May 19, 2020 - Issue: Vol. 166, No. 94 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 2nd Session

[Pages S2487-S2492]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 658

  Mr. BRAUN. Madam President, I object, but my colleague from Illinois 
is not wrong. I think after I get through explaining my objection, 
hopefully, there will be something we can work out.
  The United States should be engaging more in global efforts to find 
treatments and vaccines for coronavirus. Governments, academic 
institutions, scientists, researchers across the world are racing to do 
it. The United States must work at home and with international partners 
to develop treatments and vaccines. There is no reason we can't be 
doing something on our own and working with others across the world.
  This is a joint venture, if there ever has been one. However, the 
nonbinding resolution that my colleague has offered is not an actual 
solution. I come from the world--and one of the frustrations for being 
here for just a year and a half is that we don't get more stuff across 
the finish line. I have a real solution to ensure Americans benefit 
from the vaccine and treatment development efforts happening across the 
world. My bill, the ADAPT Act, S. 658, as amended, would create an 
expedited, almost automatic approval process at the FDA for vaccines 
and treatments that might occur across the world. We do not have the 
market cornered on good ideas.
  These countries have all developed regulatory systems that are 
compatible and that should make us feel comfortable. But instead of 
just talking about it, which we do so much of here, this bill would 
actually establish the approval reciprocity for treatments and vaccines 
between the FDA and other trusted counterparts.

[[Page S2488]]

  If one of them approves a vaccine or treatment, they are quickly, 
almost automatically, approved here in the United States with my bill. 
We cannot afford miscommunication or bureaucratic foot-dragging with 
something so important. My bill ensures that regulators will work 
proactively to get Americans a vaccine as soon as possible.
  Look at the early testing missteps we did have with the CDC. I 
mentioned that in the briefing last Tuesday. Their overly proscriptive 
approach delayed our testing capability for the first 40 days. The 
result has been a one-size-fits-all approach of locking down the 
economy, which I think we will see some of the disadvantages of that 
over the next few months.
  When my staff talked with the FDA about working with international 
partners on treatment and vaccine development, the FDA assured them 
that they have everything under control and are speaking with their 
international counterparts. The FDA assured my staff that they have 
covered the issues that might come into play when you are having a 
partnership with somebody else. The FDA is promoting the idea and 
having the doors open for developers to submit data and to seek 
approval for treatments and vaccines
  Until we have a vaccine, reopening will be gradual. We need herd 
immunity and vaccines to be the final solution to this saga we are 
going through, but we cannot afford bureaucratic obstacles slowing down 
regulatory approvals for a successful vaccine.
  As we have seen, certain steps of vaccine development can be achieved 
at warp speed to cut down on development time, but regulatory approvals 
will not be one of them unless we take legislative action.
  The ADAPT Act is real action, not just talk, specifically designed 
for times like this when scientists across the world are racing to 
develop treatments and vaccines.
  Therefore, with my prior objection, I do not want to leave my friend 
from Illinois emptyhanded.
  Madam President, in hoping my colleague from Illinois will not 
object, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged from 
further consideration of S. 658 and the Senate proceed to its immediate 
consideration. I further ask that the Braun substitute amendment at the 
desk be considered and agreed to; the bill, as amended, be considered 
read a third time and passed, and that the motions to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. First, let me say to my friend and colleague from Idaho, 
thank you. The tone of your remarks are positive, constructive, 
bipartisan. That is exactly what the American people are looking for, 
at least in Illinois, and I will bet you in Idaho as well.
  This national emergency, this public health crisis, should bring out 
the best in us and not the most political side of our nature. Thank you 
because I think your remarks were offered in that respect.
  We have been here now 3 weeks. This is the third week since returning 
from a break where most of us were at home. I think this is the longest 
period of debate on the coronavirus we have witnessed on the floor of 
the Senate in 3 weeks.
  I thought this 3-week period would be all about COVID-19, all about 
the vaccine. It hasn't. We have taken up many other things that have 
nothing to do with it. What we have talked about here this morning is 
encouraging to me. If bringing this resolution up with a unanimous 
consent request is going to lead to the Senate Foreign Relations and 
other committees moving forward on important policy questions that you 
raised, and I hope I raised as well, then it was not time wasted. It 
was time well spent.
  We do agree on so much more than we disagree, I am sure of it, when 
it comes to this. I invite you, I encourage you, I beg you, as soon as 
we return from next week's recess, the sooner we can bring a hearing 
before your committee and others the better.
  I would like to address the unanimous consent request of my colleague 
from Indiana as well.
  It has been my good fortune in the House and Senate to work with the 
Food and Drug Administration. It is probably one of the most underrated 
agencies of our Federal Government. They make decisions, literally, 
life-and-death decisions, every single day of things unimaginable to 
us. It is hard to look at all of the things they regulate and inspect 
and not be impressed. I have been impressed over the years with the 
Food and Drug Administration. But the gold standard of the Food and 
Drug Administration, which was established at least 60 years ago with 
the Thalidomide scandal, was that this agency was to take a look at 
drugs that were about to go on the market in America and conduct tests, 
ask questions, do their own research to determine two things: Are they 
safe, and are they effective? Safe and effective. That is it. But it is 
a lot.
  Over the years, for 60 years or more, they have used this standard to 
judge drugs, clinical trials, which carefully measure the impacts of a 
drug on the human body over a period of time and the like. It is 
frustrating because, at times, it takes longer than we wish. There are 
exceptions that have been created at the Food and Drug Administration 
for extraordinary circumstances wherein it can accelerate the process, 
but by and large, it has to judge drugs as being safe and effective.

