May 18, 2020 - Issue: Vol. 166, No. 93 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 2nd Session

[Pages S2470-S2479]
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 Scott H. Rash, of 
Arizona, to be United States District Judge for the District of 
Arizona.
  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for the quorum call be rescinded.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 Democratic leader is recognized.


                              Coronavirus

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now, for the third week in a row, the 
Republican majority in the Senate has no COVID-related business on the 
agenda. For the third week in a row, Leader McConnell has scheduled 
zero votes on legislation having to do with the crisis.
  Senate Democrats have had to relentlessly pressure our Republican 
colleagues to secure even the most routine oversight hearings on the 
pandemic. If we had not pressured them, I doubt there would be any 
hearings at all, and they are few and far between. The hearings will be 
the only work we will have done in the Senate on COVID-19 in the entire 
month of May, and the Republican majority has had to be pressured into 
doing even those. There are now more than 35 million Americans out of 
work through no fault of their own. Almost 1.5 million Americans are 
sick, and nearly 90,000 have died. Yet Senate Republicans have decided 
to take the month off from the coronavirus.
  The American people may be wondering: What is the Republican-led 
Senate doing instead of addressing this urgent national crisis? What 
could be more pressing? What is the Republican Senate doing in the 
midst of the crisis?
  Well, Leader McConnell has scheduled five rightwing judges for the 
floor of the Senate, and the Republican chairman of the Homeland 
Security Committee will be holding a hearing designed to slander the 
family of the President's political opponent. Is the chairman of 
Homeland Security calling in FEMA to find out if our hospitals have 
enough PPE? No. He wants to echo Kremlin-backed conspiracy theories in 
order to go on a fishing expedition to smear Joe Biden's son.
  We all know this is what the President focuses on instead of the 
COVID crisis, but must our Republican colleagues gamely follow such an 
absurd, diversionary, and untruthful agenda? I guess so. It is a shame.
  Even more shameful, the company that the Senator from Wisconsin wants 
to issue a subpoena for is voluntarily cooperating and providing 
relevant documents to the committee. Did you hear that? They want to 
make a big show of subpoenaing, but the company says it will cooperate. 
It is a show. It is a sham. It has nothing to do with COVID and 
everything to do with Kremlin-backed rumors that they want to use to 
divert attention from the President's poor showing on COVID. The 
subpoena is just for show. It is not necessary because the company will 
cooperate. It is a way to kick up dirt for exclusively partisan 
purposes.
  It would be bad enough if they were doing this when COVID-19 wasn't 
raging, but with COVID-19 raging, to spend time doing this instead of 
focusing on the way to get relief to people--unbelievable. It is a low 
point for that committee, a low point for the Senate.
  This is what is on the Senate Republicans' agenda in the midst of 
historic unemployment and a national crisis: five rightwing judges and 
the exploitation--a show, mock hearing for partisan mudslinging. 
America is in crisis, and Senate Republicans are rearranging the 
Nation's deck chairs and trying to put them in a political assembly.
  The Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Jay Powell, appointed by 
President Trump, said last week that we are looking at the worst 
recession since World War II. Yesterday, Mr. Powell warned that layoffs 
would continue for several months and that unemployment could reach 20 
or even 25 percent. He said:

       If we let people be out of work for long periods of time, 
     if we let businesses fail unnecessarily, waves of them, 
     there'll be longer term damage to the economy. The recovery 
     will be slower. The good news is we can avoid that by 
     providing more support now.


[[Page S2471]]


  Mr. Powell went on to encourage policymakers to provide greater 
assistance to families and implement measures to keep workers in their 
homes. He also pointed out if State and local governments don't receive 
additional aid, they will be forced to lay off public employees and cut 
back on public services at the worst possible time.
  Mr. Powell is spot-on, and tomorrow, in the Senate Banking Committee, 
my Republican colleagues will have a chance to hear this critical 
message straight from the horse's mouth, with Mr. Mnuchin and Mr. 
Powell set to testify only after Senate Democrats had to push and push 
and push for such a hearing. We asked for it 3 weeks ago. It should 
have happened 2 weeks ago because the country is calling out for 
action. Trump appointees are calling out for action. Governors across 
the country--Democratic and Republican Governors--are calling out for 
action. When will my Republican colleagues hear the message? After all, 
there is no shortage of action the Senate could take.
  Millions of Americans are having difficulty receiving the expanded 
unemployment insurance benefits that Congress recently passed. Why 
aren't Senate Republicans holding a hearing on why millions of our 
citizens aren't getting the aid we intended to provide instead of these 
sham political show trial ``gotcha'' hearings?
  Testing continues to be a major problem. A blockbuster report in the 
Washington Post last night says we are ``far short of the [testing] 
number that most independent analysts say will be needed to avoid 
another wave of death and illness.'' The report described a concerning 
shortage of PPE, nasal swabs, and reagents in nursing homes and other 
frontline settings. The report outlined another problem: There is a 
startling lack of awareness in many communities about the need to get 
tested.
  Why aren't Senate Republicans focusing on these issues? These are 
life-and-death issues. They relate to people's health and people's 
lives, and they relate to our economy getting well. Why isn't President 
Trump leading a nationwide push to increase testing capacity and 
frequency and awareness?
  President Trump is so desperate to reopen the country as quickly as 
possible, but he refuses to roll up his sleeves and do the work that 
would allow us to do it safely. There is an anomaly here. He demands 
that people get back to work but doesn't do his work to make sure we 
have testing, to make sure there are guidelines, to make sure this 
works correctly so that we don't have a crisis a few months from now.
  House Democrats have put together a major bill that would provide 
urgent and necessary relief to the American people. My colleagues on 
the Republican side don't have to like everything in it. They could 
easily say: Let's sit down and negotiate. Let's find some common 
ground.
  Instead, Leader McConnell has said that Republicans have yet to feel 
``the urgency of acting immediately''--Herbert Hoover redux. Instead, 
his party is slowly preparing legislation to give legal immunity to big 
corporations that put workers in dangerous situations. Is that the No. 
1 problem on every American's mind? Is that the No. 1 problem of people 
who are losing their jobs, people who have small businesses that are 
going bankrupt, people who can't feed their kids--protecting 
corporations from liability?
  This Republican Party is so, so out of touch with America. It is so 
off-kilter, so in obeisance to the hard right that they can't even 
focus on a crisis when it is right before their eyes.
  We are confronted with a period of prolonged economic misery for 
millions of American workers and families--Americans who, for the first 
time, are waiting in staggering lines at food banks, Americans who, for 
the first time, don't know if they will be able to keep a roof over 
their heads, put food on the table or pay the rent. How long will it 
take--how long? How much economic hardship--how much before Republicans 
feel the urgency to act


