John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett unanimously. It was unanimous because our Democratic colleagues sought to boycott the meeting. But what they basically did was expedite consideration of her nomination. It was really kind of puzzling to see the chairs that were set aside for our Democratic colleagues filled with large, blown-up pictures, and I will sort of get to that in a moment, the false narrative that we have seen here because our colleagues cannot successfully attack the character or the qualifications of this incredible nominee to this seat on the Supreme Court. Judge Barrett discussed everything from the separation of powers to the free expression clause of the First Amendment. Many of us marveled at her knowledge and her ability to recall facts and legal decisions without so much as even a note in front of her. It is no surprise that the American Bar Association, which the minority leader has called the gold standard, gave her their highest rating. The chair of the Standing Committee on the Judiciary said: ``[I]n interviews with individuals in the legal profession and community who know Judge Barrett, whether for a few years or decades, not one person uttered a negative word about her character.'' That assessment is in line with the glowing letters of support we have seen from her former colleagues and students whose political philosophies and beliefs fall across the entire political spectrum. What we have repeatedly heard is about Judge Barrett's brilliance, her strong character, her great temperament, and her impressive humility. Judge Barrett, I am convinced, will serve our Nation well in the Supreme Court. It is clear that the mountains of evidence stand in sharp contrast to the portrait our colleagues across the aisle have attempted to paint of this nominee. Democrats have tried to claim that she is somehow ``too radical,'' despite the fact that in her 3 years on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, she has agreed with her colleagues 95 percent of the time in the 600 cases they have decided. Back in 2017, when she was nominated to the Seventh Circuit, she was attacked explicitly because of her Catholic faith, even though our colleagues know that under the Constitution, no religious test is permissible, really suggesting that because of her faith, she couldn't follow her oath to decide cases on the facts and the law that come before her--truly insulting and completely out of character with the person we saw in Judge Barrett in front of the Judiciary Committee. Our colleagues even went so far as to hold up a chart with more than 100 cases listed and claimed that Judge Barrett would overturn every single one of those precedents. There is certainly no evidence of that. Nothing in the record would suggest it. With her fidelity to the law, do you think she would be so reckless? Well, of course not. There is just no evidence to support it. But we know that because they couldn't attack her on the merits, they decided to use fearmongering instead. Through innuendo, misinformation, and intellectually dishonest arguments, they have been trying to stoke fears about how she may rule on a case she has not even heard yet. This is sort of a sky-is-falling argument, a Chicken Little argument. It really has more to do with the way our Democratic colleagues view the judicial branch. They view it as another political branch, as opposed to an apolitical branch that is supposed to interpret the law and the facts and decide cases on their own merits. Instead of addressing her judicial philosophy, our Democratic colleagues eagerly shared their plan, should she be confirmed, to pack the Supreme Court with additional Justices to give them the political results they cannot achieve with the current composition of the Court. This is something that Ruth Bader Ginsburg explicitly condemned, saying that this would turn the Supreme Court into just another political body. You can imagine if Democrats, when they are in power, decide to add additional judges who may decide cases in the way they would like to see them decided, the temptation would be great for the other side of the aisle to add judges to the Supreme Court. It would completely destroy what has been rightly called the crown jewels of our Constitution, and that is our independent judiciary. For many Americans, the idea of mutating our only apolitical branch of government is absolutely terrifying. So, not surprisingly, our colleagues across the aisle have tried to rebrand and call this rebalancing the Court. Back home, this is what we call putting lipstick on a pig. Using words like ``rebalance'' is a way to obscure, really, what their goal is. They want to seize what they view as an unaccountable body and use it to secure wins they can't win in the rough and tumble of the legislative process. If you can't win an election, if you can't win a vote in Congress, well, get the Supreme Court, get the judiciary to bail you out. That is not the appropriate role of judges or the judiciary under our Constitution. Our Democratic colleagues seem absolutely fearful about judges who will actually apply the law as written. They want somebody to impose a result that they wish were required. They want judges to evaluate cases not by the letter of the law but through the same lens of personal and political biases. In short, they don't really want a fair and impartial judge like Judge Barrett. They want a guaranteed result. Our Democratic colleagues repeatedly pushed Judge Barrett to say how she would rule on future cases. They asked her to share her personal views on controversial issues. They demanded a commitment from her to recuse herself from specific cases. But, once again, Judge Barrett proved why she is the right person for this job. She followed the precedent set by former and current Justices and respectfully refrained from answering those sorts of provocative questions. Contrary to what our Democratic colleagues believe, Supreme Court Justices are not life-tenured superlegislators. They are obligated to apply the law as written--no favors, no biases, no predetermined outcomes. That is what Judge Ginsburg said when she was confirmed, and that is why it is so important to confirm Amy Coney Barrett. She has artfully demonstrated her understanding of the role of the judiciary and shown she has the temperament, the intellect, and the experience to serve on the Nation's highest Court. She won't impose her personal beliefs. She said that time and again. And to suggest that she would somehow violate her judicial oath in a future case is inconsistent with everything we have come to know about Amy Coney Barrett. She won't impose her personal beliefs. She won't try to favor one side or the other, and she won't legislate from the bench. That is exactly the kind of nominee that Republicans and Democrats should want on the High Court. So I look forward to supporting Judge Barrett's nomination on Monday, when we finally vote to confirm her

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have enjoyed the colloquy here between our colleagues on election interference. I am privileged to serve on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that has undertaken a 3\1/ 2\-year-long investigation of the election interference that occurred in 2016, and I think the five-volume report of the Select Committee on Intelligence--bipartisan report--is indicative of the seriousness with which we all treat this subject. But I appreciate the Senator from Idaho, the chairman of the Banking Committee, for his comments, for refreshing all of our memories about the huge amounts of money that we have spent in assistance to State and local election authorities, as well as the good work being done by the Department of Homeland Security to help them secure their networks against cyber attacks, as well as other elements of the U.S. Government, including our intelligence community, the National Security Agency, and others. This is important work, but I agree with him--this is not how we actually build bipartisan consensus here, by coming and asking for unanimous consent without going through the appropriate procedures and, frankly, the hard work that it takes to build consensus. Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett Mr. President, on another matter, today the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to serve on the Supreme Court. Throughout her hearing last week, Judge Barrett wowed America and certainly my constituents in Texas with her impressive knowledge of the law and her clear understanding about the limited but important role that judges play in our Republic. She followed the precedent set down by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the so- called Ginsburg rule, and refrained from answering questions on how she would rule in future cases or commenting on contentious political issues. I think she was correct to do so. We shouldn't embroil judges in the political controversies that we debate here. Judges are not policymakers, primarily. They are certainly not accountable to the voters. They have lifetime tenure. That is why their responsibilities are limited but important at the same time. Nor by asking her questions back in 2017 about her religious beliefs, whether she is an orthodox Catholic, having to listen to statements like ``Well, the dogma lives loudly within you'' because she is a woman of faith, suggesting that somehow she would violate her oath as a judge and impose her own views instead of the law from the role--from the bench. Well, I think Judge Barrett took all of us to school a little bit and reminded us very clearly that it is a judge's job to impartially apply the law as written, whether it is the Constitution itself or the laws that Congress passes. She not only stated her commitment to this most basic principle, but she also has a record to back it up. During her time on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Barrett has sided with her colleagues 95 percent of the time in more than 600 cases. It is no surprise that the American Bar Association, which the minority leader has called the gold standard, gave Judge Barrett its highest rating, saying she is well qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. But we all knew that. As I looked around the room during the first day of questioning, I noticed all the binders that people like me and my other colleagues had--notebooks, piles of paper, books, reference books on both the desks of Republican and Democratic members of the committee. If my colleagues' materials preparing for this historic hearing were anything like mine, they included previous decisions by Judge Barrett, academic writings, letters of support, and detailed background information about her career. But I noted that, as Judge Barrett was answering our questions, she seemed to be doing so without even glancing down at any notes. So I asked Judge Barrett--I violated the No. 1 rule that you learn as a lawyer not to ask a question you don't know the answer to. I did it anyway because I had a hunch. I asked her to hold up the notepad sitting in front of her to show us what materials she had been using during the hearing. It was a memorable moment. She held it up and smiled, and it was blank. I think that spoke volumes about her competency, her preparation, her intelligence--all things that would commend her confirmation. Well, with each question she answered, Judge Barrett demonstrated her vast knowledge of the law. She made clear she understood, as I said, the limited role of judges, and she showed compassion and heart as she poured herself into her work each and every day. Numerous Senators have noted that, under ordinary circumstances, a nominee like this would get overwhelming support, but unfortunately these aren't normal circumstances. Our colleagues on the other side made clear from the get-go that, for them, this confirmation process wasn't even about the nominee or her qualifications. They attempted to hijack the hearing and use it for--well, it is a harsh word, but it is true--fearmongering. Last week's hearing was like split-screen TV. On one half, Republican Senators asked the judge about her judicial philosophy, prior rulings, and a range of constitutional doctrines. On the other half, our Democratic colleagues delivered monologues about ObamaCare--about a future case that she may be called upon to participate in. They attempted to convince the American people that if she was confirmed, she would somehow take away their healthcare. Well, that is, at bottom, an insult to the judge. It somehow presumes that she is essentially auditioning for the job based on her ruling in a future case. That would violate every aspect of a judge's oath. As Judge Barrett noted, judges don't make policy pronouncements; they decide cases. And she very carefully described the case that is pending in front of the Supreme Court. It is not about ObamaCare writ large; it is about a technical doctrine called severability: If one part of a statute is deemed unconstitutional--and this one, I believe, is, the individual mandate, because we zeroed out the penalty under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act--the question is, Does the rest of the legislation-- does the rest of ObamaCare stand, or does it all have to be struck down? Well, she noted that there had been a number of cases decided recently by the current Supreme Court that seemed to treat severability with particular care. Indeed, as a scholastic, as an academic, I think she and others noted that it is not exactly appropriate for judges to go out and strike down statutes except to the extent that they are unconstitutional. They said: If she is not coming for your healthcare, she will serve corporate interests, destroy the environment, somehow chip away at our liberties. These are nothing but baseless scare tactics and stunts from our Democratic colleagues. The latest one came this morning, when they actually boycotted the Judiciary Committee vote on Judge Barrett. They couldn't even be bothered to show up and vote against the nominee they claim is a threat to our democracy. So do you know what? Judge Barrett was confirmed unanimously by the Senators present today. Instead, in their chairs, they had large photographs, much like we have seen at sports arenas and ballparks in the wake of the pandemic, since we have had to socially distance. You can't have a large crowd at the ballpark. So people have these cutouts. That is what it looked like in the Judiciary Committee today. As I said, because of their antics, because of this stunt, Senator Graham asked for unanimous consent to proceed with the markup, and, of course, there was no objection because any potential objector had voluntarily absented themself. The truth of the matter is, Judge Barrett's qualifications speak louder than the unsubstantiated claims made by her opposition. She graduated at the top of her class from Notre Dame Law School. She held two prestigious clerkships, including on the Supreme Court. She has litigated in the trenches before transitioning into academia, where she wrote and taught constitutional law, about our Federal courts and statutory interpretation. And, as I said, for the last 3 years, she has put all of that great experience and training to work on the Seventh Circuit. This is an exceptional judge with a clear record of faithfully and impartially applying the law, and she will bring additional value to the U.S. Supreme Court. One of the things I thought was so remarkable is that Judge Barrett is also an incredible role model. I think her elevation to the highest Court in the land should be an encouragement to young women who aspire to professional success and as a great role model on how to balance what we all try to figure out how to balance, which is your professional and your personal life. She and her husband do a marvelous job with their seven children, both being full-time professionals. If confirmed, she would be the first mother of school-aged children to serve as a Justice and only the fifth woman to serve on the high Court. She would also be the first Justice on the current Court with a degree from a law school other than Yale and Harvard and bring much needed educational diversity to the bench. Judge Amy Coney Barrett will serve our country well on the high Court, and I have full faith in her ability to faithfully and impartially apply the law as written. I want to thank Chairman Graham for leading a fair and respectful hearing. The ranking member, Senator Feinstein, made that observation, and I thought that was very generous and civil of her. I would note that many of the more radical folks on the left have attacked Senator Feinstein for her civility, and they are just wrong. I think she remains a good role model for all of us. We can have our disagreements without being rude or uncivil or disagreeable. I think Senator Feinstein is a model for that. I am proud to support Judge Barrett's nomination in the Judiciary Committee, and I look forward to voting for her next week on the Senate floor