  Nearly three-quarters of drugs today are approved in the United 
States by the Food and Drug Administration before they are approved in 
any other country around the world. The FDA is considered the gold 
standard. I have been told that so many times. Many countries look to 
the Food and Drug Administration in the United States to see if it has 
approved of a drug's being safe and effective before they move forward. 
This demonstrates that the Food and Drug Administration has an awesome 
responsibility but is doing a good job in ensuring Americans have 
timely access to the same drugs as have patients in other countries.
  The ADAPT Act, which Senator Braun brings to the floor, is a 
solution, I believe, in search of a problem. Sadly, it runs a real 
risk. This notion that we are somehow going to open up the possibility 
of a drug's having been approved in another country being approved in 
the United States quickly, without any review, I think is a dangerous 
thing to do.
  To date, we know what the coronavirus has done to us, and we also 
know that this bill would completely change how drugs would be approved 
for sale in the United States of America. It is not a minor bill. It is 
a major change. Under current law, if a pharmaceutical company wants to 
sell a drug, it needs the approval of the FDA. It tests it to be sure 
it is safe and effective. It is the gold standard.
  The Senator's proposal would abolish this method. That is 
significant. Instead, the Senator's proposal says, if a drug has been 
approved by another developed country--I am not sure of his definition 
of a ``developed country''--it can bypass standard U.S. regulation and 
come to market without going through the Food and Drug Administration's 
study, review, and approval.
  It is worth noting that many Members of the House and Senate have 
criticized the pharmaceutical industry for charging Americans the 
highest drug prices in the world. I have been in that chorus from time 
to time and have suggested that drug prices in the United States should 
be the same as they are in Canada and Europe for the same drugs. Many 
times, people on the Senator's side of the aisle have resisted that 
suggestion. They have called it socialism and have said we shouldn't 
let other countries dictate what America has to pay for drugs. Yet, 
now, apparently, Senator Braun is comfortable with letting other 
countries dictate whether our drugs are safe and effective.
  This bill is not a targeted response to the coronavirus; it is an 
open-ended giveaway to some pharmaceutical operation. More importantly, 
it is putting our safety at risk in America, which we never ever want 
to do. Instead of approving the resolution I introduced that simply 
expresses the support for global coordination, Senator Braun wants to 
completely overturn our Nation's drug approval process.
  This bill was introduced more than a year ago. It is still in search 
of a cosponsor, and it hasn't been consented

