business as usual in d.c. he was one of the greatest senators, most effective problem solvers, and most importantly, a conservative voice of our time, the great outsider. i yield the floor. >> with the federal government at work in d.c. and throughout the country, use the congressional directory for contact information for members of congress, governors and federal agencies. order your copy on-line today at c-span store.org. >> and live now to the u.s. senate where lawmakers shortly will be working on the nomination of scott rasch to be u.s. district court judge for the district of arizona and also the nomination of james trainer to be a commissioner on the federal election commission. live coverage. u.s. senate here on c-span2.

the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. god of our destiny, you have watched over us from generation to generation. may our lawmakers trust your faithfulness during this challenging season of our nation's history.

lord, inspire them to recall how you have sustained the land we love in prosperity and adversity, in peace and in war. give our senators the wisdom to believe that they can trust your constancy and greatness, as they cling to your promise never to leave or forsake them. believing in your power, help us all to face fresh challenges with total confidence in you. and lord, we pray for the health and safety of all as communities begin the process of reopening

businesses. we pray in your mighty name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr. grassley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask to speak for three minutes in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: i'm deeply

concerned about reports that china began hoarding medical supplies in early january while working to prevent the world health organization from sounding the alarm about the virus pandemic. by analyzing international trade data, the department of homeland security assessed that the chinese government intentionally concealed the severity of the covid-19 from the world in early january in order to stockpile medical supplies. furthermore, the chinese communist party government tried to hide its actions by denying there were any export restrictions. they even tried to obscure and delay their trade data so they wouldn't get caught. these acts are outrageous. even worse the c.i.a. informs intelligence agencies have found

evidence that china threatened the world health organization to stop cooperating on efforts to combat covid-19 if the organization declared a global health emergency early on. so it was declared and hence valuable time lost to fight the virus. this is simply unacceptable behavior. the chinese communist party ought to be held accountable for the countless lives lost around the globe due to the no nontransparent aggressive and inhuman behavior. the world health organization is comprised of many honorable and dedicated medical professions who believe in the w.h.o.'s mission. if nil of them were privy to what was going on by the chinese communist party, they ought to step forward and shine light on any misdeeds by organization

leadership. whistle-blowers are necessary to prevent corruption within any institution which is why i have long-standing reputation of protecting whistle-blowers. the world deserves to know what the world health organization leaders knew and when they knew it. the evidence is quickly becoming crystal clear china is responsible for tremendous suffering worldwide through its lies and active cover-up. telling the truth about the chinese communist party does not, as some have suggested, have any bearing on how we analyze our domestic response. we should learn from democratic countries that have been successful in containing outbreaks like taiwan and south korea. however, going forward everyone around the world should have their eyes open about the true nature of the chinese regime. i yield. mr. mcconnell: madam

president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: the coronavirus pandemic continues to challenge our nation and the senate is here working for the american people. our committees have called in experts like dr. fauci and leaders like chairman powell to discuss the cares act and the path toward reopening. we're tracking the effects of the largest rescue package ever and are considering next steps like strong legal protections so that doctors, small businesses, school teachers, and universities do not face a second epidemic of frivolous lawsuits. the senate is also staying on top of other threats that predated covid-19. the meddling of putin's russia, the brutal chinese communist party, rogue states like iran and north korea, foreign terrorists such as isis. two weeks ago we overwhelmingly confirmed an impressive leader for our national counterintelligence and security center whom acting grenell has

announced will play a central role in briefing candidates and campaigns on foreign threats against our elections. today our colleagues on the intelligence committee led by acting chairman rubio will report out the president's nominee to be the next director of national intelligence. last week we reauthorized essential tools that our intelligence community needs to track our enemies and protect americans. but we didn't stop there. over the last several years we've been painfully reminded that our nation and liberties are not only threatened, the fabric of our country is also hurt when tools and capabilities that are meant to keep us safe are abused. in ways that are at best reckless, sloppy, unaccountable, or worse polluted by political bias. in 2016 the f.b.i. embarked on a counterintelligence investigation against donald

trump's campaign for the presidency. federal law enforcement used taxpayer money to scrutinize a political campaign in the middle of a democratic election. you would have thought such a radical step must have sprung from an air tight justification. certainly you would think the outgoing obama administration should only have used the awesome power of the federal government to pray into their political rivals if they had a slam-dunk basis for doing so. but is not what they had. in one instance the f.b.i. got permission to surveil a trump associate by telling half truths, blurring evidence, and citing sketchy sources like a dossier, partisan opposition research that had been funded by the hillary clinton campaign and the d.n.c. here's how even "the new york times" explained the recent findings of the justice department's inspector general. here's what "the new york times" said.

the f.b.i. had cherry-picked and misstated evidence about the trump advisor. when seeking permission to wiretapping. that, madam president, was from "the new york times." so an american citizen's campaign for the american presidency was treated like a hostile foreign power by our own law enforcement in part because the democratic-led executive branch manipulated documents, hid contrary evidence, and made a d.n.c. funded dossier a launch pad for an investigation. the inspector general counted seven significant inaccuracies and omissions. here's his report. we identified multiple instances in which factual assertions relied upon and the -- in the phish's fisa application were inaccurate, incomplete, or unsupported by appropriate documentation based upon information the f.b.i. had in its possession at the time

application was filed. did you catch that last part? based upon information the f.b.i. had in its possession at the time, the application was filed. so we're either talking about gross incompetence or intentional bias. does any senator think it's acceptable for any federal warrant application to include seven significant inaccuracies and omissions? but this wasn't just a run of the mill warrant. it was a fisa warrant to snoop on a presidential campaign. this was just one of the realities that president trump's democratic critics spent years calling conspiracy theories or inventions of the president's mind. yet here it is in black and white from exactly the kind of independent inspector general the democrats rushed to embrace when convenient. sadly, this was no isolated incident. just recently attorney general

barr has had to take the incredible step of unwinding a d.o.j. prosecution of another former trump advisor because the government's case against him was unfair and distorted as well. it was largely on the basis of these proceedings that democrats and the media spent years fixated on wild theories of russian collusion. but upon investigation, the mueller investigation -- remember that one? -- it is those wild allegations that collapsed along with the credibility of several of these investigations that helped create the cloud of suspicion in the first place. in the words of our distinguished attorney general, the proper investigative and prosecutorial standards of the department of justice were abused. we saw two different standards of justice emerge. one that applied to president trump and his associates and the other that applied to everybody else. we can't allow this to ever

happen again. end quote. that's from the attorney general. oh, and by the way, as if this debacle needed even more shocking behavior, i understand a federal judge may try to continue prosecuting one of these cases, even though the prosecution itself wants to drop it. the judge has taken it upon himself to go browsing for other hostile parties. obviously that's subverts our constitutional order in which the executive alone decides whether to prosecute cases. so look, madam president, no matter what some washington democrats may try to claim, you're not crazy or a conspiracy theorist if you see a pattern of institutional unfairness toward this president. you would have to be blind not to see one. you'd have to be blind not to see one. all of this is why the senate passed important fisa reforms in last week's bill to help bring accountability and transparency into that flawed process.

and we aren't nearly finished. as soon as possible, the full senate will vote on mr. ratcliffe's nomination. the president will have a senate-confirmed who can pursue the security work of our intelligence community while ensuring that the i.c. stays out of politics and out of the papers. and just yesterday chairman graham announced the judiciary committee will vote on a serious new set of southbounds so the senate -- of subpoenas so the senate can marry from key players like james comey, andrew mccabe, loretta lynch and many others to continue getting to the bottom of in. so let me say that again. senate republicans are taking steps to issue new subpoenas to a wide variety of obama administration officials with some relationship to the abuses i've just laid out. the american people deserve answers about how such abuses could happen and we intend to get those answers.