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday I had the pleasure of meeting-- or should I say re-meeting--Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who has been nominated, as we all know, to the U.S. Supreme Court, to the vacancy left by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Over the last few days, Judge Barrett's nomination has been applauded by people across the political spectrum--and for good reason. Her background in practicing law and academia and on the Federal bench has provided her with an unquestionable knowledge of the law. Much of the praise has come from her colleagues who worked closely with her over the years. Marcus Cole, who is dean of the University of Notre Dame Law School, where she teaches, said: Judge Amy Coney Barrett is an absolutely brilliant legal scholar and jurist. She is also one of the most popular teachers we have ever had here at Notre Dame Law School. A group of her former students have published a piece recently that said: While we hold a variety of views regarding how best to interpret statutes in the Constitution, we all agree on this: The nation could not ask for a more qualified candidate than the professor we have come to know and revere. We have also seen support for Judge Barrett from unlikely sources. Harvard University Law Professor Noah Feldman clerked with Judge Barrett at the Supreme Court more than 20 years ago. He was also a prominent witness for Democrats during the impeachment process earlier this year. But he has written an opinion piece titled ``Amy Coney Barrett Deserves to Be on the Supreme Court.'' He wrote that he knows her to be a ``brilliant and conscientious lawyer who will analyze and decide cases in good faith, applying the jurisprudential principles to which she is committed. Those are the basic criteria for being a good justice. Barrett meets them and exceeds them.'' There is really no question that Judge Barrett has a brilliant legal mind and deep respect for the Constitution and an unwavering commitment to the law, but these qualities alone are not what set this exceptional judge apart. Both Republicans and Democrats who have worked with Judge Barrett throughout her career have spoken about her personal qualities, like humility and integrity. These make her an ideal candidate for this influential position. A group of her former students wrote about the kindness that she has shown to them, both in the classroom and during meals they shared at her home. They said: Her genuine interest in the personal lives of her students outside the classroom, and the seamless way that she modeled for all of us the integration of her professional and family life, reinforces that there is more to life than the pursuit of professional accolades. She has certainly proven that to be the case. In addition to rising to the very top of her field, Judge Barrett is a mother of seven children ranging from the age of 8 to 19. Following her nomination on Saturday, Judge Barrett credited her family's ability to balance her and her husband's successful careers with the needs of their children to the unwavering support of her husband Jesse, who is also an accomplished attorney. In every respect, Judge Barrett is an inspiring role model for young people and I could say as the father of two daughters, of young women in particular, who are pursuing their professional and personal ambitions with equal vigor. If confirmed, Judge Barrett--soon-to-be Justice Barrett--would become the first mother of school-age children to serve as a Justice and only the fifth woman throughout American history to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. Considering the woman whose seat she will fill if confirmed, the significance of that fact cannot be overstated. She would be the only current Justice with a degree from a law school other than Harvard or Yale and bring much needed educational diversity to the Bench. I have always thought it bizarre that, among all the highly qualified lawyers and judges in America, for some reason, it is overly populated with people educated in the Northeast, on the coast. On top of that, she would join Justice Thomas as the only Justice born in the South and bring another perspective to the Court, whose members largely hail from the coast. If confirmed, Judge Barrett would bring an underrepresented view to the Supreme Court. I know we would all be proud to have somebody like her--a woman of such strong character--serving our Nation in this very important capacity. I want to commend President Trump for selecting this outstanding nominee. I was glad to spend some time with her yesterday. She has an unquestionable character, a brilliant mind, and the kind of temperament needed to serve on the Court. I am eager for the American people to see that for themselves as we begin the public confirmation process. As we know, this is the second time Judge Barrett has appeared before the Judiciary Committee in the last few years. It was 3 years ago when the committee and the Senate confirmed her to her current position on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. However, there were some warning flags. During her confirmation hearing back then, 3 years ago, the Democrats on the committee raised questions over Judge Barrett's strong Catholic faith and questioned whether it would somehow disqualify her or impair her ability to discharge her responsibilities. One Senator went so far as to say: ``The dogma lives loudly within you, and that's of concern.'' Another asked her whether she was an ``orthodox Catholic.'' Well, this statement and that insinuation were discriminatory at best and unconstitutional at worst. The Constitution itself includes that there is no religious test. Article VI reads: ``No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.'' This is not the first time somebody has been targeted for one's Catholic faith. I was reminded of the speech that John Fitzgerald Kennedy gave in 1960 in Houston, TX, to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. In addressing some of the explicit and implicit arguments that somehow he would be beholden to the Vatican rather than be able to discharge his responsibilities as President of the United States, he pointed out, as a Catholic, it was not the only concern because, if people would do that to a Catholic, why not do it to a Baptist or a Muslim or a Jew? He said: For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew--or a Quaker or a Unitarian or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you--until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril. He made the important point that seems so obvious that he shouldn't have had to make. He said: I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. Finally, he said: But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being president on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser--in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people. Throughout her career, Judge Barrett has impressed the brightest legal minds with her deep understanding of the law and commitment to judicial independence. She made it clear at her hearing 3 years ago that she would be loyal to her oath, and that is to uphold and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States. It is clear, under the appropriate canons of judicial ethics, that if for some reason a judge can't apply the law because of some personal opinion or conviction, then one needs to disqualify oneself. President Kennedy said that, if it violates your conscience and your faith and you can't reconcile the two, you should resign. Well, there is just no legitimate reason to question whether Judge Barrett's religious beliefs would make her unfit to serve on the Supreme Court, and I hope our colleagues on the other side will refrain from, once again, imposing a religious test on Judge Barrett as we consider her nomination.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have 3 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 Commerce, Science, and Transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 1, 2020, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 1, 2020, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support The Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 1, 2020, at 9:15 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I just want to say how much I appreciate the resolution of the Senator from Indiana. It reminds me of discussions I know all of us have had about the teaching of American history and civics in our schools and, frankly, a collective concern that our children are being raised and educated without learning both about our founding principles and how unique we are as a nation. I think, as modest a step as this may seem, it is an important one, and I congratulate our friend from Indiana for taking it.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as we all know, President Trump will announce his nominee to fill the seat vacated by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The Senate is prepared to examine the qualifications of that nominee and hold a vote here on a timely basis. This, of course, is set in line with the precedent set by Presidents and Senates that were elected long before we became Members of this body or were even born, and we are prepared to follow suit. There were 29 times when there was a vacancy during the election year where the party occupying the White House and the majority of the Senate were the same, and 29 times there were confirmation processes, and it will be the same again this year with the 30th. As always, we will be thorough. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I have had the privilege of participating in a number of confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justices. I know every member of the committee takes this job very seriously--our role of advice and consent under the Constitution. We will not rush the process. Every Member of this body will have an opportunity to vote for or against the nominee once the nominee is voted out of the Judiciary Committee. But it seems that for our friends on the other side of the aisle, precedent is not enough. The prospect of another Trump-appointed Supreme Court Justice has mobilized our Democratic colleagues to launch an attack that has been months in the making on our very independent judiciary. One of the hallmarks of our Constitution and our democracy is an independent judiciary--an umpire, if you will--that will mediate the fight between the executive and legislative branches and rule on the very constitutionality of the laws that are passed. Long before this vacancy even existed, though, our Democratic colleagues were sounding the alarm, suggesting they would expand or pack the Supreme Court with liberal Justices that will rubberstamp the political results they could not achieve through legislation. During the Presidential primary this year, candidates were especially eager to share their vision for a larger and solidly liberal Supreme Court. A number of our Senate colleagues were among those open to the idea, including the current Democratic candidate for Vice President, the Senator from California. Over the last several months, Democrats in both the House and the Senate, including House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, have expressed an interest in upending the integrity of the Supreme Court and its role in leading the independent judicial branch. Once the Supreme Court vacancy went from a possibility to a reality, these comments have now turned into threats. Over the weekend, the junior Senator from Massachusetts tweeted that ``when Democrats control the Senate in the next Congress, we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court.'' The Senator from New York, the minority leader himself, reportedly told his Members on a call this weekend, which was reported in social media: ``Nothing is off the table.'' Now, mistreatment of conservative nominees to the courts is nothing new, including 2 years ago, when Democrats waged an all-out smear campaign against Justice Kavanaugh. But now, even before the nominee is announced, our Democratic colleagues are taking aim at the institution itself. We know this isn't the first time that our colleagues have floated institutional changes to shift the political tide in their favor. When they lost the Senate majority, they decided they wanted to add new States. They are uninterested in bipartisanship. So they want to end the legislative filibuster. And now they threaten to pack the court with liberal Justices to give them a political outcome. They are taking the saying, ``if you can't win the game, change the rules,'' to a whole new level. This isn't just political gamesmanship anymore. It is an assault on the Constitution itself, along with the integrity of our article III courts and our system of checks and balances. This court-packing threat isn't new. It preceded the death of Justice Ginsburg in the creation of the vacancy that we will soon consider, but they are now trying to rebrand the reasoning behind it. Since the idea was previously viewed as too radical by members of their own party, with even Justice Ginsburg opposing it, they are trying to shift the blame to Republicans. By following the precedent of 29 judicial