May 20, 2020 - Issue: Vol. 166, No. 95 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 2nd Session

[Pages S2525-S2537]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of John F. 
Heil III, of Oklahoma, to be United States District Judge for the 
Northern, Eastern and Western Districts of Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.


                                 China

  Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, we have come to the middle hour of our 
struggle against this epidemic, against a disease unleashed on the 
world by the failures and falsehoods of a government in Beijing. This 
epidemic has brought devastation in its wake--lost jobs, lost lives, 
fear, and isolation. It is shaking old institutions and challenging old 
ways.
  The international order, as we have known it for 30 years, is 
breaking. Now imperialist China seeks to remake the world in its own 
image and to bend the global economy to its own will, and we face a 
moment of truth. Will we acquiesce? Are we, in this Nation, willing to 
witness the slow undoing of the free world? Are we willing to watch our 
own way of life, our own liberties and livelihoods grow dependent on 
the policy of Beijing?
  Already, we hear a chorus of voices telling us that America must 
accept a narrower future. We must live with slower economic growth. We 
must expect lower wages. We must accommodate ourselves to the rise of 
China. Well, I, for one, am not willing to settle for less. I am not 
willing to see blue collar workers go without work for months or years 
on end as their jobs are shipped overseas. I am not willing to watch 
wages flatline and fall. I am not willing to see families struggle for 
food and middle-class neighborhoods disappear, and neither are the 
American people.
  The Nation that sent a man to the Moon and defeated German and Soviet 
oppression in the space of 50 years will not be content to take second 
place to the imperialists in Beijing. We will not be content with a 
small future. Now, as in times past, this Nation must again take 
control of our own destiny and lead the free world to a better day.
  The free nations again confront a common threat. The Chinese 
Communist Party is a menace to all free peoples. It seeks nothing less 
than domination. It wants nothing less than word power. This is China's 
policy: to control Asia and to rule the Pacific. From there, the 
Chinese Government wants to spread its influence to Africa, to Europe, 
to South America--a master of home and abroad.
  And they are well on their way. For decades now, China has bent and 
abused and broken the rules of the international economic system to its 
own benefit. They have stolen our intellectual property and forced our 
companies to transfer sensitive trade secrets and technology. They have 
manipulated their currency and cheated time and again on their trade 
commitments. They have been complicit in the trafficking of persons and 
relied on the forced labor of religious minorities.
  America has suffered. Since Beijing won most favored nation status 
and joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, we have lost over 3 
million jobs to China. During the past two decades, as we fought war 
after war in the Middle East, the Chinese Government systematically 
built its military on the backs of the American middle class. Oh, we 
were promised that things would be different. We were told that giving 
China access to our markets and allowing them power in the WTO would 
reform their behavior and it would make them more liberal. We were told 
it would be good for America and good for the world.
  Well, the only nation it was good for was China, and we cannot afford 
inaction any longer. The threat of China to the free world grows by the 
day. If the coronavirus pandemic doesn't make that clear, nothing will. 
What should be equally clear is that the United States must now reform 
the global economy itself to rebuild our strength and prevent China's 
bid for domination.
  The economy has become the principal arena for the great power 
contest in this new century. Economic policy is now security policy, 
and China understands that. China has integrated its economic and 
security strategies for the last two decades, systematically 
weaponizing the institutions and procedures of the global economy for 
its own benefit.
  It is the United States that has been slow to respond. Now we must 
recognize that the economic system designed by Western policymakers at 
the end of the Cold War does not serve our purposes in this new era, 
and it does not meet our needs in this new day. And we should admit 
that multiple of its founding premises were in error.
  The economic system over the last 30 years--it is nothing sacred. It 
is not inevitable. It was a choice, and now we have the power to choose 
again, to choose differently, and for the better.
  You know, it didn't start out this way. Decades ago, in the aftermath 
of the Second World War, the United States and its allies created a 
series of economic partnerships and institutions that aimed to 
strengthen the free world and check Soviet expansion. These agreements 
encouraged partnership and trade among free nations as sovereign 
equals. Trade in commerce did increase and barriers did come down, but 
nations remained in control of their own economies and their own 
destinies. Important sectors were protected, capital flows controlled, 
and workers had a place to rise.

  But when the Soviet Union fell, ambitious policymakers in this 
country and other Western nations saw the opportunity to create 
something new, something in the spirit of Woodrow Wilson, a dream to 
remake the world. These Western leaders wanted a truly global economy, 
one that would include all nations, like-minded or not, to be governed 
by multilateral institutions rather than nation-states, to operate by a 
single set of rules, to promote the flow of goods and capital across 
borders. They wanted a single liberal market to support a single 
liberal international order, one that was supposed to bring peace in 
our time. Well, that peace never arrived. Instead, these new Wilsonians 
embroiled the United States in conflict after conflict, war after war 
for decades, and the new global market they championed flatlined the 
wages of American workers and shifted American industry overseas, all 
while multinational corporations reaped the gains.
  One of the Wilsonians' new institutions particularly typified these 
trends. I am talking about the World Trade Organization. It was 
established in 1995 as a successor to the Cold War-era General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The idea was for the WTO to help 
harmonize trading rules the world over and have the teeth to enforce 
them.
  The WTO would have its own court--I was part of the design--a dispute 
resolution body that would interpret trade agreements and settle the 
differences between nations over trade. The effect was to take trade 
disputes out of the hands of elected national leaders and commit them 
to the control of international lawyers in Geneva.
  It worked in the sense that the WTO's court increasingly set trade 
policy for the world. The old system, the GATT, had allowed for 
national policy needs to come first--our workers and our industries--
but the WTO reversed these priorities. Now global concerns reigned 
supreme, which meant the priorities of multinational corporations and 
global capital.
  Not surprisingly, the WTO lawyers have not been kind to America. The 
WTO's dispute resolution process has systematically disfavored the 
United States--a complaint that Presidents of both parties have made 
for years. The United States has lost 90 percent of the cases brought 
against it, hurting industries across the Nation, from steelworkers in 
the Rust Belt to cotton farmers in States like mine.
  Meanwhile, the WTO dispute resolution body has systematically 
expanded its own jurisdiction, going beyond the text of the actual 
trade agreements and citing itself as authority.
  That is not all. The WTO permitted China to claim special status as a 
developing country from the moment

[[Page S2526]]

China entered the organization even though China was already the sixth 
richest nation in the world by GDP in the year 2000. China jealously 
guards that sweetheart deal even today, allowing it to defer its 
obligations, to skirt the rules we follow, and to continue to amass 
power at our expense.
  I could go on.
  The WTO places strict limits on the support we can provide our 
farmers and ranchers, even as other nations refuse to comply with WTO 
rulings in favor of our producers.
  It is clear that the WTO is deeply flawed. The institution's design 
makes it nearly impossible to reform, as we saw during the failed go-
around, and it remains completely ill-equipped to deal with forced 
technology transfer and intellectual property theft like we have seen 
from China for decades.
  The American people get the idea. No trade regime can last when it no 
longer serves the people of the countries that are part of it. The 
truth is, our interests and those of the WTO diverged many years ago. 
The WTO is a symbol of an economic order whose Wilsonian ambitions have 
cost this country dearly, enabling and empowering the rise of an 
imperialist China.
  Now, American leadership is required--it is essential--to chart a new 
course. This Nation has never been content to linger in the rear while 
others lead the way, and we will not begin now. We will lead. We will 
act.
  I call on this body to do its part by taking a vote to withdraw from 
the WTO. The agreement by which we joined that organization expressly 
affords us this right. It commits to Congress--both Houses--the right 
to debate the WTO's workings and the right to vote to continue in the 
WTO or to withdraw. This is a right--it is our responsibility, really--
that the Senate has never exercised since 1995, not one time. We are 
past due.
  We should take up our responsibility and debate this issue critical 
to the future of our country, and we should vote to leave. To begin a 
new era, we must end the old. So let's vote, and let it be a new 
beginning. Let the work begin in earnest to forge a new way forward.
  Thinking of that future, I offer two principles to guide our policy.
  First, as a member of the world economy, we must never privilege the 
preferences of other nations or multilateral institutions over the 
needs of our own people and our own workers. As the leader of the free 
world, we must empower other countries to resist Chinese imperialism at 
every turn, whether on their own or standing together with us as a 
coalition.
  To put these principles into action, we must leave the WTO and 
construct a new trade system that helps the United States grow strong. 
This new system should retain and deepen the principle of reciprocity. 
It should encourage cooperation and market access but without 
compromising nations' economic sovereignty and their internal control 
of their own economies.
  We in America cannot compromise our sovereign right to protect the 
American people and their livelihoods, so we must replace an empire of 
lawyers with the confederation of truly mutual trade. Mutual trade will 
require a new approach to dispute resolution, one that will offer 
nations flexibility and choice, allow countries to litigate trade 
disputes like a private contract, through third-party arbitration 
chosen by the parties on a case-by-case basis, with ground rules agreed 
upon by both sides and subject to revisions as circumstances warrant, 
or allow countries to set up enforcement procedures within the trade 
agreements themselves, like we have done in our recent phase 1 
negotiations with China. On either approach, choices over trade will be 
made and policies will be set, as they should be, by elected leaders 
who are accountable to the people, not by a court sitting in Geneva
  But reform should not stop at trade. We must also think seriously 
about what occurs upstream from trade, and that means global capital. 
There is a reason why Wall Street loves the status quo. There is a 
reason why they will object to leaving the WTO and resist major reforms 
to our global economic order. That is because they are on a gravy train 
of foreign capital flows that keep their checkbooks fat. But this 
foreign money pouring into our country has a distorting effect. We get 
asset bubbles that could spur recessions, and our exporters have 
trouble selling abroad. Our farmers and producers know this problem all 
too well.
  So now we must work for new agreements and better managed capital 
markets to stop currency manipulators and to protect this Nation's 
producers. By moderating these flows of foreign money, we can help give 
a much needed boost to our producers at home and finally reverse our 
massive trade deficit with China and with the world.
  Finally, actions at home are only part of the solution. Trade and 
current policy, after all, are not made in a vacuum. The world is 
changing, and if we are to halt China's bid for hegemony over the 
coming decades, we will need to work with our allies and partners to do 
it. So it is in America's interest to see that other free nations grow 
strong and that we are able to work together to deter and defeat 
Chinese economic coercion.
  We benefit if countries that share our opposition to Chinese 
imperialism--countries like India, Japan, Vietnam, Australia, and 
Taiwan--are economically independent of China and standing shoulder to 
shoulder with us. So we should actively pursue new networks of mutual 
trade with key Asian and European partners, like the economic 
prosperity network recently mentioned by Secretary Pompeo.
  We should offer partner nations new incentives to support the 
purchase of our products made here in America by American workers. A 
new system of export financing and loan guarantees would serve as a 
powerful counterweight to China's expanding Belt and Road Initiative, 
and it would boost demand for our products, raising wages and creating 
good jobs along the way.
  Here again, our aim must be to build networks of strong partners able 
to stand tall against Chinese aggression while strengthening our 
workers and fostering our industries.
  A new departure is upon us whether we like it or not. The old order 
is giving way. The future need not be limited, however, not for this 
country. This moment is full of promise if we have the courage to lead.
  We can build a future that looks beyond pandemic to prosperity--a 
prosperity shared by all Americans, from the rural towns of our country 
to the urban core.
  We can build a future that looks past a failed consensus to meet the 
national security needs of this new century.
  We can build a future that transcends the narrow thinking of the 
Washington beltway and that gives confidence to American workers and to 
the communities they call home.
  With a global economy that better suits our interests, that better 
protects our people, we can find the strength and purpose to counter 
the gravest danger to American workers in a century and to unleash 
again the promise of our unique and marvelous way of life.
  To my colleagues in the Senate, I say: It is time to lead.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized


                          Political Prisoners

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I rise for two reasons: one, for a 
very short comment on political prisoners in foreign lands, and the 
other one on how the CARES Act is developing and the reaction to it.
  First of all, our country is now hopefully recovering from COVID-19, 
so I want to take this opportunity to address the plight of an 
extremely vulnerable population--political prisoners abroad.
  In Turkey, Syria, China, and a lot of other countries, political 
prisoners remain locked away in crowded prisons without adequate 
medical care. The spread of COVID-19 among this population dramatically 
increases the risk of serious medical consequences or even death.
  Authoritarian regimes only risk further destabilization of their 
countries by jailing the innocent. Political prisoners ought to be 
released, and they ought to be released now.


                               HEROES Act

  Madam President, at the beginning of March, we worked to get ahead of 
the COVID pandemic, and an amazing thing happened. Congress came 
together quickly and developed a broad package of measures to provide 
relief to families, workers, and businesses to weather the COVID-19 
event and the crisis that it is.

[[Page S2527]]

  Coronavirus aid, relief, and economic security--those words make up 
the CARES Act--included a broad range of tools: first, direct payments 
to individuals and families; second, it expanded unemployment insurance 
benefits for the unemployed; third, lending programs for businesses of 
all sizes; and fourth, targeted tax relief to help businesses continue 
operations and keep workers on the payroll.
  Our objective for the tax provisions in the CARES Act was twofold: 
first, to help individuals, families, and businesses weather the storm 
caused by the stay-at-home governmental decisions, and second, lay as 
much of a foundation as possible for restarting the economy once 
businesses could start to reopen and Americans could get back to work.
  The CARES Act came together through a bipartisan process, and that 
process took place over 8 short days and ultimately and amazingly 
passed the Senate 96 to 0 on March 25. The House passed it by a voice 
vote 2 days later, and President Trump signed it into law that same 
day.
  As chairman of the Finance Committee, my approach for tax relief was 
to provide as much liquidity as possible and as quickly as possible. 
For individuals, that meant providing the Treasury Department with 
authority to issue nearly $300 billion in economic impact payments to 
families across the Nation. This economic impact payment was $1,200 for 
an individual, $2,400 for a couple, and $500 for each child. That went 
out in checks or direct deposit. It also meant giving individuals 
access to cash in retirement accounts, suspending required 
distributions from retirement accounts already hit by steep declines in 
the stock market, and giving employers more flexibility to help 
employees with student loan payments.
  Many of these tools are similar to ones made available to help 
families recover from natural disasters in recent years. So we were not 
reinventing policy for this pandemic; we were making use of things we 
had already tried before. Each of these changes I just mentioned is a 
tool that can be implemented very quickly to help families access the 
care they need to get through these difficult times.
  Going through the business tax relief measures, our approach was to 
modify existing provisions of the Tax Code, easing limits and 
restrictions so that businesses could apply for this help easily and 
quickly. The key was for businesses to keep cash on hand if they hadn't 
already filed or give refunds to give them the liquidity to keep the 
doors open, the machinery running, and most importantly, employees 
paid, at least to the greatest extent possible.
  Most of these tax measures have been employed in previous economic 
crises and natural disasters. Again, these policies were not 
reinventing the wheel; we were taking advantage of things that had 
worked in the past.
  Particularly, we expanded the ability of businesses to use net 
operating losses--or, as we call them in tax jargon, NOLs--just like 
Congress did in 2002 after 9/11, in 2005 for taxpayers affected by 
Hurricane Katrina, and again in 2009 after the financial crisis.
  Those were actually bipartisan relief efforts just like the CARES 
Act. These provisions are temporary. They are designed to terminate 
after the recovery is in full force.
  While it seems longer, you have to remember the CARES Act was enacted 
just over 7 weeks ago. In that time, Treasury has distributed economic 
impact payments far faster than expected. Americans have received 
approximately 140 million economic impact payments worth $249 billion. 
Over 4.3 million small businesses have been approved for more than $500 
billion of loans under the Paycheck Protection Program and businesses 
of all sizes have started to use the tax tools that we provided for 
their liquidity.
  But in that time, the critics have also done what they do best: They 
criticize. The media has seized on an opportunity to perpetuate every 
negative story that critics can manufacture. You can imagine my 
surprise when Democrats criticized the net operating loss carryback 
provisions in the CARES Act. Oddly, Democrats previously supported the 
last three bills, where we expanded the net operating loss carrybacks 
in 2002, 2005, and even in 2009--in the last instance, with all-
Democratic rule.
  I don't recall, in any of those instances, any partisan attacks from 
Democrats about this previously bipartisan, anti-recessionary policy 
tools. So why now? Sadly, that irresponsibility has led our Democratic 
colleagues in the House to pass legislation that would take back 
important tax tools that we have provided in the CARES Act to the tune 
of $254 billion, and that is a tax increase on the American businesses, 
and with more taxes, less employees.
  It is hard to understand how the House Democrats think that this 
policy makes any sense. Imposing tax increases when you have a 
downturn--imposing a quarter of a trillion dollar retroactive tax 
increase on businesses in need of cash to restart their operations as 
States begin to lift shutdown orders--is a recipe for further disaster, 
as opposed to the disaster we are already in.
  It makes one think that House Democrats don't want an economic 
recovery, at least until they can defeat President Trump. Imposing such 
a tax increase when the country is facing unemployment levels not seen 
since the Great Depression fails the common sense test.
  It is even more disturbing to the extent that the House Democrats' 
proposal targets small businesses and other pass-through entities. 
Aren't these losses just as real as larger corporations and their need 
for liquidity possibly even greater?
  According to the Tax Foundation, more than 90 percent of American 
businesses in recent years operate as pass-through entities. Pass-
through businesses include some of those hardest hit by this pandemic 
we are in, like farmers, restaurants, manufacturers, retailers, and 
healthcare providers. They employ over half of America's workers. Yet 
the Democrats want to take them on.
  It is critical that these businesses also survive this pandemic to 
ensure that Americans have jobs to return to as it becomes safe to go 
back to work. I have heard some critics even suggest that allowing 
small businesses and pass-throughs to use their net operating losses is 
kind of a tax gimmick or loophole. Apparently, they don't understand 
that these are real economic losses that businesses incur because there 
isn't enough income to cover payroll, rent, utilities, and other fixed 
expenses.
  The whole goal of the CARES Act is to help businesses tap cash paid 
as taxes in prior years when times were very good, so that they can 
survive through this current crisis. When we drafted the CARES Act, we 
didn't pick winners and losers, and government shouldn't pick winners 
and losers. The tools generally apply to all types and sizes of 
businesses, from farmers and sole proprietorships to partnerships, to 
LLCs and S corporations, to the large corporations. They apply across 
all industries, since nearly every sector is bearing the burden of 
stay-at-home and shutdown orders across our entire Nation.
  Most importantly, we didn't try to decide which jobs were more worthy 
of saving than other types of jobs. Our goal was to help preserve as 
many jobs as possible, regardless of whatever business they were in. 
Those objectives were the right ones.
  This partisan tax increase also flies in the face of anti-
recessionary fiscal policy 101. Find me a credible economist who says 
that we should raise taxes in a normal recession. It is just common 
sense not to. In a normal business cycle downturn, tax increases hurt, 
rather than help, the recovery. Why double down now, as the House is 
doing, in the greatest and sharpest economic contraction in modern 
history?
  The House Democrats have reverted to partisan politics, as usual, in 
the middle of the worst pandemic in more than 100 years and the worst 
economic crisis in nearly that long. Maybe, they should think about 
former President Obama's support for this kind of anti-recessionary 
fiscal policy back in 2009. What former President Obama said then 
should apply now: Don't raise taxes in a recession.
  Nevertheless, I am hopeful that we can maintain the bipartisan spirit 
of the CARES Act in the Senate as we chart the next steps to reopen the 
economy and get Americans back to work.
  While some businesses will feel the impact of this pandemic more than 
others, none of these businesses are

