[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 47 (Wednesday, March 11, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1678-S1685]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

  PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5, 
    UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF 
        EDUCATION RELATING TO ``BORROWER DEFENSE INSTITUTIONAL 
                       ACCOUNTABILITY''--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S.J. Res. 56, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 56) providing for 
     congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 
     States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of 
     Education relating to ``Borrower Defense Institutional 
     Accountability''.

  Mr. McCONNELL. 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for the quorum call be rescinded.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.


                              Coronavirus

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, yesterday afternoon, South Dakota 
Governor Kristi Noem notified me that multiple residents of South 
Dakota have tested positive for the coronavirus. While this is 
obviously something we had hoped to avoid, we knew this was a 
possibility, and South Dakota has spent weeks preparing to deal with an 
outbreak.
  Over the next few days, public health officials will be checking into 
where these individuals have been so that anyone with whom they came in 
contact can be notified. My staff and I are working closely with the 
Governor and her team, and I will continue to carefully monitor the 
situation.
  At the Federal level, I am focused on making sure that State and 
local governments have the resources they need to deal with the virus. 
Last week, I was proud to support bipartisan legislation committing 
significant Federal resources to the coronavirus fight.
  I am praying for all of the South Dakotans who are affected by the 
virus, and I want to thank the healthcare workers who are on the 
frontlines of this fight. We are lucky to have you.


                                S. 2657

  Madam President, I am disappointed that the Senate failed to move 
forward on the American Energy Innovation Act this week. This is a 
bipartisan

[[Page S1679]]

piece of legislation that should have been able to advance in the 
Senate. It contains measures from more than 60 Senators, and 90 
Senators voted last week to begin debate on the bill. I am disappointed 
that we couldn't maintain that bipartisan momentum and get this bill 
over the finish line.
  The United States is in a pretty good position when it comes to 
energy right now. Our energy supply is abundant, and energy prices are 
generally affordable. But we are in this position for a reason--because 
we took steps to increase our domestic energy supply and lessen our 
dependence upon foreign oil.
  We can't afford to become complacent. If we want to keep American 
energy affordable and abundant, we need to make sure that we stay on 
the cutting edge of energy innovation and continue to invest in our 
domestic energy supply, from oil and natural gas to renewable energy 
sources like hydropower and wind. We also need to make sure we stay on 
top of threats to our energy grid and our energy security.
  The American Energy Innovation Act is designed to help maintain 
American strength in the energy sector. It invests in a wide range of 
clean energy technologies, from wind and solar to hydropower and 
geothermal. It focuses on improving research into carbon capture, and 
it directs the establishment of a research and development program to 
identify ways to use captured carbon.
  The bill also invests in advanced nuclear energy research so that we 
can regain our edge in the use of this clean energy technology, and it 
focuses on improving energy storage. Many modern clean energy 
technologies are intermittent or lack the reliability of traditional 
electric sources. The amount of energy produced from wind, for example, 
is dependent on the amount of wind on any given day, so it must be 
backed up by a traditional plant, often powered by natural gas. 
Creating new ways to store clean energy will allow us to increase our 
reliance on renewable energy sources.
  Another area that needs to be addressed when it comes to renewable 
energy is recycling. Solar panels, wind turbine blades, and electric 
car batteries are key components of clean energy production, but all of 
these components eventually reach the end of their life. Both solar 
panels and wind turbine blades eventually have to be replaced, and car 
batteries eventually lose their ability to hold a full charge.
  The question becomes what to do with these components. Wind turbine 
blades can be well over 150 feet long and weigh somewhere around 15 
tons. That takes a lot of room in a landfill. In the case of electric 
vehicle batteries, we are not just talking about filling up landfills. 
We are talking about potentially hazardous waste if lithium or other 
materials leak from the battery.
  While recycling and reuse methods exist for clean energy components, 
much more work needs to be done to ensure that clean energy doesn't 
eventually result in massive buildups in landfills. Since roughly a 
quarter of the net electricity generated in my home State of South 
Dakota comes from wind, I am particularly interested in what it would 
take to recycle or reuse the blades from wind turbines on a large 
scale.
  I am very pleased that my wind energy recycling amendment was 
included in the chairman's substitute amendment to the American Energy 
Innovation Act. My amendment would establish a competition to identify 
innovative uses for wind blades that have reached the end of their 
life, with a focus on uses that present the greatest potential for 
large-scale commercial deployment.
  With an estimated 32,000 wind blades likely to be removed from U.S. 
wind turbines in the next 4 years, it is past time to get American 
innovators focused on this problem. I appreciate Chairman Murkowski's 
interest in addressing this side of green energy and hope that we can 
continue this work.
  In addition to clean energy and innovation, the American Energy 
Innovation Act focuses on boosting the security of our electric grid. 
It invests in cyber security and grid modernization and focuses on 
improving our domestic supply of some of the key elements and minerals 
that we rely on for manufacturing--everything from computer chips, to 
batteries, to defense applications.
  Right now, we have to import too much of these critical minerals from 
countries like China. For the sake of our national security, it is 
important that we find ways to identify supplies of these minerals here 
at home.
  Finally, the American Energy Innovation Act invests in workforce 
development. All of the innovative technologies in the world will not 
help us if we don't have the skilled workers to operate and maintain 
these technologies. We need to ensure that, while we are investing in 
innovation, we are also investing in the energy workforce of the 
future.

