June 22, 2020 - Issue: Vol. 166, No. 114 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 2nd Session

[Pages S3114-S3124]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Cory T. Wilson, of 
Mississippi, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                        Justice in Policing Act

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, the American people are crying out for 
major, significant changes in policing in this country. Being killed by 
the police is now the sixth leading cause of death for young men in 
America. Young Black men are 2.5 times more likely than White men to be 
killed by police, while Black women are 1.4 times more likely than 
White women to be killed by police.
  As hundreds of thousands of Americans of all ages and colors take to 
the streets to demand change, we need legislation that rises to the 
moment. So Democrats introduced a bill 3 weeks ago that would bring 
strong, comprehensive, and lasting change to police departments across 
America: the Justice in Policing Act.
  Our colleagues in the House are expected to pass that bill this week. 
However, here in the Senate, our Republican colleagues have responded 
to our comprehensive proposal with an approach that is piecemeal and 
halfhearted. The longer you look at the Republican policing reform 
effort, the more obvious are the shortcomings and deficiencies.
  The Republican bill does nothing--nothing to reform the legal 
standards that shield police from accountability for violating 
Americans' constitutional rights. The Republican bill does nothing--
nothing to encourage independent investigations of police departments 
with patterns and practices that violate the Constitution. The 
Republican bill does nothing--nothing to reform the use of force 
standard, nothing--nothing on qualified immunity, nothing on racial 
profiling, and nothing on limiting the transfer of military equipment 
to police departments.
  The Republican bill doesn't even truly ban choke holds or no-knock 
warrants. It leaves major loopholes when it comes to choke holds and 
only requires more data on no-knock warrants. More data would not have 
saved Breonna Taylor's life. Allowing police to use choke holds 
whenever they say that deadly force is necessary is not going to save 
lives.
  We need a bill that achieves genuine police reform. The Republican 
proposal comes across like a list of suggestions.
  I would repeat this important warning: If we pass a bill that is 
ineffective and the killings continue and police departments resist 
change and there is no accountability, the wound in our society will 
not close; it will fester. This is not about making an effort or 
dipping our toes in the water. It must be about solving a problem that 
is taking the lives of too many Black Americans.
  This is not a time for studies or commissions or tinkering around the 
edges.

[[Page S3115]]

This is not a debate about tax policy or transportation policy. It is a 
matter of the constitutional rights of the American people, and it is 
truly a matter of life and death.
  Unfortunately, Senator Scott's bill is deeply and fundamentally 
flawed. It would not have prevented the death of George Floyd or 
Breonna Taylor or Ahmaud Arbery or Michael Brown or Eric Garner, and if 
it will not stop future deaths of Black Americans in police custody, 
then it does not represent the change that is demanded right now.


                              Coronavirus

  Mr. President, on COVID, over the past several weeks, there has been 
an alarming increase in the number of COVID-19 cases in a number of 
American States. Florida, Texas, Arizona, and North Carolina continue 
to report thousands of new cases each day. State officials in Texas and 
Arizona are warning about the dire number of hospitalizations. Anyone 
looking at the facts would conclude that we need to figure out what is 
causing these increases and put measures in place to limit this new 
spread of the disease.
  But President Trump does not look at the facts or try to understand 
them. Instead, the President is so consumed with his own ego, his own 
political interests and perception of how he has handled this crisis, 
that he is actually downplaying the numbers and inventing ridiculous 
excuses for why COVID-19 cases continue to increase.
  At his inadvisable and very poorly attended rally in Tulsa on 
Saturday, President Trump said that he told his administration to 
``slow the testing down, please,'' so the number of COVID cases will 
not look so bad for him. It is amazing he said that. Don't learn the 
truth about a serious and deadly disease so he might look better?
  He went on to say that testing was ``a double-edged sword.'' Let me 
break the President's statement down for a moment. By calling testing 
``a double-edged sword,'' the President means that, on one hand, 
testing could be good because it, you know, tells us who has COVID-19, 
but, on the other hand, testing might not be so good because the more 
cases make the President look bad. Who thinks like that in a time of a 
raging pandemic?
  White House officials tried to claim the President was joking, but, 
today, the Vice President denied that they were just in jest, calling 
them ``a passing observation,'' whatever that means.
  Regardless of whether he was serious or not, the President's comments 
are factually inaccurate. The increase in testing is not responsible 
for the increase in the number of cases. In fact, the rate of positive 
cases is going up in many States, which means community spread.
  There is a lie sitting at the heart of all of this. President Trump 
wants Americans to believe that the number of cases is going up because 
his administration has done such a great job on testing. The truth is, 
the administration can't even get around to spending the money Congress 
has provided for improving testing and tracing.

  Senator Murray and I sent a letter last week to HHS Secretary Azar, 
asking him why the administration hasn't disbursed the $14 billion we 
gave it to ramp up testing and the tracing capability. This $14 billion 
is just sitting there, waiting for the Trump administration to use it 
to help our country. Senator Murray and I are looking for answers. Why 
isn't the money being distributed when it is desperately needed? What 
the heck is going on?
  It is hard to imagine a more haphazard, less-focused, and less-
consistent response from an administration during a national crisis. 
Whether it is calling COVID a hoax or prescribing bleach or having his 
ego-driven rally over the weekend, the President keeps reminding us 
that he doesn't take the COVID pandemic seriously enough. Ironically, 
the best thing about the President's rally was that so few people 
attended. Otherwise, the risk of spreading COVID would have been 
significantly higher.


                     U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman

  Mr. President, on another matter--there are so many matters and so 
much trouble this administration is in that it is hard to count, and 
you would probably need several hours to document and talk about them 
all--last Friday night, Attorney General Barr claimed that Geoffrey 
Berman, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, was 
``stepping down.'' A short time later, Mr. Berman revealed that the 
Attorney General was lying and that he was not, in fact, stepping down. 
Over the past 2 days, this sordid, ham-handed plot by President Trump 
and Attorney General Barr to oust a well-respected U.S. attorney played 
out in public view.
  But for Mr. Berman's principled stand, the White House and the DOJ 
would have subverted the chain of succession in the Southern District 
of New York to install a pliant U.S. attorney from New Jersey in Mr. 
Berman's place. Thankfully, due to Mr. Berman's courage, that plan was 
thwarted, and Mr. Berman's deputy will take over the leadership of the 
Southern District and continue its important work. She has a fine 
reputation as a prosecutor and someone of integrity. People of 
integrity don't seem to be welcome in this administration.
  Then the DOJ announced that the President intended to nominate the 
sitting SEC Chairman, Jay Clayton, to replace Mr. Berman. As the 
Senator from New York, I will not return a blue slip on Mr. Clayton's 
nomination. Regardless, Jay Clayton should withdraw his name from 
consideration and refuse to be an accomplice to this scheme.
  There appears to be no legitimate motive to fire Mr. Berman, which 
leaves the obvious question: Were President Trump and the Attorney 
General trying to remove him for a corrupt motive? Was it because Mr. 
Berman, in the Southern District of New York, was pursuing criminal 
investigations into President Trump and his associates? The President 
certainly has a pattern of firing government watchdogs who are 
investigating his misconduct or that of his associates.
  We need an immediate, top-to-bottom investigation into what 
transpired with the plot to dismiss Mr. Berman. So I have demanded that 
the Office of Professional Responsibility at the Department of Justice 
work with the Justice Department's inspector general to determine 
whether there were corrupt motives for Mr. Berman's dismissal and, if 
so, discipline the officials involved no matter who they are or how 
high up they go. These two offices jointly investigated the firing of 
U.S. attorneys in 2006 during the Bush administration and should do so 
again.
  The Committee on the Judiciary here in the Senate, led by Chairman 
Graham, must also investigate what happened here, using its subpoena 
power, if necessary. Senator Graham seems to be investigating President 
Obama and Vice President Biden with 53 subpoenas. He certainly must 
have time to investigate a serious problem that has come before us 
right now. After all, the abject refusal of Senate Republicans to hold 
President Trump accountable for his assault on the rule of law in the 
country is what has gotten us here in the first place.
  The Senate Republicans refused to stand up to the President when he 
fired the FBI Director for investigating his campaign. They refused to 
stand up to the President when he made a national emergency in order to 
steal funds for the border wall. They refused to stand up to the 
President when he dismissed not one or two or three but four inspectors 
general. They also refused to stand up to the President when he tried 
to bully a foreign power into helping him in his reelection.
  Every time the President breaks a window, the Senate Republican 
majority dutifully sweeps up the glass. Every blue moon or so, a 
Republican Senator will issue a mild rebuke of the President's behavior 
or will pen a strongly worded letter, but the response is never 
commensurate with the offense. As a result, President Trump knows there 
is no line he can't cross. He and his Attorney General can fire a 
sitting U.S. attorney without cause, perhaps for investigating criminal 
wrongdoing by the President or his associates, and the Senate 
Republicans would hardly bat an eye. Will Senate Republican Senators 
ever say, ``Enough''