                          State Department IG

  Mr. President, on another matter, last Friday night, in the dark of 
night, President Trump fired the inspector general of the State 
Department, Mr. Steve Linick. Mr. Linick, according to reports, had 
been investigating the misuse of public resources by Secretary Pompeo 
and the Trump administration's arms sales to Saudi Arabia.
  Mr. Linick is now the fifth--yes, the fifth--inspector general to be 
fired by President Trump from his or her post in the last few months. 
They all shared one thing in common. They had the audacity to do their 
jobs and speak the truth. They had the audacity to try and drain the 
swamp.
  What is Donald Trump's reaction when he hears the truth? He fires the 
people who have spoken it. What kind of President is that?
  During normal times it is bad enough, but during a crisis, it is more 
awful. The Inspector General of the Intelligence Committee delivered a 
whistleblower report to Congress as required by law. For this, it 
seems, he was fired.
  It was through the work of the HHS inspector general the public 
learned the extent of the Trump administration's failure to provide 
hospitals and medical workers with testing, PPE, and necessary 
personnel in the early days of the pandemic. She has been fired too.
  The inspector general for the Defense Department and the 
Transportation Department have been fired, as well, just as they were 
about to oversee parts of the administration's response to COVID.
  Now it is Mr. Linick who was looking into potential wrongdoing at the 
State Department.
  The inspectors general are the watchdogs for our Federal agencies, 
making sure our government is working for the people. That is what they 
are there to do: Hold government accountable for waste and fraud and 
abuse. But if they actually do their jobs and say that the President is 
doing something wrong, he fires them.
  The President can't handle the truth and will not tolerate oversight 
of his administration when truth speakers speak out. No other 
administration has come close to doing this. This President is so 
different, running almost a rogue administration that defies truth, 
that defies facts. Now five inspectors general have been fired all 
because they were doing their job, telling the truth, and trying to 
clean up the mess in Washington.
  We know this about President Trump, but where the heck are my 
Republican colleagues in the Senate? My friends on the other side, 
especially the senior Senator from Iowa, have long defended and even 
sought to pass legislation to further empower inspectors general. Well, 
the President has just fired a parade of independent watchdogs and 
given no legitimate explanation for their dismissals.
  Is a mild rebuke the most my Republican colleagues can muster--a 
tweet? Some concerned statements?
  This is not the first time the President has fired an IG and failed 
to provide a sufficient explanation. So what are our Republican 
colleagues going to do about it? Nothing, it seems. Nothing. They are 
so afraid of President Trump. They so cling--almost to his ankles--that 
when they know he is doing wrong, when they know he is hiding the 
truth, they are afraid to say it. They shudder.
  I have never seen anything like it: a President who is so out of 
control with his party so in line behind him, marching in lockstep. But 
when history looks back on this chapter, on President Trump's purge of 
independent watchdogs during a time of national crisis, it will not 
give credit to Senate Republicans who let the President off the hook 
with at most and only, at times, a polite slap on the wrist.
  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. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered


                               HEROES Act

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss the 
House Democrats' $3 trillion spending spree.
  The American people are at a point where they need a life preserver. 
Instead, Speaker Pelosi has just thrown them an anvil.
  It is absurd. Her COVID-19 proposal is pricey, partisan, and it is a 
pipe dream. It is a bloated bonanza of all of

[[Page S2472]]

her leftwing socialist projects. It weighs in at over 1,800 pages, but 
there is one glaring omission: House Democrats forgot to help fight the 
coronavirus.
  This bill is Nancy Pelosi's socialist Democratic dream, but it is a 
nightmare for the American people. Nancy Pelosi needs a very serious 
reality check. The far-left fantasy will never become law. It cannot 
pass the Senate.
  The country is trying to recover from the coronavirus. People are 
stressed. They are struggling. They are sacrificing. They are 
suffering. They need help to survive the crisis.
  People have been living through 2 months of lockdowns to slow the 
spread of the disease. While the infection rate has finally started to 
flatten, tragically, tens of thousands of Americans have already died. 
More than 36 million people have lost their jobs.
  People back home in my State of Wyoming and people who, I am sure, 
are back home in the Presiding Officer's home State of Missouri--people 
all across the country know what we need to do. We need to get back to 
business safely. We need this disease behind us. We need our 
communities back, and we need it as soon as possible.
  Yet, as States reopen, incredibly, the Democrats are exploiting and 
prolonging the Nation's pain. Why? It seems to me they are trying to do 
it for political gain.
  Joe Biden has called this deadly disease ``an incredible opportunity 
. . . to fundamentally transform the country.'' Nancy Pelosi agrees. 
The global outbreak, she said, is a ``wonderful opportunity'' according 
to the Speaker of the House. She cannot let a crisis go to waste. I 
have seen the video of Hillary Clinton saying that you do not want a 
crisis to go to waste. So what is Nancy Pelosi doing? She is wasting 
the public's time on a proposal that does not have a single chance in 
the world of becoming law.
  This bill really is a political payoff to Nancy Pelosi's constituency 
and her allies. Look at the wish list. Topping the House Democrats' $3 
trillion liberal wish list is the great blue State bailout. It has $1 
trillion to bail out very badly mismanaged Democrat-run States and 
local governments, sanctuary cities, one after another. The bill 
rescues underwater blue State pension plans. It includes a tax cut to 
the wealthiest 1 percent who live in those specific States--Illinois, 
New York, and California. It is a windfall for wealthy taxpayers in 
Democrat-run States.
  That is not all. The bill provides direct payments to illegal 
immigrants. Apparently they forgot about that in the last bill, so they 
put it in this one--direct payments to illegal immigrants. 
Astonishingly, there is not an additional dime for paycheck protection 
funds, not for the small businesses that we need to keep on the 
payroll, even though the paycheck protection plan has saved 50 million 
jobs already in America.
  The bill does want to seek to release prisoners from ICE detention 
centers, so Nancy Pelosi is focusing on that. But there is no liability 
protection for the small businesses that we need to get to reopen the 
country. That is not included in her bill.
  These mom-and-pop businesses in my State of Wyoming are facing an 
avalanche of abusive lawsuits as they try to reopen. The Wyoming 
legislature actually addressed it in a special session on Friday. We 
need to address it as a nation.
  The proposal that Pelosi has put out abolishes State voter ID 
requirements and overrides State voting laws. It is all a part of her 
master plan for Federal control of State election laws. As a former 
attorney general, the Presiding Officer understands clearly the 
importance of States having the preeminent role in the election 
process, not the Federal Government.
  The Pelosi bill bales out the U.S. Postal Service, and it funds 
something that she calls environmental justice and does it to the tune 
of $50 million. How does that help in the fight of coronavirus?