[[Page S2528]]

doing well. They all deserve as many tools as we can provide to weather 
this storm. What is more, employers across the country who have been 
relying on the CARES Act shouldn't be deterred by the misguided tax 
hike proposed by the House Democrats. The messaging bill that the House 
just passed can't be allowed to undermine access to capital needed to 
reopen their businesses, bring back employees, and win back the 
customers that made them successful before the pandemic attack.
  And to the Democratic critics, I say this: Let's put away the 
partisan attacks. Let's put away the political pandering. Let's keep 
working for the good of the country, so our families, businesses, and 
economy really can come out of these tough times on a strong footing 
and with the best shot at a rapid recovery.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). The Senator from Iowa.
  Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to use my military 
rucksack in my speech.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered


                              Memorial Day

  Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, on Monday we honor the fallen on Memorial 
Day. While we traditionally spend this day of remembrance with our 
family and friends, things will look a little bit different this year. 
Even though we will not have the same services and ceremonies that we 
typically take part in, it does not make this day any less important. 
Just like every year, on this Memorial Day, let's commemorate the 
servicemembers and families who have sacrificed in defense of our 
freedom.
  The freedoms we cherish, which are so often taken for granted, did 
not come without a price. For generations, American patriots have 
secured our blessings of liberty by willingly laying down their lives 
in defense of our great Nation.
  Every fallen soldier leaves behind a grieving parent, child, sibling, 
spouse, or friend. These family members and friends never forget that 
knock at the door, the sound of Taps, the loud thunder of the 21-gun 
salute, or the touch of a folded flag once laid on a casket.
  As a combat veteran who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom, I know 
that the men and women in uniform who served bravely alongside the 
fallen never forget either. I think of Iowans, like Iraq War veteran 
Richard Miles, whose picture I proudly display on my desk; Iowa Army 
National Guardsman Brent Maher.
  Iowa National Guardsman James Carney, whose family are dear friends, 
just 22 years old, was killed in Afghanistan. Army SGT James ``Jamie'' 
Skalberg, Jr, died in combat in Afghanistan at just 25 years old, 
leaving behind his beautiful son, who was not even a year old when he 
lost his father.
  SGT Joseph Milledge was killed when a roadside bomb exploded near his 
unit, as it searched for weapons in Baghdad, and he was just 23. It was 
the knock that I gave on his mother's door to tell her that her son 
would never be coming back home.
  Command SMA Marilyn Gabbard, the first woman in the Iowa Army 
National Guard to be promoted to the rank of Command Sergeant Major, 
was killed in Iraq in a Blackhawk helicopter crash.
  These stories and many, many more of these men and women of Iowa are 
heartbreaking and heroic and the very reason for Memorial Day.
  For 23 years, I served alongside the best of our Nation, women and 
men who risked absolutely everything to preserve our great freedoms. 
One of the many ways I pay tribute is through a ruck march. Every 
couple of months--that is, until COVID-19--I would gather a group of 
people to go on a ruck march. I grab my rucksack, filled with nearly 35 
pounds of weight, and march down around the Washington Monument and 
back. These marches offer time for us to remember and reflect on the 
service and sacrifice of those in our armed services.
  A couple of years ago, I went on the Bataan Memorial Death March in 
White Sands, NM. This is 26 miles. It is a marathon in the desert, with 
a 46-pound rucksack--not my typical 35 pounds. Folks, let me tell you, 
it was exhausting. My feet were blistered. My legs were swollen and 
sore, and my back ached for days after. There were times during that 
march when I thought I couldn't keep walking and I was probably 
dehydrated, and I just simply wanted to quit. But every minute and 
every mile was worth it because we were honoring the lives of the 
fallen, those who were on that Bataan death march and others who had 
sacrificed family, comfort, health, and, in so many cases, their lives. 
The Bataan march really put the meaning behind Memorial Day into focus.
  While this weekend is a time to reflect on the sacrifice and lives 
lost, this entire month is Military Appreciation Month. So I want to 
take just a minute to commend our servicemembers. During this pandemic, 
our men and women in uniform have fought tirelessly against this 
invisible enemy, and they have been doing an outstanding job.
  For instance, our troops have stepped up to care for patients in 
hospitals and created deployable medical units, such as the Air Force 
expeditionary medical system, Army combat support hospitals and field 
hospitals, and Navy expeditionary medical facilities. Members of our 
U.S. Air Force have transported critical supplies around our Nation.
  And the heroes who are near and dear to my heart, our National 
Guardsmen, have been working around the clock to disinfect public 
spaces, to hand out food, and to provide transportation and logistic 
support.
  To all of our servicemembers at home and abroad, thank you. And to 
their families and loved ones who also make tremendous sacrifices, we 
appreciate you and we support you. Because of the ongoing service of 
our military men and women, we will defeat this virus. Folks, on this 
Memorial Day and during Military Appreciation Month, I pray we take 
time out of our lives, we pause, and we remember all of those who have 
made the ultimate sacrifice, and the families and the friends and loved 
ones whom they left behind.
  To all of our soldiers, airmen, marines, and sailors who never 
returned home, today we honor you.
  May God bless our troops and their families.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, let me join my other colleagues in 
appreciation for Senator Ernst and her service in Iraqi Freedom, her 
two decades of service, being ready and able to go whenever she was 
called to go, and her continued service here, and her appreciation for 
those who serve, which she feels in such a unique way.
  She pointed out that this is a different Memorial Day. Communities 
across Missouri and across the country have traditional events that 
were long planned on Memorial Day. Every year, Memorial Day looks the 
same. It will not look the same in very many places this year. If you 
did have a parade or an event planned, it was probably canceled weeks 
ago. Even with the best of efforts, it was probably not put together 
for Monday.
  But it doesn't mean that we still don't have an opportunity and an 
obligation, in fact, to remember those who served. Also, Memorial Day 
has long become a time, at least where I live, in the middle of the 
country--and it may be more southern and in southern Missouri than in 
other places. Memorial Day really became a day to remember all of those 
who have gone before us, those who passed along values to us, those who 
have done things that made life possible today.
  When I was growing up, sometimes we called Memorial Day ``Decoration 
Day,'' because it was the beginning of the tradition of Memorial Day, 
and people would go and decorate the graves of soldiers after the Civil 
War. That has continued. Memorial Day became a time when families would 
go to cemeteries, and you sort of had the genealogical lesson right 
there, as you walked from gravestone to gravestone, and it was 
explained to you how those people were related to you.
  Many family members who were here last year aren't here today and 
will not be here on Monday. Clearly, the coronavirus pandemic has had a 
devastating impact on families. It has had a devastating impact on 
communities. It has had a devastating impact on lives.
  As we support this Memorial Day, as we think about this Memorial Day, 
we will be remembering a unique Memorial Day, where so many have given

[[Page S2529]]

