Lamar Alexander

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I want to report on an important hearing the Senate HELP Committee just completed. Senator Murray and I organized it. We heard from Francis Collins, the distinguished scientist who is head of the National Institutes of Health, about his new program, funded by Congress, to spend $1.5 billion, or $2.5 billion if you include the money we gave to BARDA, to develop a new technology that will produce tens of millions of rapid diagnostic tests for COVID- 19. Mr. President, my opening statement at that hearing can be found online at https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p= SpeechesFloor Statements&id=1AF0B54F-A9EC-4007-9146-E8D386531C4F. I would like to refer to a speech made by the former majority leader of the Senate, Bill Frist, in 2005, which reminds us that we have been working on these programs for a long time and which can be found online at https://asecondopinionpodcast.com/frist-predicts-global-pandemic/. On April 13, ``The American Mind'' published Senator Frist's essay, ``A Storm for Which We Were Unprepared,'' which can be found online at https://americanmind.org/essays/a-storm-for-which-we-were-unprepared/. Senator Frist's speech, which was made at a time when we were dealing with 9/11 and before Ebola but SARS and other viruses, he predicted exactly what is happening--we are going to have a virus this year, and we will have another one, and then we will have another one. Since that time, over the last 20 years, we have had three Presidents--a Bush, an Obama, and a Trump--several Congresses who passed seven big laws. We have created a stockpile, we have created an Assistant Secretary for Preparedness, and we have spent the last 5 years with record investments in the National Institutes of Health. We were in a situation where, on March 1, the New York Times reported that ``most experts agree,'' the Times reported on its front page, that the United States is better prepared than almost any country to deal with this epidemic. Yet we were not as well prepared as we would like to have been. So we had a hearing today, one, to focus on this shark tank, as Senator Blunt and I like to call it, where Dr. Collins is inviting the best ideas from around the country for new technologies. That is not to say we haven't been testing. The United States, according to Johns Hopkins and President Trump, has tested 7 million Americans--more than any country; more per capita, for example, than South Korea, which we often admire for the way it has dealt with COVID- 19. So we are testing a lot of people. But if we want to go back to work and we want to go back to school, we are going to need to have quick, reliable tests for everybody in the nursing home, everybody in the meatpacking plant, everybody maybe on the college campus, everybody in a graded school. We are going to have such widespread testing that people will be willing to come out of their homes and go back to work. That is one reason we need the testing. The second reason we need the testing is because it helps contain the disease. We know how to stop the spread of the disease. If every single one of us just stayed in our room, it wouldn't spread. We have come pretty close to doing that for the last 5 weeks and nearly destroyed our economy in the process, but we had to do it. The other way to do it is have enough tests to identify the people who are sick. We don't know exactly how many that is. I would guess-- and I am no scientist, but just from the scientists I talk to, I am guessing that in Tennessee it is 3, 5, 7 percent of us who might have this virus, and maybe half of us or some of us have symptoms, and the rest of us don't. But what we need to do is identify who those people are and quarantine them for 2 weeks or help them in the hospital, and then the rest of us can go back to school and back to work. We can't do that without tens of millions of more tests, even though we are testing more people than any other country in the world. That is what we are talking about, and we are so fortunate to have Dr. Francis Collins, who headed the Human Genome Project, to lead that effort. He has been at the National Institutes of Health for 27 years. He led it during President Obama's time and during President Trump's time. He has invited the best ideas from around the country and gotten more than 1,000 proposals. We call it a shark tank because there is a reality television show where entrepreneurs fight to see who can win. Well, all we need is one or two or three winners of the sharks swimming around in this tank, and then BARDA--our other agency that is involved--can go to work with manufacturers and begin to produce tens of millions of these tests. How quickly? We don't know, and we shouldn't predict things we don't know, but our goal is to produce millions more tests by August, when 100,000 public schools want to open and 5,000 colleges want to open, first, by accelerating all the known technologies, and second, by finding some mighty white shark in this shark tank that produces a new technology. There is a lot of talk about antigen tests. There is one proposal that would have you take just a simple nose swab--not the kind of thing that goes all the way back into your throat but a simple nose swab, maybe even saliva. You take a picture of it with your cell phone, and if it is positive, it tells you and it sends that to your doctor. It is that simple. It is as simple as a pregnancy test. That would be a screening test, and you might need to take a second test to confirm it because some of these screening tests aren't 100 percent. We had a very good hearing. We heard from Dr. Collins. We have exactly the right person. We have good cooperation with BARDA, the agency that has done so much good work, and I am looking forward to the results. I would say to my colleagues, we have another hearing scheduled. We are doing our job of oversight. On next Tuesday, Senator Murray and I have scheduled a hearing on safely back to school and back to work. That will feature Dr. Fauci, who has become something of a television personality over the last 3 or 4 weeks, but he has appeared before our committee many times; Dr. Redfield, who is head of the Centers for Disease Control; Dr. Hahn, who is head of the Food and Drug Administration, which has to approve the safety and effectiveness of all these ideas; and Admiral Giroir, who is coordinating testing. Dr. Collins also said that we are making great strides in treatments and in vaccines. Congress has appropriated $3 trillion--I see my friend from Oklahoma here, so I will come to a conclusion so he can have his time--Congress has appropriated $3 trillion, but the most important money we have appropriated goes for tests, treatments, and vaccines. Dr. Collins is leading the accelerated effort with nearly 1,000 proposals now that were set up in record time--sort of a mini-Manhattan Project--to take the brainpower of this country and see if we can find a new way to create these rapid tests and then work with BARDA and manufacturers to produce tens of millions of them so we can go back to school in August and millions more so that we can get ready for the flu season. There are also promising treatments, medicines that will be ready by the summertime. As Senator Kennedy from Louisiana observed in one of our meetings, what bothers most people about this disease is that they might die from it. There is no medicine to treat it. Well, now there is one approved by the FDA, and there should be more by the summer. Finally, the administration has set as a very aggressive goal the only thing that will really put us back to anything approaching normal, which is a vaccine. Their goal is that we would produce 100 million doses by September and 300 million by the end of the year, which is much more rapid than we have ever done before. I have no idea whether it is possible, but I like the idea of the goal. So the shark tank for the tests, the acceleration of treatments for the summer, the warp speed vaccination--all in a country that has everybody working hard on the problem. Yes, there was a bump in the CDC tests to start with, but today we have tested 7 million people--more than any other country. And I think it is important for the American people to know that on tests, treatments, and vaccines, we are all working as hard as we can. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. ALEXANDER. My question will be short. Is it not true that the bill to which the Senator refers was still being written over the weekend, and it would have been impossible for the U.S. Senate to vote on it before Monday?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota. I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the discussion we just heard was about when the Senate could have voted on H.R. 6201, which was the bill that came over from the House. When did that bill from the House of Representatives arrive in the U.S. Senate?

Mr. ALEXANDER. On Tuesday, the 17th. And my second question is, Could the U.S. Senate have voted on that bill before it arrived from the House of Representatives?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Did anyone ask consent that it be voted on before Wednesday?

Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, as the majority leader said, all this vote is about is, Shall we get on the bill? Can we debate the issue? Can we get together to decide what to do about what is the most significant healthcare crisis in a century in this State? Can we get on the bill? We are saying yes; they are saying no. The distinguished Senator from West Virginia says: What about the people who need help? I have a friend who emailed me last night and said: It is too late; I am closing five small businesses. These are little businesses. Well, why did we not vote last night on this, because in this bill is the proposal by Senator Collins--Senator Collins, Republican; Senator Cardin, Democrat; Senator Rubio, Republican; Senator Shaheen, Democrat--that would loan money to small businesses of less than 500 people so they can pay their employees in West Virginia and Tennessee. And then, if they did that, it would be forgiven. In other words, it is a grant. They could keep working. That is for the employees. Every day we wait, they don't get paid. Pass this bill and the laid-off employees would be available for sick leave, which they weren't when the bill came over from the House. Pass this bill today and the employee who was laid off last week could be available for 2 weeks of sick leave at today's salary. Pass this bill and most Americans would get $1,200 per person, $2,400 a couple, $500 more for a child. They would get it one day sooner if you passed this bill last night. These are not controversial proposals. On the Collins-Rubio-Cardin- Shaheen proposal, I happened to be watching Robert Reich, the former Labor Secretary for President Clinton, who is about as far to the left as anybody goes, and someone asked him: What would be the single best thing Congress could do to help workers get their money and be paid? He said it is exactly what the Collins-Rubio-Cardin-Shaheen proposal would do--loan money to those with 500 or less and let them keep working. As for this business about big corporations, Darden is a big corporation. It owns lots of restaurants. Gaylord is a big corporation. It owns Opryland. If it has a credit problem and the Federal Reserve Board can make sure that it has enough money to stay in business, all the people who work at the Grand Ole Opry can continue to have jobs. If they don't, they will be out of work. What is wrong with that? I mean, that is the goal. Whether you work for a big company or a little company, you are still an American citizen--whether you work for FedEx or the local diner. And as far as solving the problem of the disease--and then I will let others speak--pass this bill and 1 day sooner we would have $10 billion to accelerate treatments. Treatments are what we need. We could accelerate vaccines. Vaccines are what we eventually need. Pass this bill and we would have $75 billion for hospitals and $10 billion for those diagnostic treatments I just mentioned. We would have $1.7 billion to buy more masks. All of that could happen 1 day sooner if the other side wasn't trying to attach its political agenda to a crisis bill. This is no time to be running a political campaign. As the majority leader said, the House--dominated by Democrats--sent us their ideas. We passed it through without a single amendment, even though we didn't agree with many of their ideas. We worked for days with our counterparts on the Democratic side and proposed a bill with their ideas, such as unemployment compensation, at $600 per person. That is twice as much as you get in unemployment compensation without this bill in Tennessee. Finally, I would say this: Pass this bill and 1 day sooner a Tennessee worker, instead of getting $326, would get nearly $1,000 if he or she has been laid off. There is no excuse for delaying getting on this bill. It is outrageous that it will happen.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, in a few minutes, the majority leader will begin a process that will permit the Senate to act for the third time to deal with this unprecedented healthcare crisis that we are facing. Our message to the American people is this: This is about your paycheck. This is a collection of the best ideas that Democratic Senators and Republican Senators have that we believe will generate trillions in economic support that will, No. 1, keep payroll checks coming; No. 2, relieve the financial burdens on Americans; and No. 3, begin to contain this COVID-19 virus. The legislation we will be voting on will contain about $1.7 trillion in Federal spending, and it will authorize the Federal Reserve Board and the Treasury Department to generate trillions more in liquidity and credit support for companies of all kinds to try to keep payrolls checks coming to workers. In the end, the only way to end this crisis--and the only way to get the American economy moving again--is to contain the disease. This will require, as soon as possible, adopting a new goal. That goal should be to test every American who needs it for COVID-19 as soon as possible, and then isolate and care for the few who are sick and fast-track treatments and vaccines so that Americans can go back to work and go out to eat and resume a normal life again. This legislation will make all COVID-19 tests free. The government has shut down the economy to fight this disease, and the government has to help pay the cost of the suffering that this disease has caused, but the sooner we make more tests available and stop telling Americans not to get a test, the better. Just yesterday, a California company announced a 45-minute test that could be taken in a doctor's office while also getting a flu test. Expanding tests like this will do more to get the economy moving again than spending trillions stabilizing businesses and supporting employees. Yesterday, I spoke with the chief executive officer of the company that makes that test. This is a well-established company that makes millions of flu tests. He said they could make 45,000 tests available by the end of the month and 2 million tests by the end of June. More instances of expansion of tests that you can get at the same time you visit a doctor's office is what we need. The legislation the Senate will be considering has three goals: one, keep the payroll checks coming as much as possible; two, relieve financial burdens on Americans; and, three, contain the disease. Keeping the payroll checks coming means $300 billion for loans to small businesses. If they use the loans to pay the wages, the loans will be forgiven. It authorizes the Federal Reserve Board and the Treasury Department to create trillions more in financial credit support for States, cities, and large businesses so they will be able to stay in business and pay their employees. It expands the emergency paid sick and family leave passed by the House and then the Senate last week--to workers who were laid off and later rehired by their employers. The second goal is to relieve the financial burden on Americans. That section of the bill includes checks to individuals and families: $1,200 for individuals, $2,400 for a couple, and $500 for each eligible child. Federal income taxes don't have to be filed until July 15. Estimated taxes can be delayed until October 15. It will make it easier to use retirement savings without penalty. All student loan payments will be deferred for 6 months. There are 43 million Americans with student loans. There is priority on both sides of the aisle for more Federal funding for State unemployment insurance programs, so States can increase benefits, waive the waiting week, and expand eligibility to self-employed and independent contractors. There is money for block grants for States for K-12 education, for higher education, and for children and families, including the child care and development block grants, which will provide immediate assistance to childcare centers. Finally, containing the disease is the third goal. It makes all COVID-19 tests free. There is nearly $100 billion for the public health and social services emergency fund. That is at least $75 billion for hospitals and $10.5 billion for accelerating diagnostics, treatments, and vaccines. We are probably a few months away from a treatment for COVID-19. This would accelerate the efforts that are being made now to determine if these treatments work and if they are safe. We are even further away from a vaccine, but if there is any way to accelerate that vaccine, this $10 billion will help to do that. There is another $1.7 billion for the strategic national stockpile, which has the purpose of buying the equipment that our medical personnel especially need; $4.5 billion for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for State and local preparedness and response grants and to improve public health; $80 million for the Food and Drug Administration, again, for diagnostics, treatments, and vaccines; $1.32 billion for community health centers. There are 1,400 centers with 12,000 sites. They are the hospitals for probably 28 or 30 million Americans across this country. And there is $20 billion for veterans healthcare. The goal of the legislation we will be considering has these objectives: keep the paychecks coming as much as possible, relieve financial burdens on Americans, and, most importantly, contain the disease. Senator Thune mentioned that now one of our Members, Senator Paul of Kentucky, has tested positive for the coronavirus. That reminds us of what every family in this country is going through today and worrying about. It also should remind us of the urgency of moving ahead. We have been working together for several days with our counterparts on the other side. This is a collection of ideas that will keep the paychecks coming, relieve financial burdens, and contain the disease. It is time to vote on it, approve it by a big margin, and send it to the House of Representatives so we can intensify our efforts. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask unanimous consent to speak for as much time as I may require.