June 3, 2020 - Issue: Vol. 166, No. 103 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 2nd Session

[Pages S2679-S2686]
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 legislative clerk read the nomination of Drew B. Tipton, of 
Texas, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of 
Texas.
  Thereupon, the Senate proceeded to consider the nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 7010

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, in a moment I will ask unanimous consent 
to pass legislation that makes urgently needed reforms to the PPP to 
make the program much more functional for all--underline ``all''--small 
businesses.
  Let me just name a few of the changes. First, it expands the loan 
period from 8 weeks to 24 weeks. Currently, workers may be brought back 
for the 8 weeks, but what good is it if they are again laid off after 
that short period? It is unrealistic, and small businesses need 
assistance that can cover the full length of this crisis.
  Second, the legislation removes the 25-percent restriction imposed by 
the Trump administration on the use of loans for fixed costs, rents, 
mortgages, utilities, and replaces it with new 60-40 payroll-to-
nonpayroll expenses. This change will continue PPP's support in getting 
workers back on the payroll but giving small businesses more 
flexibility to survive in this crisis, which is essential to the long-
term employment prospect of the workers.
  For my home State of New York, we have high rents, high utility 
costs. Many businesses were frozen out when there was 25 percent, but 
40 percent will get them in, and that applies to the more high-cost 
areas throughout the country. Even though these are small businesses, 
they are struggling under those costs.
  Third, the proposal extends the program to the end of the year and 
makes December 31 the deadline to rehire workers in order to get full 
forgiveness on the loan. We have a long way to go before the economy 
will come back in real ways. This will give businesses a more realistic 
timeline to get the help they need while bringing back employees.
  The bill ensures any amounts of the loan not forgiven will have at 
least a 5-

[[Page S2680]]

year term of repayment so that small businesses will not be saddled 
with the need to be repaid within 2 years. The impact of this crisis is 
long-lasting and requires lenient terms. We have all heard from small 
businesses in our States that while they are glad there is a program--
they would have gone under without it; it is a very good thing--it 
needed some changes to make it work for so many small businesses that 
have been left out or rejected.
  I say to small businesses across the country: After this changes, 
apply again even if you applied the first time because it will be 
easier to meet the requirements and criteria.
  This is not controversial. The House of Representatives passed this 
legislation with a vote of 417 to 1. We can't wait any longer. 
Businesses are really suffering for lack of these changes, and to wait 
and wait and wait--if someone wants to make changes, let's do it when 
we get to the Heroes bill, to COVID 4. But to delay another week or 2 
weeks or 3 weeks to get this all bollixed up--we can't afford to wait. 
Our small businesses cannot afford to wait. These changes are 
universally agreed to as good ones, and we shouldn't let someone who 
wants a small change say: Let's stop it until we go forward.
  The bill has the broad support of small businesses across industries, 
mom-and-pop restaurants, underserved businesses, minority businesses, 
nonprofits that have been hit hard by this pandemic. It should be 
passed by the Senate right now.
  These fixes will not solve every problem in PPP. Too many underserved 
small businesses and minority small businesses are still struggling to 
get the help they need in these troubled times. These will not diminish 
in any way the urgency of passing legislation like the Heroes Act, 
which provides additional help not only for businesses but for 
homeowners, renters, essential workers, medical facilities, local and 
State governments, and more. Our Republican colleagues must come to the 
table and work with us to pass future reforms.
  Nor will it divert our caucus in its quest for police reform and 
racial justice. We have to do that as well.
  But today we have an opportunity to pass meaningful reforms that our 
small businesses need now. We must get this done. Businesses are going 
under every day. Small businesses that have struggled and sweated--my 
dad's was one of them--that need help and can't get help because of 
certain problems in this bill will be so relieved when we pass this 
legislation, which has already passed the House.
  I want to particularly thank two people on our side who have worked 
long and hard on this legislation, who will speak now. One is Senator 
Cardin from Maryland, the ranking member of the Committee on Small 
Business, and one is Senator Shaheen, the senior Senator from New 
Hampshire, who is also a very active member of the Small Business 
Committee. I hope that passing this legislation in a bipartisan way as 
it did in the House will give us momentum to keep working on the 