their lives in a war that was different than other wars, to an enemy 
that was not easily seen, to an enemy that turned out to be deadlier 
around the world than any would have predicted. And that is part of 
Memorial Day this year.
  Part of Memorial Day is remembering the sacrifices that people have 
made, and we also on this day want to remember the sacrifices that 
people made to try to keep people alive with this virus--the sacrifices 
people have made to try to give care, to bring people out of the 
emergency room, to bring people off the ventilators, and to do those 
things.
  It is, in fact, a unique Memorial Day. It is a Memorial Day where, 75 
years ago, we were just finishing the incredibly devastating war of 
World War II. V-E Day ended the war in Europe on May 8. Seventy-five 
years ago right now, American soldiers were fighting the Battle of 
Okinawa. Just 2 weeks before that, our country and our allies fought 
the fierce Battle of Iwo Jima. These were really the two last major 
battles.
  One of the people who died on Iwo Jima was an 18-year-old marine from 
Bates County, MO, named George Phillips. On the night of March 14, an 
enemy hand grenade was tossed into the area where his squad had sought 
shelter. Private Phillips shouted a warning and threw his body on top 
of the grenade, saving the lives of every other person there, but gave 
his life to save theirs.
  For his actions that day, he was awarded the Medal of Honor. The 
citation was signed by another former soldier from Missouri--President 
Truman--honoring that bravery.
  That kind of unhesitating bravery is a characteristic of American 
soldiers over centuries of understanding what it meant to defend your 
family, to defend your friends, to defend those serving with you, and, 
in the case of our country, to be willing to defend freedom, to be 
willing to jump on the grenade, to be willing to do what is necessary 
to protect others.
  We have seen many examples of that in the last year. Some of those 
examples were in the military. Others were in those who protect us and 
in first responders and police and fire, and then many examples of 
people who risked their lives to save others with the virus that has 
attacked our country.
  We have a lot to think about this Memorial Day, a lot to dedicate 
ourselves toward as we look to a future where people continue to help 
others, where people continue to give selflessly, and for those who 
have served in the military, to be willing to pay whatever price, and 
we stand in appreciation of that on this Memorial Day, as we approach 
this weekend.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, it is an honor for me to be here with my 
fellow Senators. I was very moved by Senator Ernst's recounting not 
only of her service but of the service of so many Iowans, and Senator 
Blunt, as well, from Missouri, reminding me of what Memorial Day is for 
and how it is commemorated around the country for those brave soldiers 
from Missouri.
  So we are getting ready to commemorate Memorial Day, and we will be 
doing it differently than we have in the past years. But it is still 
just as important for us to honor the brave men and women of the U.S. 
armed services. They have selflessly served our country by standing up 
to protect the freedoms that we hold so dear and going into the line of 
fire in many ways.
  This Memorial Day is particularly momentous because 2020 marks the 
75th anniversary of the conclusion of World War II. Earlier this month, 
on May 8, as Senator Blunt mentioned, we recognized V-E Day, or Victory 
in Europe Day, marking the anniversary of the Nazi surrender and the 
end of the Allies' European campaign.
  In a few months, on September 2, we will recognize the 75th 
anniversary of Japan's signing its surrender, subsequently ending the 
Pacific campaign and the war.
  During World War II, the United States lost over 400,000 soldiers, 
who were fighting to uphold our values and defend the liberties of 
those abroad as well.
  As the daughter of a proud World War II veteran myself, I had the 
chance to hear firsthand the acts of valor that my father, SGT Arch 
Moore, witnessed on the battlefield.
  I also had the honor this past December to travel with several of my 
colleagues to Luxembourg and Belgium to commemorate the 75th 
anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge. My dad was wounded just weeks 
before the battle, where he was, but his company went on to fight in 
Belgium, and only 3 of the 36 men made it out alive. I think about 
those 33 men and their families on this Memorial Day.
  Being able to attend those ceremonies and to honor all of the 
soldiers who fought during the Battle of the Bulge was a humbling 
experience that I will never forget, and those who returned to 
commemorate that occasion, most of them were in their nineties--mid to 
late nineties.
  The efforts of our servicemembers in both the European and Pacific 
theaters were great.
  A couple of months ago we marked the 75th anniversary of the Battle 
of Iwo Jima. I was hoping to go to commemorate that, as well, but the 
coronavirus got in the way. The U.S. Marine Corps and Navy were able to 
seize the island and to give America the stronghold needed to win the 
war months later.
  While this year marks the 75th anniversary of the conclusion of World 
War II, we must also never forget all of the Americans who have lost 
their lives in battle, whether it be the Korean war, the Vietnam war, 
the first Gulf war, or the ongoing fight against terrorism in the 
Middle East and in all of the conflicts that America has fought.
  Many of our country's servicemembers have made the ultimate sacrifice 
to keep our liberties intact.
  I recently read a book called ``No Surrender,'' by Christopher 
Edmonds. You may have heard of it. It is the true story of his father, 
Roddie Edmonds, who risked his life during the final days of World War 
II to save others from the Nazis. His heroic duty saved, I think, 
thousands of lives. He was captured and sent to a POW camp in Germany. 
He risked his life to prevent hundreds of others from Nazi persecution 
and possible death, but at the same time he witnessed horrific acts and 
he also witnessed many, many of his fellow soldiers losing their lives 
in the name of freedom.
  The members of the U.S. military have always put our country first 
and will continue to do so to keep our flag flying high, and Roddie 
Edmonds was a perfect example of this. West Virginians have always 
believed in putting our country and State first, and I am proud of all 
of the men and women in my State, of which we have a very high 
percentage--past and present--who have answered the call of duty.
  It saddens me that we will not be able to come together in person, as 
we normally do as a nation, to honor the heroic efforts of the brave 
men and women in our country who have given the ultimate sacrifice in 
service, but I know we will come together in spirit. While we might not 
have the usual parade and barbecues that we have become accustomed to 
on Memorial Day, we can use this time to reflect upon the sacrifices 
made by our Armed Forces and their families.
  Whether you are at home or with a small group of friends and family, 
I encourage everyone to take the time to remember those who lost their 
lives serving our country. Memorial Day is often considered the first 
unofficial day of the summer, but really it is a time to pay tribute to 
those who made America the great country that it is today. On Monday, 
take a moment to pray for those servicemembers who have lost their 
lives fighting for this country and for their families as well. For the 
children who are out of school, take time to learn more about the men 
and women who came before you and defended this country and its values.
  I want to say thank you to all of those who have served and to all of 
those families who have lost loved ones. Your sacrifice has not gone 
unnoticed, and we are forever grateful
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise with my esteemed colleague from 
West Virginia and my colleague from Missouri and others to remember, to 
commemorate, and to honor those who have given their lives in service 
to our

[[Page S2530]]

country. Those who fought and died for our Nation have secured our 
freedoms, and we are forever indebted to them. That includes many North 
Dakotans who gave their lives serving in our Nation's Armed Forces. 
These fallen heroes served in World War I, World War II, Korea, 
Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
  While we set aside a day each year, Memorial Day, to honor those who 
have given their lives on behalf of our Nation, every day we are 
reminded of the dedication and sacrifice of those who serve to protect 
our freedoms and liberty.
  We must never forget those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, as 
well as those who are missing in action. That is why in 2014 I 
supported legislation to create the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency. 
This DOD Agency seeks to locate the nearly 82,000 missing service 
personnel, so we can bring them home and provide answers to their 
families.
  We also recognize that those who serve do not serve alone. The 
friends and family of those in the service of our country also serve, 
and those who have lost loved ones know well the cost of freedom. As 
fellow Americans, it is our duty to ensure that their survivors are 
taken care of and that these heroes are never forgotten.
  We can better uphold our promise and honor those who made the 
ultimate sacrifice by providing their fellow servicemembers, veterans, 
and their survivors with the healthcare benefits and recognition that 
they have earned. That is why we continue to work with the Department 
of Veteran Affairs as they implement the VA MISSION Act, which gives 
our veterans more options to seek care in their home communities, and 
veterans are provided access to long-term and nursing home care closer 
to home.
  Last fall, I also helped to dedicate the Fargo National Cemetery, the 
first VA national cemetery in North Dakota. We worked to secure the 
cemetery because its presence allows North Dakotans who have served to 
be laid to rest with honor, while being close enough to their homes for 
family and loved ones to visit and pay their respects to our heroes.
  The new cemetery complements the North Dakota Veterans Cemetery in 
Mandan, which is operated by the State. To help support maintenance and 
operations of our State's veterans cemeteries, I am helping to 
introduce a bipartisan bill--the Veterans Cemetery Grants Improvement 
Act--with Senators Tester, Rounds, and Reed, so that State-operated 
veterans cemeteries receive the funding they need to ensure that all of 
our veterans can be laid to rest closer to their loved ones.
  Our servicemembers and their families have given much in defense of 
our Nation and our way of life. The State of North Dakota especially 
has a rich tradition of military service.
  With deepest appreciation and admiration, we look to the meaning of 
their service, never forgetting to honor those who have passed, and we 
extend our gratitude to the families and loved ones left behind.
  May God bless those who have gone before, those who continue to 
serve, and may He continue to bless this great country that they have 
served so very well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, throughout America, we set aside Memorial 
Day to honor those who gave their all for all of us, but this Memorial 
Day will be very different from those we have celebrated in the past, 
as we honor our veterans. This Memorial Day, there will be no big 
parades and no formal ceremonies at State veterans cemeteries.
  In Bangor, ME, where I live, each year there is a fabulous Memorial 
Day parade in which veterans from all conflicts and all eras march down 
Main Street, often with walking sticks that were provided by one of 
Maine's greatest veterans, Galen Cole, who passed away recently, a 
World War II veteran who made a pledge that he would always honor our 
veterans.
  But despite the absence of big parades and big celebrations of 
fireworks this year, we should still take the time to honor those who 
have worn the uniform of our country.
  From America's founding to our time, the men and women of our Armed 
Forces have written the history of our freedom. From generation to 
generation, they add new and inspiring chapters of valor, devotion to 
duty, and sacrifice. As we honor the fallen, we also honor those who 
served and returned home and those who serve today, joined together, as 
we grieve for their fallen comrades.
  We also thank the families--the husbands, wives, sons and daughters, 
brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers--who endure the grief that is 
part of freedom's price.
  It is significant that a day dedicated to the deepest of human 
emotions--grief, remembrance, and gratitude--began not by decree from 
any high authority but in the hearts of everyday people. As the Civil 
War ravaged the countryside and took on an ever greater and more 
ghastly toll, widows and grieving mothers on both sides of the conflict 
began placing wild flowers on the graves of the soldiers, regardless of 
uniform, who fell in their fields and forests.
  From those humble beginnings, we have remained true to Memorial Day's 
original spirit. Memorial Day is a national observance. Yet it remains 
deeply personal for each of us.
  For me, it brings back a cherished memory from my early childhood. My 
father was a World War II veteran who was wounded twice in the Battle 
of the Bulge. He taught me to honor our veterans and our flag, and each 
year, as I was growing up, he would take me to the Memorial Day parade 
in our hometown of Caribou, ME. He would perch me high on his shoulders 
and there, from the best vantage point, I could see our veterans march 
by and our flag go by.
  Memorial Day is all about remembrance. It is also about our resolve 
to uphold the values that inspire the sacrifice we honor today. This 
was best articulated in what many regard as the first and finest 
Memorial Day speech. It was not given on a warm May morning but on a 
chilly November afternoon, in a place called Gettysburg.
  These are the words of President Abraham Lincoln: ``That from these 
honored dead, we take increased devotion to that cause for which they 
gave the last full measure of devotion.''
  May those who have fallen rest in peace. May we always remember them 
this Memorial Day and forever, and may God bless the United States of 
America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. YOUNG. Memorial Day. If you travel door to door in neighborhoods 
across this country, all Americans will agree that this day is special. 
It is a day to honor the men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice 
on behalf of our country. Thanks to their heroism, we have our freedom, 
our strong democracy, and our country's greatness. For their 
contributions, we owe them a debt we can never repay.
  It was 152 years ago that our 16th President, Abraham Lincoln, 
enacted the first national Memorial Day. It was a day meant to honor 
the valiant soldiers who fought in the Civil War, and today we still 
heed Abraham Lincoln's timeless words:

       Bind up the nation's wounds to care for him who shall have 
     borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan.

  To me, Memorial Day is a day to reflect--reflect on the Hoosiers and 
other great Americans we have lost to causes greater than their own.
  This day honors Alec, LCpl Alec Terwiske of Dubois, IN, a fellow U.S. 
marine. Alec lost his life in the line of service in Afghanistan in 
2012, and I proudly wear his memorial bracelet around my wrist as a 
reminder of that sacrifice.
  This day honors James, CPL James Bethel Gresham from Evansville, IN. 
He is in the history books for being among the first American soldiers 
to give their lives in the line of duty during World War I.
  This day honors Charles, SGT Charles G. Ruble of Parker City, IN, who 
was killed in Europe during World War II in 1944. His remains were 
recently identified and returned to the United States, and in March, he 
was buried with full military honors at Arlington National Cemetery.
  This day honors Christopher. Just 2 weeks ago, we lost SGT 
Christopher Wesley Curry. Only 23 years old, this Hoosier soldier from 
Terre Haute, IN, was stationed in Iraq. Those who knew Christopher 
said:


[[Page S2531]]


  

       Sgt. Curry's incessant optimism was the hallmark of his 
     personality and often provided respite for others during 
     times of stress. His honesty, lightheartedness, and wit will 
     always be remembered by his brothers in arms.

