[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 44 (Thursday, March 5, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1511-S1514]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

     ADVANCED GEOTHERMAL INNOVATION LEADERSHIP ACT OF 2019--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 2657, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2657) to support innovation in advanced 
     geothermal research and development, and for other purposes.

  Pending:
  Murkowski amendment No. 1407, in the nature of a substitute.
  McConnell (for Ernst) amendment No. 1419 (to amendment No. 1407), to 
establish a grant program for training wind technicians.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                           Women's Healthcare

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I just listened to the Republican 
leader, and there was a glaring omission in his speech. He did not 
mention what the rally yesterday, my speech, or the case before the 
Court was about--a woman's constitutional right to choose.
  To the women of America: What we are talking about here, what I am 
fighting for here is your right to choose--an issue, of course, Leader 
McConnell completely ignored in his speech. I feel so passionately 
about this issue, and I feel so deeply the anger of women all across 
America about Senate Republicans and the courts working hand in glove 
to take down Roe v. Wade.
  I just read about a woman in Shreveport who, under the Louisiana law 
now before the Supreme Court, would have to travel over 300 miles to 
exercise her constitutional freedoms. And this is happening in States 
across the country.
  Republican State legislatures are restricting a woman's right to 
choose so severely as to make it nonexistent, and the courts are now 
likely to go along because Senate Republicans have confirmed nominees 
they believe will strip away women's rights and fundamentally change 
this country, going so far as to deny a duly elected President the 
right to pick a Supreme Court Justice.
  Republicans here in the Senate are afraid to confront this issue 
directly. So they try to accomplish through the courts what they would 
never accomplish in the court of public opinion, and they leave women 
out in the cold.
  So, yes, I am angry. The women of America are angry. And, yes, we 
will continue to fight for a woman's right to choose. I will continue 
to fight for the women of America.
  Now, I should not have used the words I used yesterday. They didn't 
come out the way I intended to. My point was that there would be 
political consequences--political consequences--for President Trump and 
Senate Republicans if the Supreme Court, with the newly confirmed 
Justices, stripped away a woman's right to choose. Of course, I didn't 
intend to suggest anything other than political and public opinion 
consequences for the Supreme Court, and it is a gross distortion to 
imply otherwise.
  I am from Brooklyn. We speak in strong language. I shouldn't have 
used the words I did, but in no way was I making a threat. I never--
never--would do such a thing. Leader McConnell knows that, and 
Republicans who are busy manufacturing outrage over these comments know 
that too.
  What will remain long after the clamor over my comments dies down is 
the issue at hand: a woman's constitutional right to choose and 
Republican attempts to invalidate it.
  The fact that my Republican colleagues have worked systematically 
over the course of decades to install the judicial infrastructure to 
take down Roe v. Wade and do very real damage to the country and to the 
American way of life--that is the issue that will remain, and we owe--I 
owe--an obligation to the women of America to fight for their 
constitutional rights.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I come to the floor this morning as a 
Senate colleague who may know Chuck Schumer better than most. We lived 
under the same roof for almost 20 years. We know one another. We know 
each other's families. We have been together through moments of sadness 
and triumph. I know him well, and I come to the floor this morning to 
make this statement.
  I respect Chief Justice John Roberts, but I respectfully disagree 
with the statement he made yesterday about Senator Schumer's comments 
before the Supreme Court Building. It is not in Chuck Schumer's nature 
to physically threaten anyone--anyone--or to create a dangerous 
situation for any person. That is just not Chuck Schumer. Even his 
passion, as you just heard about the issue of women's healthcare, would 
not lead him to that position. Yes, as he said, he could have chosen 
his words more carefully, but is there a person in public life who has 
ever stood in this Chamber or any other who wouldn't say the same about 
some public utterance?
  What troubles me is his being admonished publicly by President Donald 
Trump for his use of words--being admonished by President Trump for his 
use of words. It just takes your breath away to think that this 
President, with his thousands of tweets and statements and utterances--
outrageous as they have been--would be standing as a judge of others 
when it comes to the use of language.
  I listened carefully this morning as Senator McConnell, the 
Republican leader, came to the floor and spoke, when he talked about 
his singular respect for the Supreme Court and judicial independence. 
He used the phrase repeatedly: ``judicial independence.'' He called the 
judiciary, rightly, a pillar of the American Government.
  Does Senator McConnell think we have forgotten what he did when it 
came to the Supreme Court after Justice Scalia passed away? He 
intentionally left a vacancy in the Court for almost a year for 
political purposes before it was filled.
  We remember when President Obama, in the last year of his Presidency, 
offered the nomination of Merrick Garland, a highly respected circuit 
court judge for the District of Columbia. Do you remember what this 
Republican leader, Senator McConnell, did in response--this man who so 
admires this pillar of the American Government, the judiciary? He 
refused to even personally meet with Merrick Garland, President Obama's 
nominee, and he instructed his colleagues on the Republican side to do 
the same, to shun him, to give him the cold shoulder, and to make it 
clear that, for a year, there would be a vacancy in the Court because 
he, Senator McConnell, was praying he would get a political opportunity 
to fill that vacancy if a Republican were elected to the Presidency. 
And, of course, that is what happened in 2016.
  So for Senator McConnell to come before us and talk about his respect 
for the Court, keeping politics out of the Court, calling it a pillar 
of the American Government--has he forgotten what he did to Merrick 
Garland?
  Incidentally, despite his constitutional contortion that, for some 
reason, in the last year of a Presidency, that President has given up 
any constitutional right to fill a vacancy, Senator McConnell was 
recently asked: Well, what if that happens in the last year of 
President Trump's administration?
  Well, he wasted no time saying: Of course, I would let President 
Trump fill the vacancy--as transparent as possible his partisan motives 
when it comes to that Supreme Court.
  So if he wants to show respect for the Court, it certainly has not 
been demonstrated, starting with the vacancy of Justice Scalia.
  And how about Senator McConnell's single-minded effort to fill every 
Federal vacancy across the United States as quickly as possible, sadly, 
with many men and women who scarcely have any experience of service in 
our judicial system?
  So far, President Trump has sent to this Senate, with Senator 
McConnell's acceptance and approval, nine nominees for the Federal 
Judiciary who have been found ``not qualified'' by the American Bar 
Association, many of them unanimously--nine men and women who have such 
extreme backgrounds or such limited experience that they shouldn't sit 
on the Federal bench. But Senator McConnell, with