  As I said, it is disappointing that the Senate wasn't able to move 
forward on this bipartisan legislation. I hope we will be able to 
continue discussing this bill and the Senate will take it up again in 
the near future.
  The American Energy Innovation Act would promote clean energy 
development, help maintain a strong domestic energy supply, increase 
the security of our energy grid, and invest in American workers. We 
need to get this legislation across the finish line.
  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. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                              Coronavirus

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, the United States has more than 1,000 
confirmed cases of COVID-19, the coronavirus. The actual number, 
however, could be much higher. We don't truly know how many cases of 
coronavirus there are in the United States because our testing regime 
has been entirely inadequate.
  The CDC took weeks to develop testing kits that worked properly, and 
the Federal Government was far too slow in allowing hospitals, medical 
labs, and public health clinics to conduct tests on their own. The New 
York Times this morning has a story about how doctors and clinicians in 
Washington State were forced to wait a period of weeks for samples of 
the coronavirus and approval to test patients for the virus, even after 
they had suspected cases. The virus was spreading in the United States 
for weeks, without our knowledge, because we could not reliably test 
for it.
  Even now, the administration has been laggard about making sure that 
testing kits are available to all who need them, and the United States 
is trailing countries around the world in our testing capacity. We, who 
were supposed to have the greatest public health system in the world, 
are lagging behind many countries, and it is a matter of life and 
death.
  Last night, I spoke with the mayor of New Rochelle, NY, where 
multiple infections have been confirmed and where residents are now 
living under a 3-square-mile containment area. The mayor told me that 
despite the best efforts of the State of New York--and they are doing a 
good job--there are not enough coronavirus testing kits for the 
community. I asked him what his major problem was. He said: Lack of 
testing kits, lack of testing. I fear that what is happening in New 
Rochelle will happen in cities and towns across the country. It is 
virtually certain that a limited quarantine or containment area will be 
imposed on other cities, like they were in New Rochelle, and we need to 
make sure the mistakes that have plagued the whole testing regime is 
not repeated when other cities have to be under some limited 
quarantine. Those cities have to able to get the tests and resources 
they need, and New Rochelle still isn't getting them because of the 
Federal Government.
  I honestly don't know why it has taken so long for the Trump 
administration to get a handle on testing, which is the most powerful 
tool in helping us respond to the spread of the virus. I honestly don't 
know why, after this issue with testing has been glaring and very 
public, the administration has still not announced anything resembling 
a coherent plan to fix the problem.
  This morning, I am demanding that the Trump administration do five

[[Page S1680]]

things to improve the Nation's ability to test for the coronavirus in 
the United States:
  One, expedite the approval of labs that are ready and willing to 
provide testing. Every lab that is able to provide testing should be up 
and running as soon as possible.
  Two, provide daily updates on the volume of tests, both available and 
expected, and set up a special office or bureau within HHS dedicated to 
managing the acquisition and distribution tests. The conflicting 
reports and lack of information have left States unable to plan.
  Three, support the use of automated testing to increase the speed and 
volume with which testing is conducted.
  Four, ensure that patients who need tests face no out-of-pocket 
costs. The coverage requirements for testing are currently a patchwork 
of State executive orders and private company actions. We need Federal 
leadership. Hundreds of millions of Americans do not know if they can 
access affordable testing.
  And, five, ensure that COVID-19, coronavirus, hotlines are fully 
staffed and responsive to patients and providers who have questions and 
concerns.
  Our top priority at the moment is to confront the spread of this 
disease head-on. The first is making sure communities across the 
country have the testing capability and capacity that they need.
  The public also needs clear guidance from the Federal Government 
regarding how to best avoid contracting this virus. It has been 
reported that Federal health officials recommended that older Americans 
refrain from air travel for this reason, but the White House overruled 
them. What exactly happened here? Were health officials overruled for 
political reasons? What is the truth? And what is the recommendation of 
our Federal health experts going forward, most importantly?
  The coronavirus has also created turbulence in our economy and 
disrupted daily life for many Americans. As I have said before, by far, 
the best way to respond to any adverse effects on our economy is to 
deal with the coronavirus itself. You treat the disease, not the 
symptoms. But even as we focus primarily on combating the spread of 
COVID-19, we should consider relief to American families and workers 
who are impacted.
  Later this morning, I will join Senators Murray, Brown, Durbin, 
Wyden, Cardin, and others to announce a series of measures that Senate 
Democrats believe we should take up to provide economic relief to 
working Americans during the coronavirus outbreak.
  I will have more details at that time, at 11:30. But for now, I want 
to make one thing clear. When it comes to providing short-term economic 
relief, our priority should be the American people, not corporations.
  That means targeted measures that give working families the 
flexibility and support they need during a medical emergency. That 
means money goes directly to the people and workers affected and who 
need help, not money tossed out of an airplane and hope that some lands 
on the people who need the help.
  It does not mean bailing out the oil and gas industry, as the press 
reported was under consideration at the White House. It does not mean 
deregulating the banking industry, as another report said was a part of 
the discussion at the White House. It does not mean another corporate 
tax cut.
  In the face of test shortages, growing cases, and lack of medical 
supplies, President Trump seems more interested in bailing out oil and 
gas companies and other big interests than in helping the families 
struggling to afford coronavirus treatment.
  As the spread of coronavirus continues within our borders, Democrats 
remain committed--absolutely committed--to finding ways we can protect 
Americans most at risk by this disease. President Trump should work 
with us in Congress to make sure we continue managing this pandemic in 
a measured, responsible, and transparent manner.
  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. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3415