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I congratulate the Senator from Kansas on his eloquent remarks, expressing the feelings--certainly mine and those, I believe, of virtually every Member of this body--that we are here not as Democrats or Republicans but to work together to do whatever we can to address the concerns that are literally unprecedented. This is an unprecedented time in our country. I cannot remember a time in my life or in our history when the government has literally closed down the country in order to contain a disease. That is literally what we are doing. Whether it is the Federal Government by its travel restrictions, or whether it is the State governments suggesting that schools be closed, or whether it is mayors saying that restaurants must be closed, we are closing down the country to contain a disease. Because the government is doing that on behalf of all the people, we are going to have to pay the costs of closing down the country to contain this disease. Today, the news is that the auto industry across the country is closing down, at least temporarily. There are layoffs. I have watched over the last 40 years as Tennessee has gone from almost no auto jobs to proudly calling itself, in many ways, the No. 1 auto State. One hundred forty thousand Tennesseans work in auto jobs in Tennessee; that is one-third of all of our manufacturing jobs. They are spread through 88 counties. And over these 40 years as textiles and other industries moved away from the United States and out of our State, the auto companies moved in--virtually into every county--and our family incomes went up. So if we are, in many ways, the No. 1 auto State, then we are the No. 1 State to be hurt when the auto plants begin to close. We are also hurt, as are citizens in every State, when the restaurants shut down. Fifteen million Americans work in restaurants. It is one of our largest industries, if not our largest industry. Almost all of those workers are being laid off in Tennessee and in many other places in the country and even more will be. Not all of those affected are working for big auto companies or medium-sized restaurants. I received an email yesterday from friends in Tennessee who run a kennel. Well, you may say that is not so important. Well, it is important to a lot of us. They say: We are . . . suffering a massive drop off in our business as a result of the Coronavirus. I fear we may have to close our doors for a month or two (hopefully not that long), as our wonderful customers are forced to curtail travel. I am currently trying to secure around $50,000 in loans to supplement our dwindling reserves to see us through until May [or] June. I am currently applying . . . for SBA disaster relief. This precipitous drop in business comes on the heels of major flood damages to our fencing [caused] by the [recent] floods . . . our flood insurance refuses to cover [that]. We are not seeking charity, just a business loan from $30,000 [to] $50,000 to secure our business until it passes. We always pay our way. This couple has two young children and maybe a couple of employees in their kennel. They are awfully good people. They are salt-of-the-earth Tennesseans. They are like many Americans who are suddenly confronted with this disease that just came out of the blue and has caused our government to shut our country down. Now, what shall we do about it? Well, a couple of weeks ago, Congress and the President reacted with $8.3 billion to help beef up our public health system. We have the best public health system in the world, and we wanted to help it get started. Today, we passed a bill that some people have estimated at $100 billion, which includes a whole variety of other steps from Democrats and Republicans that includes encouraging more testing, that creates a new system of paid leave for businesses of less than 500 employees, and family leave. As Senator McConnell said, we are going to stay here this week until we take step 3. And step 3, according to the President's proposal, would include direct financial payments to Americans; it would include support for essential businesses that need stabilization like the airlines; and it would include loans to small businesses so they can keep their employees working. Perhaps that proposal would be good for that small kennel I talked about. That is said to cost perhaps another trillion dollars. A trillion dollars is a lot of money, even in the United States. Our gross domestic product is about $22.3 trillion. We have 25 percent of all the money in the world in this country just for 5 percent of the people. But the idea that we would have to spend a trillion dollars or more to contain a disease would be unthinkable a few weeks ago, but what we have learned very quickly is we are going to have to pay the cost of containing the disease because the way we are containing it is that the government is shutting down major parts of our economy. I don't believe that what we do today or what we propose to do later in the week will be enough because, as I look at the number of people being laid off in this country, our State unemployment agencies are not going to be able to deal with that. In Tennessee, for example, where unemployment has been very low and where people have found it easy to find a job, there were only 2,000 applications for unemployment insurance last week, but already this week by 2 p.m. on Wednesday, in the middle of the week, there were four times that many applications, 9,177. If you are successful in unemployment compensation in our State, you get $257 per week for 26 weeks. So we are going to have to do even more than the Congress has done, even more than the President has done, and I think we have to recognize that the President was wise on January 31, when we only had six cases of coronavirus detected in the United States, to impose the strictest travel bans on people coming into our country in 50 years. Dr. Fauci, whom all of us respect, said if he hadn't done that, we would have many more cases today. Still, we have a disease that is causing the governments--this one, the State government, the local government--to shut major parts of our economy down. That is why I voted today for the legislation that was phase 2 in our effort to respond to that, even though I have significant issues with the sick leave and family leave proposals that are part of it. I believe those provisions, while well-intended by the administration and by the House of Representatives, will hurt many employers and will shortchange many employees. First, to be fair, I want to try to make sure that what the Treasury intends to do is on the record. I have had several conversations with the Secretary of the Treasury and with other officials to ask them just what they intended to do and to list the problems that I had. So here is what they say--and I am characterizing the conversations and the writings we have had. They pointed out that what many businesses have read is in this bill was what was in the draft of it that the House passed on Friday before technical corrections were made over the weekend and that the technical corrections greatly improved the bill from the point of view of employers. The Treasury Department writes that, under the legislation, employers receive a dollar-for-dollar refundable tax credit for the COVID-19- related sick and family leave payments made to their employees. As amended--they made the technical corrections over the weekend--the credit is carefully calibrated, in the Treasury's words, to ensure that there is no sick or family leave requirement in excess of the credit. The legislation now also includes explicit grants of regulatory authority to both the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of the Treasury to ensure consistency between the leave requirements and the credit provisions. In addition--and this is what the Treasury officials have been saying to us over the last few days--the legislation now provides that the sick and family leave payments are not considered wages for employment tax purposes. The legislation now extends the employer credit to include costs for the maintenance of health benefits that are paid by the employers while employees are on leave. Lastly, the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service are considering options to provide an advance payment for the refundable credit to ease any tax flow burden that a small fraction of employers may experience. I will have more to say about that in a minute, but in plain English, what that means is that they are considering a way to make sure that, before the employer has to pay this required family leave to an employee, the Federal Government has given the money to the employer. Besides this, the legislation now includes an explicit grant of authority, the Treasury writes, to the Secretary of Labor to exempt small businesses from the only long-term leave requirements it contains where those requirements would result in financial hardship. In its conversations with me and in the writings that it has sent out, the Treasury makes the argument that, far from imposing special burdens, the net effect of this legislation is to provide an important benefit given that many already provide sick leave and that many more will need to do so in response to the COVID-19 outbreak. Moreover, by structuring coverage for paid sick leave as a credit, the legislation ensures that employers generally receive relief immediately rather than having to wait for refunds. In the event the amount of the credit exceeds an employer's tax liability, the credit is made refundable to ensure that the employer is fully compensated for all payments made under the leave requirements. The Treasury goes on to write that the Treasury and the IRS are working on options to provide an advance payment of the credit in order to get cash in the pockets of small businesses and their employees immediately. The intent of the legislation, the Treasury argues, is to fully fund the payments employers make to their employees who experience employment interruptions related to the COVID-19. In summary, according to the Department of the Treasury, the amended legislation does not require employers to make payments in excess of amounts eligible for the refundable tax credit and does not require employers to pay employment taxes on those amounts. To the contrary, it provides an important and immediate benefit to small businesses and their employees for whom financial assistance is needed as quickly as possible. That has been the argument of the Secretary of the Treasury and his subordinates in conversations with many of us over the last few days. That is their intention. Now, I read that in detail because, in the Dakotas, in Tennessee, and in many places all across this country, if my figures are right, there are about 6 million businesses that could be affected by this mandate, businesses that employ 51 million employees--or at least that did employ 51 million employees until all of the problems that have been created by this virus. In my having tried to be fair in giving you what I understand the Treasury's intention to be, which I think will be useful to the owners of small businesses, to their accountants, and to their lawyers, who are trying to figure out the law that was passed today, here are my problems with it. No. 1, I am not sure that the Treasury can live up to its promise to make sure that the employer has the money from the Federal Government before the employer has to pay the sick leave to the employee. Here is my principle. I think, in these circumstances, sick leave and family leave are a good idea. I mean, if someone is quarantined for 2 weeks, I think all of us should have to pay