confirmation hearings occurring during an election year and undermining or challenging the Senate's constitutional duty to provide advice and consent, our Democratic colleagues claim that it is we who are responsible for an attack on democracy. They, in effect, are holding the Supreme Court hostage in saying: Don't make me kill the hostage. Democrats aren't just trying to prevent a single conservative Justice from joining the Court. They are trying to dismantle the very institution itself. The Supreme Court has had nine Justices for more than 150 years. As the balance has shifted in many different directions over the years, Members of Congress have respectfully refrained from engaging in such dangerous threats. This isn't just about a conservative Justice or a liberal Justice. It is about preserving one of our most basic institutions--a free and independent judiciary. Economic Growth Mr. President, now on another matter, by virtually any measure our economy was booming at the start of this year. Successful reforms under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act allowed workers to keep more of what they earned and gave job creators the freedom to create new economic opportunities for the American people. Within the first 2 years of these changes, we experienced record gains in employment and increases in household income for families across the country, including Hispanic and African-American households. New census data paints a clear picture of just how strong the economy was in 2019. The median household income reached an all-time high of $68,700. That is a 6.8-percent increase over the previous year. Not only that, if you look at the dollar amount alone, it is almost double the next highest dollar amount in annual growth. As I said, Black and Hispanic Americans each experienced a higher than average growth rate and historically low unemployment rates. Median earnings increased 7.8 percent for women, compared to 2.5 percent for men, representing progress in the fight to close the pay gap. The benefits of our booming market, though, didn't stop there. The new jobs and opportunities created during this boom drew more workers who had been on the sidelines into the labor market, and the result was spectacular. The poverty rate dropped to 10.5 percent, which is the lowest since 1959. Every population group made gains. Regardless of race, gender, age, disability status, or marital status, each group experienced a decline in the poverty rate. Make no mistake about it. We still have a long way to go to ensure that no family in America lives in poverty, but we also ought to be willing to assess progress when progress is made. There is no doubt that our economic engine was humming and the American people were seeing and feeling the benefits of our strong economy every single day. And then, of course, the pandemic hit. Suddenly, after years of adding new jobs and creating economic opportunities for millions of Americans, it felt like the gains we made were erased in the blink of an eye. Through no fault of their own, businesses were forced to close their doors to help slow the spread of the virus, and with no tables to wait on, customers to serve, or travelers to accommodate, millions of workers were left without a way to earn a living. Well-meaning employers, sadly, handed their workers pink slips and said they hoped to have jobs for them to come back to once the pandemic was in the rearview mirror. Until that could happen, millions of Americans relied on enhanced unemployment benefits, which ended at the end of July, including an extra $600 a week in Federal benefits. But there are still families across Texas struggling to make ends meet, and there are workers waiting to return to their jobs with no end in sight. While we have made progress against the virus, we have to make progress, too, in recovering our economy. In the beginning, restaurants and retailers began adding curbside service and delivery to regain some income, and throughout most of Texas now, these businesses are able to open to 75 percent of capacity. Gladly, we are seeing more and more workers returning to work and our children returning to school. In Texas, unemployment has steadily declined from a peak of 13.5 percent to 6.8 percent in August. I think a lot of that progress is due to the success of the CARES Act and, especially, the Paycheck Protection Program, which sent more than $41 billion in more than 417,000 different loans to small businesses in Texas alone. I am still hoping that we can come to an agreement on another coronavirus relief bill that would extend the Paycheck Protection Program and provide some enhanced level of Federal employment benefits, but those measures alone will not support our economic recovery. We know that regaining lost ground will not happen overnight. It is going to take time for our country to return to the pre-pandemic economy that the President and Republican Senate fought so hard to achieve. As we consider the most effective ways to tune up our economic engine, our guiding principle should be that of the doctor-patient oath--the Hippocratic oath: First, do no harm. Raising trillions of dollars in new taxes, as a number of leading Democrats have suggested, would be counterproductive. It wouldn't grow the economy. It would kill the economy. In 2009, as the Nation was fighting to recover from the 2008 recession, President Obama was asked about the possibility of raising taxes, and he didn't mince words. He said: The last thing you want to do is raise taxes in the middle of a recession. That is exactly right, but that is exactly the opposite of what the leading Democratic candidates, including the Democratic nominee for President, are advocating. They are advocating for a huge tax increase, even as we are hopefully closer to the end of the pandemic than we are the beginning. It is just the wrong medicine for what ails our economy, as President Obama noted. Families, we know, are still struggling, workers are still hurting, and the American people need more money in their paychecks, not less. We need to look at what made the 2019 economy such a success and try to ensure that those changes prop us up for a strong comeback, and I think the best place to start is with the success of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. After it passed almost 3 years ago, I traveled across my State and met with business owners and employees who were reaping the immediate benefits. Those were in the form of new hires, bonuses, raises, and 401(k) match increases. Employees at every business of every size were seeing the benefits of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. While some of the provisions of that law are permanent, others are set to expire in 2025, and, without action, things like the lower income tax rate for individuals and the increased child tax credit will expire. As we work to support our country through the recovery process, we need to emulate the reforms that made our booming economy a reality in the first place. As I said, I don't expect the road to recovery to be quick, but there are steps that we can take to make it easier. First, we could do our job by supporting the individuals and businesses hit hardest by the pandemic. Time and again, our Democratic colleagues have objected to us even considering legislation to continue those important provisions of the CARES Act. We can take the government's boot off of job creator's necks, and we can fight to bring jobs back that were shipped overseas because we learned a lot about vulnerable supply chains and manufacturing that needs to be returned to the United States. Following tax reform, millions of new jobs were created, and Americans brought home more of their hard-earned money. As a result, we reached 3.5 percent unemployment--the lowest unemployment rate in a half a century. That progress was possible because of the right policies that increased take-home pay for workers and unleashed the power of the private sector. So I have no doubt, as we rebuild our economy, that we will do so if we continue to embrace the policies that made 2019 a banner year. Let me just conclude by saying that we must pass another COVID-19 relief bill. Time and again, Speaker Pelosi has refused to negotiate in good faith to come up with a compromise. In the meantime, airlines that employ tens of thousands of people in my State and across the country will begin laying off their employees beginning October 1. Businesses that were sustained by the PPP program have now run out of those funds, and they need to be replenished. I get questions time and again about the lapsing of the enhanced unemployment benefit that was part of the CARES Act. We tried to extend that at some reasonable level, but our Democratic colleagues objected, blocked it, and stopped it. What I fear, as Chairman Powell of the Federal Reserve and Secretary Mnuchin, the Treasury Secretary, have suggested, is that the massive stimulus that we provided, roughly $3 trillion through four bills that were passed on a bipartisan basis--that has sustained our economy and brought us to where we are today, even in the darkest of times through this pandemic, but if we leave here with our Democratic colleagues having prevented us from providing another COVID-19 relief bill, I think it guarantees nothing but pain for the economy, American workers, and American families. We should not go down that path or tolerate it.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, on Friday evening, the Nation learned the sad news that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had passed away. From her time as one of the few women in the Ivy League, to being only the second woman ever appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States, Justice Ginsburg was and is an inspiration to generations of Americans. Throughout her remarkable life, Justice Ginsburg fought to secure equal rights and opportunities for all. She was a champion of women's rights in particular and broke down gender barriers throughout both her personal life and professional career. During this difficult and often divisive time, I think there is a lot we can learn from the way Justice Ginsburg interacted with those with whom she disagreed, especially her good friend the late Justice Scalia. If you looked at a diagram outlining the ideologies of these two Justices, these two would be at opposite poles. They shared very little in common in terms of the way they approached the job of being a Supreme Court Justice. She was once asked about their close relationship, which stood in contrast to their vastly different views, and she said: ``You can disagree without being disagreeable.'' Well, we have all heard that before, and it is absolutely true--unfortunately, not practiced enough. But I think that sort of approach should be a reminder to all of us about the importance of treating each other with civility and respect, even when the person standing in front of you or on the opposite side of a computer screen has a vastly different world view from our own. Our Nation is grateful for Justice Ginsburg's 27 years on the High Court and her incredible contributions to our history. Sandy and I send our condolences to the entire Ginsburg family, as well as the countless colleagues and friends she earned throughout her lifetime. As Leader McConnell said this morning, the Senate is preparing to fulfill our constitutional duty of advice and consent. Throughout history, there has been a Supreme Court vacancy 29 times during a Presidential election year, and each time, the President has fulfilled his duty to put forth a nomination. Of those 29 election-year instances, 19 occurred when the President and the Senate majority were of the same political party. All but two of those nominees were confirmed. Our friends on the other side of the aisle have tried to compare this to the vacancy in 2016, but the facts were different. At that point, we had a President of one party in his final year in office and a Senate majority of another party. You would literally have to go back to 1880 to find an example of the Senate confirming an opposite party President's Supreme Court nominee during an election year. The other difference is that President Obama was not on the ballot in 2016, so it made sense for the American people to weigh in. Do you think we would still be hearing the same arguments from our friends across the aisle if Hillary Clinton had become President and been able to nominate a successor to Justice Scalia? I think not. Voters cast their ballots and not only elected President Trump but also a Senate Republican majority. In 2018, they expanded that majority following the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh. If the American people had elected a Democratic President and a Democratic Senate majority, I have no doubt that Senator Schumer would act on that nomination as well. Just as the Senate has always done, we will thoroughly review the qualifications and experience of whomever the President nominates. We should not rush that process. It should be conducted carefully and consistently with how the Senate has previously handled Supreme Court nominations. When that process is complete, the Senate will vote on that nominee sometime this year. In some cases, the confirmation process has moved quickly. In the case of Justice Ginsburg, she was confirmed in only 42 days. In others, the process has taken longer and been significantly more contentious. I hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will try to restrain themselves from repeating the smear campaign that took place during Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing, including the Judiciary Committee hearing. I hope they will refrain from making threats, like threats of packing the Court in the future, which Justice Ginsburg herself opposed and warned would make the Court partisan, because if Democrats decide to add additional members to the U.S. Supreme Court when they are in power, then the pressure will be irresistible for Republicans to add other Justices to the Court, and it would look--and it would be clearly a partisan institution rather than an impartial judge of the law and the facts. The President has every right to put forth a nomination, and we have an obligation to give him or her due consideration under our advice and consent responsibilities. As always, we will be thorough, and I hope, unlike last time, we can be civil and treat all with respect. I am prepared to fulfill my responsibilities as a Member of this body and of the Judiciary Committee, and I hope our colleagues on both sides are prepared to do the same thing.