[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 44 (Thursday, March 5, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1514-S1522]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CORONAVIRUS PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2020
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to the consideration of H.R. 6074, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 6074) making emergency supplemental
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020,
and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
TRUE EQUITY Act
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, at the end of fiscal year 2021, the 5-year
authorization for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, our
Nation's foundational prekindergarten through 12th grade law, is due to
expire.
While I understand that previous reauthorizations took 13 years and
allowed an entire generation of students to matriculate through school
systems around our Nation, I am here today to stress that our kids
can't wait for the needed transformational changes to our Nation's
Federal, State, and local education policies and additional funding
investments.
To provide a stronger Federal partnership to States and local
communities that have worked together to support transformational
change that will ensure educational equity and quality for all public
school students, I introduced the TRUE EQUITY Act. It stands for the
Transformational Reforms and Updates to Ensure Educational Quality and
Urgent Investments in Today's Youth Act.
My home State of Maryland has been long recognized as having one of
the best public school systems in the country, according to the
independent newspaper Education Week. This ranges from having entire
county-based local school systems ranked as near the top in the Nation
to individual schools producing national leaders in academic
achievement. In addition, Maryland was one of the first States to offer
half-day preschool for 4-year-olds, has broad access to Advanced
Placement courses for high schoolers, and pays for dual-enrollment
courses for high school students at our local community colleges.
I am proud of these accomplishments. However, not all of our students
have found success.
In 2016, the Maryland General Assembly and the Governor of Maryland
established the Maryland Commission on Innovation and Excellence in
Education, chaired by the former chancellor of the University System of
Maryland, William ``Brit'' Kirwan, to identify the policies and
practices so that Maryland's schools perform at the level of the
world's highest performing school system. The commission was charged
with a number of tasks, including a review of the current funding
formulas and accountability measures utilized to ensure educational
equity and equality, how Maryland schools prepare students for
postsecondary education in the workforce, and to make recommendations
for the State on needed funding improvements across the State and local
school districts.
These reviews are necessary to support growing populations of
children with disabilities, how to improve and expand programs
supporting postsecondary credential attainment, and
[[Page S1515]]
other policy changes to address the academic achievement gap that has
persisted along racial, ethnic, and income levels of students of color
and low-income students compared to their higher income and White
peers.
To meet this expansive charge, the commission included stakeholders
from across our State, including representatives of the Maryland
General Assembly, including our now speaker of the Maryland House
Delegates and our now State Senate president, the Governor's office,
county elected leaders, education leaders, including State and local
school board representatives, our State and local superintendents,
leader of our State's public university system, teachers, business
leaders, and leading education advocacy organizations, such as the
Maryland State Education Association, Maryland Parent Teacher
Association, and Maryland Family Network.
In addition to the members of the commission, the commission actively
sought input from the public with numerous meetings soliciting public
comment held across our State. In January 2019, the commission
unanimously released their interim report that found Maryland students
scored in the middle of the pack on the National Assessment of
Educational Progress, known as the ``Nation's report card,'' which is
given to representative samples of 4th, 8th, and 12th graders in every
State.
The gaps in achievement between socioeconomic, racial, and children
with disabilities were far too large in a State like Maryland that has
committed resources and established policies that are meant to provide
a world-class public education system.
The commission also reported that less than half of kindergartners
entering our school system were ready to learn, and fewer than 40
percent of students who are graduating from high school truly are
``college or career ready.'' This is in spite of the estimates that by
2022 nearly two-thirds of the jobs in Maryland will require at least
postsecondary credentials, whether they be nationally recognized
industry certificates or 2-year or 4-year college degrees.
For instance, in 2017, just under half of all students across
Maryland high schools received a proficient score on their English 10
exam. That exam helps evaluate the students' readiness for college or
career. Disaggregated data shows the continued struggle to close
academic achievement gaps among racial and socioeconomic groups. Along
racial lines, 77 percent of Asian students and 67 percent of White
students were proficient. However, only 34 percent of Hispanic students
and 29 percent of African-American students earned proficiency scores.
The commission's interim report highlighted that despite Maryland
being ranked as one of the top five States with the highest household
median income, a large number of Maryland students are living in
poverty. Forty-three percent of Maryland students are low income and
eligible for free or reduced-price school meals, meaning that they come
from families at or below 185 percent of the Federal poverty line. For
every 10 public schools across our State, there is a concentration of
poverty where enrollment consists of at least 55 percent of students
living in poverty. These schools are in all of our subdivisions except
one.
In 15 percent of Maryland schools, at least 80 percent of children
are low income. Students attending schools with a concentration of
poverty receive less funding per pupil than other school districts. For
example, 53 percent of African-American students attend schools with
concentrations of poverty, while only 8 percent of White students
attend these schools.
The academic achievement gap between Maryland students with means and
our low-income students is stark. On the English 10 exam, 62 percent of
economically advantaged students earned a passing score, while 28
percent of those students who are on free and reduced-price meals were
deemed proficient. These statistics are stark. We know we have a
problem. We have to deal with it.
The commission reported that these academic achievement disparities
continued into college enrollment, with fewer students of color and
low-income students enrolling in college than their higher income and
White peers.
We will find similar numbers throughout our Nation. We need to do
something about this. Concerns about the state of education in Maryland
was not limited to student performance. The commission's interim report
also found that students face a rotating carousel of teachers
throughout their time in schools. With the average salary for teachers
in Maryland approximately 25 percent less than professionals with
comparable levels of education, it is difficult to attract to the
profession. Sixty percent of our new teachers are recruited from
outside our State each year. This is a common problem we have
throughout the country.