                      Nomination of Cory T. Wilson

  Mr. President, finally, today, Leader McConnell will move forward 
with the nomination of Mr. Cory Wilson to serve as a lifetime 
appointment on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
  Mr. Wilson is an avowed opponent of the Nation's healthcare law, 
calling it illegitimate and perverse. Even worse, Wilson has a lengthy 
record of support

[[Page S3116]]

for policies that suppress voting rights in the State legislature, and 
in the Mississippi secretary of state's office, he pushed for 
restrictive voter ID laws. He criticized the Voting Rights Act and 
peddled unproven claims about voter fraud. In 2011, he said the NAACP's 
concerns about voter suppression in Mississippi were ``poppycock.''
  We are in the middle of a national conversation about police reform 
and systematic racial justice. Leader McConnell talks about it on the 
floor, and at the same time, he has the temerity to push a judge with 
demonstrated hostility to voting rights, a man who criticized the 
greatest advance in civil rights legislation in the past century, for a 
seat on the circuit court, in which people of color make up 55 percent 
of the population.
  The nomination is so appalling in general that, at this particular 
moment, several Democrats, myself included, have taken the unusual step 
of writing Leader McConnell today to request that he withdraw Mr. 
Wilson's nomination. I believe, if there is sincerity in the remarks 
here about healing racial wounds, then the withdrawal of Mr. Wilson 
will occur, plain and simple. It would be disgraceful for the Senate to 
approve a nominee who has long trivialized voter disenfranchisement and 
racial discrimination at the ballot box. Leader McConnell should halt 
any further work on Mr. Wilson and, instead, work with the 
administration and civil rights groups to find a nominee who will 
actually protect voting rights on the Fifth Circuit.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                Protests

  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, ``I hope I am over wary, but if I am not, 
there is, even now, something of ill omen amongst us. I mean the 
increasing disregard for law which pervades the country, the growing 
disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions in lieu of the 
sober judgment of courts, and the worse than savage mobs for the 
executive ministers of justice. This disposition is awfully fearful in 
any community; and that it exists now in ours, though grating to our 
feelings to admit, it would be a violation of truth and an insult to 
our intelligence to deny. Accounts of outrages committed by mobs form 
the everyday news of the times.''
  Now, those are not my words. Those are the words of a young Abraham 
Lincoln. Sadly, they ring with truth today.
  In recent weeks, violent mobs have roamed our streets, defacing and 
tearing down statues and monuments--in most cases, with neither 
resistance from the police nor legal consequences.
  On Friday, a mob tore down another statue just a few blocks from 
here. The police stood idly by and watched as rioters toppled it and 
set it on fire. One can only assume they were ordered not to intervene 
by Washington's leftwing mayor.
  Here is the thing: Steps were already underway to move that statue 
lawfully. Washington's delegates in Congress had legislation to that 
effect. But mobs don't care to negotiate--only to destroy.
  The delegate said: I have no doubt I could have gotten that bill 
through, but the people got here before due process.
  It is hard to imagine a more chilling summation of mob rule. As 
Lincoln knew, the mob threatens not just old statues but the lives and 
livelihoods of us all. Indeed, the mob threatens civilization itself in 
many ways.
  Most simply, Lincoln knew that mobs inevitably make mistakes and 
commit injustices. Some may celebrate the destruction of disfavored 
statues and monuments, but what of the vandals in Boston who defaced a 
monument to the 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment, the first 
African-American regiment to fight for the Union, whose bravery and 
skill was immortalized in the movie ``Glory''?
  What of the outlaws of Philadelphia, who defaced a statue of Matthias 
Baldwin, a devout, passionate abolitionist?
  Mobs don't discriminate between legitimate and illegitimate targets 
of their destruction. That is because they are mobs.
  Lincoln also warned that the ``lawless in spirit'' will become 
``lawless in practice'' because of mob violence seeing no consequences 
for crimes.
  A mob doesn't stop at statues. Rioters have already torched police 
precincts and low-income housing in Minneapolis. Churches and 
synagogues have been vandalized. Next, perhaps the mob will target the 
homes of police officers, and soon enough the mob may come for you and 
your home and your family.
  As the mob expands its power, Lincoln cautioned that good citizens, 
``seeing their property destroyed; their families insulted, and their 
lives endangered; their persons injured; and seeing nothing in prospect 
that forebodes a change for the better; become tired of, and disgusted 
with, a Government that offers them no protection.''
  Mob rule can only serve to demoralize our people and shake their 
faith in our government and our way of life. As the mob rises, 
civilization recedes.
  Finally, Lincoln observed that ``by the operation of this mobocractic 
spirit, which all must admit, is now abroad in the land, the strongest 
bulwark of any Government, and particularly of those constituted like 
ours, may effectually be broken down and destroyed--I mean the 
attachment of the People.''
  The final victim of mob rule is the very spirit of civic-minded 
patriotism that's necessary to preserve our Republic.
  For all these reasons, Lincoln said: ``There is no grievance that is 
a fit object of redress by mob law.'' We cannot tolerate mob rule, and 
we cannot allow it to go unpunished.
  While local authorities would usually take the lead in prosecuting 
these criminals, unfortunately, many of them seem unwilling to stand up 
to the mob and uphold the rule of law. Therefore, I call upon the 
Department of Justice to bring charges against these mob vigilantes, 
prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the law. The Anti-Riot Act 
and the Veterans' Memorial Preservation and Recognition Act can provide 
legal grounds in some cases; still other Federal statutes may govern in 
other cases; but there must be consequences for mob violence because if 
you give the mob an inch, it will take a mile.
  Witness the events of just this past weekend, where mobs tore down 
statues of George Washington and Ulysses S. Grant. When you tear down 
statues of Washington and Grant, it is not about the Civil War; it is 
because you hate America. Indeed, these rioters hate America.
  In Portland, where they tore down the statue of Washington, they also 
spray-painted on him the date ``1619,'' a reference to the New York 
Times's revisionist, anti-American history project. Perhaps we should 
call them the ``1619 riots.'' After all, the architect of that 
execrable project said: ``It would be an honor.''
  This hatred for America was nowhere on greater display than in San 
Francisco, where the mob tore down the statue of Grant. That would be 
U.S. Grant, commander of the Union Army, whose very initials embody his 
tenacious, unrelenting approach to war: unconditional surrender.
  That would also be President Grant, the political heir of Abraham 
Lincoln, a statesman who smashed the first Ku Klux Klan, signed the 
first major civil rights legislation, and presided over passage of the 
15th Amendment.
  In one famous instance, President Grant sent in the troops to 
disperse a White mob in New Orleans that was terrorizing the city's 
Black and Republican residents and had to depose the State's lawful 
Governor.
  Grant had zero tolerance for mob rule. He said: ``[N]either Ku Klux 
Klans, White Leagues, nor any other association using arms and violence 
to execute their unlawful purposes can be permitted in that way to 
govern any part of this country.''
  This was a man whom the great Frederick Douglass eulogized as ``too 
broad for prejudice, too humane to despise the humblest, too great to 
be small at any point.'' Yet the mobs still came for Grant.
  Some people have been asking: Where is the line? I say: This is the 
line--the line between mob rule and the rule of law.