medical, economic, and racial crises that still affect our Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first, let me thank Senator Schumer for 
bringing this issue to the floor at this time. Senator Schumer has been 
a great leader on what we need to do to help respond to COVID-19. He 
recognized from the beginning that we needed a balanced program to deal 
with the health pandemic, with the Marshall Plan, to deal with the help 
to our State and local governments, and to deal with the economic 
consequences of COVID-19.
  Senator Schumer helped us develop a balanced approach to deal with 
the economic challenges while, yes, helping the individual through 
unemployment insurance and direct checks from the IRS but also helping 
our businesses. For small businesses we created new tools; for larger 
businesses we had loans.
  I was proud to be part of a task force that was charged with 
developing the tools for small business. I want to thank my partner 
Senator Shaheen for her incredible help and leadership in crafting the 
programs of the Paycheck Protection Program while also dealing with the 
economic disaster loan program, which was new and a loan forgiveness 
program.
  We did this working with Senators Rubio and Collins. It was truly 
bipartisan. We did it in a matter of literally a few days--a week or 
so, and we were able to get this program crafted in a way that it 
provided incredible relief to the small businesses of our country.
  So today, what is the record? There are 4.4 million loans that have 
been issued under the Paycheck Protection Program, and $510 billion has 
been made available to small businesses in this country. It literally 
has been a lifeline allowing small companies to continue to exist. You 
see, with small companies, we get more job growth than bigger 
companies. We get ideas on how to deal with economic challenges. But in 
economic downturns they don't have the liquidity and resilience that 
larger companies have. That is why we had to pass this type of help. We 
did that in March, and when we passed those bills in March, quite 
frankly we thought that by now the economy would be in a much better 
shape than it is and that small businesses would be able to return to 
somewhat of a normal economy. Well, that is not the case.
  We recognize that certain businesses--such as those in the 
hospitality field, health clubs, caterers, museums, and the list goes 
on and on--have virtually not been able to open at all yet, and they 
are going to need more help than just the 8 weeks that was planned in 
the Paycheck Protection Program. That is why the legislation that 
passed the House was part of this bipartisan, bicameral effort to give 
additional flexibility for those who had the paycheck protection plan 
loans. We recognize now that 8 weeks is not long enough, and that is 
why this legislation would change that 8 weeks to 24 weeks, giving 
small businesses a greater opportunity to qualify for a maximum amount 
of loan forgiveness and giving small businesses more flexibility on how 
they allocate those funds between payroll and nonpayroll expenses.
  As we heard today in our first oversight hearing in the Small 
Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, small businesses are 
different. Maybe 8 weeks works for some, but maybe it doesn't work for 
others. Maybe 75 percent of payroll works for one but doesn't work for 
another. We need a program that can fit the vast majority of small 
businesses, and the changes represented in the House bill represents 
those changes that if we had recognized in March that this pandemic 
would have continuing impact on our economy well beyond 8 weeks, would 
have certainly been considered during that period of time.
  Now is the time to pass this. I just want to underscore this point. 
The 8 weeks will expire for the first loans that were issued under the 
PPP program next week. Small businesses need predictability. They need 
to know whether this is going to be the law or not before they apply 
for their forgiveness. So we don't have any extra time. We need to pass 
this right now. It is a bipartisan effort and is a bipartisan bill.
  What Senator Schumer said is absolutely correct. We will have other 
opportunities to deal with other provisions to help small businesses. 
We are not finished. We recognize that there are small businesses that 
may need additional help, particularly those who have seen dramatic 
reductions in their revenues and the smaller of the small businesses 
and those underserved communities. We need to pay attention to do 
something about that. But let's get this program working right today. 
Let's give the notices to small businesses and get this passed through 
the Senate today so that small businesses can plan on how to deal with 
the next several months.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am so pleased to be able to join 
Leader Schumer and my colleague and ranking member of the small 
business committee, Senator Cardin. I am grateful for his leadership 
and for the partnership that we had back in March with Senators Rubio 
and Collins. It truly was a bipartisan partnership to try and address 
the challenges that small businesses are facing across this country.
  In New Hampshire small businesses are our lifeblood. They were going

