June 30, 2020 - Issue: Vol. 166, No. 120 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 2nd Session

[Pages S4011-S4023]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                     June Medical Services v. Russo

  Mr. LEE. Madam President, that was the first error that I think 
deserves to be mentioned in this context--the error apparent in the 
fact that the Supreme Court ignored the fact that the plaintiffs before 
the Court lacked standing. They just glossed over this issue. Why? 
Well, because it involves abortion, and I guess abortion is different.
  The explanation provided by the plurality and by the Chief Justice--
understanding that in order to form a majority, sometimes you have to 
cobble together a concurring opinion with a plurality opinion, and that 
is what happened here.
  Their analysis on the standing issue in this case simply doesn't 
wash. It doesn't add up. In fact, I believe it defies what every first-
year law student is taught in American law schools. It doesn't work.
  Secondly, this draws attention to another problem with the Court's 
jurisprudence in this area. When abortion is treated differently than 
other things, it leads to a fair amount of tail-chasing by the Court 
because the Court has stepped in--starting with Roe v. Wade and 
continuing with Casey and the other cases since then on this topic--the 
Court has stepped in essentially as a superlegislative body, and it has 
attempted to set out a rule saying that you can't undermine what the 
Court has declared to be a right to access abortion.
  So let's set aside, for a moment, that question of what we would be 
looking at if we were dealing with a law prohibiting abortion, but this 
isn't that. Again, this was a law, Act 620, adopted by the Louisiana 
State Legislature that simply required that doctors and clinics 
performing abortions be run by doctors having admitting privileges at a 
hospital within 30 miles.
  It is not an abortion ban. It is just a public health and safety 
regulation of the same sort that you might see in effect with respect 
to surgical centers or other outpatient treatment clinics throughout 
that State.
  And so, nonetheless, you have got Roe v. Wade and its progeny in 
which the Supreme Court has stepped in, basically, as a 
superlegislative body saying you can't impose too heavy of a burden on 
a woman's access to or ability to obtain an abortion.
  The problem with that is there is nothing in the Constitution that 
says that. There is nothing in the Constitution that makes this a 
Federal issue. There is nothing in the Constitution that takes what is 
essentially a legislative judgment; namely, the legality or

[[Page S4012]]

lack thereof of a particular medical procedure and makes it a question 
not only of Federal constitutional law but of Federal constitutional 
law that can be written and then addressed and then allowed to evolve 
solely within the hermetically sealed chamber of the Supreme Court of 
the United States.
  This is what produces this kind of tail-chasing. This is what 
produces this nonsense, and it is also, by the way, what produces a 
whole lot of the political vitriol and venom surrounding the Federal 
judiciary.
  Why? Well, because they exercised will instead of judgment. What do I 
mean by that? Well, in Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton referred 
to the difference between what lawmakers do and what judges do. In the 
legislative branch, they exercise what Hamilton referred to as 
``will,'' meaning they decide what the law should be. They adopt 
policy. They say: We think the law should say x, and they have the 
ability to do that. Under our system of government, article I gives the 
lawmaking power, the power to engage in exercises of will, to the 
legislative branch.
  Judgment, by contrast, is what is wielded by the judicial branch. 
Judgment asks not what should be but what is and, most notably, what 
has been. It looks, as it were, in the rearview mirror, looking at what 
the law said as of a particular moment in time.
  So it is the job of the jurist not to say what the law should be but, 
instead, to say what the law is and only when the question of what the 
law is comes properly before the court's jurisdiction in cases or 
controversies between multiple litigants properly before the court's 
jurisdiction.
  And so Hamilton explained in Federalist 78 that there is a difference 
between will and judgment and that you don't ever want the judicial 
branch exercising will.
  Well, why? Because, among other things, it is not their job. Judges 
are appointed in our Federal system for life so long as they are on 
good behavior. They are not subject to elections, ever. You don't get 
elected to get on the court; you don't get elected to stay on the 
court. You are on there for life.
  Why? Well, because your job is a relatively limited one. It looks 
only in the rearview mirror. Your job is not to set policy but to 
interpret in very narrow circumstances.
  In this circumstance, in Roe v. Wade and its progeny, the Supreme 
Court stepped in and exercised will. As a result, they have taken 
decisions away from lawmakers--State and Federal lawmakers alike--for 
decades.
  This has had the predictable result of making a lot of people unhappy 
at every point along the political continuum--every single point.
  Why? Well, because they exercise will instead of judgment. They 
exercise legislative jurisdiction rather than judicial discretion.
  Justice Thomas, in his dissenting opinion in June Medical Services v. 
Russo, said, referring to Roe v. Wade and its progeny:

       [T]hose decisions created the right to abortion out of 
     whole cloth, without a shred of support from the 
     Constitution's text. Our abortion precedents are grievously 
     wrong and should be overruled.

  Justice Thomas wrote in a separate passage, explaining that ``Roe is 
grievously wrong for many reasons, but the most fundamental is that its 
core holding--that the Constitution protects a woman's right to abort 
her unborn child--finds no support in the text of the 14th Amendment.''
  So we see that the Court was wrong in pretending that the plaintiffs 
in that case, not patients, not women who wanted to seek abortions but 
couldn't, but doctors and clinics who have an interest potentially 
adverse to their own patients who didn't want to be regulated, were 
allowed to assert standing as if it were their constitutional injury 
that were at stake, and it was not. The Court went on to compound the 
problem by continuing to apply the statutory, effectively legislative, 
proscriptive framework of Roe and its progeny, which itself finds no 
support--not in the Constitution, not in Federal statute, not in 400 
years of Anglo-American judicial precedent, not in common law. They 
just made it up, and they said it is important. We, therefore, deem it 
to be part of the Constitution. These are the first two errors.

  There is a third error I want to call out from the Supreme Court's 
unfortunate and very wrong ruling in June Medical Services v. Russo. 
The third category of error that is built into this decision relates to 
the standard by which a court deems something unconstitutional. 
Separate and apart from the standing issue, separate and apart from the 
fact that Roe was a made-up doctrine, there is also a problem in that 
the Court didn't approach this constitutional question the same way 
that it is supposed to address all other constitutional questions.
  Under a well-worn line of cases, including a case called United 
States v. Salerno, the Supreme Court, with only very rare exceptions--
not relevant, not present here--does not declare a statute facially 
unconstitutional unless that statute is alleged and proven to have been 
unconstitutional in all of its potential applications.
  Let's break that down into more common language. You can't just walk 
into court and say that a particular law is categorically 
unconstitutional; you have to wait until that law is unconstitutionally 
applied to you. That is called an as-applied challenge. As-applied 
challenges are the norm, the rule, and they are the default. In almost 
all cases, that is how you get something deemed unconstitutional, is 
through an as-applied challenge; that is, the Court doesn't just strike 
it down in its entirety.
  But it is striking down the law in its entirety that the Court did 
here--that the Court was asked to do here and that the Court, in fact, 
did here under circumstances in which the law had not even yet been 
implemented and had never been enforced--not once. They didn't even 
wait to see if it could be or would be or might be implemented in a 
manner consistent with the text and history and structure of the U.S. 
Constitution. They just walked in and said: The whole thing is 
unconstitutional. Get rid of it.
  Why is that a problem? It does matter. It matters because ours is a 
system of rules and laws. It is based on the constitutional text. Yes, 
precedent factors into it, but precedent can't be the inexorable 
command.
  In any event, precedent here went the other way with respect to the 
standard by which you deem something unconstitutional in all of its 
applications.
  As Justice Gorsuch explained in his separate dissent, ``In effect, 
the standard for facial challenges has been flipped on its head: Rather 
than requiring that a law be unconstitutional in all of its 
applications to fall, today's decision requires that Louisiana's law be 
constitutional in all of its applications [in order] to stand.''
  In other words, as Justice Gorsuch explained, they applied a 
completely different set of rules here. Why? Well, simply because this 
involves abortion, and abortion is different. Somehow abortion--
notwithstanding the fact that it makes no appearance in the 
Constitution--somehow abortion is treated differently. Now abortion is 
treated differently even in this separate line of cases, even in this 
separate line of precedents dealing with facial challenges versus as-
applied challenges.
  If, in fact, the Supreme Court is going to stick to stare decisis, 
the principle invoked over and over and over again in that frankly 
awful decision yesterday, for which the Court should be ashamed, stare 
decisis is the principle that basically says: We as a court, once we 
have decided something one way, are going to continue to follow that 
precedent most of the time unless we really really don't want to.
  That is, in essence, what stare decisis means. They invoked stare 
decisis over and over and over again in that case and said that is just 
how it had to be because, well, stare decisis requires that.
  Well, they didn't follow stare decisis. They didn't follow their own 
precedent when it comes to their standing docket. They didn't follow 
their own precedent. They didn't adhere to stare decisis when it comes 
to United States vs. Salerno. They utterly ignored the fact that this 
is a case in which the statute invalidated by the Supreme Court of the 
United States yesterday is capable of being applied in a fully 
constitutional manner.
  By the way, they made a number of assertions about the factual record 
of the case and about the effect of Louisiana's Act 620 that are simply 
wrong.