[[Page S1512]]

his respect for the judiciary, couldn't wait to give them lifetime 
appointments.
  Oh, you ask: Wait a minute. What about President Obama? How many did 
he send to the Senate who were found ``not qualified'' by the American 
Bar Association? None. None, not one.
  That is what we are facing here with Senator McConnell's singular 
strategy to fill the courts with people who share his extreme views on 
women's healthcare, on civil rights, and on so many other fundamental 
issues.
  So preaching on this floor about your respect for the Supreme Court, 
your respect for our Federal judiciary doesn't go very far when you 
take a close look at the record that Senator McConnell has written.
  At this point, let me suggest that we move forward from this day and 
not dwell on what the morning headlines might be. We have work to do, 
and it would be better if we did it in a bipartisan fashion, with 
respect for one another.
  I stand ready to work with those on the other side of the aisle to 
achieve that goal, but I want to say at this moment that dwelling on 
this particular chapter doesn't serve the American people. They didn't 
send us here to squabble and fight. They sent us here to pass important 
legislation that respects their right to quality, accessible, and 
affordable healthcare. They sent us here to make sure that women have 
the basic constitutional right to make the most important personal 
decisions of their lives. They sent us here to make sure that we serve 
this country in giving working families a fighting chance. All of the 
other things that we spend time talking about on this floor diminish in 
comparison.
  It is time for us to roll up our sleeves and let the Senate be more 
than a rubberstamp for Federal judicial nominations when there are 
partisan goals in mind by Senator McConnell and others.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Supreme Court