[[Page S2681]]

under because of this pandemic, so the Paycheck Protection Program has 
been a lifesaver. But we know there are things that need to change 
about it in order for it to continue to help those businesses.
  In New Hampshire we have 22,000 small businesses and nonprofits that 
have received over $2.5 billion in forgivable loans under the program.
  But we have also heard from many of those businesses that there are 
improvements and fixes that are necessary, businesses like The Little 
Grille, a New Hampshire restaurant with locations in Littleton and 
Woodsville. They said that PPP has been a lifesaver. But they have only 
2 weeks remaining on their forgivable term, and if the terms of the 
loan are not addressed, the owners of The Little Grille told us that 
they will be back in the same position they were at the start of the 
pandemic, and they may be forced to lay off staff.
  We have heard from the Portsmouth Brewery, which received their PPP 
loan, and they want to rehire their 28 employees but they need more 
flexibility and extensions to the program to resume operations.
  Then, of course, we have heard from Big Dave's Bagels & Deli in North 
Conway. His 32-year-old bakery was predominantly takeout before the 
pandemic, but he was able to keep his employees on and offer hazard pay 
because his approval for the PPP loan came through at the very end of 
April. Now he needs flexibility and loan terms if he is going to keep 
his employees on the payroll.
  I could go on and on with example after example, but the important 
thing is, as Senators Schumer and Cardin have said so eloquently, those 
first loans are about to end, and if we don't do something to help 
those businesses, they are going to be back in the same place that they 
were in in March when the shelter-at-home and the stay-at-home orders 
began in New Hampshire and across this country.
  So we need to do something. This legislation addresses the concerns 
that people have expressed. I think we also need to provide additional 
funding or additional help over the next month until things open back 
up in the economy.
  But, in the short term, the legislation addresses the concerns that 
we have been hearing from small businesses, and I hope we are going to 
see our colleagues pass it by unanimous consent so that there is some 
certainty for those businesses as they try and open back up in this 
very difficult environment.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, let me thank my colleagues from 
Maryland and New Hampshire for their eloquence.
  Again, we need to act now. We have waited long enough to make these 
changes. The House passed them 417 to 1. There may be changes people 
want to make, but I would urge that we pass this bill now--we pass this 
bill immediately--because small businesses need the certainty. In the 
next week or two, many will be affected negatively if we don't get this 
legislation passed.
  So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of H.R. 710, which was received from the House; that the 
bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Blackburn). Is there objection?
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I 
appreciate my colleague's desire to help small businesses. I really 
don't think there is a stronger advocate in support of small business 
in all of Congress. I think I have proved that with my work in tax 
reform, fighting for 95 percent of American businesses that are pass-
through entities.
  I think my colleagues on the floor here today realize that what the 
House passed has one very significant flaw in it--probably a technical 
drafting error but a significant flaw--which says that if you don't 
spend 60 percent of the PPP loan on payroll, you get no forgiveness, 
which was a dramatic difference from what it was when you had 75 
percent.
  I am in favor of all those changes. As Senator Shaheen pointed out, 
there are a lot of problems with PPP that need to be corrected. My only 
objection is, before we authorize this and put an authorization date 
all the way to December 31, we need to make sure those changes are 
made.
  So my only objection is we should not extend this authorization 
without significant reforms that I hope my colleagues would all agree 
with; for example, the fact that many businesses--again, I am not 
denying that PPP provided very swift funding to businesses that truly 
needed it. It was a real lifeline. It worked from that standpoint.
  But, in our case, we all knew that we had to do something massive, we 
had to do something quick, but we also knew it was going to be far from 
perfect. In our haste in crafting this, we made it possible for many 
businesses that didn't need it at all to have access to those funds, 
and we don't have an unlimited checking account.
  When we give money to support businesses that don't need it, we are 
going to have less money to give to those that truly do need it.
  Unfortunately, what we are down to here with this unanimous consent 
request--we have been working in good faith with the sponsors of the 
House bill, with the Republican leadership. I reached out to the 
Democratic leader, saying that we are very close; I think we will 
probably be able to pass the House bill, with assurances, by unanimous 
consent, just not at this moment.
  So, again, I appreciate their thoughts. I am really not disagreeing 
with the fact that we have to do something. I want to do something as 
well. I just want to make sure that if we do put more money into this 
thing, it is not going to be flowing to businesses that don't need it, 
thereby denying those businesses that truly do need it in a more 
targeted fashion.
  So, Madam President, I object
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I respect the good faith and sincerity 
in my colleague from Wisconsin.
  I would say this: If we change this bill and then go to conference 
with the House, we risk too much delay. We should move the bill now. We 
are willing to, certainly, look at the changes that my colleague from 
Wisconsin proposes, and we can do that in a UC tomorrow, next week, 
whenever--but not hold this bill up because, even if the Senator is 
right in his interpretation--which may be right; it may be wrong--it 
doesn't affect 95 percent of the businesses in the next few weeks that 
need help.
  So we ought to pass this bill, help the urgent needs that those 
businesses have, and whatever corrections that my colleague from 
Wisconsin wishes to make, I am sure my colleagues from Maryland and New 
Hampshire and I would look at it. But to hold this bill up now, which 
passed 417 to 1 in the House and which does so many good and needed 
things, unaffected by the provision that he is having trouble with, I 
think would be a sincere mistake.
  So I would ask him to reconsider. We need to pass this bill today.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Will the Democratic leader yield?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. JOHNSON. What we are working on is not a change to this 
legislation. The way we are working this we will still be able to pass 
this piece of legislation unamended, unchanged, with a letter of intent 
from the chairs and the ranking members of the Small Business 
Committees of both the House and the Senate--together with a commitment 
from the majority leader--and we can pass this as-is.
  We don't have to delay it. We are just this close. I am objecting at 
this time. Give us a little bit more time to work out that method, and 
then we will be able to pass this measure without amendment--no 
changes--pass this and then work in good faith together to make those 
changes I think we all agree need to be changed in the future.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Will my colleague from Wisconsin yield for a question?
  Mr. JOHNSON. Sure.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Do I understand that you think you will have some 
resolution of this by this afternoon, so you expect at that point to 
come back in with another UC request to pass this bill?