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, Senator Alexander is here. Senator Murray 
will be joining us in a moment. They are the chair and ranking member 
of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, which has 
jurisdiction over this very important issue of sick leave with sick 
pay. Many companies do that in this country. We are the only wealthy 
country in the world that doesn't have a real policy. As Senator 
Alexander says, we do this for Federal employees. It should be for more 
than those of us who are Federal employees.
  Today, we need to get help to the people who need it now: parents 
whose children's schools are closed; people who aren't getting paid; 
people who have trouble making rent or making their mortgage payments 
or their student loan payments. Paid sick days are one of the most 
important ways we do that. That is why we need to pass this bill today.
  Think about restaurant workers preparing our food. Think about what 
you do if your child's school closes down for a week. For so many 
people, taking a sick day means going without pay and potentially 
losing their jobs. Put yourself in their position. It is hard for us to 
do--we are lucky enough and privileged enough to have these jobs--and 
for most of our staff also. But think about a worker making $12 an 
hour. That worker has symptoms. She is the only working person in her 
family. She might think her illness is the coronavirus; nonetheless, 
her illness is debilitating enough that it is hard for her to go to 
work. She is making $12 an hour. She stays home and loses $100 that 
day. She has a $700-a-month rent payment or possibly lower than that if 
she is making $12 an hour. She has to make a decision: Do I go to work 
and potentially infect others but get my pay and maybe make myself 
sicker, or do I stay home to get well and give up that $100?
  Then you think about some of those other workers. Someone might be a 
restaurant worker preparing our food. What do you do if your child's 
school closes down for a week, as schools--already Ohio State, Kent 
State, Case Western, and Baldwin Wallace have shut their doors. They 
have not really shut their doors; they are doing learning by distance, 
tele-learning. It means a number of people at those schools are in a 
very different situation with their employment.
  Taking a sick day means going without pay. Taking a sick day may mean 
losing your job. It hurts everyone. If you are lucky enough to have 
paid time off--everybody is at risk when more people are out and about 
when they are sick.
  Our office gets calls from workers all the time. Senator Alexander 
has Tennesseans calling him. Senator Murray has Washingtonians calling 
her, asking: What do I do if I come down with something? I have to 
choose between going to work while I am sick or losing a paycheck or 
losing my job.
  Because of our policy, we have put people in that situation or they 
are in that situation, and we have an obligation now to do something 
about it. It is unacceptable that millions of Americans are faced with 
that impossible choice.
  That choice gets worse. I don't know how many people are faced with 
that choice today. We know it is millions. Tomorrow, it will be 1.2 
times that, and the next day, it may be half again. We know this is 
getting worse before it gets better.
  I am not an alarmist. I think we have some of the best health 
officials in the world. We have public health professionals who I 
think--the Governor of Ohio, a Republican, Mike DeWine, and I have 
talked a couple of times extensively. People in Ohio are doing this 
right.
  We don't always get the leadership out of the White House we would 
like when we see the President saying something that is almost the 
opposite of our public health professionals. I tend to listen to the 
public health professionals. I know Senator Alexander does too. I would 
be hopeful that the President does.
  We know this impossible choice is getting more and more serious. Some 
corporations do the right thing, but

[[Page S1681]]