  The proposal takes good care of the marijuana industry--absolutely--
even though selling pot is still a felony in most States. I don't know 
how that helps in the fight against the coronavirus.
  No matter. The Pelosi plan gives the cannabis business special access 
to cut-rate finance. In fact, her bill reads more like a marijuana 
measure than a pandemic package. That is because it includes the word 
``cannabis'' 68 times--more often than she mentions jobs, hiring--the 
important thing about getting our country open and getting our 
communities back.
  This Democratic socialist Christmas list just goes on and on--and the 
astronomical price: $3 trillion.
  If enacted, this Pelosi package would be the largest waste of 
taxpayer dollars in U.S. history. It is the largest bill, financially, 
ever passed in Congress. Fortunately, it will never become law.
  Now, Nancy Pelosi must not realize that families all across America 
are having a hard time paying their bills, feeding their kids, paying 
the rent. She must not recognize that; otherwise, why would she put all 
of this money in all of these things--these priorities: payouts to 
sanctuary cities--how does that help us fight the coronavirus?--
favorable financing to the marijuana industry, tens of millions of 
dollars for environmental justice.
  Keep in mind, much of the money from the bipartisan CARES relief 
package that Congress already passed, money that has been appropriated, 
has not yet been spent. In March, Congress approved nearly $3 trillion 
in combined coronavirus aid.
  Lots of it has gone to States. My home State of Wyoming just had a 
special session of the legislature this past Friday-Saturday to see how 
we are going to go ahead spending the billions--$1.25 billion--that 
have come to so many States. And Wyoming--while there are a number of 
other States smaller in size--got the lowest amount of money. They 
haven't spent it. They are having a special session to decide how to 
spend it. Some States may need more flexibility in spending it. But 
Nancy Pelosi is trying to send out another trillion dollars to States 
and to cities.
  As a Republican, I would say, from the start, our focus has been on 
helping people through the health and economic crisis that is upon us. 
We want to help the American people weather the storm.
  Now, when House Democrats say that Nancy Pelosi lays down a marker--
as she says--for future bipartisan talks, in reality, Democrats are 
only weakening their position by betting big against the American 
economic recovery. That is what they are doing in the bill that they 
put together because the Pelosi bill includes specific what I believe 
are job-killing proposals--not things to help more Americans work but 
things making it harder for Americans to get back to work.
  This bill would slow the recovery by keeping millions of Americans on 
the government payroll all the way into 2021. The Presiding Officer has 
been a leader in this fight about perverse incentives that we see in 
some of the legislation that has already passed.
  This bill, this fantasy island that Nancy Pelosi is on, extends 
increased unemployment benefits so people could make more money by not 
working than by going back to work. Now, that means as much as half of 
the workforce could earn more by not working than by returning to work 
all the way into 2021.
  So the Democratic socialists want the businesses that are trying to 
reopen and to rehire workers to compete with unemployment benefits 
until 2021, until April of next year. The Democrats are proposing that 
these American businesses--instead of hiring 36 million Americans who 
are out of work, they want to make it easier for them to hire illegal 
immigrants than the Americans who are currently out of work. That is 
what she has set up in her scheme.
  The bill also raises taxes on struggling small businesses. It 
mandates paid family leave through the end of 2021 and removes a small 
business tax exemption.
  It is as if Democrats don't want the economy to reopen and don't want 
people to return to work. That is what I see when I read through the 
1,800 pages.
  Before the pandemic hit, we had record job growth, record low 
unemployment, and record-high consumer confidence. Now, unemployment is 
approaching the level of the Great Depression.
  The best way to help the 36 million people who are out of work is to 
reopen our communities and reopen our country. It is telling that House 
Democrats'

[[Page S2473]]

$3 trillion bill includes no measures to help Americans get back to 
work, no added support for hard-hit small businesses, and no 
protections for American jobs.
  Congress will be considering providing more virus aid in coming 
months and weeks. Any recovery legislation will have to be targeted, 
temporary, and tailored to address the coronavirus emergency.
  COVID-19 legislation must include reasonable, responsible liability 
protections for healthcare providers and for employers, for the small 
businesses in our States, and it needs to promote economic jobs and 
growth.
  Now, Senate Republicans are focused on reopening America. The 
American taxpayer can't be asked to pay for items on Speaker Pelosi's 
$3 trillion socialist Christmas list. The American people need us to 
throw them a life preserver, not the anvil that Nancy Pelosi has thrown 
their way.
  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, after every natural disaster, after 
every major emergency, there is always a period of response--that 
initial triage. Think about performing search and rescue operations, 
providing medical care, and setting up emergency shelters. You are 
moving quickly to complete these time-sensitive tasks to get everyone 
to safety and minimize the loss of life.
  At some point, though, you begin to transition to recovery--clearing 
the debris, restoring power, rebuilding, and eventually trying to 
return to life as normal. As always, there will be a period of 
transition between those periods in which you continue to focus on the 
short-term response while you plan for the longer term recovery. While 
we face a much different type of crisis today, I believe the same 
principles apply.
  Our heroic healthcare workers continue to respond to this virus on 
the frontlines. Our farmers, our ranchers, our truckers, our grocery 
store employees, and food banks are ensuring people have food on their 
tables. The mailmen, delivery drivers, waste collectors, and other 
workers in critical sectors are keeping the cogs of our society and our 
economy running, and slowly but surely, recovery is happening too.
  In Texas and other States across the country, businesses are 
welcoming customers through their doors for the first time in a while. 
Parks are beginning to reopen, and schools are making plans for the 
fall. Every day, the needle is moving in a positive direction, but I am 
worried that, without some protections for these workers, these 
businesses, these churches, and these food banks, we are going to 
reverse course or stop them dead in their tracks. We are already seeing 
lawsuits piling up that claim somebody did this or did that in a 
corona-related incident. Unfortunately, there is an economic incentive 
to use as a cash cow the virus that has infected some 1.5 million 
Texans, and we are setting up for what could be one of the biggest 
bonanzas in history in terms of litigation.
  You had better believe that those who could find themselves on the 
receiving end of these lawsuits are taking notice. A recent survey by 
the National Federation of Independent Business found that nearly 70 
percent of small business owners are concerned about liability claims 
and that hospitals are cautious about resuming procedures, like organ 
transplants or cancer biopsies, because they could get sued as well. 
Even if you have done everything the public health officials say you 
should do and even if you have accommodated every request that the 
President, the Governor, or the mayor has made, you could still be 
sued. Even if businesses and hospitals follow all of the relevant 
guidelines and act in good faith, they could end up fighting very long 
and very expensive lawsuits. They could end up winning those lawsuits, 
but they could also end up going bankrupt in the process because 
defending a lawsuit is not cheap. At a time when we want people to 
focus like a laser on reopening their businesses and refilling these 
jobs, we can't allow that incentive for a lawsuit lottery to bleed our 
health workers dry and deter our recovery.
  Congress needs to take action to prevent these opportunistic lawyers 
from using this crisis to make money and to, at the same time, hurt our 
economy and hurt our recovery. Leader McConnell and I and others are 
working on a proposal that would put commonsense reforms in place and 
protect those who act in good faith from being sued into oblivion. I 
want to be absolutely clear about the goals of this legislation. There 
is no effort to pass a blanket immunity. There is no effort to protect 
bad actors who willingly put their patients, their employees, or 
customers in danger. What we are talking about is temporary and 
targeted liability protection for those who act in good faith and 
follow all of the relevant public health guidelines and direction.
  First, we must protect the healthcare workers who are on the 
frontline of this crisis. These men and women have made tremendous 
physical and mental sacrifices while serving during this unprecedented 
time, and we simply can't allow them to be taken to the cleaners by 
those who are looking for a payout.
  More than a dozen States have already provided protections for 
healthcare workers by raising the threshold for medical malpractice 
lawsuits. The Democratic Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, has issued 
an executive order granting healthcare workers immunity from civil 
liability. Let me make sure people get this. The Democratic Governor of 
New York has issued an executive order granting healthcare workers 
immunity from civil liability. Again, this is not a blanket immunity. 
There are exceptions for gross negligence and willful conduct.
  If limiting liability makes sense in New York, then I think it 
certainly makes sense elsewhere. We need to provide the same level of 
protection for healthcare workers all across the United States so they 
can operate without fear of having to defend themselves in lawsuits 
when they are doing their very best, in a time of crisis, to, in good 
faith, follow all of the appropriate guidance. Yet we can't stop there. 
We have to provide similar protections for the workers, the businesses, 
the schools, the nonprofits, and other institutions that are critical 
to our recovery.
  Think about small business owners--70 percent of whom I know are 
worried about liability lawsuits, which is according to the National 
Federation of Independent Business. Once they receive the green light 
to open their doors, they have to make a very important decision: Is it 
worth the risk?
  Let's say that you are a restaurant owner who has gone through the 
CDC's newly released decision tree for restaurants and bars and that 
you are prepared to implement all of the recommended health and safety 
actions as well as to monitor your staff. There is nothing stopping the 
first person who walks through the door from suing you in a few weeks 
because one believes one contracted the virus at your restaurant. It is 
not just businesses that are facing these types of decisions. Any 
nonprofit organization or agency that serves the public is in a similar 
position, even if it has gone to great lengths to comply with public 
health recommendations.
  As our public schools, colleges, and universities weigh decisions 
about reopening this fall, liability protections are going to play a 
major factor. Last week, the Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing 
on liability protections. One of the witnesses we heard from was Lee 
Tyner, who serves as the general counsel for Texas Christian University 
in Fort Worth, TX. In his testimony, Lee called this the ``cliff 
problem.'' He said that this is what his University of Virginia law 
school professor used to describe as being an uncertain standard of 
care. A liability cliff is some sort of line that would be catastrophic 
to cross.
  If you know where that cliff is, you are able to make good decisions 
about how far you are willing to go and what kind of risks you are 
willing to take, but if you do not know exactly where it is, then 
uncertainty will likely lead you to avoid the area altogether. In