  To those who are not here today because they made the ultimate 
sacrifice for our Nation, we humbly say thank you. Their legacy lives 
on in the hearts of every American.
  God bless America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Young and Senator 
Collins, who have just preceded me and set the tone, as only they can 
do, with regard to honoring Memorial Day.
  It is truly an honor to stand on the floor of the Senate and speak 
about so many who have served and defended our Nation. As the son of a 
World War II veteran--a marine veteran, I might add--and a veteran 
myself, also a marine, it is a privilege to represent our men and women 
in uniform in the U.S. Senate and to be able to ensure they have all 
the tools they need to fulfill their missions, to ensure their families 
are supported here at home, and to ensure our veterans receive the care 
and services they deserve.
  Just a word about my dad. He was 41 when the war started. He joined 
the Marines--he was in a non-combat role--at a recruiting station in 
Kansas City. They looked and looked and looked for a combat billet and 
finally found one that said that the top age was 39. They really needed 
people. He was 41. He lied about his age, and then went into that 
billet to see action in Guam, Okinawa, and, yes, Iwo Jima.
  I went to Iwo Jima on the 15th anniversary--that was about 60 years 
ago. We now have the 75th. When standing on top of Mount Suribachi, you 
really stop and realize exactly the sacrifice my dad and others made. 
He survived those attacks, and thank you to President Truman for 
allowing my dad to get back.
  Throughout our Nation's history, our service men and women have 
repeatedly answered the call of duty and stepped forward to defend the 
freedoms we hold dear. From the earliest days of struggle for our 
Republic to the current unprecedented threats from terrorism, to cyber 
attacks, to unpredictable regimes with missile capability to attack our 
shores, and, yes, to global pandemics, the principles set forth by our 
Founding Fathers have been defended by our brave men and women in 
uniform.
  I stand here once again to commemorate those who have made the 
ultimate sacrifice for our freedoms. Hopefully they will continue to be 
remembered by those of us who enjoy the freedoms for which they fought 
and died.
  Memorial Day is the day when a grateful nation recognizes those who 
have given so much out of love for their country, their family, and 
their fellow citizens.
  Remembering service and sacrifice does not happen just on Memorial 
Day. One of the greatest honors to me is meeting the veterans who visit 
Washington, DC, through the incredible efforts of the Honor Flight 
Network. Having the opportunity to visit with members of the ``greatest 
generation'' who make the journey to Washington--often with high school 
students who are learning firsthand about their service and that 
history--so they can see their memorial is a humbling and uplifting 
experience for me and for all of us. To watch these men and women share 
their stories, many for the first time, is incredibly moving.
  When meeting these members of the ``greatest generation,'' you 
understand how befitting that label is for these humble men and women 
who stood in the face of tyranny and triumph. We see this same courage 
and resolve demonstrated daily by the good men and women currently 
serving in our Armed Forces throughout the world. We see acts of 
uncommon valor and great sacrifice for a cause and a deep belief in 
something bigger that just one person.
  We honor all the American men and women who have given their lives 
for their country since our Nation's founding. Susan Collins just 
referred to that in her very fine speech. We honor the more than 
300,000 living veterans, from those folks to the ``greatest 
generation,'' and we honor the families of those who are here and are 
serving.
  Speaking of the ``greatest generation,'' I have the honor of being 
the chairman of the Eisenhower Memorial Commission, the memorial which 
pays tribute to Kansas's favorite son Ike's leadership both as Supreme 
Allied Commander, where he saved Western democracy, and the 34th 
President of the United States, where he gave us 8 years of peace and 
prosperity. This memorial will serve as a symbol for all generations of 
the promise of America and what our values make possible here and 
around the world.
  We were supposed to dedicate this memorial this month, but, like 
everything else, the pandemic put those plans on hold. When we dedicate 
the memorial in September, we hope to have many World War II veterans 
attending, including Kansas's other favorite son, Senator Bob Dole.
  While our debt to these heroes can never be repaid, I know that my 
fellow Kansans agree that these liberators and defenders of democracy 
deserve our utmost respect and gratitude.
  I am going to quote from General Eisenhower when he was President and 
following that. ``There is nothing wrong with America that the faith, 
love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of her citizens cannot 
cure.'' I hope those words by Ike at that particular time can ring true 
in this body and more especially, those of us who are privileged to 
serve in this body.
  There is another quote I will repeat from Winston Churchill, who 
said: ``Kites rise highest against the wind, not with it.'' We have 
seen a lot of talk about the pandemic, and those winds have been a bit 
partisan, to say the least. I would hope that we would stop for a 
moment and honor Memorial Day in the true way we should do that.
  I would close by saying, in the words of Ronald Reagan:

       Freedom is never more than one generation away from 
     extinction. It is not ours by inheritance. It must be fought 
     for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes 
     only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then 
     lost it have never known it again.

  I think President Reagan gives us a great deal of insight
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       United States Park Police

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today concerning the tragic death 
of a young Virginian, Bijan Ghaisar, who was shot and killed by two 
U.S. Park Police officers over 2 years ago.
  While this tragic incident occurred, as I mentioned, more than 2 
years ago, many questions remain unanswered regarding the circumstances 
of Bijan's death. Unfortunately, the Department of the Interior has 
failed to answer many of the basic questions that I have asked about 
the night of Bijan's death and subsequent actions the National Park 
Service has taken following the shooting.
  In November of last year, I wrote the Department and requested 
information about the U.S. Park Police's use of force and vehicle 
pursuit policies, as well as information about the Park Service's 
response in the aftermath of Bijan's shooting. Unfortunately, there has 
been no response.
  The Department found time to do some PR work. They provided copies of 
the updated use of force and vehicle pursuit policies to the Washington 
Post earlier this year, but I still have not received a response to my 
letter that was sent over 6 months ago.
  To this point, the Department has failed to answer many basic 
questions about this incident--questions that I have asked, as well as 
my friend, the senior Senator from Wyoming. They are questions about 
the incident, such as these: Did the Department open an internal 
affairs inquiry into the incident to see if any violations of Park 
Police policy occurred? What is the timeline for such an investigation? 
Is the U.S. Park Police conducting a thorough after-action review of 
the incident? What is the status of the Park Police officers involved 
in the incident? Are they on administrative leave, desk duty, or are 
they back on patrol?

[[Page S2532]]

  These are basic questions. If the Department of the Interior had any 
interest in transparency, they could answer them today. The Ghaisar 
family deserves answers about what happened to Bijan. The pain they 
have experienced over the last 2 years is immeasurable. As if the 
premature death of their son wasn't bad enough, they have waited 2 
years for answers from a Federal Government that has failed completely 
to adequately respond to this tragedy.
  I am not going to rest until the Ghaisar family has the answers they 
deserve about what happened to Bijan that night. If the Department 
wants to ignore these basic questions I have asked and if they want to 
disregard legitimate congressional oversight, then there will be 
consequences until their action changes.
  In February, I voted against Katharine MacGregor's nomination to be 
Deputy Secretary of the Interior. I said very clearly at that time that 
if the Department of the Interior continues to ignore my questions 
about the killing of Bijan Ghaisar, I would hold up future Interior 
nominees. For this reason, I am today placing a hold on the nomination 
of Lanny Erdos to serve as Director of the Office of Surface Mining 
Reclamation and Enforcement within the Department of the Interior.
  If we don't get answers to legitimate questions that I and other 
Members of this body and Members of the House have raised about the 
shooting of Bijan Ghaisar, I am prepared to hold up even more nominees. 
This is not something I take lightly. Holding up nominees should always 
be a last resort. But I have been patient and Bijan's family has been 
patient, and still the Department of the Interior has been silent.
  For Bijan's family, 2 years is too long to wait. They deserve answers 
about what happened the night their son was shot and killed. I urge the 
Department to swiftly provide substantive answers to my outstanding 
questions regarding the death of Bijan and the Department's response.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Vote on Manasco Nomination

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Manasco 
nomination?
  Mr. INHOFE. 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 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 Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), 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 Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse), are 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 71, nays 21, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 99 Ex.]

                                YEAS--71

     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     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
     Lee
     Loeffler
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Moran
     Murphy
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Warner
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--21

     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Coons
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Klobuchar
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murray
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warren
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Alexander
     Burr
     Leahy
     Markey
     Murkowski
     Rounds
     Sanders
     Whitehouse
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). Under the previous order, the 
motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and 
the President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
  The Senator from Texas.