Once those individuals arrive in the classroom, 47 percent will leave
by the start of their third year. The turnover is tremendous. It is
salary issues. It is working conditions. It makes it difficult to get
the true professionalism and commitments that we need in education.
This difficulty in recruiting individuals and the constant churn leaves
Maryland students and local education systems facing shortages in
critical need areas, such as special education, language, and the STEM
fields.
In order to address these inequities in education, the commission
unanimously agreed on a proposal with five transformative policy
recommendations in their interim report that would provide significant,
additional investments in Federal, State, and local funding and modify
policies for Maryland's prekindergarten through 12th grade education
system.
The five main policy recommendations would first invest in high-
quality early childhood education and care through a significant
expansion of full-day preschool, to be free for all low-income, 3- and
4-year-olds, so that children have the opportunity to begin
kindergarten ready to learn.
Second is to invest in teachers and school leaders by elevating the
standard and status of the teaching profession, including a
performance-based career ladder and salaries comparable to other fields
with similar educational requirements.
Third, it creates a world-class instructional system with an
international benchmark curriculum that enables most students to
achieve ``college or career ready'' status by the 10th grade and then
pursue pathways to include early college, Advanced Placement courses,
or a rigorous technical education leading to industry-recognized
credentials and higher paid jobs.
Fourth, it provides support to students who need it the most, with
broad and sustained support for schools serving high concentrations of
poverty, with after-school and summer academic programs and student
access to needed health and social services.
Finally, it ensures excellence for all through an accountability
oversight board that has the authority to ensure that transformative
education system recommendations are successfully implemented and
produce the desired improvements in student achievement.
These reforms would be implemented over a 10-year period, creating a
sustained and coordinated effort to transform Maryland's public
education system into a world-class system, elevating the teaching
profession, and eliminating educational inequities. An independent
analysis conducted in November 2019 confirms that the cost to implement
the commission's recommendations will pay for themselves shortly after
the 10-year implementation period.
Last year, the Maryland General Assembly recognized that our children
could not wait to implement the commission's recommendations and
established the Blueprint for Maryland's Future to lay the groundwork
for the implementation of the commission's recommendations.
Starting this year, the Blueprint for Maryland's Future is assisting
low-income families' access to expanded services and early childhood
education, including free prekindergarten for 3- and 4-year-olds from
low-income families.
The Blueprint for Maryland's Future is assisting in the recruitment
of new teachers to the profession through increased teacher pay and
career ladders for exiting teachers to help train the next generation.
A newly established career readiness standard will allow Maryland high
school students to succeed in dual-enrollment courses offered by local
community colleges.
The ``Blueprint'' addresses Maryland's education formulas to better
[[Page S1516]]
target resources to students who need additional assistance, including
children with disabilities, English learners, and students in schools
with high concentration of poverty. This is all done while increasing
accountability to ensure that the additional investments are properly
implemented and help our students succeed.
That is the path that we are on. I agree with advocates and elected
leaders who understand our kids cannot wait for adoption of these
recommendations at some point in the future. We need to act now. We
need to implement these recommendations now and view them as a national
model for other States to aspire to. Without transformative change, we
will continue to hope for significantly different results with only
incremental changes, or we can be bold and change the future of our
children and our country and every child with the high-quality
education skills training that they need to be successful and climb out
of poverty.
I reject the arguments from those who would claim that the
recommendations are too costly to implement. Without the full
implementation of the commission's recommendations, we are failing in
our primary goal in government of providing a better future for our
children, allowing them to slip behind their national and international
peers.
These arguments also fail to see that the investments in our children
can lead to a lifetime of reduced costs in public safety and healthcare
costs, as children can grow and support themselves and their future
families through the education they receive in public schools. These
investments will pay back dividends in a stronger economy that will
benefit all of us.
I believe we should not allow States and local communities to make
these transformative changes on their own. The Federal Government
should be a strong Federal partner in ensuring accountability and in
addressing educational inequities for our children.
That is why I introduced the TRUE EQUITY Act. This legislation, which
is purposely modeled after the commission's recommendation, establishes
four new, supplemental Federal grant opportunities for State and local
school districts that are committed to addressing educational
inequities while holding States and local school districts accountable
for failing to properly support their students.
In strengthening the Federal Government's commitment as a partner in
education, the four new TRUE EQUITY grants would provide an additional
$1 of Federal funds for every $2 of State and local funds that are
committed to education beyond their fiscal year 2019 spending levels.
State and local school districts that receive grants would be
required to meet a maintenance of effort to ensure that the State and
local educational spending is maintained and would not allow the
Federal Government's funding to backfill reductions in State and local
commitments to educational funding.
As a requirement to receiving one of the four new TRUE EQUITY grants,
a State would be required to have an independent oversight board to
ensure that the State and local districts would be meeting their State-
designated educational equity goals, and the oversight board would have
the ability to hold the State and local school districts accountable
for not meeting their targeted goals.
These grants are flexible to allow local communities to meet their
needs over a several-year period, whether it be through the
establishment of a college and career readiness pathway to support a
high school student's dual enrollment at a local community college and
provide a jump-start on college; additional funding to expand the
number of early learning hubs in the State--in Maryland, these are
known as Judy Centers--or training for teachers on how to address the
needs of our children with disabilities.
As Congress begins to look at the next reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, I urge my colleagues to listen
to the voices of the Marylanders across our State who know that our
kids can't wait for the implementation of these recommendations and
support the TRUE EQUITY Act.