[[Page S2682]]

  

  Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. With cooperation from the chairmen and the ranking 
members of both committees, I think we will be able to get this thing 
done.
  Again, our request is really very simple. I am not the only one. We 
don't want to see this program automatically reauthorized until the end 
of December. Now, there is some dispute as to whether the language 
actually does that. It sounds like the intent was not to do that; it 
was just to allow people to spend money through the end of December, 
which we have no problem with.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. That is my understanding of the bill; it doesn't allow 
you to apply for the loan through December.
  Mr. JOHNSON. So, again, CRS actually interprets it as a full 
authorization, so we just need to show what that true intent is, put 
that letter into the Congressional Record so that we are certain that 
we are not reauthorizing this or authorizing it through December 31; 
that the authorization does end June 30 so that, if we do want to put 
more funds into a program like PPP, that new program will have the type 
of directed reforms that I think we really could gain agreement on.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I thank my colleague. I would simply 
say that it seems to me he has it a little backward.
  We should pass this bill and then work on the changes--not hold this 
bill up. Who knows what can happen? Maybe it will happen today; maybe 
it will not. We have the moment to do it now. We waited 2\1/2\ days. We 
could have done the UC Monday. We waited until Wednesday afternoon. We 
are leaving here tomorrow at about 1.
  The House is not in session now. It would be very, very wise and 
helpful to small business--and I have talked to many of them all across 
the country--to pass this bill now, and then we will work in good faith 
on the small change that my colleague wished to have.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I yield.
  Mr. JOHNSON. The way we are working this out, there would be no 
change required, just a letter for the Congressional Record stating 
what I believe the intent was, just to allow people to spend to the end 
of December. We are just working out the details of that language, and 
then we will be able to allow this to pass by unanimous consent.
  By the way, I have gotten other Members who are objecting to this to 
agree to this as well.
  So just give us a little bit more time; agree to that language. 
Hopefully, the ranking member would agree with that letter for the 
Congressional Record. Pass this bill, unchanged. Then, in the future--
because this PPP will expire June 30, but the need does not.
  If you read my article in the Wall Street Journal, I have a number 
of, I think, innovative ideas for what we can do to help restore 
capital for businesses that are going to need it to reopen our economy, 
and I would love to work very closely.
  I obviously have experience in businesses and small businesses and 
would like to work with the chairman and ranking member of the Small 
Business Committee
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. If the Senator would yield, he has mentioned several 
different issues. I appreciate the fact that we are trying to get this 
done today and that he is indicating we have a path forward to get this 
completed this afternoon and the House bill to the President, which is 
our objective, so that small business owners understand--24 weeks 
before their loans expire and understand the additional flexibility on 
how they can spend the money because they are making those decisions, 
literally, today.
  The Senator mentioned several different issues that he is concerned 
about, but it appears that the one area in which he is seeking 
consensus here deals with the authority to issue a loan under the PPP 
program through June of this year, which is what the law is, and I 
don't believe it is changed by the House bill. Is that the issue for 
which you are seeking to get consensus from the ranking member and 
chairman?
  Mr. JOHNSON. I believe so. Again, there is a dispute as to what the 
language actually says. Again, I have no problem with the full $660 
billion that has already been appropriated to be spent whenever. But I 
don't want to reauthorize the program past June 30 without the types of 
reforms that we can talk about. Then we will pass it through regular 
order.
  What I am suggesting here is to just wait until we have this letter 
of intent for the Record. We are just asking the chairman or ranking 
member of the Small Business Committees of both houses to agree to and 
sign, and then we will pass this bill as-is, unchanged, to give those 
small businesses the certainty we want to provide them.
  Mr. CARDIN. I am just trying to figure out what I am supposed to be 
signing as ranking member of the committee. If I understand--because 
the Senator had mentioned problems with the 60 percent----
  Mr. JOHNSON. We will deal with those in the future.
  Mr. CARDIN. I just want to make sure we have----
  Mr. JOHNSON. I have no demands other than one--again, we are so 
close. We are first working it out on our side, and then we will 
consult you, and maybe we will pass it yet tonight or early tomorrow 
morning. That is my goal as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, if my friend from Wisconsin is willing 
to delay the other changes he wants and try to work those out, it would 
make eminent sense to delay this one, as well, and try to work that out 
and pass this bill. You never know what happens.
  We should pass it today, not wait for tomorrow. We should pass it 
now, not wait a few hours. Lord knows what can happen. Businesses are 
crying out.
  I think our moving here will move the process forward. It wouldn't 
have moved as quickly as if we didn't move the bill, but it is still a 
better bet to help small businesses, even with the concern my colleague 
has, to pass this bill now.
  I would make one final plea: Let's pass it now. If not, we should 
pass it today.
  Mr. JOHNSON. I am happy to come back or let you come back and ask for 
unanimous consent if we get this hammered out, and I will not object. 
But, at this point, I am going to object until we get this hammered 
out.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I rise today as the United States of 
America, again, faces the enormous challenge and responsibility of 
striving to live up to the preamble of the Constitution of the United 
States.
  The preamble provides: ``We the People of the United States, in Order 
to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic 
Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general 
Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our 
Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United 
States of America.''
  I note that our Founders, who were far from perfect when it came to 
racial issues, thought that justice was more important than domestic 
tranquility. They listed justice first.
  Today, America is grieving over the brutal and unnecessary death of 
George Floyd in Minneapolis on May 25. Both State and Federal law 
enforcement officers are moving quickly to bring the police officers in 
this case to justice and hold them accountable for their actions, as 
Mr. Floyd's cries of ``I can't breathe'' went unanswered as the life 
drained out of him.
  Video taken by several witnesses show that George Floyd--who was 
Black and was unarmed--was handcuffed and pinned to the ground by a 
police officer who held his knee against Mr. Floyd's neck as he pleaded 
for his life. Mr. Floyd was on the ground, repeatedly telling the 
officer that he could not breathe. And despite the fact that bystanders 
are all heard on video begging the officer to relent, he did not remove 
his knee from Mr. Floyd's neck until after an ambulance arrived.
  Eventually Mr. Floyd lost consciousness. He was pronounced dead after 
being transported to a local hospital.
  As leaders, regardless of party, we cannot stay silent about George

[[Page S2683]]