                        Presidential Transition

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the hallmark of American democracy, the 
single greatest feature that sets us apart from every other country in 
the world, is the peaceful transition of power that occurs every 4 or 
sometimes every 8 years on January 20. It is a legacy we inherited from 
our forefathers and one that generations of Americans have fought hard 
throughout our history to protect. It is a remarkable moment. The most 
powerful person in the world bows to the will of the people and sits 
only a few yards away as the next President takes the oath of office.
  Think about the wars that have been fought throughout history over 
who the next leader of a country would be. Yet, in America, dating back 
to 1797, when Washington willingly passed the torch to Adams, the 
peaceful transition of power has defined the American Presidency. But a 
growing body of evidence suggests that the January 20, 2017, 
inauguration of President Donald Trump was an exception to that 
hallowed tradition.
  Since the FBI launched its Russia probe in July 2016, there has been 
no shortage of stories about what did or did not happen in the months 
leading up to that election. For the better part of 3 years, the 
speculation dominated headlines and news feeds, with even the smallest 
details consuming hours of airtime.
  Beyond the Russian active measures campaign, which we know did 
happen, there was a lot of attention focused on the Trump campaign 
itself. Now, almost 4 years later, we know a lot about what happened 
and what didn't happen. For example, we know from the Mueller report 
that there was no crime of collusion or obstruction committed by the 
President or his campaign. But since the special counsel's report was 
completed more than a year ago, we have learned a lot more about the 
outsized role played by some very senior Obama administration officials 
in what can only be described as an insurgency campaign against the 
Trump Presidency.
  To be blunt, these revelations have given the American people good 
reason to be concerned about the outgoing administration, which took 
aggressive, possibly unlawful steps to interfere with initially the 
Trump campaign and then to undermine the incoming Trump administration.
  For starters, there was the Department of Justice inspector general 
report on the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, which was released in 
December of last year. The inspector general's findings provided 
evidence that the concerns were more than warranted.
  Inspector General Horowitz detailed a series of errors and missteps 
made by the FBI throughout the investigation, including alarming abuse 
of the powers of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This act 
confers extraordinary power on the FBI and the intelligence community.
  In the FISA application for Carter Page, Inspector General Horowitz 
identified 7 errors in the initial application and 10 additional errors 
in 3 renewals. We are not talking about innocent typos or misspelled 
words. This was not just sloppiness. There were significant and 
material errors, plus the deliberate falsification of material 
information about Carter Page's past service to the U.S. Government, as 
well as the omission of important exculpatory information, which 
deceived and misled the FISA Court.
  I would hope we could all agree that lying to a court is serious and 
completely unacceptable.

[[Page S2533]]

  The meticulous requirements Congress mandated in the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act and the painstaking procedures of the 
FISA Court were created to help instill trust and confidence and 
accountability in the institutions charged with protecting our national 
security, while at the same time protecting our privacy and civil 
liberties. Sadly, much of that trust has been destroyed by these 
revelations uncovered by the inspector general of the Department of 
Justice, and sadly, another recent development has sown even more 
distrust and suspicion of the FBI and the Department of Justice during 
the previous administration, their motives, and the legality of their 
actions.

  Last week, the Acting Director of National Intelligence, Richard 
Grenell, provided a declassified list of senior Obama administration 
officials who made requests to unmask the identity of Michael Flynn. 
Masking the name of a U.S. person in foreign surveillance is routinely 
done to minimize the intrusion into their privacy rights.
  I know trying to keep up with the flood of facts about these 
incidents can be a challenge, so let's quickly recap.
  General Flynn was a member of the Trump campaign, and at the 
beginning of the administration, he was named as the National Security 
Advisor. We know his tenure was short-lived. Only a few weeks after 
assuming the post, General Flynn resigned after a storm erupted when 
leaks were published about his conversations with Russian Ambassador 
Kislyak.
  I am not here primarily to talk about General Flynn's case. That is 
in the hands of the courts. But the list of Obama-era officials 
provided by Acting Director Grenell gave us some unsettling details 
about the larger context of the whole Russia investigation. If an 
American citizen is intercepted in connection with foreign 
intelligence, the name of that person is masked when intelligence 
reports are disseminated in order to protect their identity and their 
privacy, but it is not unusual for intelligence officials to request 
that somebody be unmasked. It could be critical to a 
counterintelligence investigation or to understanding the nature or 
context of the intelligence.
  Here, over the course of about 6 weeks between late November 2016 and 
January 2017, 39 separate Obama-era officials made unmasking requests--
39. This list is very odd. It included a range of high-ranking 
officials at the Departments of Treasury and Energy and a number of 
Ambassadors and even NATO officials. It extended to the highest levels 
of the Obama administration--U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power, CIA 
Director John Brennan, FBI Director James Comey, the President's Chief 
of Staff Denis McDonough, and even Vice President Biden himself. It 
reads like a guest list for an Obama administration state dinner. It is 
not what you would expect to see for legitimate unmasking requests.
  You have to wonder, why are these high-ranking officials, including 
the Vice President of the United States, unmasking the name of an 
American citizen in foreign intelligence on an eve of the inauguration 
of their successor? Then-U.N. Ambassador Power submitted seven separate 
requests. Director Clapper, then-Director of National Intelligence, 
submitted three. Director Brennan and Secretary Lew each submitted two.
  Somehow--I know this sounds strange, working in Washington, DC--
somehow, once General Flynn's name was unmasked in response to 39 
separate requests from Obama-era officials, that information was leaked 
to the press. In the intelligence community, intelligence is shared 
based on the need to know. What I want to know is, what need did these 
39 Obama-era officials have for this surveillance, which included the 
name of a U.S. citizen? I suspect it was done because--what naturally 
happens next? The more people who know, the more likely the information 
is to leak to the press in service of a narrative.
  While unmasking can be legal if done by the rules, leaking that 
information is not. It is a crime. It is a felony punishable by up to 
10 years in prison.
  As I mentioned, when it comes to understanding this investigation, 
there is a lot of information to sort through. That is why I am glad 
that Chairman Lindsey Graham, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 
plans to hold extensive hearings into this whole mater--something that 
the Presiding Officer and I will participate in as members of that 
committee. But I worry that in the process of leaning in, trying to 
connect the dots in a very complex situation, we could lose sight of 
the big picture.
  It appears that high-ranking officials from a political party used 
their positions to gain and leak information on a political rival. We 
are not just talking about one or two rogue operators here; more than 
three-dozen senior officials released that information to the media 
only 8 days before the end of the Obama administration.
  Add to this the rapidly growing list of wrongs we have learned about 
so far: the inspector general report on the foreign intelligence 
surveillance abuse, the infamous texts between Lisa Page and Peter 
Strzok, the first altered and now missing 302 for Michael Flynn, Susan 
Rice's inauguration day email to herself. Well, there is political 
intrigue and manipulation written all over this.
  Here is the point. Our intelligence community and system of justice 
must not be manipulated for political purposes, and they certainly must 
not be used as a tool to disrupt the peaceful transition of power that 
is the very foundation of our democracy.
  On Monday evening, Attorney General Barr was asked about the 
investigation, and he made a comment that I think appropriately sums up 
the entire issue. He said:

       The proper investigative and prosecutorial standards of the 
     Department of Justice were abused, in my view, in order to 
     reach a particular result. We saw two different standards of 
     justice emerge, one that applied to President Trump and his 
     associates, and the other that applied to everyone else. We 
     can't allow this ever to happen again.

  I agree with the Attorney General.
  This entire matter has been riddled with a combination of 
exploitation, abuse of power, and possible criminality. At the very 
best, it highlights dysfunction, but at worst, it looks like a 
coordinated effort by one administration to abuse its power, to sandbag 
and undermine its successor.
  Despite the time and taxpayer dollars that have been funneled into 
the Russia-related probe, it has provided no evidence of collusion that 
we thought and were told was its object. Instead, it has highlighted 
men and women at the highest levels of government using their positions 
for political purposes. This is a far cry from the peaceful transition 
of power our forefathers wanted and provided for.
  When exiting the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Benjamin Franklin 
was approached by a group of citizens who asked what type of government 
the delegates had created. He famously answered ``a republic, if you 
can keep it.''
  In order to maintain this grand Republic, we must be able to trust 
our institutions, especially law enforcement and the intelligence 
community. We need to respect the choices of the American people in our 
elections, which provides those elected with legitimacy and authority. 
These are essential to a constitutional republic like ours.
  These revelations about actions from Obama administration officials 
undermine that trust, and we must and will get to the bottom of it so 
we can ensure that it never ever happens again.
  I yield the floor
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Blackburn). The Senator from Maryland.


                     Small Business Administration

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I think each person in this body 
recognizes the importance of small business to our economy and to our 
way of life. Small businesses are called the job creator in our 
economy. They create more jobs than larger companies. They provide 
innovative ways in order to move forward on our economy. They can 
figure out better ways to do things more efficiently, meeting the needs 
of the people of our community.
  They are also more vulnerable. They don't have access to the type of 
capital that larger companies have. They don't have the resiliency. So 
when COVID-19 struck, we recognized--those of us in the Senate and the 
House recognized that we had to take special effort to protect the 
economic viability of the small businesses in our country. They did not 
have the reserve capital and they did not have the resiliency to deal 
with this prolonged downturn in our economy.

[[Page S2534]]