[[Page S2474]]

this case, as Lee pointed out, our country needs our colleges and 
universities to walk toward the cliff but not to go over it, just as we 
need healthcare workers, businesses, nursing homes, and nonprofits to 
do the same. Yet we can't ask them to do it blindly or in the dark or 
without providing the needed clarity so that they can manage their 
risks.
  I think what is so different about this pandemic is that people get 
so much contradictory and conflicting information from a variety of 
sources. Most of us know how to manage risk in our lives, but it is 
hard to manage uncertainty, and that is what we are asking the Senate 
and the Congress to do is to provide some certainty in the midst of 
this uncertainty. These workers and institutions are critical to 
helping our response and recovery move forward, and we can't ask for or 
expect them to make decisions without having some level of certainty. 
They need to know with confidence that, if they are operating in good 
faith and obeying the public health and other government guidelines, 
that they will not inadvertently step over the edge of the cliff and 
find themselves in free fall
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


              Safeguarding America's First Responders Act

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I come to the floor to discuss a piece 
of legislation that Senator Booker and I worked on to help public 
safety officers.
  Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, over 100 first responders have 
lost their lives to this virus. Unlike the rest of us, these brave men 
and women, by the very nature of their work, haven't been able to stay 
home or social distance. In firehouses across the country, firefighters 
have had to continue sharing confined spaces and respond to emergencies 
in cramped trucks. Police officers have had to continue to respond to 
911 calls and also interact with the public in very close quarters. 
While most of us are avoiding COVID at all costs, State and county EMT 
crews have been transporting the infected and others to hospitals for 
emergency care.
  While I am inspired by the bravery of these first responders, I am 
not at all surprised by the actions they take to protect the people 
they serve. First responders always answer the calls to action, 
selflessly placing others before themselves. So, in recognition of the 
many sacrifices they make, Congress established the Public Safety 
Officers' Benefits Program a long time ago, in 1976. This law provides 
first responders with onetime payments if they die or are totally 
disabled on duty.
  Let me be very clear. Nothing can ever put a family back together who 
has lost a loved one, but the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program 
provides some economic relief to grieving families and gives peace of 
mind to the first responders themselves in their knowing that their 
families will not be left destitute if tragedy is to befall them.
  Unfortunately, the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program wasn't 
designed to deal with a global pandemic of this type or magnitude that 
we were made aware of in the United States in late January. Under the 
existing statute then, to be awarded benefits, first responders had to 
be able to prove that they contracted COVID on duty. From the reports 
we get, it is kind of hard to tell where one comes in contact with it. 
So the last thing a grieving family needs to be worried about then, 
after experiencing the loss of a loved one, is whether the family will 
be able to successfully prove that its loved one contracted COVID in 
the line of duty and that it qualifies for the loss of life under the 
1976 law.
  Almost as soon as the nationwide stay-at-home order was instituted, I 
began working with Senator Booker to craft language to create a 
presumption that would allow families to receive benefits without 
having to prove that their loved ones contracted a deadly virus on 
duty. Senator Booker and I were determined to get this done as soon as 
possible because we understood that families who have lost loved ones 
will soon begin filing for benefits. We know that the number is about 
100 at this point.
  Our bill is entitled ``Safeguarding America's First Responders Act,'' 
or SAFR, pronounced ``safer'' for short. The bill was introduced on May 
5, which was 1 day after the Senate returned to session.
  This bill is the product of several weeks of friendly negotiations 
and input from fire groups and police groups. The bill garnered a total 
of 22 bipartisan cosponsors, including the entire New York and New 
Jersey delegations. Last Thursday, the Senate unanimously passed our 
bill. It now is in the House, where we hope it will receive immediate 
consideration. I know our colleagues in the House are deeply concerned 
about our first responders, and I would expect this to have a 
successful effort over there. I have been working with Congressman 
Pascrell and others on several other reforms for the Public Safety 
Officers' Benefits Program, so I think it has been well received over 
there by some outstanding people who can carry it to victory.
  There is no excuse for this bill not to receive a vote as soon as 
possible. It is the only bill of its kind that has the support of the 
International Association of Firefighters, of the International 
Association of Fire Chiefs, and of several State and Federal police 
groups. It was coauthored by Senator Booker and features the support of 
11 Democrats and 10 Republican Senators as original cosponsors, 
including the Senate minority leader. SAFR, this bill, also has the 
support of the Department of Justice, which stands ready to pay out 
benefits to grieving families but is limited by statute as to what it 
can do under existing law--hence, the importance of this legislation.
  Simply put, this bill is a no-brainer. I urge Speaker Pelosi to 
schedule a vote on SAFR as soon as the House returns to session.
  It is now my privilege to thank Senator Booker and to yield to my 
colleague from New Jersey, who worked so hard to get this done as well.
  Mr. BOOKER. Madam President, let me just say, right at the top, how 
grateful I am to stand on the Senate floor again with Senator Chuck 
Grassley. He has been one of the great partners I have had in my short 
time in the Senate, and I am honored to have gotten a lot of good work 
done and good law passed. I thank him and his entire staff. They were 
all tremendous to work with and went above and beyond for us to get 
this done at a very quick pace. I thank our colleagues for acting with 
the urgency that this issue demands.
  I am excited that this bill was able to pass, for it will ensure that 
the families of first responders who lose their lives to the 
coronavirus will be taken care of under the Public Safety Officers' 
Benefits Program. We expect now that over 100 of these death benefit 
claims will be submitted to the Department of Justice in the coming 
days and weeks, and we cannot leave these grieving families to fight 
alone for the benefits they need and deserve. As Senator Grassley very 
pointedly put it, we hope that the House of Representatives will pick 
up this legislation for immediate consideration.
  While COVID-19 has changed daily life across this country, for so 
many of us, I am grateful that my colleague and so many of my 
colleagues understand that our firefighters, our EMTs, our police 
officers, and our other emergency service personnel continue to put 
their lives on the line to protect our communities and have done so at 
significant and increased risk to themselves and their families.
  In hard-hit areas across our Nation, we see first responders stepping 
up to enormous risk. Being a first responder during this pandemic is 
not a job; it is an all-consuming mission and, unfortunately, a 
tremendous sacrifice. It is responding to a call and knowing that, just 
by stepping inside someone's home, you are running a high risk of 
exposing yourself to the virus. It is wondering whether your personal 
protective gear--or PPE--that you have on is enough. In many cases, it 
is wondering whether your PPE is even real, with there being so many of 
our first responders, unfortunately, using whatever they can scrounge 
up. Whether it is the buying of foreign masks that are not designed for 
use in the United States or the buying of them from unknown vendors, 
they are doing what they can to protect themselves as they go about 
their urgent mission.