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as families have been quarantined at home over the past several months, their lives have been filled with a whole new set of stressors. Loss of income, isolation, anxiety about their own health, and the stress of teaching children at home can test even the healthiest families and relationships. But it also puts children at higher risk of child abuse and neglect. In April this year, nationwide reports of abuse or neglect dropped by an average of about 40 percent compared to the same time last year. That doesn't mean there are fewer instances of abuse--probably far from it--just fewer reports. One of the things about children attending school is that their teachers and counselors can monitor them for signs of sexual assault, sexual abuse, and report that to the appropriate authorities. In 2018, two-thirds of the reports of child abuse were submitted by people who came in contact with treatment as part of their jobs--police officers, lawyers, social services, and, of course, teachers, as I said. Teachers, education professionals, and other support staff at school, like bus drivers, are responsible for more than half of the child abuse reports. But with children home during the pandemic, out of sight from the teachers and others who would otherwise see them on a routine basis, abuse is becoming more difficult to identify and report. Child sexual assault abuse was a crisis before the pandemic, with more than 42 million adult survivors in America. As the stresses of the pandemic and lack of reporting have taken a violent toll across the country, there is an urgent need for Congress to act. Over the years, I have listened to courageous victims in Texas who have shared their stories and advocated for reforms to prevent more children from experiencing this tragic abuse. One of those inspirational individuals is Jenna Quinn, a child abuse survivor and fierce advocate for children who are often suffering in silence. She was the driving force behind what is now known as Jenna's Law in Texas, which requires training for teachers, caregivers, and other adults who work with children on how to prevent, recognize, and report child sexual abuse. The signs of child sexual abuse are unique from other forms of child abuse, and correctly identifying these signs is integral to bringing children out of a sexually abusive situation. After it passed in 2009, a study found that educators reported child sexual abuse at a rate almost four times greater after the training they had received than before they had received that training. It was one of the first child sexual abuse prevention laws in the United States demanding this training, and now more than half of our States have adopted some form of Jenna's Law. The kicker is that in many States, including Texas, they don't provide funding for the training, for the program. That is what Senator Hassan, the Senator from New Hampshire, and I want to change. Last year we introduced the Jenna Quinn Law, which would take the successful reforms in Texas and other States and make them a reality for children across the country. This bill would allow current grant funds to be used for specialized training for students, teachers, and other caregivers to learn how to identify, safely report, and hopefully prevent future child sexual abuse. This legislation also encourages the States without similar laws to implement innovative programs to address such abuse. Again, I want to express my appreciation to Senators Hassan and Braun, who have joined me in this bipartisan effort, and I hope we can get this bill to the President's desk soon. No child should experience abuse or neglect, and the Jenna Quinn Law will bring us closer to identifying and stopping abuse in its tracks. I came to the floor initially with the thought of offering a unanimous consent request to pass the Jenna Quinn Law, Jenna's Law. It has cleared on our side. There is some discussion going forward between our Democratic colleagues and us about pairing this with another piece of legislation which, like Jenna's Law, is not controversial. And based on the commitment that this will be passed as part of the wrapup this evening, I will not offer that unanimous consent request at this time, but I will depend on that commitment we have gotten that it will be passed in wrapup today. So I want to express again my appreciation to Senator Hassan and Senator Braun for working with us on this. So often, the best of intentions go awry because there is no funding mechanism to help facilitate and pay for the training, and that is where the money that we appropriated that goes to the Department of Justice--their grant programs for various law enforcement initiatives-- is so valuable. Those are the funds that are already appropriated that we want to tap into for this type of essential training. I yield to my friend from New Hampshire.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote on Calendar No. 816, the nomination of Franklin Ulyses Valderrama, be withdrawn and that the Senate proceed to vote on the nomination under the previous order at 11:45 a.m.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to complete my remarks before the lunch recess.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, let me say that I join my friend from Massachusetts in a desire to see us take up and pass another COVID-19 relief bill. I would say that so far, the House of Representatives has taken a completely unrealistic approach, including many non-COVID-19 relief provisions in the bill, including tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. They literally include, in the COVID-19 bill they call the Heroes Act, a tax cut by removing the cap on deductibility on State and local taxes on your Federal income tax. When we did that in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, we felt it was improper to force States like the Presiding Officer's and mine to subsidize the irresponsible spending practices in major cities like New York and San Francisco. If our Democratic friends are indeed serious about wanting to get a deal, we are open, certainly, to negotiating a deal, just as we did the first four bills that we passed, especially by unanimous vote. It seems the closer we get to the election, which is now 49 days out, that the old partisan dysfunction begins to creep back in and you hear speeches like the Senator from Massachusetts just gave, advocating things like the Green New Deal as a solution to all the world's problems. It is just completely pie in the sky and a pipedream that is obviously not going anywhere. That doesn't stop our friends across the aisle blaming this side of the aisle or the President for everything that happens in the world, including hurricanes and forest fires, which are largely as a result of failing to undertake proper forest management that we know can prevent fires. They blame it on climate change. It is an easy argument claiming science is on their side. We need to be good stewards about our environment, no doubt about it. I have no doubt the climate is changing and humans contribute to that, but there are smarter and better ways for us to approach it other than eliminating jobs and burdening people on fixed incomes with higher electricity and energy costs and just embracing an ideological solution, which is no solution at all and will create more problems than it solves. I would just say, finally, on this point, that we know that the guidance from the Centers for Disease Control has evolved over time. I went back and checked. My friend in Massachusetts says the President did this; he did that; he said this; he didn't do this. I remember going back and looking at the Centers for Disease Control guidance before April. They said masks were ineffective; they didn't do anything. They came back after some additional investigation and research and said: Well, they can help. That is why we are all wearing masks, especially when we can't socially distance. Looking at this pandemic now in September as opposed to the way it looked in March, we have learned a lot, thank goodness. Our medical professionals have saved a lot of lives. We learned how to mitigate the risks. We learned how to live with the virus at the same time we are investing heavily in therapies and a vaccine, which can't come soon enough. Senate Republicans have made attempt after attempt to deliver another round of coronavirus relief to the American people. In July, we proposed the HEALS Act, which was a starting point for negotiations. We realized this wasn't the end-all and be-all any more than the Democrats' Heroes Act, this $3 trillion hodgepodge of an ideological wish list that we knew wasn't going to pass, but we knew we needed to start somewhere. Speaker Pelosi didn't help when she quickly disparaged our starting proposal as ``pathetic.'' And, of course, Senator Schumer, the minority leader in the Senate, called it ``unworkable.'' I guess they thought they finished their job, and they dismissed it outright and did nothing to negotiate in good faith toward a resolution. They simply have no interest in amending the bill or trying to find a common ground. They just stiff-armed it. This August, when we attempted to narrow the scope of the negotiation to the most urgent matters--things like continuing Federal unemployment benefits, which expired at the end of July--this time our Democratic colleagues rejected what they called a ``piecemeal'' approach. Never mind the fact that the House returned to Washington to pass a bill only to help the Postal Service, which was actually bipartisan. Apparently, that kind of piecemeal is acceptable as long as it is a Democratic- sponsored and authored bill. That brings us to September. Last week, we gave it another shot. The majority leader brought the bill to the floor to address some of the most pressing challenges facing the American people: funding schools, vaccine research, more testing, unemployment benefits, helping small businesses, again, through the extension of the Paycheck Protection Program--all of which should be and I believe, in truth, are bipartisan goals. Unfortunately, our Democratic colleagues couldn't resist that old temptation of partisan dysfunction this close to the election. They pulled out the same playbook they used all summer. Once again, they refused to engage in any meaningful negotiations. They resorted to name-calling and blocked the bill from even being debated. You can't pass a bill unless you are willing to start considering it, but they weren't willing to even do that. Here we are battling a pandemic, which has claimed more than 190,000 Americans, and Democrats blocked every attempt to pass a piece of legislation since March. Rather than trying to negotiate or amend these bills or reach a bipartisan compromise, they seem to be content with airing their grievances at press conferences. I agree with one thing the Senator from Massachusetts said: There are people who are hurting and need help. We should not take some perverse delight in exacerbating that pain or noting that pain and being unwilling to do anything to relieve it. This may be a political game for some of our colleagues. It may be a way to try to score points against the President or try to gain advantage in the runup to the election on November 3, but I assure you, it is not an honest attempt to try to solve a problem; it is not a genuine attempt to try to provide relief to the American people who are hurting; and it is not moving us any closer to defeating this virus once and for all. In the bills we passed so far--again, on a bipartisan basis, largely unanimously--we provided unprecedented support for American families, including direct payments, bolstered unemployment benefits, and provided the ability to defer student loan payments. We sent help to farmers, ranchers, and producers. We helped our schools prepare for the new school year and gave small businesses and their employees the resources to stay afloat. We have provided stability for families and communities across Texas and across the Nation More help is needed, especially to bolster our response to the virus itself. We know we are in a global race to develop a vaccine and treatment. Our brightest scientific minds are working 24/7 to deliver those lifesaving drugs to the world as quickly as we can, safely and effectively, but they need more money to succeed. At the same time, our communities are trying to test as many people as they can, whether it is people attending college football games or surveillance testing in communities or at colleges or grade schools. Our constituents don't care about our partisan disagreements. They just want us to do everything we can to help them and to help us defeat this virus. During the month of August, I was able to travel around the State and to listen to feedback from my constituents on how the funding we provided so far has aided in the fight against COVID-19. Congress has provided more than $234 billion to support our healthcare response. That includes $10 billion for research and development of a vaccine through Operation Warp Speed, $16 billion for personal protective equipment, $26 billion for testing, and, of course, the $173 billion Provider Relief Fund to help our hospitals. More than 23,000 hospitals and healthcare providers in my State alone have received more than $5.1 billion in Federal funding, allowing them to procure critical resources like masks and gloves and to cover mounting costs due to the deferral of elective procedures. In August, I had a chance to personally thank some of the healthcare workers in Abilene, Waco, Wichita Falls, Amarillo, Lubbock, and Corpus Christi. I also had lunch and visited with the children of healthcare workers in the Rio Grande Valley who, even at such a young age, are amazed by the heroic work of their parents. As our war against this virus carries on, we need to ensure that our frontline workers and healthcare providers have the resources they need to sustain this fight. I also visited with the Family Health Center in Waco, which is 1 of 73 federally qualified health centers in Texas operating more than 500 sites. This is really a critical part of our healthcare safety net in my State and across the Nation. I have always been a strong supporter of our community health centers and cofounded the Senate Community Health Centers Caucus several years ago. As I said, these facilities make quality healthcare a reality for so many Texans, whether they have Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance, or no insurance. Texans can go to these health centers and receive the care they need when they need it. The particular Family Health Center I visited in Waco was founded more than 50 years ago to address a shortage of doctors and primary care access for low-income patients and has since grown to 15 clinics across McLennan County, which provide not only primary and preventive care but dental and behavioral healthcare too. As Family Health Center CEO, Dr. Jackson Griggs, said community- oriented primary care is difficult in any era, and it has been uniquely challenging during COVID-19. Unexpected operating costs and lost revenue created serious financial hardship, but because of the $3 million in the CARES Act and other Federal funding they got, they have continued to provide quality healthcare during this time of critical need. Because of Federal funding, they have been able to test every person who comes in with symptoms. They received the equipment, the kits, the mobile computer systems, tents, and the air-conditioning units that allows staff to test patients outdoors, even during a hot Texas summer. During our visit, Dr. Griggs told me they conducted more than 7,400 