so, madam president, i've been a strong supporter of law enforcement and the intelligence community during my career. the american people sleep safer because dedicated people are protecting our country and bringing our foes to justice. it is precisely because i support these missions that i feel so strongly this malpractice cannot be tolerated and must never be repeated. now, on another matter, today it's my honor to help bid farewell to a distinguished staff leader who has himself handled sensitive security matters with great care and dedication. for more than 30 years, this body has functioned more safely and smoothly because mike disilvestro was on the clock as director of the office of senate security. mike's job is tough to describe. that is partially because long tenured all-stars like mike have

a way of carving out their own niche. but it's mostly because his work is literally classified. mike has been in charge of the office of senate security almost as long as i have been in the senate. he came on board as acting director in 1987. he took over a brand-new office with incredibly important and sensitive functions. the details are not for public consumption, but let's say there were two main missions. first, mike has managed, modernized, and expanded the security facility systems that provide classified information in the capitol to senators and committees as we govern the country. he simultaneously has been a diplomatic liaison to the executive branch who has advocated for the senate's prerogative and a skillful manager of people and logistics who has made sure our secrets

stay secret once they arrive here. second, mike has been one of our top leaders on the security of the senate itself. he helps plan for contingencies and guard every facet of our institution, its people, and its systems from outside actors and bad intentions. so, madam president, these are tall orders, even for a fellow graduate of the university of louisville. consider how much has changed in the 37 years since mike first came to the senate and in the 32 years he has held this job. major wars, terrorist strikes on the homeland, anthrax in the hart building, countless technological advances that have made his task radically more complex. imagine guarding some of the nation's most closely held secrets, planning for possible attacks on the institution, being unanimously described by your colleagues as calm, cool,

and even keeled. and mike is no cheap peepal pleaser. his duties don't permit it. when you see mike outside his secure facility and heading our way, it does not mean a social call. it means bad news, and you better believe the stoic sentinel has to say no a lot more than yes. just doing the job half as reliably and reassuringly as mike is a herculean task by itself, but then factor in the fact that he is also one of the most personally well liked and respected colleagues among the circle of folks that he's worked with. mike d.'s reputation extends far outside the senate. i have it on good authority that when secretary of defense esper who served as national security advisor to a former majority leader comes to the senate security to brief us members, he doesn't consider his visit

complete until he has stopped in mike d.'s office to check on his old colleague, but ironically outside a select circle, most people in the senate itself probably could not pick mike d. out of a lineup. i guess when everything you work on is strictly need to know, you wind up on a need-to-know basis yourself. even mike's own teammates described his approach as somewhat stealth like. in short, even to his beloved senate, mike has remained somewhat mysterious. it is definitely a good sign for all of us that he has never become a household name. but for some careful intelligence work on our own has turned up clues about mike d.'s next assignment. his well-earned retirement will bring more hikes, more long runs, a lot more golf, and more time with the family he

treasures. he may miss his colleagues and the importance of his job, but i don't think tears will be shed for the end of those heroically long commutes on i-95 which took place at all hours, day and night, whenever duty called. i can offer mike -- i can't offer mike any higher praise than to repeat what he actually already knows. the senate has been safe and secure for more than a generation because of you. decades of senators have gotten the information we need because of you. some people spend their whole careers wondering if they have made a difference. you have not needed to ask that for almost 40 years, and you will never need to ask it again. so, mike, we're going to miss you, but old habits diehard, and we simply aren't willing to sever all ties, so this morning, the senate will officially designate mike as senate

security's director emeritus. the office's first-ever director will become its first-ever director emeritus. but don't worry, mike. your new job description will just be a little bit lighter. i hope the biggest mystery you have to tackle for a while is whether to play nine holes on saturday or fit in 18. the senate and your country thanks you for everything you've done. so, madam president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 582 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 582, designating michael p. disilvestro as director emeritus of senate security of the united states senate. the presiding officer: are there objections to the proceedings of the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed

to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. schumer: okay, madam president. are we in a quorum? the presiding officer: we are. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: excuse me. getting so used to this. okay. now, the senate banking committee this morning will hear testimony from secretary mnuchin and federal reserve chairman powell about the economic distress caused by the covid-19 pandemic. this testimony from the secretary and the chairman of the fed is one of the requirements that senate democrats secured in the cares act and we have been pushing for it to happen for several weeks. the fact that it's taken so long is once again just one more

indiana occasion that our republican senate colleagues are not focused on the covid-19 crisis but on other diversionary issues, witness leader mcconnell's speech, which i will have something to say about in a few minutes. it could not be more urgent that they are testifying. the covid-19 pandemic has thrown over 35 million people into sudden unemployment, the highest level since the great depression, and chairman powell has said that further layoffs could continue for months. the anguish that so many will feel. without further action, powell said we would risk, quote, prolonged recession and weak recovery, with unemployment reaching 20% or even 25%. in chairman powell's words, it may be that the congress has to do more, and the reason we have got to do more is to avoid longer damage to the economy. that's chairman powell's words. a nonpolitical appointee by

president trump. mr. powell's testimony this morning hopefully will jolt my republican colleagues into action, finally. at the very least, his testimony should awake them from their slumber and compel some understanding of the scope and urgency of the problem at hand. maybe his speech will somehow galvanize our republican colleagues into coming forward and talking about covid, you doing oversight of covid and coming up with the kinds of plans that we saw in covid 4.0 in the house that are so well needed. maybe they will talk about things like this. are they great for state and local governments? are they for so many of the things in the bill, more money in the hospitals, more help for testing, more money for p.p.e.,

for help for those who have lost their jobs, or are they not? all we hear is silence from our republican colleagues. now, i sat on the house and senate banking committee for decades. i may hold the record for attendance at hearings with fed chairs. so i can tell you that chairs of the federal reserve, whether appointed by democratic or republican presidents, do not frivolously suggest that more congressional action is taken. rarely do they do that. they try to avoid it. that's another reason of why chairman powell's comments are so important. if he feels the need to push this congress and particularly this republican senate to act, problems must be deep and real, and most americans know it, but our republican senate colleagues don't seem to. we're looking at an economic situation, quote, without modern precedent, powell's words, and

we can either take action to soften the blow to businesses, families, workers, and average folks or through inaction prolong the recession and hamstring our nation's recovery. up to now, it seems our republican colleagues are unfortunately choosing the latter. no immediate need for urgent action. amazing. amazing. the greatest crisis america has faced in decades and decades. now, my colleagues like to point out the costs of the house democratic bill to provide another round of emergency relief. republican leadership has taken time to assail parts of the democratic bill that account for .0003% of the bill. they're not expected to like every single piece, but they are expected by the american people to act, and mark my words, the american people will force them to act.

there are so many costs to inaction, and none other than the republican-appointed chairman of the federal reserve is saying that those costs are likely greater than the costs of any relief bill. when will our republican senate colleagues start to get the message? because looking at the floor of the united states senate, you would never guess that we are in the middle of a national economic crisis. for three weeks, leader mcconnell has not scheduled any legislative business related to the coronavirus. senate republican leadership is not even discussing their response to covid 4 in the house. instead, this week, the republican leader has scheduled five right-wing judges for the floor of the senate. the republican chairman of the homeland security committee will hold a hearing tomorrow designed to slander the family of the

president's political opponent, delving into a kremlin-concocted conspiracy theory that has no truth and fell over like a dud in the impeachment hearing, and last night, the chairman of the judiciary committee announced that his committee will soon consider subpoenas related to another conspiracy theory pushed by president trump, this time to try to rewrite the history of russian interference in the 2016 election to match the fantasy in president trump's head. and what does leader mcconnell devote most of his floor remarks to today? that wild conspiracy theory. aimed at somehow smearing the fine reputation that president obama has well deserved. it's amazing. that was the bulk of the speech. leader mcconnell, stop listening to president trump and his wild theories and listen to the american people. we need action. we need action now.

