[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 96 (Thursday, May 21, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2566-S2572]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                         Senate Accomplishments

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, the minority leader just got up and 
attacked the Senate for not doing anything and then proceeded to 
announce that we are going to be voting today on the Director of 
National Intelligence. It seems like a pretty important position--the 
person who is in charge of all the intelligence activities that we 
conduct around the world to make sure that we keep our country safe.
  So if the Senate is here and not doing anything, it seems like a real 
contradiction to suggest that we are actually going to vote today on a 
position that is important to America's national security interests.
  It is just one of many that we are going to be voting on and have 
been voting on over the past several weeks.
  The other thing the Democrat leader forgot to acknowledge is that 
last week we passed reforms to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Act, a piece of legislation that is also important to national 
security, that authorizes and funds all our intelligence activities and 
also included reforms--reforms that many in this body on both sides of 
the aisle wanted to see adopted. That was an important piece of 
legislation and one that I think has tremendous consequences--I would 
add grave consequences--for the United States of America and our 
national security interests.
  The Senate has also been very involved--I would suspect maybe to the 
Democratic leader's chagrin--in examining and looking at all the 
coronavirus legislation that we have already passed and the impact it 
is having and whether it is being effective and where we need to do 
more and where we need to fix things or refine or tweak things in a way 
to make those programs that we funded and authorized work better.
  But to suggest that the Senate hasn't done anything on the 
coronavirus--really? Really? My gosh, we passed four bills--four 
bills--totaling almost $3 trillion through the U.S. Senate, through the 
House of Representatives, on the President's desk, and signed into 
law--$3 trillion, four pieces of legislation, and it was done in a 
bipartisan way. Democrats and Republicans cooperated because it is 
important to our country to make sure that we are responding to an 
enormous crisis, an extraordinary crisis that required an extraordinary 
response, and the response, I would argue, has been extraordinary.
  Never in my lifetime or certainly my time in the Senate--or, for that 
matter, I would argue anybody else's time in the Senate--has the U.S. 
Senate done anything of that scale, scope, or consequence. And in many 
of those programs that we authorized and funded, those four pieces of 
legislation which passed as recently as a couple of months ago, the 
dollars are still getting out there. They are in the pipeline. They are 
going out to State and local governments. They are going out to 
healthcare providers, hospitals, nursing homes. They are going out to 
small businesses. They are going out to workers, employees, people who 
have been unemployed through the unemployment insurance program. There 
are a lot of dollars in the pipeline, a lot of resources that have been 
expended by the U.S. Senate, the House of Representatives, and signed 
into law by the President.
  So it seems logical, I would think, for us, as stewards of the tax 
dollars, as representatives of the people of this country, as 
policymakers, to make sure that the policies we are putting into place 
are having the desired effect and are actually working.
  So what has the Senate been doing for the past 3 weeks? Well, exactly 
that--taking a look on a committee-by-committee basis at whether some 
of the things we have already done are being effective.
  The Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee had in the head 
of the CDC, the head of the NIH--two critical agencies when it comes to 
fighting the health emergency of this country--to determine and to ask 
them questions about what is working, what is not working, what have we 
done, what should we be doing differently, what can we do.
  That was a hearing the Health Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee had last week, widely participated in by Members on both 
sides of the aisle.
  I sit on the Senate Commerce Committee. We have had several hearings. 
We had a markup yesterday. We marked up 14 bills yesterday, but we also 
have been looking at the impact of coronavirus legislation on those 
constituencies that are under the jurisdiction of the Senate Commerce 
Committee, one of which is the airline industry. We had a hearing 
examining the impact of the coronavirus on aviation, the airline 
industry in this country, and on things that we have done to help 
assist and support the airline industry in this country. That was 
another thing that the Commerce Committee did.

  Then, more recently than that, we had a hearing on broadband, 
connectivity, and the way in which people, through the coronavirus, are 
able to stay connected, the way business is conducted, and actually, 
frankly, for that matter, the way government is conducted because, 
obviously, we are doing a lot of things through connectivity as well.
  We looked at what is working, what is not working, and are there 
areas, in terms of making sure that parts of the country that don't 
have high-speed internet services and that don't have broadband 
services could be better connected, and is that something that ought to 
be a part of any future legislation that we look at.
  This week, the Banking Committee had the Chairman of the Federal 
Reserve Board and had the Secretary of the Treasury in front of that 
committee to ask them questions about what is happening in the 
financial services industry and what is the effect of all the money 
that we spent, that we put out the door, how is that working out there, 
and, again, what can we be doing differently, how can we improve, and 
how can we do this better as we look to the future.
  Those are just three committees, off the top of my head, not to 
mention the fact that the Banking Committee is also reporting out the 
nominee to be the inspector general for the pandemic--a very important 
position, I might add. So they have been very active and very busy 
doing oversight work with respect to this pandemic.
  What the Democratic leader just said is not true. It is not true; it 
is not accurate; and, frankly, I would think, in the eyes of the 
American people, it is illogical to say that we have spent $3 trillion 
and we wouldn't want to take a look to see how that $3 trillion is 
being spent and whether it is being effective and whether it is being 
efficient and then look at where do we need to do more before we rush 
headlong in there and just push another $3 trillion out the door. I 
think that is a rational way of looking at things. I think most of the 
American people would accept and believe that these are--this is what 
we were elected to do. They want to make sure we are taking their tax 
dollars and spending them as wisely and well as possible and in an 
efficient and effective way.
  By the way, just as a reminder to my colleagues, every dollar--every 
dollar that we spend is borrowed from our children and grandchildren. 
This doesn't just magically appear out of thin air. We are borrowing 
money. Now, granted, it is money we needed to borrow, particularly with 
what we have already done. Everybody acknowledges we had a crisis. We 
had to put out the fire, and we have been doing that.
  Every dollar, prospectively, every dollar we have already spent is a 
borrowed dollar, borrowed from future generations of Americans, and 
they are dollars that someday we are going to have to repay. Wouldn't 
it be prudent, wouldn't it be logical, and wouldn't it