[[Page S2489]]

by the Republican Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 
which oversees the FDA. Now is the time for the best and the brightest 
from all nations to work together toward the shared goal of ending this 
pandemic and finding a safe and effective vaccine. It is not the time 
to completely upend our Nation's drug approval process to make it easy 
for some countries to flood our market with unsafe and ineffective 
drugs.
  For these reasons, I object to Senator Braun's counterproposal.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard for both unanimous 
consent requests.
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. BRAUN. Madam President, this may be a rare moment of some 
collegiality on the idea in general. I think the American public and, 
especially, I, who is one who has watched this place operate for so 
many years in my leading up to the point when I ran for the Senate, 
accept the kind of guidance that there may need to be more fleshed out, 
and the Senator objected to it.
  Yet I think the American public deserves action out of this place, 
and so often it seems we dawdle and do not get to the point. Look at 
how long it took the body to come to an agreement on criminal justice 
reform. One of the first questions I asked when I got here was, How 
long have you been working on it? The answer--10 to 12 years. When you 
look at what we do get accomplished here, I think we need to figure out 
how we become more effective, how we get things done more quickly, and 
how we pay for it in the long run.
  So I am going to savor the moment we have here. We are at least 
talking about it. Hopefully, we will be able to work with my neighbor 
from Illinois to still push the idea that this is a critical time and 
that we need to get something done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I believe there is a unanimous consent 
request pending. Has there been an objection to my original unanimous 
consent request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objections were heard to both unanimous 
consent requests.
  The Senator from North Carolina


                         Remembering Tom Coburn

  Mr. BURR. Madam President, I think divine intervention has played a 
part here with this exchange and the comments of my colleagues because 
I am here to pay tribute to my good friend Tom Coburn, who, on March 
28, passed away--our colleague and, more importantly, a dear friend. I 
almost sat in the cloakroom and then came out here, thinking this could 
be a conversation that Dr. Coburn could be having on the Senate floor 
about the need to accomplish things, to think outside the box. Yet, as 
my good friend from Illinois said, don't destroy the gold standard that 
is there; find a way to work within it. Dr. Coburn had a lifetime of 
doing that.
  To pay tribute to a friend and a colleague, I actually have to rewind 
26 years, when both Tom Coburn and I came to the House of 
Representatives in a large class. It was alphabetical, so you can see 
how ``B'' and ``C'' would be close and how Chambliss would be a friend 
and Latham. We were a cadre of folks who really sized up very quickly 
whom it could trust.
  To understand Tom Coburn is to understand that this was a guy with an 
incredibly diverse background in that he ran a medical device company, 
in that he was an OB/GYN, in that he experienced things in life and, in 
my case, was a little bit older. To understand Tom Coburn is to 
remember the commercial wherein the bull went into the china store, and 
no matter which way it turned, it was always going to break something. 
Tom believed that you had to break something to understand whether it 
was important or whether it was just clutter.
  I think, like every new Member of Congress, you come in with a belief 
that you are going to change the world but have no idea how to do it, 
and you find that people who have been there for their careers hold all 
of the cards, and that is the knowledge of how that legislation was 
crafted and why it was done. To understand Tom Coburn is to realize 
that this didn't scare him. Tom knew a lot, and when he hit things he 
didn't know, he sounded like he did; therefore, people were scared to 
take him on.
  As a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, on which we both 
served, Tom was incredibly instrumental in healthcare policy, in 
medical device issues. Tom was a practicing OB/GYN when he got to the 
House and then, later on, when he got to the Senate, and he never could 
understand why he could not go back to Oklahoma on the weekends and 
deliver babies. Now, this is a man who had delivered tens of thousands 
of babies over his career in Oklahoma, but the way the Senate rules 
are--they are so antiquated--you couldn't go home and keep up your 
license to deliver babies because you could not earn money. Tom 
challenged that when he was in the U.S. Senate. He challenged that 
antiquated rule, and he lost.
  So, as I sat and listened to this debate that was about healthcare, I 
could only sit there and think about the argument that Tom Coburn had 
made about this antiquated rule that what you came in with and 
practiced in civilian life you had to throw overboard here. You could 
no longer do it. Tom decided he would go back on the weekends and 
deliver babies. Yet, rather than have them make payments to him, they 
would make payments to nonprofit organizations in his hometown of 
Tulsa, and they would make them commensurate as to what they could 
afford.
  So, for a guy who was perceived as the right of the right hard-liner, 
Tom was probably one of the most compassionate individuals. He was one 
of the individuals who understood the common person, because, in his 
mind, he was one his entire life--one who was never privileged, who 
earned everything he got, and who banked everything he learned. 
Ultimately, at the end of his career, he used that for this 
institution, for the American people, and for people around the world.
  Early on, I remember Tom and my sitting down with John Dingell, the 
former Democratic chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. John 
Dingell, who was a great man and whom Tom and I both liked a lot, 
either wrote every bill that came out of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee or his dad did before him for, probably, 60 years. John had 
an inherent advantage every time we argued legislation because he 
either wrote it or his dad wrote it. He knew why he did it, and he knew 
why they structured it the way they did. I think John recognized 
something in Tom--that here was a guy who could bring fresh life to it.
  At the time, I remember Chairman Dingell sitting us down and saying: 
Guys, spend a year listening, not a year talking.
  Well, that was easy for me to do because I didn't know a whole lot 
when I got here, but that was the toughest thing Tom Coburn was ever 
faced with was to be silent because he really came in and wanted to 
change the world in short order.
  When he got there, Tom said: I will only be here for 6 years.
  He accomplished a tremendous amount. His imprint is felt by the 
people in the House today. You might remember he was probably the 
loudest voice for government waste--for the size of what we spent, for 
how much we took from the American people, and for what bad stewards we 
were of how we used it and spent it. I think Tom left with peace from 
the House of Representatives because, for the first time in our 
lifetimes, the budget was balanced.
  None of us anticipated what would happen in 2000 and the effects of 
9/11, and nobody was more shocked than I, in the same year I came from 
the House to the Senate, to see Tom Coburn run as a Senate candidate 
for the State of Oklahoma. Tom came in with the same belief that we 
needed to change things and that we needed to do it quickly. Tom served 
on the House Intelligence Committee. When he got to the U.S. Senate and 
served on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Tom understood much better 
the challenges with which we were faced. I will not say that his 
approach changed but that Tom assessed what was possible and never went 
for what was impossible.
  There are Senators in this Chamber who haven't had the good fortune 
to serve with a Tom Coburn, who haven't been influenced and educated by 
some