  Eight weeks ago, we came together, Democrats and Republicans, by a 
96-to-0 vote and passed the CARES Act. I was proud that a significant 
part of the CARES Act responded to the needs of small businesses.
  We had a working group, a bipartisan working group. Senator Rubio, 
the chairman of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee--I am 
the ranking Democrat--we were joined by Senator Shaheen and Senator 
Collins, and we worked in an expedited way in order to see what we 
could do to help small businesses get through COVID-19.
  The CARES Act provides new opportunities for us to help small 
businesses during this unprecedented disaster. We passed the PPP 
program, the Paycheck Protection Program, and provided $660 billion of 
help for America's small businesses.
  I want to compliment the men and women at the Small Business 
Administration and at Treasury for putting this program together 
literally overnight, and today 4.3 million loans have been given under 
this program that didn't exist just 8 weeks ago.
  There are $513 billion in loans under the Paycheck Protection 
Program. That is quite an accomplishment, but there are challenges. 
There are challenges with any new program, but this program has major 
concerns. When we passed the program, we thought that 8 weeks later, 
our economy would be performing at a much higher level than it is 
today. We need to revisit that.
  A second program that we modified and changed was the Economic Injury 
Disaster Loan Program. We provided an additional $50 billion of funds 
for the EIDL loans so that the Small Business Administration, which 
makes direct loans, could provide $360 billion of additional loans to 
small businesses.
  The EIDL Program works with the PPP program. The PPP program covers 
payroll for 8 weeks, plus some additional expenses. The EIDL Program 
provides working capital so small businesses that have been impacted by 
COVID-19 can stay afloat.
  Here, the results are nowhere near as promising. Only 252,000 loans 
have been issued under the EIDL loan program for under $25 billion. As 
I pointed out earlier, they have the capacity for $360 billion. It has 
been very slow at the SBA in issuing EIDL loans.
  Then we provided for grants under the EIDL Program. Initially, we 
provided $10 billion, and we increased that to $20 billion. Yet the 
number of loans that have been issues or grants that have been issued 
under EIDL--a little over a million--a little over $10 billion. But 
this program has not operated as we intended. We wanted these grants to 
be given within 3 days--we put that in the statute--and we certainly 
didn't expect that the average loan would be between $4,000 and $5,000 
when we gave grants up to $10,000. So challenges exist on both the loan 
and grant program under EIDL.
  Then we provided debt relief for those who have micro-loans or 7(a) 
loans or 504 loans under the SBA--6 months of relief--and, quite 
frankly, we don't know a lot about how that program has been working. 
We don't have much information about it.
  That is what we did 8 weeks ago and then supplemented it with some 
additional funds. What should we do now? The Senate has not finished 
its work as it relates to helping the small businesses of America. We 
still have work we need to do.
  First and foremost, we need to have transparency and data related to 
how these programs are working. Expediency does not excuse transparency 
and accountability. Yes, we wanted to get the money out quickly, and we 
got the money out quickly under the PPP program. That was our desire. 
But we need to have transparency, and we need to have accountability.
  We need to get the geographical information, including how many loans 
can be given in the traditionally underserved communities--minority 
businesses, women-owned businesses, veteran-owned businesses, the rural 
community, and the smaller of the small businesses. We need to get 
information by the size of the business, the number of employees they 
have, the industries, and the lender types. We need to get the numbers 
on how much has gone to the nonprofit community and to affiliates and 
those under the NIC code exception.
  All that is information we need to have in order to carry out our 
responsibilities in the Senate. And, yes, we need to get information 
from the Small Business Administration and from Treasury so that we can 
properly prepare for additional resources that may be needed in order 
to fund these programs.
  This is not a new request that I have made. On April 17, I joined 
with Senator Schumer, Senator Shaheen, and Senator Wyden in a letter to 
Secretary Mnuchin and Administrator Carranza asking for this 
information to be made available on a regular basis. To date, we have 
still not gotten that detailed information.
  So I filed legislation in order to mandate that that data be 
provided, much of that on a daily basis. We tried to get a UC on it, 
and we could not do that, but we had certain promises that information 
would be made available.
  We are still not getting the granular information that is necessary 
for us to properly evaluate this program. We need to get that 
information. We need to have transparency. We have to have 
accountability. You have heard about the highly visible loans that were 
made that were given back by the pro-basketball team and by the larger 
public corporations. We need to see exactly how the money was 
allocated.
  Then there is a second thing we need to do in addition to getting the 
data and having transparency. We need to have a hearing in the Small 
Business and Entrepreneurship Committee with Administrator Carranza 
being there answering questions from the members of the authorizing 
committee as to how this program is working.
  We have to have that public hearing, and, quite frankly, Senator 
Rubio, the chairman of the committee, has been trying to get that for 
us, and he has been rebuffed by the SBA. That is not acceptable. We 
need to have a public hearing. I support Senator Rubio's request that 
we schedule this hearing. It should have been scheduled by now. We 
should have already had this hearing, but we are scheduling it for the 
week we return, the week of June 1, and I hope Administrator Carranza 
will adhere to the request of both the chairman and ranking member to 
be here to answer questions about these programs.
  We have a responsibility. We have appropriated over $700 billion. We 
have a responsibility to conduct an adequate oversight hearing on how 
those funds are being used.
  We need to do more than that. We also need to recognize what is going 
to be the next step and what is going to come next. I will tell you, 
there are certain things that can be done administratively. Some might 
require the action of Congress, but some things can be done 
administratively, and we need to get that done as quickly as possible.
  One of the things we need to get done is to make sure that the 
underserved community gets adequate resources. When we reauthorized the 
extra $310 billion for the PPP program, we allocated $60 billion to 
smaller financial institutions, and that was a step in the right 
direction. I noticed that Secretary Mnuchin mentioned in a hearing this 
week that he was amenable to allocating additional monies to the CDFIs. 
We need to allocate at least $10 billion to the CDFIs and the minority 
depository institutions in order for the resources to be targeted to 
the underserved and the underbanked community. But, quite frankly, I 
think we need to do even more than that.

  I have introduced legislation with Senator Booker that will help to 
develop the financial institutions in the underserved, underbanked 
communities. It will strengthen the abilities of those communities to 
have institutions in place that can help deal with the credit gap in 
the underserved communities. Our legislation would also strengthen the 
SBA tools that serve the underserved communities. We believe all of 
this can be done to help strengthen our commitment, which was in the 
CARES Act, to make sure that all communities are fairly treated with 
the tools that we made available.
  Another thing that we can do immediately is to get the data. That 
information can be made available now. I noticed that Secretary Mnuchin 
has tried to help us get certain data, but we are still not where we 
need to be. We need to get that information now.

[[Page S2535]]

  Another thing we can do--and, quite frankly, I think there is 
bipartisan support and a willingness on behalf of the administration--
is to deal with returning citizens who were denied any ability to 
participate in the PPP program. My goodness, for a person who has paid 
their debt to society, who has returned to the community, who is 
working a small business, should we say no, we are not going to help 
them survive? They have enough challenges out there. We certainly don't 
want to take away their ability to take advantage of tools that are 
available to all Americans in order to help their small businesses. I 
believe there is bipartisan support for this, and we hope that we will 
be able to get that done administratively. After all, the restrictions 
were imposed administratively. They can be removed administratively.
  Then there is another issue that we need to deal with immediately, 
and that is the 8-week restriction that is in the PPP program. It was 
well intended when we passed it. It was based on the dollars that were 
available, and we thought that after 8 weeks, by June, we would see our 
economy back performing at a level in which small businesses could be 
expected to be able to do well. Well, that is clearly not the case. We 
now need to provide additional help to small businesses as it relates 
to the 8-week period.
  We can do that. We recognize that. The monies have already been 
appropriated. This does not really require any additional funding, but 
it will allow us to give small businesses the opportunity to spend the 
money over a longer period of time. Why? Because their businesses 
aren't open. The 8 weeks started the day they got the loan. Yet today 
they are still not at full operation, and some are not at any 
operation.
  So I was pleased to see that the House acted on this by extending 
this to 24 weeks. I hope that we could find common ground, because I 
think there is support on both sides of the aisle and with the 
administration to give greater discretion on that 8-week period so that 
it is a longer period of time and so that the small businesses have the 
opportunity to spend the funds that are under the loan in a way that 
they can get maximum forgiveness of that loan, which will also require 
us to extend the June 30 date for those businesses that need extra time 
in order to bring their workers back.
  I think there is general agreement on this. I hope that we can act 
this week on that provision, because by the time we come back after 
recess, the very first loans that have been issued under the PPP 
program will have reached their 8-week period, where loan forgiveness 
applications are going to start to be processed. We need to act before 
that date. There is a sense of urgency. We need to get that done this 
week, if at all possible, and we should work to try to get that done.
  Let me also point out that, even when we fix the problems with these 
programs--and I hope that by oversight we can get the EIDL Program 
working properly and get those loans out there--we can increase the 
size of the EIDL grants, get more information about the loan 
forgiveness, and get the PPP program working in all communities, 
including the underserved communities, giving more flexibility to 
businesses on the 8-week period.
  We are going to need additional help. Eight weeks of payroll help is 
not going to be enough for many small businesses. So as we start to 
consider the next round, I hope that we will look at a program that is 
targeted to the small businesses that need the help the most.
  When we passed the bill 8 weeks ago, our objective was to get money 
out quickly, and we succeeded in doing that. It was successful. Now we 
need to look at those small businesses that have the greatest need. We 
need to target it to those that have had significant revenue losses. We 
need to target it to the underserved communities. We need to target it 
to the smaller of the small businesses. If we can target the program 
properly, the cost will be much less than the original cost, and we can 
save businesses that otherwise would have a hard time surviving.
  The key to what we did is that we worked together. It was bipartisan 
from the beginning. We need to do that again. Our small businesses, our 
workers, and our economy depend upon our getting this right. I look 
forward to working with my colleagues in order to get this done
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to complete my 
remarks before the vote begins.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Nomination of John F. Heil III

  Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, in a few minutes, the Senate will vote 
on the nomination of John Heil to serve as a district court judge for 
Oklahoma.
  We have three areas in Oklahoma: the Northern District, Eastern 
district, and Western district. This judge position covers all three of 
those, and they move to wherever there is the greatest need, and we are 
in great need. This is a position that we have needed for a while, and 
I am proud that John Heil has gone through this process. He was 
overwhelmingly confirmed in his nomination process through committee. I 
expect him to have wide bipartisan support when it passes this floor in 
a few moments and look forward to him transitioning from being a great 
attorney in our State to being a great judge to serve the people of 
Oklahoma and the United States on the Federal bench. So I am looking 
forward to that vote being completed.