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, as I begin this morning, I want to 
associate myself with the remarks of the Republican leader, Senator 
McConnell, earlier this morning.
  The attacks that were made by the Democratic leader, Senator Schumer, 
on the Supreme Court yesterday were not only irresponsible; they were 
reckless and they were shameful. I think we need to just call that what 
it is.
  For them to suggest--for him to suggest--that this isn't what he 
meant and that this is somehow manufactured outrage on the part of us 
or Republicans in general doesn't fit with the way that these comments 
came across either, because I want to read for you from the CNN Supreme 
Court reporter: ``Schumer, speaking at a rally of abortion rights 
supporters, appeared to threaten Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, President 
Trump's two Supreme Court nominees who were confirmed after bruising 
nomination fights.''
  That is the interpretation not of FOX News but of CNN.
  I think we need to be very clear: When comments like that are made 
that threaten an independent judiciary in this country, they need to be 
called out and they need to be walked back. I appreciate the fact that 
the Democratic leader acknowledged today that he should have said it 
differently, but it doesn't in any way diminish what was said or the 
context in which it was said or the attacks that were made on the 
Supreme Court.
  It needs to be recognized as that, and I think all of us need to be, 
as U.S. Senators, aware--aware--no matter what the audience, 
particularly when you are the Democratic leader, of how these things 
come across and what they mean to the people who have been threatened 
by them.


                              Coronavirus

  Madam President, I am pleased that Republicans and Democrats in both 
Chambers have quickly come together to provide emergency funding to 
combat the coronavirus, and I look forward to voting this afternoon to 
send this important funding measure to the President's desk.


                                   5G

  Madam President, on another subject, our Nation is poised for the 
widespread deployment of the next generation of internet technology: 
5G. With its incredible speed and connectivity, 5G will usher in a new 
era of innovation. Advances in medical care, the large-scale deployment 
of precision agriculture, safer transportation technologies--5G will 
bring all of these things and more.
  But, like any new technology, 5G networks will present new risks and 
vulnerabilities. Because 5G will mean a vastly greater number of 
connected devices, the risks with 5G will be greater. That is why an 
essential part of deploying 5G networks has to be looking at how we can 
mitigate security risks.
  Yesterday, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation, of which I am a member, held a hearing on supply chain 
risks for 5G. We need to ensure that the component parts of our devices 
and, critically, the component parts of telecommunications networks, 
like cell towers and the small cells that will be required for 5G, are 
secure.
  That means ensuring that 5G equipment comes from trusted vendors. 
Currently, one of the biggest suppliers of 5G equipment worldwide is a 
Chinese company--Huawei--which is supported by the Chinese Government. 
American security officials have raised concerns that much of Huawei's 
equipment is built with ``backdoors,'' giving the Chinese Government 
access to global communications networks.
  The United States has taken a number of steps to prevent equipment 
from Huawei and another suspect Chinese company, ZTE, from being used 
in U.S. communications networks, but these companies still pose a risk 
to the United States. For starters, some U.S. broadband providers, 
often in rural areas, still have equipment from Huawei and ZTE in their 
communications networks, and a number of our allies and trade partners, 
entities with whom we regularly share information--including sensitive 
national security information--have used or are using technology from 
Huawei and ZTE.
  Yesterday's Commerce Committee hearing focused on both of these 
issues. We discussed so-called ``rip and replace,'' an initiative 
already underway to replace suspect telecommunications components with 
hardware from trusted companies.
  Last week, the Senate unanimously passed the Secure and Trusted 
Communications Networks Act, which is now with the President to be 
signed into law. This legislation will help telecommunications 
providers with the cost of replacing network components that pose a 
security risk. I cosponsored this legislation, which was developed by 
Commerce Committee Chairman Roger Wicker.
  Madam President, cost is a major obstacle for small broadband 
providers when it comes to replacing telecommunications hardware, but, 
as one expert witness at the hearing noted, a lack of qualified 
telecommunications workers also poses a barrier to replacement.
  I recently introduced legislation, the Telecommunications Skilled 
Workforce Act, to help increase the number of workers on the frontlines 
of replacing this equipment and deploying new, secure 5G networks. I 
hope this legislation will quickly make its way through the Senate. 
Replacing problematic hardware in our domestic telecommunications 
networks will help ensure the security of our communications for years 
to come.
  As I said earlier, that is not the only challenge that we are facing. 
We regularly exchange information, including sensitive national 
security information, with our allies and trading partners, and this 
information can only be secure if networks on both ends are secure. 
That is why the United States has called for other countries to reject 
telecommunications technology from Huawei and ZTE. While some countries 
have committed to using trusted companies to build out their 
telecommunications networks, other countries are still planning to make 
use of Huawei's technology.
  That is why I am introducing legislation today to make 
telecommunications security a key objective when