I congratulate the members of the commission who thoughtfully
researched and crafted this national model for States to be able to see
transformative change and raise their educational systems to that of a
world-class school system. We owe our children nothing less than to
provide them with the best possible outcome in our Nation's public
schools.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott of Florida). The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1506
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I call up my amendment, No. 1506, and I ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Paul] proposes an amendment
numbered 1506.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To rescind unobligated balances for certain international
programs to offset the amounts appropriated in this bill to respond to
the coronavirus outbreak)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. RESCISSIONS.
(a) Educational and Cultural Assistance Programs.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all amounts made
available for fiscal year 2020 for the East-West Center under
title I of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and
Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2020 (division G of
Public Law 116-94), the Inter-American Foundation under title
III of such Act, and educational and cultural exchange
programs under title I of such Act that remain unobligated as
of the date of the enactment of this Act are rescinded.
(b) Proportional Rescissions of Other Unobligated
Discretionary Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided under paragraph (2),
after rescinding the amounts required under subsection (a),
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall
rescind, on a proportional basis, such amounts as may be
necessary to fully offset (in conjunction with the
rescissions under subsection (a)) the amounts appropriated by
this Act from the unobligated amounts appropriated for fiscal
year 2020 for--
(A) the Economic Support Fund under chapter 4 of part II of
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2346 et seq.);
and
(B) the United States Agency for International Development.
(2) Exclusions.--In making the rescissions required under
paragraph (1), the Director shall not rescind any amounts
appropriated for--
(A) global health programs under title III of the
Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 2020 (division G of Public Law 116-94);
or
(B) assistance to Israel.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, my amendment would pay for the emergency
funds for the coronavirus.
I think that we should not let fear or urgency cause us to lose our
minds and cause us to act in an irresponsible fashion. I, for one, have
looked at foreign aid over the years as welfare that we send to other
countries that really is not particularly in our best interests anyway.
If you follow foreign aid through the years, what you will find is that
it goes from middle-class folks in rich countries to rich people in
poor countries. Frankly, people enrich themselves at our expense. They
steal our money. The Mubarak family in Egypt is now worth billions of
dollars, which it skimmed off the top. The history of this throughout
the Third World is legion and is well known.
My amendment would basically take the $8 billion from the welfare we
give to foreign countries in order to pay for this. I see no reason we
shouldn't do this. I am not opposed to the emergency funding, but I
think that the emergency funding should be gotten from elsewhere in the
budget and that this is the responsible way to act.
Every day, people across the country are confronted with unexpected
expenses. We budget and we plan, but things happen. When they do, we
adjust and plan accordingly. Sometimes we confront an expense that is
not only unexpected but is urgent, and that is where we find ourselves
today. We want to respond and make sure we are providing resources to
our medical professionals and researchers. That is important, and I
fully support that, which is why we should use this moment to
[[Page S1517]]
ask ourselves whether it is really necessary to keep spending on
wasteful things.
If we don't consider this now, when will we ever consider this?
We want an all-hands-on-deck response, so we should be cutting out
waste and moving those resources to something that is of more immediate
concern. So, if the coronavirus is of immediate concern--and I think it
is--let's address that situation now, but let's do so by taking money
from less urgent things and money that we are wasting overseas--money
that is often stolen by Third-World dictators. That is exactly what I
am proposing today.
We have the money. We don't need to borrow more money. We just have
to start setting our own priorities. For example, we shouldn't spend
another dollar in developing a foreign economy this year. That spending
should be stopped, and the money should be spent here to buy supplies,
to help expedite research, and to support our communities. The funds I
am proposing to keep at home have been used abroad for all kinds of
unnecessary and wasteful things. I will give you a few examples.
We send U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund kids from Pakistan to go to
space camp in America. We spend money on combating student truancy in
the Philippines. We have been funding the Peruvian Green New Deal. We
actually send money to help deported illegal immigrants start up
businesses in El Salvador. What business is it of the U.S. taxpayer to
be funding small businesses in El Salvador for people who broke the law
by trying to break into our country? It is insane. At this point in
time, I think this money would be better spent on research on the
coronavirus and on a response to this epidemic should it become worse
in our country.
The list doesn't stop there. I don't know why we can't agree to spend
this money on the coronavirus instead of spending it abroad. We spend
over $50 billion a year in Afghanistan--building their roads, building
their schools, trying to create a nation where there really is no
nation. We need to spend that money here at home. Besides, it is the
law.
We have a law called pay-go, or pay as you go, which is supposed to
require Congress to pay for new spending. It has been around for a
couple of decades. Yet we have broken the law thousands of times. What
do they do? They see something they want. You know, they are kids in a
candy store. They want to spend. They want to give you, give you, give
you free money, so they just ignore the law. So what happens every year
is that they exceed the pay-as-you-go, and they don't do the thing they
are supposed to do, which is to offset this with a spending cut. Then
they just write a small, little note in there, reading they have agreed
to ignore the pay-go rules again. That is what will happen in this
case.
The other way they ignore the rules on pay-go is they declare things
to be emergencies, so everything is an emergency. They say: Well, what
would we do if we didn't have this--if it weren't an emergency?
We already spend billions of dollars and have spent billions of
dollars over the years to prepare for epidemics. We fund the CDC, and
we fund the NIH. There is a lot of money out there.
Once again, I am not against giving additional money, but we should
just make a decision. We should be mature people and say we are not
just going to print up the money or borrow it from China but are going
to take it, maybe, from something less necessary.
When we don't want to pay for new spending, we just simply waive
these rules on pay-go. We declare the spending to be emergency, and we
get around the requirement. That is how we got a $23 trillion debt. We
actually borrow $2 million every minute.
People say: Well, we have to do something. People are running around,
acting crazy--we have to do something. Well, who is going to do
something about the $23 trillion debt?
