John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to complete my remarks before the vote occurs.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, since the Federal Bureau of Investigation launched the Crossfire Hurricane counterintelligence investigation in July of 2016, there has been no shortage of media coverage of Russia's involvement in our 2016 election. For the better part of 3 years, there has been news; there has been speculation; there have been rumors; there have been partisan accusations made about that topic. Trying to keep up with the names and the dates, the allegations left you feeling like an old-school detective show--names and photos pinned to a board, with strings of yarn connecting all the pieces. Everyone expected the release of the special counsel's report to be the moment when those dots were finally connected and it explained what happened and who was responsible. It is safe to say that did not happen. Even though the Mueller report did not find any collusion or obstruction, there was a lot of information that since has been made public about its origins, its motivation, and the means by which that investigation occurred. In fact, rather than settling the matter, these revelations have prompted a whole new range of questions about the investigation itself. First of all, we had Rod Rosenstein in the Judiciary Committee. He was the Deputy Attorney General. I asked him whether he was aware of any precedent for what happened in 2016 when, at the same time, both major parties' political nominees for President of the United States were the subject of open FBI investigations. He said: No, there is no precedent for that. First, of course, it was the Hillary email scandal, after which Director Comey made another unprecedented move and had a press conference saying that even though she had been essentially grossly negligent in handling this private email server, he thought that no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges against her. As much as Secretary Clinton might have appreciated that announcement, or not, a few weeks later, the FBI Director wrote another letter and said: Hey, we have some Anthony Weiner emails that came up on his laptop, so we need to reopen the investigation just a few days before the general election. Well, you can imagine Secretary Clinton didn't appreciate that. Many people have said that it is because of the FBI's unprecedented involvement in the middle of a Presidential election that it damaged, if not decided, the election in 2016. And then, of course, there is the Trump-Russia influence investigation, better known as Crossfire Hurricane, leading up to the Mueller investigation and where we are today. In the time since the special counsel completed his investigation and issued his report more than a year ago, we have learned more about the behind-the-scenes work that guided the Russia probe. Thanks to Inspector General Horowitz and his team at the Department of Justice, thanks to the DNI, the Director of National Intelligence, and others for declassifying important information, we have a whole lot more insight and transparency into exactly what happened. But these revelations have given all of us pause for grave concern. They have highlighted a pattern of sloppiness and outright abuse of power at the highest levels of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and beyond and raised red flags that must be addressed. In the Senate, it is our duty to get to the bottom of how and why this happened. I can't imagine any Democrat, any Republican, any American saying what happened in the 2016 election to Hillary Clinton and to Donald Trump was OK. Our law enforcement agencies should not play a starring role in an election leading up to the Nation's highest office. This morning, the first step in our investigation into the origins, means, and methods of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation occurred in the Judiciary Committee. That is where we heard from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. He wasn't the Deputy Attorney General until the spring of 2017, but he did play a key role in the investigation. He signed one of the applications for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant that allowed the FBI to essentially surveil an American citizen. He was the one who appointed Special Counsel Bob Mueller. He ended up being not only an investigator but also a witness in the process. His account of what happened in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation is important to understanding both the actions and the motivations that drove that investigation. In fact, he said this morning, in response to Chairman Lindsey Graham's question, if you knew then what you know now, would you have signed, sworn to this verified application for a warrant to surveil an American citizen, Carter Page? He said: No. To his credit, he said no. ``If I knew then, what I know now.'' Some of my greatest concerns stem from the Department of Justice Inspector General's report about those FISA abuses, as they are called--Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This is extraordinary authority given by Congress under very strict rules, and they are supervised by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which was established to provide oversight of these surveillance activities, including surveillance of American citizens under very narrow and restricted guardrails. If the U.S. intelligence authorities, or law enforcement agencies, believe surveillance is critical to a national security investigation, they submit an application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to receive that authorization. This is an important step in protecting the rights of American citizens and making sure that our intelligence and law enforcement authorities perform their job consistent with congressional intent and direction. But these verified, in other words, sworn documents are critical, in which accuracy is paramount. That is why they are required to be verified--that is, sworn to--by the top officials at the Department of Justice. We now know that the applications of the former Trump campaign aide Carter Page were riddled with errors. In the initial Carter Page FISA application, Inspector General Horowitz identified what he called seven mistakes. In the three renewals, he had found an additional 10. These weren't necessarily honest mistakes. In fact, they included significant and material errors, including the deliberate falsification, lying-- lying to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court about Carter Page's past service to the U.S. Government. To make matters worse, even as new and exculpatory material came to light, this information was not reflected in renewal applications. It was sort of a cut-and-paste job. Those agents who prepared those materials that were signed by people like Rod Rosenstein lied to deceive the court so they could continue to surveil, or spy, on an American citizen--something we do not want to happen unless they are truly an agent of a foreign power and there is probable cause to show that they are such. These revelations were very troubling in December of 2019, and they are just as troubling today. It does also raise questions about the motivations for the investigation, in the first place. Falsifying a FISA application is clearly not an action one would take if you were in pursuit of the truth. We need to know why the initial application and three renewals were riddled with lies and omissions and how these inaccurate applications were approved by high-ranking officials at the Department of Justice. Second, this raises serious questions about the way investigations of average Americans are being handled. If these agents were able to break every rule in the book to spy on a Presidential candidate--who ultimately was elected--and are facing no consequences, no accountability, what protections exist for the rest of us in America? Who is going to notice their error-ridden FISA applications if it is John or Jane Q. Public? What is even more disconcerting is, if this happened once--and it did happen more than once--what is to stop it from happening again? The American people need and deserve answers to these questions, and today's hearing in the Judiciary Committee was the first step in getting the answers to those questions and hopefully corrective action. Chairman Graham has been clear that we will look at this investigation from all angles--covering the FISA abuses, unmasking requests, and the origins of both Crossfire Hurricane, and the appointment of special counsel. The trove of declassified transcripts that recently were released by the House Intelligence Committee--actually, declassified by the Director of National Intelligence--only underscores the important need for oversight by the Senate and by the Congress. In reading these transcripts, which were taken in secret, in a secure facility, and only recently made public, I have been shocked at some of the statements made by former Obama administration officials. Based on the way Chairman Schiff repeatedly claimed to have direct evidence, you would think these officials would provide the smoking gun to the committee. But no--witness after witness confirmed they had no evidence of collusion, coordination, or conspiracy between anyone in the Trump campaign and Russia. What did they do? They walked outside of that secure facility, and they spoke to the TV cameras assembled there, and they lied. They misrepresented what was said during that classified testimony. This really begs the question: Why did this investigation begin and how, without evidence, did it last for nearly 2 years? Additionally, I have a lot of questions about the sloppy and incomplete investigative work surrounding Crossfire Hurricane when it came to the use of something called a confidential human source. Christopher Steele, former intelligence officer from the United Kingdom, was hired by Fusion GPS to do opposition research against the Trump campaign for the Hillary Clinton campaign. Yet, at the same time, he was considered by the FBI as a confidential human source. Inspector General Horowitz's report makes clear Mr. Steele and his FBI handler did not even agree on the terms of their arrangement. Steele said: I am a businessman collecting information. The FBI said: Well, this is just between us, and you can't talk to the public, which he clearly did, and he did so at the same time he was supposed to be a confidential human source. The FBI background check into Christopher Steele was so sloppy, they didn't even understand that his loyalties were not with the FBI and the U.S. Government, they were with his paymaster--Fusion GPS, his employer. That is one reason there were such inaccuracies throughout this investigation, including in the FISA applications. So we need answers, and we need accountability. Based on what I have seen so far, one conclusion is that there was a coordinated effort to manipulate our intelligence community and justice system for vindictive and biased purposes against a Presidential candidate and elected President of the United States. I realize that this is a grave and serious charge, but I think it is one conclusion you could draw based on what we know. It is high time we learned the truth. If this kind of misbehavior and deception becomes routine, it will jeopardize important legal authorities that we rely on to protect our national security. It is counter to our values and is a direct blow to the foundation of our democracy. I appreciate Chairman Graham's prioritizing these oversight hearings. I know we have a lot of work to do in order to restore public confidence in our justice system as well as in our intelligence community--the people charged with protecting the American people. We need to learn what really happened so we can make sure this never ever, ever happens again. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, this is a busy week for all of us in the Senate but not so much for our friends in the House, who won't be back until the end of the month to vote on any legislation. We are hard at work here in the Senate, and particularly in the Judiciary Committee, we have a lot to do. This morning, we held a hearing to examine the impact of COVID-19 on incarceration and detention. Across my State, nearly 5,500 offenders have tested positive for COVID-19, and at least three dozen have passed away. In addition, nearly 900 employees have tested positive, leading to 7 line-of-duty deaths. This has been and continues to be a major focus of mine after having received a letter from the public employee union at the Federal Medical Center in Carswell in Ft. Worth, which is actually a medical facility for incarcerated individuals. Unfortunately, we know that, just like the nursing homes and assisted living facilities--people who are elderly or have chronic underlying health problems are especially vulnerable to this virus. We need to do everything we can to make sure that people are treated humanely and fairly even while incarcerated. Tomorrow, we will switch gears, and we will hold the next in a series of important hearings to examine the handling of the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane investigation. You will recall that the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was opened in July 2016, in the midst of a Presidential election campaign. This followed on the heels of a now famous or infamous press conference that FBI Director Comey had on July 5, 2016, in which he claimed that no reasonable prosecutor would charge then- Candidate Clinton for the various email scandals he investigated. But unfortunately, as we found out later, he reopened that investigation again right before the November election, casting a lot of doubt on who interfered the most with the 2016 election. Was it Director Comey, or was it Russian active measures? Who had the biggest impact on the actual outcome? As I said, this investigation against the Clinton campaign began in the summer of 2016. When the special counsel's report was released last April, it concluded that there was no collusion or obstruction that could be charged as an offense. I had hoped that extensive investigation conducted by the former FBI Director, Bob Mueller, would close the chapter in this book, but as information about how the FBI conducted its work has come to light, thanks in large part to the outstanding work of the inspector general of the Department of Justice, Mr. Horowitz, it is clear that this story is far from over, and there is a lot we need to do together to help restore public confidence in our Nation's premier law enforcement agencies, known as the Department of Justice and the FBI. We have learned--tragically, I say, because as a former judge and former attorney general, I revere these institutions of law enforcement--we learned about texts from high-ranking government officials in the FBI, in the upper-management echelon, vowing to stop Donald Trump's election. We now have learned about systemic abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which is supposed to protect the privacy of American citizens, and how it was manipulated and intentionally abused, and lies actually communicated to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in order to justify a warrant against an American citizen. We have learned about a first altered and now missing 302 for Michael Flynn. He, of course, was the National Security Advisor for a short time for President Trump but was later charged with lying to the FBI. Amazingly, in a surreal course of events, the original notes taken by the FBI agents who interviewed General Flynn are nowhere to be found. We learned they were later modified. We have the modified version, after somebody got to change them, but we need to see the underlying ones. It is no wonder that the steady drip of information paints a very troubling picture about the motivations behind the Crossfire Hurricane investigation and the way it evolved over time. The thing that concerns me the most is, if rogue FBI officials can do this against a Presidential candidate, if they can do what they did to Hillary Clinton and expose derogatory information while saying there isn't evidence with which to charge her with an offense, if that is tolerated, then what sort of protection do we as ordinary citizens have against that kind of abuse of the enormous power given to our law enforcement agencies and investigative agencies like the FBI? So this is a monumental scandal. The American people deserve answers, and that is what the Judiciary Committee is hoping to deliver. Tomorrow, we will hear from former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein about the origins of the investigation and the role he played as the Deputy Attorney General at the time--the second highest ranking official at the Department of Justice. Of course Mr. Rosenstein, during his long and illustrious career as a former U.S. attorney headquartered in Baltimore, was closely linked to some of the key players in the decisions made during this investigation, and his testimony is a critical first step in learning the truth behind this misguided and rogue investigation. On Thursday, the committee will vote on subpoena authorizations to obtain additional documents that are critical to our oversight responsibilities. As we work to restore America's faith in our justice system, there is only one way we can succeed, and that is to find the truth and to follow the truth, wherever it may lead. That process will begin in earnest again tomorrow, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee to uncover the facts, to share them with the American people, and to begin to persuade them that we take seriously the job of repairing the damage done by the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, conducted outside of all of the norms and rules that should guide those investigations, on the eve of a Presidential campaign, on top of the reason that Rod Rosenstein recommended to President Trump that James Comey be fired as the FBI Director because of his mishandling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have 5 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 Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 02, 2020, at l0:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Finance The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 02, 2020, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 02, 2020, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Russell Vought to be Director, Office of Management and Budget and Craig E. Leen to be Inspector General, Office of Personnel Management. Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 02, 2020, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the nomination of Justin R. Walker, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for District of Columbia Circuit. Subcommittee on Intellectual Property The Subcommittee on Intellectual Property of the Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 02, 2020, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, on to another matter, I was glad to be able to get back home to Texas this last week, where our communities are slowly coming out of a coronavirus shutdown. Churches have begun safely welcoming worshippers, restaurants are beginning to safely seat customers, albeit with the appropriate social distancing, and retailers are now beginning to safely reopen their doors. After weeks and in some cases months of hunkering down, it is a welcome sign of our progress in the fight against the coronavirus and the first step in our economic recovery. When stay-at-home orders were first put in place, small business were worried--understandably so--about their ability to survive. Many said they couldn't survive more than a couple of weeks under those circumstances. Back in March, Fort Worth chef Tim Love described the situation as ``Armageddon.'' He said: It's worse than a tornado, it's worse than a hurricane, it's worse than a fire. This is going to destroy everything that I have built. But the restaurants weren't alone; I heard similar concerns from countless other small business owners across nearly every sector of the economy--hospitality, tourism, retail, manufacturing, and the list goes on. Keeping our small businesses open means much more than having another restaurant to eat in or a shop to buy from on Main Street; it is one of the most effective ways to support our economy, by protecting those jobs. Across the country, small businesses have employed nearly half of all U.S. workers. They are the lifeblood of our local economies and provide critical services to each of our communities. Without customers coming through the front doors each day, it is hard to cover your business expenses and keep employees on the payroll. In fact, it is not just