every day, every week, and now almost every month, we wait, the recession gets deeper and worse. more people are unemployed, more people lose their jobs, more small businesses are in jeopardy, and we're talking about some wild theory because president trump two days demanded it when everyone knows the president's penchant for truth is at a bear minimum, as exemplified by his high hydroxychl ophine comments. this is historic. senate republicans are using their majority to block and tackle for the president's reelection campaign. senate republicans are using

their majority not to tackle the covid crisis but to block and tackle for the president's reelection campaign. in the midst of a public health crisis, senate republicans are diving head first into the muck to smear the family, the family of the president's political opponent. it's such a gross misuse of the power of the majority. we were sent here to do the nation's business. at the moment that means helping our constituents through a time of immense challenge and large hardship. but senate republicans are using their committees to hold fishing expeditions dictated by the president's twitter feed, which even his supporters don't usually believe. if anyone doubts this is about politics, if this is about senate republicans doing the bidding of president trump's personal political agenda, just

remember what house minority leader mccarthy said before the last presidential election. leader mccarthy went on fox news and bragged that the republicans put together a benghazi select committee to bring hillary clinton's pom numbers down. and now senate republicans are using the same playbook to smear president trump's political opponents once again. it will not work. the american people know there's a crisis. they know that the republicans are doing nothing right now. they know that this is to please president trump but not solve america's problems and rightfully many americans are just furious. senate republicans using their majority to pursue the president's political agenda in a time of national crisis. the president is tweeting insane conspiracy theories, demanding that his water carriers on

capitol hill make them look legitimate. instead of focusing on testing capacity and policies to safely reopen our country to help, there's so many -- the so many individuals and businesses in need, the president is telling the press that he's taken an unproven treatment for a disease he doesn't have, and that is reckless. please, citizens of america, don't take hydroxychlorphine, medical experkts said it is -- experts said it is risky. the f.d.a. said it has risks. this is a medicine that experts say at best may not be treating or preventing covid-19 and at worst causes heart problems in patients with certain

conditions. it is astonishingly reckless. i don't know why the president did it. maybe he has family and friends to stand to benefit from the popularity of the drug and he talks about it. he doesn't think about research or truth. he thinks it sounds good. he thinks it's a diversion from his failures which are so many in dealing with covid, so he just says it. he doesn't care if it hurts people. but i do know this. if president trump was focused on testing or the production of p.p.p. or a plan to reopen the country instead of quack inventions and conspiracy theories, the country would be in better shape and the country knows it. the majority of americans don't trust the president to handle the crisis and senate

republicans just say how high when he says jump no matter how off base, false, or unrelated to covid his theories are. now on a very different subject. i'd like to echo the kind words said by majority leader about mike disilvestro as he prepares to head into retirement after 30 years of service to the senate. mike serves as the director of senate security in charge of the secure facility here in the capitol where senators can receive classified briefings and review sensitive documents. there are very few individuals who have given as much time and attention to this institution as mike with so little recognition or fan fare, such is the nature of the job. but on the cusp of his retirement i hope he will allow us to pay him a few compliments. mike's counsel is wise, he focus is -- his focus is always on

serving the institution, never on politics or party, his judgment and guidance have always been excellent, and he did not rely on subtlety. when you walk into the senate secure facility, you pass a world war ii era poster that says, quote, loose lips, sinks ships. his job has many different responsibilities and mike was never more valued or trusted than in difficult times. he tracked down absent senators on 9/11, he comforted terrified staff waiting -- waiting to be decontaminated after risin was discovered in a senator's mail room and entered the contaminated hart document to retrieve documents from senator daschle's office. even now, mike has faithfully reported to duty to make sure this institution is able to complete its constitutional work. i know he is finding this

attention on the floor today uncomfortable. i don't know if he's still there. yes. sorry for all the flattery, but it's well deserved. as he's accustomed to working entirely outside the limelight. he'll never be quoted in the paper, and i suspect he'll never write a tell-all book about his time in the senate. but for those of us here, senators and staffers alike, we will long remember his sense of humor, his devotion to family, his work ethic, and his strong principled leadership. there are only a very few staffers who are both known and respected by every single senator, mike's one of the few. his absence will be felt by all of us. mike, i wish you well. i hope you finally get to play all the golf you want, complete the appalachian trail and that you enjoy every day of your well-earned retirement.

congratulations. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, scott h. rash, of arizona, to be united states district judge for the district of arizona.

mr. durbin: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: we're not in a quorum call. mr. durbin: thank you, madam president. madam president, some of you at home may be old enough to remember a distinct circular

scar on your upper arm. you may have had a parent or grandparent who had one. that was one of the world's greatest public health successions, the eradication of the smallpox virus. that so many no longer remember the death and misery caused by this disease is a testament to global efforts in a cooperative manner. the smallpox virus likely originated more than 3,000 years ago and was one of the most devastating diseases ever in the history of humanity. it was barely visible under the most powerful microscope and was known for fiery bumps covering the face and body, profuse and internal bleeding, block vomit and pieces of destroyed skin that would shed off one's body. smallpox is estimated to have killed up to 300 million people in the 20th century, 300 million, and around 500 million in the last hundred years of its

existence. in 1967 the world health organization launched a historic intense effort to eradicate smallpox. the global eradication effort initially used the strategy of mass vaccination to achieve 80% vaccine coverage in each country and thereafter using contact tracing -- familiar with the word? -- to reduce and rein in additional outbreaks. ultimately the global eradication of smallpox was certified and endorsed in 1980 making it one of the most successful collaborative public health initiatives in the history of the world. in fact, this month marks the 40th anniversary of the world health organization's historic achievement, the end of smallp smallpox. similar global efforts have been taken to deal with diseases such as polio and ebola so imagine my

concern and that of the rest of the world that amid the devastating global coronavirus pandemic, the united states decided just recently to sit out a conference to collaborate and raise funds to research, manufacture, and distribute a possible coronavirus treatment and vaccine. just as with the smallpox effort such a global collaborative approach makes sense, being both morley and strategically the thing to do to save lives around the world. you see, joining forces with other countries would help speed the development and eventual distribution of a coronavirus vaccine that we all desperately seek. it would save lives in america but it would also save lives around the world. no one knows, no one knows where the vaccine will eventually be perfected or produced so we should be in on this. the united states should be at

the table. we should be part of the collective global effort to find this vaccine. clearly other world leaders get it. they understand the obvious imperative of raising $8 billion to be spent over the next two years. $8 billion is a massive spum of -- sum of money up i place it up against what we're paying for this virus. our allies and european union and norway came to this table that the united states vacated or refused to attend and each pledged a billion dollars toward this $8 billion goal. who was absent from this critical effort to save lives around the world, including lives in the united states? sadly it was the united states itself. we were not part of this virtual global conference. you see another shortsighted and incredible missed opportunity to

address the coronavirus, a question about what this administration was thirve -- was thinking. why were we missing in action when all these countries came together? i don't know where this vaccine will be found. it would be a great source of pride if it's the united states and i have the greatest confidence in the men and women who are researchers and businesses prepared to produce and develop. i have the greatest confidence in them. but what if the very safest vaccine, the most effective vaccine, the one that is proven to be the best comes instead from england or germany? does that mean we won't use it because it's not the american vaccine? we know better than that. we want the safest, most effective vaccine wherever it may come from to be available to the world and certainly to the united states of america. supporters in congress said little or nothing when it came to the decision to vacate and to not be present at this