Do we not have 5 minutes to take a vote? In 15 minutes, we will be
taking this vote, and people could simply vote and say that we are not
going to borrow more money and that we will take the money from
somewhere else in the budget that is less pressing.
Mark my words--there is no fiscal responsibility up here among either
party. It will be a small minority of us who will say that this funding
should be offset by taking it from somewhere else in the budget.
In times of emergency, Congress scrambles to put together new
spending, but we should be working just as hard to pay for the cost
that comes with emergencies.
Which is a higher priority--spending millions of dollars to stabilize
the supply chain of medical supplies and treatments here at home or
spending millions on international arts festivals? Which is a higher
priority--spending millions to train frontline medical professionals
here at home on how to limit exposure to the coronavirus or spending
millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars, paving roads in
Afghanistan? My amendment gives us a chance to set priorities.
We can support our communities and give our medical system the
resources its needs, and we can do it without adding to the debt. That
is the responsible way. My amendment would do exactly that, and I
encourage the other Senators to consider fiscal responsibility.
I thank the Presiding Officer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know other Senators have already spoken
on this, but I would hope Members would oppose the Paul amendment.
The amendment would cut, among other things, $7.3 billion from the
Department of State and the USAID. It would decimate programs that fund
the foreign policy priorities of both the administration and the
Congress. A cut of that size would be about two-thirds of the total
funding appropriated for these purposes, some of which has already been
spent.
I remember when James Mattis was the Secretary of Defense. He is a
man I admire for his work as a four-star general with the Marine Corps
and as Defense Secretary. He is not a man who looked at the world or
the needs of our military in an abstract fashion; he dealt with it
every day. He came before our Committee on Appropriations and said: If
you want to cut foreign aid, buy me more bullets.
He made it very clear that there are areas in the world where what we
do keeps us from having to go to combat.
The Paul amendment would practically eliminate the remaining budget
for programs to strengthen democracy, combat corruption, promote
economic growth, improve water and sanitation, aid victims of war and
natural disasters, and support our allies and partners in countless
ways.
The reason the State Department and USAID need supplemental funds is
that the resources provided in fiscal year 2020 are not sufficient to
meet the unanticipated public health, economic, and humanitarian
challenges presented by the coronavirus. Yet the Paul amendment would
cut billions from the same accounts for which additional resources are
needed.
The funding for the programs that would be cut by the Paul amendment
is how we make our presence felt around the world. It actually totals
less than 1 percent of the Federal budget.
Senators of both parties--of both parties--voted overwhelmingly to
include this funding in the fiscal year 2020 State, Foreign Operations
appropriations bill.
In case anybody has forgotten when that was, that was just 3 months
ago.
The Paul amendment would also eliminate $475 million that Congress
enacted less than 3 months ago for educational and cultural exchanges,
including $160 million for the Fulbright Program--so no more Fulbright
Program, no more International Visitors Program, no more exchange
programs for young leaders in Africa, Southeast Asia, or Latin America.
These programs enrich the lives of Americans and directly benefit the
economies, in every State of the Union, and create lasting ties between
U.S. and foreign communities, universities, and governments--but not if
the Paul amendment passes.
The amendment would eliminate all funding for the Inter-American
Foundation, which, with a budget of just $37 million, supports hundreds
of projects to combat poverty in Latin America and the Caribbean.
It would eliminate funding for the East-West Center, which has a long
history of strengthening relations and building understanding between
the
[[Page S1518]]
United States and the Asia/Pacific countries.
Both the Inter-American Foundation and the East-West Center were
established by acts of Congress. It is in our national interest to
fight poverty in Latin America and support engagement with countries in
the Far East.
The coronavirus represents a serious public health threat. We have to
respond now. We have to treat this as the emergency it is.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the U.S.
Global Leadership Coalition, addressed to Senator Graham and myself--
incidentally, they represent more than 500 U.S. business and
nongovernmental organizations--opposing this amendment be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
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. LEAHY. Mr. President, I do not see another Senator seeking
recognition, so 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. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all debate
time be considered expired.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Motion to Table
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I move to table the Paul amendment, and I
ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
Markey), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from
Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 81, nays 15, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 65 Leg.]
YEAS--81
Alexander
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Fischer
Gardner
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Harris
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Jones
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
McConnell
McSally
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Peters
Portman
Reed
Roberts
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NAYS--15
Blackburn
Braun
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Loeffler
Paul
Perdue
Risch
Toomey
Change of Vote
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I request unanimous consent that I be
permitted to change my vote on the rollcall vote earlier today. The
vote was No. 65. I voted no. It was my intention to vote aye. It will
not affect the outcome.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
NOT VOTING--4
Enzi
Markey
Sanders
Warren
The motion to table was agreed to; the amendment was tabled.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 1:45
p.m. shall be equally divided between the leaders or their designees.
The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I come to the floor to speak about the
ongoing crisis of the novel coronavirus outbreak and to urge all of us
to pass this supplemental as quickly as possible.
As of this morning, there are 163 confirmed cases in 17 States across
the country, but no State has been more hard hit than the State of
Washington.
We now have 39 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and more than 230 people
under public health monitoring. We have lost 10 of our citizens. Our
thoughts and prayers are with those families who have lost loved ones,
and there are still families who have loved ones in nursing homes and
who are trying to make sure they get the appropriate care in this
ongoing crisis.
I would also like to thank the workers who are on the frontlines of
this healthcare crisis and are doing everything they can to help keep
our citizens safe.
What is clear in this supplemental is that we need more resources for
testing. The testing capabilities will help our communities understand
the community transfer of this virus and what else we need to do to
help stop its spread.