[[Page S2475]]

  When they remove their PPE, there is a concern with their gloves or 
goggles or gown as they take them off piece by piece. They strain to 
remember what they touched, washing their hands repeatedly but 
wondering and worrying if it is enough. When performing lifesaving 
procedures like CPR, which may aerosolize the virus, you hope that the 
PPE you are wearing is enough to protect you. These are the daily, 
hourly, moment-by-moment concerns our first responders have.
  Senator Grassley has worked with first responders in so many ways, 
and he knows the challenges this brings, from having to meticulously 
clean every surface of an ambulance, cleaning the squad houses, police 
stations, knowing that the virus could be lingering there, and when 
they are going home, undressing in the basement, garage, or even 
outside their homes, heading straight into the house for a shower but 
still worrying if it is enough to protect their family.
  We know that many of these first responders aren't actually going 
home to their families. They are separating themselves for periods of 
time because they live in fear of spreading the disease to a spouse, 
child, or parent. There is emotional stress and strain when responding 
to a call, doing everything they can to save someone from this virus. 
But we know our first responders are often seeing death in areas of the 
country at a rate and at levels that they have never experienced 
before. This all adds to the fear and anxiety, the worry about their 
families, and the worry about their communities.
  Our first responders are doing what very few of us will ever have to 
do. They put their lives, their health, and often the health of their 
families on the line to protect their communities. They have always 
helped, but now, in the time of coronavirus, their sacrifices are 
intensified.
  The very least we can do is to ensure that they don't have to worry 
about what will happen to their loved ones if something should happen 
to them. The Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program that Senator 
Grassley mentioned was created to provide death and disability benefits 
to families of law enforcement officers, firefighters, EMS, and other 
first responders who are killed in the line of duty. Their benefits 
come in the form of financial support, as well as educational 
scholarships, for surviving spouses and children.
  As Senator Grassley said, it cannot replace the life that is lost, 
but it is something that could give comfort to those families and even 
to the first responders who themselves are being put in grave danger.
  Infectious disease is currently covered under the program, though the 
officer's family or department is required to provide evidence that the 
disease they contracted occurred while on duty. Providing that evidence 
can be straightforward, when the first responder came into contact with 
a dirty needle, for example, and then was infected by something that 
caused their death.
  The problem with COVID-19 is that it presents an entirely different 
challenge. While the Department of Justice works to ensure that 
families who have members who are killed by COVID-19 are covered, we 
must eliminate the instances when families are asked to prove what is 
unprovable, to prove that somehow they caught this while they were in 
the hours of their duties. This is why our bill makes urgently needed 
changes to the PSOB program to reflect the unique threat that COVID-19 
poses to first responders in putting their lives on the line in this 
crisis.
  Many first responders have already made the ultimate sacrifice. I am 
so grateful that Senator Grassley mentioned that. In New Jersey alone, 
29 first responders have lost their lives to coronavirus just in the 
past 7 weeks. We know this crisis is ongoing in our country.
  The bill that Chuck Grassley and our team wrote creates a presumption 
that, if a first responder contracts COVID-19 during this pandemic and 
tragically dies, their death will be treated as a line-of-duty death 
without the need to affirmatively prove their illness was contracted 
while on the job. When this bill is passed by the House and signed by 
the President, this presumption will be retroactive to January 1, 2020. 
It will last until the end of 2021. The bill ensures that the families 
of first responders have the support they need and deserve when they 
face unimaginable loss.
  Twenty-seven years ago, New Jerseyan John Careccia watched as two 
EMTs saved his son's life. That same year, he became a volunteer EMT so 
that he could pay it forward. Since then, he has worked as an EMT and 
served as the chief and training director at the Woodbridge Township 
Ambulance and Rescue Squad in Woodbridge, NJ.
  John passed away on April 17, after contracting COVID-19. He is 
survived by his children, Toni, Roseanne, and John, and his 10 
grandchildren.
  John's loved ones shared in his obituary that he ``will be remembered 
for his contagious laugh, big heart and greeting you with `hey guy.' He 
loved to spend time with his family and always had a story to tell. His 
favorite place to eat was the Reo Diner. He always chose to bring a 
chocolate cream pie for his dessert contribution to any family 
gathering.''
  His family asked that in lieu of flowers being sent, ``John would 
hope that you will perform an unexpected act of kindness for someone in 
his name.''
  Charles ``Rob'' Roberts joined the Glen Ridge, NJ, Police Department 
in 2000. He lived in Glen Ridge with his wife, Alice. Together they 
raised their three children, Shea, Natalie, and Gavin, right there in 
Glen Ridge.
  Officer Roberts contracted COVID-19 in the line of duty in April and 
was rushed to Mountainside Medical Center after being resuscitated in 
his home by his fellow officers and members of the volunteer ambulance 
squad. On May 11, Officer Roberts passed away at the age of 45.
  Last week, hundreds of residents of his town of Glen Ridge stood on 
their front lawns and sidewalks to pay tribute to Officer Roberts' 
life, his service, his love of community and family.
  In a New York Times article published after his passing, many of 
Officer Roberts' colleagues and neighbors shared stories about his 
kindness and his calm demeanor in the face of challenges. Quoting from 
the article:

       There was the couple who remembered how calm he was when he 
     helped deliver their baby in their kitchen.
       There was the older woman, forever grateful for the gentle 
     way he held her hand when she broke her hip and they waited 
     for an ambulance. And there was the father who struggled with 
     a difficult son and remembered how Mr. Roberts looked him in 
     the eye and reassured him that his boy was a good kid.

  Officer Roberts' father shared at his memorial that he ``wanted to 
make others happy.'
  Israel ``Izzy'' Tolentino served in the U.S. Marine Corps before 
becoming a volunteer EMT and then a firefighter for the City of 
Passaic, NJ. Izzy contracted COVID-19 in the line of duty and on March 
31 passed away at the age of 33, the first New Jersey firefighter to be 
killed by the virus.
  Israel is survived by his wife, Maria, and their two children, 
daughter Ailani, age 9, whom he called his princess and his son Israel, 
age 7, whom he called his best friend.
  I would like to share a few words from an NJ.com article published in 
the wake of Izzy's passing.

       Israel Tolentino was born to be a firefighter.
       It wasn't out of love of the uniform, though Tolentino 
     beamed with pride everyday he walked out wearing the Passaic 
     Fire Department emblem. It wasn't even out of a mountain of 
     bravery or a penchant for running towards the flames.
       It was, his wife Maria Vasquez said, because he couldn't 
     help but be selfless.
       ``It fulfilled his urge to serve others,'' said Vazquez, 
     his wife of more than 10 years. ``He was so selfless. It drew 
     me closer to him. It drew everyone closer to him.''