many are not doing the right thing. Some are promising they are going 
to do the right thing, but promises are not enough. We need to pass 
this bill now.
  Our legislation would require all employers to allow workers to 
accrue 7 days of paid sick leave, and the bill would also provide an 
additional 14 days that would be available immediately in the event of 
any public health emergency like we have right now. This is a public 
health emergency. We need to do emergency kind of legislation. This is 
an unusual, extraordinary problem. We have to do something 
extraordinary here. Passing this bill allowing workers to accrue 7 days 
of paid sick leave and providing an additional 14 days available 
immediately in the event of any public health emergency is what we need 
to do.
  Congress can't wait. People are choosing between going to work sick 
and missing a paycheck. They are making that choice every day. People 
in Memphis and Cleveland and people in Omaha and Dayton are making that 
choice every day--do I go to work sick, or do I stay home and miss that 
$120 I was going to earn this week?
  We need to do this today. We need this bill to prevent the spread of 
coronavirus and stop this crisis from getting worse. It is about the 
dignity of work. It is about public safety.
  I will wait for Senator Murray to make the UC request.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I also want to thank all of my colleagues 
who are coming down to speak about this today.
  Families in my home State of Washington are scared. They are 
frustrated. They are angry. And so am I. New reporting now makes it 
clear that even after researchers in Seattle raised serious concerns 
about the possibility of community spread in Washington State and tried 
to work with Federal agencies to conduct testing, the administration 
didn't work with them to let the public know how serious the 
coronavirus was. You can be sure I am going to get to the bottom of 
this and make sure it will never happen again. I am furious that 
instead of acting with urgency, they did nothing; instead of acting 
with transparency, they kept quiet; instead of working to keep families 
safe, they wasted valuable time. And now in my State, 24 people have 
died. Over 1,000 across the country are confirmed to be infected, and 
experts are telling us that many more are likely to be ill.
  I am hearing from people in my home State of Washington who are 
worried about their older relatives who are dying alone; worried about 
having to miss work and being unable to pay their rent; worried about 
how to keep their children safe at school and how to care for them and 
make sure they get a nutritious meal if their schools cancel. I am 
hearing from small business owners who are worried because no one is 
now coming through their door and they are unsure how to support the 
workers going forward. I am hearing from communities that are worried 
about how they protect people who are experiencing homelessness. I have 
seen a lot in my years as a Senator, but I am not exaggerating when I 
say this is one of the most trying times I have ever seen in my State 
experience.
  I am absolutely going to be holding this administration accountable 
for missing so many opportunities to get ahead of this, but I am also 
going to be doing everything in my power to make sure we do not miss 
significant opportunities. We still have time to slow this down and 
manage it as best we can.
  Our primary goal right now for people in my home State and across the 
country needs to be slowing the spread of the virus in areas where 
there are outbreaks so that areas where it has not hit so hard yet have 
the time to prepare. One of the best ways we can do this is by allowing 
workers who feel sick or who need to stay home with a child whose 
school is closed to do so without losing a paycheck or their job.
  Workers and their families want to do the right things for themselves 
and for their communities, but for many of our workers--restaurant 
workers, truckdrivers, service industry workers--they may not have an 
option to take a day off without losing their pay or losing their job. 
That leaves them with the impossible choice between putting food on 
their table and paying the bills or the rent and protecting themselves 
and others. That is not a choice we should be asking anyone to make in 
the United States of America in the 21st century. Yet 32 million people 
in our country today--or about one out of every four private sector 
workers--are faced with this impossible choice every time they get 
sick. Right now, this choice has unique and potentially dire 
consequences.
  I have been advocating for legislation to allow workers to earn paid 
sick days since 2004, along with my colleague Congressman Rosa DeLauro 
in the House. Time and again, we have been told no even though that 
simple step is critical, as we now see, for public health and gives 
workers the flexibility they need. In fact, we last introduced our bill 
in March of 2019, and here we are almost a year later to the day 
without the very policies in place that would have now helped millions 
of our workers and bolstered our resilience in the face of this exact 
kind of public healthcare crisis that paid sick days are intended to 
prevent and to mitigate.
  We now have another opportunity to get this right. I am here to ask 
my colleagues to support our new emergency paid sick days legislation, 
which would ensure workers would have 14 days of paid sick leave 
immediately in response to public health emergencies like the one we 
face today in addition to allowing workers to gradually earn their 7 
days of paid sick leave.
  It would mean you would not lose a paycheck if, like so many parents 
in my home State of Washington and across the country are facing, your 
child's school has to close in the coming weeks because of this health 
outbreak. It would mean you would not lose a paycheck if your family 
member were quarantined and you needed to stay home to take care of him 
so that you would not spread the virus. Also, if you could not go to 
work because you were sick or your workplace were shut down, as we are 
seeing in so many places, you wouldn't lose pay. These are the real 
challenges people are now facing and will continue to face.
  Our bill would help these workers immediately, the minute it becomes 
law. We have enough delay when it comes to paid sick days, so let's get 
this done. Let's keep working, as we need to do, on a comprehensive, 
coordinated response that focuses squarely on what our families and our 
workers and our small businesses need in the weeks and months ahead.
  The Democrats on this side have a lot of ideas that we are laying out 
in response to this, including how to make sure these tests are 
affordable, that we support our most vulnerable communities, and that 
we reckon with the economic impact this crisis is having on our 
communities and Nation. There is a lot we need to do in the weeks and 
months ahead, but I urge us to start today with this simple, really 
important issue.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged from further consideration 
of S. 3415, a bill to allow Americans to earn paid sick time so that 
they can address their own health needs and the health needs of their 
families; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that 
the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the 
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, I 
will continue to work with the Senator from Washington State, as we 
always do, and on a comprehensive response to the this issue, the 
coronavirus. She and I have had four briefings, and we will have 
another one tomorrow. We have a history of being able to come to 
agreement on these matters.
  The idea of there being paid sick leave is a good idea, but if 
Washington, DC, thinks it is a good idea, Washington, DC, should pay 
for it. When I

[[Page S1682]]

was the Governor of Tennessee, nothing used to make me more unhappy 
than when some well-meaning individual in the U.S. Senate or U.S. House 
would come up with a big idea, pass it, take credit for it, and send me 
the bill.
  Employees are struggling, and so are employers struggling, but it is 
not a cure for the coronavirus to, in the middle of this matter, put a 
big, new, expensive Federal mandate on employers who are struggling. 
Paid sick leave is a good idea, and we do it in my office. The Federal 
Government now does it, and many businesses do it. Yet, if the Federal 
Government wants to require it, the Federal Government should pay for 
it.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I do appreciate the fact that the Senator 
from Tennessee has been a great partner with me on many issues. I will 
keep talking to him about this.
  Let me just say, without doing this, the cost to businesses is going 
to grow exponentially. We have already seen it on Wall Street, and we 
are seeing it in our communities. Because people are not getting paid, 
they are going to work and are spreading this virus. We are seeing the 
impact and will continue to see it in our communities as fewer people 
go to their stores or as fewer people go to their businesses.
  We either do this now or we are going to continue to pay for it in 
the future. I am sorry it has been objected to today, because I think 
it is such a critical step with regard to this public health crisis we 
are having. We need to get this done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, as I watch up close and from afar Senator 
Alexander's and Senator Murray's so often working together on issues 
like this, I absolutely believe Senator Alexander when he says it is a 
good idea. Yet, as Senator Murray just said, there are all kinds of 
costs being imposed on businesses as a result of people who go to work 
sick. It is also more expensive for public hospitals and more expensive 
as more people get sick and what that means to Medicaid. These costs 
are impossible to quantify today with our not having a sick leave 
policy. A year from now, we will be able to look back on what the costs 
really were, and they will have been overwhelming. A solid, coherent 
sick leave policy--something modest like Senator Murray is calling 
for--could really make a difference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.