Floyd's death. Black lives matter. George Floyd was a father, a son, 
and a brother. His life mattered. He did not need to die. He and his 
family deserve justice. How many other Black men and women have died at 
the hands of law enforcement or vigilante civilians due to the color of 
their skin but have not been caught on video? Those victims deserve 
justice too.
  We must act, working together, to fundamentally reform the ways 
police across this Nation interact with the communities they serve.
  On Monday night, President Trump once again failed to lead this 
Nation in a time of crisis, and he has forfeited his moral authority as 
President. Spraying tear gas at peaceful protesters to clear a path for 
a photo op is opposite of American values and basic human rights. It 
violates civil and human rights under any circumstances.
  President Trump fans the flames of racism and seeks to divide 
Americans for political purposes, just as he did in Charlottesville and 
far too many places since. He seems willfully blind to the reason 
people are protesting in the first place--to end systematic racism in 
the repeated and tragic targeting of Blacks by law enforcement.
  Congress, finally, must act to pass a comprehensive plan to reform 
police community relations, improve training and hiring of police 
officers, and hold police accountable for misconduct and use of 
excessive force. We must rebuild trust between the police and the 
communities they serve.
  For those who are asking ``Why did it take so long?'' the answer is 
``We have been trying.'' It should not have taken so long, but year 
after year too many of my colleagues have put partisanship before 
justice and equality.
  As both the House and Senate prepare to hold hearings on police 
reform and racial profiling issues, I want to bring to my colleagues' 
attention two pieces of legislation that I have filed: The End Racial 
and Religious Profiling Act and the Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity 
Act. If enacted, these two bills could make an enormous difference and 
constitute a giant step forward in reforming police departments in 
America and rebuilding trust between police officers and the 
communities they are sworn to protect and serve.
  The End Racial and Religious Profiling Act is designed to enforce the 
constitutional right to equal protection under the law by eliminating 
racial profiling at all levels of law enforcement by changing the 
policies and procedures underlying the practice.
  First, the bill provides a prohibition on racial profiling, 
enforceable by declaratory or injunctive relief. It creates a standard 
definition of racial profiling, which now includes religion, gender, 
and other protected categories for Federal, State, and local law 
enforcement, enforcing criminal, civil, and immigration laws.
  Can law enforcement still provide a detailed description of a suspect 
that includes race? The answer is yes. But the bill prohibits blanket 
targeting solely based on race or one of the other protected 
categories.
  This bill also mandates training on racial profiling issues as part 
of Federal law enforcement training, the collection of data on all 
routine and spontaneous investigatory activities, and the creation of 
procedures for receiving, investigating, and responding meaningfully to 
complaints alleging racial profiling by law enforcement.
  Systematic racism will not disappear overnight. We must engage all 
law enforcement in aggressive training and then have data to show where 
there is progress and where challenges remain. Our bill authorizes the 
Department of Justice grants for the development and implementation of 
best policing practices.
  The second bill is the Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act that I 
have filed. The Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act takes a 
comprehensive approach at addressing the issue of police accountability 
and building trust between police departments and their communities.
  This legislation provides incentives for local police organizations 
to voluntarily adopt performance-based standards to ensure that 
instances of misconduct will be minimized through appropriate 
management, training, and oversight protocols. The bill provides that 
if such incidents do occur, they will be properly investigated.
  The bill provides police officers--the vast majority of whom perform 
their job professionally, putting their lives on the line daily, 
protecting their communities--with the tools necessary to improve 
community relations and enhance their professional growth and 
education.
  It authorizes $25 million for additional expenses related to the 
enforcement of civil rights statutes, including compliance with consent 
decrees or judgments regarding police misconduct brought by the 
Department of Justice.
  In Baltimore City, for example, the Baltimore Police Department 
voluntarily entered into a consent decree in 2017 with the U.S. 
Department of Justice to overhaul the police department. An earlier 
Department of Justice report had found a widespread pattern and 
practice of illegal and unconstitutional conduct by the Baltimore 
Police Department through targeting African-American residents for 
disproportionate and disparate treatment.
  The legislation I have authored also authorizes appropriations for 
additional expenses related to conflict resolution, including programs 
managed by the Department of Justice's Community Relations Services 
within the Civil Rights Division.
  I am pleased that, to date, the protests in Baltimore have been 
largely peaceful, especially compared to 2015 after the death of 
Freddie Gray in Baltimore Police Department custody.
  I do hope my fellow Americans look to Baltimore in 2020 as an example 
for how to peacefully protest and petition the government for redress 
of grievances, as Baltimore has willingly agreed to work with the U.S. 
Department of Justice to overhaul its entire police force so that 
policing its citizens is both fair and effective.
  As many of my colleagues have said before, ``Civil Rights is still 
the unfinished business of America.'' Prejudice, discrimination, and 
outright racism continues to limit the lives of the large number of our 
people. We must continue the struggle today in order to make urgent 
progress.
  As I close, I am reminded of my dear friend, the late Representative 
Elijah Cummings, who died last year. He was a fellow Baltimorean and 
fellow graduate of the University of Maryland Law School. He gave the 
eulogy for Freddie Gray in 2015, who died after being arrested and 
taken into police department custody.
  During the church service, he closed with a quote from the Book of 
Amos:

       I want justice, oceans of it. I want fairness, rivers of 
     it. That's what I want. That's all I want.

  Elijah also asked a pointed question of those of us at the funeral 
that day, as well as to the news cameras that were broadcasting the 
event nationally and around the world. Elijah asked: ``Did anyone 
recognize Freddie when he was alive . . . did anyone see him?''
  Elijah asked whether society had done all that it could have done 
when Gray was ``struggling to simply be all God meant for him to be?''
  Today, I ask my fellow Americans to ask that question when it comes 
to the lives of not only George Floyd but Tony McDade, Sean Reed, 
Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery. I say here today to Black Americans: 
I see you. I hear you. You are men and women. You have families. You 
have the same rights as every other individual in this country.
  In a 2019 interview with ``60 Minutes,'' Steve Kroft noted as 
follows:

       Cummings is not a patient man. It's a lesson he learned 
     from his late grandmother, who imparted her mindset shortly 
     before she died. White people, she told him, had been telling 
     African Americans to wait--and he shouldn't.
       She says, ``Your daddy, he been waiting and waiting and 
     waiting for a better day,'' Cummings recalled. She said, 
     ``He's going to wait, and he's going to die.'' She said, 
     ``Don't you wait.''

  Then, in his late sixties, Elijah Cummings said that when he looks 
into the future, he also reflects on his life. ``I realized that with 
African American people, where we've been blocked from being all that 
God meant for us to be, I don't have time to be patient.''
  Yes, Elijah often said of America that ``we are better than this.'' 
Let's prove Elijah right. I urge the Senate not to be patient any 
longer and wait for the next death of an African American in police 
custody before taking action. Let us hold our hearings and then 
expeditiously take up and pass legislation, including the two bills I 
have explained on the floor today, as the next

[[Page S2684]]

steps in establishing justice in our still imperfect Union.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to complete my remarks before the vote occurs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered


                          Russia Investigation

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, since the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation launched the Crossfire Hurricane counterintelligence 
investigation in July of 2016, there has been no shortage of media 
coverage of Russia's involvement in our 2016 election. For the better 
part of 3 years, there has been news; there has been speculation; there 
have been rumors; there have been partisan accusations made about that 
topic.
  Trying to keep up with the names and the dates, the allegations left 
you feeling like an old-school detective show--names and photos pinned 
to a board, with strings of yarn connecting all the pieces. Everyone 
expected the release of the special counsel's report to be the moment 
when those dots were finally connected and it explained what happened 
and who was responsible.
  It is safe to say that did not happen. Even though the Mueller report 
did not find any collusion or obstruction, there was a lot of 
information that since has been made public about its origins, its 
motivation, and the means by which that investigation occurred. In 
fact, rather than settling the matter, these revelations have prompted 
a whole new range of questions about the investigation itself.
  First of all, we had Rod Rosenstein in the Judiciary Committee. He 
was the Deputy Attorney General. I asked him whether he was aware of 
any precedent for what happened in 2016 when, at the same time, both 
major parties' political nominees for President of the United States 
were the subject of open FBI investigations. He said: No, there is no 
precedent for that.
  First, of course, it was the Hillary email scandal, after which 
Director Comey made another unprecedented move and had a press 
conference saying that even though she had been essentially grossly 
negligent in handling this private email server, he thought that no 
reasonable prosecutor would bring charges against her.
  As much as Secretary Clinton might have appreciated that 
announcement, or not, a few weeks later, the FBI Director wrote another 
letter and said: Hey, we have some Anthony Weiner emails that came up 
on his laptop, so we need to reopen the investigation just a few days 
before the general election.
  Well, you can imagine Secretary Clinton didn't appreciate that. Many 
people have said that it is because of the FBI's unprecedented 
involvement in the middle of a Presidential election that it damaged, 
if not decided, the election in 2016.
  And then, of course, there is the Trump-Russia influence 
investigation, better known as Crossfire Hurricane, leading up to the 
Mueller investigation and where we are today. In the time since the 
special counsel completed his investigation and issued his report more 
than a year ago, we have learned more about the behind-the-scenes work 
that guided the Russia probe.
  Thanks to Inspector General Horowitz and his team at the Department 
of Justice, thanks to the DNI, the Director of National Intelligence, 
and others for declassifying important information, we have a whole lot 
more insight and transparency into exactly what happened. But these 
revelations have given all of us pause for grave concern. They have 
highlighted a pattern of sloppiness and outright abuse of power at the 
highest levels of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and beyond and 
raised red flags that must be addressed.
  In the Senate, it is our duty to get to the bottom of how and why 
this happened. I can't imagine any Democrat, any Republican, any 
American saying what happened in the 2016 election to Hillary Clinton 
and to Donald Trump was OK. Our law enforcement agencies should not 
play a starring role in an election leading up to the Nation's highest 
office.
  This morning, the first step in our investigation into the origins, 
means, and methods of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation occurred in 
the Judiciary Committee. That is where we heard from Deputy Attorney 
General Rod Rosenstein. He wasn't the Deputy Attorney General until the 
spring of 2017, but he did play a key role in the investigation. He 
signed one of the applications for the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act warrant that allowed the FBI to essentially surveil an 
American citizen. He was the one who appointed Special Counsel Bob 
Mueller. He ended up being not only an investigator but also a witness 
in the process.
  His account of what happened in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation 
is important to understanding both the actions and the motivations that 
drove that investigation. In fact, he said this morning, in response to 
Chairman Lindsey Graham's question, if you knew then what you know now, 
would you have signed, sworn to this verified application for a warrant 
to surveil an American citizen, Carter Page? He said: No. To his 
credit, he said no. ``If I knew then, what I know now.''
  Some of my greatest concerns stem from the Department of Justice 
Inspector General's report about those FISA abuses, as they are 
called--Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This is extraordinary 
authority given by Congress under very strict rules, and they are 
supervised by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which was 
established to provide oversight of these surveillance activities, 
including surveillance of American citizens under very narrow and 
restricted guardrails.
  If the U.S. intelligence authorities, or law enforcement agencies, 
believe surveillance is critical to a national security investigation, 
they submit an application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Court to receive that authorization. This is an important step in 
protecting the rights of American citizens and making sure that our 
intelligence and law enforcement authorities perform their job 
consistent with congressional intent and direction. But these verified, 
in other words, sworn documents are critical, in which accuracy is 
paramount. That is why they are required to be verified--that is, sworn 
to--by the top officials at the Department of Justice.

  We now know that the applications of the former Trump campaign aide 
Carter Page were riddled with errors. In the initial Carter Page FISA 
application, Inspector General Horowitz identified what he called seven 
mistakes. In the three renewals, he had found an additional 10. These 
weren't necessarily honest mistakes. In fact, they included significant 
and material errors, including the deliberate falsification, lying--
lying to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court about Carter 
Page's past service to the U.S. Government.
  To make matters worse, even as new and exculpatory material came to 
light, this information was not reflected in renewal applications. It 
was sort of a cut-and-paste job. Those agents who prepared those 
materials that were signed by people like Rod Rosenstein lied to 
deceive the court so they could continue to surveil, or spy, on an 
American citizen--something we do not want to happen unless they are 
truly an agent of a foreign power and there is probable cause to show 
that they are such.
  These revelations were very troubling in December of 2019, and they 
are just as troubling today. It does also raise questions about the 
motivations for the investigation, in the first place. Falsifying a 
FISA application is clearly not an action one would take if you were in 
pursuit of the truth. We need to know why the initial application and 
three renewals were riddled with lies and omissions and how these 
inaccurate applications were approved by high-ranking officials at the 
Department of Justice.
  Second, this raises serious questions about the way investigations of 
average Americans are being handled. If these agents were able to break 
every rule in the book to spy on a Presidential candidate--who 
ultimately was elected--and are facing no consequences, no 
accountability, what protections exist for the rest of us in America? 
Who is going to notice their error-ridden FISA applications if it is 
John or Jane Q. Public?
  What is even more disconcerting is, if this happened once--and it did 
happen more than once--what is to stop it from happening again? The 
American people need and deserve answers to