international conference. the president has blamed others for problems that we face today, but it was his decision not to participate in this global conference on the vaccine. it could have devastating consequences. so what does it mean for america? well, we continue to have some of the world's best researchers, experts at the national institutes of health, the center for disease control and prevention, and many universities and private researchers that work across the country and around the world. many n.i.h.-funded researchers have spent years studying coronaviruses. their knowledge could help pave the way for future breakthroughs. i applaud them and i have to tell you for the last four or five years, there has been a quartet of senators of both political parties who have given dramatic investments to the national institutes of health for additional research. we've been led by roy blunt, the republican chair of the

appropriations subcommittee as well as lamar alexander, the republican chair of the health and education committee. patty murray has always be on the forefront of this effort and i back them every way possible. we had 30% or more increase the last four years in research at the n.i.h. so i believe in the n.i.h. and i've made it a major part of the job that i've undertaken here in the united states senate with my bipartisan colleagues. clinical trials we know are under way at n.i.h. for vaccines. i want to commend that agency. dr. fauci, a friend of more than 20 years, and dr. collins the same, for their tireless, unwavering and inspired effort. but it's plausible, as i mentioned earlier, that the best vaccine candidate may turn up in some other country, not in the united states. it will be some overseas company that decides to initiate and lead the production of the vaccine. in a rush to research and value

date a vaccine, ramp up production, address global allocation and supply needs and ensure affordability and access worldwide, where will the united states stand in the fray, in the battle, or on the sidelines? last week we decided to stay on the sidelines and not to work with global partners to find this vaccine. when the united states pursues a go it alone approach while the rest of the world is working together, where does that leave us? that's why last week senators schumer, leahy, duckworth, and nearly three dozen others joined me in introducing a straightforward resolution that calls on the united states to join these global efforts. i'm grateful to workizations like path, shot at life, better world campaign, and the u.n. association of the united states for their support of this resolution as well. quite simply, we should be part of these efforts to not only offer american expertise but to

share in life-saving benefits. we used to have a poe found -- profound, well documented, proud partisan history of such effort. for example, i was pleased to rally around president bush's call to stem the scourge of aids around the world through the historic program. many of my republican colleagues in the senate supported these efforts. now we face this coronavirus outbreak. i was equally proud of president obama's efforts to set up infectious disease prevention systems and his leadership on the ebola crisis. madam president, i've been told that one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is going to object to enacting this resolution this morning. i want to read the resolution clause that this colleague will be objecting to. i want those who are following this debate to ask whether or not they find this objectionable. here's what it says. calls on the united states

government to boost funding for and strengthen collaboration with key multilateral institutions at the forefront of responding to covid-19, such as the coalition for epidemic preparedness, innovations, gavy, the vaccine alliance and the solidarity trial. this is not a radical or partisan suggestion. we did our best to make it nonpartisan because it should be. does anyone in this country care if the researcher who finds that vaccine is a republican or a democrat? i certainly don't. and we shouldn't care either whether it's found in the united states or another country. i'd be so proud if it's found here, but if there is a safe and effective vaccine found in another country, we certainly want to participate in its discovery, its production, and its distribution. to stand on the sidelines at this point in history would be disastrous. madam president, last friday i

was driving from chicago to st. louis. springfield, i'm sorry, chicago to springfield. it's about an hour ride. i listened to a lot of radio but it was interrupted by the president who in in press conference made it clear to us that will he was going to address the need for this global vaccine as he said at wharp speed. i've disagreed with this president on a lot of things but i sure don't disagree with that statement. the sooner we can find it, the better. and i want the united states to use all of its resources to make it happen. the president was asked at a press conference afterwards what that meant in terms of sharing this vaccine with the world. he said we'll do it. it was a simple statement. there was no reservation. he made a pledge right then and there that if we discover this

vaccine, it will be shared with the world. thank you, mr. president. that was the right thing to say at the right moment as the whole word was -- world was watching to see the united states leadership. what i'm calling on in this resolution is simply that we use our expertise and an investment and we make investments every day in global efforts, that we use this for collaborative effort, a global effort to find this vaccine. as i said from the beginning, it will be a great source of pride if it's found here, but if it isn't, if there's a safer, more effective vaccine that is available and it's discovered in another country, what difference does it make? if it saves lives in america and around the world? let's be part of this effort. let's set our pride aside and instead talk about the impact it would have on this globe and on the people today who are in fear, suffering and sadly dying as a result of this global

virus. so, madam president, i ask unanimous consent as if in legislative session that the committee on foreign relations be discharged from further consideration of s. resolution 579 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. i further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. a senator: madam president, reserving the right to object. let me say that the resolution referred to by my friend from illinois is comfortably residing in the foreign relations committee at the present time. mr. risch: and is subject to the regular order of congress and of the committee. there's almost nothing that the senator said that i disagree with, although from time to time i do disagree with my good friend and colleague from

illinois. i think that this is a matter that is of most serious consequence to the united states of america today. and certainly the pursuit of a vaccine and/or a cure are of utmost importance. i think the process by which we go through that is incredibly important. like the senator from illinois i am a huge fan of the n.i.h. and for that matter the c.d.c. who do great things for the public health system in not only america but in the word. they're v.ly underappreciated. much like the electric switch in our rooms. every morning we get up and turn on the electricity and everything is fine. we just take it for granted and don't even think of it. that's true of the n.i.h. and c.d.c. they do good work regardless of whether we're thinking about it or not.

but in america we have something more than just a government effort when it comes to public health. we have this great machine called the free market and free enterprise system that incentivizes americans through the private sector to do great and glorious things. indeed, while my good friend from illinois was bragging on the efforts by other countries to pursue the kinds of things that are needed within the last 24 hours we've had a very important announcement from part of our private sector who are making great strides in this regard. i think it's important that we do accept that there are various ways that we can and should pursue the vaccine and the cure for this horrible scourge. this matter is a lot deeper than

that. it is the intent of our committee to hold hearings and develop very comprehensive legislation regarding how we pursue this in the future. what's just recently happened to us is of great interest to all of us but not nearly as important as to what's going to happen to us in the future. s. res. 579, there are parts of it, if not the vast majority of it, that i hope will be included when we get to what hopefully will be a comprehensive piece of bipartisan legislation to address this. some of the whereases, i'm not too red hot about, but as as far as the resolution is concerned, certainly they state things that there would be unanimity in agreement. so where are we going with this? what my friend from illinois has

raised is a very small facet, an important facet, but a small facet of what we're going to do -- what is the intent of our committee to do going forward in what i think will be a bipartisan fashion. again, like i said, i hope that we're able to include these, and i welcome the senators' participation and all members of the senate participation as the foreign relations committee does move forward on some comprehensive legislation. but what -- what do we know for sure right now? i think senator durbin did an excellent job of taking us through history when it comes to some of the things we've had in the past like smallpox, aids, polio, and ebola. certainly, the united states has been a leader and will be a leader on this particular -- on this particular scourge. the w.h.o. and for that matter other world organizations have been large players, important

players, helpful players in those efforts in the past on smallpox, aids, polio, and ebola. again, i come back to, just as an example, polio. a huge, huge factor in that was not the united states governmena huge factor in it, but another huge player in that was a private citizen, private citizens, a couple in the united states, bill and melinda gates who played a huge role in eradicating polio. working with the w.h.o., working with the u.s.g., and many, many others. i have no doubt as we go forward on this there will be that type of collaboration in the future as the good senator noted. this is not a political issue. this is not a democrat issue. it is not a republican issue. the virus doesn't care who you are, what you are. it's just looking for a home. and we need to deny it that home, and we will, and i think we will make great strides as we go forward.