the cost of that and, for another 10 weeks, some of the cost of the medical and family leave. I buy that, and I can support that. Yet I believe, if Washington, DC, is going to require it, Washington, DC, should pay for it. If Washington, DC, is going to require a small business--many of which are struggling and many of which are going out of business--to pay a mandate, Washington, DC, should pay for it This is no time to be imposing on small businesses an expensive, new mandate--an unexpected new cost--when they don't have money coming in to pay for the normal costs that they had. I know it is the Secretary's goal to let it work this way, for he has told me this, and he has told all of us this. He has said it in public and has put out a statement. Under the sick leave proposal, every couple of weeks, a businessman will put aside enough money for withholding and social security taxes. That adds up to about 15 percent of an employee's salary. What the Treasury is saying is that the employer can use that money. Instead of setting it aside for the government, the employer can use it to pay sick leave. There are two problems with that. One is that I don't like the idea of the employer's using the employee's tax money. You usually get in trouble for that. If I were to set aside the Senator from North Dakota's tax payment and then use it for some purpose, you could go to jail for that in some cases. At least it is inappropriate. I am uncomfortable with that. A business might only have 7.5 percent of the salary set aside for that purpose, but even if it is 15 percent, I am not sure it is enough. The Treasury Secretary said the Treasury understands that, so it will allow advance payment, and it hopes that it can come up with a system that would get it there immediately. He hasn't promised that it would come in 1 day. I am sure, if he were here on the Senate floor, he would like to say his objective would be to get it there on the same day. Well, wanting to get it there on the same day and getting it there are two different things. If I am a small business person in Tennessee and know that I am going to have to cut a payroll check on Monday and that I have no money coming in to pay for it and that there is not enough money in my escrow account to pay for it, I would want my money from the Federal Government before I would cut the check. So I intend to try to amend the legislation that we passed this weekend to say that, with sick leave and paid family leave, since Washington is requiring it and Washington is paying for it, then Washington will need to make sure the employer has the money before the employer has to write the check. That is No. 1. No. 2, I want to make sure that the employer doesn't have to pay more on sick leave than the Federal Government's cap. There is a cap that, I think, is about $132,000 annualized pay on sick leave. If an employee makes more than that, that employee is going to have to take a pay cut or he or she might use the private right of action to sue the employer and say: I want you to pay the gap between the $132,000 and whatever I made. You may say, I am not too sympathetic to the employee who makes that much money. Yet I am not talking about being sympathetic to the employee; I am talking about being sympathetic to the employer who may not have any money. Remember, this is a Washington mandate, and Washington should pay for it. Through technical changes this past weekend--and it said so in the information I just read--the Treasury Department has amended the bill to try to make that clear, and I hope that it is successful. No. 3 is with regard to layoffs, and I mentioned the restaurant industry. There are 15 million people who work in the restaurant industry. If they are not laid off now, they are going to be mostly all laid off before very long. Unfortunately, none of those men and women who have been laid off are eligible for this sick leave because you are going to have to work for 30 days for this small business, for this company with fewer than 500 employees, in order to be eligible for the paid sick leave. I am afraid, as a result of this, many employers who are worried about this provision may have an incentive to lay off more of their employees. The truth is that one doesn't need much more incentive because you are a restaurant and have been told by the local health board to close down. You don't have any money coming in, and you can't pay your employees anyway, so you don't have any choice. My point is that this is a very limited benefit in the restaurant industry and, probably, in many other industries because it does not help the laid- off employee. Finally, there has been a lot said with regard to the smallest companies--those with fewer than 50 employees--in that they can apply to the Secretary of Labor and he will make you exempt from the mandate. I think that is a good idea because this is the small mom-and-pop diner or it might be the kennel that I just talked about that might have three or four employees and that is not accustomed to dealing with all of this Washington legalese and its requirements and regulations. It is not geared up for that. As I read the language in the law, it is a much narrower exception than that, so I am going to attempt to amend the law that passed today in order to broaden the exception so the Secretary of Labor has more authority to waive the mandate for businesses with fewer than 50 employees As I said, there are a number of important benefits in the bill that we passed today, especially on testing. We have seen a great increase in the number of available tests over the last few weeks. The Governor of Tennessee said yesterday that we have sufficient testing. Well, that is for today but maybe not for tomorrow or the next day. One of the greatest steps forward has been to finally allow commercial testing to be used. I mean, why shouldn't the Mayo Clinic or the Cleveland Clinic be able to go ahead and develop tests and move ahead with them? Now, they can. While we have done a great deal, there is a great deal more that we must do. I am convinced, even if we do as Senator McConnell has said and pass our phase three legislation this weekend, which would include loans to small businesses, direct payments to individuals, and stabilizing payments to airlines, for example, and maybe to other industries, that there is more to do. My guess is that the next step after that--phase four, let's call it--will be to look to our State employment compensation systems and make sure they are able to handle the large numbers of people who are losing their jobs because the government is shutting down the economy in order to contain the disease. I voted for the Johnson amendment today, which was to the bill for which I later voted, because I thought it was headed in the right direction. Rather than Washington's issuing mandates, I would rather Washington work with the States in an existing program and make sure that States have sufficient funding on top of their own funds to deal with the large numbers of autoworkers, restaurant workers, and workers at the small kennel that has two or three employees. In addition to that, I believe the figure in the weekly fund is going to have to be higher than the $327 that it is in Tennessee. This is unprecedented. We are closing down the economy in order to contain the disease. Because we are doing that, we governments at all levels are going to have to pay the bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, I will continue to work with the Senator from Washington State, as we always do, and on a comprehensive response to the this issue, the coronavirus. She and I have had four briefings, and we will have another one tomorrow. We have a history of being able to come to agreement on these matters. The idea of there being paid sick leave is a good idea, but if Washington, DC, thinks it is a good idea, Washington, DC, should pay for it. When I was the Governor of Tennessee, nothing used to make me more unhappy than when some well-meaning individual in the U.S. Senate or U.S. House would come up with a big idea, pass it, take credit for it, and send me the bill. Employees are struggling, and so are employers struggling, but it is not a cure for the coronavirus to, in the middle of this matter, put a big, new, expensive Federal mandate on employers who are struggling. Paid sick leave is a good idea, and we do it in my office. The Federal Government now does it, and many businesses do it. Yet, if the Federal Government wants to require it, the Federal Government should pay for it. I object.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, if your car is a lemon, you don't sue the bank; you sue the dealer. A college can be a lemon, just like a car can be. A college could promise a potential student a job and then tell them that 50 percent of their students scored perfectly on their SAT tests. The potential student might use that information to take out student loans and enroll in a college. Then, if the information turns out to be false, the student may be stuck with student loans they can't afford to repay. Unlike a car, if your college is a lemon, you do sue the bank, and the bank is the taxpayer. Today, Democrats are forcing the Senate to vote on a Congressional Review Act that, if passed, would overturn the Trump administration's borrower defense rule. This process allows a borrower of a Federal student loan to have their loan forgiven if their institution misled them and that misrepresentation led to financial harm. First, if your college closes, it is important for you to know that your loans are forgiven. Let me say that again. If your college closes, it is important for you to know that your student loan is forgiven. There are about 6,000 colleges and universities in our country, and 783 of them closed in 2018. For example, when Corinthian College closed, that made a lot of news. Many students, though, transferred to another college. But if they didn't transfer, they weren't stuck with their student loans; their loans were forgiven. We are not talking about that today when we vote. If your college isn't closing but it does defraud or mislead you, then you can file a claim. You can file a claim to have your loan forgiven, and you file it with the U.S. Department of Education. There are 42 million Americans with an outstanding Federal student loan. In 2018, about 106,000 of those 42 million Americans filed what we call borrower defense claims. They claimed they were misled by the college when they used their student loan to go to that college. In November 2016, the Obama administration issued a rule that required a borrower to demonstrate only that they had been misled, not that they had been financially harmed. The Trump administration fixes that overly broad regulation, while still protecting borrowers and the taxpayer. Here is the difference. Under the Obama