[[Page S2490]]

of the things Tom Coburn impacted many of us with--those of us who 
spent our entire careers with him. Yet the American people will feel 
the benefits of Tom Coburn's education here, his imprint on this 
institution.
  James Lankford, the Senator from Oklahoma, picked up his ``Pig Book'' 
that he put out every year, which is a list of those insane 
expenditures that Tom Coburn used to come up with on an annual basis to 
make us all feel shameful about the appropriations process. Thank 
goodness Tom Coburn did that because James Lankford still does it today 
on an annual basis.
  I probably can't point to anything more important than healthcare to 
tell you how Tom's impact on this institution has been felt, and I 
think it will be felt for years to come. Tom and I believed that there 
was a different direction, not because we were smart but because the 
one we were on didn't work
  I remember sitting down with Dr. Coburn, and he said: We are going to 
change the healthcare architecture.
  I said: Tom, you have been doing this for a long time. What 
architecture works?
  He said: Well, we are going to have to try them all, and when we find 
one that doesn't fail, we will know that one is right.
  When he got to that point, without hesitation, Tom came to the Senate 
floor and talked about the Patients' Choice Act over and over and over 
again. In the 3 or 4 years since Tom has been gone from the 
institution, the debate has shifted. In fact, where Tom Coburn was and 
where he tried to tell our colleagues we needed to settle--in 
empowering patients and bringing transparency to healthcare--is 
something we struggle with today.
  There was no bigger advocate for transparency in healthcare costs 
than Tom Coburn, and when the administration tried to administer that 
this year, hospitals went to court and won--meaning, they don't have to 
publish pricing. To the average person, that makes no sense. For those 
of us who had been on the frontline with Tom Coburn, finally, an 
administration had done it only to see it overruled. Yet, even on the 
day he died, it was one of the key things that Tom believed--that 
transparency was absolutely essential in the healthcare process.
  I can remember Tom was not new to cancer. I think he fought cancer 
four or five times. One day, during his most recent battle, we were 
coming up on the Christmas holiday, I remember, and I think he was in 
his chemotherapy treatment. He was still in the U.S. Senate, and Tom 
was exhausted at the time. In between votes, he would go to the 
cloakroom and lie down on the couch. Everybody knew he didn't feel 
well. When he would get up to vote, we would look at the pillow. It 
looked like a cat had been on it as Tom's hair would stay on the 
pillow. Now, he never lost it all, but we understood the challenges he 
was going through in his own personal life that he never expressed with 
any of his colleagues or friends.
  I have never seen a person who battled as peacefully as did Tom 
Coburn. His impact will be felt for generations to come, not just here 
but by the kids he delivered in Oklahoma, who today are 2 and 3 and 4 
and 5 years old--kids who will grow up reading about their hero from 
Oklahoma.
  Though Tom had a distinguished congressional career and will be 
remembered for a lot of legislative victories, that is not Tom Coburn's 
greatest claim to fame. I have never known an individual more devoted 
to a wife than Tom Coburn was to Carolyn. She was a beauty queen. She 
was when she was young, and she was, in Tom's eyes, on the day he died. 
He loved her without question. Tom also loved his daughters. He was so 
proud of their accomplishments. He and Carolyn worked to make sure they 
finally moved so they had everybody close. I think Tom knew that the 
wheel of luck was going to run out. Yet, you see, that is not the way 
Tom looked at it. He wanted to spend every precious moment with his 
wife, his kids, and his grandchildren. He wanted any impact and 
impression he could make to be on that next generation of Coburns.