  These are only 3 among the 29 heroes just from New Jersey. There are 
countless more first responders across the country who lost their lives 
in responding to this crisis. Some of their names we know, and some we 
will learn in the weeks and months to come. What we do know is, we owe 
it, as a nation, to their families and to the departments they served 
to be there for those families and to be there for those children. 
Their families and the families of all first responders across the 
country who have lost loved ones to this virus deserve to be taken care 
of. For their sake, I hope the House of Representatives will act 
quickly to pass this legislation and that the President will sign it 
into law.

[[Page S2476]]

  Our first responders in this unprecedented global pandemic did not 
hesitate or equivocate. They did their duty. They stood up and faced 
danger. They answered the call. We now must answer the call, and we 
must have their backs just as they had ours.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                          Klamath Area Drought

  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, at this moment, Americans everywhere 
are confronting unprecedented challenges and uncertainties as we 
continue to grapple with the coronavirus pandemic and the associated 
economic implosion.
  That is not all that is going on across the country. Although some of 
the challenges we face are quite severe, they are just getting drowned 
out by the daily news about the pandemic. But imagine being a family 
farmer in the midst of this crisis. You have already faced any number 
of challenges in recent years--low commodity prices, tariff wars--only 
to face the greatest health and economic disaster any of us have 
experienced in our lifetime. Then, when you thought nothing else could 
go wrong, something else does go wrong. You have to face a severe 
drought. Twelve hundred farms in the Klamath Basin in Oregon and 
California don't have to imagine this situation because they are living 
through it as we speak.
  The Klamath Basin is sometimes referred to as the ``Western 
Everglades,'' an area rich with agricultural resources and exceptional 
populations of wildlife. This basin attracts 80 percent of the Pacific 
Flyway's waterfowl and supports the largest overwintering population of 
bald eagles anywhere in the lower 48 States and is home to some of the 
country's most productive salmon river systems in the country.
  It is also home to 1,200 family-owned farms of different sizes, 
encompassing some 200,000 acres of farmland. That farmland is irrigated 
with water from both the tributaries of the Klamath River and Klamath 
Lake. Those who are familiar with the basin will know that the water is 
essential to the health of the river, the health of the lake, the 
wildlife in the refuge, and the economic success of the ranchers and 
farmers.
  In many years, there is enough water to address all of these needs, 
but in other years, such as this year, 2020, there isn't enough water 
to go around. So when there is a dry year with less water in the lake 
and river, it is bad for everyone--bad for the refuge, the river, the 
lake, and it is a horrific challenge for our ranchers and for our 
farmers.
  This year, 2020, isn't just a dry year; it is ``as difficult a year 
as anyone could have imagined,'' according to Jeff Nettleton, Area 
Manager of the Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Basin area office.
  As Governor Kate Brown put it back in March, ``Drought conditions 
arrived early and have persisted, including reduced snowpack, 
precipitation, and minimal streamflow.'' In other words, this is a 
perfect storm of challenges.
  The Governor went on to say that ``the long-term forecast for the 
region continues for warmer than normal temperatures and lower than 
normal precipitation.'' There has been nothing in the 2 months since 
she said that which has reversed that course.
  As of last Friday, the snowpack in the Klamath region, the natural 
reservoir that replenishes the lakes and streams providing water for 
the irrigation system for the summer, was just 28 percent of normal.
  You can get some sense of how bad the drought is this year by looking 
at the historic numbers on this chart. This is one way of presenting 
it. We can see deliveries that are coming to the Upper Klamath Lake 
project, and the blue lines are the more normal years. Then we have the 
worst ever drought of 2001. Then we have the terrible drought of 2010, 
and here we are with this year's drought deliveries forecast to be 
essentially the same as 2001.
  In 2001 there was a water war in Oregon. Some of you may remember 
that there was a bucket brigade to take water out of a canal ditch or 
to put water into the canal ditch. There were protests. There was great 
anger and frustration. Since then, in 2010, though, we had worked out 
partnerships between the competing constituencies. They worked together 
to try to develop a plan for the region so that when crisis hit, they 
could be in partnership rather than in conflict.
  So 2010 didn't end up to be national news like 2001. Well, I am here 
tonight to say that part of that partnership was working with the 
Federal Government intensely to provide assistance, to provide 
assistance in funding that would help retire or disconnect the use of 
water rights for a given year and to pump water out of the ground--use 
groundwater--which is very expensive.
  The Klamath Water Users Association says that, typically, 350,000 
acre-feet of water is needed to fully irrigate the basin. Now, at the 
beginning of this season, farmers were told they would get a fraction 
of that, maybe 140,000 acre-feet of water.
  So they went to work with that in mind. They have to charge the 
canals, get initial water into the canals to prepare for planting, 
prepare for the water that would come with summer. And they used about 
25,000 of that 140,000 acre-feet.
  But there was less water even than anticipated, unexpectedly low 
inflows from the snow pack--not enough snow, and it melted too fast.
  So, now, it is not 140,000 acre-feet; it is 80,000, again, putting it 
on par with 2001 that generated so much tension and conflict and 
anxiety. That means that just 55,000 acre-feet remain. Compare that to 
the typical 350,000 needed to fully irrigate the basin.
  So farmers are going to be cut off. Ranchers are going to be cut off. 
We need, here in Congress, to come to their aid. The basin and its 
1,200 farmers are in deep trouble.
  The impacts don't just stop with them. It will be felt up and down 
the economy. With no crops to harvest, our food chain takes a big hit. 
The workers who usually harvest these crops aren't going to have jobs 
to go to. Local businesses that supply things like seed and fertilizer 
and farm equipment, well, they are hit hard too.
  So the farmers and the community--the economic community--need our 
help, and they need it now. The worst thing we can do is stand by and 
say that, in these times of trouble, we aren't here to help.
  That is why, tomorrow, I will be introducing a bill that will give 
the Bureau of Reclamation flexibility and authority to utilize the $10 
million a year that has been previously authorized and appropriated to 
work with the farmers and the basin's ranching community.
  Now, this money, as I mentioned, has already been authorized. It has 
already been appropriated. So why should I need to introduce a bill? 
Well, the answer is, a lot of bureaucratic redtape.
  In 2018, Senator Wyden and I worked here and   Greg Walden worked on 
the House side--the congressman who represents this district--and we 
got a concept into the Water Resources Development Act, the WRDA bill, 
and it passed. That bill passed.
  It went to the Oval Office. It had President Trump's support. But, 
after the bill was enacted, the lawyers at the Bureau of Reclamation 
said: We are sorry. The language we gave you isn't quite right, on 
further examination, and we can't release these funds.
  So, last year, Senator Wyden and I were able to work again in 
partnership with Congressman Walden, and in July 2019 we passed 
language here in the Senate to fix this.
  Well, OK. That is great, except that bill didn't make it through the 
House. That technical corrections bill never made it to the Oval 
Office.
  So there is $10 million out there--authorized, previously 
appropriated--that needs a technical fix to be able to help out our 
farmers and ranchers right now. Now, I am not saying to all of you that 
this will be enough help in this incredibly horrific drought year. We 
may well need significantly more, but at least this first step should 
be taken right away.
  That is the bill I will be introducing tomorrow with the full 
support, again, of my partners in this effort: Congressman Walden and 
Senator Wyden.
  Farmers and ranchers need help, and they need it now. This is not a 
silver bullet, but it is something easily within our reach. Let's do 
these simple things that are within our reach: Money that has been 
authorized, money that has been appropriated, money that hit a 
technical glitch at