[[Page S1513]]

negotiating future trade deals. This legislation is critical as the 
United States begins formal trade talks with the United Kingdom and 
with other allies. We should be using trade agreements to push for 
enhanced network security globally, which would benefit not only our 
country but every country with which we do business.
  As one witness noted at yesterday's hearing, this legislation is 
``long overdue.'' I could not agree more. Over the past few years, we 
have talked a lot about the importance of having the United States win 
the global race to 5G. There are important reasons for that. For 
starters, having the United States at the forefront of 5G technology 
will mean big benefits for our economy and for American workers, but 
there are also important security reasons to have the United States at 
the head of the 5G revolution. If we lead the world in implementing 5G, 
we will have the chance to set standards for 5G deployment--including, 
most importantly, network security standards.
  It is no exaggeration to say that having the chance to set worldwide 
standards for 5G is critical--it is critical--to our national security. 
Our telecommunications networks already play a huge role in our 
national security, and that role will only grow as we fully adopt 5G 
technology. We need to ensure that U.S. networks are as secure as it is 
possible for them to be.
  I appreciated the witnesses who took the time to address the Commerce 
Committee yesterday. There is no better way to learn what needs to be 
done for 5G security than to hear from the people on the ground who 
spend every waking day managing network security issues. I look forward 
to continuing to work with all of my colleagues in the Senate to 
advance telecommunications security and ensure that the United States 
is fully prepared for the 5G future.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Braun). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                              Coronavirus