[[Page S2567]]

be rational for this body, the custodians, the stewards of the American 
people's tax dollars, to take a hard look at what is working and what 
is not working before rushing headlong into spending another $3 
trillion--which the Democratic leader got up here and lauded and 
applauded the House of Representatives for blowing into town for 24 
hours last Friday, cobbling together an ideological wish list.
  Now, granted, there are some things in there that are probably good 
ideas, and may be things that, in the end, could end up in a piece of 
legislation, but it didn't get a single Republican vote, and it didn't 
have a single consultation with Republicans in the House of 
Representatives about how to put it together. Do you know what? In the 
end, they couldn't keep all the Democrats. There were 14 Democrats who 
voted against that in the House of Representatives. There was not a 
single Republican, which makes sense, if you are Republican. You never 
get asked. You are never at the table. You have no input whatsoever.
  They come in and put this thing together--1,800 pages, $3 trillion--
and what does it have in it? Crazy stuff. Crazy stuff like studies--
studies as to whether there is diversity and inclusion in the marketing 
of marijuana. There are 68 references in the House bill to cannabis. 
There are 68 references. There are only 52 references to jobs, which is 
what I would think the American people are a lot more concerned about. 
The House of Representatives, evidently, waited, and, in the balance, 
thought: Well, my gosh, studies on the diversity and inclusiveness of 
the marketing of cannabis was more important and weighed more heavily 
on the scale than the jobs that have been lost to the American people. 
That is what it looks like.
  I mean, they threw everything in there. They threw in a tax cut for 
millionaires and billionaires. These guys get up here every single day 
and talk about Republicans, you know, helping out millionaires and 
billionaires, and what did the House bill have in it? A tax cut for 
millionaires and billionaires. Now, 56 percent of the tax cut proceeds 
will go to the 1 percent top wage earners in America. Just think about 
that. Does that make sense? Does that make sense when you are fighting 
a pandemic? Probably not. They actually have tax increases on small 
businesses. No big surprise there. Tax increases are always something 
they are quick to do.
  I just had to take issue with what the Democratic leader was down 
here saying and his characterization of what is going on here. This 
place, when you are responding to a crisis, needs to act in a 
bipartisan and a constructive way, not in a partisan, ideological way, 
and I would also think in a thoughtful way, giving a lot of 
consideration to what we are doing here with those borrowed dollars, 
borrowed from our kids and grandkids, and are we making the best use of 
them.