[[Page S2685]]

these questions, and today's hearing in the Judiciary Committee was the 
first step in getting the answers to those questions and hopefully 
corrective action.
  Chairman Graham has been clear that we will look at this 
investigation from all angles--covering the FISA abuses, unmasking 
requests, and the origins of both Crossfire Hurricane, and the 
appointment of special counsel.
  The trove of declassified transcripts that recently were released by 
the House Intelligence Committee--actually, declassified by the 
Director of National Intelligence--only underscores the important need 
for oversight by the Senate and by the Congress. In reading these 
transcripts, which were taken in secret, in a secure facility, and only 
recently made public, I have been shocked at some of the statements 
made by former Obama administration officials.
  Based on the way Chairman Schiff repeatedly claimed to have direct 
evidence, you would think these officials would provide the smoking gun 
to the committee. But no--witness after witness confirmed they had no 
evidence of collusion, coordination, or conspiracy between anyone in 
the Trump campaign and Russia. What did they do? They walked outside of 
that secure facility, and they spoke to the TV cameras assembled there, 
and they lied. They misrepresented what was said during that classified 
testimony.
  This really begs the question: Why did this investigation begin and 
how, without evidence, did it last for nearly 2 years?
  Additionally, I have a lot of questions about the sloppy and 
incomplete investigative work surrounding Crossfire Hurricane when it 
came to the use of something called a confidential human source.
  Christopher Steele, former intelligence officer from the United 
Kingdom, was hired by Fusion GPS to do opposition research against the 
Trump campaign for the Hillary Clinton campaign. Yet, at the same time, 
he was considered by the FBI as a confidential human source.
  Inspector General Horowitz's report makes clear Mr. Steele and his 
FBI handler did not even agree on the terms of their arrangement. 
Steele said: I am a businessman collecting information. The FBI said: 
Well, this is just between us, and you can't talk to the public, which 
he clearly did, and he did so at the same time he was supposed to be a 
confidential human source.
  The FBI background check into Christopher Steele was so sloppy, they 
didn't even understand that his loyalties were not with the FBI and the 
U.S. Government, they were with his paymaster--Fusion GPS, his 
employer. That is one reason there were such inaccuracies throughout 
this investigation, including in the FISA applications.

  So we need answers, and we need accountability. Based on what I have 
seen so far, one conclusion is that there was a coordinated effort to 
manipulate our intelligence community and justice system for vindictive 
and biased purposes against a Presidential candidate and elected 
President of the United States. I realize that this is a grave and 
serious charge, but I think it is one conclusion you could draw based 
on what we know.
  It is high time we learned the truth. If this kind of misbehavior and 
deception becomes routine, it will jeopardize important legal 
authorities that we rely on to protect our national security. It is 
counter to our values and is a direct blow to the foundation of our 
democracy.
  I appreciate Chairman Graham's prioritizing these oversight hearings. 
I know we have a lot of work to do in order to restore public 
confidence in our justice system as well as in our intelligence 
community--the people charged with protecting the American people. We 
need to learn what really happened so we can make sure this never ever, 
ever happens again.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the Tipton nomination?
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, 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 Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from North Carolina (Mr. Burr).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. 
Klobuchar), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the Senator 
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz), the 
Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith), and the Senator from Montana (Mr. 
Tester) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cramer). Are there any other Senator in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 111 Ex.]

                                YEAS--52

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Loeffler
     McConnell
     McSally
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--41

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Stabenow
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Burr
     Klobuchar
     Markey
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Smith
     Tester
  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 PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.


                      Immigrant Healthcare Heroes

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, Americans owe a great debt of gratitude to 
the healthcare heroes on the frontlines of the fight against the COVID-
19 virus.
  Today I would like to spend a minute talking about one special group 
of those healthcare workers: immigrants.
  Consider this: One out of every six healthcare and social service 
workers in America is an immigrant--3 million out of 18 million 
immigrants. They are playing a critical role in the battle against the 
pandemic. Yet our broken immigration laws do not allow many of them to 
fulfill their dreams of actually becoming Americans.
  I have come to the floor today to tell the story of one of our 
immigrant healthcare heroes. I will continue to highlight these stories 
in the coming weeks. There has been so much negative publicity about 
immigrants. Yet, when you follow what is happening in hospitals across 
America--large and small, rural and urban--and so many times you ask 
``Doctor, where were you born?'' you find they weren't born in the 
United States, but they came here to practice medicine, and now their 
work is saving lives every day.
  I invite my colleagues and others to share stories from their own 
communities and their own States and to use the social media hashtag 
``Immigrant Health Heroes.''
  Thousands of immigrant health workers are suffering because of a 
serious problem in our immigration system. It is called the green card 
backlog. If you are not in immigrant status, you may not know anything 
about it, but trust me, they do.
  This backlog puts them and their families at risk of losing their 
immigration status, and it hinders their ability to join in the fight 
against COVID-19. Under current law, there are not nearly enough 
immigrant visas--also known as green cards--available each year. As a 
result, many immigrants in the United States are stuck