[[Page S4013]]

They invalidated this law by saying: Look, the Louisiana Legislature 
claims that this Act 620 was put in place in order to protect women's 
health. We don't really think that is the case. We don't think they 
have met that standard here.
  First of all, in doing that, they ignored precedent applicable in 
literally every other scenario in which they defer substantially to the 
determinations of a legislative body in deciding whether the law that 
they are passing in fact will have the effect that they want, 
especially in an area like public health and safety. They ignored the 
fact that they had abundant testimony before the Louisiana Legislature 
supporting the basis for what they were doing.
  In Justice Gorsuch's dissent, he referred to multiple pieces of 
information before the legislature. He pointed out that one woman 
testified that while she was in an abortion clinic after having a 
procedure and she was hemorrhaging, her abortion provider told her: You 
are on your own. Get out.
  Eventually, the woman went to the hospital, where an emergency room 
physician removed fetal body parts that the abortion provider had 
recklessly left in her body.
  Another patient who complained of severe pain following her abortion 
was told simply to go home and lie down.
  In another case, a clinic physician allowed a patient to bleed for 3 
hours even though a clinic employee testified that the physician would 
not let her call 911 because of a possible media involvement. In the 
end, that employee at that clinic called 911 anyway, and emergency room 
personnel, upon the arrival of that patient, discovered that the 
patient had a perforated uterus and, as a result, needed a hysterectomy
  A different physician, speaking to the Louisiana State Legislature in 
connection with their deliberations on Act 620, explained that she 
routinely treats abortion complications in the emergency room when the 
physician who performed the abortion lacks admitting privileges. In the 
experience of that physician, ``The situation puts a woman's health at 
an unnecessary unacceptable risk that results from a delay of care and 
a lack of continuity of care.''
  It was on this basis that the Louisiana State Legislature concluded 
that having admitting privileges would help to contain these risks and 
help protect women because a physician--the same physician who 
performed that procedure, if he or she has admitting privileges in a 
hospital within 30 miles of the abortion clinic in question, would be 
the physician in the very best position to treat that patient.
  So, yes, could reasonable minds reach different conclusions as to the 
exact set of regulations applicable to an abortion clinic or any other 
type of healthcare clinic? You bet. There are a lot of ways to get at 
the same issue. There are a lot of ways to protect human health and 
safety. It is not the job of the Supreme Court of the United States to 
decide exactly how those laws are written in Louisiana. And make no 
mistake--that is what the Supreme Court did here. They might as well 
have removed their robes and pretended simply to be lawmakers. What 
they are doing is that blatant, and it is very wrong.
  There is, moreover, a connection between this logical disconnect that 
I refer to and the fact that the standing analysis that I alluded to 
earlier shows something else that the Supreme Court did wrong. This 
shows that the very same concerns that the Louisiana Legislature had on 
behalf of the patients--the would-be victims of medical malpractice at 
many of these abortion clinics--are concerns that were not present 
before the Court. They were not represented among the plaintiffs in 
that case. That is yet another reason why the Supreme Court of the 
United States acted lawlessly, in a shameful manner, in the June 
Medical Services case.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). The Senator from Texas.


                                S. 4049

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this weekend, the American people will 
celebrate 244 years since our Nation's independence. Over these last 
two and a half centuries, our country has faced and defeated many 
enemies who have sought to undermine the very foundation of our way of 
life. They sought to take away our freedom, undermine our values, and 
destroy our way of life. They also in the process sought to instill 
fear, hate, and perpetrate violence. But each time, our country has 
prevailed.
  It is really a miracle, if you look back at our Nation's history, 
that we made it through a civil war, two world wars, and we find 
ourselves still the beacon of liberty that attracts so many people from 
around the world who want to live here and become Americans and pursue 
their dreams here. All of that starts with our security.
  As we celebrate our independence and generations of men and women who 
fought to protect it, we are now engaged in fulfilling our most 
important responsibility, and that is to provide for the common 
defense. We do that by advancing the National Defense Authorization 
Act.
  This bill is an annual exercise and is part of Congress's commitment 
to give our men and women in uniform the support they need to defeat 
those threats and to prepare for ones that will inevitably come 
tomorrow. We have done this for the last 59 years. Believe it or not, 
we have been consistent and done this for the past 59 years. I can't 
think of any other area where Congress has been so consistent. In doing 
so, we have managed to overcome our differences and pass this 
legislation, as we should. This is how we determine how our soldiers, 
sailors, airmen, and marines are paid; how our alliances are to be 
strengthened; and how our military facilities are to be modernized and 
maintained. As the threat continues to evolve, it is how we ensure that 
we are the best there is.
  In 2018, the national defense strategy was crafted to recognize the 
reality of the global threats we were facing then and we still face 
today and outline a comprehensive strategy to maintain what Ronald 
Reagan coined as ``peace through strength.'' The past two Defense bills 
have supported the implementation of that national defense strategy, 
and this legislation will continue to build on the progress we have 
made.
  Given the state of our world, preserving our military readiness has 
never been more important. Both China and Russia have become much more 
aggressive in their attempts to disrupt the global order. North Korea 
continues to provoke the United States and our allies with its nuclear 
aspirations. Iran's hostile and unpredictable actions continue to 
threaten democracies around the world. Our adversaries are investing in 
their capabilities in an effort to surpass ours, and in some areas, 
sadly, they are succeeding.
  Simply put, America no longer enjoys the competitive edge we once had 
on our competitors and adversaries. We can't allow that status quo to 
be maintained. We must change it, and that is where the NDAA comes in.
  This legislation makes tremendous strides in maintaining that 
technological advantage, in modernizing our weapons, building 
resilience, and regaining a credible military deterrent. What keeps us 
safe is our deterrent. We need any foe to realize that if they engage 
the United States in military conflict, they will be defeated. The 
moment they believe that they can take us on and gain some advantage, 
they will do it. That is the nature of the world we live in. So the 
deterrent value of what we are doing here this week could not be more 
important.
  All told, the defense authorization bill will support $740 billion 
for our national defense. That is the single biggest ticket item in our 
Federal spending. It will mark a significant step forward in our 
efforts to modernize and strengthen our military. But this bill is 
about more than maintaining our powerful national defense; it is 
empowering the men and women behind it. America's 2.1 million 
servicemembers have made a commitment that most of us have not made, 
and that is to volunteer to serve in the defense of our Nation and in 
so doing, joining the ranks of America's heroes who have defended our 
country throughout our history. They make sacrifices each and every 
day, not because it is good for them but because it is good for all of 
us. We owe it to them to support them in any way we possibly can, both 
on duty and off.

  This legislation provides for a modest 3-percent pay raise and 
additional support for our families. Since we have an

[[Page S4014]]

all-volunteer military, it is frequently said that it is the individual 
servicemember who volunteers, but it is the family that determines 
whether we will retain them in military service. So this bill provides 
for military spouse employment opportunities and childcare.
  I offered one amendment to the bill that would extend this support to 
help military parents during a time of tragedy. It would change a 
policy that was brought to my attention by Maj. Matthew Checketts, who 
is an Active-Duty airman at Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland.
  Major Checketts and his wife Jessica spent much of last year 
preparing for the arrival of their newest family member, a little girl 
named Elaine. Elaine would be their sixth child, joining a squad of 
boys who were eager to have a little sister.
  When Elaine arrived last fall, Major Checketts was given 21 days of 
parental leave to spend time with his family, but then they experienced 
an unimaginable tragedy. Their beautiful daughter passed away. Instead 
of getting to know their newest family member, the Checketts family was 
facing a hardship every parent prays they will never have to endure.
  For many military families, that loss is made even more difficult 
because of a Department of Defense policy which ends a servicemember's 
preapproved parental leave upon the death of a child. There is no time 
to grieve and no time to regroup. That means no time to be with your 
grieving family or somehow process this immeasurable loss. The policy 
of the Department of Defense currently requires servicemembers to leave 
their family and return to work when that child dies.
  In Major Checketts' case, his commander allowed him to take his 
preapproved leave so he could stay with his family, but not every 
servicemember will get that same consideration. That is why Senator 
Duckworth and I introduced the Elaine M. Checketts Military Families 
Act, named after Elaine. This legislation would amend current leave 
policy for servicemembers so their preapproved parental leave is not 
terminated upon the tragic event of a child's death.
  This is actually in line with other civilian Federal employees, and 
there is no reason why servicemembers should be treated differently. 
The grief of losing a child should not be aggravated or compounded by 
having to face the grief thousands of miles away from your family.
  So, as we begin to debate this year's Defense authorization bill, 
let's keep at the forefront of our conversation the men and women who 
are heroically offering themselves, and, indeed, their very lives, on 
some occasions, to protect against the threats to our country. Let's 
work in good faith to get this bipartisan bill passed soon.
  Let me commend Senator Inhofe, the chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, and Senator Reed, the ranking member, for their leadership 
on this bill, as well as all the members of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee. I particularly appreciate their maintaining the tradition of 
strong bipartisanship that has historically guided this legislation.
  As we get closer and closer to the Fourth of July, let us remember 
all of America's Armed Forces, what they have all given to protect our 
freedoms, and let's make sure we do our job both here in Washington, 
with a strong Defense authorization bill, and at home, with our 
demonstration of support and expressions of gratitude and appreciation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 4112