  That, to me, seems like maybe the great divide here and the great 
debate that we have, not only in this but a lot of other issues. It 
just seems like the natural, instinctive solution, from my friends on 
the other side of the aisle, is we can just solve this by throwing a 
lot of money out there. I have to tell you, I don't think that is the 
way the American people view it because they are sitting down and 
making hard decisions right now about how to take care of their 
families and how to get through this economic crisis. I would think the 
decisions they are making are along the same lines of the decisions we 
ought to be making; that is, how are we going to spend our dollars 
wisely and well? How are we going to be efficient and effective? This 
isn't our money. This is the American people's money. This is a crisis 
that needs a response. We have responded in a massive way relative to 
anything that has happened probably in history, for sure in history--$2 
trillion, $3 trillion. I mean, I can't think of a single time--when we 
pass annual appropriations bills, they never get up to that level. We 
are talking about dollars on a scale like nothing we have ever seen 
before because that is what was required.
  This institution demonstrated that notwithstanding our differences, 
we could work together in a constructive way and a bipartisan way to do 
what was necessary to deliver for the American people, and we will do 
what is necessary to get the American people through this crisis. 
Please, please, can we do that in a thoughtful, constructive, and 
bipartisan way? Can we do that in a way that says: Wow. Let's actually 
sit down and think about what makes the most sense here. Let's see what 
is out there and what has actually worked.
  The Paycheck Protection Program, arguably, has worked really well. We 
put $660 billion into that particular program, and I think it has 
gotten pretty big dividends and pretty big results. A lot of businesses 
are still functioning and still operating and a lot of workers are 
still working. That was what that was all about, which was to keep 
those jobs and keep those workers working.
  Now, there have been some hiccups, and there have been some things 
that need to be fixed. We ought to look at what we can do to refine it 
and make it work better and make it work more efficiently. The same 
thing is true for the dollars that go out to State and local 
governments. We have $150 billion in the pipeline that have gone out to 
State and local governments, many of which, I might add, are probably 
going to need help, particularly with revenue replacement. There are a 
lot of dollars in the pipeline out already, in addition to the $150 
billion that we have done for State and local governments that went out 
in previous versions, in previous legislation. Of the four bills that 
we passed, the total sum of dollars that have gone to State governments 
is about $500 billion, or half a trillion dollars.
  It is not just $150 billion that we put out. A lot of that is still 
in the pipeline. A lot of it--before we put more out there and before 
we say, oh, let's put another trillion out there, which is what the 
House is proposing, maybe we ought to look at what the need is. Maybe 
we ought to find out what the revenue loss actually is because those 
numbers are just coming in.
  This thing really hit us hard a couple of months ago, so the real 
impact of this is going to be felt April, May, and into the summer. But 
as things start to open up again, hopefully, we will gradually climb 
out of this, and those numbers will start to improve. May those 
horrible unemployment numbers and those horrible revenue numbers on the 
State level, may those start to come--may we start to see the economy 
get going back in a more normal direction.
  Before we rush out there with another several trillion--and who knows 
at what point you hit the wall when it comes to borrowing? I mean, we 
think that the Federal Reserve thinks it has lots of levers and they 
can leverage their balance sheet and they can still do things, and they 
think that, fiscally, we have some headroom that we can maneuver 
within, but if you think about this, before this all started, our debt-
to-GDP ratio was 79 percent--79 percent. You know what, for 2020, our 
debt-to-GDP ratio is going to be? And that doesn't include anything 
that we do from here on. It just captures what has already been done. 
Our debt-to-GDP ratio will be 101--1 to 1. That was always the level 
when we saw the Greeces of the world and all these countries that were 
just completely in this downward spiral, this quagmire of debt. That 
was always the metric, 1 to 1, 100 percent debt to GDP. That is the 
breakpoint. That is when you start entering into that really dangerous 
territory.
  Well, imagine if we add another $3 trillion on top of that. The $3 
trillion that we have already done, taken the debt to GDP from 79 
percent to 101 percent, is the biggest increase--the biggest increase 
in debt to GDP that we have seen since 1943 when we were powering up 
for World War II.
  Now, granted, this is like a war. This is a fight that we have to 
win, and we need to do whatever it takes to win it, but let's do it in 
a smart way, in a thoughtful way, and in a way that gives consideration 
to the future generations whose liability everything that we spend 
today will become, because everything that we do is borrowed money, and 
we have to remember that.
  I came down here to talk about the internet, and I guess it is a 
speech I can save for another day. I was going to talk about China and 
the things that we need to be doing with China when it comes to 
protecting our cyber security, but I see my colleague from Illinois

[[Page S2568]]

here is waiting to speak. I just thought it was important that we take 
a moment and pause and think about where we are and what we have done, 
and as we think about what we are going to do next, make sure we are 
doing it in a thoughtful, smart, conscientious, right way and efficient 
and effective way on behalf of the American people and the American 
taxpayer.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, we will adjourn today and be gone next 
week for the Memorial Day recess and then return the following week. 
The Senate, at the request and call of the Senate Republican leader, 
Senator McConnell from Kentucky, has been in session for 3 weeks. 
Senator McConnell has said that we are here because we need to be at 
our ``duty stations.'' He has used that term over and over again--a 
military responsibility to stay where you are assigned and to be 
prepared to fight.
  Well, those that take a look at what we have done over the last 3 
weeks have to ask: Where is the battle? Where is the fight when it 
comes to COVID-19? The simple fact is this: The United States Senate, 
in the last 3 weeks, has not considered one piece of legislation on 
this floor relative to COVID-19, not one. It has reached the point 
where the press told me this morning that two Republican Senators are 
now complaining publicly that we have done nothing on COVID-19 and 
shouldn't leave for the Memorial Day recess until we do.
  Well, I think they ought to take their appeal not to the American 
public but to their Republican leader because he decides what comes to 
the floor of the Senate, and he has decided, over the last 3 weeks, 
that nothing will come to the floor of the Senate relative to the 
biggest issue in the modern history of America: the national emergency, 
the public health crisis over COVID-19.
  I listened to my friend from South Dakota talk about the amount of 
money that has been spent. It is an amazing amount--I will be the first 
to concede it--almost $3 trillion so far. It is the largest ever I can 
remember--well, I will just flatout say ever when it comes to a rescue 
package or a relief package. Of course, it comes at a time when we are 
facing the worst economic crisis in America for almost 100 years, going 
back to the Great Depression. There are 38 million uninsured Americans. 
There are 1.5 million Americans so far infected by this virus. The 
United States, sadly, leads the world--leads the world--when it comes 
to these infections. I would say, when the President calls that a badge 
of honor, I do not. We could have done much better. We should do much 
better in the future.
  Now, in just a matter of days--not sure when--we will reach the 
tragic milestone of 100,000 Americans who have died from the 
coronavirus--100,000 Americans will have died. I join with the 
Democratic leader in saying that we should mark that tragic milestone 
with grief for the families and their loss and standing as Americans in 
honor of the sacrifice they have made.
  More than that, we need to do what needs to be done, and to argue 
that we have done enough now and let's sit back and see what happens is 
to ignore the obvious. Jerome Powell is the Chairman of the Federal 
Reserve, and he went on ``60 Minutes'' last Sunday and said to 
Congress, to the Senate, to the House, and to the President: Don't stop 
doing your part. The Federal Reserve is trying to loan money to create 
opportunities to rebuild this economy, but we need to do our part. He 
didn't say the $3 trillion is all in. He basically said we need to do 
more.
  We had a briefing from Mark Zandi, an economist, in the last day or 
two. He is well respected. He has been an economist advising both 
Democrats and Republicans, and he said the same. If we don't move and 
move quickly and decisively and boldly to restore this economy, what is 
now a recession, could be much, much worse. That means, of course, 
helping those families who have already been hurt.
  Last Friday, the House of Representatives did pass another measure 
for relief, another effort to deal with the COVID virus. So while we 
have been here for 3 weeks and haven't brought one single bill to the 
floor on the COVID virus--not one--they moved forward last Friday and 
passed, without the cooperation of any Republicans--they passed a 
measure to deal with the continuing crisis in America.
  Let me say at the outset, I don't agree with every provision in that 
bill. I know that negotiations are likely to follow, and the compromise 
is likely to produce a work product that is somewhat different, but 
let's look at what that bill did.
  The Senator from South Dakota came to the floor and said that bill 
did crazy stuff. He repeated it--crazy stuff. Well, let's talk about 
what the bill did.
  What the bill did was to restore the President's cash payment to 
families. You remember that well, I am sure, supported by both 
political parties. It was $1,200 for each adult and $500 for each 
child. It was absolutely necessary for families who are struggling to 
get by.
  In the House version that passed last Friday, there was a renewed 
cash payment of $1,200 for adults and $1,200 for children. The amount 
of money we initially allocated for this has been all but spent at this 
point, so this is an area where we believe, as Democrats, families 
still need a helping hand. Why do the Republicans in the Senate insist 
on not bringing this measure to the floor of the U.S. Senate or at 
least into meaningful negotiation? Do they believe that families across 
America have received all the money they need to receive to get through 
this crisis? I don't. If they do, they are out of touch.
  The second thing this bill did was to extend the unemployment 
compensation. Remember, there are 38 million and counting unemployed 
Americans. We created, in the CARES Act, a Federal boost for 
unemployment benefits. So if you qualified for unemployment benefits 
from your State, you would receive an additional $600 a week. I think 
that was necessary and good for the economy, and for the families 
affected, it was a lifeline they desperately needed. But that program, 
the $600 a week, expires on July 31--expires. Is there anyone who 
believes we will be through this economic crisis by July 31 when 
everyone will be back to work? Of course not. We need to continue to 
help those families.