                              Memorial Day

  Madam President, in the days ahead, we will celebrate Decoration Day. 
Decoration Day was first declared locally in 1866, after the Civil War. 
It was a day to remember those who gave their lives in battle for our 
country by decorating the graves and remembering their sacrifice.
  Now we call it Memorial Day. We remember all of those who have given 
their lives for our Nation. It is, unfortunately, not those who just 
gave their lives long past. Unfortunately, it is still in the painful 
present.
  Last weekend, I sat in the agonizing funeral of TSgt Marshal Roberts, 
who was killed by rocket fire just 2\1/2\ months ago. He was in the 
process of getting others to safety when a rocket took his life. He is 
the first Oklahoman air guardsman to ever lose his life in battle. This 
Memorial Day will be very different for his wife, his daughter, their 
family, and the State of Oklahoma, because it is not just a day about 
sleeping in and sales on dishwashers and cars. It will evoke the memory 
of TSgt Marshal Roberts and the hundreds of thousands of others like 
him. They gave their everything for the sake of our liberty. Those men 
and women are not forgotten. They are our heroes, and this Memorial Day 
we will remember


                              Agriculture

  Madam President, in this time, it is interesting to note that, with 
all that is going on, America is still eating, and America is still 
moving because there are essential workers who are still serving. They 
are healthcare workers. They are grocery store workers. They are 
truckers. They are folks at convenience stores, gas stations, 
sanitation workers, and in power generation. They are farmers and 
ranchers. They are the refineries. Yes, they are even in government--
public safety and law enforcement.
  While the news every day covers folks who are at home waiting to 
return to work, at times we forget the people who are working twice as 
hard right now to be able to make sure that is even possible. And we 
are grateful for what they are doing. We are grateful for the 
sacrifices of their families and of the hours they are putting in.
  But I want to highlight a couple of different groups that are unique 
in this mix--some of the folks who are really and truly behind the 
scenes and whom we really don't see a lot, but we see the end result of 
their products.
  Let me start with farmers and ranchers. They are folks who are on the 
farm and the ranch, and they are taking care of our food because, as we 
know well, food does not grow in a grocery store. It actually has to 
happen somewhere by folks putting in the workout in the Sun and getting 
the chance to be able to bring that crop in.
  We are watching it happen across my State and across the country 
right now. In Oklahoma, wheat is coming in, and it looks beautiful. It 
is green still, but in the days ahead, as it comes in, it will be very 
important to us. But it will be interesting to see this crop, if it

[[Page S2536]]

is not taken out by the hail that is coming in this weekend. As it 
comes in, this crop will be very important to us. But this year the 
challenge will be that the H2A workers who typically come in literally 
from all over the world to do custom cutting are not able to come 
because of the coronavirus. And the challenge will be this: Will 
Americans step up when, literally, the harvest is plentiful, but the 
workers are few? Will Americans step up and say: I will not let that 
harvest go to waste; I will engage and bring the harvest in.
  Folks who are in forestry--yes, forestry and logging is a crop in 
Oklahoma. For those of you who haven't been there, it is the eastern 
side of our State. It is incredibly important to us. We are seeing a 
boom in that area, thanks to things like a great need for boxes, for 
everyone who is getting all of their materials shipped to their house 
right now and this small commodity we call toilet paper, for which 
there seems to be a run on going on right now.
  Cotton, corn, sorghum, beans--there are so many things that are so 
important and behind the scenes. If we lose sight of that fact, we will 
just miss it.
  One of the things that has been in the news lately is livestock and 
the processing of the livestock. There has been news about how 
coronavirus has spread in some of those facilities. I have one of those 
facilities in my State. It is Seaboard. It is a tremendous operation, 
where folks have worked for decades in a tremendous place to be able to 
harvest those hogs and to turn them into fabulous things like bacon and 
pork chops.
  In this location in Texas County, in Guymon, we have seen an 
outbreak. The folks at Seaboard Farms have stepped up to it. Ninety-
five percent of their workers have now been tested, and they are in the 
process of actually doing an entirely different test all over again 
just to be able to track and to be able to find, even for the people 
who were negative, if they will show up positive the next time and to 
make sure they are staying on top of it. But they are running at 60 
percent operation right now. That may not seem like a big deal to you, 
but that is about 7,000 hogs a day that are not being harvested. They 
are having to be--what is euphemistically called--depopulated. That is 
a tremendous loss to everybody in the entire country.
  We are seeing major issues that are also happening with our beef 
production, as we have had enormous issues on trying to harvest those 
animals.
  As we go through the process and all the challenges, it has become 
extremely personal to a lot of the folks in my State. In my State, this 
is not just a theory. In my State, this is actually happening to real 
people. It is Jim Howard, a fourth-generation rancher, who ranches in 
Jefferson County. His whole family--his brother, his wife, his 
grandson, his sons-in-law--everyone is involved in the operation. They 
are ranching cows, calves, and stockers. They have a food lot 
operation. They have it all. But at this point, they are facing between 
35 and 40 percent loss in the price of cattle. Literally, he loses 
money on every single cow.
  It is Robert Frymire, from Custer County. He is a third-generation 
wheat and cattle farmer. Using today's wheat prices, even with the crop 
that is coming in, he will lose $150,000 this year on his wheat crop, 
not to mention what is going to happen on the beef cattle.
  There is a reason we are trying to put solutions in the CARES Act. 
There is a reason we put $19 billion there to help our food supply, and 
$3 billion dollars of that has gone toward providing for our food 
pantries and nonprofits and places to be able to get food out to people 
so that food doesn't go to waste. But there is direct aid that is going 
to farmers and ranchers to make sure we keep those operations alive 
long term, because we need them to exist at the end of this. We are 
grateful to be able to come alongside of them.
  There are real challenges in the packing operations that are not new. 
They have been around for a while. We are pushing in a couple of areas 
to say: We have to solve a couple of these problems. Our small packing 
houses that are out there pay almost $80 an hour for overtime fees. 
That is $80 an hour for each inspector to do overtime. So if we have a 
location like Seaboard Farms that goes down, and they want to be able 
to go out to another location and to ramp up, they are actually 
financially punished from being able to do that, and they can't make 
the math work. We have to solve that so that we are not punishing small 
to medium-sized operations for ramping up in moments when we need them. 
And we need the small and medium-sized businesses to be able to ramp up 
and grow larger.

  And we have to solve the issue of the CIS Program, which is allowing 
folks to be able to sell over State lines. Twenty-seven States, 
including my own, have State inspection programs that are equal to the 
USDA program. They have to be equal to it, but they are still not 
allowed to sell over State lines until they get the CIS Program done, 
and only three States have been able to complete that. This should be 
logical. We should be able to solve this.
  Those two things would allow long-term fixes for the packing house 
operations. It is something we have complained about for a long time, 
and we should have solved this at this moment because it has become 
even more obvious.
  The issues about energy continue to rise for us. As a nation, we are 
finally energy independent--finally. We choose to buy energy from 
places where we want to buy energy because we can produce it ourselves, 
but we cannot go backward to a time period when we were dependent on 
the Middle East again because of what has happened with COVID-19. We 
have to pay attention to this. There are commonsense solutions, and I 
understand full well that there are some folks who don't like fossil 
fuels. I get it, but those same folks fly on planes and drive cars and 
trucks. And we like wearing clothes, and we like having paint. And as 
for all of those things that are disposable now, like PPE, guess what 
they are made of. Petroleum. There is this whole challenge about trying 
to get away from petroleum. It has been interesting to me how many 
people have suddenly gone from ``let's reuse everything'' to the last 2 
months saying: No, actually, we want to have disposable everything now. 
Well, guess what. Those disposable items are made with petroleum 
products.
  We do need this balance. We can do it clean, but we have to be able 
to keep this part of industry open and still functioning. And if the 
whole system collapses, we will not be able to do that.
  Many of you know that my State is a production State. At times, we 
will have hundreds of wells for oil and gas running. Right now, in the 
entire State of Oklahoma, there are 12 rigs working--12. That is the 
collapse of thousands and thousands of jobs, and if those jobs and 
those companies go away and do not recover, then, we are suddenly 
dependent on the Middle East again. We cannot go there. We have to 
resolve that. That is why the Paycheck Protection Program was opened up 
to small businesses--and, yes, even energy companies--to help sustain 
them for a couple of months to be able to get through this. But it is 
going to be a very big challenge for them.
  Quite frankly, there is something that is news to this body that I 
want to raise. In 2007, long before I was in Congress, Congress passed 
an act dealing with ethanol, mandating a certain number of gallons of 
ethanol to be used every year. Well, guess what. America wasn't driving 
in March and in April. That means we are not going to be close to the 
number of gallons of gasoline that we normally use, but we still have a 
requirement sitting out there for the number of gallons of ethanol that 
have to be used this year. We literally have an energy-ticking 
timebomb, based on a bad law that was written years ago dealing with 
ethanol, and if we are not careful, we are going to cause even bigger 
challenges in energy based on that ethanol law and the number of 
gallons that are required when there is literally no way, even if we 
poured it on the ground, that we can use the gallons required in that 
law.
  That is going to be an issue for us, and it is one that we need to 
work cooperatively on and in a nonpartisan way to say: Let's have some 
common sense in this moment to solve how we deal with our energy, lest 
the prices of gasoline explode at the backside of this, not because of 
undersupply but because of ethanol regulations. We

[[Page S2537]]

should not allow that to occur. We should be able to not only solve 
that for this year but solve it long term.
  I am grateful for the folks who are farmers and ranchers who are 
working, and in energy, the folks who work behind the scenes, who make 
America move, because in the days ahead, we will start moving.
  My State has already reached phase 2 of reopening, and we continue to 
see a decline in the number of cases, but those folks who were working 
behind the scenes the whole time are making the difference for us.


                           Order of Procedure

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate vote on 
confirmation of the Ratcliffe nomination at noon tomorrow. I further 
ask that, notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, the cloture vote 
with respect to the Badalamenti nomination occur at 1:30 p.m. tomorrow. 
Further, I ask that if cloture is invoked on the nomination, the 
postcloture time be deemed expired and the confirmation vote occur at 
5:30 p.m. on Monday, June 1. Finally, I ask that if either of the 
nominations are confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made 
and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of 
the Senate's action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Vote on the Heil Nomonation

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the Heil nomination?
  Mr. CARDIN. 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 senior assistant 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 Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), 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 Vermont (Mr. Leahy), 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 (Mr. Cramer). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 75, nays 17, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 100 Ex.]

                                YEAS--75

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

                                NAYS--17

     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hirono
     Klobuchar
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murray
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Van Hollen
     Warren
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Alexander
     Burr
     Leahy
     Markey
     Murkowski
     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 Senate's actions.
  The Senator from Tennessee.

                          ____________________