tests, with over 1,500 patients testing positive. Of those, 53 percent were uninsured. Without legislation passed by Congress, who knows what these patients would have been able to afford or even get access to a COVID-19 test. This funding has also provided more than 187,000 pieces of PPE to the Family Health Center's doctors, nurses, dentists, social workers, and staff who are trying to stay safe and healthy while they continue to care for their patients. On top of that, the funds have provided the information technology infrastructure to get telehealth services started in record time and nearly 11,000 hours of paid leave for healthcare workers and other staff members who become ill or need to quarantine because of the virus. The legislation we passed has also helped community health centers, hospitals, clinics, nursing homes, and healthcare facilities throughout the State continue to serve their communities. As we keep working to deliver the assistance for the American people, we need to continue to support our healthcare response. This means ensuring that the providers continue to have the resources needed to operate throughout this crisis. It means more resources for testing and contact tracing to stop the spread. It means an even greater investment in the race to discover a vaccine and treatment so we can finally bring this crisis to an end. It means continuing to provide healthcare coverage for those who are laid off or furloughed or lost employer coverage. I recently introduced a bill with my friend Senator McSally from Arizona to provide some degree of certainty for folks who found themselves without a job or health coverage through no fault of their own. It is called the Continuous Health Coverage for Workers Act, which would provide premium assistance for COBRA coverage during the rest of the year. As the coronavirus has wreaked havoc on our job market, it has filled countless Texans' lives with uncertainty. By passing this legislation as part of the next relief bill, we can ensure that those who previously maintained their health coverage through their employer can continue to do so through the end of the year. Let me just say in conclusion that COVID-19 is not a partisan issue. It hasn't been up until this point. Unfortunately, the wheels came off, at least for the time being. We need to put those wheels back on the car. We are all on the same team fighting a common enemy. I hope we can rediscover the sense of bipartisanship and common purpose that helped us pass four bills up through and including March. During August, I was able to spend time speaking with countless of my constituents about the bills we had passed and discussing what more was needed. In addition to hearing from the healthcare workers and providers who had been on the frontlines, I also joined students and teachers for socially distanced conversations about the challenges that had been brought on by the start of the new school year. I held a video call with restaurant owners about the ongoing impact of the pandemic on their businesses. On telephone townhalls, I heard from constituents about their struggles to make ends meet after they lost their jobs and then lost the extra $600 a week in Federal unemployment benefits, which lapsed because our colleagues wouldn't allow us to take up and consider, at some level, a continuation of those enhanced benefits. As our Democratic colleagues have continued to play games, these are the folks who have been hurt, and I am sure there are similar situations in each of their States. For these Texans whom I have described, COVID-19 isn't about political points or sound bites--it is about their health, their families' safety, and their livelihoods. While it seems like some have yielded to the temptation of using this pandemic for political gain, I am committed to continuing to work with all of our colleagues who are willing to ensure that we don't lose any of the ground we have gained in the war against COVID-19. We are literally up against the clock, and enough time has been wasted on name-calling, finger-pointing, and political posturing. It is time for the games to end so that we can finally provide our constituents, including our frontline heroes, with the resources they need in order to sustain and win this fight. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have 4 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, September 15, 2020, at time to be determined. to conduct a hearing on nominations. Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 15, 2020, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Select Committee on Intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 15, 2020, at 10 a.m., to conduct a closed hearing. 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, September 15, 2020, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, over the last several months, Texans have found new and creative ways to connect with one another while following the necessary COVID-19 precautions--things like drive-through birthday parties, live-streamed weddings, virtual family reunions, and socially distanced barbecues. Life looks a lot different today than it did at the start of the year, but despite the challenges we face, we know it is unrealistic to hit the pause button until the pandemic subsides. While COVID-19 continues to be ever present in our daily lives, folks across my State are safely adapting their routines, and that certainly has been my objective in the Senate. Over the past few months, I, like many of my colleagues--maybe all of my colleagues--have largely replaced in-person conversations with virtual ones, through more than 150 separate calls with groups across the State of Texas. These virtual conversations continued over the month of August, along with a number of socially distanced events complete with all of the CDC precautions. Close communication with my constituents has always been important, and the COVID pandemic has made these conversations even more critical. During August, I spent time hearing from my constituents, learning about their challenges and what they need in the way of additional help. I donned my mask--like we all have--to safely meet with city leaders, teachers, healthcare heroes, food bank workers, and others across the State. I continued to join telephone and video calls with Texans whose routines and livelihoods have been disrupted by the pandemic. It actually was an exhilarating opportunity to get out from behind my computer screen and to share information about the coronavirus relief bills that we have passed thus far but to learn also, just as significantly, where those bills were working and where more needed to be done. As the Senate prepares to vote on a targeted relief bill tomorrow, these discussions could not have been more timely. I also hosted recently four telephone townhalls with constituents across Texas. This is amazing technology, as the Presiding Officer knows, where you can reach out to a quarter of a million people just in an hour-long phone call and give them a chance to express their views or ask questions. I heard from parents who are concerned about the start of the school year; small business owners who are trying to stay afloat, not knowing when all of this will end; and a woman in rural Texas who is worried that if the U.S. Postal Service goes under, she will not be able to receive her medication in the mail. This is a difficult time for many of our neighbors, and I was glad to share the information about the resources we provided and to answer questions about what Texans might be able to expect in the next relief bill. One of the most commonly asked questions was about unemployment insurance. Since March, more than 3.4 million Texans have filed for unemployment compensation, and many were able to take advantage of the extra $600 a week in Federal benefits provided by the CARES Act. But that extra funding expired at the end of July, leaving many Texans who were still unable to return to work without the income they need to support their families. Despite our repeated efforts, Congress has been unable and unwilling to come up with an agreement on unemployment benefits before the month of August. As a gap-filler, the President issued an Executive order to provide an extra $300 a week in benefits, which Texans have received. This is good news for those who came to rely on these bolstered benefits, but, unfortunately, it doesn't help them with the same level of certainty that congressional legislation would provide. The next relief bill must provide those who are still without a way to earn a paycheck the additional benefits they need to replace their income. It is important that we agree to an amount or a formula that doesn't hinder our economic recovery or perversely incentivize people not to go back to work safely. Over the last month, I have heard from a number of employers who had trouble rehiring workers because in some cases their workers were earning more with the additional $600 benefit than they would from working. Well, it just doesn't make any sense to incentivize people not to go back to work when they can safely do so. We need to strike a delicate balance that gives them the resources they need to support their family without incentivizing them to stay home. As businesses have reopened and employees returned to work, Texas has made serious progress in getting more folks back on the payroll. The State unemployment rate has steadily declined from a peak of 13.5 percent to 8 percent in July. Obviously, that is still way too high and a far cry from the 3.5 percent we saw pre-COVID. If we are going to keep working and moving in the right direction, we need to have our workers return to work when that becomes an option. Obviously it goes without saying that they would be able to safely return. Of course, it is not enough to just give people the resources they need to support their families; we also need to ensure they have jobs to return to. That is why the Paycheck Protection Program has been so vital and has saved countless jobs since it was established in March through the CARES Act. So far, Congress has invested $670 billion in this job-saving program, and I am glad to say that Texas has received more than $41 billion across more than 417,000 individual loans. It has literally been a lifesaver for many of these small businesses. I hope the next relief bill will provide an opportunity for the hardest hit businesses to receive a second PPP loan and save even more jobs and small businesses in communities not just across my State but across the United States. Our State also has a vibrant arts and culture scene, and some of the hardest hit businesses are live-event venues. These were actually some of the first to close when the pandemic hit, and they will be the last to reopen. Unlike restaurants or retailers, which were able to switch to curbside or pickup delivery, event venues don't offer a service that can be tailored to meet the CDC guidelines. The experience of a concert at the Lowbrow Palace in El Paso or a trip to hear the symphony at the Meyerson in Dallas isn't the same through a computer screen. That leaves no opportunity for live venue operators, promoters, producers, and talent representatives to organize events and no chance for security guards, ticket takers, bartenders, or cleanup crews to earn a paycheck. These venues are not only a special part of our culture and our communities, they are also major employers and fuel our economic engine. Providing relief for these venues is an important way to protect our local economies, jobs, and beloved cultural institutions. That is why I introduced the Save our Stages Act with Senator Klobuchar, our colleague from Minnesota. It would establish a $10 billion grant program to give independent venues and their employees the funding they need to survive this pandemic. We are not talking about huge, publicly traded, multinational corporations here. In order to be eligible, recipients must have fewer than 500 employees and can't be publicly traded. They can use the money to cover payroll and benefits, as well as rent, utilities, and other expenses to stay afloat. As the Senate continues to work on our next coronavirus relief bill, I hope the Save Our Stages provision will be included. Our economy in Texas, like the rest of the country, is moving in a more positive direction. We want to keep it this way. We need to do everything we can to ensure that once the pandemic is contained, our cultural institutions, our businesses, and our jobs that we rely on will be ready to bounce back. I appreciate the countless Texans who shared with me their feedback and ideas on how Congress can do more to support our State and our country through this crisis. I am going to do my part to keep fighting to enact these ideas into law and give Texans the support they deserve. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, each year, during the month of August, I look forward to traveling across my State--my very big State--to spend time with my constituents. It is the best way to learn firsthand how the laws and programs we enact here are working and to receive the feedback on legislation being considered by the Congress in the future and what I can do to better help the folks back home. A typical State work period involves dozens of face-to-face events from every corner of my State, covering all ages, professions, and walks of life. Last August, I spent time talking with my constituents about everything from the Debbie Smith Act and GI benefits for student veterans to Project Safe Neighborhoods grants and the U.S.