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues who will be joining 
me this evening--Senator Baldwin, Senator Hassan, and Senator Schumer--
to advocate for much needed action to protect workers, to provide 
relief to State and local governments, and to bolster our public health 
system.
  I rise to speak about the steps we need to take to invest in 
childcare and education. COVID-19 has upended childcare and schools in 
a way that truly is unprecedented. It has created chaos across our 
education system.
  Since we passed the CARES Act over 3 months ago now, Senate 
Republicans have not done anything to address the countless challenges 
that our childcare providers, our educators, our schools, and, of 
course, our students and families are facing. Instead, they have chosen 
to pretend that this crisis is over and that we should just return to 
business as usual, which for them means most often voting on partisan 
judges and not much else.
  As my Republican colleagues continue to delay any response, urging 
Democrats to pump the brakes and ``wait and see,'' we are hearing from 
parents who aren't sure if they can go back to work because their 
childcare provider closed. We are hearing from teachers who aren't sure 
if they will even have a job to return to in the fall. We are hearing 
from college students who might be forced to drop out because they 
desperately need financial assistance during this economic downturn.
  We don't need to wait and see to know we need to provide relief 
immediately. In our childcare system alone, we are now at risk of 
losing millions of childcare slots because providers across the country 
are struggling to keep their doors open.
  As Senate Republicans are burying their heads in the sand on this, 
our K-12 schools are now facing some of the biggest cuts to State and 
local revenue we have seen in a long time, all while struggling with 
the increased cost of dealing with how to reopen safely and to continue 
to provide quality education during a pandemic. We know this crisis is 
hitting, especially hard, students of color, students from low-income 
families, students who are experiencing homelessness, students with 
disabilities, and many other students who are marginalized in our 
education system.
  Our higher education system is under serious financial pressure as 
colleges across our country, especially our Nation's HBCUs and our 
Tribal colleges and our minority-serving institutions, struggle with 
the consequences of this pandemic. Many students have been forced to 
drop out of higher education because they lost their job or they can't 
meet their basic needs. To address all of these problems, we need a 
massive investment in our childcare system, in our schools, and in our 
students and families now.
  This is why, today, I am introducing the Coronavirus Child Care and 
Education Relief Act. This bill creates a Child Care Stabilization 
Fund, which will provide grants to make sure providers can stay open 
and that working families get the tuition relief they need. It will 
provide K-12 schools with the funds they desperately need to help 
students with increased academic and social emotional supports to 
address learning loss, to put in place public health measures to make 
our schools safer for students and educators, to make sure specific 
funding goes to support students with disabilities, and to address the 
other growing inequities for students of color and many others.
  The bill will also make a $132 billion investment in our higher 
education system to provide emergency financial aid grants to students 
for expenses like food and housing, childcare, technology supplies, and 
to help our colleges to confront the increased cost and financial 
pressures they are now facing during this COVID-19 pandemic.
  Additionally, this bill will reverse Secretary DeVos's cruel attempts 
to prevent millions of students, including our undocumented students 
and DACA recipients, from receiving emergency aid, block her from 
giving special favors to colleges that don't need taxpayer dollars, and 
stop her from taking funding that was meant for public schools to 
advance her privatization agenda.
  There is a long road ahead to fully address the education and 
childcare crisis, but this bill is an important step for childcare 
providers, our students, our families, and our educators. Our schools 
cannot wait any longer.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of S. 4112, the Coronavirus Child Care and Education 
Relief Act introduced earlier today. I further ask that the bill be 
considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, before my colleague from Utah wishes to 
object, may I say a few words?

[[Page S4015]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader of the Senate.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington State 
for introducing this legislation, which I am proud to cosponsor.
  Education is the future foundation of our success in America. It has 
always been. When a crisis occurs, we have to stand by those who 
educate our kids, and, most importantly, our kids themselves, whether 
they be in preschool, whether they be in K-12, or whether they be in 
higher education.
  There are so many different ways that this crisis has affected our 
schools, and, frankly, if our schools can't open in September, millions 
of Americans who want to go back to work and who could go back to work 
will not be able to because they have to be home taking care of their 
kids. There is a need to really step up to the plate in a real way and 
improve education over the long run, but at the same time not let it 
deteriorate because the coronavirus has so affected our schools in so 
many different ways.
  I would hope that this body would pass this measure. It is vital--
vital--to get our economy going, vital to resume the education of our 
kids, vital to make sure that classrooms can function in a healthy way, 
and vital to providing the kind of childcare that people need as well.
  I hope that my colleagues, again, would support this legislation. It 
is so important. If America is going to have a great future--and I hope 
and pray and believe we will--we are going to have to have the best 
schools in the country, and if we are a country that lets a pandemic 
hurt our schools badly so they will take years to recover, woe is us.
  So I thank my colleague from Washington State for introducing this 
measure. I am for it. Even if there is objection here, we will be 
coming back to this issue because it is so, so important for the future 
of our country. I appreciate the gentleman from Utah yielding, and I 
appreciate the good works of my colleagues who have put together this 
legislation
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we received 
this 125-page bill yesterday evening. I have great appreciation and 
respect for my colleague, the Senator from Washington, and yet I can't 
look at this 125-page bill we saw for the first time yesterday evening 
without thinking that hardly enough time has passed since this 
legislation was introduced to even read the bill, let alone to mark it 
up in committee or bring it up on the Senate floor and have it passed 
here.
  Even though Congress has acted to provide emergency assistance in 
response to the current global pandemic, this legislation includes 
significant additional spending for a number of programs that have not 
been debated in the Senate. This bill would also create at least one 
new program, and I say ``at least,'' because, again, we are still 
trying to figure out what is in it. It creates at least one new 
program, the Community College and Industry Partnership Grants Program. 
I am sure this would do a number of good things, but, again, this thing 
is not ready for prime time. This program is, as far as I can tell, 
largely duplicative of existing programs. This legislation would 
provide $2 billion for it anyway.
  A bill of this length and a bill that provides for billions of 
dollars in new spending should not--I would hope would never--be passed 
this quickly. The Senate should take the time to thoroughly weigh the 
changes proposed in this legislation. Therefore, on behalf of Senator 
Alexander and myself, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am sorry that the Senator has objected 
this evening. This is an issue that is critical to every family in this 
country. We all want our economy to open. I assure everyone that if 
people can't get childcare, they cannot go back to work. Our schools 
are going to be looking immediately into how they are going to be 
opening. Without the additional resources they need, they will not be 
able to do it. Our kids and our families are worth this bill.
  I know that several colleagues will be speaking here tonight on this, 
but I want the Senate to know that these are priorities that we are 
going to be fighting for. I urge the Senate to bring up the next COVID 
package. I am willing to work with everybody on it, to hear what 
everybody has to say, but our kids, our families, and the future of 
this country has to have our support at this critical time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Murray and my 
Democratic colleagues in calling for substantial additional funding for 
childcare and education as our country continues to grapple with the 
COVID-19 pandemic.
  In New Hampshire and across the country, this pandemic has turned 
families' lives upside-down. As classrooms shifted to living rooms, 
many parents have had to take on new roles, balancing teaching their 
children with their own day-to-day work. Other parents, including those 
who are on the frontlines of responding to this crisis, have had to 
figure out new childcare arrangements to ensure that their children are 
cared for while they go to work. Teachers and educators have had to 
adapt and find new, innovative ways to meet the needs of all students.
  With cases rising across this country, there is significant 
uncertainty facing families and educators who are trying to navigate 
what our systems of education and childcare are going to look like in 
the coming months.
  The legislation being offered by Senator Murray today would be a 
strong step forward in helping families and educators prepare for the 
road ahead, and, as with all preparation, timing matters. Delaying 
necessary actions doesn't address the new challenges educators and 
families face; it just makes it harder for them to get their jobs done.
  The Coronavirus Childcare and Education Relief Act, which am I proud 
to cosponsor, is a comprehensive bill that would help meet the needs of 
students and childcare centers, K-12 schools, and institutions of 
higher education.
  Among its many provisions, this bill makes significant investments in 
childcare. Childcare centers have already been hit hard by lost revenue 
during the pandemic, and now they face added costs in implementing new 
health and safety policies to mitigate the risk of spreading COVID-19. 
This legislation would provide them with much needed relief.
  In addition, this legislation would bolster emergency funding for K-
12 schools. This funding would help address challenges with students 
who have fallen behind. It would help schools institute public health 
protocols, and it would give schools more resources to ensure that all 
students--all students--get a quality education, whether it is in 
person, remotely, or a combination of both.
  As we have worked to ensure that schools can effectively educate all 
students during this pandemic, I have also been focused on preventing 
students who experience disabilities from being overlooked. Before 
COVID-19, students with disabilities were already more vulnerable to 
disruptions in their education since the additional resources they need 
are often scarce. This pandemic has exacerbated the challenges students 
with disabilities face, and many have lost meaningful access to the 
critical services that make their education possible.
  We know that large numbers of students will require remedial help 
when they return to school, and these challenges will be particularly 
acute for students with disabilities. To address this, Senator Murphy 
and I have been calling for additional dedicated funding through the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and I am pleased that this 
legislation meets those calls, providing $12 billion in funding to help 
ensure that students with disabilities receive the same educational 
opportunities as do their peers.
  Finally, to address the challenges facing institutions of higher 
education, this bill provides colleges and universities with critical 
emergency funding, helping strengthen emergency financial aid for 
students as well as bolstering support to help these institutions 
follow public health guidelines. It also provides key funding for 
community colleges as well as career and technical education programs.
  This upcoming school year will look different than any other we have 
ever seen before, and we must be prepared

[[Page S4016]]

so that students do not fall further behind. The legislation that 
Senate Democrats have brought forth today will give schools and 
families some needed certainty, and this certainty is critical for the 
planning that needs to happen now. Delay in this moment is 
irresponsible.
  I am grateful to the Senator from Washington for her leadership on 
this bill and on all the efforts that we make to strengthen education 
for all of America's children.
  I urge my Republican colleagues to support this bill, to join with us 
to make sure that, as we grapple with this pandemic, we can all help 
our students thrive and our families get back to work
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3677