[[Page S3117]]

  Since I began by quoting Lincoln, let me conclude by borrowing from 
Grant, who wrote during the Battle of Spotsylvania: ``I propose to 
fight it out on this line if it takes all summer.''
  I will fight it out on this line if it takes a lot longer than that.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Ernst). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                      Nomination of Cory T. Wilson

  Mr. WICKER. Madam President, later on this afternoon, the Senate will 
vote on cloture on the nomination of Judge Cory Wilson to fill a 
vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
  I rise at this point in strong, enthusiastic support of confirmation 
for my friend, Judge Cory Wilson. This will be a historic moment for 
this body and for the administration. A vote to confirm Judge Wilson 
would make him the 200th judge to be confirmed under President Trump. 
This is the highest number of judges confirmed at this point in a 
Presidency since the Presidency of Jimmy Carter. Judge Wilson is an 
outstanding nominee to have this distinction.
  The seat we are voting to fill is actually the last remaining circuit 
court vacancy at this time, reflecting the remarkable progress we have 
made in rebuilding the Federal judiciary. Judge Wilson is an 
outstanding nominee to mark this milestone. His credentials, intellect, 
and respect for the rule of law are well established.
  The American Bar Association is considered by many to be the ``gold 
standard'' for assessing judicial nominees, and the American Bar 
Association has awarded Judge Wilson its highest rating of ``well 
qualified'' to serve on the Fifth Circuit. I certainly agree with this 
assessment by the ABA.
  In recent weeks, Senators on both sides of the aisle have been able 
to question Judge Wilson about his judicial philosophy, and I believe 
he has shown a steadfast commitment to honoring the Constitution and 
enforcing the laws passed by the Congress as we have written them.
  Judge Wilson is a native of South Mississippi and currently serves on 
the Mississippi Court of Appeals, where he decides appellate matters, 
including civil, commercial, domestic, and criminal appeals. He 
graduated from my alma mater, the University of Mississippi, with 
highest honors, and then he went on to Yale Law School, where he 
distinguished himself in many respects. He served on the Yale Law 
Journal, was a member of the Yale chapter of the Federalist Society, 
and was on the Barrister's Union, which is the equivalent of the Yale 
moot court. He served as a law clerk for the Court of Appeals for the 
Eleventh Circuit, having been appointed and having served as a clerk 
for Judge Cox on the Eleventh Circuit. He was a White House fellow for 
the Department of Defense, and then he came back to Mississippi.
  Before becoming a judge, Cory Wilson was an accomplished lawyer in 
his own right in private practice and served in senior roles in State 
government in the Mississippi Secretary of State's office and the 
office of the State Treasury. For 3 years, he also represented 
Mississippi's 73rd district in the State House of Representatives, 
where he was vice chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
  Judge Wilson is active in civic affairs and his church, Highlands 
Presbyterian Church. He and his wife Stephanie have one son.
  He has garnered respect and admiration and endorsements from many of 
my constituents during the years of service, and in the last few weeks 
and days, I have been presented with letters of endorsement from people 
who know him--lawyers he practiced with and people he has been 
associated with. In particular, I want to draw the attention of Members 
of the Senate to a letter from retired Judge Robert L. Gibbs of 
Jackson, MS.
  Who is Judge Gibbs to write a letter on behalf of Cory Wilson? For 
one thing, we should know that Judge Gibbs is a Democrat, and he 
practiced law in Mississippi for a time for Mississippi legal services. 
He spent 10 years in the office of the Mississippi attorney general, a 
statewide elected Democratic official, and then Robert Gibbs served as 
a circuit judge, an elected position in a Mississippi court of general 
jurisdiction. He served for some 7 years there as a circuit judge in 
Mississippi. That is who Judge Robert Gibbs is.
  Here is what Judge Gibbs says about our nominee, the very Cory Wilson 
whom we will be voting cloture on around 5:30 this afternoon.
  This is a letter dated June 10. It is to the chair and ranking member 
of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Graham and Senator 
Feinstein.

       Dear Chairman Graham and Ranking Member Feinstein:
       I submit this letter in support of the nomination of Judge 
     Cory T. Wilson for a seat on the Fifth Circuit Court of 
     Appeals.
       I am former Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit Court 
     District in Mississippi and have known Cory as an attorney, 
     who practiced before me and as a colleague as we worked on 
     cases together. From these experiences, I can attest that no 
     one works harder in this profession than Judge Wilson. When 
     we were representing clients, Cory would normally prepare the 
     first draft of pleadings and send it to me to review. Seldom 
     were there any reasons to make changes because he utilized 
     his legal abilities to navigate through the complexities of 
     the legal issues which resulted in a well thought out, 
     plausible argument.
       During Judge Wilson's investiture as a Judge on the 
     Mississippi Court of Appeals, I had the pleasure of being one 
     of the speakers.

  This is retired Judge Gibbs saying he had the pleasure of being one 
of the speakers.

       I spoke about three traits of Judge Wilson--(1) Respect, 
     (2) Character and (3) Legal Intelligence. To keep this letter 
     to a respectful length, I will not repeat everything I said 
     but the essence is, Cory respects everyone he comes into 
     contact with, he does not change who he is because of race or 
     political affiliations and his ability allow him to break 
     through legal jargon and get to the point.

  Judge Gibbs goes on to say this:

       Judge Wilson and I are quite different--I am Black and he 
     is White. I am older and he is younger. I am a Democrat and 
     he was a Republican (before he became a judge). I live in the 
     majority African American City of Jackson, Mississippi and he 
     lives in a suburb of Jackson. Yet these differences have 
     become our strengths. We often have lunch and discuss the 
     pressing issues of the day as friends. He has sought my 
     advice, based on my judicial experience, on how to be a 
     better judge. And while we may disagree on some matters, in 
     the end we realize that we are just two lawyers who want our 
     communities to be better and we know that having a fair 
     judiciary is one of the ways to make that happen.

  These are the words of an older, retired circuit judge who happens to 
be an African-American Democrat in endorsement of a younger White 
Republican nominee whom we will have a chance to vote on in a few 
moments. We need more members of the younger generation of whatever 
race who are best friends with an older generation of professionals of 
another race. We need more people like Judge Robert Gibbs and Judge 
Cory Wilson who are friends, who sit down, who have lunch together and 
discuss the law and the ways we can make this country better.
  I think this is a profound endorsement by someone of a different 
race, of a different political party, and of a different political 
philosophy, saying that Judge Cory Wilson is someone we will be proud 
to vote for.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in 
the Record at this point
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                            Gibbs Travis PLLC,

                                                    June 10, 2020.
     Re Nomination of Cory T. Wilson as Judge of the United States 
         Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

     Hon. Lindsey Graham,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Graham and Ranking Member Feinstein: I submit 
     this letter in support of the nomination of Judge Cory T. 
     Wilson for a seat on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
       I am former Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit Court 
     District in Mississippi and have known Cory as an attorney, 
     who practiced before me and as a colleague as we worked on 
     cases together. From these experiences, I can attest that no 
     one works harder in this profession than Judge Wilson.

[[Page S3118]]

     When we were representing clients, Cory would normally 
     prepare the first draft of pleadings and send it to me to 
     review. Seldom were there any reasons to make any changes 
     because he utilized his legal abilities to navigate through 
     the complexities of the legal issues which resulted in a well 
     thought out, plausible argument.
       During Judge Wilson's investiture as a Judge on the 
     Mississippi Court of Appeals, I had the pleasure of being one 
     the speakers. I spoke about three traits of Judge Wilson--(1) 
     Respect, (2) Character and (3) Legal Intelligence. To keep 
     this letter to a respectful length, I will not repeat 
     everything I said but the essence is, Cory respects everyone 
     he comes into contact with, he does not change who he is 
     because of race or political affiliations and his ability 
     allow him to break though legal jargon and get to the point.
       Judge Wilson and I are quite different--I am Black and he 
     is White. I am older and he is younger. I am a Democrat and 
     was a Republican (before he became a judge). I live in the 
     majority African American City of Jackson, Mississippi and he 
     lives in a suburb of Jackson. Yet these differences have 
     become our strengths. We often have lunch and discuss the 
     pressing issues of the day as friends. He has sought my 
     advice, based on my judicial experience, on how to be a 
     better judge. And while we may disagree on some matters, in 
     the end we realize that we are just two lawyers who want our 
     communities to be better and we know that having a fair 
     judiciary is one of the ways to make that happen.
       If you need any additional information or have any 
     question, please do not hesitate to let me know.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Robert L. Gibbs.