-Mexico- Canada Trade Agreement. As we all know, 2020 has been anything but typical, and this August was no exception. These big, in-person events have been replaced with virtual ones, with face-to-face meetings, which now involve wearing masks, social distancing, and a heavy dose of hand sanitizer. Instead of the broad range of policies we might normally discuss, almost every one of them centered on the impact of COVID-19. No big surprise there. I have heard from mayors, teachers, food bank employees, healthcare workers, restaurant owners, energy workers, and countless others about how the resources that we have been providing them have helped them through this pandemic. From the Rio Grande Valley to Amarillo--opposite ends of our State--from Tyler to Orange in the eastern part of the State and all points in between, I masked up and met with Texans who are working overtime to keep their communities safe and to provide for their families. All the while, I continue to hold virtual conversations and telephone townhalls to hear from my constituents and share information about what we are doing to be helpful to them. These conversations, as I said a moment ago, always help me better understand the effectiveness of the legislation we passed and provide valuable feedback about what is needed in the next coronavirus relief bill. With the school year now officially underway in most of Texas, additional support for our students and teachers is one of my top priorities. I have had the chance to speak with K-12 students and teachers in Odessa, Lubbock, and Canyon, and college students and administrators in Angelo State University in San Angelo, as well as Texas Tech University and Texas Tech Health Science Center in Amarillo. Some joined us socially distanced on campus and others connected virtually. I was able to hear from both students and teachers about this unprecedented school year and the challenges--the extra challenges-- brought on by COVID-19. Whether in person, online, or some combination of the two, education looks a lot different this year, and we need to provide schools with the funding to keep kids in the classrooms safe and those at home on track for a great education. Congress has already passed $30 billion in emergency relief for education, including more than $2.6 billion for Texas. This funding has helped our school districts, colleges, and universities prepare for the fall, but, to be honest, more is needed. For those learning in person, additional funding can cover cleaning services and equipment to prevent children from catching and spreading the virus. For those learning virtually, it could provide additional hardware and internet hotspots so they can do their studies online. I visited one high school in Ector County--that is Odessa, TX--where they are using a blended or hybrid in-person and online instruction model. Ector County ISD began this year with online instruction for students who have internet access at home and in-person instruction for those who did not. Of the roughly 33,000 students in the district, about 4,200 were in the classroom on the first day. And I can assure you, it is not the only school district in Texas whose students have difficulty accessing the technology needed to learn from home. More than 2 million Texas households don't have reliable internet access, and it is leaving our students on the wrong side of the digital divide. Internet access is no longer a luxury or just a convenience; it has become a necessity, and we need to do more to ensure that students across Texas and across the Nation have access to reliable broadband. The CARES Act, which we passed in March, provides some relief on this front. It gave libraries $50 million in grants for digital connection. The demand for these funds was much higher than was available, and it became obvious we need to do more to help those who are on the wrong side of the digital divide. The Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Manchin, and I teamed up to include and introduce the ACCESS the Internet Act, which will provide funding to both the Department of Education and libraries to make reliable internet a reality. In addition to supporting virtual learning, this would also make access to telehealth more available to families. This has really been one of the most surprising positive developments out of this pandemic, and that is actually greater access to healthcare through telehealth, both physical and Mental Health Services on online. Our bill includes funding for healthcare providers, including the Department of Veterans Affairs, to get more patients connected so they can utilize these telehealth services. As we make a push for progress on the next relief bill, I will continue fighting for resources for our students and teachers, and that includes reliable access to the internet. Despite this August work period looking much different from years prior, I was still able to connect with tens of thousands of Texans virtually and over the phone and safely meet many of them in person. As I traveled, I was able to see how schools, our healthcare facilities, our food banks, local governments, and more have been able to use the Federal coronavirus funding provided for in the CARES Act. The feedback and insight I received was invaluable to my work in the Senate, and it is more important than ever as we continue negotiations on the next coronavirus relief bill. This is going to be a busy month in the Senate. We need to pass legislation to bolster our response to this virus, support our students and teachers, help those in need of financial assistance, and ensure that our healthcare response remains robust. We are just 3 weeks away from the end of the fiscal year, including a government shutdown unless we can reach an agreement on a funding bill. Complicating matters even further, we are at the peak of hurricane season, which may not seem like as big a deal in DC, but I guarantee, we have our eyes on these tropical storms in the Gulf of Mexico that could well end up onshore. Hurricane Hanna, for example, struck South Texas in July and hit our farmers and producers hard, as well as flooding out many, many homes and displacing families. A couple of weeks ago, Hurricane Laura tore through the Gulf of Mexico. Though the brunt of Laura hit other neighbors in Louisiana, for which we are very sorry, we are very glad that it did little damage in Southeast Texas, but it still did some significant damage. I was able to join the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Senator Cruz for a visit to Orange to survey the damage and speak with local officials about the impact of the storm. I am committed to providing my constituents in Texas with the resources needed to recover from whatever this hurricane season may bring. I will be keeping a close eye on the weather forecast as we move through what has already been an active hurricane season. We have a lot of work to do in the next few weeks. Though we weren't able to make progress on a coronavirus bill in July, I was on almost virtually daily conference calls with the White House and Secretary Mnuchin talking about the way forward. I am more optimistic today than I have been to this point that we will, ultimately, reach an agreement. I hope my colleagues have also heard from their constituents about how important relief is and that we can come together at such a critical point in our fight against COVID-19. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, before they leave the floor, I just want to compliment my colleagues from Alaska and Ohio on making a very important point. You would think, from the press, that there are negotiations taking place, but the truth is that Speaker Pelosi and the minority leader in the Senate, Senator Schumer, have shown zero interest in resolving the differences on this next COVID-19 package. I think it is just very important for my colleagues to lay out the facts because there is a tendency to ignore the facts in favor of a mythical or a fantasy construct, so I appreciate their statements. Hopefully, sometime soon, now that the enhanced unemployment benefits have been allowed to expire as a result of Democratic objections and where the Paycheck Protection Program, which was the single most successful part of the CARES Act legislation that we passed, is likewise scheduled to terminate here soon, I hope Democratic negotiators will get serious about providing a fifth coronavirus relief package to support our country through this unprecedented crisis. We are doing pretty well. During the previous legislation, we virtually passed these trillion-plus-dollar bills, multitrillion-dollar bills, essentially by unanimous vote because we knew we were in the middle of an emergency. We knew that it was not a time for politics; it was a time to try to help people who were out of work or needed help from our beleaguered healthcare providers. So we rose to the occasion, previously, by bolstering our healthcare response, making testing free of charge, providing vital funding for our hospitals, and arming our medical workers with the personal protective equipment and other medical equipment they needed in order to sustain the fight. We have poured funding into the research and development of a vaccine, therapeutics, and treatments, which are coming along, and we are all hopeful an American company will win the global race for a vaccine in addition to these therapeutics. The legislation we passed so far has buoyed the workers and families in need of financial assistance with direct payments, bolstered unemployment benefits, as well as conferred the ability to defer student loan payments with no penalty, and we have supported our wobbly economy with assistance for Main Street businesses through the Paycheck Protection Program that I mentioned a moment ago and other loans for industries that our State and counties rely upon, as well as countless jobs. While Republicans and Democrats were negotiating these bills in good faith, it was clear we had some different ideas about the best way to support our country through the crisis, but what mattered most was that we shared the same goal. At least we did then. I am beginning to doubt whether we share the same goal now. The goal then was to help people in distress, economically and from a public health standpoint. Now, it seems like Speaker Pelosi and the minority leader in the Senate are more interested in trying to score political points and use people who are in distress and anxious and fearful as hostages. Well, it is really, really unacceptable. We should be strengthening our fight against the virus and supporting those harmed by economic impact and laying the foundation for a rebound of our economy, which was one of the strongest in my lifetime right before this pandemic hit. Those remain my priorities today, as we navigate these uncharted waters and prepare to strengthen our fight at this crucial time, but the hangup in negotiations between Democrats and the administration seems to indicate that our Democratic colleagues have shifted course-- or at least that Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Schumer have. The majority of information we are learning about these negotiations is not coming from rank-and-file Members but from leaks and press conferences to the media about private meetings in Speaker Pelosi's office. From what I understand, it sounds like the Speaker and the minority leader have simply stiff-armed any offers that fall short of their ridiculous Heroes Act legislation that the Speaker and the House passed on a partisan basis a few weeks ago--that they knew at the time had no chance of becoming law. This legislation was heralded by Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Schumer as the solution our country needs to defeat this virus, so let's talk about what is in it. For starters, the so-called Heroes Act is a massive tax cut for millionaires and billionaires. If the Heroes Act became law, the wealthiest people in New York and San Francisco would receive an average benefit of nearly $60,000--$60,000--higher than the household income for many Texans. Well, this has nothing to do with COVID-19 or supporting those who are struggling to make ends meet. It is a handout to the people who need it least, at everyone else's expense. But that is only one line in the long list of absurdities in this legislation, the Heroes Act, that have absolutely nothing to do with the crisis at hand. What is the Speaker's priority when it comes to COVID-19? Well, it is a soil health program, environmental justice grants, permanent changes in election law, and not one but two diversity studies in the marijuana industry. POLITICO called this bill, at the time, a Democratic wish list filled with all the party's favorite policies. NPR, hardly a bastion of conservative communication, said it is a long wish list for Democrats. The New York Times--the New York Times--basically, a party organ for the Democrats, said the bill was more a messaging document than a viable piece of legislation. The reason they said that is because one- third of that bill is unrelated to the coronavirus. It paid people more to stay home than to work. It sent checks to illegal immigrants. It bailed out poorly run States. It facilitated ballot harvesting, marijuana banking, and, as I said, tax breaks for coastal elites. That stands in stark contrast to what we have proposed and what Leader McConnell aptly summed up as kids, jobs, and healthcare. Those ought to be our priorities. As we discover our new normal that exists somewhere between the virus arriving in the United States and a vaccine being distributed, that is where we need to target our attention and our support. That includes funding for educators who are in the process of planning the safest way to teach students in the fall and childcare for working parents who are heading back to the office. It includes helping the workers who had the rug pulled out from under them when our Democratic colleagues refused to continue bolstered unemployment benefits until these workers can get back to a steady paycheck. Our bill included continued support for our war against the virus itself, both in hospitals and in research labs. These have been the main concerns in my recent conversations with my constituents in Texas, especially now that the bolstered unemployment benefits provided by the CARES Act have expired. Since March, more than 3 million Texans have filed for unemployment benefits, and recipients have taken advantage of the additional $600 a week. This additional income has helped families cover the rent, groceries, and other critical expenses until they are able to return to work, and for many workers there is still a great deal of uncertainty about when that might happen. Well, it is clear, though, that that $600 additional benefit had some unintended consequences. Frankly, we should have capped the amount that somebody could receive for unemployment benefits at their previous earning level, but, according to the Texas Workforce Commission, with the $600 weekly benefit on top of the State benefit, 80 percent of the people receiving the unemployment insurance benefit were making more on unemployment insurance than they were previously employed--80 percent. That brings us to a point far beyond giving workers the financial support they need to stay afloat. Instead, the Federal Government is paying people not to work. That is the wrong incentive and, certainly, completely unnecessary. Payroll, wage substitution--yes. Paying people not to work--no. A recent poll found that two-thirds of Americans believe that these enhanced benefits discourage people from going back to work, and they are right. Among unemployed Americans, nearly half say they would avoid returning to work if these benefits were extended. The businesses in my State which closed their doors earlier this year have now had trouble hiring employees back because some 80 percent of those former employees are making more not working than they were working. If we were to extend that benefit through January, as the Heroes Act would, our economy would not recover, as we all need it to do. So there is a delicate balance--but an important balance--between supporting those who need help until they can return to the workforce and giving them an incentive to avoid returning to work. This is not an all-or-nothing approach. It is not 600 bucks or bust, even though that is the way Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Schumer like to put it. We can and we should begin and continue to supplement State unemployment benefits and give workers the income they need to support their families without paying people more to stay home than to work. It is not rocket science. We are all anxiously waiting for the Speaker and the minority leader to wake up and start focusing on the task at hand, which is on commonsense policies that support our country through this crisis. Texans don't have time to wait for the posturing or the politicking and the grandstanding, not to mention the heel-dragging. They don't have an interest in knowing how diverse the marijuana business is, and they don't want to provide a massive tax break to the richest Americans on the east coast at the expense of everyone else. My constituents want to be able to feed their families; they want to be able to work; they want to be able to pay their rent; and they want to know their kids will be healthy as the school year begins. I implore our colleagues, Speaker Pelosi, and Minority Leader Schumer to drop the games, quit hurting people you claim to champion, and pay attention to what America really needs. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have 4 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 Thursday, August 6, 2020, at 9 a.m., in Open Session to consider the nomination of Mr. Jason A. Abend to be Inspector General of the Department of Defense; Mr. Bradley D. Hansell to be Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security; Mr. Lucas N. Polakowski to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs; and Mr. Louis W. Bremer to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations/Low- Intensity Conflict. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to hold a meeting during the session of the Senate on Committee on Thursday, August 6, 2020, at 10 a.m. The committee will hold a full committee nominations hearing. Committee on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, August 6, 2020, at 10:30 a.m. to hold a full committee hearing on nominations. Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, August 6, 2020, at 10 a.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Oversight of DHS Personnel Deployments to Recent Protests.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as our Nation's war against the coronavirus wages on, negotiations on the next relief package seem to remain at a standstill. The bolstered unemployment benefits provided by the CARES Act have expired. Principals and teachers--and parents, I might add--are preparing to begin the school year without adequate funding for the protective measures they need, and additional investments into vaccines and treatments are desperately needed. I believe the Senate should stay in session until we are able to pass another coronavirus relief bill, but Speaker Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Schumer seem to have zero sense of urgency in delivering the support those in our country need, including their own constituents, and they have zero interest, apparently--at least so far--in a bipartisan compromise. Despite the less-than-enthusiastic interest from their own Members and a flatout veto threat from the White House, they continue to push the more than $3 trillion Heroes Act as a solution to the crisis. Remember, this is legislation that was so unpopular among Democrats that it barely managed to pass the House earlier this summer, and it includes extraneous items, like tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires who live in blue States and diversity studies for the marijuana industry. It doesn't take a policy expert to see that these portions of the bill have absolutely nothing to do with the crisis at hand, and they demonstrate how unserious Speaker Pelosi and Democrats in the House have been and, unfortunately, now joined by some of our colleagues here in the Senate--how unserious they are about actually solving this problem to the best of our ability. They even go so far as to call that particular piece of legislation, the Heroes Act, a messaging document. Well, that messaging document helps absolutely zero people. It is a wish list, a pipedream, and it is an effort to try to appease the most radical Members of the Democratic caucus. Though Speaker Pelosi says the title of this legislation is a tribute to our healthcare workers, it is really a cruel joke. The bill itself does nothing to protect them from one of the biggest threats lurking around the corner. We are already beginning to see evidence that the coronavirus pandemic is moving from hospitals to courtrooms, as lawyers have filed lawsuits against our essential healthcare workers and any institution that has kept its doors open throughout this crisis. This is something that has come up in my conversations with many of my constituents in Texas over the last several months--healthcare workers, educators, nonprofits, restaurant workers, child daycare centers, retailers--the list goes on and on. They are worried about the carpet-bombing of opportunistic litigation. After all, these are some of the very same people we have said must show up for work, must continue to provide essential goods and services to their communities during this crisis. Now they are worried that we are going to throw them under the bus and make them subject to lawsuits for doing the best they could under very difficult circumstances. Well, we can already see the commercials on TV or the billboards soliciting these lawsuits. The trial bar is prepared to file lawsuits against doctors, nurses, teachers, small business owners--anyone and everyone who might be able to pay a judgment or, more likely, who has an insurance policy. According to the law firm Hunton Andrews Kurth, nearly 4,000 claims have already been filed--more than 275 in Texas--but we are also talking about circumstances under which the statute of limitations is 2 years. So 2 years from the claimed incident, you could file a lawsuit. So this is just the tip of the iceberg. As our economy begins to reopen, so will the floodgates, and we need to take action now to prevent this tidal wave of litigation from wiping out the very workers, businesses, and institutions we have been fighting to keep afloat. Leader McConnell and I have introduced the SAFE TO WORK Act to address this issue and to prevent this trial lawyer bonanza from bringing even more harm to our country and to our economy. Unlike the unserious Heroes Act, this would give our healthcare workers exactly the kind of support they need, but I want to make clear what this legislation does and does not do. First, it is not a blanket shield from liability. It will not prevent bad actors from being held accountable. It will not prevent people from filing coronavirus lawsuits, and it will not give anyone a ``get out of jail free'' card. In cases of gross negligence or willful misconduct, where applicable public health guidelines were ignored, the person bringing the claim has every right to sue and to be made whole, and we are not suggesting any change to that. What we do need to do, though, is put some safeguards in place to help those who were operating in good faith under uncertain circumstances, under sometimes changing guidance and direction, even though they were trying to follow all of the relevant guidelines. That includes protections for nonprofits that have gone above and beyond to support their communities, as the demand for their services has skyrocketed. It includes the schools, the colleges, the universities that are preparing to take every conceivable precaution to keep students and teachers safe this fall. It includes the hospitals that have been on the frontlines and have fought significant headwinds to keep their staff, their patients, and their communities safe. And, of course, it includes protections for our incredible healthcare workers who have been on the frontlines of this crisis for months. Amid rapidly changing guidelines, staffing shortages, and scarce supplies of personal protective equipment, they continued to adapt and deliver the best possible care to their patients. Just to give you one example of how rapidly the guidelines are changing, in March, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission provided a manual to nursing homes with guidance on managing and preventing a COVID-19 outbreak. The manual was 28 pages long. Since then, it has nearly tripled in length. As we have learned more about this virus, guidelines have evolved, as you would hope they would, to ensure that our healthcare workers know the most effective ways to quarantine, test, and treat patients. That is an unequivocally good thing. It is strengthening our response, it is helping us slow the spread of the virus, and it is savings lives. But it has also created a host of challenges for the healthcare workers who are the very ones complying with these rapidly changing guidelines, doing the best they can under difficult circumstances I learned about an elderly patient who arrived at a hospital emergency room during the early stages of the pandemic with a fever but no other COVID-19 symptoms. At that point, testing supplies were constrained, and the applicable CDC protocol was to limit testing only to patients who met the strict criteria, who had symptoms. And with only a fever, this patient did not meet those criteria so he was not tested. The healthcare workers identified an infection site that could have been causing his fever, so they treated him and discharged him with instructions to return if his condition worsened. Several days later, unfortunately, his condition did worsen, and he went to a different hospital where he was given a COVID-19 test. The result came back positive, and ultimately he was admitted to the intensive care unit. Then, several days later, he tragically passed away from coronavirus- related symptoms. For the man's family, I know this raises questions of how things might have been different today if he had been tested on that initial visit in the emergency room. They have said they may file a lawsuit against the physician and the hospital for not performing a test and admitting the man to the hospital on the first visit. But the doctors there were simply following the best advice they had at the time and were constrained by the number of tests available--only to test patients when they had symptoms of the virus and, unfortunately, this man's symptoms did not qualify. If the doctor and the hospital did the best they could following those guidelines, they should not be subjected to these types of litigation. Now, as I have said, the legislation would not provide blanket immunity. Nobody is arguing for that, but we do need clear guardrails to ensure that the dedicated healthcare workers and other essential workers who were acting in good faith will not be drained dry by the trial bar. This legislation sets a willful misconduct or gross negligence standard to ensure that only bona fide, legitimate claims are brought against these healthcare workers. The patients subjected to that type of treatment have every right to sue and to be made whole, and this will preserve that basic right. But it will also make sure that the hard-working doctors, nurses, emergency medical technicians, and other medical professionals who have acted in good faith are not pulled into litigation that could send them into bankruptcy. Over the past several months, our healthcare workers have navigated the dark, treacherous, and rapidly changing waters of this storm to save as many lives as possible. I should point out that I think about 30 States have, at the State level, provided the kind of protection to healthcare workers I am talking about. So we need to throw them a lifeline, not feed them to the sharks. Instead of naming a bill in honor of our healthcare heroes that does absolutely nothing to help them, as the House has done, let's pass a bill that will honor them. If our friends across the aisle want to help our healthcare workers and thank them for their immeasurable sacrifices they have made, liability protection would do exactly that. So I hope our colleagues are prepared to acknowledge the widely known truth--that the Heroes Act is an unserious piece of legislation that has zero chance of becoming law. It is time to stop playing games and get serious about what our country needs at this critical moment. As negotiations on the next relief package continue, I would ask our colleagues to set aside the completely unrelated priorities in the Heroes Act and focus on the changes that need to be made to keep our healthcare and other essential workers safe but also to protect them from frivolous litigation.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, it was fortuitous that I was here on the floor when my friend from Illinois decided to talk about the liability provisions of the bill we filed last week, the next installment in the COVID-19 response. Let me just spend a couple of minutes talking about the issues he raised. My friend, our colleague from Illinois, is a very talented lawyer. He has a lot of great experience in the courtroom. He understands how courts work and how the litigation practice works. I think at last count I saw that roughly 3,000 to 3,500 lawsuits had been filed. I don't know what the exact number is, but it is pretty irrelevant because there is ordinarily, under State tort laws--at least in my State--a 2-year statute of limitations for a personal injury lawsuit. So I guarantee you that the flood is coming. Having survived one pandemic, the American economy is going to have to withstand a second pandemic of opportunistic lawsuits. I think it is going to be hard for people to prove where they acquired the virus. Ordinarily, that would be an element of the plaintiff's burden of proof, but we know that in jury trials, where expert witnesses are hired, all they would need to say is that it is more likely than not that they got it at this daycare center or this nonprofit or in this hospital--enough to create a question for the jury. Then it is really a matter of whose expert witness you believe, and, of course, the chances are that you will be found responsible based upon that contested factual issue. It is more likely, I believe, that these lawsuits will have very little merit. The juries will be very skeptical of these lawsuits because they understand that this pandemic came out of nowhere. Actually, we know where it came from: China. But nobody was fully aware of all of the circumstances under which we would need to respond. We have had to adapt as time has gone on, and we have had different advice from the CDC and the national experts. For example, I remember-- I went back and checked. The CDC didn't recommend that we wear masks until roughly April. Before that, they were really considered ineffective. So if somebody files a lawsuit saying, well, you should have been wearing masks at your workplace, and because you didn't, somebody got the virus, well, what is the timeframe in which that guidance would apply? Would it be retroactive to January, when the virus first broke out here in the United States, or would it be sort of based on lessons learned down the road? Here is the real problem: My friend from Illinois knows that lawsuits are filed every day in America with no real expectation of ever trying the case in front of a jury--or a judge, for that matter--because we all know that the costs of defending those lawsuits can be enough