[[Page S2686]]

in crippling backlogs, not just for years but for decades. Close to 5 
million future Americans--close to 5 million--are in line waiting for 
green cards. Hundreds of thousands are working in the United States on 
a temporary visa while many more are waiting abroad, separated from 
their American families.
  Only 226,000 family green cards and 140,000 employment green cards 
are available each year. The backlogs are a real hardship on these 
families caught in immigration limbo. For example, children in many of 
these families age out and face deportation. While their parents are 
waiting for the green card, the child reaches the age where they are 
deported, at age 21.
  The green card backlog includes thousands of doctors currently 
working in the United States on temporary visas. These doctors face 
many restrictions due to their temporary status, such as not being able 
to take shifts at hospitals in COVID-19 hotspots where they may be 
desperately needed.
  The solution to the green card backlog is very clear: Increase the 
number of green cards.
  In 2013, I joined a group of four Republicans and four Democrats who 
authored bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform legislation. Our 
bill, which passed the Senate on a strong bipartisan 68-to-32 vote, 
would have eliminated this green card backlog.
  Last year I introduced the RELIEF Act, legislation based on the 2013 
comprehensive immigration reform bill, which would clear the backlogs 
for all immigrants waiting in line for green cards within 5 years. I 
will keep fighting to help these immigrants here in the United States 
who simply want a chance to continue to serve this Nation.
  Last month I joined with my colleagues--Senators Perdue of Georgia, 
Young of Indiana, Cornyn of Texas, Coons of Delaware, and Leahy of 
Vermont--to introduce legislation to quickly address the plight of 
immigrant doctors and nurses stuck in this green card backlog.
  This backlog poses a significant risk to our ability to effectively 
respond to this pandemic. Our bill, the Healthcare Workforce Resilience 
Act, is a temporary stopgap effort that will strengthen our healthcare 
workforce and improve healthcare for Americans in the midst of this 
national emergency.
  Our bill would reallocate 25,000 unused immigrant visas for nurses 
and 15,000 unused immigrant visas for doctors. These are visas that 
Congress has previously authorized but were not used.
  It is important to note that our bill requires employers to attest to 
a very important fact. They have to attest that immigrants from 
overseas who receive these visas will not displace an American worker. 
We want to ensure that the beneficiaries of this bill help build our 
workforce but not at the expense of those already here in the United 
States.
  Our bill now has 13 Republican and 13 Democratic cosponsors and broad 
support from the medical community. As Congress works on the next 
legislation to address the COVID-19 pandemic, I am going to join my 
Republican colleagues and push for the Healthcare Workforce Resilience 
Act to be included.
  Today, let me tell you the story of one immigrant healthcare worker 
stuck in this green card backlog waiting indefinitely, for years, and 
he would benefit from the Healthcare Workforce Resilience Act: Dr. 
Parth Mehta, born in India.
  As a child, he was inspired to pursue a career in medicine by his 
grandfather, who worked as an assistant to a physician, and by his 
older sister, who is a surgeon.
  Dr. Mehta came to the United States in the year 2004. He has been 
here 16 years. He obtained a master's in public health at Saint Xavier 
University in the city of Chicago. He then completed his residency in 
internal medicine at St. Joseph's Hospital in Chicago.
  In 2010, 10 years ago, Dr. Mehta began working as a hospitalist at 
UnityPoint Health Methodist Medical Center in downstate Peoria, IL.
  He sent me a letter, and here is what he says about being a doctor:

       I feel that it is a great privilege to help people, 
     comforting them, healing them, and making them better when 
     they are most vulnerable.

  Dr. Mehta lives in Peoria with his wife and his 10-year-old son and 
4-year-old daughter, and he writes, in addition:

       We have called Peoria home for 10 years now and we love our 
     community here. We have bought a home here, built a career 
     here, and we plan to stay in this community as long as we 
     can.

  Now Dr. Mehta is on the frontlines of the pandemic, treating COVID-19 
patients. He was also selected as the principal investigator for a 
COVID-19 trial for which the hospital has applied, but unfortunately, 
Dr. Mehta is one of thousands of doctors who are stuck in this green 
card backlog. He has been on a temporary work visa for 13 years. He has 
been forced to renew his visa four times since he became a doctor. His 
green card petition was filed in 2011, but he will have to wait years 
and years and years before he receives a green card.
  In the midst of this pandemic, Dr. Mehta's immigration status puts 
him at great risk. If, God forbid, he contracts COVID-19 and becomes 
disabled or dies, his family would immediately lose their immigration 
status and be forced to leave the United States.
  Dr. Mehta has written goodbye letters to his wife and kids and 
prepared an emergency binder with all the necessary information for his 
family if he dies. To keep his family safe, Dr. Mehta has isolated 
himself by living in the basement of his home. He is especially worried 
about his wife, who has asthma. In March, she was diagnosed with 
pneumonia and was hospitalized for 10 days, including a stay in the 
intensive care unit.
  Here is what Dr. Mehta wrote to me about this:

       Seeing COVID patients, treating them, taking care of them, 
     and saving their lives is part of my job, and I will never 
     shy away from doing my job. But how is it fair that my family 
     gets no protection if I die doing my job?

  Dr. Mehta's story makes it clear why Congress needs to pass the 
Healthcare and Workforce Resilience Act. Under our bill, Dr. Mehta and 
thousands of others like him could receive their green cards. They and 
their families would get the permanent immigration status they deserve 
and be able to use their skills to serve on the frontlines of the 
pandemic, where they are needed most.
  Don't put a sign in the window saying that you love healthcare 
workers, don't come out at 7 at night and beat on a pan to show that 
you care for healthcare workers and ignore the reality that this man in 
Peoria, IL, is risking his life every day to treat those patients, and 
we have written a law that says you are basically not welcome in the 
United States.
  How can we say this to him, to thousands just like him, doctors and 
nurses who are really caring for the people we love and risking their 
own lives in the process?
  It would be great, in these times of political division, if we could 
come together in this Congress to quickly aid these immigrant 
healthcare heroes.
  The bill that I have introduced with Senator Perdue, Senator Young, 
and others is a step toward reality, toward realizing that people just 
like these make us a better nation and a stronger nation.
  Dr. Mehta and his family, with all their fears, should know that 
there are many here in Congress, particularly here in the Senate, who 
want to move as quickly as possible and make sure that their lives are 
better because they have done so much to make the lives of others 
better.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.

                          ____________________