  Mr. WICKER. Again, let me just stress to my colleagues that Cory 
Wilson has gained a reputation as a fair and impartial judge and a good 
and decent man, and I am confident that this reputation will follow him 
as he serves on the Fifth Circuit. He will serve the circuit and our 
Nation well as a U.S. circuit judge.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            The JUSTICE Act

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, as we have been working over these last 
several weeks to develop police reform legislation, I figured the best 
use of my time would be to spend that time listening, as much as 
anything else--listening, for example, to Black Americans about their 
experiences with law enforcement and the changes they would like to see 
in our country; listening to my colleagues in the Senate about the most 
effective ways to make these changes, especially under the leadership 
of Senator Tim Scott, who has personally experienced the injustices we 
are trying to address, and, particularly, this deficit of trust between 
law enforcement and the communities they serve; and listening to 
leaders in Texas who are working hard--in the midst of this pandemic 
and widespread protesting--to keep every single Texan safe. You would 
think, before we decide on what reforms to take, it is important to 
hear from those who know best what is working, what isn't, and what we 
need to do more of.
  A few weeks ago, I called two of my friends, who happen to be the 
mayor of Dallas and the mayor of Houston, Eric Johnson in Dallas and 
Sylvester Turner in Houston, and asked them to help me pull together a 
group of people in both of those major American cities for an open 
conversation about these issues. Less than a week later, I was in 
Dallas for an open and honest conversation with a group of law 
enforcement, faith, and community leaders. They provided very useful 
feedback and ideas that I brought back with me while the JUSTICE Act 
was in draft form. After the bill was introduced last week, I was eager 
to hear from more folks in Texas.
  Last Friday, I traveled to Houston for another similar type of 
discussion at city hall. Like in Dallas, we were able to hear from a 
variety of points of view familiar with these challenges. I was glad to 
also be joined by Senator Cruz and Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee. In 
a way, I thought it was a coincidence, but maybe not, that this 
conversation happened on Juneteenth--a day that allows us to reflect on 
the progress we have made in the fight for equality. This year--I would 
say more than normal--it was a reminder of how far we have to go.
  At this point, I would like to say the good news is there is a lot of 
common ground and good will, and I think we have a unique opportunity 
to do what I told the Floyd family I would do when they told me they 
wanted Texas-size justice. I think some good can actually come out of 
this tragedy, their loss of their loved one.
  I heard an inspiring message from Bishop James Dixon, who is the 
pastor at Community of Faith Church and first vice president of the 
Houston NAACP. He talked about the need for unity and action in 
response to the widespread protests we are seeing and encouraged 
everyone, as he put it, to ``dignify the outcry.''
  We need to affirm that, yes, there is a problem; yes, it has gone 
unaddressed for too long; and yes, we are going to do our best to do 
something about it. While there may be differences of opinion on the 
best route to take, the good news is we are all pulling in the same 
direction.
  During our conversation, I was able to talk briefly about the JUSTICE 
Act, which was introduced, as I said, last week. Among other things, 
they seemed to be pleased the bill would strengthen deescalation 
training, as well as training on the duty to intervene in case there is 
something inappropriate occurring, the use of body cameras, 
incentivizing the States to restrict the use of choke holds, and make 
lynching a Federal crime.
  I received some great feedback on how it will ensure that police 
departments nationwide are using proven best practices to keep our 
communities safe. As we prepare to debate this legislation this week, 
that conversation could not have been more timely.
  Another common theme--and I have heard this before--is the growing 
strain on our law enforcement officers. I remember several years ago 
Chief David Brown saying: We ask our police to do too much. Basically, 
they are the ones who we know will go quickly to a crisis and 
intervene, no matter what it is, whether it is a domestic crisis, a 
mental health crisis, or somebody breaking the law. Mayor Turner, in 
particular, talked about how the list of responsibilities we are giving 
our law enforcement officers keeps growing longer and longer and 
longer. They are not just fighting crime; they are responding to calls 
about drug abuse, mental health, domestic violence, homelessness, and a 
range of other crises. Between COVID-19 and the ongoing protests, their 
jobs are not getting any easier.
  As Police Chief Art Acevedo pointed out, police are performing these 
jobs not by design but because there is basically nobody else to do 
them--by default. There is no question we need more support services 
that can help alleviate some of this strain on our law enforcement 
officers. Over the years, we have tried to bolster services 
available for things like the First Step Act, which took prison reform 
from the State level to the national level. We put money into Project 
Safe Neighborhoods grants and Mental Health and Safe Communities Act 
grants. In particular, I remember when we debated the Mental Health and 
Safe Communities Act grants to help train law enforcement to deescalate 
conflicts between people undergoing a mental health crisis, during 
which an escalating level of crisis would be a threat not only to the 
individual who is undergoing that crisis but to the officer, him or 
herself. We actually found it to be very effective, this training.

  As this list of responsibilities we are giving our law enforcement 
officers has grown, so has the need for additional training and 
additional funding for support services--ancillary services that can 
work in conjunction with our law enforcement officials so we can get 
the most efficient, most effective response to the person who needs it.
  That is precisely why defunding the police is not the answer to the 
challenges we are facing. It is really an insult, if you think about 
it, and it is living in a fantasyland.
  Chief Acevedo shared an analogy a fellow police chief and friend of 
his made about the effort to shift responsibility from police to other 
providers. He said: If you are building a new stadium, you wouldn't 
tear down or stop using the old one until the new one was complete.
  If cities strip funding from their police departments without having 
other

[[Page S3119]]

support services in place, our communities wouldn't be more safe; they 
would be significantly less safe. So rather than cutting funding while 
those services are being established and strengthened in cities across 
the country, let's talk about the reforms that make sense.
  The most impactful reforms are going to be made at the State and 
local levels. We can't be a city council for 330 million people. Those 
responsibilities, ultimately, are born at the local and State level. 
They are the ones accountable to the voters for the actions they take 
or don't take at the local level, but we know there is a role for us to 
play. Much of it has to do with identifying things like best practices, 
as well as providing money for training and resources. The hiring is 
done at the local level, officer training is conducted there, and 
decisions about day-to-day police activities are made there.
  During our discussion, Mayor Turner expressed the need for folks in 
Congress to listen to mayors, and I am all for that. For any law we 
pass or reforms we make, they will be the ones responsible for 
implementing the changes we make.
  I have been in close contact with my mayors and other officials 
across the State, and I don't intend for that to stop once we, Lord 
willing, pass a police reform bill.
  This has to be an ongoing conversation between local officials, State 
officials, and those of us who happen to work here in Washington in the 
Congress. This conversation is not going to be a brief one. It is not 
going to be a one-time conversation. This is going to stretch on for 
weeks and months. Really, what we are talking about is a cultural 
change as much as anything else.
  I want to, once again, thank the men and women in Texas who wear the 
uniform of our police departments and those who shared with me their 
ideas and feedback over the last few weeks. It has been incredibly 
valuable and will become even more helpful as we begin debating the 
JUSTICE Act this week.
  Senator Scott, who is leading us on this legislative effort, has done 
a great job of compiling a broad set of reforms that will improve 
transparency and accountability. Many of these provisions, as I said a 
few minutes ago, already enjoy broad bipartisan support.
  This legislation, I believe, will go a long way to improve 
accountability and transparency and deliver real change to communities 
across the country. I am glad that at Senator Schumer's request, 
Senator McConnell put a bill on the floor before the Fourth of July. 
That is specifically what Senator Schumer called for and exactly what 
Senator McConnell said he intends to do.
  Now that we have the opportunity to turn talk into action, it does 
sound like our friends across the aisle are getting cold feet. I have 
been interested to read in the press where some of them said they 
haven't really made up their mind whether they will even allow us to 
get on the bill.
  We can't pass a bill that we can't start. Once we start it, they will 
be given every opportunity to offer amendments to help improve the 
bill. But shutting it down just out of a fit of pique or overt 
politicalization does not do a service to the people we are trying to 
help here: to help our law enforcement officials and to help the 
general public and people who sense a gap of trust between those 
officers and the law enforcement community they serve.
  Our Democratic colleagues are weighing whether to block us from even 
considering this bill, one that will be put on the floor, debated and 
voted on, just as Senator Schumer, the Democratic leader, requested. 
Unfortunately, our friends across the aisle seem focused more on the 
few differences between Senator Scott's bill and the House bill rather 
than the similarities. This is where I think the 80-20 rule ought to 
apply. If we can agree to 80 percent or 70 percent or 60 percent, why 
don't we do that? Why don't we put that in the bank and work on the 
rest?
  The truth is, there are many places where these bills overlap, and 
there is a lot of room for us to find common ground. In order to do 
that, our colleagues across the aisle need to do what maybe is not 
their first instinct and that is to cooperate--that is the only way we 
get things done here--and prove to the American people that they are 
sincere in their desire to see us debate and pass effective reforms. 
There is a difference between doing that and just grandstanding and 
posturing, but this is not a time to grandstand. This is not a time to 
posture. This is a time to roll up our sleeves and work together to get 
things done. We need realistic, resolute, and immediate action in order 
to repair that broken relationship between law enforcement and some of 
the community they serve. So I hope our Democratic colleagues will join 
us in that effort this week.