  The bill that passed the House of Representatives, which the 
Republican Senator calls crazy stuff--what the bill did was to extend 
that Federal unemployment benefit of $600 a week until the end of this 
year. I think that is sensible and reasonable.
  I might tell you that we expanded the categories of those eligible 
for employment too. Many independent contractors finally get the chance 
to get some help at this point in time. So to call that crazy stuff and 
to not even consider it on the floor of the Senate makes no sense at 
all.
  What about the Payroll Protection Program? That was one for small 
business loans that could be forgiven if the money was loaned and spent 
for specific purposes. There is a reason we had to revisit that. The 
money had to be spent by the businesses by the end of June--June 30. I 
can tell you, having spoken to many small businesses across the State 
of Illinois, that some of them will not even be open for business by 
June 30. Requiring them to spend money before they can open their doors 
doesn't give them an opportunity to use this money to really get back 
in business.
  There were revisions made in the measure the House passed last 
Friday, revisions in terms of the period of time that the business had 
to spend the money. Under the current setup, it is 8 weeks. We think 
that should be extended to a longer period of time. Is that crazy 
stuff? I think, from where I am standing, it just makes common sense 
that we would do something that basic. Yet the Senate Republican leader 
has refused to bring that matter to the floor of the Senate in the 
weeks since it was passed, and there is obviously no meaningful 
negotiation underway, and we are leaving to be gone for another week.
  But the largest measure in the bill that passed the House of 
Representatives included a provision to help State and local 
governments. My friend and colleague from South Dakota talked about the 
$150 billion that has been given to State and local governments, which, 
in the end, could be even larger. I would say to him: Don't listen to 
me. Listen to the National Governors Association. Ask Governor Hogan, a 
Republican from Maryland, if we are all in

[[Page S2569]]