hard, it is impossible. Whether you are a new business just starting out or a decades-old community staple, the financial squeeze caused by this virus and the mitigation efforts that ensued are unavoidable. As we worked on coronavirus response legislation here in March, we knew that small businesses needed our support. That is why we established the Paycheck Protection Program and initially funded it with $350 billion. This funded loans that were available for these businesses to keep their employees on their payrolls and cover other necessary expenses, and if they did so, that loan would turn into a grant. It was so popular--and it's not hard to see why--and the need was so great that that initial funding ran out in about 2 weeks, so we wisely, in my opinion, decided to replenish it with another $320 billion. An IT and document management company in Sugar Land, TX, called Function 4 was one of the recipients of one of those PPP loans. One of the partners, Bill Patsouras, said that if it wasn't for the PPP, they would ``absolutely have to start letting people go.'' But instead of layoffs, all 89 employees of Function 4 are still employed and still working. This is a familiar story, I am sure, not just in Texas but elsewhere. As of May 23, small businesses in Texas have received more than 350,000 PPP loans totaling more than $40 billion. That is an average loan size of less than $115,000. These are for small and medium-size businesses. In speaking to my community bankers last week, I learned that one bank had approved a loan request for as little as $300. So while the average loan was $115,000, some businesses needed far less than that, including this one loan for $300. No matter how large or small, these loans have allowed businesses, churches, nonprofits, and some of our most valuable community institutions to survive. That is not to say, though, it was perfect--at least to start with. When it was first established, no one expected the rollout to be perfect. I think that would be an exercise in hope over experience because no government program this big and created this fast--and we knew both of those were important. We needed to go big, and we needed to deal with the need urgently. We knew there would be some problems. A brand-new loan program drafted and passed in such a short timeframe is bound to have some hiccups. So over the last several weeks, I have been working and talking to my constituents--as we all have--to identify what needs to be fixed or improved, what gaps need to be filled; figure out what is working, what isn't, and how we can make it even more effective. Well, I heard repeatedly that the biggest need was for flexibility in the use of those funds, and that is where they are needed the most. The main goal of the Paycheck Protection Program is right in the name--protecting paychecks. That is why we said that 75 percent of the money needed to be used for payroll; otherwise you were going to have to pay the money back. We said originally that the remaining 25 percent could be used for a range of other expenses, like rent or utilities. But based on the feedback I have gotten--and I am confident that I am not alone--we missed our mark by establishing that 75-percent requirement. For many who had no business because they were shut down as part of the mitigation efforts, their payroll expenses--they couldn't use the three-quarters of the loan for payroll--at least not in the short timeframe we allowed for. They needed to be able to spend more on other expenses, like rent and mortgage. The company owned by Tim Love, whom I mentioned a moment ago, who described this crisis as Armageddon, received a PPP loan and so far has been able to hire back 80 percent of their 490 employees. A couple of weeks ago, he participated in a roundtable at the White House, and he asked for adjustments to give businesses more flexibility. He said: We're not asking for more money. We're just asking for the opportunity to spend it the way that you want us to spend it, the way it was intended; to take care of our employees when we're able to open up. That is precisely what we are working to do, and I hope we can get legislation to the President's desk this week to make those needed changes. Last week, the House passed a bill to provide that flexibility for small businesses to use these funds where they are needed most. This effort was spearheaded by a fellow member of the Texas delegation, Congressman Chip Roy, and it passed by a vote of 417 to 1--a rare feat these days in the House of Representatives. The bill will reduce the level of funds that must be used on payroll from 75 percent to 60 percent. This will make sure that the bulk of the funding continues to protect jobs and support workers, while giving businesses the flexibility they need to stay viable. This legislation also gives borrowers another valuable asset, and that is the asset of time. The PPP as originally written gave borrowers 8 weeks to use these funds, and I have repeatedly heard from my constituents that 8 weeks is simply not enough. For those who received these loans at the outset in early April, their window to use the PPP loan is quickly closing, and although businesses are now just starting to safely reopen, it is going to take some time before we find our new normal. I don't think we want a situation where, after being back at work for 8 weeks, employees are let go because of an administrative policy that makes no sense. It is completely arbitrary, and that is exactly what could happen if we don't act. The bill passed by the House would extend that period of time to 24 weeks for borrowers to use those funds. It will ensure that businesses and nonprofits have the time to safely reopen and rebuild their operations while using the PPP to help cover payroll and other business expenses. This would be a win-win. I rarely have heard from my constituents back home that we have done anything that has been so universally appreciated as the PPP program, or the Paycheck Protection Program. This legislation that has passed the House and I hope we will take up and pass this week extends the benefits of this incredible program and provides more stability for small businesses without spending anymore taxpayer dollars. It doesn't cost us anything. Giving small businesses and nonprofits more flexibility to use this money when and where it is needed is important to our long-term recovery. I have heard very positive feedback about these changes from the small business owners I represent, and I am eager to support the passage of the latest House bill here in the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, ours is a nation with a split screen of a battle on two fronts. One is the pandemic that we have been fighting now for many months, and the other is to continue the fight to defeat racial injustice that has sadly divided our Nation since its very inception. One week ago today, George Floyd, a native Houstonian, tragically died in the custody of a law enforcement officer. As the gut-wrenching video of his death has spread, so has the passion and the anger among all of us who wonder, how can something like that happen? Our Constitution guarantees every American the right to protest injustice, and I believe we all have a responsibility to stand up for what is right and condemn what is plainly wrong. People of all colors, backgrounds, and ages are demanding that justice be served in the case of George Floyd. The first step in that process came on Friday when the officer who had him in custody was himself arrested and charged with third-degree murder. Devastating events like the death of George Floyd remind us that we have a long way to go in the fight for equal justice under the law, but we cannot yield to the temptation to fill the void created by this tragedy with violence. Too many protests across our country have turned into riots with looting and vandalism and destruction, hurting innocent people and tearing our cities apart. In response to these escalating protests last night, there were more curfews in place than at any other time since the assassination of Martin Luther King. One man who experienced that period of American history firsthand is our colleague on the other side of the Capitol, Congressman John Lewis. He fought and marched alongside Dr. King, fighting for equal rights, and continues fighting today for equal justice. Over the weekend, he denounced the rioting and looting that occurred and said: ``Be constructive, not destructive. History has proven time and time again that non-violent, peaceful protest is the way to achieve the justice and equality that we all deserve.'' I understand and share the passion and the anger that have spread across the country and support those who are peacefully protesting and demanding that justice be served. There should never be a time in which the color of someone's skin determines whether they live or die, and we have to do everything in our power to prevent these tragedies from occurring in the first place. But that change can't happen when businesses are being looted, when vehicles are being set on fire, or when innocent people are being harmed. It only can happen when we come together and learn to empathize with one another and understand the struggles our neighbors are facing. I would note that there is good evidence that many of these acts of violence are being instigated not by victims of injustice but by outsiders determined to stoke the rage that many feel and thus incite them to that violence. I was glad to hear the Attorney General of the United States say on Sunday that the Department of Justice will treat violence by individuals associated with Antifa and other groups as domestic terrorism and calling some of these protests following George Floyd's death to have been hijacked for another destructive, antisocial agenda. Investigators are also tracking social media posts and looking into whether foreign agents are behind an active propaganda campaign using social media, trying to divide us further, to stoke the anger and rage that many of us feel. Officials have seen a huge surge in social media accounts with fewer than 200 followers created in the last month--a textbook sign of a disinformation campaign by a foreign power, much as we saw in 2016 during the Russian active measures campaign leading up to the election. Righteous rage is one thing; being manipulated by instigators of violence and foreign powers is quite another.