[[Page S2477]]

the Bureau of Reclamation--let's fix it and get help right now to idle 
land and to pump water to provide assistance.
  I thank all my colleagues who helped so much in 2010 when I came to 
this floor under similar circumstances and we gave unanimous consent 
for this bill. Congressman Walden came down the hallway to vouch for 
the issues we were facing, so we were hearing bipartisan representation 
of the challenges and addressing the challenges that our ranchers and 
farmers in Klamath Basin faced.
  That is all we are doing again. I ask for each and every Member's 
support that we get this done and we get it done quickly.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Boozman). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered


                              Coronavirus

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I have just returned from being in 
Tennessee this weekend and lots of phone calls, seeing a lot of people 
out and about. I will tell you, this COVID-19 has changed a lot about 
how we go about our daily lives, but it has not changed the way 
Congress works out its differences. We are still arguing about spending 
and debt. We are still debating the importance of federalism and how 
the Constitution can help us determine what we can and should do on a 
Federal level to help our communities back at home.
  Now, in Tennessee, our cities all across the State, from one corner 
to another, are getting back to that daily routine. Many of those 
businesses were able to improvise their way through the early weeks of 
lockdown, and now they are finding what they are calling their new 
normal, their new processes.
  Some of them received emergency loans from the SBA. Others became one 
of the more than 80,000 small businesses and self-employed workers who 
were able to take advantage of the Paycheck Protection Program.
  But no matter how hard they work or how smart their plans are, we 
know that, in the end, we are going to lose a lot of our favorite 
neighborhood stops. It is tough. It is really tough out there. Some of 
those businesses are already gone. And that is going to happen in spite 
of the unprecedented investment that the Federal Government, working 
with our State and local governments, has made into our business and 
our healthcare sectors, making certain people are able to stay afloat 
and bridging from that rescue to a business restart and bridging on to 
recovery.
  Well, as we saw this week, the more Washington spends, the more 
Washington's focus drifts away from emergency measures and that rescue, 
and it doesn't go to a restart or a recovery. What does it do? It goes 
to, How can we use this crisis to grow government? How can we use this 
crisis to take away a little bit more of your freedom?
  Last week, House Democrats passed a $3 trillion spending package that 
they used as a vehicle for a lot of their pet projects. We have all 
heard about it: pension bailouts, unsustainable environmental mandates, 
fundamental changes to tax policy, all of these line items that have no 
business being slapped on the coattails of a bill that was sold as 
being a safety net for panicked Americans.
  You will be relieved to know that that bill will never see the light 
of day here in the Senate. But, you know, it might not be a bad idea 
just to put it on the floor and see if our friends across the aisle 
want to vote for it--$3 trillion, $3 trillion.
  It is disrespectful to people who are hurting. It is disrespectful to 
small businesses that they have become a bargaining chip for the 
Democratic, left-leaning socialist wish list. That is what they think 
of you. When you walk down Main Street and you see shuttered 
businesses, I want you to remember that. That is what they think of 
you: They can use you to get what they want.
  In fact, I will say this. We have been pretty busy focusing on 
bipartisan efforts that will help in the short term and will help with 
a postpandemic future, something that will really bring relief and 
clarity to the American people--not things like a liberal wish list.


                Securing America's Medicine Cabinet Act

  Mr. President, here is one I have heard a lot about, especially this 
weekend, for all the moms and dads out there who are wondering about 
how safe their child's image and their child's data are in the virtual 
classroom. Well, this is something that I had lots of questions about 
also. How do you protect your virtual you?
  Last week, I led a bipartisan group of my colleagues and asked the 
FTC to do a deep dive into how the tech industry collects and stores 
your child's data and to use that information to make children's online 
privacy protections stronger.
  Let's make certain you can protect them in the virtual space the same 
as you can in the physical space. My bipartisan SAM-C bill, which 
Senator Menendez and I have introduced, would offer incentives to 
American pharmaceutical companies to bring those operations back home.
  Let's make that in America. This would create thousands of jobs, and 
it would help secure our pharmaceutical supply chain.
  We are focusing on these things because recovery is going to require 
more than a blank check. If we want to be successful, we have to learn 
to recognize the practical damage this disease has inflicted on our 
economy and then do something to address the many root causes of it.
  Every day, we witness local, State, and Federal Government officials 
struggling to balance the provision of community health with the needs 
of a struggling economy. Often, regulatory constraints prevent them 
from implementing the more agile policies so desperately needed by 
local businesses and service providers.
  Last week, I and a number of my colleagues asked Majority Leader 
McConnell and Minority Leader Schumer to include statutory changes in 
the next round of relief legislation that would reduce the redtape, the 
paperwork, and the other requirements that could and will inevitably 
get in the way of economic recovery.
  If we take a hard look at these regulations and strip away those that 
serve no real purpose, we will save businesses an estimated--get this--
$1.9 trillion, promote competition, and encourage investment. That is 
$1.9 trillion. That is what the regulatory state costs American 
businesses.
  To survive the pandemic, each and every one of us is going to have to 
reexamine our approach. We need to ask ourselves: What is the purpose 
of all the regulations? Do they help? Do they hurt? If we didn't need 
it in COVID-19, why do we need it now? What is the actual cost to 
businesses, to communities, to local governments of these regulations? 
As companies go through the restart, is this something that is going to 
speed the process or is it something that is going to slow the process, 
or is it something that is going to be so cost-prohibitive that that 
small business manufacturing company will just throw their hands up and 
say: ``I give up. I give up''? That is not what we want. That is not 
recovery. That is not optimism. That would be defeat. I encourage us 
all to join in this effort to create an environment that will support a 
full economic recovery.
  I yield 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 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 Scott H. Rash, of Arizona, to be United States District 
     Judge for the District of Arizona.
         Mitch McConnell, Chuck Grassley, Joni Ernst, John 
           Barrasso, Deb Fischer, John Cornyn, Roger F. Wicker, 
           Roy Blunt, John Thune, Rob Portman, Shelley Moore 
           Capito, Steve Daines, Lindsey Graham, Pat Roberts, 
           Cindy Hyde-Smith, Richard Burr, Mike Crapo.

  By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that the nomination of 
Scott H. Rash, of Arizona, to be United States District Judge for the 
District of Arizona, shall be brought to a close?

[[Page S2478]]

  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 North Carolina (Mr. 
Burr), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from South 
Dakota (Mr. Rounds), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander) would have voted ``yea,'' the Senator from Florida (Mr. 
Rubio) would have voted ``yea,'' and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. 
Moran) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the 
Senator from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. 
Leahy), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the Senator from 
Michigan (Mr. Peters), 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 67, nays 21, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 93 Ex.]

                                YEAS--67

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

                                NAYS--21

     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Cantwell
     Casey
     Durbin
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Klobuchar
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murray
     Reed
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warren
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Alexander
     Brown
     Burr
     Cardin
     Leahy
     Markey
     Moran
     Peters
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Whitehouse
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 67, the nays are 
21.
  The motion is agreed to.
  The Senator from Iowa is recognized.