  For all of the qualities in Tom Coburn that I could talk about, there 
is not enough time to really praise him. It would take days, and it 
would take many individuals to come up and do it. It is probably 
impossible to say goodbye to a friend like Tom Coburn. To me, there is 
no question that I came to trust and value everything that Tom stood 
for.
  The one thing about Tom Coburn that many people knew was that Tom had 
this tremendous peace about himself. I think some might have thought it 
was because Tom had had such a stellar background and had known so 
much. The truth is, if you had sat and talked to Tom, you would have 
found out the truth. Tom loved his Lord Jesus Christ. He didn't hide 
it. When given the opportunity, he wanted to share that peace with 
anybody who was willing to sit and listen. Tom was criticized for where 
he lived because it was certainly religious in leaning, but that was 
Tom's life. As much as he adored his wife and children and 
grandchildren, he adored his Lord just as much.

  My colleagues were blessed to have Tom Coburn's influence on this 
institution. Not everybody in America understands how blessed they are 
to have had his influence on the policies and the way future 
generations will be impacted by Tom Coburn for all of his works. Today 
Tom may be in Heaven--no, today Tom is in Heaven, and I would bet my 
colleagues that he is giving them hell. He is up there trying to change 
the architecture of the deck chairs. He is up trying to say: Why do we 
do things this way and not that way?
  One of the things that used to bug Tom about this institution is he 
couldn't figure out why we had telephones in the U.S. Senate that 
looked as though they were created in 1950. You might remember, about 5 
or 6 years ago, the Senate got new phones. They still will not redial 
from the last number you called, and they still look like they are from 
the Soviet era of the 1950s, but that is the way the U.S. Senate is, 
and that is what Tom was trying to change. In many aspects he may not 
have changed the telephone, but he changed the institution. He changed 
the way we look at it.
  Although he may be challenging the rules in Heaven today, make no 
mistake about him, he is still preaching the Word and he has always 
believed that Word. For all of the things Tom Coburn tried to 
accomplish, he did it in a way that his Lord would have been proud of 
him.
  My colleagues, I know others will pay tribute to Tom Coburn's work 
here. I am here today to pay tribute to Tom Coburn's life, not just the 
impact he had on this institution or the Congress of the United States 
as a whole but the example he set for all of us that life doesn't have 
to be fair. But we as individuals have to be committed, and Tom Coburn 
was committed to everything in life that he did. I am sure today Tom 
continues to preach commitment to those who will listen.
  With that, I honor his passing, and I say this to him in the spirit 
that it is meant. Several days after we got word that he had passed, I 
said to my wife: With COVID-19 and Congress dislocated, what would Tom 
Coburn have done? She looked at me and she said: He would have grown a 
beard.
  We all remember those days when, all of a sudden, he would show up, 
and the beard was grown, and he would say: Until this is over, I am not 
going to shave. And that day I decided not to shave.
  I was going to give this tribute to Tom Coburn last week. The events 
of last week didn't permit me to come do that tribute, and I couldn't 
make it through this week until I got home and shaved because it was 
the most aggravating thing that I have ever had, and I understood why 
in 64 years I hadn't grown any facial hair. I proved that I could do it 
because I was honoring my friend.
  I hope that others in this institution will look on Tom Coburn's 
contributions in the same way I do, as a very special exposure that we 
all had.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to complete my 
remarks before the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Coronavirus