                        Remembering Felix Sparks

  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I come to the floor to remember the life 
and service of a Colorado hero and to reflect on an upcoming 
anniversary of an event during World War II.
  The hero's name is Felix Sparks--a name that may very well be 
familiar to the people of Colorado. Felix Sparks was born in Texas, 
though. We have a lot of Texans in Colorado, but this one made the 
right choice and stayed in Colorado. He was born in San Antonio, TX, in 
1917, and he spent his childhood around Miami, AZ, where his family and 
father worked in a mining company. He was in high school during the 
Great Depression and was the eldest of five siblings.
  Soon after graduating from high school, Felix decided to enlist in 
the U.S. Army. Upon completing his enlistment, Felix enrolled at the 
University of Arizona and completed the Citizens' Military Training 
program, which earned him a commission as a second lieutenant. Mr. 
Sparks then went on to pursue a pre-law degree. He had just finished 
his first semester of that effort when he was ordered to report for 
duty to the 157th Infantry Regiment in Colorado. He was ordered to 
report at the very beginning of World War II. That year was 1940--right 
before the United States officially entered World War II.
  Neither Felix Sparks nor the American people knew it at the time, but 
World War II was about to change the history of the United States and 
the world forever. Felix would be on the frontlines of one of the most 
pivotal moments of World War II.
  As a little bit of background on his work, along with the National 
Guard units from Oklahoma, Arizona, and New Mexico, Colorado's 157th 
Infantry Regiment mobilized in support of the U.S. Army's 45th Infantry 
Division in Oklahoma, also known as the Thunderbird Division.
  The division set sail for North Africa in June 1943 for its first 
mission--the invasion of Sicily. Over the next 511 days, Felix Sparks 
and his fellow soldiers in the Thunderbird Division would participate 
in so many well-known combat operations in Sicily, Naples-Foggia, Rome-
Arno, Southern France, the Ardennes-Alsace, Rhineland, and Central 
Europe. It was an incredibly well-documented, decorated campaign. Yet, 
of these 511 days, Felix Sparks most often recounted one day in 
particular more than any other. That day was April 29, 1945.
  On April 29, 1945, LTC Felix Sparks was the commander of the 3rd 
Battalion, 157th Infantry Regiment, and on that day, that April day, 
after so many days of fighting and after what they had already seen, 
the 157th Infantry Regiment, along with units of the 42nd Infantry 
Division and the 20th Armored Infantry Division, led the liberation of 
approximately 32,000 prisoners at the Dachau concentration camp. 
Although his unit had suffered thousands of casualties over the course 
of the war, what Lieutenant Colonel Sparks and his soldiers discovered 
at Dachau was beyond compare.
  Felix Sparks described that day as one of the darkest days of his 
lifetime and, I can only imagine, one of the darkest days of lifetimes 
put together. Along with many of his fellow soldiers, he would spend 
the rest of his life reliving the horrors of what he witnessed at 
Dachau. As they neared the camp, the American forces discovered nearly 
40 railroad cars that were filled with decomposing bodies. Felix Sparks 
said the ``stench of death was overpowering'' and that what he saw at 
the camp made Dante's Inferno seem ``pale compared to the real hell of 
Dachau.'' Inside the camp were even more bodies and more than 30,000 
survivors--survivors of one of the darkest places in one of the darkest 
moments in world history.
  We say we must never forget the horrors of the Holocaust, but Felix 
Sparks and the Americans who liberated Dachau didn't have a choice. 
They could never forget and will never forget.
  Felix Sparks said:

       The men of the 45th Infantry Division were hardened combat 
     veterans. [We had seen so many fights.] We had been in combat 
     almost two years at that point. While we were accustomed to 
     death, we were not able to comprehend the type of death that 
     we encountered at Dachau.

  There is no going back. There is no forgetting. There is no trying to 
erase from memory the horrors of Nazism and seeing it up close. The 
liberation of Dachau would be one of the Thunderbird Division's final 
missions during World War II. The division was officially deactivated 
on December 7, 1945--4 years after Pearl Harbor.
  Following the end of the war, Felix Sparks attended the University of 
Colorado Law School in Boulder, CO--my alma mater. He graduated in 1947 
and started a law practice in Delta, CO, while he also served as a 
district attorney. In 1956, Felix Sparks was appointed as the youngest 
ever--in Colorado's history--associate justice of the Colorado Supreme 
Court.
  Then, in 1958, Felix accepted the role of director of the Colorado 
Water Conservation Board, where he was instrumental in the development 
of sustainable water policies for the State. For those not familiar 
with Colorado, this is an incredibly important position. We are a State 
whose history is written in water. Yet that wasn't enough for Felix 
Sparks. It was not all.
  Felix Sparks wasn't just serving in his civilian life; he continued 
his military service as well. After returning home from World War II, 
Felix had joined the Colorado Army National Guard. He would go on to 
serve in and take command of the Colorado National Guard for nearly 30 
years between the two--both service and commanding. He retired at the 
rank of brigadier general.
  As both a civilian and a soldier, Felix Sparks truly exemplified 
servant leadership. His sense of duty to our Nation and to my home 
State lives on today, and I am proud to honor his legacy and life of 
service. Felix Sparks died on September 24, 2007, at the age of 90. He 
is buried in Wheat Ridge, CO.
  Along with a number of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, I