  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I want to also join in commending 
Senators Murray, Schumer, and Hassan. I am proud to be a part of this 
effort to make sure that children, from early childhood education to 
lifelong learning, are able to continue and not fall behind. It is 
critical that we act on this legislation.
  I rise to speak to another measure that has gone undebated in this 
body. It underlies the reopening of our economy, including K-12 
education and many other activities. In fact, I started working on this 
legislation with Senator Duckworth when it was only essential workers 
who were reporting to work every day, but now, as we reopen, it is so 
required.
  As our Nation battles an ongoing and deadly pandemic, thousands of 
American workers have been on the job from the start, keeping our 
economy running and keeping people safe. They are healthcare workers, 
food service and grocery store workers, warehouse workers, 
transportation workers, and all those working on the frontlines every 
day to confront this pandemic.
  Today, even as coronavirus cases continue to rise, many States have 
already reopened businesses and restaurants, calling more and more 
people back to work to serve their community. More than 125,000 
Americans, including tens of thousands of frontline workers, have died, 
and these numbers are rising every single day. Yet there is no Federal 
enforceable standard in place to protect American workers from getting 
infected with or spreading COVID-19.
  I have heard from a nurse in Wisconsin who is having to ration 
personal protective equipment, or PPE, and wear the same mask for 3 
weeks or longer.
  I have heard from a grocery store worker in Racine who says their 
store still lacks basic protections like protective plexiglass 
partitions.
  I have heard from a meatpacking plant worker in Green Bay, WI, who 
still has to stand shoulder to shoulder with colleagues on the plant 
floor rather than standing 6 feet apart.
  The lack of basic protections are putting Wisconsin workers at risk.
  I have repeatedly called on the Trump administration to take action. 
The Department of Labor and OSHA, the agency in charge of protecting 
workplace safety and health, need to establish protections that aren't 
voluntary guidance but are mandatory standards.
  OSHA has the authority to issue an emergency temporary standard if 
employees are exposed to grave danger from new hazards, but this 
administration has done nothing but recommend voluntary guidelines to 
workplaces. Voluntary recommendations are not binding, and OSHA 
currently has no enforceable standard to protect workers from airborne 
infectious diseases, leaving the Nation's workers at an elevated risk 
of exposure to the coronavirus. Voluntary compliance is not enough when 
hundreds of thousands of American lives are on the line.
  Now, some businesses are voluntarily making the necessary investments 
to keep their workers safe, but without a mandatory Federal 
requirement, businesses doing the right thing are left at a comparative 
disadvantage.
  We cannot combat this pandemic if we do not take immediate action to 
protect workers.
  Months ago, as I said, I introduced legislation with Senator 
Duckworth to protect U.S. workers from COVID-19 in response to 
disturbing and widespread reports of unsafe workplaces leading to 
preventable illnesses and deaths.
  The COVID-19 Every Worker Protection Act would require the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration to issue emergency 
temporary standards that establish a legal obligation for all 
workplaces to implement comprehensive infectious disease exposure 
control plans and keep workers safe during the COVID-19 pandemic.
  This legislation passed the House of Representatives more than 6 
weeks ago as part of the HEROES Act, but Leader McConnell has buried 
this bill in his legislative graveyard.
  This legislation is the single best way to require all workplaces to 
protect the health and safety of their workers and to prevent 
additional outbreaks and further spread of the coronavirus. It is not 
enough just to say ``thank you'' and label our frontline workers 
heroes. We need to create a safe workplace so that these heroes can 
continue to do their heroic work.
  Congress can take immediate action right now to require workplaces 
and employers to put enforceable standards in place to protect their 
workers. We can and we should do more in this country to do right by 
our workers. That is why I am asking right now for unanimous consent to 
pass my COVID-19 Every Worker Protection Act.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions be discharged from further consideration of S. 
3677, the COVID-19 Every Worker Protection Act of 2020; 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 with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, reasonable 
efforts to protect those working on the frontlines in the middle of a 
public health crisis should certainly be applied.
  There are many individuals across the country steadfastly fulfilling 
their occupational duties to care for and otherwise help those who have 
the coronavirus. It is important that those individuals take 
precautions for their safety and for the safety of other people who 
happen to be around them. However, the bill under consideration, the 
bill that is the subject of this unanimous consent request, poses 
several problems.
  First of all, it does not respect the fact that States, localities, 
and businesses are far better suited than the Federal Government to 
determine what safety standards might be needed. Instead, the 
legislation forces State governments to adjust their current plans to 
protect workers to meet standards determined by some administrative 
bureaucracy in Washington.
  This action is burdensome, and a one-size-fits-all approach to 
protecting healthcare workers on the frontlines will not work. The 
reason it will not work is that our frontlines differ across the 
Nation. States must be permitted the flexibility to enact their own 
standards based on the needs of each State.
  Further, the temporary protection standards for the bill are not 
truly temporary. They are described as such, but they are not, as the 
bill calls for permanent standards to be made based on the initially 
temporary standards to be determined by OSHA.
  Finally, the bill broadly subjects all employees at risk of 
occupational exposure to the emergency standards to be promulgated by 
OSHA. This means that potentially every worker in every industry could 
be subjected to these requirements even though each industry has its 
own unique challenges that need to be addressed. So this broad-brush 
approach could limit the ability of certain individuals to work during 
this time even though they might actually be in a good position to do 
so safely.
  It is critically important for our healthcare workers to be protected 
in a time of crisis, but the most effective way to accomplish that is 
by continuing to allow States, localities, healthcare facilities, and 
businesses to set safety standards and to ensure that those who can 
safely work have the ability to do so. Therefore, on behalf of Senator 
Alexander and myself, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

[[Page S4017]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I am very disappointed. I think this is 
one of the most critical actions that our country could take in the 
face of this pandemic that has created so much havoc in our economy and 
has also has taken too many precious souls from us.
  I would state this on examination of this bill: It is not, in fact, a 
one-size-fits-all. If there is any agency anywhere that has the 
wherewithal to promulgate an emergency temporary standard, and, 
ultimately, after 24 months a permanent standard, it is the Department 
of Labor and its Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
  The failure of leadership that this administration--as in OSHA--is 
not doing its job is unfathomable to me. But I believe that it sits in 
the best position to issue an emergency temporary standard and protect 
our workers and customers and students and patients who necessarily 
interact with these workers. I am disappointed. But, again, we will 
continue to press this issue until every worker does have these 
protections.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                                Protests

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, it is with sadness, concern, and deep 
disappointment that I come to the floor to acknowledge something very 
unfortunate that happened just last night in my own hometown of Provo, 
UT. A group of people were gathered in downtown Provo to protest, to 
express concern over matters important to them.
  At one moment, a car approached University Avenue, preparing to turn 
right on to Center Street. As that car approached, the car was 
surrounded by people who were engaged in acts of protests. The car 
tried to pull through the intersection very slowly, being cautious, and 
not to move into anyone.
  The protesters continued to gather around the car. In the middle of 
all of this, the driver of that car was shot--was shot--by one of the 
protesters who was armed, who, according to the video that I saw, 
looked right into the vehicle and shot into the passenger side window 
with a gun.
  According to eyewitness accounts, after the driver then pulled away 
from the intersection, trying to get away, the person with the gun 
fired yet again as the driver was driving away. Moments later, the 
driver arrived at Utah Valley Regional Medical Center, seeking medical 
attention. My thoughts and prayers are with that victim and the 
victim's family
  I am saddened that we have to be having this conversation at all, but 
it is something that has come to so many communities around America. 
These are protests, in some cases, turning into riots that have visited 
communities--urban and rural and suburban alike.
  In many instances, people have come to those protests in order to 
vocalize concerns that they have with their government--concerns, 
perhaps, about law enforcement policy or personnel. In some cases, some 
protests have been carried out without violence and without incident.
  A few weeks ago, I came to the floor of the U.S. Senate to talk about 
one such gathering in Ogden, UT, where people gathered to express their 
objections to what happened to George Floyd in Minneapolis about a 
month ago. They did so in the immediate wake of the killing of a police 
officer in Ogden. They dual-tracked their expressions of emotion and of 
concern, expressing support and appreciation to the fallen officer who 
had given his life enforcing the law and trying to protect his fellow 
Utahns, his fellow American, his fellow residents of Ogden, while at 
the same time protesting against what happened to George Floyd in 
Minneapolis.
  They protested in a way that reflected well on this country, on the 
city of Ogden, and on the State of Utah. They left with not a scrap of 
trash left in the streets. Perhaps far more importantly, they left the 
scene without having harmed anyone or anything, without destroying 
property.
  Yes, the American people have the right peaceably to assemble and to 
express their views without fear of retribution from their government. 
But, no, that does not encompass the right to harm other people, and, 
no, that does not encompass the right to engage in acts of lawlessness, 
whether for the purpose of destroying property or life simply because 
one is concerned about something.
  This violence has to stop. This isn't who we are. It is important 
also to remember that whenever we voice concern about something in 
government, we remember that you can't expand government without 
strengthening government--the same government entity that provides law 
enforcement officers, the same government entity that collects taxes, 
that runs any government program. So we do have to keep in mind exactly 
what it is that we want.
  There are many instances that I have observed as a lawyer, as a 
former prosecutor, and as a citizen in which police authority has been 
abused. I unequivocally condemn all such abuses. That is the very 
reason we have a Constitution in place to limit the power of 
government, of individual officials running them--government entities.
  When you send law enforcement in to address a particular situation, 
you are not doing that for the purpose of persuasion; you do it for the 
purpose of force. That is the one tool that government has that is 
uniquely government's. It has the power of force. It is official, 
collective force. That is what government is.
  I hope and I expect that our conversations about this will focus on 
how force is used by government--where it ought to be entrusted in 
government, where it shouldn't. I hope, also, we can look to any of the 
true underlying causes of some of these abuses.
  I hope and expect that we can address why on Earth was it that the 
man who killed George Floyd apparently had 17 complaints filed against 
him without formal disciplinary action ever having been taken against 
him. Why and how did this happen? What sort of cabal was it that was 
protecting him from discipline?
  I hope and expect that we can have those conversations, but I hope 
and expect that we as a country can come together in condemning 
violence--lawless violence in all of its forms. Whether it is against 
persons or property or a combination of the two, we are better than 
that. Don't dress it up in the flag. It doesn't belong there. Don't 
dress it up in the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects our 
right peaceably to vocalize our concerns, peaceably to assemble--not 
lawlessly and, certainly, not violently.
  If this can happen in Provo, it can happen anywhere. You don't want 
it to happen in your community, not in any community. I hope and expect 
that in the coming days we can come together as a Senate and adopt 
sense of the Senate legislation unequivocally condemning violence 
undertaken in a lawless fashion. Regardless of the motivation of those 
involved in it, it is wrong, and it must never be tolerated--not in 
this country, not on our watch.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Barrasso). The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3768