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, as we continue our work here in the 
Senate, COVID-19 continues to be at the top of

[[Page S2491]]

our agenda. We are monitoring implementation of the $2.4 trillion of 
the coronavirus funding that we provided, and we are talking to experts 
about what is needed to help our country reopen. Our committees, where 
so much of our key legislative work is done, have held a number of 
coronavirus hearings over the past 2 weeks, and there are more on the 
agenda.
  This week, the Committee on Aging will hold a hearing on caring for 
seniors during the coronavirus crisis. The Senate Banking Committee 
will hold a hearing with Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and Federal 
Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell to discuss implementation of the 
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act--the CARES Act--
which was our largest coronavirus relief bill.
  The Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee will hold a 
hearing to consider the nomination of Brian D. Miller to be special 
inspector general for pandemic recovery at the Treasury Department. 
With just an ounce of cooperation from Democrats, we could confirm this 
important watchdog yet this week.
  Finally, the Commerce Committee, of which I am a member, will be in 
executive session to consider legislation and nominations, including 
two coronavirus bills.
  Of course, while coronavirus remains our top priority, we are also 
focused on doing the other business the American people expect us to 
do, from funding our government to protecting our Nation. Last week, 
the Senate voted to reauthorize three expired provisions of the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act that provide essential tools to our law 
enforcement and intelligence communities, as well as a number of 
reforms to strengthen privacy protections and guard against abuses.
  We have also been considering nominations for key administration 
posts, including Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of the 
Navy. This week, we expect to confirm a nominee to reestablish a quorum 
at the Federal Election Commission, as well as a number of nominees to 
fill vacancies on Federal district courts.
  So that is what the Senate has been doing. What has the House of 
Representatives been up to? Well, until last Friday, the answer was not 
much. But on Friday, the House brought its Members back to Washington 
to vote on a massive, $3 trillion piece of legislation the Democratic 
leaders billed as coronavirus relief. In reality, as one House Democrat 
pointed out, the legislation is nothing more than a messaging bill--
that from a House Democrat.
  Under the guise of coronavirus relief, House leaders put together a 
massive package of liberal priorities that they well knew would be dead 
on arrival here in the U.S. Senate. How unserious is their bill? Well, 
the Democrats' legislation mentions the word ``cannabis''--
``cannabis''--more often than the word ``jobs.''
  Let me repeat that. House Democrats' legislation mentions the word 
``cannabis'' more often than the word ``jobs.''
  In case Democrats didn't realize, Americans are not suffering from 
lack of cannabis right now. They are suffering from a lack of 
employment.
  Let me mention some other highlights of the Democrats' legislation: a 
tax cut for millionaires and billionaires; stimulus checks for illegal 
immigrants and deadbeat dads; environmental justice grants to study 
pollution; significant changes to election law--that is really related 
to the coronavirus--a ban on sharing information about lower cost 
health insurance options; and more. I could go on. The list literally 
goes on and on.
  Unfortunately, while Democrats were focused on federalizing election 
law and requiring studies on diversity in the cannabis industry, they 
forgot about a few basics. Their bill does not include any meaningful 
plan to get Americans back to work. It provides hardly any relief or 
support for small businesses. It doesn't touch the issue of liability 
reform--even though preventing frivolous coronavirus lawsuits will be 
key to getting our economy going again--and it doesn't do anything to 
hold China accountable. The Democrats' bill is a fundamentally 
unserious bill at an incredibly serious time.
  Democratic leaders knew from the beginning that there was no chance 
of this legislation getting through the Senate or being signed by the 
President. In fact, Democrats had some work to do to persuade members 
of their own caucus to vote for the bill. As POLITICO put it, ``As of 
late Thursday evening, the House Democratic leadership was engaged in 
what a few senior aides and lawmakers described as the most difficult 
arm-twisting of the entire Congress: convincing their rank and file to 
vote for a $3 trillion stimulus bill that will never become law.''
  Unfortunately, Democratic leaders were successful in their arm-
twisting, and the bill did pass the House, albeit with some Democratic 
defections.
  I have talked about the liberal wish list in this bill, but I haven't 