administration, if one student had filed a claim and proved that he or she had been defrauded, all the other students in that program had to do was attest they had been misled in a similar way before having their loans forgiven as well. It was sort of a class action. It was unnecessary for the first student or subsequent students to prove they had been financially harmed by that misrepresentation. What this meant is, if you went to a school that had misled students, your loan could be forgiven even if you had a job making $85,000 a year. Under the Trump administration, each student needs to file a claim, prove that they were defrauded and that they were financially harmed, and then their loan would be forgiven by the taxpayer. Remember, the bank is the taxpayer. Secretary DeVos's borrower defense rule restores the original intent of the law that a borrower must be misled and harmed. The new rule establishes a fair and clear process as to what a borrower must demonstrate: No. 1, that the school misled them; No. 2, that the student relied on that information to enroll in the school; and No. 3, that the student was financially harmed. The new rule gives the borrower ample time to submit a claim and ensures that the Department is basing their judgment on all available information. The DeVos rule also protects the taxpayers who spend roughly $100 billion a year on Federal student loans. It continues to allow the Secretary to recoup funds from an institution that has defrauded or misled borrowers. It encourages borrowers and the institution to resolve issues directly rather than involving the Federal Government. And the new rule allows the Department to evaluate the level of harm to each individual borrower filing the claim and forgives the appropriate amount. For example, if you were told by the school that you would make $45,000 a year when you graduated, but you are only making $40,000, the Department could decide to forgive a part of your loan. The Obama administration's rules went too far and allowed borrowers to have their loans forgiven whether or not they had actually suffered financial harm. Secretary DeVos's new borrower defense rule restores the original intent of the law that the borrower must be misled and harmed. I encourage Senators to vote against today's Congressional Review Act. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I have 7 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Armed Services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 10, 2020, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Matthew P. Donovan, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness, and William Jordan Gillis, of Georgia, and Victor G. Mercado, of California, both to be an Assistant Secretary, all of the Department of Defense. Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 10, 2020, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 10, 2020, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Rules and Administration The Committee on Rules and Administration is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 10, 2020, at 11 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nomination: James E. Trainor III, of Texas, to be a Member of the Federal Election Commission. Select Committee on Intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 10, 2020, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a closed roundtables. Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights The Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 10, 2020, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Subcommittee on Intellectual Property The Subcommittee on Intellectual Property of the Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 10, 2020, at 2:15 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, on Friday, I flew with President Trump to Tennessee to visit with the Tennesseans who were hurt by the tornadoes last week. There were four tornadoes. They hit primarily Benton, Davidson, Wilson, and Putnam Counties. They left 24 dead, and about 150 injured. There were more than 1,500 structures that were damaged. The winds were up to 175 miles per hour in the tornado that reached Putnam County. We visited western Putnam County not far from Baxter. I talked to Matt and Angela Struggs there. She told me that at about 2 a.m., I guess it was early Wednesday morning, she heard what sounded like a freight train and then a whistle. All the people I talked with heard a freight train and a whistle. She said--of course, they were all asleep, as it was 2 a.m. in the morning, and they didn't have any warning. So she ran upstairs as the windows were being blown out of the house, grabbed her youngest child, and came downstairs where her other two children and her husband were, and the sound was gone. They opened the door and looked across the street, and her son said: ``It's gone.'' What was gone were all the homes, all the neighbors. Eight died in that neighborhood alone. The first heroes of this tragedy were those neighbors and other neighbors in Nashville, and Benton County, and Mount Juliet in Wilson County. Matt Struggs, the husband of the young woman I was talking with, is a worship leader in their church. This was obviously a very close-knit community. He said: We knew who was left by the sounds of their voices. So we set about finding them and digging them out and getting them to the hospital. This is certainly not what anyone would describe as an area of rich Americans, but they would not want to be described either as middle- income or low-income Americans, either. They are what I would call ``salt of the earth'' people, really good people--a very close-knit community whose first reaction and whose reaction the day we were there, 3 days later, was how can we help each other. After the neighbors, the next heroes were the first responders. We met with many of them in Cookeville. Next were the volunteers. They turned out by the hundreds. Rick Gilbert, who is disaster coordinator for the Church of Christ in downtown Cookeville, talked with me about what they had there, but he didn't have to tell me. I could see it. There were stockpiles of boxes with everything imaginable that someone would want. Whatever they need, is what we try to give people who come here. These Tennesseans were grateful for the visit by President Trump. It was more than the fact that this was the first time any President of the United States had visited Cookeville, TN. This is an important town, but it is a town between Nashville and Knoxville about nearly halfway, and Presidents come to Nashville or Knoxville or Memphis or Chattanooga or our bigger cities when they come to Tennessee. But not only did the President go to Cookeville--that was a 40-minute helicopter flight--he drove another 30 or 40 minutes to this neighborhood where the Struggs and their neighbors live--the ones who opened the door and looked across the street and saw that everything was gone. The President stayed, and he talked for a long time. He listened, and they appreciated it very much. He and the other Federal officials announced a major disaster declaration in, what I believe to be record time. So by the time we were there on Friday, there were 75 Federal Emergency Management Agency personnel on the ground in Tennessee, and there were three shelters already open. I just talked with Congressman Jim Cooper from Nashville who has been deeply involved with this since the beginning, and he talked about the shelters being opened and the devastation at the Tennessee State University's Agriculture Center there in Nashville. Governor Lee and his wife Maria were there, and he did, as usual, a remarkably good job. He, like the President, has an easy way of dealing with people. Congressman John Rose was there. His hometown is Cookeville, the community where we were visiting. Senator Blackburn was there. She had gone with Congressman Rose on Wednesday and Thursday as soon as she heard about it. So she went back on Friday with us. Of course, the mayors of all those communities hadn't gotten much sleep since Tuesday night when the tragedy occurred. They know--and the President and the Governor and I and Senator Blackburn, we all said to them: We know we can't resolve this. We can't make things like they used to be. We know we can't give you all the help you need, but we are here. That is really all they expected or all they wanted. This is not our first tornado in Tennessee. According to The Tennessean newspaper, we have had 18 in the last 25 years, and several of them have been strong tornadoes like this one. But the people of Tennessee would want me to express our heartfelt appreciation to the President and to the Federal officials who, in the midst of everything else they had to do, jumped on this tragedy immediately, got the declaration out quickly, had the FEMA personnel on site, and had the shelters opened in what seemed to me to be a record amount of time. They then joined with the Tennessee volunteers and the neighbors and the first responders who set out to help the Tennesseans who were hurt. There was a beautiful article written this morning that appeared in the New York Times by Margaret Renkl from Nashville about the meaning of hashtag ``NashvilleStrong,'' in which she talks about in her last sentence that ``while we understand we have not been singled out by God for survival, we also understand that we can be God's hands here in the rubble, helping our neighbors dig out.'' That is what is happening in Tennessee, and the President, the Federal officials, and the others who went to help, we greatly appreciate what they did, and I wanted to come to the floor to say that. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I am on the floor to speak about the coronavirus, but first let me express to the families in Tennessee my heartfelt concern for them as the result of a tornado that swept through Middle Tennessee last night while people were sleeping. The number of deaths is 22 so far in Nashville, and in Wilson, Putnam, and Benton Counties. I have seen floods, and I have seen fires. The damage they cause is terrible, but there is nothing quite like seeing what a tornado can do. It can arrive in 30 seconds or 1 minute and be gone and leave behind it death and buildings laid flat to the ground. I can't imagine what it must be like for that to happen at 1 in the morning when nobody knows it is coming. I will be in Tennessee on Friday when the Senate concludes its business this week and will be visiting those areas. Our office has been in touch with mayors in all of the counties and communities affected. Senator Blackburn and I are working together, along with the rest of the Tennessee delegation in the House, to make certain that we give full Federal support to Governor Lee. The President talked to Governor Lee today, and, as a result of that call, the White House put out a statement indicating the President may be in Tennessee on Friday. That would be welcomed as well. Coronavirus Mr. President, let me speak for a moment about the coronavirus. The country was transfixed by the impeachment process for about a month, and now they are transfixed by the coronavirus, but this is different. This is personal. This could affect each of us. When I am home--and I am sure when the Presiding Officer is home--there are lots of questions about the coronavirus. I want to speak this morning about a hearing that we had in the Senate's Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee that was reassuring to me and, I think, to the Democrats as well as the Republicans there. It was reassuring because we had four respected professionals from the government with broad experience in dealing with public health crises--whether it is anthrax, Ebola, or other coronaviruses. We have had all of that in the United States in the last 25 years, and we have dealt with that. At the end of the hearing, Senator Murray, the ranking Democrat on the committee, and I, and the Democrats on committee who aren't bashful, and the Republicans on committee who aren't bashful, but I think I can speak for them in saying those four professionals, many of whom have worked for 25 or 30 years in terms of helping our country deal with health crises, continue to earn our respect. We believe what they tell us, and they promised to tell us the truth. When I saw the Vice President earlier today, I said to him: Mr. Vice President, I am glad that you have been placed in charge of this. As a former Governor, I think it makes sense to place a Vice President--that indicates the highest level of attention--and a former Governor, someone who is accustomed to working with States and local governments, in charge of a problem that is going to be solved primarily by our exceptional State and local public health systems. So I think you are exactly the right person to be in charge. My advice to him was to let the professionals do the talking because people believe them. If the President and the Vice President give their view, they are entitled to do it, but someone will think they are simply justifying what they are doing. If the Democrats, on the other hand, say something about the coronavirus response, someone will think, well, they are just criticizing President Trump. But if Dr. Fauci, for example, who for over 35 years--since 1984, which is a long time, working for President Reagan, President H. W. Bush, President Clinton, President George W. Bush, President Obama, and President Trump; working on HIV/AIDS; working on anthrax; working on two Ebola epidemics--if Dr. Fauci answers a question and tells us something, we believe that. What we need is accurate information for the American people about exactly where we stand with this crisis and what we need to do in Congress that we have not already done. So, in the next few minutes, I would like to talk about what we heard this morning and to compliment those four professionals who were there: Dr. Anne Schuchat, is the Principal Deputy Director of the Centers for Disease Control. She has had 30 years working with infectious diseases, most of that time with the CDC. Dr. Fauci I just described, working with six Presidents. I believe he has virtually universal respect here for truth-telling and competence. Dr. Robert Kadlec. He is the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the Department of Health and Human Services. He used to advise the Department of Defense, and then he helped Senator Burr to write the legislation that set up the agency that helps us be better prepared to deal with such health crises as we might experience here. Then Dr. Stephen Hahn. He is the newest one of the four in terms of coming to the government, but he has been the head of the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas, one of the most respected institutions in the world. So those are the professionals that we heard this morning. Now, what did we hear? We heard that the coronavirus is alarming in terms of what is happening around the world. There are 90,000 cases or more and 3,000 deaths. All of this has happened in the last 2, 2\1/2\ months, so far as we know. What has happened at home? What has happened at home here in the United States is that we have slightly more than 100 cases that are detected. About half of those are Americans who were traveling and had to be brought home and were repatriated, as we say, and the other half have been detected here. Unfortunately, we have had six deaths. It is fair to say that citizens in the United States are at low risk for infection from the coronavirus, but you don't have to take my word for it. Take the word of the professionals who testified this morning before the Senate's Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee or take the words of what the New York Times said a couple of days ago on its front page in the Sunday newspaper in describing the situation in the United States. Here is what the Times said: ``Much about the coronavirus remains unclear, and it is far from certain that the outbreak will reach severe proportions in the United States or affect many regions at once.'' Continuing, the New York Times: ``With its top-notch scientists, modern hospitals and sprawling public health infrastructure, most experts agree, the United States is among the countries best prepared to prevent or manage such an epidemic.'' That is the New York Times' front page assessment 2 days ago. Now, in addition to the possible effect on the lives of Americans, this problem can disrupt our economy. Twenty percent of what we import, according to our Trade Representative, comes from China. So we are not just talking about medicines or masks. We are talking about parts of cars or chemicals, such as those for Eastman Chemical in East Tennessee, which employs thousands of people. It can cause our economy to slow down and economies in the rest of the world to slow down. The purpose of our hearing this morning was, first, to get an idea of what Americans needed to know about the coronavirus. We learned some things. We learned that, based on the data that we have and that has been received just in the last couple of days from China, we haven't seen many children infected by the coronavirus. They may be, but the average age of the people who seem to be infected by it is 50, and the people who get the sickest are people who are already sick. The second thing we have learned seems so simple it doesn't seem to be true. What can we do about the coronavirus? How can we keep from getting it? Wash your hands. Wash your hands. I find myself now doing it a few more times a day, and I didn't used to do it as often. Our hands pick up germs from our cell phones or from the rails we touch or from the hands we shake or from the seats in front of us on the airplane. Then what do we do? We put our hands on our face many more times an hour than most people are aware. That is the single biggest way this spreads. Wash your hands. That is what Dr. Fauci says--the professional who has been working on these diseases for decades. Here is something else we learned to put the coronavirus into context. We are just past the peak of the flu season. Most of us know about the flu. We have a vaccine for the flu--not for the coronavirus, but for the flu--and most of us take it. But there are tens of millions of us who will get the flu this flu season. Fifty thousand Americans, on average, die from the flu each year--50,000 Americans. It might be 30,000 one year and might be 70,000 in a very bad year. But there are a lot of people who die from the flu. The flu is a respiratory disease, just like the coronavirus is a respiratory disease. It is a different respiratory disease, but the symptoms are similar: fever and a cough. We also learned this morning from the professionals who told us this: For 80 percent of the people who are infected with the coronavirus, it is a fairly mild experience. Twenty percent--mainly older people--are sicker, and they are the ones who need the attention. Those are some of the things we learned this morning from the professionals who have been working on epidemics or potential epidemics for a long time. What should we do about it? Let's start with what we have done about it. I think it is important for the American people to know that. Let's start with Congress. This is not our first rodeo, so to speak. We have faced public health threats for the last 20 years. There are Members of Congress and staff who were here during the anthrax attack in 2001, nearly 20 years ago. In 2003, we saw SARS. That was another type of coronavirus. Then, in 2009, the flu pandemic killed more than 150,000 people around the world. Then there were the Ebola outbreaks in 2014 and 2018. After every one of those incidents, Congress, working with Democratic and Republican Presidents, tried to prepare the Federal Government to be ready for the next problem. After anthrax, we created Project BioShield to develop and stockpile new treatments and vaccines. After the 2003 SARS outbreak, in 2006, Congress created the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act. Senator Burr of North Carolina was the principal author. It guides the government on how to respond to public health emergencies, and it created a fund the government can use to respond quickly to problems that come up. Last year, Congress provided more than $4 billion for public health and preparedness programs. When a crisis occurs, like this coronavirus--all of which has happened since the first of the year, maybe a little since December, but mostly since the first of the year-- money is often needed quickly, so Congress created a couple of funds the agencies can take money from. One of them is the Rapid Response Fund. Secretary Azar has already taken $105 million from that fund for this healthcare issue. We have given him the authority to take another $136 million, which he has done. The President has recommended $2.5 billion more. Congress, with many different suggestions having been made, this week is likely to approve additional funding to do whatever our professionals tell us needs to be done to keep us safe and help protect our economy. In addition to what Congress has done, our various Presidents have done even more. For example, President Obama, if you will remember, sent our military to Africa to deal with the Ebola outbreak before it came here. That was quite an extraordinary action. President George W. Bush sent Centers for Disease Control scientists around the world to help with the SARS epidemic. In the same way, President Trump has done something that hasn't been done in this country for over 50 years. At a time when there were only six confirmed cases of coronavirus in the United States, this administration announced they would quarantine Americans who may have been exposed to the virus while in China and would not allow foreign nationals who traveled to China in the last 14 days to enter the United States, and warned Americans not to travel to China and, more recently, to think more carefully about traveling to parts of Italy or South Korea. The President added Iran to these travel restrictions more recently. Dr. Fauci, the National Institutes of Health professional whom we heard from this morning, said that without those Executive actions, we would have many more cases right now. The third thing the administration has done is to develop a test to diagnose whether you have the coronavirus. We didn't have that before because this is a new virus. The administration is rapidly working on that--not as fast as everyone would like, but fast, so far as I can tell. The FDA is working with 65 private sector test developers in addition to the 46 labs in 38 States who are using the Centers for Disease Control test. The goal is to have in place kits that will allow 1 million tests to be done shortly. As far as a vaccine, the professionals are working on a vaccine more rapidly than any vaccine ever before, but it still takes more than a year. However, the President met with drug manufacturers to see if existing treatments might be used earlier. Our National Laboratories have gotten involved as well. As we look at the impact of the coronavirus, we think mostly about our own health, but we also see other issues, such as the effect on our economy. 