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, we are going to be talking tonight about 
nursing homes in the context of the COVID-19 disease.
  I will start with the numbers, which I think most Americans, 
unfortunately, know by now. Every day we see the number of cases and 
the number of deaths. I don't know exactly the number today, but it was 
somewhere around 127,000 deaths.
  Yet a number they may not know are the numbers when it comes to 
nursing homes. More than 54,000 residents of nursing homes or workers 
have died--more than 54,000. They account for more than 40 percent of 
all the deaths in the USA.
  To say this is unacceptable in no way begins to describe the gravity 
of this, the tragedy, and the failure by the administration to deal 
with it and to have a strategy to get that number down.
  I hope the administration and I hope Members of Congress would commit 
themselves today to say that when we come back here 3 months from now, 
4

[[Page S4018]]

months from now, 5 months from now, that we are not again saying 54,000 
more people died in nursing homes. I hope there will be an effort made 
by the majority in the Senate to make sure we are working together with 
the administration to get that number down.
  I don't sense that the administration has any kind of a strategy here 
at all because if there were a strategy, that number would never be as 
high as it is.
  I will have more to say later, but there is something we can do in 
the Senate and that is to pass legislation to do a couple of things. 
No. 1 is to focus dollars on the problem.
  In this case, we have nursing homes across the country that never 
implemented the kind of practices that would help them to reduce the 
number of deaths in nursing homes. We know there are best practices 
that work. We know that when a nursing home is given the resources to 
separate those with COVID-19 from those who don't have it, so-called 
cohorting--it is a phrase we should become familiar with, 
``cohorting''--if that happens in a long-term care setting, the death 
number will go down for sure, and the case number will go down, but not 
enough places are doing that.
  We should help them do that. I have legislation to do just that. We 
also know there are best practices with regard to investing in 
strategies that will surge medical support for nursing homes to get 
more professionals to be brought to bear on a problem in a nursing 
home. There is a lot we can do. I will have more to say about it in a 
moment, but I know we want to get to a unanimous consent request.
  This is not going to be good enough for us to just curse the darkness 
and say how bad this is and how unacceptable it is. We have to act. 
That means the Senate has to pass legislation which includes dollars--
funding--so we can have better practices in our nursing homes. I hope 
those who will say that is not what we should do have a good plan, a 
good strategy.
  Let me start with a unanimous consent because I know we have to get 
that done here.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions Committee be discharged from further consideration 
and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3768, the 
Nursing Home COVID-19 Protection and Prevention Act of 2020. I ask 
unanimous consent 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. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. President, the fact is, the Senate has acted. We acted very 
generously. In the CARES Act, we passed $100 billion. In the CARES Act 
3.5--phase 3.5--we passed $75 billion for a total of $175 billion for 
the Provider Relief Fund. That fund allowed reimbursement and financial 
assistance to skilled nursing facilities and nursing homes.
  To date, about $76.9 billion--44 percent of that $175 billion--has 
actually been expended, and $4.9 billion has been expended on skilled 
nursing facilities and nursing homes, which means we have $98.1 billion 
left.
  Fifty-six percent of that $175 billion has not been spent, and HHS 
has a great deal of latitude in terms of how to direct that. If more 
needs to go to skilled nursing facilities and nursing homes, HHS has 
$98.1 billion to spend.
  Before we authorize another $20 billion and try to pass that by 
unanimous consent, I say we need to take a very close look at what we 
have already spent--close to $77 billion--and then either redirect, 
repurpose, or just utilize it as was intended, the $98.1 billion that 
remains to be spent.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2779

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, first, let me talk a little about the 
Luke and Alex School Safety Act.
  The Luke and Alex School Safety Act of 2020 is named in memory of 
Luke Hoyer and Alex Schachter, who tragically lost their young lives on 
February 14, 2018, in the attack at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High 
School in Parkland, FL. Luke's parents, Tom and Gena Hoyer, and Alex's 
father, Max Schachter, turned their tragedy into positive action by 
dedicating their lives to promoting noncontroversial, commonsense 
school safety measures so that others don't have to experience 
tragedies like they have.

  Both Tom and Max testified before my committee on July 25, 2019, and 
presented their recommendations for improving school safety. One of 
their recommendations was to create a Federal clearinghouse of school 
safety best practices that schools, teachers, and parents can use as a 
tool to improve a school's safety posture in a way that best suits that 
school's community and needs.
  Our committee turned this commonsense recommendation into the Luke 
and Alex School Safety Act of 2020 and passed it unanimously, with 
bipartisan support, on November 6, 2019. Even though the bill had only 
cleared our committee, the Department of Homeland Security agreed that 
it was such a good idea that it actually created and launched this 
clearinghouse in February of 2020. I ask unanimous consent to codify 
this clearinghouse within the DHS to ensure it will be continually 
updated to be useful and relevant for schools and teachers and parents 
well into the future.
  By the way, I just quickly printed out the current web page here. 
What is on it is just very common sense. It reads: ``Find Resources to 
Create a Safer School.'' It has the latest news and a coronavirus 
update. Then it has a number of different parts to the site. You can go 
on School Safety Tips, like bullying and cyberbullying, threat 
assessment and reporting, school security personnel, physical security, 
training, exercises and drills, mental health, school climate, 
emergency planning and recovery.
  Again, this is completely noncontroversial. It is just a 
clearinghouse of best practices that every school in America can go to 
and cut through the clutter and, hopefully, find very practical 
solutions to improve the safety within their schools and, again, 
hopefully prevent tragedies like those that, unfortunately, befell the 
folks in Parkland, FL.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 402, S. 2779. I ask unanimous 
consent that the committee-reported amendments be withdrawn; that the 
Johnson substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; 
that the bill, as amended, 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. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, I don't 
have a problem--nor do, I am sure, a number of Senators--with Senator 
Johnson's bill. I am objecting on behalf of the Democratic Senators so 
we can start a conversation about helping all of the air traffic 
controllers in this country receive 12 weeks of paid parental leave, 
starting on September 30, 2020.
  We did a great thing here in the Senate for other Federal employees 
last year in the National Defense Authorization Act that the President 
signed, but these air traffic controllers were accidentally left out. I 
think--and I am sure this is true of many who agree with me--that if 
the chairman would take a look at Senator Schatz's bill to fix that, 
these hard-working moms and dads would be very appreciative.
  Therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, if I could ask the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, I am not quite sure what that fix has to do with the 
school safety bill. They are completely unrelated. By the way, I talked 
to Senator Lankford earlier, and I know he also has a bill to fix that 
and is trying to get that into the NDAA this year. Again, it seems like 
there is bipartisan support for that as well.
  To me, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to hold up and not pass a 
bill that is completely unobjectionable and noncontroversial and that 
really could marginally improve school safety simply because we have 
not fixed what

[[Page S4019]]

we kind of botched the last time around even though there is bipartisan 
support to actually fix it. So I guess I am kind of scratching my head 
and not understanding that objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I think the reference was to Senator 
Schatz's bill, and I am just asking, on behalf of the Democratic 
Senator, if the chairman would take a look at that bill.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, I am happy to take a look at that as I am willing 
to take look at the Lankford bill and get that in the NDAA. So, 
perhaps, maybe, if that gets included and gets fixed, we can come back 
at a later date and pass this by unanimous consent.
  I yield the floor
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                              Coronavirus