and have done enough for State and local governments? We are not even 
close. We are not even close, and we know it.
  Lost revenue by my State and many others is dramatic. So what happens 
if these States don't have the money to pay their bills? Well, Senator 
McConnell, in an interview, said: Bankruptcy--bankruptcy is an option. 
Really? Does he believe we are going to restore this economy by 
watching State and local governments go bankrupt?
  What will be the net result of the McConnell's suggestion of 
bankruptcy for these State and local governments? It will mean laying 
off, perhaps firing, policemen, firefighters, EMTs, paramedics, and 
teachers. At a time when we need to restore our educational calendar, 
bring students back to school, the Senator from Kentucky suggested 
bankruptcy, laying off teachers, and firing teachers. It makes no sense 
whatsoever.
  The bill that passed the House of Representatives has roughly $1 
trillion for State and local governments. So I can tell you, across my 
State and I am sure across this Nation, Governors and mayors will step 
forward and tell you that is exactly what they need now to get back in 
business.
  Remember, as Senator Murray said in response to another suggestion, 
building a bridge halfway across a river is not of much value. We need 
to build a bridge in this economy from where we are today to where we 
want to be, with small businesses opening and people back at work, and 
the notion that we can shortchange parts of this economy and survive is 
just wrong.
  There is a provision in that bill in the House, too, that I 
introduced in the Senate. It is not an original idea, but others have 
thought of it too. A third of the people who lose their jobs lose their 
health insurance because that is where their health insurance came 
from. Their employer used to pay a share, and they paid a share, and 
they were covered with good policies. But when they lost their job, the 
next day, they lost their insurance. What were their options? Sign up 
for the Affordable Care Act, which covers about 20 million Americans; 
perhaps qualifying for Medicaid if their family income is low enough; 
or using what is known as the COBRA Program? The COBRA Program says you 
can keep that policy you had at your place of employment; however, you 
now are personally responsible for both ends of the premium payment, 
the employer and the employee. Well, that comes out to about $1,700 a 
month. Imagine that for an unemployed person--$1,700 a month in 
premium. They can't do it. So what I proposed, and what was included in 
the bill that passed the House of Representatives, was 100-percent 
coverage for that premium payment under COBRA so that these families 
would have the peace of mind that they would continue to have health 
insurance during the course of this crisis.
  I have given you some highlights of what this bill did. I would just 
suggest and challenge those who call this crazy stuff to come to the 
floor and be more specific. What part of what I just described is crazy 
stuff--extended COBRA protection for more health insurance for those 
who are unemployed, extending unemployment benefits for the remainder 
of the year, extending the period of payback for small business loans, 
making sure, as well, that there is more money for hospitals?
  I will just state that I have been on the telephone for the last 
several weeks with the administrators of hospitals all over the State 
of Illinois, large and small, and I have joined them with my Republican 
Members of the House and Democratic Members. We have called and opened 
the lines and said: What are you finding? Many of these hospitals in 
the inner cities, as well as those in rural and smalltown areas in 
States across the Midwest are struggling to survive.
  Yesterday I read a list of six hospitals in Kentucky that were 
furloughing hundreds of employees. In most of the communities downstate 
where we have hospitals in Illinois, they are the major employer, and 
these hospitals are hanging on by a thread. What is wrong? A lot of 
COVID virus cases? No, just a fear of COVID virus.
  One hospital administrator said: We have four elective surgeries 
scheduled for money, and, Senator, that is where our revenue comes in 
to keep this hospital going. Three of the four patients canceled at the 
last minute. They were afraid of the COVID virus.
  The bill that passed the House of Representatives last week had 
another $100 million for hospitals. I will tell you flatout that there 
is a sense of urgency there because if you lose--if you lose that 
community hospital, it is a grievous loss in many parts of our State, 
in the rural areas and small towns in particular. Yet we have not even 
brought that issue up on the floor of the Senate over the last 3 weeks.
  We have a lot of work that needs to be done. We didn't do it in the 
last 3 weeks. We considered two circuit court nominees before the 
Senate Judiciary Committee. One from the State of Kentucky is a fellow 
who has 6 months' experience on the Federal bench. He is being proposed 
by Senator McConnell for a lifetime appointment in the second highest 
court in the land. Really? That is the best Republican nominee for the 
second highest court in the land, a man with 6 months' experience as a 
trial judge? He does have one thing in his favor, from Senator 
McConnell's point of view: He is completely opposed to the Affordable 
Care Act
  They came up with another nominee from Mississippi yesterday with the 
same thing. So they have two nominees in the midst of a public health 
crisis in America who are asking for lifetime appointments to the court 
who are opposed to the Affordable Care Act, a measure that extended 
health insurance coverage to 20 million Americans and provides 
protections for over 100 million Americans in terms of their own 
personal policies, really making sure that those with preexisting 
conditions have coverage they can afford. At this moment in time, the 
Republican Party came up with two lifetime nominees who are opposed to 
the extension of health insurance in America. The timing is perfect.
  If you look up the whole question of relevance, and you ask: What is 
the most irrelevant thing that has occurred in the midst of this 
crisis? It is the last 3 weeks of the U.S. Senate. We have been here 
and put at risk 10,000 employees, which is the scale of our workforce 
in the U.S. Capitol. We have put them at risk. To come here and never 
mention the words ``COVID virus'' or ``coronavirus'' or ``pandemic'' in 
legislation on the floor of the Senate is disgraceful.
  We were elected to serve. We were elected to respond to America's 
needs. For the last 3 weeks on the floor the Senate, we have not. The 
random committee hearing--good. That is what we are supposed to do. 
That is normal. But you would think that Senator McConnell would have 
decided, as the House decided last week, that this is still the No. 1 
priority in America. It should be. Perhaps after we return from the 
Memorial Day recess, there will be a sense of urgency, which, sadly, 
does not exist on the Republican side of the aisle of the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott of Florida). The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in 50 minutes we are voting to confirm 
the nominee as Director of National Intelligence. Today, I want to 
discuss Congressman Ratcliffe's confirmation as Director of National 
intelligence.
  I want to congratulate that Congressman on a job well done. With this 
new position comes great responsibility. Congressman Ratcliffe will 
have tremendous power to do good and to be transparent.
  I would like to remind Congressman Ratcliffe, as I have reminded many 
heads of departments before, transparency brings accountability, and 
the public's business ought to be public.
  By its very nature, the intelligence community is a secretive bunch. 
They often operate in the shadows and have to in order to do the job 
that we ask them to do to protect our national security.
  However, that doesn't mean when Congress asks them questions, the 
intelligence community has a license to withhold information.
  When Congress comes knocking, the intelligence community must answer. 
After all, the intelligence community does not appear anywhere in the 
Constitution. The intelligence community is a creation of Congress; 
Congress isn't a creation of the intelligence