  I appreciate, for one, the hard work and leadership of Senator Scott 
in drafting this legislation, and I appreciate the majority leader, 
Senator McConnell, for prioritizing its consideration on the floor. I 
am a proud cosponsor of the JUSTICE Act, and I look forward to voting 
for this bill when the opportunity comes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.


                          The First Amendment

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, I so enjoyed listening to the 
comments of my colleague from Texas, and it causes me to think that, 
yes, we are moving forward with another week, and what we have to 
realize is that, indeed, our Nation was built on free speech and the 
premise to have dissent or robust, respectful political debate. That is 
something that keeps our Nation strong.
  To go back and look at the work of our Founders, there was barely a 
day that went by that they were not having that robust debate, that 
they were not having those arguments that were really constructive 
conversations that would say: We are here; how do we go here?
  That is how you solve problems. Indeed, that is what Tennesseans are 
telling me every day that they want us to do: Solve these problems. 
Let's get ourselves on the right track
  When you look at it and go back and look at the Founders, you see 
that the debates they had were not superficial. They were not 
necessarily the bright, shiny object story of the day. They were deep, 
philosophical debates on issues that were about the future of the 
Nation they were trying to build. Everything was on the line, and no 
one kept quiet. They felt as if their opinions were important, and 
indeed, today, there is a lot on the line when we talk about civility 
and when we talk about the strength, the core, and the preservation of 
our rights and our freedoms. Nobody spared anyone's feelings at that 
point because the stakes were too high and they were focused on 
freedom.
  How did they create a free nation? How did they create it so that it 
would pass to their children and their grandchildren? Indeed, you can 
go forward in history and look at the words of Ronald Reagan reminding 
us that freedom is not something that is permanent. Every single 
generation--every single generation--has to fight for it.
  Madam President, of course, we say an extra thank-you to you and 
others in this Chamber who have worn the uniform and have served, and 
we are grateful for that service.
  I would state that, in spite of all the strife that our Founders went 
through, they never wavered from their commitment to building a society 
that was, in their hearts and minds, a society of the people, for the 
people, by the people--of the people. It was freer and more Democratic 
than the land they had left in order to get here.
  The First Amendment to our Constitution is more than just a 
prohibition against government repression. It is a warning against the 
private attacks on free speech. The success of online discussion 
platforms is a testament to how much the American people still value 
the free exchange of ideas.
  Don't you love it? In a good conversation with good friends, somebody 
makes their point, and you make a counterpoint. Then you discuss it, 
and you have a respectful conversation.
  Everyone from political candidates to corporations to the free press 
has taken advantage of the opportunity to reach those millions of 
eyeballs that are scrolling through social media timelines and news 
aggregation services. For a while, it looked as if the system would 
revolutionize the way we read and the way that we share information, 
the way we have that debate,

[[Page S3120]]

and it did--just not necessarily for the better.
  I believe we should always encourage more speech, and when you look 
at the early days of Twitter and Facebook, it seems that they were on 
the right track, and we kind of call that the good old days of social 
media.
  Over the past few weeks, we have seen these platforms devolve into a 
state of all-out war that makes our previous concerns about censorship 
and speech policing look petty. Liberal activists have deployed against 
anyone and anything that strays from their preferred narrative. It is 
the cancel culture in full force. Even more concerning than digital mob 
rule is the behavior of corporations and platforms caving to these 
intimidation tactics and selectively policing dissent.
  Just imagine what would have happened all those years ago in our 
founding if one group decided they were going to shut up and quiet 
another group. What if they had decided that respect doesn't matter? 
What if they had decided that debate doesn't matter? It is our way or 
the highway. What do you think would have happened, and where would we 
be today?
  Google and its parent company, Alphabet, have distinguished 
themselves as the worst offenders. Google is under investigation for 
potential antitrust violations, but that hasn't stopped them from 
surrendering to this latest political moment. Last week, Google 
threatened to kick two conservative-leaning media outlets off of the 
Google ads platform after determining content found in the respective 
sites' comment sections violated platform policies. A representative 
from Google complicated matters by running to the media and insisting 
that the ban was imposed because the Federalist and ZeroHedge had both 
published derogatory comments promoting racial violence. NBC and other 
news organizations ran with that false narrative, and before you knew 
it, thousands of voices condemned in unison the speech and opinions of 
dozens of writers who had done nothing wrong.
  They were, as the left likes to say, ``deplatformed,'' which, of 
course, was the goal. The ease with which Google fell in step with this 
coordinated campaign to chill speech becomes all the more concerning 
when one considers that they didn't just threaten the livelihoods of 
the writers, editors, and graphic designers employed by those outlets. 
Google employees let their bias--hear that?--Google employees let their 
bias, not the facts--not the facts, the bias--their bias, the bias that 
they bring to work with them, the bias of their worldview, which they 
think is right--they let their bias and their prejudice lead the way 
and decided that the American people didn't need to see what those 
writers had to say.

  Who told them that they are the speech police? Who told them: Google, 
you are in charge. You decide what is going to be prioritized on your 
platform. Google, you go in here, and you decide if this is worthy or 
unworthy content. It is all up to you. Google, you can subjectively 
manipulate these algorithms based on what you think.
  What we have are Google employees who let their bias lead the way, 
and they decided that the American people didn't need to see what 
writers had written because they, the employees' superiors, decided you 
didn't need to know that. They determined that the speech was 
dangerous, harmful, and illegitimate. So what did they do? They shut it 
down before you could browse it.
  Just imagine--just imagine--if the Founders had been so brazen in 
their actions: Let's not have a discussion on that point. Let's just 
throw it to the side. Let's not hear somebody out. Let's just push them 
aside. No, they didn't form a clique who said: We are better than you. 
We are smarter than you. What did those Founders do? They looked at one 
another and said: We are all in this together. We are here because 
freedom is paramount in establishing a nation that is a nation of, by, 
and for the people--all of us. That is the goal.
  You know, I think what Google has done is a bold move coming from the 
same parent company that has allowed YouTube's reprehensible comment 
section to spiral into notoriety. But if you comment on the Federalist, 
beware. You see, it is not about protecting customers. All they are 
doing is defending a dangerous and un-democratic double standard.
  These incidents are not isolated, and there is no meaningful choice 
publishers can make to take their business elsewhere because Google 
effectively controls online advertising. Last year, they brought in 
$100 billion in ad revenue. You know, even in this town, $100 billion 
is not chump change. That is a lot of money.
  This year they are flexing their muscles against competitive 
conservative outlets just as more mainstream outlets are facing 
cutbacks and layoffs. I know this body is well aware that Big Tech 
needs some guide rails to control their approach to consumer privacy, 
data security, and these increasingly oppressive content moderation 
policies.
  Google is the main player. The majority of searches are done through 
Google. Is it a monopoly? Pretty close to it. Should it be viewed under 
antitrust? Worthy of discussion. Right now we are working out the 
proper strategy to reform the section 230 protections. This is written 
into the Communications Decency Act that the Googles of the world hide 
behind when they want to silence you, when they want to shut you down 
because they do not agree with you. Their bias is against you. Their 
prejudice is against you. They don't like what you have to say.
  In this body we may not agree, but we will fight to defend the right 
of individuals to stand up and have their say. The First Amendment says 
that political speech is--guess what--free speech. The First Amendment 
says that you, the citizen--remember that line, ``of the people.'' The 
people have the right to petition their government to seek a change. 
But, oh no, Google or Facebook--I have to say, I remember the comment 
from Mark Zuckerberg that Facebook was more like a government than a 
business.
  We have the Communications Decency Act, and there is a section in it 
called section 230, and that is the section that Big Tech goes and 
cowers behind when they want to shut you up. Section 230 needs to be 
reformed. DOJ has said that this is something that is ready for reform. 
We need to protect free speech. We need to make certain that illicit 
content is moved off. We need to look at competition. We need to look 
at the threshold for users--maybe not revenue--but look at a threshold 
for users and put some guidelines in place. We are dealing with an 
industry that has moved on to using social pressure to provide cover as 
they act as judge, jury, and executioner over what Americans should be 
allowed to know.
  If you are researching something online, what do you do? You Google 
it. You get in that search engine; you go looking for it; and then you 
look at the things as they come up. Maybe what you are looking for 
doesn't show up on the first page even though it is something that has 
been in the news. Why would that be? Oh, prioritization--because Google 
prioritizes how this information gets delivered to you: if they like 
it, top of the list; if they don't, bottom envelope.
  Today, I sent a letter to the Attorney General, outlining the threat 
this poses to a free and fair press and calling for a full 
investigation that examines the company's control over the internet 
economy. I also encouraged AG Barr to meet with the news publishers who 
have been harmed by this anti-competitive behavior and learn firsthand 
about the fear and intimidation tactics activists have weaponized 
against legitimate journalism.
  This can no longer be chalked up simply to bias. The people making 
these decisions are the most powerful voices in the world, and they 
have decided that they don't want you to think. They don't want you to 
challenge the narrative, and they sure don't want you to rock the boat 
and draw the ire of activists who still don't believe these efforts at 
censorship have gone far enough to silence conservative voices.
  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. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S3121]]

  The Senator from Iowa.