Some of the funding in this supplemental can be helpful for our
smaller public labs to do more testing to help our public health
officials respond to this crisis, and, as I urged yesterday, for the
CDC and others to make it clear through our public health sites exactly
how the public can go about getting access to testing.
This is so critical because I know there are people in the State of
Washington who feel ill, who feel they might be subject to this
coronavirus and aren't getting tested. We want to make sure the public
clearly understands what their paths are for getting those tests, and
we want to make sure that every lab--commercial and academic--in the
United States is getting prepared to help us in the advent of the
spread of this virus. Why? Because helping to identify these early
cases is what will help us be successful in understanding these
patterns and further the community separations that we need to do.
Why is this so important? Well, today in the State of Washington,
they are taking major steps. Major employers are encouraging their
employees, if possible, to work from home. These are companies like
Microsoft and Facebook and Amazon--major employers.
[[Page S1519]]
We have 23 schools that have closed and 2 school districts that are
entirely shut down. Why are they doing this? Because they are taking
precautions for people who have been exposed to the coronavirus in
those schools, and they are doing everything they can to make sure that
they respond correctly.
In addition, King County has recommended that anyone over the age of
60, anyone with a preexisting medical condition, or anyone who is
pregnant should avoid public places and gatherings as much as possible.
We are taking all these steps now because we are at the epicenter of
this crisis, but I want people to know that there are other things that
other States can be doing to learn from what we have done in
Washington.
The fact is that we had a flu lab that actually was a collaboration
among our academic and scientific and health communities to get people
who thought they simply had the flu to also be tested, and we found
cases of the coronavirus. That actually is something you have to set up
and get permission for. I hope that every State will follow suit and
set up such a cohort of people working together to share that
information so that we can help prevent the spread.
Washington State will receive $11.5 million in funding to help the
Department of Health respond to this crisis. I know the Vice President
is visiting our Governor in Olympia, WA, today. I hope these funds in
this bill we are passing today will increase access for public lab
testing, help pay for isolation and quarantine, help pay for sanitizing
in public areas, better track the areas and those who might come into
contact with it, help labs that are trying to identify hot spots, and
limit exposure.
As part of this package, Washington State will also be helped with
reimbursements since the outbreak of this virus--and I can tell you
that they are many--and to help us push through the protocols that
would help us establish better responses.
Yesterday, we had a hearing in the Aviation Subcommittee to talk
about what is needed for an aviation protocol. I know that some
airlines in our State are doing everything possible to clean planes on
every turn of the trip and to do deep cleaning. They are
communicating--and we have encouraged them to communicate more--with
their passengers exactly what they are doing to help with the
mitigation of this virus. But that is not a substitute for the
Department of Transportation, federally, and the CDC, collaboratively,
to work in giving guidance to airlines on what standards they should be
meeting to help mitigate the spread of this virus.
My colleagues and I are calling on them to do that, not simply to
think of this as other agencies' responsibilities but to work
collaboratively to get this done.
I want to thank the Appropriations Committee for getting this
legislation to us today and all of our colleagues who have worked so
quickly on making it happen. I can tell you that we need these funds;
we need them now; and we need other States to heed the early testing
that would have been helpful in our State and now may be helpful in
yours.
Let's get as aggressive about testing as possible. Let's get
aggressive about sharing information about the flu and tracking this
virus. Let's get aggressive about trying to mitigate the impacts of
this deadly disease.
I thank the Presiding Officer.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Prescription Drug Costs
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, a new study showed that from the years
2007 to 2018, prices for, actually, hundreds of drugs rose many times--
many times faster than the rate of inflation. List prices on 602
medicines rose by 159 percent. That would average out to 9 percent
annually. After discounts and rebates, net prices increased by 60
percent or 4.5 percent annually. That is 3.5 times the rate of
inflation.
These are drugs for multiple sclerosis, cholesterol, rheumatoid
arthritis, chemotherapy, diabetes, and many other debilitating and
life-threatening conditions. Put into real terms, these price increases
mean that if one of these drugs cost $100 a month in 2007, that same
drug would cost $259 in 2018.
Meanwhile, you have to consider the working American. Wages for the
average American over the same time period increased about 30 percent
in the private sector. That means wage growth is about half the rate of
the growth of prescription drug prices, even after the rebates and even
after the discounts.
For many, increased drug costs are wiping out progress that these
workers are making in their wages. Some families are even going
backward financially after paying for their prescriptions. This doesn't
take into account at all the many other increases in the cost of living
from college to housing, to insurance.
Now, we Americans are surely fortunate, aren't we, to see the
significant wage growth that we have had in this country for our
workers under President Trump--great progress.
The President and Republicans in Congress can rightly take credit for
the country's booming economy, but all that wage growth doesn't mean
much--or at least as much--if it is spent on the same prescription drug
refills every month. That is something that ought to concern every
Member of this Congress, and for most, I am sure it does because we
hear about it constantly from our constituents. In fact, during this
election season, polls show that it is one of the top three or four
issues that are most on people's minds.
Let me be clear. These price hikes aren't because the medicines got
better or there was a significant increase in research and development.
No, this is because the pharmaceutical companies could do it, and in
doing it, they could get away with it because, in many cases, consumers
don't have a choice; consumers don't have options or alternatives. That
is because we don't have a healthy marketplace that drives costs down
for pharmaceuticals.
Right now, pharmaceutical companies can essentially charge Medicare
whatever they want, and taxpayers don't have much recourse. Right now,
every single working American who pays Federal taxes is subsidizing Big
Pharma's record profits through the drugs that the Federal Government
pays for through various programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
Now, there has to be a solution for this situation, and Ranking
Member Wyden and I are working to put some common sense back into this
whole system of buying pills. In the Finance Committee, we have passed
bipartisan legislation to put an end to unlimited corporate welfare for
Big Pharma. The vote of that bill out of committee was 19 to 9--a
bipartisan effort.