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, over the past couple of months, our country has gone into a lockdown but then slowly but surely has begun to adjust to the new normal brought on by COVID-19. Many of us have been working safely from home, as kitchen tables have been transformed into makeshift office spaces and, in many cases, classrooms as parents and students navigate the challenges of remote working and learning. But many of the most critical jobs in our country can't be done with a laptop and an internet connection--defense contractors, for example, the intelligence community, law enforcement agencies, and, of course, our heroic healthcare workers. They have to be on the frontlines doing their job each and every day no matter what the risk is because their work is considered to be essential. Our healthcare workers continue to fight this virus on the frontlines, delivering lifesaving care and comfort to those isolated from their loved ones. Our farmers and ranchers are producing the food, truckers are transporting it, and grocery store employees are stocking shelves so that amidst all of this uncertainty, we don't have to worry about not having enough to eat. Then there are the postal workers, the delivery drivers, the waste collectors, and an entire network of people we depend on who are keeping the cogs of our society running. Whether working from home or heading out the door each morning, these men and women are doing their jobs, even when it isn't easy or convenient, and they expect their elected officials to do the same thing. Just because a pandemic has brought our society to a screeching halt doesn't mean the U.S. Congress should pack up shop. Just as the men and women across the country continue to show up for work each day, Congress should do the same. After all, our responsibilities during this crisis have become more important, not less. That is why we moved quickly to pass four coronavirus response bills, totaling nearly $3 trillion--something none of us imagined we would do just a couple of months ago--and provided vital support for our country amidst so much uncertainty. This, of course, came in the form of additional resources, including equipment for our healthcare workers and funding for ongoing research into vaccines and treatments. We also sent aid for what I consider to be a lifeline to those workers who, through no fault of their own, had no job and no paycheck, and then we have also provided serious resources to help small businesses and their workforce stay afloat. A financial investment in our fight against this virus was desperately needed, and that is precisely what we delivered on a bipartisan basis, but our response to this crisis cannot begin and end with blank checks. We need to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being spent responsibly and that we are making the changes needed to recover from this crisis. Every day I hear--usually through a videoconference--my constituents in Texas telling me how these bills are being implemented, what is helpful, what isn't, and what is needed from Congress. This feedback has been incredibly valuable as we look for more effective ways to strengthen our response and speed our recovery. So the Republicans in the Senate believe it is wise--it is prudent--to take stock of everything we have done before passing another relief bill. I believe the Presiding Officer and I heard the same report at lunch today; that only about half of the money that we have appropriated is actually out the door, and yet here people are clamoring for more and more money. And Speaker Pelosi, in really an unfortunate act of showmanship, rammed through a $3 trillion bill that has no prayer of being passed or becoming law. It is safe to say that House Democrats are taking a different approach than we are here in the Senate. They passed the $3 trillion bill, and they call it the HEROES Act, expressing their support for our Nation's healthcare heroes. We would join them in that sentiment, but the fact is, their priorities are much different. This bill mentions cannabis more times than it mentions doctors, hospitals, and nurses combined. It is an interesting tribute, if you ask me. If this bill were to become law, taxpayers' money wouldn't be going to coronavirus response; they would be funding a range of completely unrelated pet projects like environmental justice grants, soil health studies, and not one, but two studies on diversity and inclusion-- again, in the cannabis industry. It is interesting: two more studies on diversity and inclusion in the cannabis industry. The list of absurdities in this legislation is as big as this bill itself. Here is another one. They want to make sure that the wealthiest Americans pay less in taxes. This is from our Democratic friends who say that the top 1 percent don't pay enough, yet they present them with a huge tax cut for the wealthiest people in America. It also would complicate the hiring that our struggling businesses are already facing and rapidly dig our Nation deeper and deeper into debt. Is this all to attack the coronavirus, to come up with a treatment or a vaccine? No. This is a liberal wish list that has consumed all the time and energy of House Democrats over the last several weeks. This is what they think is more important. Rather than returning to Washington for more than a drive-by, which is what they did last Friday, to work on bipartisan legislation that might actually have a chance of becoming law, they chose to put together this partisan bill without consulting with the White House or the Senate. It doesn't address the crisis at hand, let alone the national security challenges that cannot be ignored. The threats we faced before this virus ever reached our shores, both on land and in cyber space, have not gone away. From Beijing to Tehran, Moscow to Pyongyang, and in nearly every corner of the globe, our enemies and adversaries are watching and continuing their efforts to work against our interests. They are not going to politely pause their efforts so that we can focus our efforts on COVID-19; if anything, they are doubling their efforts. We cannot afford to be caught flat-footed. Unfortunately, our counterintelligence and counterterrorism experts are already without some of the key tools they need in order to carry out their duties. In mid-March, the House refused to vote on a clean, short-term extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act under section 215 that would preserve these tools while we discuss long-term changes that might need to be made. Had they agreed at that time in mid-March, these authorities would still be intact through the end of this month. Instead, House Democrats chose to let those authorities lapse. For 2 months now, our counterintelligence and counterterrorism experts have been forced to work without some of the most powerful tools in their toolboxes. Fortunately, last week, the Senate was able to pass a bill to reauthorize these critical provisions that expired in mid-March. This legislation would not only restore those authorities but strengthen oversight of our Nation's intelligence activities at a time when it is desperately needed. This bill passed the Senate with broad bipartisan support, but we are still waiting for the House to show up for work and to take it up and pass it. They are not coming back until the 27th, I think, of this month, after what can only aptly be described as a drive-by vote last Friday after not having been in town for 2 weeks and leaving promptly thereafter. Now that they have completed their work on their $3 trillion wish list, I hope we will see some action soon on things that will keep our country safe. That is only part of the critical national security work we have done here in the Senate since we returned to Washington earlier this month. I applaud Majority Leader McConnell for bringing us back. People are hearing all sorts of scary things on social media and cable news and even conscious disinformation campaigns by some of our adversaries about this virus and about how we ought to conduct ourselves. The best thing we can do as Members of the Senate is to demonstrate that with a little bit of personal responsibility and respect for others-- maintaining social distancing, masking when you can--we can actually still function. We can show up for work like those healthcare workers, those law enforcement officers, and others I mentioned a moment ago. One of the things our majority leader likes to say is that the Senate is in the personnel business. Today, we confirmed a fellow member of the Texas congressional delegation, Congressman John Ratcliffe, to be the Director of National Intelligence. I have known John for about 10 years--or more maybe. He is prepared to continue the legacy of outstanding leadership we have come to expect and count on in our Director of National Intelligence. I am confident in his ability to serve as a leader and advocate for the intelligence professionals in the intelligence community. We also confirmed other important nominees for critical positions, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, and the Department of Homeland Security. Just as the work of the country has waged on in the face of these challenges, so must our work. The American people are not just counting on healthcare workers and first responders and farmers and deliverymen and grocery store employees to do their jobs--as important as they are. They are counting on us, too, not only to continue to respond to this pandemic--to stay nimble and adapt, to watch and listen and learn on how we can do better--but also to strengthen our national security, keep an eye on our national debt, and do it all on a bipartisan basis. Like workers across America, Congress needs to show up, especially when it isn't easy or convenient. This pandemic may have temporarily halted the daily functions of many people in this country, but it cannot stop the critical work of the U.S. Congress on behalf of the people we are privileged to represent. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the hallmark of American democracy, the single greatest feature that sets us apart from every other country in the world, is the peaceful transition of power that occurs every 4 or sometimes every 8 years on January 20. It is a legacy we inherited from our forefathers and one that generations of Americans have fought hard throughout our history to protect. It is a remarkable moment. The most powerful person in the world bows to the will of the people and sits only a few yards away as the next President takes the oath of office. Think about the wars that have been fought throughout history over who the next leader of a country would be. Yet, in America, dating back to 1797, when Washington willingly passed the torch to Adams, the peaceful transition of power has defined the American Presidency. But a growing body of evidence suggests that the January 20, 2017, inauguration of President Donald Trump was an exception to that hallowed tradition. Since the FBI launched its Russia probe in July 2016, there has been no shortage of stories about what did or did not happen in the months leading up to that election. For the better part of 3 years, the speculation dominated headlines and news feeds, with even the smallest details consuming hours of airtime. Beyond the Russian active measures campaign, which we know did happen, there was a lot of attention focused on the Trump campaign itself. Now, almost 4 years later, we know a lot about what happened and what didn't happen. For example, we know from the Mueller report that there was no crime of collusion or obstruction committed by the President or his campaign. But since the special counsel's report was completed more than a year ago, we have learned a lot more about the outsized role played by some very senior Obama administration officials in what can only be described as an insurgency campaign against the Trump Presidency. To be blunt, these revelations have given the American people good reason to be concerned about the outgoing administration, which took aggressive, possibly unlawful steps to interfere with initially the Trump campaign and then to undermine the incoming Trump administration. For starters, there was the Department of Justice inspector general report on the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, which was released in December of last year. The inspector general's findings provided evidence that the concerns were more than warranted. Inspector General Horowitz detailed a series of errors and missteps made by the FBI throughout the investigation, including alarming abuse of the powers of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This act confers extraordinary power on the FBI and the intelligence community. In the FISA application for Carter Page, Inspector General Horowitz identified 7 errors in the initial application and 10 additional errors in 3 renewals. We are not talking about innocent typos or misspelled words. This was not just sloppiness. There were significant and material errors, plus the deliberate falsification of material information about Carter Page's past service to the U.S. Government, as well as the omission of important exculpatory information, which deceived and misled the FISA Court. I would hope we could all agree that lying to a court is serious and completely unacceptable. The meticulous requirements Congress mandated in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the painstaking procedures of the FISA Court were created to help instill trust and confidence and accountability in the institutions charged with protecting our national security, while at the same time protecting our privacy and civil liberties. Sadly, much of that trust has been destroyed by these revelations uncovered by the inspector general of the Department of Justice, and sadly, another recent development has sown even more distrust and suspicion of the FBI and the Department of Justice during the previous administration, their motives, and the legality of their actions. Last week, the Acting Director of National Intelligence, Richard Grenell, provided a declassified list of senior Obama administration officials who made requests to unmask the identity of Michael Flynn. Masking the name of a U.S. person in foreign surveillance is routinely done to minimize the intrusion into their privacy rights. I know trying to keep up with the flood of facts about these incidents can be a challenge, so let's quickly recap. General Flynn was a member of the Trump campaign, and at the beginning of the administration, he was named as the National Security Advisor. We know his tenure was short-lived. Only a few weeks after assuming the post, General Flynn resigned after a storm erupted when leaks were published about his conversations with Russian Ambassador Kislyak. I am not here primarily to talk about General Flynn's case. That is in the hands of the courts. But the list of Obama-era officials provided by Acting Director Grenell gave us some unsettling details about the larger context of the whole Russia investigation. If an American citizen is intercepted in connection with foreign intelligence, the name of that person is masked when intelligence reports are disseminated in order to protect their identity and their privacy, but it is not unusual for intelligence officials to request that somebody be unmasked. It could be critical to a counterintelligence investigation or to understanding the nature or context of the intelligence. Here, over the course of about 6 weeks between late November 2016 and January 2017, 39 separate Obama-era officials made unmasking requests-- 39. This list is very odd. It included a range of high-ranking officials at the Departments of Treasury and Energy and a number of Ambassadors and even NATO officials. It extended to the highest levels of the Obama administration--U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power, CIA Director John Brennan, FBI Director James Comey, the President's Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, and even Vice President Biden himself. It reads like a guest list for an Obama administration state dinner. It is not what you would expect to see for legitimate unmasking requests. You have to wonder, why are these high-ranking officials, including the Vice President of the United States, unmasking the name of an American citizen in foreign intelligence on an eve of the inauguration of their successor? Then-U.N. Ambassador Power submitted seven separate requests. Director Clapper, then-Director of National Intelligence, submitted three. Director Brennan and Secretary Lew each submitted two. Somehow--I know this sounds strange, working in Washington, DC-- somehow, once General Flynn's name was unmasked in response to 39 separate requests from Obama-era officials, that information was leaked to the press. In the intelligence community, intelligence is shared based on the need to know. What I want to know is, what need did these 39 Obama-era officials have for this surveillance, which included the name of a U.S. citizen? I suspect it was done because--what naturally happens next? The more people who know, the more likely the information is to leak to the press in service of a narrative. While unmasking can be legal if done by the rules, leaking that information is not. It is a crime. It is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. As I mentioned, when it comes to understanding this investigation, there is a lot of information to sort through. That is why I am glad that Chairman Lindsey Graham, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, plans to hold extensive hearings into this whole mater--something that the Presiding Officer and I will participate in as members of that committee. But I worry that in the process of leaning in, trying to connect the dots in a very complex situation, we could lose sight of the big picture. It appears that high-ranking officials from a political