                         Remembering Tom Coburn

  Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, in March, our country lost a great 
statesman and my fellow ``squealer,'' former Senator Tom Coburn of 
Oklahoma. A family physician who delivered more than 4,000 babies, he 
was known as ``Dr. Tom'' in Oklahoma, but in Washington he was called 
``Dr. No'' because of his fierce opposition to adding more red ink to 
the national debt.
  Having served just 10 years in the Senate before retiring in 2019, 
the year I was elected, I never had the honor to serve alongside Dr. 
Coburn. Nonetheless, his leadership and his efforts to eliminate 
government waste and overreach continues to be an inspiration to me and 
to many others.
  ``If you cannot find waste in any part of the Federal budget,'' he 
once commented, ``it can only be for one reason--you haven't looked.'' 
Many of the outlandish examples he exposed are now what I call 
legendary. Take, for example, the shrimp on a treadmill, and of course 
there was the ``bridge to nowhere.''
  Every Federal agency in Washington feared the notoriety of being 
called out in Dr. Coburn's annual report of government excess known as 
the waste book. He led the fight that ended congressional earmarks that 
were known as pork projects. While others got credit for creating new 
government programs, Dr. Coburn took on the thankless job of trying to 
unravel the maze of duplicative, overlapping programs and redundant and 
inefficient bureaucracy.
  The law he authored requiring the Government Accountability Office, 
or GAO, to identify duplication within Federal programs has saved our 
taxpayers more than $260 billion to date. I think the head of GAO said 
it best; that this law is ``the gift that keeps on giving, and it will 
for a long time.'' This effort is not just saving money; it is making 
government more efficient in other important ways.
  An egregious example found that as a result of Coburn's duplication 
law, there are 10 different agencies with 23 different overlapping and 
fragmented definitions for sexual violence. If we can't even define the 
problem, how are we going to stop it, folks? That is why I am proud to 
say that I have joined Senator Ron Johnson's efforts to clarify the 
definition of sexual violence and improve data collection so that we 
can address this issue head on.
  Another law Coburn authored with none other than then-Senator Barack 
Obama put all Federal expenditures online so that taxpayers could 
simply Google to find out how their tax dollars are being spent. Hailed 
as the greatest government transparency reform since the Freedom of 
Information Act, the public website, USAspending.gov is helping to keep 
Washington accountable for how every cent is spent. If you go on the 
website today you can find ridiculous examples of binge-buying 
bureaucrats who are ringing up tens of billions of dollars of last-
minute, unnecessary purchases at the end of a fiscal year, splurging on 
unnecessary things like tons of Tater Tots, $4.6 million on crab legs 
and lobster, and even a foosball table. When I heard of this outlandish 
spending, I embraced my inner Tom Coburn and took action, putting 
forward a bill to end Washington's year-end, use-it-or-lose-it spending 
sprees.
  Folks, Tom Coburn was not afraid to work across the aisle to find 
compromise without compromising his principles or values. There is no 
better example than the friendship he struck up with President Obama. 
The two were elected to the Senate the same year, and they were on 
opposite sides of nearly every major issue during their time in 
Washington. Yet Dr. Coburn would regularly call to offer encouragement 
to President Obama and pray for him and his family. The two of them 
could even be spotted hugging and laughing together at the State of the 
Union Address.
  At a time when the focus too often is on what separates rather than 
unites us, these are relationship goals we should all aspire to achieve 
with one another if we hope to tackle the unprecedented problems now 
facing our Nation.
  Our hearts and prayers are with Dr. Coburn's wife Carolyn and his 
daughters and grandchildren as they grieve his loss. While he can never 
be replaced, we can all take comfort knowing Tom Coburn has made this 
world a better place and that the legacy he left behind endures through 
many of his staff members as well, such as Roland Foster, who is now on 
my staff. The legacy he left behind endures and the crusade he 
championed continues.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor to my colleague from Indiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Ernst for that beautiful 
testimony to Senator Tom Coburn.
  While I was running for Senate, I was often asked who my heroes were 
in the U.S. Senate. The first name that always came to mind was Dr. Tom 
Coburn.
  As a legislator, Dr. Coburn was a force of nature. As a conservative 
stalwart who stood by his principles--no matter the pressure--and with 
whomever would stand with him, regardless of party, Dr. Coburn's entire 
career was a profile in courage. He believed so strongly that America's 
best wisdom wasn't held on Wall Street or Pennsylvania Avenue but on 
Main Street, among the small business owners, doctors, families, and 
workers who really keep our country going.
  Dr. Coburn blasted a path for conservative outsiders to take on 
Washington orthodoxy on everything from national debt to term limits, 
to our broken healthcare system, and his career was an inspiration for 
me to leave my business and run for the Senate.
  His bedside manner was often brusque, but on the tough issues, like 
any good doctor, Tom Coburn told people what they needed to hear, not 
what they wanted to hear.
  To Dr. Tom Coburn, our towering national debt was not just a thorn in

[[Page S2479]]

America's side; it was a supreme moral failing. As one of the few true 
fiscal hawks in recent decades, Senator Coburn wore the nickname ``Dr. 
No'' as a badge of courage, understanding that there is nothing 
commendable about spending our grandchildren's money just because we 
will not be at the table when the bill comes due.
  If there is one thing that could fix Washington more than any other, 
it is strict term limits and more accountability for Congress. Inspired 
by Dr. Coburn, I made my pledge to only serve two terms a fixture of my 
campaign and am following his example by refusing to accept a 
congressional pension when I leave.
  Last year, my bill to make pensions for Congress optional passed the 
Senate, putting us one step closer to getting rid of this outdated, 
taxpayer-funded perk altogether.
  No Budget, No Pay, a bill Dr. Coburn championed in the Senate, was 
the first bill I introduced after taking office. It is a simple 
measure: Congress doesn't need a paycheck until they pass a budget. I 
am proud to say it has now cleared committee thanks to the work from 
fellow conservative outsiders like Senator Rick Scott and David Perdue.
  As a family physician who continued to see patients even as he served 
in Congress, Dr. Coburn always had a special passion for fixing our 
broken healthcare system. He understood better than anyone that our 
healthcare woes began at a fundamentally broken system in need of 
transparency, more choice for patients, and market-driven reforms to 
put decision-making back into the hands of Americans and their care 
providers.
  My bills to lower prescription drug prices and ensure every patient 
knows what they have to pay before they pay it were introduced with 
invaluable input from Dr. Coburn. As we all should, he recognized that, 
no matter how vast the distance between our positions seems to be, 
healthcare is and always should be a bipartisan issue where compromise 
is necessary to help patients.
  In the summer of 2018, I was honored that Dr. Coburn came to Indiana 
to campaign with me. I will never forget what he said to a young man 
from the crowd at one of our events.
  ``What can I do now if I want to be a Senator someday?''
  Dr. Coburn didn't tell him to go to law school. He didn't tell him to 
run for office or intern in a congressional office.
  ``Go work really hard at something for 40 years so you have something 
to say when you get there.''
  I loved it. Dr. Coburn ushered in the era of the outsider in 
Washington, the effects of which are only just now beginning to be 
realized. I think we could get a much better product out of DC with 
more people like him whose beliefs come from a deep well of real-world 
experience.
  He was more than just an inspiration for me and other conservatives 
to leave the private sector and shake up business as usual in DC. He 
was one of the greatest Senators, most effective problem-solvers, and 
most important conservative voices of our time--the great outsider.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The majority leader.


                           Order Of Procedure

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, the postcloture time on 
the Rash nomination expire at 11:45 a.m. tomorrow; I further ask 
unanimous consent that notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, the 
cloture vote on the Trainor nomination occur at 2:30 p.m. tomorrow; 
further, I ask unanimous consent that if cloture is invoked on the 
Trainor nomination, the postcloture time expire at 4:30 p.m.; finally, 
if any of the nominations are confirmed, I ask unanimous consent that 
the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table 
and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________