but what do we know for sure right now? what we know is that this particular virus evolved in china, particularly in wuhan province, and specifically in a species of bat. what we also know is that there are about 2,000 so far identified viruses that are in the same position that are carried by bats in the wuhan province. what we also know is that a virus has escaped from china before, and there is a lot of speculation as to exactly how this happened. we know that the virus jumped species from the bat to a human being, and then went around the world. we also know for a fact that this particular virus, like all viruses, act uniquely. it's not exactly the same as other viruses that have jumped species and gone around the world, and this one was unique

in that unlike some of the ones we've had in the past -- and this is our sixth experience since 2003 with the virus. unlike those others, this moved around the world at an incredibly fast speed. it was much more like a house on fire than the other diseases that we've talked about like smallpox or polio. its speed was -- was unique. it was new. it was different. and as a result of that, historical organizations that have dealt with these in the past were not expecting it and were not geared for it. they thought that this virus would move much like the others that we've dealt with, and the result of that, of course, was that it got away from us, from the world, and we now find ourselves in the position we're in because that happened. it's my hope and it is my

objective and hopefully will be the objective of our committee, eventually the objective of the united states senate, and hopefully eventually the objective of the world that we develop a protocol for dealing with a virus or for that matter any other health challenge that moves at the speed of light and like a house on fire as opposed to a small creeping thing that we've had in the past, some of the other challenges that we've had. it's different. there is no doubt it's different. and it's going to have to be dealt with differently and going to have to be -- we're going to have to develop a protocol that does address this speed, and it's going to entail -- and this is probably the heaviest lift of all of that we are going to do. it's going to entail governments, the 200 governments around the world to come

together and agree that when something like this happens in their country, instead of covering it up or instead of making political excuses or instead of hoping that it's going to go away, that instead they call the fire department, and the fire department will be a new agency or perhaps even one of the old agencies that we've had that are geared to handle a pandemic that moves at this speed or presents other challenges. the institutions we have just simply aren't geared to do that, which we found out with this -- with this epidemic. the institutions dealt, i think a good example, as my good friend from illinois mentioned, the ebola challenge that we had. the historical institutions i think dealt quickly with that and really held down the damage from it which could have been much, much more worse than what it was. we need to develop protocols for dealing with this. and this is going to be a

challenge. there's no question it's going to be a challenge because politics comes into this simply because of governments in the various 200 countries around the world have to deal with this, and when they do deal with it, they have different ways of dealing with it. one of the -- one of the challenges we have here, as chairman of the foreign relations committee, i deal with our diplomats who deal with the diplomats from other countries. we deal with them on the committee directly, but since this thing has hit, we haven't had as much direct contact, but our diplomats have continued to have contact. one of the things that in talking with them, one of the things i find particularly disturbing is i asked the chinese, are they humble about this. how are they dealing with this? what's their view of what's happened here? and interestingly enough, they

take it as an opportunity to compare our form of government to their form of government. they say look, we had a problem, we dealt with it. you guys had the same problem and you dealt with it, and you couldn't. and the reason is because we have this strong authoritarian central government that can control people and can control people in the most severe fashion, and we can deal with it. you people with all these freedoms and your democracies, you could have speech, you could have these political arguments, you could have these disagreements and you allow dissent. when you have that, you can't deal with it. therefore, our form of government is better than your form of government. that is very, very dangerous talk, and i'm disturbed and disappointed that the chinese government have viewed this as they have and have not viewed it as we have, as a challenge that is going to take historical changes as we go forward. that is a huge challenge as we

go forward, but that shouldn't stop us from making every effort that we can to go forward, and we will. on the foreign relations committee, it is our intent to hold hearings to deliberate, as the u.s. senate does, and to produce what hopefully will be a bipartisan piece of legislation, which is -- which is substantially broader than what we have here, but hopefully that will include many of the things that we have here and that will include, as the good senator from illinois has indicated, the necessity of including other governments in the effort as we go forward. and so i commit to you, senator, and i commit to all that our committee will undertake this challenge. it is within the jurisdiction and the responsibility of our committee. we take it seriously. we're still in the throes of this although it feels like we're on the downhill side and

we're starting to come out of this, but as we go forward, in the very common sense, deliberative fashion, we hope to construct legislation that will address all of these very serious issues, because if there is one thing we know for sure and i'm absolutely convinced of it, that this is going to happen again. given the physical situation on the ground in wuhan, china, given the fact that there are 2,000 other viruses, probably some of which are substantially worse than this, and for that matter the same situation in other parts of the world, this is going to happen again, given the population of the world and given the population of the -- given the culture, the way we live today in the world and our travel and interconnectedness, this is going to happen again. we need to be ready for it, and we need strong legislation that

will address this, not only at the u.s. level but also at the international level. the united states has been the world leader in world health issues, and i anticipate that we will continue to be like that. but at the present time, it is under consideration in our committee, so at the present time, we really can't go forward with this. before i state an objection, i want to yield to my good friend from indiana who also has some ideas in this regard, and all of which will be, i'm sure, productive on both sides of the aisle. so i want to yield the floor to senator braun at this time. not yet. thank you, senator. i want to yield to senator braun. mr. braun: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. braun: i object, but my colleague from illinois is not wrong, and i of this aget through -- after i get through explaining my objection, hopefully there will be

something we can work out. the u.s. should be engaging more in global efforts to find treatments and vaccines for coronavirus. governments, academic institutions, scientists, researchers across the world are racing to do it. the u.s. must work at home and with international partners to develop treatments and vaccines. there is no reason we can't be doing something on our own and working with others across the world. this is a joint venture if there ever has been one. however, the nonbinding resolution that my colleague has offered is not an actual solution. i come from the world, and one of the frustrations for being here for just a year and a half is that we don't get more stuff across the finish line. i have a real solution to ensure americans benefit from the vaccine and treatment development efforts happening

across the world. in my bill, the adapt act, senate bill 658, as amended, would create an expediteed almost automatic approval process at the f.d.a. for vaccines and treatments that might occur across the world. we do not have the market cornered on good ideas. these countries have all developed regulatory systems that are compatible and that should make us feel comfortable, but instead of just talking about it, which we do so much of here, this bill would actually establish the approval reciprocity for treatments and vaccines between the f.d.a. and other trusted counterparts. if one of them approves a vaccine or treatment, they are quickly, almost automatically

approved here in the u.s. on my bill. we cannot afford miscommunication or bureaucratic foot dragging with something so important. my bill ensures that regulators will work proactively to get americans a vaccine as soon as possible. look at the early testing missteps we did have with the c.d.c. i mentioned that in the briefing last tuesday. their overly prescriptive approach delayed our testing capability for the first 40 days, and the result has been a one-size-fits-all approach of locking down the economy, which i think we'll see some of the disadvantages of that over the next few months. when my staff talked to the f.d.a. about working with international partners on treatment and vaccine development, the f.d.a. assured them that they had everything under control and are speaking with their international

counterparts. the f.d.a. assured my staff that they have covered the issues that might come into play when you are having a partnership with somebody else. the f.d.a. is promoting the idea and having the doors open for developers to submit data and seek approval for treatments and vaccines. until we have a vaccine, reopening will be gradual. we need immunity vaccines to be the final solution to the saga we're going through but we cannot afford bureaucratic obstacles slowing down regulatory approvals for a successful vaccines. as we have seen, certain steps of vaccines development can be achieved at warp speed to cut down on development time but regulatory approvals will not be one of them unless we take

legislative action. the adapt act is real action, not just talk, specifically designed for times like this when scientists across the world are racing to develop treatments and vaccines. therefore, with my prior objection, i do not want to leave my friend from illinois empty handed. in hoping my colleague from illinois will not object, madam president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the help committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 658, and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. i further ask that the braun substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, the