party used their positions to gain and leak information on a political rival. We are not just talking about one or two rogue operators here; more than three-dozen senior officials released that information to the media only 8 days before the end of the Obama administration. Add to this the rapidly growing list of wrongs we have learned about so far: the inspector general report on the foreign intelligence surveillance abuse, the infamous texts between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, the first altered and now missing 302 for Michael Flynn, Susan Rice's inauguration day email to herself. Well, there is political intrigue and manipulation written all over this. Here is the point. Our intelligence community and system of justice must not be manipulated for political purposes, and they certainly must not be used as a tool to disrupt the peaceful transition of power that is the very foundation of our democracy. On Monday evening, Attorney General Barr was asked about the investigation, and he made a comment that I think appropriately sums up the entire issue. He said: The proper investigative and prosecutorial standards of the Department of Justice were abused, in my view, in order to reach a particular result. We saw two different standards of justice emerge, one that applied to President Trump and his associates, and the other that applied to everyone else. We can't allow this ever to happen again. I agree with the Attorney General. This entire matter has been riddled with a combination of exploitation, abuse of power, and possible criminality. At the very best, it highlights dysfunction, but at worst, it looks like a coordinated effort by one administration to abuse its power, to sandbag and undermine its successor. Despite the time and taxpayer dollars that have been funneled into the Russia-related probe, it has provided no evidence of collusion that we thought and were told was its object. Instead, it has highlighted men and women at the highest levels of government using their positions for political purposes. This is a far cry from the peaceful transition of power our forefathers wanted and provided for. When exiting the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens who asked what type of government the delegates had created. He famously answered ``a republic, if you can keep it.'' In order to maintain this grand Republic, we must be able to trust our institutions, especially law enforcement and the intelligence community. We need to respect the choices of the American people in our elections, which provides those elected with legitimacy and authority. These are essential to a constitutional republic like ours. These revelations about actions from Obama administration officials undermine that trust, and we must and will get to the bottom of it so we can ensure that it never ever happens again. I yield the floor

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, President Eisenhower once said: ``Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil, and you're a thousand miles [away] from the corn field.'' Those are wise words from a wise man. If you are trying to get a view of what is happening across America, you certainly can't get a comprehensive picture staying here in Washington, DC, or even listening to the national media. That is why, whether working on a farm bill, a highway bill, or a coronavirus recovery bill, I look to my constituents for feedback. I know we all do the same. Since we first learned that evacuees from China would be headed to Joint Base San Antonio for a 14-day quarantine, I have been in close contact with the folks in Texas--starting in San Antonio--about the coronavirus. I have joined dozens, if not 100 or more, videoconferences with groups covering every industry that have shared honest perspectives about how things are going, what is working, and what more is needed from Congress. I have spoken with nurses and hospital administrators about the need for additional PPE to protect our healthcare heroes. I have spoken with researchers and scientists, even as recently as today, about the ongoing quest to develop vaccines and treatments and, of course, with farmers and ranchers and producers about their struggle to cope with a glut of supply and reduced demand. I have spoken with small business owners about the impact of this virus on their businesses, their workforce, and their communities. Their feedback has been invaluable to the work of the Senate as we continue our mission to lead America through and eventually out of this crisis. As States across the country begin to reopen their economies, the light at the end of the tunnel is getting a little bit brighter, but there is still a whole lot of work that needs to be done. Yesterday, I spoke with some of my friends at Texans for Lawsuit Reform, the Texas Civil Justice League, and a number of other business stakeholders about the critical need for liability protection in our next piece of coronavirus legislation. We are already seeing that, across America, there is a wave of COVID- 19-related lawsuits rolling in. Without action on our part, there is genuine fear that these lawsuits could hurt the very people we need to be helping right now get through this weakened economy. One of the Texans on the call talked about the vast challenges our healthcare workers have faced over the last several weeks. As hospital beds began filling up, the strain on healthcare workers became a serious problem. Many States loosened restrictions to allow out-of-State or retired physicians to join the fight on the frontlines, and countless healthcare workers are being cross-trained or redeployed to help fill personnel shortages. You may see pediatricians caring for adults or anesthesiologists working in the ICU. On top of that, these men and women are forced to make tough, almost impossible decisions every day. They may have half a dozen patients who desperately need a ventilator but only two machines available. We should not put our healthcare workers in an impossible situation where we ask them to do everything they can to help, and then we punish them by subjecting them to litigation when somebody claims that they could or should have done better. It is not just healthcare workers, though, who could emerge from this crisis only to be greeted by an avalanche of lawsuits. As our economy begins to reopen, businesses are dusting off their tables, barber chairs, gym equipment--whatever the case may be--and preparing to welcome customers back through their doors. They are following the guidance from the State and the Centers for Disease Control and taking every precaution they recommend to protect both their employees and their customers. However, despite their best efforts, there is nothing stopping someone who contracts the virus from saying it happened at that particular business and then suing. One of the people on our call yesterday said his business has faced many lawsuits before, and he knows that, even if you have done absolutely nothing wrong, defending these lawsuits can be a huge, huge expense. He pointed out that causation is of particular concern when you talk about a virus. We are still learning about it, but we know that the incubation period could last up to 14 days, making it nearly impossible to prove when and where the virus was contracted. While ordinarily it would be the burden of the person bringing the suit to prove causation, we know that, in jury trials, anything can happen and that this is not enough to stop opportunistic litigation from trying to either get a successful jury verdict and judgment or just a nuisance settlement because of the cost of defense Across the country, we are already seeing coronavirus lawsuits rolling in, targeting not only our healthcare workers and businesses but nursing homes, assisted living facilities, universities, governments--you name it. Without action from Congress, the litigation epidemic will be a big one and will add insult to injury from this pandemic. We simply cannot allow this tidal wave of lawsuits to sweep away our healthcare workers, nonprofits, and businesses who followed the guidelines and acted in good faith. Congress needs to put in place commonsense reforms to protect those who have helped the American people get through this crisis and who will help lead us out of it. I am working with my colleagues on a proposal that would achieve this goal through temporary and targeted protections related to COVID-19 lawsuits. That includes our healthcare workers who have been on the frontlines battling this pandemic, the businesses that are going to great lengths to safely reopen their doors, and the nonprofits helping their communities during a time of unprecedented need. Despite what some of the folks on the left try to claim, this isn't a ban on lawsuits. Nobody is suggesting we have blanket immunity. No one wants to let bad actors get away with their bad behavior and to reward it. However, as my constituents told me yesterday, the fear of unrestrained litigation could be the boot on the neck of our economy and add insult to injury for our healthcare workers and others who, in good faith, did precisely what they were asked to do during this time of crisis. We need to put commonsense safeguards in place to ensure that those operating in good faith and following all the relevant guidelines cannot be sued into oblivion because of a particular outcome when people are doing the best they know how to do during a time of crisis-- in good faith--and doing exactly what the public health officials and their government officials are telling them to do. This is going to be a critical aspect to our recovery, not only in Texas but in every State across the Nation. We have counted on all of these people, from our healthcare workers to local businesses, to help get us through this crisis. We can't let them down now. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