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, later in the day, I will be making a 
motion to table the Paul amendment that would require offsetting the 
$7.76 billion for the coronavirus against the foreign operations 
account.
  Senator Paul is at it again. He is consistent. I respect his view; I 
just reject it. What he would be doing is basically upending the fiscal 
year 2020 agreement on foreign assistance spending passed by Congress 
and signed into law by President Trump. He would be putting our Nation 
at risk if this amendment actually passed.
  One percent of the Federal spending is foreign assistance in 
different fashions and ways, including our commitment to our friends in 
Israel and other programs we have that I think are national-defense 
oriented.
  The U.S. Global Leadership Coalition--consisting of 500 businesses, 
NGOs, military, and faith leaders--has warned that ``cuts of this 
magnitude would have devastating consequences on our ability to 
confront unprecedented global challenges--including countering China's 
growing influence around the world, supporting partners in the fight 
against extremism, and addressing the impacts of the Venezuelan refugee 
crisis on key allies like Colombia.''
  I would even go further: This cut would devastate the foreign 
assistance account in terms of being able to deal effectively with the 
effects of the virus overseas.
  David Beasley, head of the World Food Programme, warned in an AP 
article, which I would like to make part of the Record, that ``if the 
coronavirus continues to create panic around the world, and there is an 
economic downturn, I have been telling European leaders, and leaders 
around the world, you don't have enough money set aside to address the 
needs in Africa, East Africa, West Africa, in the Middle East right 
now.''
  We are only beginning to understand the cost associated with the 
virus.
  I want to compliment Senators Shelby and Leahy for putting this 
package together. I compliment the White House, the Senate, and the 
House. There was a huge vote in the House.
  If we accept Senator Paul's offset amendment, we will be devastating 
our ability as a nation to deal with this matter overseas.
  As to Senator Paul's world view, I have consistently rejected it. 
When it comes to international terrorism, I have no desire to go back 
to the pre-9/11 footprint of where we ignore problems over there, 
hoping they will not come here. When it comes to fighting disease and 
containing viruses, I think we understand that we have to be present 
over there, and in an effective way, to control the spread of the 
coronavirus, Ebola, and other diseases that can make their way to 
America.
  We have always rejected these types of offsets by Senator Paul. I 
think the best thing we can do is have an overwhelming bipartisan vote. 
Count me in for dealing with the deficit, but this is penny wise and 
pound foolish because the $7.6 billion, if it is taken out of the 
foreign operations account, makes this country less safe on multiple 
fronts.
  I will be making a motion to table at the appropriate time. And I 
urge my colleagues to understand that what happens over there matters 
to us over here. This would devastate programs like the Benjamin Gilman 
International Scholarships and participant schools like Berea College 
and Western Kentucky University. There is a ripple effect of enormous 
proportions. It is not going to do much for the debt, but it will do a 
lot to make us less safe.
  I yield to Senator Leahy.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, my friend and colleague on the floor--I 
totally agree with what he just said. Senator Shelby and I will be 
giving longer statements in a few minutes.
  Senator Graham and I have had the duty to put through the Foreign 
Operations bill for a number of years now. We tried to do it in a 
bipartisan and nonpartisan way, and as a result, it has gotten very 
strong support from both sides of the aisle, which is what we hope will 
happen now.
  I will certainly be voting with Senator Graham's motion to table when 
he makes it. Every Senator--he or she--can vote any way they want, but 
I would note for our colleagues, Senator Shelby and I and key 
Senators--including the Senator now on the floor--in both parties have 
worked every day, every evening, our staffs on weekends, in order to 
get to where we are. This is a product of every single Republican, 
every single Democrat who wanted a voice in this, a chance to speak to 
it. Both Senator Shelby, as chairman, and I, as vice chairman, made 
sure that voices were heard.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I would like to again compliment you and Senator Shelby. 
You always deliver. You always seem to be able to do things that other 
people can't do at a time when we need you to deliver for the body and 
the country.
  Mr. President, I would like to have printed in the Record an article, 
``UN food aid chief fears for Africa, Mideast amid new crises,'' and a 
U.S. Global Leadership Coalition letter, dated March 5, 2020.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

      UN Food Aid Chief Fears for Africa, Mideast Amid New Crises

                            [March 5, 2020]

       Amman, Jordan (AP)--The head of the U.N.'s food aid agency 
     warned of ``absolute devastation'' in Africa and parts of the 
     Middle East in coming months if wealthier nations grappling 
     with an economic downturn linked to the new coronavirus don't 
     step up aid efforts in countries in need.
       David Beasley, head of the World Food Program, told The 
     Associated Press that the convergence of several crises could 
     further destabilize conflict-scarred regions.
       ``If the corona virus continues to create panic around the 
     world, and there is an economic downturn, I have been telling 
     the European leaders, and leaders around the world, you don't 
     have enough money set aside to address the needs in Africa, 
     East Africa, West Africa, in the Middle East right now,'' 
     Beasley said during an interview in Jordan late Wednesday, 
     after a visit to Syria.
       ``If there is an economic downturn, on top of the economic 
     downturn that exists now in Syria and Lebanon, it absolutely 
     could be a catastrophe,'' he said. ``I mean absolute 
     devastation. I am very concerned about what would happen in 
     the next six months. You

[[Page S1514]]