mentioned the other aspect of this proposal, and that is the enormous 
pricetag, a portion of which, of course, wouldn't even go to anything 
coronavirus-related. My friends across the aisle think that all 
problems can be solved with more money or a new government program, but 
they can't. And spending too much money can actually hurt rather than 
help Americans.
  So far, we have spent $2.4 trillion to fight the coronavirus. That is 
a tremendous amount of money, but these are extraordinary 
circumstances, and they call for an extraordinary response. We may very 
well have to spend more before this pandemic is over, and if we need 
to, we will. But we have an absolute obligation to make sure we are 
spending only what is needed.
  Every dollar we have spent so far on this pandemic is borrowed 
money--every single dollar. It is money we needed to borrow, and we 
were glad to do it, but we do need to remember that it is borrowed 
money, and the younger workers and our children and grandchildren are 
going to be paying for it. We have an obligation to them to borrow only 
what is absolutely necessary to fight and beat this virus. Diversity 
studies for the cannabis industry should not be making that cut.
  Some of the Democrats' proposals might be acceptable at another time, 
and I emphasize the word ``some.'' But no matter how worthy the 
proposal, there is a limit to what we can responsibly spend, and we 
have to prioritize measures that will directly fight the virus and get 
Americans back to work.
  Republicans are also focused on developing measures that will help 
fight the virus and get our economy going again without spending 
trillions of dollars--something I might recommend to my Democratic 
colleagues. We are currently working on a package of liability 
protections. Personal injury lawyers are already filing coronavirus-
related cases, and we need to ensure that frivolous lawsuits don't 
hamstring our economic recovery while ensuring that real cases of gross 
negligence and misconduct are punished.
  We are considering a lot of other measures to provide relief while 
driving up the national debt as little as possible, such as regulatory 
reform and tax protection for healthcare workers who cross State lines 
to provide their services. I am pushing for approval of my Mobile 
Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act, which I introduced last 
year, along with Senator Sherrod Brown.
  Our legislation would create an across-the-board tax standard for 
mobile employees who spend a short period of time working across State 
lines. It would ensure that States receive fair tax payments while 
substantially simplifying tax requirements for employees and employers. 
This legislation has particular relevance in the age of coronavirus, 
with doctors and nurses crossing State lines to voluntarily work in 
States that have been hit hard by the pandemic.
  The Governor of New York is looking to cash in on the pandemic and 
has already threatened to subject these medical professionals to New 
York's income tax. We need to make sure that doctors and nurses who 
travel to other States to help fight the coronavirus aren't rewarded 
with big tax bills.
  Partisan messaging bills, such as the one the House Democrats passed 
last week, are a waste of Democrats' time but, more importantly, do 
nothing to serve the American people. How many hours did the Democrats 
spend on their massive liberal wish list--hours that could have been 
spent working with Republicans to come up with real relief

[[Page S2492]]

measures? But that is pretty much par for the course for Democrats 
these days. They are intent on remaking America according to their ever 
more extreme leftist agenda. They are certainly not going to let a 
national crisis get in the way. In fact, more than one leader of the 
Democratic Party has spoken with pleasure of the opportunity the 
pandemic presents to remake America in their far-left image.
  It is deeply disappointing that Democrats are more focused on their 
pet projects than on addressing this pandemic and its consequences, but 
that will not stop the Republican-led Senate from moving forward with 
the business of the American people, and I hope that Democrats will 
eventually decide to join us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). All time has expired.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Rash 
nomination?
  Mr. THUNE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Rounds).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), 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 result was announced--yeas 74, nays 20, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 94 Ex.]

                                YEAS--74

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

                                NAYS--20

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

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Alexander
     Brown
     Markey
     Rounds
     Sanders
     Whitehouse
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the 
President will be immediately notified of the President's action.

                          ____________________