bill, as amended, be considered read a their time and passed, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. durbin: reserving the right to object. madam president. the presiding officer: the assistant democratic leader. mr. durbin: first let me to say to my friend and colleague from idaho, thank you. the tone of your remarks is positive, constructive, bipartisan. that's exactly what the american people are looking for, at least in illinois, and i'll bet you in idaho as well. this national emergency, this public health crisis should bring out the best in us, not the most political side of our nature. and thank you because i think your remarks were offered in that respect. we've been here three weeks, this is the third week since returning from a break where most of us were at home. i think this is the longest period of debate on the coronavirus that we've witnessed on the floor of the senate in

three weeks. i thought this three-week period would be all about covid-19, all about the vaccine. it hasn't. we've taken up many other things that had nothing to do with it. but what we talked about here this morning is encouraging to me, and if bringing this resolution up with the unanimous consent request is going to lead to the senate foreign relations committee, and other committees, really moving forward on important policy questions that you raised, and i hope i raised as well, then it was not time wasted, it was time well spent. and we do agree on so much more than we disagree, i'm sure of it, when it comes to this. i invite you, i encourage you, i beg you, as soon as we return from next week's recess, the sooner we can bring a hearing before your committee and others, the better. i'd like to address my colleague from indiana's unanimous consent request as well. it's been my good fortune in the

house and the senate to work with the food and drug administration. it probably one of the most underrated agencies of our federal government. they make decisions literally life and death decisions every single day on things unimaginable to us. it's hard to look at all of the things they regulate and inspect and not be impressed. i've been impressed over the years with the food and drug administration. but the gold standard of the food and drug administration which was established at least 60 years ago with a scandal was that this agency was to take a look at drugs that were about to go on the market in america and conduct tests, ask questions, do their own research to determine two things. are they safe and are they effective? safe and effective. that's it. but it's a lot. and so over the years, for 60 years or more, they have used this standard to judge drugs,

clinical trials which carefully measure the impact of a drug on the human body over a period of time and the like. it is frustrating because at times it takes longer than we'd wished. there are exceptions that have been created at the food and drug administration for extraordinary circumstances where they can accelerate the process. but by and large they have to judge drugs as safe and effective. today nearly three-quarters of drugs are approved in the united states by the food and drug administration before they are approved in any other country around the world. the f.d.a. is considered the gold standard. i've been told that so many times. and many countries look to the food and drug administration and the united states to see if they approved of a drug as being safe and effective before they move forward. this demonstrates that the food and drug administration has an awesome responsibility but is

doing a good job in ensuring that americans have timely access to the same drugs as patients in other countries. the adapt act, which senator braun brings to the floor is a solution, i believe, in search of a problem. and, sadly, it runs a real risk. this notion that we are somehow going to open up the possibility of a drug approved in another country be approved in the united states quickly or without any review, i think, is a dangerous thing to do. to date, we know what the coronavirus has done to us and we also know that this bill would completely change how drugs are approved for sale in the united states of america. it is not a minor bill. it is a major change. under current law, pharmaceutical company wants to sell a drug, it needs the approval of the f.d.a. they look to test it and to be sure it's safe and effective. it is the gold standard. your proposal would abolish this

method. that is significant. instead your proposal says that if a drug has been approved by another developed country -- i'm not sure your definition of a developed country -- but if developed by a developed country, it can by pass without going through the food and drug administration's study and approval. it is worth noting that many members of the house and senate criticized the food and drug administration for charging americans the highest drug prices in the world and suggested that drug prices in the united states should be the same as they are in the united states and canada for the same drugs. many times people on your side of the aisle have resisted that suggestion. they called it socialism and said we shouldn't let other countries dictate what america has to pay for drugs. but now apparently senator braun is comfortable letting other countries dictate whether our drugs are safe and effective.

this bill is not a targeted response to coronavirus. it's an open-ended giveaway to some pharmaceutical operations, and more importantly, it is putting our safety at risk in america, which we never ever want to do. instead of approving a resolution that i introduced that simply expresses support for deplorable coordination, senator braun wants to completely overturn our nation's drug approval process. this bill was introduced more than a year ago. it is still in search of a cosponsor and it hasn't been consented by the republican help committee which oversees the f.d.a. now is the time for the best and brightest from all nations to work together toward ar shared goal of ending this pandemic and finding a safe and effective vaccine. it is not the time to completely upend our nation's drug approval process making it easy for some countries to flood our markets with unsafe and ineffective drugs. for these reasons i object to senate braun's counterproposal.

mr. braun: madam president. the presiding officer: the objection is heard for both unanimous consent requests. the senator from indiana is recognized. mr. braun: so it may be a rare moment of some collegiality on the idea in general. i think the american public, and especially myself, is one that watched this place operate for so many years leading up to the point where i ran for senate, i accept the kind of guidance that there may need to be mosh fleshed out -- more fleshed out. you objected to it. but i think the american public deserves action out of this place and so often it seems we daddle and do not get to the point. looking at how long it took the body to come to agreement on criminal justice reform.

and when i asked one of the first questions when i got here, i said, how long had you been working on it? ten to 12 years. when you look at what we do get accomplished here, i think we need to figure out how we become more effective, we get things done more quickly, and how we pay for it in the long run. so i'm going to savor the moment we have here. we're at least talking about it and hopefully be able to work with my neighbor from illinois to still push the idea that this is a critical time and that we need to get something done. i yield the floor. mr. burr: madam president. mr. durbin: madam president, i believe there's a unanimous consent request pending. has there been an objection to my original? thank you, madam president. the senator from north carolina is recognized.

mr. burr: madam president, i think divine intervention is playing a part here with this exchange with my colleagues because i'm here to pay tribute to my good friend tom coburn who on march 28 passed away, our colleague, and more importantly, a dear friend and i almost said in the cloakroom that this could be a conversation that doctor coburn was having on the senate floor, the need to accomplish things. think outside the box but as my friend from illinois said, don't destroy the gold standard that is there. dr. coburn had a lifetime of doing that. to pay tribute to a friend and colleague, i actually have to rewind 26 years ago when both tom he could byrne and i came -- coburn and i came into the house of representatives in a large

class, alphabetical so you could see who could be close and the different folks who sized up quickly who we could trust. and to under -- to understand tom coburn is to understand this is a guy with an incredibly diverse background. he ran a medical device company, he was an og -- ob/gyn, but to understand tom coburn is to remember the commercial where the bull went into the china store. no matter which way it turned, it was always going to break something and tom believed you had to break something to understand whether it was important or whether it was just clutter. and i think like every new member of congress you come in with a belief that you're going to change the world but you have no idea how to do it and you

find that people that have been there for a career hold all the cards and that's the knowledge of how that legislation was crafted and why it was done. but to understand tom coburn is to understand that that didn't scare him. that tom knew a lot and when he hit things he didn't know, he sounded like he did, therefore, people were scared to take him on. and tom, as a member of the energy and commerce committee, which we both served on, was inc -- incredibly instrumental in health care policy, in medical device issues. tom was a practicing ob/gyn when he got to the house and later on when he got to the senate. and he never could understand why he could go back to oklahoma on the weekends and deliver babies. now, this is a man that delivered tens of thousands of babies over his career in

oklahoma, but the way the senate rules are, they are so antiquated that you couldn't go home and keep up your license to deliver babies because you couldn't earn money. and tom challenged that when he was in the united states senate. he challenged that antiquated rule and he lost. and so, as i sit and listen to this debate that was about health care, i could only sit there and think about the argument that tom coburn made about this antiquated rule that what you came in and you practiced in the civilian life you had to throw it overboard here. you could no longer do it, and tom decided he'd go back and on the weekends he would deliver babies, but rather than make a payment to him, they'd make a payment to a nonprofit organization in his hometown of tulsa. and they would make it