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

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, after every natural disaster, after every major emergency, there is always a period of response--that initial triage. Think about performing search and rescue operations, providing medical care, and setting up emergency shelters. You are moving quickly to complete these time-sensitive tasks to get everyone to safety and minimize the loss of life. At some point, though, you begin to transition to recovery--clearing the debris, restoring power, rebuilding, and eventually trying to return to life as normal. As always, there will be a period of transition between those periods in which you continue to focus on the short-term response while you plan for the longer term recovery. While we face a much different type of crisis today, I believe the same principles apply. Our heroic healthcare workers continue to respond to this virus on the frontlines. Our farmers, our ranchers, our truckers, our grocery store employees, and food banks are ensuring people have food on their tables. The mailmen, delivery drivers, waste collectors, and other workers in critical sectors are keeping the cogs of our society and our economy running, and slowly but surely, recovery is happening too. In Texas and other States across the country, businesses are welcoming customers through their doors for the first time in a while. Parks are beginning to reopen, and schools are making plans for the fall. Every day, the needle is moving in a positive direction, but I am worried that, without some protections for these workers, these businesses, these churches, and these food banks, we are going to reverse course or stop them dead in their tracks. We are already seeing lawsuits piling up that claim somebody did this or did that in a corona-related incident. Unfortunately, there is an economic incentive to use as a cash cow the virus that has infected some 1.5 million Texans, and we are setting up for what could be one of the biggest bonanzas in history in terms of litigation. You had better believe that those who could find themselves on the receiving end of these lawsuits are taking notice. A recent survey by the National Federation of Independent Business found that nearly 70 percent of small business owners are concerned about liability claims and that hospitals are cautious about resuming procedures, like organ transplants or cancer biopsies, because they could get sued as well. Even if you have done everything the public health officials say you should do and even if you have accommodated every request that the President, the Governor, or the mayor has made, you could still be sued. Even if businesses and hospitals follow all of the relevant guidelines and act in good faith, they could end up fighting very long and very expensive lawsuits. They could end up winning those lawsuits, but they could also end up going bankrupt in the process because defending a lawsuit is not cheap. At a time when we want people to focus like a laser on reopening their businesses and refilling these jobs, we can't allow that incentive for a lawsuit lottery to bleed our health workers dry and deter our recovery. Congress needs to take action to prevent these opportunistic lawyers from using this crisis to make money and to, at the same time, hurt our economy and hurt our recovery. Leader McConnell and I and others are working on a proposal that would put commonsense reforms in place and protect those who act in good faith from being sued into oblivion. I want to be absolutely clear about the goals of this legislation. There is no effort to pass a blanket immunity. There is no effort to protect bad actors who willingly put their patients, their employees, or customers in danger. What we are talking about is temporary and targeted liability protection for those who act in good faith and follow all of the relevant public health guidelines and direction. First, we must protect the healthcare workers who are on the frontline of this crisis. These men and women have made tremendous physical and mental sacrifices while serving during this unprecedented time, and we simply can't allow them to be taken to the cleaners by those who are looking for a payout. More than a dozen States have already provided protections for healthcare workers by raising the threshold for medical malpractice lawsuits. The Democratic Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, has issued an executive order granting healthcare workers immunity from civil liability. Let me make sure people get this. The Democratic Governor of New York has issued an executive order granting healthcare workers immunity from civil liability. Again, this is not a blanket immunity. There are exceptions for gross negligence and willful conduct. If limiting liability makes sense in New York, then I think it certainly makes sense elsewhere. We need to provide the same level of protection for healthcare workers all across the United States so they can operate without fear of having to defend themselves in lawsuits when they are doing their very best, in a time of crisis, to, in good faith, follow all of the appropriate guidance. Yet we can't stop there. We have to provide similar protections for the workers, the businesses, the schools, the nonprofits, and other institutions that are critical to our recovery. Think about small business owners--70 percent of whom I know are worried about liability lawsuits, which is according to the National Federation of Independent Business. Once they receive the green light to open their doors, they have to make a very important decision: Is it worth the risk? Let's say that you are a restaurant owner who has gone through the CDC's newly released decision tree for restaurants and bars and that you are prepared to implement all of the recommended health and safety actions as well as to monitor your staff. There is nothing stopping the first person who walks through the door from suing you in a few weeks because one believes one contracted the virus at your restaurant. It is not just businesses that are facing these types of decisions. Any nonprofit organization or agency that serves the public is in a similar position, even if it has gone to great lengths to comply with public health recommendations. As our public schools, colleges, and universities weigh decisions about reopening this fall, liability protections are going to play a major factor. Last week, the Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing on liability protections. One of the witnesses we heard from was Lee Tyner, who serves as the general counsel for Texas Christian University in Fort Worth, TX. In his testimony, Lee called this the ``cliff problem.'' He said that this is what his University of Virginia law school professor used to describe as being an uncertain standard of care. A liability cliff is some sort of line that would be catastrophic to cross. If you know where that cliff is, you are able to make good decisions about how far you are willing to go and what kind of risks you are willing to take, but if you do not know exactly where it is, then uncertainty will likely lead you to avoid the area altogether. In this case, as Lee pointed out, our country needs our colleges and universities to walk toward the cliff but not to go over it, just as we need healthcare workers, businesses, nursing homes, and nonprofits to do the same. Yet we can't ask them to do it blindly or in the dark or without providing the needed clarity so that they can manage their risks. I think what is so different about this pandemic is that people get so much contradictory and conflicting information from a variety of sources. Most of us know how to manage risk in our lives, but it is hard to manage uncertainty, and that is what we are asking the Senate and the Congress to do is to provide some certainty in the midst of this uncertainty. These workers and institutions are critical to helping our response and recovery move forward, and we can't ask for or expect them to make decisions without having some level