     could see destabilization unlike any time period, maybe in my 
     lifetime.''
       In the Middle East, Iran has been hardest hit by the new 
     virus which has spread around the globe after first being 
     detected in the Chinese city of Wuhan late last year. There 
     are over 3,740 cases of the virus across the Mideast, with 
     most linking back to the Islamic Republic which also 
     confirmed dozens of deaths. Only a small number of cases has 
     been reported in Sub-Saharan Africa so far.
       Beasley did not give an amount for additional aid needed, 
     but suggested it would be in the billions of dollars. Beasley 
     spoke after a tour of Syria's northwestern ldlib province, 
     the country's last rebel stronghold, where hundreds of 
     thousands of civilians have been displaced in recent weeks by 
     a Russian-backed Syrian government offensive.
       U.N. agencies, including the WFP, are distributing aid in 
     ldlib, but are often hampered by logistics problems, 
     including shifting front lines, access restrictions and roads 
     clogged by large numbers of people on the move.
       The leaders of Russia, which backs the Syrian government, 
     and Turkey, which backs the rebels, were meeting in Moscow on 
     Thursday to try to avert further calamity. But any deal will 
     likely bring only a temporary halt in the punishing offensive 
     by the military of Syria's President Bashar Assad, which 
     threatens continued suffering for the 3 million people 
     trapped in ldlib.
       Beasley appealed to leaders on all sides of the Syrian 
     conflict to end the war, which has raged for nine years. 
     ``Enough is enough,'' he said. ``Too many people have 
     suffered too long.''
                                  ____



                             U.S. Global Leadership Coalition,

                                                    March 5, 2020.
     Hon. Lindsey Graham,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on State-Foreign Operations, Committee 
         on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on State-Foreign Operations, 
         Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Graham and Ranking Member Leahy: On behalf of 
     the more than 500 business and NGO members of the U.S. Global 
     Leadership Coalition {USGLC), including business, military, 
     and faith-based leaders in all 50 states, I write in strong 
     opposition to an amendment proposed by Senator Rand Paul that 
     would offset emergency funding to address the growing 
     coronavirus threat by canceling over $8 billion in 
     congressionally approved funds for the International Affairs 
     Budget.
       If enacted, this amendment would cancel critical funding 
     for State Department, USAID, and other development programs 
     around the world, undermining our national security and 
     economic interests and placing America's global leadership at 
     risk. Cuts of this magnitude would have devastating 
     consequences on our ability to confront unprecedented global 
     challenges--including countering China's growing influence 
     around the world, supporting partners in the fight against 
     extremism, and addressing the impacts of the Venezuelan 
     refugee crisis on key allies like Colombia.
       There is a strong bipartisan legacy in the Senate of 
     rejecting deep and dangerous cuts to America's development 
     and diplomacy programs. I urge the Senate to once again take 
     decisive action and reject Senator Paul's shortsighted 
     amendment. Doing so will ensure that resources already 
     approved by Congress can be fully deployed to support cost-
     effective programs that advance America's interests.
       Thank you for your unwavering support of America's 
     international affairs programs and your commitment to 
     strengthening the critical resources needed to advance 
     America's global leadership.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Liz Schrayer,
                                           President & CEO, USGLC.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I wrap up by saying that Senator Paul is 
consistent. Every time he wants to pay for something, he comes to the 
foreign assistance account. I understand the argument: Why are we 
spending over there when we have problems here? That sounds good until 
you realize how the world is.
  On September 10, 2001, the day before 9/11, we didn't have one 
soldier in Afghanistan, not an embassy, not an ambassador, not a dime 
of aid. The Taliban were in charge, and they gave al-Qaida safe haven. 
That is where the planning of the attacks and 9/11 originated. Looking 
back, wouldn't it have been nice to have had some influence in 
Afghanistan on September 10?
  All I can say is, I will never go back to that pre-9/11 mindset of 
ignoring the world, because I have learned, like most Americans, the 
world can come here in a very bad way or very good way, depending on 
how we defend ourselves.
  This 1 percent of the budget--foreign assistance to deal with 
problems over there--is absolutely essential in terms of global health. 
He exempted the global health component of the foreign assistance 
account, but the money--$7.76 billion--will destroy other things in the 
account that I think are vital to our public health here and our 
national security and our alliances. You cannot fight problems like 
this by yourself. You need partners. You need to get involved over 
there so the virus doesn't spread any more here than necessary.
  I hope that people will listen to what Senator Leahy just said, that 
this was a negotiated agreement. We all came together to get a budget. 
Senators Shelby and Leahy did a wonderful job working with the House 
and the White House to get us to where we are today. This amendment 
would upset everything. I am going to move to table it at the 
appropriate time.
  With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________