[[Page S2570]]

community. The intelligence community answers to us and, in turn, to 
the American people.
  Acting Director Grenell, now in that position as acting, understood 
that. He is perhaps one of the most transparent government officials in 
my time serving the great people of Iowa.
  Ambassador Grenell is a breath of fresh air. Mr. Ratcliffe has some 
big shoes to fill; that is for sure. Luckily, he has Acting Director 
Grenell's example to guide him.
  Mr. Grenell's short time as Acting Director has resulted in a number 
of very important items being declassified. For example, he and 
Attorney General Barr declassified dozens of footnotes from the Justice 
Department's inspector general's report that show how the Department of 
Justice and the FBI mishandled the Russian investigation.
  To give some highlights of what those previously classified footnotes 
show, let me go through six or seven of them.
  One, the Russian intelligence was aware of Steele's anti-Trump 
research in early July 2016, before the FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane. 
That means the Russians knew they could possibly use the Steele dossier 
as a vehicle to plant disinformation and sow chaos to undermine the 
American Government.
  Two, the FBI had an open counterintelligence case on Steele's key 
source, but they failed to give that information to the FISA Court.
  The FBI had intelligence that some of Steele's sources had 
connections to Russian intelligence. That is point three.
  Point four, Steele had sources connected to the Presidential 
administration, and some supported Clinton, not Trump.
  Five, the Crossfire Hurricane team was aware in late January 2017 
that Russian intelligence may have targeted Orbis. Orbis is Steele's 
company.
  Six, Steele's primary subsource viewed his or her contacts not as a 
network of sources but, rather, as simply friends that discussed 
current events.
  Seven, two intelligence reports--one from January 12, 2017, the other 
from February 27, 2017--indicated that information contained within the 
Steele dossier was a product of Russian disinformation. This 
information was withheld from the FISA Court, and the FBI continued to 
use the Steele dossier to justify surveillance on Carter Page.
  I also want to note a very interesting fact about the January 12, 
2017, date. Not only did the FBI learn that the dossier, their 
``central and essential'' document, was most likely filled with this 
Russian disinformation, they then failed to inform the FISA Court about 
it on the very same day that the FBI got the FISA renewal on Carter 
Page. Do you know what? It was renewed two more times.
  My fellow Americans, what the FBI did is a complete travesty. You 
have to ask yourselves: Why did they do it? Well, the text messages 
from Strzok and Page that I made public help us better understand that 
question. Their animus toward Trump helped to explain why the FBI 
employees cut corners and didn't follow regular protocol in running 
their inquiry.
  As I have mentioned before, Strzok's text to Page about how he will 
``stop'' Trump from becoming President is very telling. But thanks to 
Acting Director Grenell and Attorney General Barr, these texts can now 
be read in a greater context.
  For example, on August 15, 2016, Strzok texts Page:

       I want to believe the path that you threw out for 
     consideration in Andy's office--

  And that was referring to Andrew McCabe--

     that there's no way Trump gets elected--but I'm afraid we 
     can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the 
     unlikely event you die before you're 40.

  The next day, on August 16, 2016, the FBI opened the Flynn probe, 
code-named Crossfire Razor.
  On August 17, 2016, the FBI used a briefing for Trump, who was now 
the Republican nominee, and Flynn to surveil Flynn for his 
``mannerisms''--what is said about it, I don't know--and whether he 
mentioned anything about Russia.
  Let's also not forget about the text from November 2016 that Senator 
Johnson and I made public. Those texts between Strzok and Page show 
that the FBI used a November 2016 briefing for Presidential transition 
staff as a counterintelligence operation.
  For example, Strzok told Page:

       He can assess if there are any new questions or different 
     demeanor. If Katie's husband is there, he can see if there 
     are people we can develop for potential relationships.

  That is an astounding finding. Imagine if that had been done by the 
Democratic nominee. You wouldn't hear the end of it. In fact, they 
would probably call for another special counsel. Yet because it is 
Trump and Flynn, the media has gone largely quiet.