We are closer than ever to lowering drug prices for tens of millions
of Americans, and these Americans have been crying for this help from
Congress for quite a few years. But here we are. Big Pharma and its
paid allies are out in force trying to kill any reforms that might
endanger their profit margins. They are using scare tactics, deploying
terms like ``socialism'' and ``price controls,'' as if these subsidies
to Big Pharma are not a form of socialism.
I have been around long enough to recognize the political games that
are being played now. You see it quite regularly on the television
advertisements. So let's set the record straight. The last thing Big
Pharma wants is a free market. After all, these were the same folks who
loved ObamaCare so much because they knew it mandated another revenue
stream for their products. Now, we all know how ObamaCare has turned
out. Yet they made a deal with the White House to back that bill.
Now, Big Pharma is also warning that any reforms would hurt research
and development. In fact, my bipartisan legislation with Senator Wyden
would result in less socialism, a more competitive marketplace, and
wouldn't put a damper on innovation. That is according to something
that I call ``God'' around here--the independent Congressional Budget
Office. These are professional people making these judgments. They
judge most all of our legislation, particularly if there is a monetary
cost to it.
For those who may not believe a politician, let me point to the work,
then,
[[Page S1520]]
that the professionals at CBO have done on Grassley-Wyden:
First, the updated Grassley-Wyden bill will save more than $80
billion and result in no fewer cures.
No. 2, CBO says it will reduce patient out-of-pocket spending in Part
D of Medicare by around $50 billion.
No. 3, CBO says it will reduce premiums by about $1 billion for tens
of millions of seniors and Americans with disabilities on Medicare.
No. 4, CBO says that is all on top of out-of-pocket expenses that we
put a cap on and an end to the dreaded doughnut hole that has been part
of Part D since 2003.
No. 5, we have also, according to the Congressional Budget Office,
created a new way to spread out payments for those out-of-pocket
expenses so that paying the bills every month becomes a bit easier for
those on fixed incomes.
No. 6 and lastly, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the
bipartisan Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act--that is the title
of our bill--would protect taxpayers from being put on the hook for
unlimited price hikes that have no basis in a functioning free market.
So, without reforms, big pharmaceutical companies will continue to
receive tens of billions of dollars in excess taxpayer subsidies, and
they will also have no incentive to keep prices from rising many times
faster than inflation.
Currently, prescription drug manufacturers can charge Medicare more
and more every year, and they do. When the government is paying and you
have entitlement programs, taxpayers are forced to foot the bill. So
Grassley-Wyden enacts accountability and ends corporate welfare without
harming medical innovations.
Now, Senator Wyden and I are looking forward to reintroducing our
bipartisan bill very soon. So far, a dozen Senate Republicans have
announced publicly that they support this bipartisan bill. Others will
announce their support in the coming days, and a dozen more Republican
Senators have indicated to me that Grassley-Wyden is going in the right
direction, implying that they would vote for it on the Senate floor. So
I am optimistic that we will continue to gain support as Senators learn
more.
I was really pleased with President Trump announcing his willingness
to sign a bill in his State of the Union message. The next morning,
Vice President Pence was on cable TV saying that he supported Grassley-
Wyden. Secretary Azar has endorsed the bill. Not only that, but
Secretary Azar and a gang of people in domestic policy at the White
House have been working with us on this legislation, even prior to its
coming out of committee.
So, with all of this work and with all of this support--and with the
interest on the part of the voters as being one of the three or four
most prominent issues that will determine how people vote--it seems to
me it deserves a vote on the Senate floor and very soon. So I am here
today to urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, if they have
any questions about this bill, to visit with me about it and learn how
it will help all of our constituents.
The six points I made about the bill based upon what the
Congressional Budget Office said about it isn't all that that bill
does. There is a lot more to it.
Maybe I had better back up. I have read enough comments of my
colleagues--colleagues I haven't even talked to--that said what an
important issue this is. So, in one way or another, without even
signing on to this bill, without even being on the Finance Committee,
it seems like we have all pledged to lower prescription drug prices. So
I think we should follow through on that pledge.
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. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Tribute to Ronnie Anderson
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I want to spend a few minutes talking
about a friend of mine from Louisiana who is a fine American and a fine
Louisianian, and he is retiring. His name is Ronnie Anderson.
I want to celebrate his 51 years of service. That number is correct.
I know some of our pages here can't imagine someone being in a single
job for 51 years, but Ronnie has served 51 years, and he has devoted
those years, in large part, in service to our State's Farm Bureau.
He has led the Louisiana Farm Bureau to greater influence, to growing
membership, and that is not a small feat, because America was born on a
farm. In some respects, Louisiana was born on a farm, and farming is,
as you well know, Madam President, a challenging yet very rewarding
vocation and profession.
For 31 of the last 31 elections, the Louisiana Farm Bureau members
have chosen Ronnie as their president. So he has won 31 elections in a
row by our farmers in Louisiana, which is almost as good as the
President's electoral record.
Farmers from East Carroll, in my State, to Beauregard Parishes and
elsewhere in between have come to trust Ronnie as someone who knows
them, who cares about them, who cares about their farms, and who was
willing to rack up 71,000 miles driving his truck across the State of
Louisiana in an effort to win their confidence, as Ronnie did
repeatedly.
Ronnie spent most of his 71 years on this Earth working alongside the
farmers whom he represents. He grew up caring for dairy cows in East
Feliciana Parish. In Louisiana, as you may know, we call our counties
parishes.