13 percent of the facilities that make active ingredients for drugs are in China. We need to take a look at that. I would like to conclude where I started. People ask me: What can we do about the coronavirus? The answer is as simple as wash your hands, drink a lot of water, and isolate yourself if you feel sick. If you have a fever and a cough, call your doctor. Stay home, and don't infect your neighbors. Are we going to be able to contain the coronavirus in the United States? I go back to what the New York Times said on its front page on Sunday. We have experienced dealing with new diseases in the United States. We have professionals who, for several decades through several administrations, both Democratic and Republican, have been successful in doing that. We have Presidents, both Democratic and Republican, who have taken strong Executive action, including this one, to protect the American people. In short, while this is an alarming problem around the world--surely, more Americans will become infected--most experts agree that we are fortunate that the United States is the country in the world with the scientists, with the resources, and with the experience to do the best possible job of containing the spread of this virus. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, last week Templeton Press published an important new book, ``How to Educate an American: The Conservative Vision for Tomorrow's Schools.''edited by the Fordham Institute's Michael J. Petrilli and Chester E. Finn, Jr., and published by Templeton Press. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the preface I wrote for the book.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, in this impeachment proceeding, I worked with other Senators to make sure that we had the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there was no need for more evidence to prove something that I believe had already been proven and that did not meet the U.S. Constitution's high bar for an impeachable offense. There was no need for more evidence to prove that the President asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. He said this on television on October 3, 2019, and he said it during his July 25, 2019, telephone call with the President of Ukraine. There was no need for more evidence to conclude that the President withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. The House managers have proved this with what they called a ``mountain of overwhelming evidence.'' One of the managers said it was ``proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.'' There was no need to consider further the frivolous second Article of Impeachment that would remove from the President and future Presidents--remove this President for asserting his constitutional prerogative to protect confidential conversations with his close advisers. It was inappropriate for the President to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold U.S. aid to encourage this investigation. When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law. But the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the President from office and ban him from this year's ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate. The question, then, is not whether the President did it but whether the Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did. I believe that the Constitution clearly provides that the people should make that decision in the Presidential election that began on Monday in Iowa. The Senate has spent 11 long days considering this mountain of evidence, the arguments of the House managers and the President's lawyers, their answers to Senators' questions, and the House record. Even if the House charges were true, they don't meet the Constitution's ``Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors'' standard for impeachable offense. The Framers believed that there never ever should be a partisan impeachment. That is why the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict. Yet not one House Republican voted for these articles. If this shallow, hurried, and wholly partisan impeachment were to succeed, it would rip the country apart, pouring gasoline on the fire of cultural divisions that already exist. It would create a weapon of perpetual impeachment to be used against future Presidents whenever the House of Representatives is of a different political party. Our founding documents provide for duly elected Presidents who serve with ``the consent of the governed,'' not at the pleasure of the U.S. Congress. Let the people decide. A year ago, at the Southeastern Conference basketball tournament, a friend of 40 years sitting in front of me turned to me and said: ``I am very unhappy with you for voting against the President.'' She was referring to my vote against the President's decision to spend money that Congress hadn't appropriated to build the border wall. I believed then and now that the U.S. Constitution gives to the Congress the exclusive power to appropriate money. This separation of powers creates checks and balances in our government that preserve our individual liberty by not allowing, in that case, the Executive to have too much power. I replied to my friend: ``Look, I was not voting for or against the President. I was voting for the United States Constitution.'' Well, she wasn't convinced. This past Sunday, walking my dog Rufus in Nashville, I was confronted by a neighbor who said she was angry and crushed by my vote against allowing more witnesses in the impeachment trial. ``The Senate should remove the President for extortion,'' she said. I replied to her: ``I was not voting for or against the President. I was voting for the United States Constitution, which, in my view, does not give the Senate the power to remove a President from his office and from this year's election ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate. The United States Constitution says a President may be convicted only for Treason, Bribery, and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors. President Trump's actions regarding Ukraine are a far cry from that. Plus,'' I said, ``unlike the Nixon impeachment, when almost all Republicans voted to initiate an impeachment inquiry, not one single Republican voted to initiate this impeachment inquiry against President Trump. The Trump impeachment,'' I said to her, ``was a completely partisan action, and the Framers of the United States Constitution, especially James Madison, believed we should never ever have a partisan impeachment. That would undermine the separation of powers by allowing the House of Representatives to immobilize the executive branch, as well as the Senate, by a perpetual partisan series of impeachments.'' Well, she was not convinced. When our country was created, there never had been anything quite like it--a democratic republic with a written Constitution. Perhaps its greatest innovation was the separation of powers among the Presidency, the Supreme Court, and the Congress. The late Justice Scalia said this of checks and balances: ``Every tin horn dictator in the world today, every president for life, has a Bill of Rights. . . . What has made us free is our Constitution.'' What he meant was, what makes the United States different and protects our individual liberty is the separation of powers and the checks and balances in our Constitution. The goal of our Founders was not to have a King as a chief executive, on the one hand, or not to have a British-style parliament, on the other, which could remove our chief executive or prime minister with a majority or no-confidence vote. The principle reason our Constitution created a U.S. Senate is so that one body of Congress can pause and resist the excesses of the Executive or popular passions that could run through the House of Representatives like a freight train. The language of the Constitution, of course, is subject to interpretation, but on some things, its words are clear. The President cannot spend money that Congress doesn't appropriate--that is clear-- and the Senate can't remove a President for anything less than treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors, and two-thirds of us, the Senators, must agree on that. That requires a bipartisan consensus. We Senators take an oath to base our decisions on the provisions of our Constitution, which is what I have endeavored to do during this impeachment proceeding. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to include a few documents in the Record following my remarks. They include an editorial from February 3 from the Wall Street Journal; an editorial from the National Review, also dated February 3; an opinion editorial by Robert Doar, president of the American Enterprise Institute on February 1; an article from KnoxTNToday, yesterday; and a transcript from my appearance on ``Meet the Press'' on Sunday, February 2, 2020. These documents illuminate and further explain my statement today. Thank you.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. I send a question to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Daines, and Senator Cruz.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided between the Senator from Washington and myself and that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided between the two leaders prior to the following vote. I further ask that the remaining votes in this series be 10 minutes each.