                   State Department Inspector General

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have a 
letter printed in the Record
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                     U.S. Department of State,

                                    Washington, DC, June 12, 2020.
     Hon. Chuck Grassley,
     Chairman, Committee on Finance,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Grassley: Your May 18 letter to the President 
     concerning his removal of the Inspector General of the 
     Department of State has been referred to the Department.
       In order to address your concerns as they relate to the 
     Department, the Department is prepared to provide you a 
     briefing with a senior official at your earliest convenience. 
     Additionally, the Department is enclosing its recent letter, 
     on which you were copied, which addresses the reasons for 
     Secretary Pompeo's recommendation to remove the State 
     Department Inspector General.
           Sincerely,

                                        Mary Elizabeth Taylor,

                                     Assistant Secretary of State,
                                    Bureau of Legislative Affairs.
       Enclosure: As stated.
                                  ____



                                     U.S. Department of State,

                                     Washington, DC, June 8, 2020.
     Hon. Michael E. Horowitz,
     Chair, Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and 
         Efficiency, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chair Horowitz: In light of new information disclosed 
     to the State Department for the first time on June 2, 2020, 
     the Department is writing to formally request that the 
     Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency 
     (CIGIE) examine a series of questions related to the conduct 
     of former State Department Inspector General Steve Linick. 
     Specifically, the Department has become aware that Mr. Linick 
     may have hand-selected a potentially-conflicted investigator 
     to look into possible misconduct by his own office and then 
     withheld the resulting report, which noted his own apparent 
     non-compliance with State Department Office of Inspector 
     General (OIG) email policies, from State Department 
     leadership, despite repeated requests for a copy of the 
     report.
       In short, the events described below suggest that there may 
     have been a significant breakdown in the typically-rigorous 
     standards of an IG investigation, warranting CIGIE review.
       Mr. Linick had served as Inspector General of the State 
     Department since September 2013. On May 15, 2020, President 
     Trump decided to remove Mr. Linick from that position and 
     placed him on 30 days of administrative leave. As described 
     in the attached letter to the House Foreign Affairs Committee 
     dated June 1 (Tab 1), the President's decision to remove Mr. 
     Linick from this position was made upon the Secretary of 
     State's recommendation. This recommendation was based, in 
     part, on concerns related to Mr. Linick's failure to formally 
     refer to CIGIE--as agreed with senior Department leadership 
     in the fall of 2019--the investigation of a leak of a highly-
     sensitive draft report to the media on September 13, 2019, 
     which was attributed to ``two government sources involved in 
     carrying out the investigation.'' State IG Set to Recommend 
     Discipline for Trump's Top Iran Hand, The Daily Beast, Sept. 
     13, 2019.
       As described in the Department's attached letter, and 
     contrary to that fall 2019 agreement, Mr. Linick instead 
     referred the matter for review by the Department of Defense's 
     (DOD's) Acting Inspector General--without informing State 
     Department leadership that he was taking a different course. 
     Only after the DOD IG provided its initial findings directly 
     to Mr. Linick in late 2019 or early 2020 did Department 
     leadership become aware that Mr. Linick had hand-selected his 
     own investigator for the matter, outside of the CIGIE 
     process. Mr. Linick then refused multiple requests by 
     Department leadership for a copy of the resulting report. 
     Notwithstanding these repeated requests to Mr. Linick, who 
     reports by law to the Secretary of State, the Department was, 
     for the first time, provided a copy of the March 17, 2020 DOD 
     OIG report on June 2, 2020 (Tab 2) as a result of a request 
     by Congress, nearly two weeks after the President removed Mr. 
     Linick from his position.
       Beyond the concerning process that led to the DOD IG 
     reviewing this matter, the DOD IG report itself raises a 
     number of new questions that, together with the Department's 
     original concerns, further substantiate the Department's 
     misgivings with Mr. Linick's performance as Inspector General 
     and merit a review by an independent investigatory body. As 
     we did originally with Mr. Linick, the Department renews its 
     request that CIGIE review these questions.
       Breach of Agreed Steps for Investigating a Potential Leak 
     from OIG. Last fall, State Department leadership asked Mr. 
     Linick to refer for review by CIGIE the unauthorized 
     disclosure of a draft inspector general report, which the 
     media attributed to ``two government sources involved in 
     carrying out the investigation''. State IG Set to Recommend 
     Discipline for Trump's Top Iran Hand, The Daily Beast, Sept. 
     13, 2019. It was natural to assume that sources involved in 
     ``carrying out the investigation'' may refer to sources 
     within the State OIG, which--if true--would undermine 
     confidence in the professionalism and integrity of the OIG. 
     Mr. Linick agreed to the request, but the Department learned 
     months later that, instead of formally referring the matter 
     to CIGIE, Mr. Linick asked the DOD Acting Inspector General 
     to review the issue. In other words, Mr. Linick failed to 
     inform Department leadership that he had hand-picked another 
     IG to investigate potential misconduct by his office and that 
     he had deviated from the clear course agreed upon with 
     leadership.
       Following the completion of a draft report by the DOD 
     Acting Inspector General in late 2019 or early 2020, Mr. 
     Linick briefed Department leadership on certain findings but 
     refused to provide the written report, or even a written 
     summary, to Department leadership for review, raising further 
     concerns about the fairness of the process followed. As of 
     the time of Mr. Linick's removal, the Department had still 
     not received any documented findings on the matter. By 
     contrast, an appropriate referral to CIGIE would have 
     produced a final report that Department leadership could 
     review and assess whether there may have been inappropriate 
     conduct in Mr. Linick's office.
       Potential Conflict of Interest in Choice of Investigator. 
     The person whom Mr. Linick asked to review the matter, 
     outside of the CIGIE process, was then-DOD Principal Deputy 
     Inspector General Glenn Fine, who at the time was the DOD's 
     Acting Inspector General. This was an unusual choice because 
     Mr. Fine appears to have been a fact witness, potentially one 
     with knowledge of information relevant to the subject of the 
     investigation described in the report. Specifically, the DOD 
     OIG report notes that Mr. Linick said that he ``spoke about 
     the evaluation report'' with Mr. Fine before the media leak 
     occurred. If Mr. Fine himself had confidential information 
     about the draft report before it was leaked, it raises 
     serious questions as to whether it was appropriate for him to 
     lead the investigation into the subsequent leak. It is 
     unclear whether Mr. Fine was even interviewed in the 
     course of the investigation. Allowing a fact witness to an 
     investigation to shape the terms of the investigation--let 
     alone lead the investigation--seems inappropriate. At a 
     minimum, the choice of investigator in this case raises 
     material concerns about whether the report itself 
     represents a complete and adequate investigation of 
     potential misconduct within the State Department Office of 
     Inspector General.
       Limited Investigation. As noted above, the Department 
     finally received a copy of the DOD Acting Inspector General's 
     report on June 2, 2020, and following the Department's 
     review, the Department has identified a number of concerns as 
     to its scope. For example, the report notes that Mr. Linick 
     himself ``asked the DoD OIG to conduct a limited inquiry into 
     whether any DOS OIG employee was the source of the 
     unauthorized disclosure.'' (emphasis added). The DOD OIG 
     conducted personal interviews, in which all interviewed 
     staffers ``said they did not release any information in the 
     report to the media.'' The DOD OIG also reviewed official 
     email accounts and found that no employee directly sent an 
     email from their State Department email address to the news 
     media, other than the communications director.
       However, the scope of this review appears to have been 
     exceedingly cursory, and the report itself indicates that the 
     scope of the investigation was by design ``limited.'' It is 
     also unclear whether it was appropriate for Mr. Linick, as a 
     fact witness to the investigation, to dictate the ``limited'' 
     scope (rather than a ``full'' scope) given the significance 
     of the leak. It is hard to imagine that an OIG or CIGIE 
     would, in the course of its normal investigations, allow 
     possible fact witnesses or interviewees to influence the 
     scope of the investigation. Moreover, merely asking an 
     interviewee if he/she directly transmitted the leaked 
     documents and asking only about emails from official accounts 
     would catch only the most blatant mishandling of information 
     and would fail to uncover any person who disclosed the draft 
     through an intermediary or sent the report from a personal 
     email address. Further, the DOD IG does not appear to have 
     questioned whether any interviewee had knowledge of who may 
     have improperly disclosed the report or engaged in other 
     questioning aimed at discovering the true source of the leak.
       Use and Concealment of Improper Email Practice. The DOD OIG 
     report identifies a concerning email practice used by Mr. 
     Linick. The DOD OIG found: ``IG Linick sent a password-
     protected, draft version of the evaluation report in question 
     to his Gmail account eight times over six days in August 
     2019. On one occasion, he emailed a password-protected draft 
     of the evaluation report from his Gmail email account to his 
     government email account.'' As the DOD OIG report notes, this 
     usage appeared to contravene the State Department OIG's own 
     policy: ``Use OIG provided equipment and systems/applications 
     at all times, including OIG email, to conduct official OIG 
     business. The use of corporate or personal equipment, 
     systems/applications, to include to email, or other file 
     storage sites to store, process, or transmit OIG or 
     Department data is prohibited.'' State OIG Information 
     Systems Rules of Behavior. Mr. Linick clearly should have 
     followed his own organization's specific information security 
     policies--particularly involving a draft report on a highly-
     sensitive personnel issue.