in and of themselves to deter people from reopening their business. Frequently, what happens--there is a phenomenon known as nuance settlements, where defendants calculate, how much is this going to cost me to defend, and I will go ahead and pay that money now in order to avoid the further vexation of a lawsuit. And that is the seed money used to file the next lawsuit and the next lawsuit and the next lawsuit. I think we can reasonably expect that there will be a lot of class-action lawsuits. The goal here is not to provide blanket immunity; the goal is to do what we did after the Y2K phenomenon, when we questioned whether our computers would actually register the change of the century rather than go back to the earlier century and whether the disruption in financial markets and the like would occur. This is roughly the same sort of thing we did after 9/11, too, to provide some stability, some certainty, to very chaotic and challenging times. So we know that, in addition to the public health fight, we are trying to reopen our economy safely. Mothers and fathers and teachers and school officials are thinking about how can our children resume their education, whether online or in person, but safety, obviously, is the most important point. The fact is, we had one of the best economies in my lifetime before this virus hit in January, and now we are in a recession. The question is, Are we going to recover, rebound from this now that we have learned how to treat people with the COVID-19 virus better to save more lives, to prevent them from going on ventilators and the like? And, as we are in a race to come up with better treatments and, hopefully, a vaccine-- which will be the gold standard, I believe, in terms of our learning to live with this virus--what is going to happen to the economy? What is going to happen to the jobs that used to be there but which no longer exist because of the recession we are in? The threat of this second pandemic of litigation--opportunistic litigation--will be a body blow to an economy that wants to reopen, to people who want to go back to work safely, to children who want to go back to school, to parents who want to have a daycare facility watch their children in a safe environment while they go back to work. One of the things we have talked about during all this is essential workers. Well, I think all work is essential. It is important. It is important to our personal well-being, it is important to our economy, and it is important to the families who depend on the wage earner to bring home a paycheck so that they can put food on the table and pay the rent. I believe that this second pandemic of COVID-19 litigation--as I said, there is ordinarily a 2-year, I believe, statute of limitations-- could well keep our economy shut down, destroy small businesses that have been holding on by a thread, and, frankly, punish people who had no choice but to show up for work. I mean, if you are a physician or a nurse, you didn't have any option but to show up for work. You knew you had to do it in order to do your job, in order to pursue your profession. Are we then going to subject them to litigation risks because of their having to encounter something totally new and unprecedented? I think it would be a cruel joke for us to say: Yes, you are an essential worker; yes, you have no choice but to show up; and, yes, you have no choice but to be subjected to a lawsuit because somebody 2 or 3 years later wants to second-guess the decisions you made in the middle of a pandemic. I just think it would be enormously unfair to those essential workers who had no choice but to show up. I want to say, in conclusion, I disagree with my colleague on one other matter as well. I believe, by rewarding compliance with government public health guidelines, providing a safe harbor for negligence claims, it actually incentivizes people to follow those guidelines. Isn't that what we want to do? Isn't that what we want our schools, our daycare centers, our nonprofits, our retail businesses-- don't we want them to comply with those public health guidelines? Well, this is one way to reward them and incentivize them to do exactly that. I know we are still a long way away from a negotiated resolution of the things that separate us here on this next COVID-19 bill, but I agree with the majority leader that this is an essential ingredient in that next bill. Prior to the arrival of COVID-19 in America, the Texas economy was booming, along with the rest of America's economy. Businesses have flocked to Texas, creating new jobs and attracting top talent from around the country. People are literally voting with their feet and coming to where they have an opportunity to work, provide for their family, and pursue their dreams. We began the year with a 3.5-percent unemployment rate in Texas--3.5 percent, just one-tenth of a percent above the historic low set last summer. But as the pandemic began its deadly sweep across the country, everything changed. Texas businesses, as were required, closed their doors to stop the spread of the virus, and millions of workers were suddenly without a paycheck. We didn't know when our economy would begin to recover, when we would reopen to a point where those who were laid off work could come back safely. And we knew State unemployment benefits alone were not sufficient to bridge the gap. That is why, when we passed the CARES Act late in March, we didn't just enhance the unemployment benefits; we actually sent a direct deposit to the bank account of all adults earning less than $75,000 a year. We sent them $1,200 to tide them over, to give them a lifeline, which I think was very, very important because, even if you are out of work, you can't get unemployment benefits instantaneously, and we know that a lot of the workforce commissions like those we have in Texas that administer the unemployment compensation program were overwhelmed with applications. So it was important that we provide that direct relief and then the enhanced unemployment benefit. Well, in Texas, the average unemployment benefit is $246 a week. With an additional $600 a week, which we added as part of the CARES Act, that amount more than tripled. Since March, more than 3 million Texans have filed for unemployment benefits, and recipients have taken advantage of the bolstered benefits, which I supported. This additional income, provided on a temporary basis, has helped families cover their rent, their groceries, and other critical expenses until they are able to return to work, and, for many workers, there is still a great deal of uncertainty about when that might happen. When the CARES Act passed in March, we were all hopeful that the economic outlook at this point would be much brighter than it is today, and that is why these benefits came with an expiration date of July 31, last Friday. We had hoped that our economy would be rebounding and we would be in better shape controlling and defeating this virus and that more businesses would be able to reopen their doors or create new jobs, which obviously has not happened as quickly as we would have liked. In Texas, our unemployment rate went from 3.5 percent to 13.5 percent in April, a 10-point increase in unemployment. We have made progress since then, thankfully, with it dropping now down to 8.6 percent--still a historically high level of unemployment, but it is moving in the right direction. While this is encouraging, we still have a long way to go, and we cannot allow those impacted to go another day without the income that they need to support their families. As Republicans and Democrats continue to work together toward an agreement on the next coronavirus response package, these individuals are being sacrificed and hurt in the interim. Why did Democrats block our attempt to extend unemployment benefits last week? Is it because they don't care about the people who are hurting, who need those resources? Our colleague from Arizona, Senator McSally, offered a bill last week to extend these benefits for an additional week so that we could continue negotiating, but the minority leader, the Democratic leader, Senator Schumer, blocked it. He prevented us from passing the simple, 1-week extension to give us some time to complete our negotiations and make sure that people who needed that money would not be hurt. I am embarrassed that the Senate could not overcome this partisan dysfunction in order to provide this extended benefit to people who need it while we do our job here. There is no excuse for allowing this provision to expire without even a temporary measure until a final decision is reached. Even though we are coming up on the traditional August recess, I believe we need to stay here working until an agreement is reached to provide these workers with the support they need. Of course, there is a delicate balance between helping these workers and standing in the way of an economic recovery. Here is the twist: Over the last few months, I have been hearing from a number of business owners in Texas who are struggling to rehire their employees because--get this--they are actually making more from unemployment than they made while working, and this is not just a one- off or an isolated issue. According to the Texas Workforce Commission, with the $600 Federal benefit on top of the State benefit, 80 percent of the recipients of unemployment insurance were making more money on unemployment than they were when previously employed--80 percent. I think that is a mistake. Paying people more not to work than they would make taking available work makes no sense whatsoever. Now, obviously, if there is not a job for people to take, then they should continue to get unemployment benefits, but if there is a job, then I think the incentive should be to encourage them to safely return to work, not to pay them more not to work. The bill proposed by House Democrats would extend the $600 Federal benefit through next January, providing even less of an incentive for workers to safely reenter the workforce. This is just one of the countless places where the Democrats' $3 trillion Heroes Act fails to deliver the relief our country actually needs. This is $3 trillion on top of the roughly $3 trillion that we have already spent. Rather than helping Americans get back to work, the Heroes Act passed by the House includes a long list of liberal priorities, things like environmental justice grants--what in the heck does that have to do with COVID-19?--soil health studies, and not one but two subsidies for diversity and inclusion in the cannabis industry--hardly anything to do with COVID-19. What is more, our colleagues across the aisle who railed about tax cuts for the rich, well, they want to allow millionaires and billionaires in blue States to pay less in taxes. They want a tax cut for the millionaires and billionaires in their States by eliminating the cap on the deductibility of State and local taxes. For too long, people in my State and other parts of the country have had to subsidize the big-spending blue States by allowing them to deduct all of their State and local taxes. That means you and I have to pay to subsidize those high-tax jurisdictions like New York City, for example. Well, in addition, the Heroes Act deepens the hiring struggle businesses are already facing, and it rapidly digs our Nation deeper and deeper into debt. It is so unpopular, even among our Democratic colleagues, that it barely managed to pass the House in May. I want to credit the Senator from Wyoming, who is here in the Chamber, who pointed out some of the quotes from the New York Times and others at the time. Here is what the New York Times said: ``Even though the bill was more a messaging document than a viable piece of legislation, its fate was in doubt in the final hours before its passage.'' National Public Radio, hardly a bastion of conservative news, said: ``The more than 1,800-page bill marks a long wish list for Democrats.'' If this bill were to become law, Texans' tax dollars wouldn't be supporting our response and recovery; they would be funding a range of completely unrelated liberal pet projects. Speaker Pelosi knew the Heroes Act didn't have a chance of passing in the U.S. Senate. She never intended for that bill to pass in the Senate. It was all about messaging and posturing and trying to manage the radicals in the Democratic caucus in the House. These unwanted, unaffordable, and, frankly, laughable proposals are not the types of solutions America needs to recover from this crisis, especially when it comes to rebuilding our economy. In the next relief bill, Congress must include additional unemployment benefits to help those who, through no fault of their own, are out of work, but we can't defy common sense and continue paying some people more to stay home than to return to work. Our long-term economic recovery will depend on people safely returning to the workforce, and Congress cannot stand in the way. In addition to supporting workers until they are able to return to work, we also need to ensure that they will have a job to go back to. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 more minutes.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I thank my colleague for his indulgence. One of the things we need to do is make sure that the Paycheck Protection Program is replenished as well. This is the most successful part of our coronavirus response--more than $670 billion appropriated to help small businesses maintain their payroll, to keep their employees on the payroll. More than 400,000 small businesses in Texas have received these loans, bringing in over $41 billion to the Lone Star State. This money has kept countless Texans on the payroll not only for today but into the future. I hope we will continue the Paycheck Protection Program as part of the next COVID-19 response. There is another provision that we need to address, though, and that has to do with the deductibility of the expenses of businesses that have received Paycheck Protection Program loans and grants. Unfortunately, while Congress made clear that we expected businesses that received these loans and grants to have the benefit of the ordinary business expenses, the Internal Revenue Service has said just the opposite. The Joint Tax Committee that scores bills--tax bills--has said that a bill we have now introduced that would allow that deductibility to make that very clear has a zero score because they understood that Congress intended to allow those deductions in the first place. We have two choices to help small businesses: We can write them another check, or we can allow them to deduct their ordinary business expenses. This would provide some more liquidity and provide additional assistance and cost nothing in terms of the score on the bill. It has bipartisan support that I believe merits our consideration. In conclusion, we need to do everything we can to support the workers and families struggling to make it through this economic downturn, while simultaneously securing the foundation for a strong economic recovery. The stakes are high, and I believe the Senate must stay in session until we are able to deliver the relief our country needs. I yield the floor.