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about the 
problem for which Senator Casey asked unanimous consent, which is of 
the terrible plague of deaths in nursing homes across the country.
  We just heard the chairman say that he is not sure what the air 
traffic controllers have to do with his proposal on school safety. I am 
not sure what his proposal on school safety has to do with nursing 
homes. We came here to talk about nursing homes.
  There are over 30,000 residents of nursing homes in this country who 
have been killed by the COVID virus. If Senator Casey's numbers are 
accurate, that is another 20,000 of stats. It is one in four deaths 
from COVID-19 in the United States. Out of the 1.3 million Americans 
residing in nursing or intermediate care settings, 30,000-plus have 
passed away, and in some States, it is much worse.
  Senator Hassan is here from New Hampshire, and she will talk about 
her State. Senator Casey is here from Pennsylvania.
  In Rhode Island, 60 percent of our deaths have occurred in long-term 
care facilities. I know it is not just us but that it is going on 
around the country. One in five nursing homes nationwide has reported a 
COVID-related death, and as the disease explodes across parts of 
California, explodes across Florida, and explodes across Arizona, you 
know that this disease will have many more opportunities to attack many 
more Americans in many more nursing homes.
  So our bill is a really sensible one: resources to nursing homes for 
staffing, for testing, for personal protective equipment, to support 
the expense of doing sensible things like cohorting--putting the COVID 
patients together to help contain the spread of the illness--and having 
surge teams available for the really dread situation in which the COVID 
sweeps through a facility with such ferocity that you can't get people 
to come and work there because they all have to be isolated and 
quarantined. You need special measures, special equipment, specially 
trained people--folks beyond the ordinary employee base of the 
facility--to come in and deal with that explosion, with things like 
just best practices--identifying them, promulgating them--practices 
that will keep residents and staff safe.
  I am very disappointed that our Nursing Home COVID-19 Protection and 
Prevention Act has been objected to by the Senate majority. If the 
majority's notion is that we are doing so well that we can ignore this, 
that all we need to do is take a very close look at the funding that 
has already gone out, and that this is another victory we can declare--
mission accomplished; we are doing a wonderful job, Brownie; this is 
great--no, not with 30,000 fatalities and climbing.
  I yield the floor
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Rhode Island and 
my other colleagues on the floor for their comments.
  I rise to join Senator Casey and our colleagues in calling for 
additional action to protect nursing home residents amid the COVID-19 
pandemic.
  I begin by thanking the Senator from Pennsylvania for his leadership 
on this issue. I note that the senior Senator from New Hampshire is 
here, and I know that she will be addressing this issue as well and has 
been fighting for action to protect people all across our State and 
across our country who reside and work in nursing homes.
  Nowhere is this pandemic being felt more acutely in this country than 
in nursing homes. Across the United States, 43 percent of COVID-19 
deaths have been linked to nursing homes, and in New Hampshire, 
roughly, 80 percent of our State's deaths from this virus have been in 
nursing homes and long-term care facilities. The grief of losing a 
loved one, compounded with the fact that families could not be at their 
sides, is unimaginable. I know that frontline staff are working as hard 
as they can to keep their patients and residents safe, but in talking 
with them, it is clear that these essential workers need more support.
  In particular, frontline staff tell me they still do not have 
sufficient supplies of personal protective equipment. Months into this 
pandemic, there is still no robust Federal strategy to support the 
residents and employees of nursing homes. That is inexcusable.
  With respect to the argument that I have heard some of my Republican 
colleagues make--that we have already passed the CARES Act and that it 
had money to go toward nursing homes--it doesn't address this issue. If 
the previous bill were sufficient, we wouldn't still be seeing this 
rate of death in our nursing homes. We need to address the pandemic 
based on the goals we set and the results we want, not just on how hard 
we think we have worked or how much money we think we have spent.
  The bill that Senator Casey has put forward today would make a 
significant difference for nursing homes in New Hampshire and across 
the country. The Nursing Home COVID-19 Protection and Prevention Act, 
which I am proud to cosponsor, would help save lives and improve safety 
among residents and employees in nursing homes.
  Specifically, this bill would provide $20 billion in emergency 
funding for nursing homes, intermediate care facilities, and 
psychiatric hospitals to support costs related to staffing, testing, 
PPE, and other essential needs. It would also require the Department of 
Health and Human Services to collect and publish data and analysis on 
COVID-19 cases and deaths in these facilities, which would give us a 
clearer picture of the situation we are facing. In addition, I will 
continue working to ensure that we are doing all that we can to keep 
residents and employees of nursing homes safe.
  Last week, I joined with Senators Casey, Warren, and Schumer in 
calling for answers from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, 
about nursing home and long-term care facility access to personal 
protective equipment--what we commonly know now as PPE--following 
reports that FEMA was shipping insufficient and defective personal 
protective equipment to these facilities. These reports are deeply 
alarming. Equipment arriving with mold on it cannot continue.
  As we continue to address this pandemic, the challenges facing 
nursing homes must be a top priority. Delaying vital assistance to 
these facilities will have dire consequences for people in New 
Hampshire and all across our country. I urge my Republican colleagues 
to support this legislation. I urge them to come to the table and work 
with the Democrats to strengthen the Federal response to this pandemic.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues on 
the floor in support of legislation that would address what is 
happening in our long-term care facilities across this country as a 
result of the coronavirus.
  I applaud Senator Casey for his leadership on this legislation and am 
pleased to be able to join in cosponsoring the bill, along with my 
colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Hassan; Senator Whitehouse, who 
was here; and Senator Blumenthal. We are all here because this country 
is not doing enough to support long-term care facilities and nursing 
homes in America.
  Before I talk more about the legislation, I begin by expressing my 
outrage at the fact that this administration has directed the 
Department of Justice to weigh in to try and overturn the Affordable 
Care Act at a time when we have millions of Americans who are 
vulnerable during the coronavirus pandemic. As of today, 2.5 million 
Americans--nearly 6,000 patients in New

[[Page S4020]]

Hampshire--have been infected with the coronavirus.
  Nationally, more than 125,000 Americans have died. In New Hampshire, 
nearly 400 Granite Staters have died from complications from the virus. 
Yet what this administration is doing is trying to strike down the 
Affordable Care Act and take away healthcare coverage from 23 million 
Americans, including over 90,000 residents of New Hampshire.
  That means, if they are successful, that we will have millions of 
Americans with preexisting conditions who will lose protections that 
they rely on. We will return to the days when insurers can deny 
coverage to people with preexisting conditions or charge them higher 
premiums based on their health status. Insurers will, once again, be 
able to put caps on the dollar value of health services that can be 
covered in a year or a lifetime.
  At a time when unemployment has risen to levels that we have not seen 
since the Great Depression, this administration is asking the Court to 
strike down the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion provisions 
which, in New Hampshire, has been the most significant factor in 
ensuring that people who are struggling with substance use disorders 
are able to get treatment.
  This Senate should not stand silently by while the administration 
tries to tear down the Affordable Care Act at a time when people are 
most in need of assurances that they can get healthcare coverage.
  We need to come together to address what needs to change about the 
Affordable Care Act to make it better, but we need to do that together 
because if this administration is successful in striking down the 
Affordable Care Act, they don't have a plan of what is going to replace 
it.
  During this global pandemic, it is not enough just to protect the 
Affordable Care Act from ongoing sabotage. We have also got to do more 
to support frontline healthcare providers, especially in nursing homes 
and long-term care facilities that are caring for vulnerable seniors, 
and that is what this legislation that we are speaking to is all about.
  In the Granite State, we know just how dire the needs of nursing 
facilities have become, as nursing home residents account for 
approximately 80 percent of the coronavirus deaths in New Hampshire.
  I want to just reemphasize what Senator Hassan said. Eighty percent 
of the coronavirus deaths in New Hampshire--we have the highest rate in 
the Nation of deaths in long-term care facilities, and yet we have 
nursing facility staff in the State who tell me they are stretched thin 
due to increased costs from the coronavirus response. They have reduced 
revenue because they have had to postpone stays in long-term care 
facilities for patients who need physical rehabilitation.
  It is critical that the Senate take action to provide more support to 
these facilities so they can afford the additional staffing, the 
testing supplies, the personal protective equipment that will be needed 
to keep our seniors safe.
  That is why I strongly support Senator Casey's bill that will provide 
$20 million in new aid to nursing facilities to help them confront this 
pandemic head-on.
  This bill needs to be a central component of any future round of 
coronavirus response legislation here in the Senate. Our communities 
are demanding action to respond to the ongoing impact that the virus is 
having on the public health and on our economy.
  As I said last week on the Senate floor, it is long past time for 
this body to join together and get serious about another coronavirus 
response bill.
  The really impressive thing about what we have done to date in 
response to this pandemic is the fact that we have worked together to 
get four really significant packages of legislation done. Yet now it 
has been 6 weeks since the House passed its coronavirus response 
package, known as the Heroes Act. During that time, there has been no 
action here in the Senate to take up the Senate response to the 
coronavirus. That needs to end.
  I mean, even today we heard the Governor of New Hampshire--the 
Republican Governor, Chris Sununu--announce that in New Hampshire our 
State expects to experience a budget shortfall of nearly $540 million. 
That is about a 20-percent drop in State revenues. That is going to 
have a huge impact in New Hampshire, not just on healthcare but on so 
many investments that the State needs to make in our schools, in 
responses for first responders, in roads and water systems and critical 
infrastructure. Everyone in the State, from town administrators to the 
Republican Governor, all are describing the tough choices that they are 
going to have to make if Federal assistance doesn't arrive soon.
  Of course, that extends to our nursing home facilities--to the many 
businesses and organizations in New Hampshire and across this country 
that need more help.
  So I urge our colleagues to support Senator Casey's legislation. 
Let's get assistance to those facilities that are so much in need and 
come together and demand that we get another coronavirus response 
package of legislation so that people know help is, once again, on the 
way.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored to follow my colleagues 
Senators Shaheen and Hassan from New Hampshire and Senator Whitehouse 
of my neighboring State of Rhode Island--great advocates and steadfast 
champions of our elderly, our nursing home and assisted living 
facilities, and, most important, my wonderful friend and colleague, 
Senator Casey of Pennsylvania, who has been such a tremendous champion 
as the ranking member on the Aging Committee, where I am also 
privileged to serve.
  I have been reading about the 1918, 1919 pandemic which killed 
Americans and people all around the world with such terror and such 
relentless cruelty, and it hit particularly hard young people in the 
prime of their life, in their twenties and early thirties, most 
especially members of the military who were bunked together and 
confined on bases or on troop ships on their way to the war. Almost as 
many American troops died of disease during World War I as they did of 
wounds they suffered in combat.
  Today's pandemic is different. It has hit particularly hard our 
elderly, and they too have been struck with vicious cruelty because, in 
many instances, they are confined to facilities or living spaces where 
they are together, and the disease is transmitted so efficiently.
  Today, we have less excuse than the public officials a century ago. 
They had no idea what this organism looked like, how it lived, what it 
did, or how it was transmitted. We know. We have pictures of it. They 
are on the news every night, and we know that transmission is 
accelerated and exacerbated when people live together in close 
confinement without the kind of staff and protective gear and treatment 
and therapeutics and preventive measures that, hopefully, we will 
develop through research that is ongoing right now.
  They had no cure, and they had no prevention back then. We are 
working to develop it now, but we know, in the meantime, steps can be 
taken to protect our elderly, especially our elderly who live in 
nursing homes and assisted living facilities.
  We have no excuse, none, for the death rates we have seen in those 
facilities. In fact, at the height of this pandemic in Connecticut, 70 
percent--literally, 7 in 10--deaths were among people in nursing homes 
and other senior care facilities. That percentage was among the highest 
in the country. It wasn't the 80 percent of New Hampshire, but 70-plus 
percent was among the highest.
  This death rate nationally is a national scandal and disgrace because 
we knew enough, and we certainly now know enough to prevent these kinds 
of deaths.
  Now, the numbers of COVID cases and deaths have slowed down in 
Connecticut as a result of social distancing and mandatory mask 
wearing, but the pain is still felt in nursing homes. Just last week, 
another 20 nursing home residents died, and in that same week, 64 
nursing home staff contracted COVID-19.
  In fact, although we talk about the residents of nursing homes, the 
staff--the doctors, the nurses, the clinicians, the caregivers, the 
maintenance workers--were also among the most heavily impacted. Working 
in a nursing home is not a picnic. Working in a nursing