commensurate amount-wise as to what they could afford. so for a guy that was perceived as the right of the right hardliner, tom was probably one of the most compassionate individuals. he was one of the individuals that understood the common person because he was one, in his mind, his entire life. never privileged, earned everything he got, and he banked everything he learned, and ultimately at the end of his career he used that for this institution and for the american people and for people around the world. now i remember tom and i sitting down early on with john dingell, the democrat former chairman of the energy and commerce committee, between john dingell, who was a great man, who taught tom and i both a lot, john either wrote every bill that came out of the energy

and commerce committee or his dad before him for probably 60 years. so john had the inherent advantage every time we argued legislation because he either wrote it or his dad wrote it so he knew why they did it and knew why they structured it the way they did. but i think john recognized something in tom that here was a guy that could bring fresh life to it. and i remember chairman dingell at the time sitting us down and saying, guys, spend a year listening, not a year talking. well, that's easy for me to do because i didn't know a whole lot when i got there. but that was the toughest thing tom coburn was ever faced with was to be silent because he really came in and he wanted to change the world in short order, because tom said when he got there, i'll only be here for six years. he accomplished a tremendous amount. his imprint is felt by people in the house today. you might remember he was probably the loudest voice for

government waste for the size of what we spent, for how much we took from the american people and for such bad stewards we were of how we used that and spent it. and i think tom left with a peace in the house of representatives because for the first time in our lifetimes the budget was balanced. none of us anticipated what happened in 2000 and the effects of 9/11, and nobody was more shocked than myself to see tom coburn in the same year i came from the house to the senate to see tom coburn run as a senate candidate in the state of oklahoma. tom came in with the same belief that we needed to change things, we needed to do it quick. but i would say that the one change tom served on the house intelligence committee, and when he got to the united states senate, the senate intelligence committee. tom understood much better the

challenges we were faced with. i won't say that his approach changed, but tom assessed what was possible and never went for what was impossible. there are senators in this chamber that didn't have the good fortunes to serve with a tom coburn, that aren't influenced and educated by some of the things tom coburn impacted many of us who spent our entire careers with him. but the american people will feel the benefits of tom coburn's education here, his imprint on this institution. jim lankford -- james lankford, the senator from oklahoma, picked up his pig book that he put out every year, the list of those insane federal expenditures that tom coburn used to come up with on an annual basis to make us all feel shameful about the

appropriations process, and thank goodness, because tom coburn did that, james lankford still does it today on an annual basis. but i probably can't point to anything more important than health care to tell you how tom's impact on this institution has been felt and i think will be felt for years to come. tom and i believed there was a different direction not because we were smart, but because the one we were on didn't work. and i remember sitting down with dr. coburn and he said we're going to change the health care architecture. and i said, well, tom, you've been doing this a long time. what architecture works? and he said we're going to to have to try them all and when we

find one that doesn't fail, we'll know that one's right. and tom, without hesitation, when he got to that point, he came to the senate floor and he talked about the patients choice act over and over and over again. and as i look over the years since tom's left the institution now for three or four years, the debate has shifted. in fact to where tom coburn was and where he tried to tell the colleagues this is where we need to settle, empowering patients, bringing transparency to health care, something that we struggle with today. i mean, tom coburn was no, there was no bigger advocate for transparency in health care costs than tom coburn. and when the administration tried to administer that this year, hospitals went to court and won, that they didn't have to publish pricing. to the average person that makes no sense. to those of us who have been on

the front line, to tom coburn, finally an administration did it only to see it overruled. yet it's one of the key things that tom believed even on the day he died, that transparency was absolutely essential in the health care process. i can remember tom was not new to cancer. i think he fought cancer four or five times. and one day in his most recent battle, we were coming up on a christmas holiday, i remember, and i think he was in his chemotherapy treatment, but he was still in the united states senate. and tom was exhausted at the time, and in between votes he would go to the cloakroom and he would lay down on the couch. everybody knew that he didn't feel good. and when he'd get up to vote, you'd look at the pillows and it

looked like a cat had been on the pillows as tom's hair would stay on the pillows. he never lost it all, but you understood the challenges in his own personal life he was going through that he never expressed with any of his colleagues or friends. i've never seen a person that battled as peacefully as tom coburn did. his impact will be felt for generations to come not just here p, but by the kids that he delivered in oklahoma that today are two and three and four and five years old, kids that will grow up reading about their hero from oklahoma. and though tom had a distinguished congressional career and will be remembered

for a lot of legislative victories, that's not tom coburn's greatest claim to fame. i've never known an individual more devoted to a wife than tom coburn was to carolyn. she was a beauty queen. she was, when she was young and she was in tom's eyes the day he died. he loved her without question. but tom also loved his daughters he was so proud of their accomplishments. he and carolyn worked to make sure that they finally moved to where they had everybody close. i think tom knew that the wheel

of luck was going to run out. you see, that's not the way tom looked at it. he wanted to spend every precious moment with his wife, his kids, and his grandchildren. he wanted any impact and impression he could make to be on that next generation of coburns. and for all the qualities that i could talk about tom coburn, there's not enough time to really praise him. it would take days and it would take a lot of individuals to come up and do it. and it's probably impossible to say goodbye to a friend like tom coburn. there's no question to me that i came to trust and value everything that tom stood for. the one thing about tom coburn

that many people knew was that tom had this tremendous peace about himself. i think some might have thought it was because tom had such a stellar background and he knew so much. the truth is that if you sat and talked to tom, you found out the truth. tom loved his lord, jesus christ. he didn't hide it. and when given the opportunity, he wanted to share that peace with anybody that was willing to sit and listen. tom went to bible studies. tom was criticized for where he lived because it was certainly religious and leaning. but that was tom's life. and as much as he adored his wife and children and

grandchildren, he adored his lord just as much. madam president, my colleagues, we were blessed to have tom coburn's influence on this institution. not everybody in america understands how blessed they are to have had his influence on the policies and the way the future generations will be impacted by tom coburn for all of his works. today tom may be in heaven. no, today tom is in heaven. and i guarantee to the president and my colleagues, he's giving them hell. he's up there trying to change the architecture of the deck chairs. he's up trying to say why do you do things this way and not that way? one of the things that used to

bug tom about this institution, he couldn't figure out why we have telephones in the united states senate that looked like they were created in 1950. and you might remember about five or six years ago the senate got new phones. they still won't do redial for the last number you call and they still look like they were soviet-era out of the 1950's, but that's the way the u.s. sene is, and that's what tom was trying to change. in many aspects, he might not have changed the telephones, but he changed the institution. he changed the way we look at it. and though he may be challenging the rules in heaven today, make no mistake about it, he's still preaching the word and he's always believed that word. and for all the things tom coburn tried to accomplish, he

did it in a way that his lord would have been proud of him. madam president and my colleagues, i know others will pay tribute to tom coburn's work here. i'm here today to pay tribute to tom coburn's life. not just the impact he had on this institution or the congress of the united states as a whole, but the example he set for all of us. life doesn't have to be fair, but we as individuals have to be committed, and tom coburn was committed to everything in life that he did. and i'm sure today tom continues to preach commitment to those who will listen. with that, i honor his passing, and i say to him in the spirit that we met several

days after we got word that he had passed, i said to my wife with covid and the congress dislocated what would tom coburn have done? she looked at me and said he would have grown a beard because we all remember those days where all of a sudden he showed up and the beard was growing and he said until this is over, i'm not going to shave, and that day i decided not though shave. i was going to give this tribute to tom coburn last week. the events of last week didn't permit me to come do that tribute, and i couldn't make it to this week until i got home and shaved it because it was the most aggravating things i ever had and i understood in 64 years why i hadn't grown any p facial hair. i proved that i could do it because i was honoring my friend. i hope that others in this institution will look on tom coburn's contribution in the same way i do, as a very special exposure that we all

had. with that, i yield the floor.