[[Page S1683]]

will soon be introducing a resolution to commemorate the 75th 
anniversary of the liberation of the Dachau concentration camp during 
World War II and to honor the service of Felix Sparks, as well as of 
the courageous personnel he fought alongside and of the brave men and 
women they saved along the way, and in memory of the tens of thousands 
who were brutally and savagely murdered by the Nazi regime.
  We must never forget what happened. Unfortunately, far too many 
Americans and far too many people around the world may put aside these 
moments of our darkest time in history and forget or can't name a 
ghetto or a concentration camp today. That is something that we have to 
fix, that we have to correct, that we have to continue to speak of--the 
horrors that can never be repeated in the darkest times of our history.
  I invite all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
resolution. We already have the Senators from the States that 
participated in the Thunderbird Division so that we may remember the 
lives lost to the atrocities of the Holocaust and to World War II and 
remember the tens of thousands who were spared by the brave acts of our 
Nation's military. We must never forget. I urge my colleagues to 
support this resolution in one more showing to never forget.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Coronavirus

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to address the issue which 
will be before us at noon on the vote, but, preceding that, I would 
like to say a word on a different topic that certainly is on 
everybody's mind, and that is the coronavirus.
  I was recently notified by my Governor, Governor Pritzker, that we 
have run into a shortage in our State of the test kits that are 
necessary. Some 330 Illinoisans have been tested to date, and these are 
people who, on physician's orders, should be tested because of exposure 
to coronavirus or because of the vulnerability of the patient and the 
suspicion that they may have been exposed to the virus.
  The difficulty that we have run into is that the testing process 
apparently is coming to a stop. We are running out of the test kits, 
and there has been contact made with the Centers for Disease Control to 
determine why we are not getting responses on this need for additional 
kits in our State to test people who are truly vulnerable.
  I don't believe our situation could be unique. I imagine other States 
are facing this same challenge.
  I reached out to the Centers for Disease Control within the hour and 
had a lengthy conversation about the situation that we are facing.
  Originally, the coronavirus test kits faced a shortage of reagents 
that were necessary to take the initial test. It turns out they are now 
facing a new challenge: It is an issue of the global supply of enzymes 
that are used by laboratories to analyze the test results. This is a 
commercially available enzyme that is now in short supply, and CDC is 
desperately looking for other commercial sources that are reliable that 
can come to the rescue.
  The testing process, of course, is going to stop if the laboratories 
can't take the initial test results and test them to see whether they 
are positive or negative. They are looking for alternative ways at the 
CDC to meet this need. It is a critically important issue, and the lack 
of these enzymes limits the actual tests that can be taken across the 
United States.
  The source at the CDC told me this situation is not unique to our 
country. It is a commercially produced product, and they are looking 
for other sources, either within the United States or without, as 
quickly as possible. This is a market-driven problem, and the CDC is 
looking across the market for sources to solve the problem.
  For the time being, there is no relief in sight in Illinois or other 
places that have run into this same issue, where people desperately 
need to be tested to determine whether they are positive for this 
virus, and the testing, even if it takes place, cannot go through the 
laboratory approval.
  The commercial supplies of this enzyme, apparently, are depleted at 
this moment. It is an urgent issue, as I mentioned repeatedly. They are 
looking for optional alternative platforms for this laboratory testing.
  Now, I would say at this point I don't want to speculate on what that 
means. It is far beyond my personal expertise. But it is an indication 
of a desperate situation in many places. It is one that we need to 
respond to and quickly.
  To argue that there are enough test kits that have been distributed 
is questionable to start with. But even if distributed and they cannot 
be analyzed, it really doesn't give us the information necessary to 
protect the Americans who may be vulnerable.
  The bottom line is this. This administration is facing a challenge 
over test kits that still have many unanswered questions. How did other 
countries in the world--Korea and others--come up with test kits early 
on in volumes that were necessary to address this problem, and the 
United States did not? Why didn't we accept these test kits in other 
countries that apparently do come up with results that are needed and 
necessary?
  I don't know those answers. Only time will provide them to us. But, 
in the meantime, we have appropriated all the funds and more asked for 
by the Trump administration to deal with this issue, on a bipartisan 
basis, and that is exactly what we should continue to do. But we need 
start-to-finish straight answers from everyone in the administration 
and outside about this public health threat.
  Credibility is the first step toward dealing with a public health 
challenge such as the one we face today, and this test kit issue is 
clearly central to our bringing this situation under control--the 
sooner we get straight answers and good information and can respond to 
it quickly, the better for our Nation.