Mr. ALEXANDER. We have a vacancy at the Food and Drug Administration. So what if someone said: Wouldn't it be a good idea to go see if we can recruit the chief medical officer at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, one of the most distinguished institutions in the world, an organization that is even larger than the FDA? Wouldn't it be a good idea to go get a practicing oncologist? Wouldn't it be a good idea to get somebody who has worked at the National Institutes of Health and who has letters of recommendation from more than 80 organizations? Wouldn't it be a good idea to get someone who has been recommended and endorsed by the last five FDA Commissioners, under Presidents Trump, Obama, and Bush? Well, we have such a person. That person came out of our committee 18 to 5--Dr. Stephen Hahn, the Chief Medical Officer of the MD Anderson Cancer Center. We should be grateful he is willing to take this job at this period of time. I urge a ``yes'' vote, Mr. President.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, every year, Americans make nearly 3 billion trips to the drugstore, pharmacies, convenience stores to pick up over-the-counter products such as allergy medicines, children's cough syrup, or simple pain medicines such as aspirin. As the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee was working on the 21st Century Cures Act in 2016, I asked Janet Woodcock, the Director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research at the Food and Drug Administration: Are there any changes that really need to be made in the FDA's law? This is a train--referring to the 21st century cures legislation--that is likely to get to the station. If you have something that really needs to be done for the benefit of American consumers that you haven't been able to get done, tell us what it is, and we will put it on the train. Well, Ms. Woodcock, who has been at the FDA for a while, came back to me and said the over-the-counter monograph. Now, what that means is these are the rules that govern how all drugs sold in pharmacies, other than prescription drugs, are approved--the allergy medicines, the cough syrups, the simple pain medicines. Those haven't been changed since the 1970s, nearly 50 years ago. Today the Senate, after all that time, nearly a half century, will modernize these rules by passing legislation proposed by Senator Isakson and Senator Casey. It is called the Over-the-Counter Monograph Safety, Innovation and Reform Act. I am sure it will get a big vote of approval, and like a lot of other very important things that are done in the Senate that are very, very difficult to do, it will look easy. It hasn't been easy. It has taken a long time--nearly a half century. It was the one thing that the FDA said we just can't get done. That was in 2016, 3 years ago, and now Senator Isakson and Senator Casey are getting it done. It is the most important law affecting the safety, innovation, and cost of over-the-counter drugs since the 1970s. It is a great testament to Senator Isakson's leadership and legislative skill. He, of course, is leaving the Senate at the end of this year, and this is a fitting tribute to his work. In the same way, I thank Senator Casey of Pennsylvania for his excellent work, in bipartisan fashion, with Senator Isakson on this bill. They both deserve great credit and thanks for getting this update across the finish line. It may look easy, but what they have done is something that hasn't been changed for nearly a half century and that the Food and Drug Administration said was the one thing that needed to be done to help consumers to affect the availability, the safety, the cost, and the innovation of drugs that are sold across the counter that are not prescription drugs. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, on behalf of all of us, I want to thank the Democratic leader for his courtesy and his support on this. He and Senator McConnell have made it possible for us to do this. I am going to limit my remarks to a couple of minutes, and then Senator Murray and then Senator Scott, Senator Coons, Senator Jones are here, and we will finish by 10:50. Madam President, it is hard to think of a piece of legislation that would have a more lasting impact upon minority students in America than the bill that the Senate just passed. I believe, in doing so, we have improved the provision in the House bill that was sent to us. That is what we did; we amended a House bill that we are now sending back to them. We have been working with leaders in the House to make sure that our bill is something the House can accept and pass. We hope that will happen in the next couple of weeks, and here is the result of it happening: No. 1, a big step for historically Black colleges and minority institutions--permanent funding at the level of $255 million a year for those institutions that serve up to 2 million minority students. That is No. 1. The second big step is one that Senator Murray and I and our committee, Senator Jones, Senator Bennet, Senator King, and many others have been working on for 5 years to simplify the form that students use to apply for Federal aid for college. Twenty million families fill out what is called the FAFSA, a Federal aid form, every year; then we have students who borrow more than $100 billion a year. What we have done in this bill is reduce the complexity of filing that FAFSA form by saying to students: You don't have to give your Federal tax information to the government twice. We will take the up to 22 questions that are a part of the 108-question FAFSA, and we will eliminate them, and if the student gives his or her express consent, the Internal Revenue Service will answer those questions for the student. I can't tell you how many times students, parents, college presidents, Federal aid counselors have told me that the application and the verification of this information has discouraged low-income students from coming to college. Five and one-half million of the twenty million students who fill out these forms have the accuracy of those forms questioned. This will eliminate that for most of the students because they will have to give that information to the government only once. I want to thank Senator Murray especially for her work on this. We work together on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee in the Senate, but Senator Coons, Senator Scott, Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina--which has the largest number of historically Black colleges--and Senator Jones of Alabama have also been crucial with their support. I yield the floor to Senator Murray.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, today, the Senate passed a solution that Senator Murray and I reached to permanently fund historically Black colleges and universities and other minority serving institutions. It is hard to think of a piece of legislation that would have more of a lasting impact on minority students and their families than this bill. This legislation does two things: First, it provides permanent funding--that is fully paid for--for HBCUs and other Minority-Serving Institutions attended by over 2 million minority students. Second, after 5 years of bipartisan effort, it greatly simplifies the free application for Federal student aid--the FAFSA--that 20 million families, including 8 million minority students, fill out every year to qualify for Federal student aid. This bipartition provision--which was sponsored by Senators Murray, Whitehouse, and Gardner when it passed the Senate by unanimous consent last December--stops families from having to give their same tax information to the Federal Government twice--first to the IRS, then again to the Department of Education. Students give permission to the IRS and the Department of Education to share tax return data, which eliminates up to 22 questions on the FAFSA with one click. It should eliminate most of the so-called verification process, which is a bureaucratic nightmare that 5.5 million students go through annually to make sure the information they gave to the Department of Education is exactly the same as they gave to the IRS. The president of East Tennessee State University recently told me that half the students applying to ETSU go through verification at some point. According to the Department of Education, it helps taxpayers by eliminating up to $6 billion each year in mistakes--both in overpayments and underpayments--in Pell grants and student loans. It has taken 20 years to reach this result, and it would not have happened without Jeff Appel, a longtime staff member at the Department of Education who recently passed away, and Secretary DeVos and Secretary Mnuchin's commitment to getting this over the finish line. In addition, I want to thank the staff who have been instrumental in getting the proposal to this place: on Senator Murray's staff, Kara Marachione, Bryce McKibben, Mary Barry, and Evan Schatz. Conor Sheehey with Senator Scott. Rebecca Howard with Senator Jones. Christopher Toppings with Senator Burr. Corey Linehan with Senator Coons. And from my staff, Robert Moran, Lauren Davies, Andrew LaCasse, Mary Catherine Cook, and David Cleary. The final step to simplify the FAFSA is to pass additional legislation that will reduce the 108 questions on the FAFSA to a total of between 18 and 30 questions and make Pell grants predictable so students can know how much grant aid they will receive to attend college. I and Senators Murray, Scott, Jones, Burr, and Coons worked together to reach this result and I am glad the Senate passed it today so it can be sent to the House and signed into law by the President before the end of the year.