[[Page S4021]]

home is tough physically and emotionally, and it was made all the more 
so by this pandemic.
  That is why I am supporting, avidly, the Heroes Fund, part of the 
Heroes Act, which would provide hazardous duty pay to those frontline 
workers who have been on the job reporting for duty despite the risk 
and the extraordinary emotional and physical toll it has taken on them 
and their families.
  That hazardous duty pay is a reward. It is a recognition for what 
they have done in service to not only their patients and clients but 
also to society in Connecticut as a whole. They deserve it, and we need 
to provide it to retain them and to recruit others, the same as we do 
for police and fire and first responders--others who work in grocery 
stores, supermarkets, delivering, postal workers--the unsung heroes of 
this pandemic.
  None has been more courageous and perhaps less appreciated in the way 
they deserve than those strong and courageous workers in nursing homes 
in Connecticut and elsewhere. I know, from having talked to them--many 
of them in Zoom calls, personally, in meetings, on the telephone--they 
grieved for those losses. They genuinely felt the pain and suffering 
that they saw. The losses the families suffered were their losses, too, 
and when their facilities endured a higher than expected rate of 
fatality, they grieved along with brothers and sisters, sons and 
daughters, friends, family, and others. They experienced the kind of 
physical isolation and sometimes emotional isolation that those 
patients endured when they were separated from their loved ones, cut 
off from human contact.

  So we need to focus--we have an obligation to do so--on our nursing 
homes because of the fatalities and the other suffering that is endured 
there. We need to learn from some of the best practices that were 
finally put into place in Connecticut, such as expert strike teams that 
focused on testing, the larger numbers of personal protective 
equipment--masks, gowns, other kinds of equipment necessary to protect 
the staff as well as the residents--and sometimes cohorting, which has 
worked in some circumstances, so that the infected are separated from 
others.
  I am proud to support Senator Casey in fighting for the Nursing Home 
COVID-19 Protection and Prevention Act, which would provide $20 billion 
in emergency funding specifically targeted toward protecting nursing 
home residents as well as individuals in intermediate-care facilities 
and others in psychiatric hospitals.
  This legislation is not a luxury or convenience; it is a necessity. 
If you care about those extraordinarily vulnerable individuals who 
cannot care for themselves--that is why they are in these facilities--
then we must pass this legislation. If we have any measure of self-
respect as well as regard for those brave individuals who work there 
and the loved individuals who live there, we must take this step.
  I have also introduced legislation with Senator Booker--the Quality 
Care for Nursing Home Residents and Workers During COVID-19 Act--that 
would immediately address the egregious number of nursing home deaths 
happening in Connecticut and throughout the country by implementing 
much needed reforms. These reforms and practices are part of the work 
that must be done, especially for the families of the over 2,500 
nursing home residents who lost their lives.
  I am pleased that Connecticut has committed itself to a full probe of 
how COVID-19 impacted nursing homes, how it killed, but Connecticut 
should not need to go it alone. No State should need to go it alone. 
This kind of measure puts the full weight of the Federal Government in 
funding and best practices and reforms behind States like Connecticut 
that want to do better and feel we must do better. We all bear that 
responsibility. It is common to all of us. It is on us, and these two 
measures are a way to fulfill that responsibility.
  We should not leave the Capitol for a 2-week recess while nursing 
home residents remain vulnerable. We should not abdicate our 
responsibility while those residents in the care of assisted living 
facilities remain susceptible, and they are continuing to be 
susceptible. We need greater preparedness in every way, most especially 
where we know the most vulnerable are right now, and that is our 
nursing homes and assisted living facilities.
  As this administration continues to attack the Affordable Care Act in 
the Supreme Court of the United States and elsewhere in abhorrent 
defiance of the need for more healthcare, not less, in the midst of a 
pandemic, we can send a message to the country that we will stand 
strong for better healthcare. We will protect senior citizens in 
nursing homes.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, as we conclude the hour in the next 10 or 
15 minutes, let me start my remarks by thanking my colleagues who 
joined us tonight. I thank Senator Whitehouse, who has worked with us 
on this legislation from the very beginning, on introduction, and so 
many who are cosponsors on the legislation--Senator Hassan from New 
Hampshire and Senator Shaheen, the senior Senator from New Hampshire. I 
thank her for being here and for her comments about this legislation. I 
also thank Senator Blumenthal.
  I wanted to start just for a few minutes before we conclude with this 
chart. This is a chart depicting a map of the United States that is 
dated June 27 from the New York Times. The summary reads: ``In at least 
24 states, a majority of deaths are linked to nursing homes.''
  Of course, I mentioned at the outset the deaths, as of a few hours 
ago, of more than 54,000 people, when you add up the residents and the 
workers, comprising 40 percent of the deaths nationwide.
  You can see when you break it down by State, my home State of 
Pennsylvania is at 68 percent--a majority of the deaths--linked to 
nursing homes. States just to the south, where there is Virginia at 61, 
Maryland at 61, Ohio at 57, but even further south, North Carolina is 
at 57. Then you go out into the middle of the country, and in North 
Dakota, 64 percent of the deaths were linked to nursing homes; 
Minnesota, 77 percent. There are not many that are below 30 percent--
only a few. Those are the numbers, but of course the numbers don't tell 
the story.
  We need a plan for this. This is not the America we should accept. 
This isn't America, where we just throw up our hands and say this virus 
is so terrible, so aggressive, and the COVID-19 disease is so 
destructive--the results from the virus--that we are going to accept 
another 54,000-plus deaths in the United States of America and not have 
an action plan
  There is no action plan right now. The Centers for Medicare and 
Medicaid Services and other parts of the Federal Government have only 
recently started to speak to this issue, but there is no plan. Unless 
we have legislation that the majority not too long ago in this hour 
just objected to--a big part of the solution is to invest in proven 
strategies, best practices like cohorting, where you separate COVID-19 
residents in nursing homes from residents who do not have the disease--
that works; we know that works because it has worked in real time in 
lots of places in the country--as well as the other investments we can 
make in surge capacity to add professional help in the form of more 
doctors, more nurses, and more certified nursing assistants when a 
nursing home is being overrun.
  No one here is saying that the Federal Government is the only entity 
responsible for this. Nursing homes have to do more, and governments at 
all levels have to do more. But the Federal Government is the payer and 
the level of government that comes up with rules and regulations and 
law that governs what happens in a long-term care setting.
  So this bill, S. 3768, which has now been objected to by the 
majority--and I am still waiting all these weeks and months now for the 
majority to come up with their nursing home strategy to get the death 
and case numbers down. We are still waiting for that.
  This bill, S. 3768, would provide $20 billion in emergency funding. 
When you consider all that has been invested in so many other 
priorities, the least we can do is to invest in proven strategies for 
our nursing homes. It would provide support for personal protective 
equipment for nursing home workers who are doing that heroic work every