                              H.J. Res. 76

  Mr. President, in just a few minutes, we will see a vote on the floor 
of the U.S. Senate that is fairly unique. There aren't many votes in 
this Chamber. This one, actually, is meaningful, because this issue 
before us on a vote at noon today relates to student borrowers who went 
to colleges--primarily, for-profit colleges and universities--and ended 
up attending those schools, going deeply into debt by borrowing money 
from the government to go to school, only to learn at a later stage 
that they were misled.
  The schools didn't tell them the truth. The schools many times told 
them that if they took certain courses, there was a job waiting for 
them. In some cases they even told how much the jobs paid. They went on 
to say that the schools themselves had certain people on the faculty 
with certain qualifications, and it turned out that wasn't true. In 
addition, many students were told that the hours that they took at 
these for-profit schools could be transferred to other schools if they 
wanted to complete someplace else. It turns out that wasn't true 
either. These students were basically defrauded.
  If you can understand the predicament, here is a student customer 
sitting at a desk in an office at a for-profit college or university 
being asked questions and being given information for the most 
important contract they will sign in their early lives. Many of these 
students incurred substantial student debt based on the representations 
and misrepresentations of these colleges and universities.
  They find out now that the schools have gone bankrupt in some cases, 
and some schools that didn't go bankrupt ended up providing them with 
training and education completely inadequate for them to find a job. 
Here is the student deep in debt, having wasted years of their lives in 
these for-profit colleges and universities with nowhere to turn. Their 
lives are affected by it.
  Who wouldn't be? Whether it is $20,000 or $50,000 or $100,000 in 
debt, it quickly adds up, and students find themselves literally in 
chains because of student debt and because of misrepresentations made 
by the schools.
  You might say: What is the government going to do about it? We 
decided years ago exactly what we should do about it. We put in the 
Higher Education Act something called the borrower defense, and here is 
what it said.

[[Page S1684]]

If you went to a school and they lied to you, if they misrepresented 
what you were going to receive in your education, if they deceived you 
and defrauded you, and then you incurred a student debt because of it, 
you can go to the U.S. Department of Education under what is known as 
the borrower defense program and seek relief from some or all of your 
student debt.
  This borrower defense program is not new. It has been around many 
years. But in the year 2014, it became a popular situation, sadly, 
because these for-profit schools were defrauding so many thousands of 
students. Over 200,000 students currently have a claim at the U.S. 
Department of Education that they were deceived by these for-profit 
schools, which are notorious for the representations and 
misrepresentations they make to these students.
  These 200,000 students went to the Department of Education and said: 
Because there is statutory relief here, we are asking you, Secretary 
Betsy DeVos, to give us relief from this debt. We were students at 
these schools.
  And she has refused. She has refused to take up their cases, refused 
to consider the merits of them, despite the fact that President Obama, 
before her and through the Department of Education, was actually using 
this program and this law to help the students.
  To add insult to injury, Secretary DeVos said: Incidentally, we are 
going to change the standards at the Department of Education for 
students who feel that they have been defrauded and that the schools 
have misrepresented things to them.
  How did she change the standards? She made it extremely difficult for 
these students to get any relief from the student debt from the schools 
that misrepresented them. Instead of the students' being able to rely, 
for example, on the fact that many States have investigated these 
schools and found fraudulent misconduct, she has established a new 
standard that each of the students has to prove that there was, in 
fact, an intentional defrauding of that student.
  What does that mean? Each of these students has to lawyer up and each 
of these students has to have some investigative capacity to meet the 
new standard that has been established by Betsy DeVos at the Department 
of Education.
  It turns out that these students are up in arms over it, and I am 
joining them. This measure on the floor would put an end to this new 
rule by Secretary DeVos and say that you have to treat students fairly 
when it comes to those who have been defrauded.
  Yesterday, the Senate voted 55 to 41 on a bipartisan rollcall--fairly 
unusual, but a bipartisan rollcall--where 10 Republicans joined the 
Democrats to move the measure disapproving of this new rule by 
Secretary DeVos. I want to thank my Republican colleagues who stood up 
for these students and veterans.