  On January 4, 2017, the FBI wrote a closing memorandum on Flynn that 
said the intelligence community could find no derogatory information on 
him. That should have been the end of it.
  Yet on the very same day that the FBI was ready to close the Flynn 
case, Strzok asked another FBI agent: ``Hey, if you haven't closed 
Razor don't do it yet.'' The case was still open at that moment and 
Strzok asked that it be kept open ``for now.''
  Strzok then messaged Lisa Page, saying that Razor still happened to 
be open because of some oversight and said: ``Yeah, our utter 
incompetence actually helps us. 20 percent of the time.''
  Then the next day, on January 5, 2017, President Obama met with 
Director Comey, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, Vice President 
Biden, and National Security Advisor Susan Rice. In that meeting, they 
briefed Obama on the Russia investigation.
  On January 5, 2017, the very same day as the Oval Office briefing 
with Obama and Biden, an Obama administration official leaked the 
existence of the December 29, 2016, Flynn call with the Russian 
Ambassador. However, that leak hadn't yet been publicly reported.
  Also on January 5, Obama's Chief of Staff requested to unmask Flynn. 
According to Deputy Attorney General Yates, when she met with Obama on 
that day, Obama already knew about Flynn's call with the Russian 
Ambassador. She was surprised that Obama knew about it already.
  On January 11, 2017, U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power requested to 
unmask Flynn. She requested this be done seven times after the 
election. She ought to explain why she did that.
  Then on January 12, 2017, Vice President Biden requested to unmask 
Flynn. That same day, the existence of Flynn's call with the Russian 
Ambassador was leaked and ran in the Washington Post.
  Then, in February 2017, the alleged contents of the call were leaked. 
Those leaks are a criminal action. They are some of the many criminal 
leaks that occurred during the transition period and, also, the early 
days of the Trump administration, which were obviously designed to 
undermine the new administration. I assume U.S. Attorney Durham is 
investigating all of those leaks.
  With respect to the unmasking, what I would like to know is, Why did 
so many Obama administration officials who were not within the 
intelligence field request to unmask Flynn? The sheer volume of 
unmasking and the timing cause me to question whether it was 
politically motivated.
  Based on the facts that we now know, it appears that the Obama 
administration's top law enforcement agency, as well as the 
intelligence community, engaged in a coordinated effort to cut the legs 
from under the Trump administration before they could even get their 
footing. The American people have had to suffer through years of 
criminal leaks, innuendos, false news reports, and flatout lies--all 
designed to destroy the Trump administration. The Russian investigation 
should have closed shop early on, especially when the people they 
surveilled from the Trump campaign offered exculpatory evidence--
evidence which showed that the Trump campaign wasn't involved in the 
Democratic National Committee hack and didn't have the Russian 
connections the FBI thought they had. By the way, that evidence was 
hidden from the FISA Court by the FBI.
  Obama has said DOJ and FBI must be kept independent of White House 
interference. Yet, based on information that we have at this point, it 
appears that he and Biden were much more involved in aspects of the 
Russia investigation than they would like to have us believe.
  Ultimately, Obama and Biden will have to answer for what they knew 
and when they knew it. That shouldn't be a

[[Page S2571]]

problem for the so-called most transparent administration in history, 
as they used to tell us all the time.
  Simply said, heads need to roll over this. If they don't, the 
intelligence community, the Department of Justice, and the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation may never get the people's trust.
  Where do we go from here? On May 12, 2020, I wrote a letter to Acting 
Director Grenell that requested a broad range of information relating 
to unmasking by the Obama administration. On May 19, I expanded that 
request with Senator Johnson. Prior to that, I wrote to the Justice 
Department and Mr. Grenell, requesting that the transcripts of Flynn's 
calls with the Russian Ambassador and Susan Rice's infamous January 20, 
2017, email to herself be declassified, among other things. That email 
has now been declassified and casts further doubts on the FBI's 
actions.
  I have also requested, along with Senator Johnson, underlying 
intelligence reports from the Russia investigation. Moreover, reports 
suggest that the Obama administration unmasked a lot more U.S. persons 
related to the Trump campaign than just General Flynn.
  The responsibility to respond to these requests will now fall on 
Congressman Ratcliffe. Hopefully, he is as helpful to congressional 
oversight and public accountability as Ambassador Grenell. Let's see it 
all. The American public has waited long enough.
  Finally, I want to remind Congressman Ratcliffe and the intelligence 
community of the hold I placed on William Evanina. I did that 2 years 
ago. I placed that hold in my capacity as chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  I have explained in detail many times before why I placed a hold on 
him, and I am not going to bother explaining it again, other than to 
mention that Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein agreed to give me the 
documents, and he never did. In turn, General Rosenstein blamed 
Director Coats, who then blamed Rosenstein.
  You have heard it before--all of my colleagues have. Whether you have 
a Republican or Democratic administration, it is your typical 
bureaucratic blame game. Thanks to Acting Director Grenell and Attorney 
General Barr, the blame game has ended.
  But, importantly, especially for future administrations and for 
Congressman Ratcliffe, I want to make very clear that the Judiciary 
Committee's jurisdiction extends to the intelligence community. Since 
the authorization resolution that created the Senate Select Committee 
on Intelligence, the Senate explicitly reserved for other standing 
committees, such as the Senate Judiciary Committee, independent 
authority to ``study and review any intelligence activity'' and ``to 
obtain full and prompt access to the product of the intelligence 
activities of any department or agency'' when such activity ``directly 
affects a matter otherwise within the jurisdiction of such committee.''
  The Senate Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over all Federal 
courts, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, where a 
lot of intelligence activity takes place. Of course, all of Congress, 
not just any one committee or any one Senator, has the constitutional 
authority over the intelligence community.
  In conclusion, please, Congressman Ratcliffe and, please, the greater 
intelligence community, remember you were created by statute, but 
Congress was created by the Constitution
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, in a few minutes, the Senate is going to 
vote on the nomination of   John Ratcliffe to be Director of National 
Intelligence. I have come to the floor to discuss this important 
nomination.
  Senators often come to this floor to talk about the importance of 
speaking truth to power.   John Ratcliffe, in his statement before the 
Intelligence Committee and in his written responses, revealed he would 
not speak truth to power; he would surrender to it. He demonstrated 
that he is so eager to serve power, he will twist the truth, and he 
showed this again and again.
  For example, in the name of helping power, we saw him dance around 
direct questions about whether he would respect or even understood the 
law.   John Ratcliffe made a number of extremely disturbing statements 
that make it clear that he has and will misrepresent and politicize 
intelligence without a moment's hesitation.
  I asked the Congressman at his hearing about a law that requires a 
public, unclassified report on who was responsible for the murder of 
the Washington Post journalist and U.S. resident, Jamal Khashoggi. This 
was a law passed by the Congress and signed by the President of the 
United States. This law required the Director of National Intelligence 
to produce that unclassified report on who killed Jamal Khashoggi and 
what the circumstances were in February. That has never happened.
  At his nomination hearing, I simply asked the Congressman whether the 
government was bound by the law. In his response, the Congressman 
called the law a request for unclassified information. That is how he 
referred to this law. Then the Congressman promised to take a look at 
it. In his own words,   John Ratcliffe wouldn't commit to following 
that important law without knowing the circumstances of who killed 
Jamal Khashoggi. I believe it is open season on journalists.
  How   John Ratcliffe danced around that question of whether he would 
comply with the law is a disqualification by itself to be the head of 
national intelligence.
  This was a pattern throughout the hearing.   John Ratcliffe had his 
talking points down, but the moment he was asked anything specific, he 
danced away. I am just going to take a few minutes to give some 
examples. Obviously, it is critically important to know a nominee's 
views for this position on the question of spying on Americans.
  I asked   John Ratcliffe three times in prehearing questions, at the 
hearing, and again after the hearing, whether the statute that 
prohibits warrantless wiretapping on Americans was binding. Each time,  
 John Ratcliffe left himself lots of wiggle room to suggest that 
whatever this law said, the President might have ways to go around it. 
He also said he would work with the Attorney General, who we know has 
explicitly said that he doesn't believe the foreign intelligence 
surveillance law is binding on the President.
  This is really where   John Ratcliffe could be dangerous. With Donald 
Trump as President and William Barr as Attorney General, the leadership 
of the intelligence community is one of democracy's last lines of 
defense. That is why the American people need a Director of National 
Intelligence who understands how the law protects their rights and 
won't start conducting warrantless wiretapping on Americans just 
because the Attorney General wrongly claims that it is legal.
  Nothing that   John Ratcliffe has said during his confirmation 
process or throughout his career provides a glimmer of hope that he is 
a person who would speak truth to power and stand up for the rights of 
Americans.
  There are plenty more reasons to oppose this nomination, but in the 
interest of time, I am going to focus on just one more, and that is   
John Ratcliffe's blatant misrepresentation and politicizing of 
intelligence. This was obvious in how he talked about the intelligence 
community's assessment that the Russians interfered in the 2016 
election to help Donald Trump. This is a view undisputed within the 
intelligence community. The Senate Intelligence Committee looked at it 
up and down, and it was the unanimous judgment of the Intelligence 
Committee that it was true.
  Yet for   John Ratcliffe, the intelligence really doesn't matter. All 
that matters is that he makes Donald Trump happy. If Donald Trump 
doesn't want to acknowledge that the Russians helped him, then those 
are   John Ratcliffe's marching orders.
  It is the exact opposite of speaking truth to power and that is why, 
at the beginning of my remarks, I described his views with respect to 
power as not speaking truth but totally surrendering to power.
  He is also perfectly happy to misrepresent the intelligence even when 
it is public and we can read it with our own eyes. Three times during 
his hearing, he said that the Russians did not succeed in changing the 
outcome of the 2016 election. This position of   John