mr. thune: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority whip is recognized. mr. thune: madam president, thank you. i ask unanimous consent to complete my remarks before the vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: madam president, i have three requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. thune: madam president, as we continue our work here in the senate, covid-19 continues to be at the top of our agenda. we're monitoring the implementation of the $2.4 trillion in coronavirus funding we provided and talking to experts about what is needed to help our country reopen. our committees where so much of our key legislative work has done held a number of

coronavirus hearings the past two weeks and there are more on the agenda. this week the committee on aging will hold a hearing on caring for seniors during the coronavirus crisis. the senate banking committee will hold a hearing with treasure secretary steve mnuchin and federal reserve chairman jerome powell to discuss implementation of the coronavirus aid relief and economic security act or the cares act which is our largest coronavirus relief bill. the homeland security and government affairs committee will hold a hearing to consider brian miller to be special general. well -- with just an ounce of cooperation from democrats, we could confirm this important watchdog yet this week, madam president. finally, the commerce committee which i'm a member will be in executive session to consider legislation and nominations, including two coronavirus bills. of course while coronavirus remains our top priority, we're also focused on doing the other business the american people expect us to do. the presiding officer: funding our government to protecting our

nation. last week the senate voted to reauthorize three expired provisions of the foreign intelligence surveillance act that provide essential tools to our law enforcement and intelligence communities as well as a number of reforms to strengthen privacy protections and guard against abuses. we've also been considering nominations for key administration posts, including director of national intelligence and secretary of the navy. and this week we expect to confirm a nominee to reestablish a quorum at the federal election commission as well as a number of nominees to fill vacancies on federal district courts. madam president, that's what the senate has been doing. what has the house of representatives been up to? well, until last friday the answer was not much. but on friday the house brought its members back to washington to vote on a massive $3 trillion piece of legislation that democratic leaders billed as coronavirus relief.

in reality as one house didn't pointed out the legislation is nothing more than a messaging bill. that from a house democrat. under the guise of coronavirus relief, house democrats put together a mass package of liberal priorities they well knew would be dead on arrival here in the united states senate. how unserious is their bill? well, madam president, democrats' legislation mentions the word cannabis, cannabis more often than the word job. let me repeat that, madam president. house democrats' legislation mentions the word cannabis more often than the word job. madam president, in case democrats didn't realize, americans aren't suffering from a lack of cannabis right now. they're suffering from a lack of employment. let me mention some other highlights of the democrats' legislation. atax -- a tax cut for millionaires and billionaires. stimulus checks for illegal

immigrants and deadbeat dads. environmental justice grants to study pollution. significant changes to election law. that's really related to the coronavirus. a ban on sharing information about lower-cost health insurance options and more. i could go on, madam president. the list literally goes on and on. unfortunately, while democrats were focused on federalizing election law and requiring studies on diversity in the cannabis industry, they forgot about a few basics. so their bill does not include any meaningful plan to get americans back to work. it provides hardly any relief or support for small businesses. it doesn't touch the issue of liability reform, even though preventing frivolous coronavirus lawsuits will be key to getting our economy going again. and it doesn't do anything to hold china accountable.

the democrats' bill is a fundamentally unserious bill at an incredibly serious time. democrat leaders knew from the beginning that there was no chance of this legislation getting through the senate or being signed by the president. in fact, democrats had some work to do to persuade members of their own caucus to vote for the bill. or as "politico" put it, and i quote, as of late thursday evening, the house democratic leadership was engaged in what a few senior aids and -- aides and lawmakers described as the most difficult arm-twisting of the entire congress, convincing their rank and file to vote for a $3 trillion stimulus bill that will never become law. end quote. that from "politico." unfortunately democrat leaders were successful in their arm twisting and the bill did pass the house albeit with some democrat defections. madam president, if' talked about the liberal -- i've talked

about the liberal wish list in this bill but i hadn't mentioned the other aspect of this proposal and that is the enormous price tag, a portion of which, of course, wouldn't even go to anything coronavirus related. my friends across the aisle think that all problems can be solved with more money or a new government program. but they can't. and spending too much money can actually hurt rather than help americans. madam president, so far we spent $2.4 trillion to fight the coronavirus. that is a tremendous amount of money, but these are extraordinary circumstances and they call for an extraordinary response. and we may very well have to spend more before this pandemic is over. and if we need to, we will. but madam president, we have an absolute obligation to make sure

we're spending only what is needed. every dollar we spent so far on this pandemic is borrowed money. every single dollar. now it's money we needed to borrow and we were glad to do it. but we do need to remember that it is borrowed money and that younger workers and our children and grandchildren are going to be paying for it. and we have an obligation to them to only borrow what is absolutely necessary to fight and beat this virus. diversity studies for the cannabis industry should not be making that cut, madam president. some of the democrats' proposals might be acceptable at another time and i emphasize the word some. but no matter how worthy a proposal, there is a limit to what we can responsibly spend

and we have to prioritize measures that will directly fight the virus and get americans back to work. republicans are also focused on developing measures that will help fight the virus and get our economy going again without spending trillions of dollars, something i might recommended to my democrat colleagues. we've currently working on a package of liability protections, personal injury lawyers are already filing coronavirus-related cases, and we need to ensure that frivolous lawsuits don't hamstring our economic recovery while ensuring that the real cases of gross negligence and misconduct are punished. we're considering a lot of other measures to provide relief while driving up the national debt as little as possible. things like regulatory reform and tax protection for health care workers who cross state lines to provide their services. i'm pushing for approval of my mobile workforce state income tax simplification act which i introduced last year along with

senator sherrod brown. our legislation would create an across-the-board tax standard for mobile employees who spend a short period of time working across state lines. it would ensure that states receive fair tax payments while substantially simplifying tax requirements for employees and employers. this legislation has particular relevance in the age of coronavirus with doctors and nurses crossing state lines to voluntarily work in states that have been hit hard by the pandemic. the governor of new york is looking to cash in on the pandemic and has already threatened to subject these medical professionals to new york's income tax. we need to make sure that doctors and nurses who traveled to other states to help fight the coronavirus aren't rewarded with big tax bills. madam president, partisan messaging bills like the one the house democrats passed last week are a waste of democrats' time but more importantly do nothing

to serve the american people. how many hours did democrats spend on their mass if liberal -- massive liberal wish list, hours that could have been spent working with republicans to come up with real relief measures? but that's pretty much par for the course for democrats these days. their intent -- they're intent on remaking america according to their ever more extreme leftist agenda. and they're certainly not going to let a national crisis get in the way. in fact, more than one leader, madam president, of the democrat party has spoken with pleasure of the opportunity the pandemic presents to remake america and their far -- in their far-left image. it's deeply disappointing that democrats are more focused on their pet projects than addressing this pandemic and its consequences, but that will not stop the republican-led senate from moving forward with the business of the american people.

madam president, i hope the democrats will eventually decide to join us. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: all time is expired. the question is on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any senators wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the ayes are 74, the nays are 20. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the president will be immediately notified of the president's actions. under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until 2:15 p.m. morning

business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: i'm deeply concerned about reports that china began hoarding medical supplies in early january while working to prevent the world health organization from sounding the alarm about the virus pandemic. by analyzing international tde