  We have veteran organizations coming to us saying: You can't do this. 
What happens is that we have military men and women who, when they are 
discharged from service, qualify for the GI bill. The GI bill pays for 
their college education, as it should, and I am proud that we do that. 
These very same schools not only take the GI benefits but then tell the 
students they have to turn around and borrow more money to finish what 
turns out to be an absolutely worthless education and training. The 
American Legion and many other veterans organizations are leading the 
charge with us to change this new Secretary Betsy DeVos standard. I 
thank them for that.
  In 1992--that is how far back it goes--we put into law in the Higher 
Education Act this borrower defense so that students who were defrauded 
had somewhere to turn when it came to student debt they incurred. The 
schools misrepresented how many job placements would take place if they 
finished the courses. They misrepresented the earning potential of 
these jobs after graduation. They lied about the cost of attending 
these schools. They told the students their credits would transfer 
when, in fact, they did not. This kind of misrepresentation left these 
students to sign up for more student loans and go more deeply in debt 
because they were lied to. Those are just a few of the examples.
  Congress rightly didn't want to leave the students to be left holding 
the bag for the misconduct of the schools. So it created in 1992 this 
statutory borrower defense. No one had ever heard of it until 2014, 
when Corinthian Colleges collapsed and the lid was blown off of other 
for-profit colleges and universities' fraud. We are talking about the 
University of Phoenix and DeVry and others. If you look, you will find 
them, and it is a long list. There are two numbers you need to know 
about the for-profit colleges and universities, and this will be on the 
final. One number is 8: 8 percent of all postsecondary students go to 
for-profit colleges and universities--8 percent. The other is 33: 33 
percent of all federal student loan defaults are students from for-
profit colleges and universities. For the very reasons that we come to 
the floor today, these schools are notorious for misrepresenting to 
students, overcharging them in tuition, and providing them with little 
or no education for the future. These schools take the money and run, 
and the students are left holding the bag with massive debts.
  Corinthian is a good example. It collapsed in 2014. Thousands of 
students were the victims of Corinthian's misrepresentations. They 
inflated job placement rates, took out loans for students without their 
knowledge, and lied to the students about employers recognizing their 
degrees. Corinthian was not unique. Nearly every other major for-profit 
college has been the subject of multiple State and Federal 
investigations and lawsuits for similar predatory practices.
  Since the year 2015, nearly 300,000 student borrowers--mostly from 
for-profit colleges--have applied to the Department of Education for 
this discharge, and it is not going to stop. These for-profit colleges 
are the coronavirus of higher education. The Department of Education 
estimates that nearly 200,000 borrowers will be subject to further 
illegal practices by their schools in 2021 alone. This new DeVos rule 
is going to make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for 
students to find relief. The best estimate is that 3 percent of the 
students who are defrauded by their school will get relief, and the 
other 97 percent will not under this new rule that we will have a 
chance to vote against this afternoon.
  The rule by Secretary DeVos makes it almost impossible for future 
defrauded borrowers to receive the borrower defense discharge that 
Congress intended. It eliminates all group relief. Each of the students 
is supposed to lawyer up. To prove their claims under the rule, the 
borrowers must provide evidence that the school intended to deceive 
them, had knowledge of the deception, or acted with reckless disregard.
  How many students fresh out of school are able to make that legal 
proof? In addition, borrowers under the DeVos rule are required to show 
financial harm above and beyond the fact that they took out the loans 
that now burden them later in life.
  This is a situation where we can respond as a Congress and should on 
a bipartisan basis. The House has already passed this measure saying 
that we reject this new Secretary Betsy DeVos rule when it comes to 
this mistreatment of students who were defrauded and have a debt as a 
result of it.
  One of my Senate colleagues whom I respect very much yesterday used a 
car analogy to defend Secretary DeVos' rule. He said:

       If your car is a lemon, you don't sue the bank; you sue the 
     dealer. A college can be a lemon, just like a car can be.

  That is what the Senator said. His point is that the students who 
were defrauded by the school, sold a lemon of an education, should go 
after the school and not the Department of Education--except that the 
DeVos rule allows the schools to prevent students from suing them. It 
eliminates a prohibition in current rules on the use of mandatory 
arbitration clauses and class actions.
  Under the existing rule, students of Corinthian could have come 
together in a class action and ask for relief in a court of law 
directly from the school. Secretary DeVos eliminates that: Go on your 
own. Each one of you students stand up for yourself.
  Is that fair? I don't think it is. It certainly isn't the kind of 
thing that we want to see in terms of justice for these students. The 
DeVos rule causes

[[Page S1685]]

the person who bought the lemon to be forced to sue the bank instead of 
the car dealer. You can't have it both ways.
  It is not just me who believes that the DeVos rule is bad for student 
borrowers. A number of student, consumer, veteran, and other 
organizations are supporting this resolution to overturn the rule: the 
American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association, 
the NAACP, Third Way, Bipartisan Policy Center Action, the Leadership 
Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and 20 different State attorneys 
general. But the groups I want to highlight as I close in these final 2 
or 3 minutes are the veterans organizations.
  Many of the students who have been defrauded are veterans. These men 
and women have served our country in uniform, and after serving they 
seek an education to provide a better life for themselves and their 
families, and they deserve it. We have story after story after story of 
veterans who signed up at these for-profit colleges. They were told the 
GI education benefits were all they needed, only to waste the entire 
benefits on a worthless degree and be forced to take tens of thousands 
of dollars of student debt on top of it.
  That is why our effort in this vote in just 2 minutes on the floor of 
the Senate--our effort to overturn this rule--is supported by the 
American Legion, the Student Veterans of America, the Iraq and 
Afghanistan Veterans of America, the National Military Families 
Association, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, Tragedy Assistance 
Program for Survivors, VetsFirst, Veterans for Common Sense, and 
Veterans Education Success.
  James ``Bill'' Oxford is the national commander of the American 
Legion, and he wrote to me and said: ``Thousands of student veterans 
have been defrauded over the years--promised their credits would 
transfer when they wouldn't, given false or misleading job placement 
rates in marketing, promised one educational experience . . . but given 
something completely different.
  He, the American Legion commander, calls the DeVos rule 
``fundamentally rigged against defrauded borrowers'' and says that it 
``flagrantly denies defrauded veterans [fair and timely] decisions [on 
their claims].''
  How many speeches do each of us give as Senators about how much we 
value our military and veterans? We have a chance to prove it in just 1 
minute, because there will be a roll call. Are you going to stand up 
for these veterans and these students and are you going to say to 
Secretary DeVos you are headed the wrong way?
  These students and these veterans have been defrauded. Give them a 
fighting chance to rebuild their lives. Don't make it next to 
impossible.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all time is expired.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading 
and was read the third time.

                          ____________________