official propaganda. ``Don't bother with the truth. We are going to 
make up a version of the truth and then that is what we are going to 
tell people. Don't listen to anything else. Listen to us. We have truth 
coming at you. We are making it up as we go.'' That is what they are 
saying.
  The way they are using surveillance to limit freedom and to craft a 
message is something that should frighten everyone. It is all happening 
under the guise of ``combating COVID-19.''
  So last week, Senator Markey and I filed a bill that will help 
address these

[[Page S2338]]

abuses. I thank Senator Markey for the great work he does on human 
rights and also the work he and I did on the House on online privacy.
  The Protecting Human Rights During Pandemic Act would require the 
State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development--or 
USAID--to take actions to prevent human rights abuses in the name of 
coronavirus response. The bill authorizes funding through 2025 for 
programs that support human rights defense during and in the aftermath 
of harmful responses to the pandemic. Congress would receive strategic 
plans from the State Department and USAID detailing how those funds are 
being put to use, as well as regular reports on human rights violations 
perpetrated in the name of pandemic response.
  The spread of COVID-19 has forced businesses, families, and 
governments to take extraordinary measures to protect human life. Some 
have proven effective; unfortunately, others are missing the mark. We 
still have much to do in terms of pandemic response, and we continue to 
work on it every day. But I encourage my colleagues not to let the 
severity of our situation distract from our responsibility to set an 
example for the rest of the world.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.


                   Nomination of Brian D. Montgomery

  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
confirm Brian Montgomery as the next Deputy Secretary of the U.S. 
Department of Housing and Urban Development. Mr. Montgomery is among 
the most respected voices in the housing market, as well as one of the 
most experienced. His breadth of experience includes service as the 
head of the Federal Housing Administration--or FHA--during the Bush 
administration, the Obama administration, and the Trump administration.
  Mr. Montgomery guided FHA through the 2008 financial crisis and has 
provided steadfast leadership at the FHA through the ongoing COVID-19 
pandemic, arguably the two most turbulent times for the housing market 
in a generation.
  Prior to the COVID-19 outbreak, he oversaw the return of FHA's 
insurance fund to its strongest financial position since fiscal year 
2007, while continuing to provide affordable homeownership 
opportunities to tens of thousands of first-time homebuyers each year. 
Since the outbreak, he has worked to make sure that FHA performs its 
traditional countercyclical role of maintaining liquidity and credit 
access in the mortgage market where traditional sources of home 
financing may have dried up.
  For over a year now, Mr. Montgomery has also served in the capacity 
of Acting Deputy Secretary at HUD, where he has managed the day-to-day 
operations of the Department under Secretary Ben Carson. Mr. Montgomery 
knows the Department inside and out and has been intimately involved in 
carrying out HUD's mission to create strong, sustainable, inclusive 
communities and quality affordable housing opportunities for millions 
of Americans.
  He has been described by the National Multifamily Housing Council as 
``a housing policy veteran with deep expertise and experience across a 
wide variety of policy areas.'' The National Association of 
Homebuilders has noted that ``throughout his government and private 
sector career, Brian has proven himself to be both an expert in 
affordable housing policy, as well as an outstanding Federal agency 
administrator and communicator.''
  This confirmation vote comes at a critical time. In the wake of 
COVID-19, we have already seen a huge number of mortgage borrowers 
enter forbearance, while many landlords are struggling to make ends 
meet, and countless renters are unsure where their next rent payment 
will come from. Homeless shelters are at or near capacity and facing 
novel issues related to social distancing, and the homeless community, 
who may be particularly exposed to the risk of contracting COVID-19, is 
leaning on HUD for help.
  HUD has a central role to play in addressing these challenges and 
more. The CARES Act acknowledges this important role, entrusting HUD 
with over $12 billion in additional funding to provide immediate relief 
and to address emerging issues. Bold leadership is especially needed 
during this critical time for HUD, and Mr. Montgomery is a trusted 
voice who fits the mold perfectly.
  Fifteen years ago, this body confirmed Mr. Montgomery on a voice vote 
to serve as FHA Commissioner. Two years ago, we confirmed him as FHA 
Commissioner, again, on a strong bipartisan vote of 74-23.
  I support Brian Montgomery, and I urge my colleagues to join me today 
in voting ``yes'' on his nomination.
  Thank you.
  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. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending 
cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The legislative 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 Brian D. Montgomery, of Texas, to be Deputy Secretary of 
     Housing and Urban Development.
         Mitch McConnell, Jerry Moran, James Lankford, John 
           Barrasso, James E. Risch, Steve Daines, David Perdue, 
           Shelley Moore Capito, Tom Cotton, Cory Gardner, Marsha 
           Blackburn, John Cornyn, Kevin Cramer, Tim Scott, Thom 
           Tillis, Roger F. Wicker, Mike Crapo.

  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 Brian D. Montgomery, of Texas, to be Deputy Secretary of 
Housing and Urban Development, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), 
the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse), and the Senator from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Florida (Mr. 
Rubio) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), 
the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Markey), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley), the Senator from 
Washington (Mrs. Murray), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), 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 yeas and nays resulted--yeas 60, nays 29, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 85 Ex.]

                                YEAS--60

     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Carper
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kennedy
     King
     Lankford
     Lee
     Loeffler
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Menendez
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rounds
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Warner
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--29

     Baldwin
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Casey
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Klobuchar
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warren
     Wyden

[[Page S2339]]


  


                             NOT VOTING--11

     Alexander
     Cardin
     Leahy
     Markey
     Merkley
     Murray
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Toomey
     Whitehouse
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 60, the nays are 
29.
  The motion is agreed to.

                          ____________________