Along with Ronnie's wife, Vivian, Ronnie still produces horses, hay,
beef cattle, and timber. All the while he was doing this, he helped
widen the arms of the Louisiana Farm Bureau and double its membership
to nearly 150,000 women and men over the course of Ronnie's three
decades as the organization's president.
Louisiana is a very diverse agricultural State, where each region is
distinct, and Ronnie has represented every nook and every cranny of our
farming and ranching community.
I am not alone in standing in awe of Ronnie Anderson's service. I am
in awe, and I wish Ronnie and Vivian, in their next chapter, the chance
to enjoy life. I know they have both enjoyed the 51 years of service to
the Farm Bureau, but now will enjoy life in a different way.
I wanted to come here today and celebrate Ronnie's service and that
of Vivian's, his life partner, as well.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Young). The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
H.R. 6074
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, we face a serious global crisis today with
the spread of the coronavirus. We all know that. The American people, I
believe, expect us here in the U.S. Senate to set aside politics and
set into motion a swift and sweeping response to this danger. Yesterday
was a big step in that direction.
I and Vice Chairman Leahy, who is on the floor here with me, in
conjunction with the leaders on both sides and with our House
counterparts, introduced a comprehensive plan that provides our experts
and agencies on the frontlines with the resources they tell us they
need to combat this crisis.
The package we introduced includes $7.8 billion in discretionary
appropriations for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the
National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the
State Department, the USAID, and the Small Business Administration. The
package also authorizes an additional $500 million in mandatory
spending for telehealth through Medicare. Combined, this emergency
supplemental provides $8.3 billion in resources to attack the crisis at
the local, State, Federal, and international levels.
In situations like this, I believe no expense should be spared to
protect the American people, and in crafting this package, none was. It
is an aggressive plan, a vigorous plan, that has received an
overwhelming positive reaction in the House and in the marketplace. It
is
[[Page S1521]]
the Senate's responsibility today to keep the momentum going.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes and demonstrate to the American
people that we here in the Senate are unified and have their backs on
this crisis.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I agree with what Chairman Shelby has said.
We have tried to set an example. The two of us are from two different
parties, from two different parts of the country and, I think it is
fair to say, have two different political philosophies. Yet we have
come together on this, as we have on so many other issues on
appropriations, to show, as an example to our colleagues, what we think
is best on this bill.
This week, Congress showed strong, decisive leadership in addressing
the novel coronavirus. As appropriators of both parties often do, and
as Members of Congress have proven still capable of doing even in the
most partisan of times, we have put our labels aside and have come
together for the American people.
I was concerned that this was something the President was not doing.
We saw the President spread misinformation on national television that
downplayed the potential risk to the American people. I was concerned
that he was worried more about the market impacts than about human
lives. His administration's initial proposal for $1.25 billion of new
spending, plus the authority to divert $1.25 billion from such things
as Ebola prevention and low-income heating assistance, was reckless and
devoid of substance.
Those in the administration sought vague transfer authorities to
allow them to move other money around in unidentified ways. It showed
how little thought was given to what was needed and to how much was
needed. I thought it was the latest attempt to undermine Congress's
power of the purse--the power of the purse that Republicans and
Democrats have always tried to protect.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the end of
my remarks a letter from Russell T. Vought, Acting Director of the
Office of Management and Budget.
I asked to submit the acting OMB Director's request letter as an
example of what not do in an emerging crisis.
Fortunately, there are those who remain in our government who are
very forthcoming with me and with our bipartisan staff members--my
staff and Senator Shelby's staff--about the real needs of confronting
the coronavirus, needs that are based on facts and science. I do thank
the staffs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the
National Institutes of Health, the Office of the Assistant Secretary
for Preparedness and Response, and the Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Financial Resources. Their help was invaluable in
producing in only 9 days the package we are going to be voting on
today. During those 9 days, there was a lot of evening and weekend work
by our staffs and by the Senators involved. We did it in 9 days because
of the emergency, and their help was invaluable.
The crisis is real. Worldwide, there are now 92,000 confirmed cases
and 3,200 confirmed deaths. Here in our country, that number is rising
as there have been more than 150 confirmed cases and 11 deaths. The CDC
has told us that the public health system will be able to test up to
75,000 people by the end of the week and that we should expect the
number of cases here to rise. So I strongly support this $7.8 billion
package and the other money that is available.
This package is going to provide nearly $1 billion directly to State,
local, and Tribal governments to support public health preparedness and
response; over $3 billion in the research and development of vaccines,
therapeutics, and diagnostics; nearly $1 billion for healthcare
preparedness, pharmaceuticals, medical supplies, and community health;
$1.25 billion to support our needed response overseas; $7 billion in
low-interest loans for small businesses; and nearly $500 million to
enhance the availability of telehealth services across the country.
This is, certainly, something very important to those who might have
rural areas in their States, and, frankly, we all do.
The American people are looking for leadership, and they want
assurance that their government is up to the task of protecting their
health and safety. I think we have to provide this leadership.
I am pleased that Congress included language in the bill--supported
by both Republicans and Democrats--that specifies that the funds can
only be used to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the coronavirus.
If there is a cynical effort, for any reason, by the President to shift
funds from the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, or the Public Health Social Services Emergency
Fund, which are the agencies at the epicenter of this crisis--to divert
funds, for example, to activities along the southwest border--it will
violate the law.
As I have said several times on this floor, I thank Chairman Shelby
and his staff, as well as the majority and Democratic leaders, for
their cooperation.