[[Page S2572]]

Ratcliffe directly contradicts what the Intelligence community had 
written in plain English. It said: ``We did not make an assessment of 
the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 
election.'' So I asked   John Ratcliffe where he got his information. 
He referred back to the Intelligence community's assessment and the 
committee's report, neither of which supported   John Ratcliffe's 
statements.
  You have to ask yourself, Why would   John Ratcliffe say something 
that is obviously not true? That is because Donald Trump wants us to 
believe that he didn't benefit from Russian interference, and that, 
first and foremost, is what matters to   John Ratcliffe. If   John 
Ratcliffe is willing to misrepresent intelligence assessments that are 
already public that anybody can read for themselves, my take is there 
is no telling how he would misrepresent intelligence that is still 
classified.
  There is every reason to believe his public statements would be 
designed for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to make sure 
that Donald Trump is pleased. Neither the Congress nor the American 
people have any reason to trust that   John Ratcliffe's testimony or 
his other public statements are accurate.
  My view is this kind of approach taken by the Director of National 
Intelligence is a real threat to democracy. When the Director of 
National Intelligence demonstrates that he is willing to bury the 
actual intelligence and say whatever makes Donald Trump happy at any 
particular moment, the American people are going to lose confidence and 
lose confidence quickly.
  It is not just about foreign interference in our democracy. That is 
plenty serious as it is. It is about other threats from countries like 
Iran, North Korea, and China. It is about weapons of mass destruction 
and terrorism. It is about whether the government is secretly spying on 
Americans without a warrant or committing torture. Ultimately, it is 
about the issue of war and peace and whether Americans will be asked to 
die for our country.
  The American people look to intelligence leaders for the facts--the 
facts, the unvarnished truth on these and other issues, which is why it 
is so important this position must have a foundation of credibility.
  Time and again,   John Ratcliffe has demonstrated that he does not 
clear that lowest bar; that bar that means you have to have credibility 
in this position, and I urge my colleagues, when we vote in a few 
minutes, to reject   John Ratcliffe's nomination to be Director of 
National Intelligence.
  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. SCOTT of Florida. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.