[[Page S3122]]

       We understand that Mr. Linick may have received the initial 
     report noting his improper usage of personal email as early 
     as late 2019 or early 2020, and it is the Department's 
     understanding that he never shared the written report with 
     any person at the State Department (including in his own 
     office), despite repeated requests by Department leadership 
     for a copy of the report. Likewise, he never informed State 
     Department leadership that the report found that he did not 
     comply with OIG email practices. Allowing the head of an 
     investigated office to determine the manner and scope of the 
     release of a report that addresses his own conduct is 
     inappropriate, which is presumably why CIGIE's own guidelines 
     would have required the results of a CIGIE review to be 
     shared with appropriate officials in his supervisory chain.
       OIG Launches Questionable Parallel Investigation Under a 
     Possible Conflict of Interest. At the same time that the DOD 
     IG was conducting its review, Mr. Linick reportedly opened a 
     parallel investigation of other State Department employees 
     for the same potential misconduct for which his own office 
     was being investigated. See Kylie Atwood, Fired State 
     Department inspector general was cleared in leak inquiry 
     prior to his removal, sources say, CNN, May 28, 2020. This 
     decision, if accurately reported, seems unusual because the 
     September 2019 media leak was specifically attributed to 
     ``two government sources involved in carrying out the 
     investigation'' (emphasis added), not to Department employees 
     who may have been fact witnesses (and were clearly not 
     responsible for ``carrying out'' any investigation).
       Mr. Linick's decision also raises the question of whether 
     this parallel investigation was intended to divert attention 
     from the DOD IG's own investigation into the State OIG. 
     Indeed, public reporting suggests that State OIG was 
     continuing its own investigations of other Department 
     employees before the DOD OIG report was even finalized. See 
     id. It should have been obvious to Mr. Linick that launching 
     a parallel investigation into the same misconduct for which 
     he and his own office were being investigated created both a 
     real and apparent conflict of interest and risked interfering 
     with the DOD OIG investigation into his own office. An 
     investigator who is still working to clear his or her own 
     name has a motive to shift the blame to another person.
       Inappropriate Contacts with OIG Staff in an Apparent 
     Attempt to Obtain Department Records, Contrary to 
     Instruction. When Mr. Linick was removed from his position on 
     May 15 and placed on administrative leave, his physical 
     access was terminated, and he was clearly instructed by 
     Department officials not to contact OIG staff members about 
     official matters or return to his former office, without 
     authorization by Department officials, who would facilitate 
     any such contacts.
       However, it has come to the Department's attention that he 
     has violated these instructions on multiple occasions while 
     he was on administrative leave. For example, we understand 
     that, in the days before his Congressional testimony, he sent 
     a text message to the Deputy Inspector General, Diana Shaw, 
     requesting a copy of the DOD IG report. Without informing her 
     own chain of command, we understand that Ms. Shaw then 
     contacted the DOD Office of Inspector General to request a 
     copy of the report on Mr. Linick's behalf. It is not clear 
     what Mr. Linick's motivation was, but it was not his decision 
     (nor his former Deputy's) to make this request for release 
     given that he was, at the time, on administrative leave 
     pursuant to the President's decision with a new Acting 
     Inspector General in place. We understand that Mr. Linick has 
     repeatedly returned to his former office without seeking 
     authorization from his Department superiors, also contrary to 
     the clear instructions he received. Mr. Linick should follow 
     the same rules that apply to other government officials who 
     are placed on administrative leave in such circumstances; he 
     is not entitled to a different set of rules.
       A Pattern of Leaks Continues. Even though no one at the 
     State Department other than Mr. Linick appears to have had a 
     copy of the DOD Inspector General's report (not even his 
     Deputy) before June 2, 2020, CNN ran a story on May 28, 2020 
     that the DOD OIG report had exonerated Mr. Linick of leaking. 
     Kylie Atwood, Fired State Department inspector general was 
     cleared in leak inquiry prior to his removal, sources say, 
     CNN, May 28, 2020. These reports raise additional concerns as 
     to this disturbing pattern of leaks, further warranting CIGIE 
     review.
       Last fall, the Department had serious concerns with the 
     leak of a draft State Department OIG report and recommended 
     that review by CIGIE was the appropriate step for an 
     independent review. Unfortunately, Mr. Linick's failure to 
     follow through on that course--or to seek agreement from his 
     reporting chain on any change in course--has only confirmed 
     the Department's recommendation and has raised even further 
     concerns about Mr. Linick's judgment and conduct.
       Therefore, we ask CIGIE to investigate not only the 
     original unauthorized disclosure, but the conduct described 
     in this letter.
           Sincerely,

                                                Brian Bulatao,

                                   Under Secretary for Management,
                                         U.S. Department of State.


                    Black Revolutionary War Patriots

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, as Americans, our understanding of 
history has a tremendous impact on our sense of who we are and where we 
are headed. That is why it is so important for Americans to have a good 
understanding of our history--all of our history.
  Slavery is a great stain on our country's history, and its legacy 
impacts us yet today. We must not flinch from recognizing the suffering 
inflicted on so many Americans, contrary to our highest ideals as a 
nation.
  Still, our Nation is unique in human history in that it was founded 
not on the basis of some sort of common ethnic identity but on certain 
enduring principles that are the equal heritage of all Americans. Those 
principles are best articulated in the simple but eloquent words of the 
Declaration of Independence. I don't have to put quotes around these 
because everybody knows these words: ``We hold these truths to be self-
evident, that all people are created equal, that they are endowed by 
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are 
Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.''
  Our patriot forefathers concluded that these principles were worth 
fighting for, and, indeed, they took up arms. The odds were stacked 
against them, and they happened to know that, but they, nonetheless, 
risked everything because they believed so deeply in those fundamental 
truths that were stated in the Declaration of Independence.
  Among those who risked life and limb for our Nation's founding 
principles were between 5,000 and 10,000 Americans of African descent 
who volunteered to serve as soldiers and sailors during the American 
Revolution.
  Their patriotic sacrifices at the very beginning of our Nation 
contributed immeasurably toward laying the foundation of the freedoms 
we enjoy today.
  The civil rights movement was later able to build on that solid 
foundation by calling on America to, as Dr. King said, ``live out the 
true meaning of its creed.'' Dr. King was absolutely right in pointing 
out that Black Americans have every right to fully claim our shared 
heritage as Americans, having helped build and shape American 
institutions and society from the beginning, as shown by the very 
sacrifice they made in the Revolutionary War. This proud history is 
part of who we are as Americans, but it is too little understood and, 
hence, fully not appreciated.
  That is why I was proud to colead legislation that authorized the 
establishment of a National Liberty Memorial on the National Mall to 
honor the underappreciated contributions of Black Revolutionary War 
veterans and patriots, as they are.
  I am proud to say that Iowa can claim at least one of those patriots, 
Cato Mead, who was born in Connecticut and is listed in Revolutionary 
War pension court records as a ``free person of color'' who lived out 
his twilight years in Southeastern Iowa. He is buried in the Montrose 
Cemetery in Montrose, IA.
  The National Mall Liberty Fund is now in the process of raising money 
for an environmental assessment to complete final site selection for 
this very important memorial.
  Now, more than ever, Americans need this monument as a tangible 
reminder that despite the lingering legacy of slavery, the promise of 
liberty and equality is a shared heritage of all Americans from the 
founding generation to this very day.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Boozman). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered


                              Coronavirus

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, States across this country, including 
New Hampshire, are beginning to reopen after this pandemic, although, 
the pandemic isn't really over. The ongoing economic and public health 
fallout from COVID-19 continues to affect families and businesses in my 
State of New Hampshire and across this country.
  Every day, community leaders, public health professionals, and 
frontline workers tell me about what they are facing. They have raised 
concerns

[[Page S3123]]

about the massive reduction in local tax revenue and the very difficult 
decisions that will soon need to be made if Federal assistance doesn't 
arrive soon.
  I have heard from teachers and school administrators about the 
challenges they have encountered trying to educate their students 
during the pandemic and the difficulties they are anticipating as they 
begin to plan for the school year coming in September.
  The shift to remote learning has exposed the disparities in broadband 
access across New Hampshire and across this country that leaves behind 
many students and makes it extremely difficult for teachers to deliver 
a quality education, especially for students with disabilities.
  So many small businesses, while they are very grateful for the 
Paycheck Protection Program and the loans and grants that have been 
made available through the Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program, are 
telling me it is not enough; that revenues for many of these small 
businesses are still at unsustainable lows, particularly for those in 
tourism, entertainment, and hospitality--in New Hampshire, tourism is 
our second largest industry--and that they need help if they are going 
to weather this storm.
  So I can't understand why this body and why Majority Leader McConnell 
doesn't feel a sense of urgency to pass legislation that will continue 
to help Americans during this time of crisis.
  It has been more than 1 month since the House of Representatives sent 
to us the Heroes Act to continue to provide assistance to Americans who 
are in need. In the time since, we have not taken up any proposal that 
would provide comprehensive relief for the sectors of our economy that 
are still hurting.
  We just can't wait until the end of July, when we know that there 
will be so many families, workers, and businesses across the country 
who will be in an even more dire position than they are now.
  Americans are urging Congress to act, and we should work together in 
a bipartisan way, just as we did with the first three--really, four, if 
you count the second count of the small business assistance. Those four 
bills all passed with strong bipartisan votes. Now it is time for us to 
do that again, to provide Americans with the relief they so desperately 
need.
  Congress has taken some very important bipartisan steps to provide 
assistance to the Nation, but the conversations I have had with Granite 
Staters on the frontlines are a very powerful reminder of how much work 
still lies ahead.
  We should provide assistance for our hospitals and healthcare 
providers, especially for nursing homes and long-term care facilities 
because, in New Hampshire, they have accounted for more than 70 percent 
of COVID-19 deaths, and across the country, for a very high percentage.
  We need to provide support to all of our essential workers who are 
still on the frontlines getting out there every day, despite the health 
risks; that includes grocery store workers, healthcare workers, and 
first responders who are sacrificing so much for our health and safety.
  We should provide investments in our Nation's infrastructure, like 
broadband, to make sure we have better access to telehealth and 
education opportunities.
  We should provide support for sectors of our economy that have taken 
major losses, like the clean energy sector, which has lost more than 
600,000 jobs over the past few months.
  We should provide help for food and rental assistance for those who 
have lost income and are struggling to make ends meet.
  We should support the Postal Service so it can continue to serve our 
communities and small businesses. In New Hampshire, we have so many 
small towns that depend on the Postal Service for prescription drugs. 
Families in those towns depend on the Postal Service for prescription 
drugs and to communicate with the outside world. Especially now, when 
so many people are still feeling so isolated, they need to know they 
can count on the Postal Service and that it is not going to get into a 
financial crisis this summer.
  Finally, we need to support our States and our local communities. 
They have been on the frontlines fighting this pandemic. As the cost of 
COVID-19 response efforts continue to rise, mayors, town 
administrators, and county officials are all grappling with whether 
they are going to have to lay off first responders, firefighters, 
police, teachers, and municipal workers--all of those people who 
continue to provide services in our communities and without whom people 
are going to face even more dire consequences. States and communities 
need help now. They should not have to cut essential services and 
frontline workers.
  In Congress, we must also provide additional support to small 
businesses. PPP, the Paycheck Protection Program, by any measure, 
despite some of the challenges, has been the most significant small 
business assistance program in our Nation's history. It has delivered 
over $500 billion in aid in a very short time.
  I am proud to have worked with a bipartisan group of colleagues to 
offer that provision, but when we first sat down to design it just over 
3 months ago, none of us had any concept of the magnitude of this 
crisis or what would be its duration. Since then, we have learned just 
how devastating this disease is and how terribly difficult it is to 
defeat.

  I have heard from so many businesspeople in New Hampshire who took a 
PPP loan. They used the proceeds just as we had intended: They kept 
their employees on the payroll or they hired them back if they had 
already laid them off. They have kept their lights on. Now it is time--
when they are beginning to reopen their businesses, and they are still 
running short because those loans are about to run out, they need more 
help. If we don't provide it, they are going to lay off all those 
workers again. For many small businesses, they are going to be forced 
to close their doors.
  Last week, I was pleased to work with Senators Cardin and Coons to 
introduce the Prioritized Paycheck Protection Program, the P4 Act. That 
is legislation that would provide a second round of PPP funding for 
smaller businesses and particularly for those in the restaurant and 
hospitality industries which have been hit especially hard in recent 
months. They were the first to be closed down by government order, and 
they are the last to be able to open back up.
  I am hopeful that, once again, we can work in a bipartisan way to 
make a proposal that will have support on both sides of the aisle and 
that will ensure that more businesses can stay afloat as we reopen our 
economy.
  Our country is still hurting, and the coronavirus isn't going to go 
away without a vaccine. It is going to take a while for us to get back 
on our feet as a nation.
  The devastating health and economic effects from COVID-19 will not be 
alleviated just because we pretend the coronavirus is going away. It 
will not be alleviated unless Congress acts. It was the decisive action 
that we took back at the end of February and March that has allowed so 
many businesses to stay afloat, so many families to continue to feed 
their kids and to pay their rent. It is going to be critical for us to 
continue to take action to provide that assistance.
  We can't wait. We can't take a wait-and-see approach. We know that 
people are hurting right now. So I urge the Senate to take up and pass 
legislation. Let's negotiate what we don't like about the Heroes Act. 
Let's make changes, but let's take up that relief bill and continue to 
provide the help Americans are calling for. We have no more time to 
waste.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the

[[Page S3124]]

     Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring to a 
     close debate on the nomination of Cory T. Wilson, of 
     Mississippi, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth 
     Circuit.
         Mitch McConnell, Chuck Grassley, Cory Gardner, Lamar 
           Alexander, Richard C. Shelby, Steve Daines, David 
           Perdue, Pat Roberts, Lindsey Graham, Tim Scott, Richard 
           Burr, Mike Crapo, Shelley Moore Capito, John Barrasso, 
           Roger F. Wicker, Cindy Hyde-Smith, John Thune.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of Cory T. Wilson, of Mississippi, to be United States 
Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. 
Heinrich), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley), the Senator from 
Washington (Mrs. Murray), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and 
the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 124 Ex.]

                                YEAS--51

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     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
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--43

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Hirono
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Murphy
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Heinrich
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Sanders
     Sinema
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 51, the nays are 
43.
  The motion is agreed to.

                          ____________________