I will submit a list of committee staffers who worked through
weekends and late into the nights to make this possible. It is a long
list, but it shows some of the most professional people we have working
in the Senate. I know that Senator Shelby has a similar list from his
office.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the list of the
committee staffers' names.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Charles Kieffer, Chanda Betourney, Jessica Berry, Jay
Tilton, Hannah Chauvin, Shannon Hines, Jonathan Graffeo,
David Adkins, Margaret Pritchard, Dianne Nellor, Morgan
Ulmer, Patrick Carroll, Ellen Murray, Reeves Hart, Andrew
Newton, Alex Keenan, Kelly Brown, Meghan Mott, Kathryn
Toomajian, Laura Friedel, Jeff Reczek, Tim Rieser, Alex
Carnes, Kali Farahmand, Paul Grove, Katherine Jackson, and
Adam Yezerski.
____
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget,
Washington, DC, February 24, 2020.
Hon. Michael R. Pence,
President of the Senate, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: In late December 2019, China identified
a novel coronavirus which was causing human-to-human
transmission and has subsequently been named COVID-19. On
January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization declared a
public health emergency of international concern due to
widespread transmission of the virus. As of February 23,
2020, there are 78,811 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in
approximately 30 countries worldwide; the total number of
COVID-19 related deaths is now over 2,500 people, the
majority of which are in China. In the United States, there
have been 14 confirmed cases of COVID-19 presenting in seven
states (not including 39 persons repatriated to the United
States who have tested positive).
The President's priority is protecting the homeland, and
the Administration is working aggressively to minimize the
risk of the virus spreading in the United States. The
President has created a Coronavirus Task Force to direct the
U.S. response. This Task Force is led by the Secretary of
Health and Human Services (HHS) and is composed of subject
matter experts from across Government, including some of the
Nation's foremost experts on infectious diseases. On January
31, 2020, the Secretary of HHS declared a public health
emergency. HHS has tapped into the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention's (CDC) Infectious Diseases Rapid
Response Reserve Fund to help combat the virus. In addition,
fiscal year (FY) 2020 funds are being re-prioritized across
HHS as necessary to address the virus.
The Government has taken unprecedented steps to minimize
the risk of travelers spreading COVID-19 to the United
States. The President suspended entry into the United States
of certain foreign nationals who have recently traveled to
China and who pose a risk of transmitting the virus and
directed inbound flights from China to 11 airports where
enhanced screening now takes place.
The Government has conducted numerous charter flights to
evacuate American citizens from Wuhan, in the Hubei Province,
China and the cruise ship Diamond Princess back to the United
States. All passengers were screened for symptoms before the
flights, and medical professionals continue to monitor the
health of all returning passengers.
At the direction of the President and under the auspices of
the Task Force, several Federal agencies are contributing
significant resources and personnel to support the domestic
and international response. To this point, no agency has been
inhibited in response efforts due to resources or
authorities. However, much is still unknown about this virus
and the disease it causes. The Administration believes
additional Federal resources are necessary to take steps to
prepare for a potential worsening of the situation in the
United States, and requests an appropriation of $1.25 billion
of emergency funding in the
[[Page S1522]]
Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund at HHS to
continue supporting critical response and preparedness
activities. In addition, the Administration is requesting
that the Congress permit the $535 million in emergency
supplemental funding appropriated in the Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2020, to the Public Health and
Social Services Emergency Fund at HHS for the prevention and
treatment of Ebola to be used for COVID-19 response.
Tremendous progress has been made on Ebola and the current
national response priority should be COVID-19. These two
proposals would make $1.8 billion in new resources available
for the current response.
This funding would support all aspects of the U.S.
response, including: public health preparedness and response
efforts; public health surveillance, epidemiology, laboratory
testing, and quarantining costs; advanced research and
development of new vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics;
advanced manufacturing enhancements; and the Strategic
National Stockpile. Funds would also be made available, as
necessary, to affected States that are making contributions
to the current national response.
Because this funding arises from an unforeseen,
unanticipated event and is necessary for the protection of
human life, these supplemental resources should be designated
as emergency funding. In addition to these emergency
supplemental appropriations, the Administration is seeking
enhanced authorities to use existing resources most
effectively and to create additional flexibility for
directing resources toward the response. These flexibilities
include the ability for HHS to transfer funds to CDC, the
National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug
Administration, the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and
Response, and other components as necessary to carry out
further response activities. This also includes enhanced
transfer authority for the Secretary for the COVID-19
response, similar to the authority already provided for the
HHS Refugee and Entrant Assistance account. In addition, the
Administration seeks an increase of the authorized funding
level, to $10 million, for the repatriation program within
the Administration for Children and Families for potential or
future response activities.
With the appropriation of new emergency funding, as well as
the repurposing of FY 2020 Ebola resources, reprioritization
of other FY 2020 funding across HHS, and contributions from
other Government agencies, across the Government we expect to
allocate at least $2.5 billion in total resources for COVID-
19 response efforts.
Thank you for your consideration of these funding needs. I
urge the Congress to take swift action to provide the
additional funding requested to support the United States
response to COVID-19. I stand ready to work with you to
achieve this goal.
Sincerely,
Russell T. Vought,
Acting Director.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote
that is scheduled to begin at 1:45 p.m. begin immediately.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
The bill was ordered to a third reading and was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill pass?
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders)
and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 1, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 66 Leg.]
YEAS--96
Alexander
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Braun
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gardner
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Harris
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Jones
Kaine
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Loeffler
Manchin
Markey
McConnell
McSally
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NAYS--1
Paul
NOT VOTING--3
Enzi
Sanders
Warren
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 96, the nays are 1.
The 60-vote threshold, having been achieved, the bill was passed.
The bill (H.R. 6074) was passed.
____________________