[[Page S4022]]

day. Some of the funding would go for testing, as I mentioned, 
cohorting, surge teams, and so much else.
  The bill is supported by the AARP, the Alzheimer's Association, and 
25 other organizations representing seniors, people with disabilities, 
nursing homes, and other providers.
  This is what we need to pass now to have a strategy in place because 
we cannot wait for the administration because they seem to have no 
sense of urgency with regard to this problem. This is an American 
problem that was created here in response to a virus. No one would 
argue that the American people cannot come up with a strategy to get 
the death numbers and case numbers down.
  Who are we talking about here? We are talking about two groups of 
Americans, right? The residents and the workers. The residents--we are 
talking about those residents in nursing homes. These are Americans who 
fought our wars. These are Americans who worked in our factories and 
Americans who raised families year after year, decade after decade. 
These are Americans who built the great American middle class. These 
are the Americans who built this country, and they gave each of us life 
and love and a strong foundation personally but also in terms of the 
strength of our country. The least we can do--the very least this 
Senate can do is to make sure we at least have a strategy.
  Are we just going to throw up our hands and just say there is nothing 
the most powerful institutions in the world can do to reduce the number 
of nursing home deaths? As I said before, we don't want to be standing 
here 3 months from now, 6 months from now, talking about another 54,000 
or 55,000 nursing home deaths. Is that really America?
  We are still waiting for the administration. We are told that by one 
estimate, 12 to 18 nursing home residents have died per hour, every 
hour over the last several months--12 to 18 nursing home residents 
dying every hour. So we can't and should never allow another hour to 
pass without action.
  The majority has allocated a lot of time for nominations the last 2 
months or more, a lot of time for other issues, but not time for COVID-
19 strategies to reduce long-term care deaths in nursing homes. So the 
time now is not for debating nominations for agencies; the time is long 
overdue for us to take action to deal with this American tragedy of 
deaths of residents in nursing homes and deaths of workers.
  While we are talking about those workers, they do heroic work every 
day. They go in to do this work, expose themselves to the virus, expose 
their families to the virus, and they do back-breaking work, often for 
pay that isn't commensurate with the nature and sacrifice and the 
dignity of their work. So they are heroic.
  If there were ever a group of front-of-the-frontline workers--these 
are not just frontline workers; they are at the very front of the line. 
We should make sure they have protections in the nursing homes to do 
their work but also pandemic premium pay, as we call it, and so much 
else.
  I ask a parliamentary inquiry: How much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no order on time.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I have just a few more minutes, and I will 
be done.
  I won't go through the details of this report, but I want to note for 
the Senate two things. No. 1, we will be introducing--I will, and 
Senator Peters, the ranking member of the Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee, and Senator Wyden, the ranking member 
of the Finance Committee--the three of us and our offices will be 
releasing a report about nursing homes. The report is entitled ``COVID-
19 and Nursing Homes: How the Trump Administration Failed Residents and 
Workers.'' This is a chronicle of deadly delay and a chronicle of a 
lack of real urgency on behalf of the administration.
  I hope the administration is reaching that point of urgency and is 
going to deliver to the American people a plan to get the death numbers 
down, to get the case numbers down in nursing homes. We haven't seen 
that sense of urgency. This report includes nine findings and nine 
recommendations, so no one can ever accuse us of just cursing the 
darkness of this tragedy without bringing the light of solutions to 
this issue.

  There is more that I could say, but just for the record, as I 
conclude, I ask unanimous consent that the written comments that my 
office received from two constituents with concern about their loved 
ones in nursing homes be entered into the Record.
  Just for the record, I will read the names of the family members: 
Thomas and Barbara Taylor of Coatsville, PA.
  The Presiding Officer is a native of Redding and knows what I am 
talking about when I mention these names.
  Joette Peters of Manheim, PA, is also a part of this, as well as Amy 
Lowenthal, who had a relative. Her dad, David, was a geriatrician in 
Philadelphia. Her comments are about that.
  I ask unanimous consent that these written comments from constituents 
be printed in the Record
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          Thomas and Barbara Taylor--Coatesville, Pennsylvania

       I'd like to share information from Thomas and Barbara 
     Taylor, a couple from Coatesville, Pennsylvania.
       My office first heard from Mr. Taylor in early April.
       Mr. Taylor is a hospice nurse who now serves as the Chief 
     Operating Officer of a company.
       He understands the challenges of caring for a vulnerable 
     population.
       And, he knows how important it is to treat people at the 
     end of their life with dignity.
       Mr. Taylor reached out to my office after he learned that 
     his sister-in-law, Juanita, age 72, passed away from COVID in 
     her nursing home in Lancaster County.
       His mother is also a resident of this facility and 
     recovered from COVID at age 85.
       When Thomas and Barbara spoke to my team, they were 
     dismayed that more is not being done at the federal level to 
     ensure transparency with residents and their family.
       Mrs. Taylor followed up with my office in writing.
       She explained that her sister, Juanita, began showing signs 
     of COVID at the end of March.
       Juanita had a cough, a slight fever, did not have an 
     appetite and required oxygen to help with breathing.
       At this time, it became painfully clear that the Trump 
     Administration had failed to stockpile the supplies needed to 
     test Americans.
       And, still, the President refused to use the Defense 
     Production Act to procure the supplies necessary.
       Even after multiple requests that her sister be tested, in 
     Barbara's words ``begging'' doctors, Barbara was told that 
     her sister did ``not have the symptoms'' or ``meet the 
     criteria'' required to be tested.
       For the next few days, Barbara and Thomas were kept in the 
     dark.
       Then, any family's worst nightmare occurred.
       Barbara called the nursing home and spoke to a nurse on the 
     floor.
       When Barbara asked about her sister, the nurse said, ``Your 
     sister is not here.''
       Barbara pressed for more information.
       The nurse told Barbara, ``Juanita died about an hour ago. 
     Didn't anybody call you?''
       This was the first Barbara had heard this news. The Taylors 
     were ``horrified by the unexpected news.''
       The lack of transparency and human decency is inexcusable 
     and immoral.
       Nursing homes must do better. Residents, families and 
     workers deserve better.
       As the report that we will be releasing tomorrow states, 
     the Trump Administration provided no leadership.
       Nursing homes did not have the supplies necessary to 
     protect residents and workers.
       There was a testing shortage across the country. And there 
     continues to be no testing strategy.
       Many facilities experienced staffing shortages, which may 
     be the reason why no one bothered to call the Taylors.
       We must do more to protect Mr. Taylor's mother who is still 
     at that same nursing home, but also all other nursing home 
     residents across the country.
       We need more funding for surge teams to deal with COVID 
     right now, and more funding to implement best practices, like 
     cohorting, separating residents who have COVID from those who 
     do not.
       We cannot stop working. We cannot stop legislating. We 
     cannot stop appropriating dollars to help our seniors and 
     people with disabilities.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
       As Barbara wrote, ``My sister Juanita had dementia and 
     could not speak for herself. I was her voice and eyes. I 
     couldn't see her at the time. Please allow me to speak for 
     her and others who have no voice.
       We have a sacred responsibility to heed this call to action 
     from the Taylors and so many others.

                  Joette Peters--Manheim, Pennsylvania

       My team also spoke with Mrs. Joette Peters from Manheim, 
     Pennsylvania.

[[Page S4023]]

       Mrs. Peters' parents, Harold and Helen, have been married 
     for 67 years.
       For the past 11 years, Harold and Helen have been residents 
     of a nearby retirement community.
       As they grew older, they required differing levels of care. 
     They decided to reside in rooms across the hall from each 
     other.
       However, like the greatest love affairs, even that 
     separation could not keep them apart.
       According to Mrs. Peters, before COVID, ``[t]hey spent the 
     majority of their waking hours together.''
       Their love knew no bounds.
       Now, COVID is keeping them apart from each other, their 
     daughter and their extended family.
       Mrs. Peters explained that in the middle of lunch, her 
     parents were told the facility would be going into ``lock 
     down'' and Helen would need to leave immediately.
       Since then, Helen and Harold have only been able to see 
     each other and their daughter through a sliding glass door.
       They have tried to visit with each other virtually, but 
     that has its own challenges.
       We know from experts that social isolation for seniors can 
     have the same health impact as smoking 15 cigarettes a day.
       This very topic was the focus of a recent hearing in the 
     Aging Committee.
       Nursing homes and other long-term care facilities need 
     resources in order to safely reopen.
       They need dollars for PPE. They need dollars for testing. 
     And they need dollars for their workforce.
       My bill would provide nursing homes with those resources.
       It would give Harold and Helen the chance to be together. 
     And, it would give their daughter and family peace of mind.

     Amy Lowenthal--Late Father: David Lowenthal, Geriatrician in 
                              Philadelphia

       My office also heard from Amy Lowenthal.
       Amy's father, Dr. David Lowenthal, was a nephrologist and 
     professor who was trained as a doctor at Temple University 
     and practiced medicine in Philadelphia.
       Amy was told that he was the first resident in his nursing 
     home to test positive for COVID-19.
       In explaining the care and treatment that her father 
     received after the diagnosis, she told my office about the 
     incredible kindness of the nursing home's workers.
       Call after call, looking in on her father, Amy and her 
     sisters said that nurses and doctors ``took the time to talk 
     to her and answer her questions.''
       ``The COVID ward staff were patient, empathic, and acted 
     like my father was the only patient on the ward.''
       In the last hours of his life, Amy heard from a hospice 
     nurse asking if she would like to FaceTime with her father 
     one last time.
       She ``thanked the nurse profusely for reaching out.'' And 
     when they connected, the nurse was holding her father's hand 
     and playing classical music for him.
       According to Amy, the nurse said, ``This breaks my heart. 
     If it were my dad, I would hope someone would do the same for 
     me.''
       As Amy described, she never knew the name of the nurse. She 
     never saw her face through the PPE, but Amy said that she 
     will remember that nurse for the rest of her life. ``She gave 
     me the gift of one more moment with my Dad. And, it would be 
     my last.''
       Amy concluded her correspondence with this ``I often wonder 
     what my Dad, a lifelong physician and teacher, would have 
     thought of this last chapter of his life. But I do know for 
     sure that he would have been so grateful to those frontline 
     workers who provided warmth and comfort to his family during 
     his last days.''
       We are all eternally grateful to the frontline workers who 
     are caring for our loved ones.
       They deserve more than our praise.
       They deserve protection. They deserve testing. They deserve 
     premium pay.
       The bill that I am hoping the Senate will pass will provide 
     resources for all of that.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). The Senator from Maryland.

                          ____________________