of certainty. They need to know with confidence that, if they are operating in good faith and obeying the public health and other government guidelines, that they will not inadvertently step over the edge of the cliff and find themselves in free fall I yield the 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, since the Senate returned to Washington 2 weeks ago after about a 6-week hiatus, we have accomplished quite a bit on a bipartisan basis. We have confirmed national security nominees; we have held hearings to examine liability limitations, coronavirus testing, safely getting back to work and school, and the impact of the pandemic on broadband. In short, the Senate has been working, on a bipartisan basis, to understand the challenges that this virus has created so we can provide targeted reforms. It certainly seems to be a different approach than the one taken by the House. Earlier this week, House Democrats released a so-called coronavirus relief bill. You might say they kind of mailed it in because they haven't been here for the last 2 weeks, but it has an absolutely staggering pricetag--$3 trillion, with a ``t.'' That is more than we spent in the first four coronavirus response bills combined. I tell my constituents, when I am talking to them on a videoconference call or teleconference, that 2 months ago, I never would have imagined that the Senate would be voting on trillion-dollar bills, but now apparently the House wants to make this a routine way to do business and particularly without much debate. As astounding as that figure is, the biggest issue with that bill isn't the cost or the fact that Speaker Pelosi and her party drafted it in secret but that they released the 1,800-page bill text on Tuesday, and they plan to vote on it tomorrow. Unbelievable. It would be an understatement to say there are concerns with this kind of legislating. I would call it legislative malpractice, to be kind. It is not just from Republicans or the administration or the American people; the Speaker's own Members are begging for additional time to review this massive bill. Unlike the previous coronavirus response bills passed here in Congress, there have been no bipartisan discussions in the production of that bill from the House--not with House Republicans, not with the administration, and certainly not with us. I can assure you that this legislation looks just like the kind of product that you would expect from that type of flawed process. It is partisan; it is unaffordable; it is unrealistic; and it stands absolutely no chance of becoming law. We all know that legislation drafted in a vacuum by one political party in one Chamber isn't a good-faith effort to try to survive, much less address, this pandemic crisis. It is a political statement as much as anything else, a liberal wish list which, if passed--which it will not be--would sink us further in debt without the benefit of addressing the problems we are actually facing. When this legislation was announced, Speaker Pelosi said: We all know we must put more money in the pockets of the American people. This is not only necessary for their survival, but it is also a stimulus to the economy. But the ones set to reap the biggest benefits from this bill aren't the ones struggling to make ends meet. Actually, what Speaker Pelosi is apparently trying to do is help some of the wealthiest people in America. This legislation would reinstate the so-called SALT deduction--the State and local tax deduction--and thrust that burden of subsidizing the wealthiest people in the bluest parts of the country on the rest of us. We were able to cap that in a fair and realistic way in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Prior to that tax reform, taxpayers who itemized their returns could deduct the amount of State and local taxes they paid with no limit. So, if you lived in a high-tax State like New York, there was no limit to your ability to deduct those State and local taxes. You know who paid for it? The people of Indiana, the people of Alaska, the people of Texas, and the people of other States who more responsibly dealt with their fiscal affairs. Now, for the average American, this change hasn't even been a blip on the radar screen. For the millionaires and billionaires, though, the ones Speaker Pelosi's bill would benefit most directly, this was a huge blow. People say, well, the wealthy ought to pay more. Well, OK. Here is a way for them to do it in the right way, but it is also a way to hold your State and local jurisdictions accountable for the high taxes they pass, only to previously allow those taxes to be deducted from the Federal income tax, so this is a matter of political accountability for them, too. I am sure the wealthiest Americans were delighted to see that the Democrats' response to what Speaker Pelosi called the biggest catastrophe in our Nation's history would allow them, once again, to reap the benefits of this no-limit deduction. If the SALT cap were removed, they would receive an average tax cut of nearly $60,000. That is higher than the household income for many Texans and many Americans. To make matters worse, this would sink our country further in debt. The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Tax estimates that doing away with the SALT cap would cost about $700 billion over the next 7 years, with almost 95 percent of the benefit going to those making at least $200,000 and more than half going to those making more than $1 million a year. Now, we have spent a lot of money in the last couple of months, but we have done so in the face of an emergency--kind of like the civilian equivalent of World War II--fighting this virus, both the public health and the economic consequences, so we are already looking at staggering debt that we are going to have to deal with at some point because it is immoral to expect our kids and grandkids to pay that money back after we have already cashed those checks. But this just adds insult to injury, what Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats are trying to do. Even the liberal Tax Policy Center reported that one-third of the SALT deduction went to the top 1 percent. We hear our Democrat friends talk about income inequality and the top 1 percent needing to pay more. Well, then, their actions are directly contrary to their rhetoric. We know 80 percent of the benefit went to the top 20 percent income earners. Now, we are not trying to start a civil war here between people who are doing well and people who are not doing well, but this just makes absolutely no sense, particularly in the face of a crisis like the coronavirus. This isn't an attempt to support those who are struggling to make ends meet. That is who we ought to be focusing on: the people who are not getting a paycheck because their business has been shut down, their restaurant, their bar, their sports stadium. This is a get- out-of-jail-free card for millionaires and billionaires who don't want to pay their fair share of taxes and would foist that unfairly onto others. Now, I realize that is only a small portion of the bill. After all, it is a $3 trillion bill. So let's dive into a couple of other things-- changes, for example, they would make in unemployment insurance. The CARES Act we passed--I think it was March 25--expanded unemployment benefits to include workers who would not typically be eligible for those benefits, the self-employed and independent contractors. It also provided an additional $600 of Federal benefit on top of the State's unemployment benefit through the end of July, for 4 months. The theory behind that was to provide workers who lost their jobs with the money they needed to pay for the necessities of life until the economy could reopen and they could go back to work. Slowly but surely, businesses across this country are starting to reopen their doors--safely and gradually reopen their doors--and many are facing an unlikely burden, which is now getting people to come back to work. Over the last several weeks, I have heard Texas businesses struggling to rehire their employees because they are making more from unemployment than they would if they worked. And it is not an isolated issue. According to the Texas Workforce Commission that administers our unemployment insurance program, 80 percent of the people are making more money on unemployment than they were when previously employed--80 percent. Now, that clearly was a mistake in the underlying bill. It is true that, when you do something that big and that fast, you are going to make some mistakes, but nobody can think this is sound public policy: to pay people more for not working than when they do work. Here is what House Democrats do. They extend that mistake through next January, providing even less of an incentive for workers to find new jobs. The United States can't be the successful economy that we are capable of being or have been by encouraging people not to work. At a certain point, these benefits are going to do more harm than good, and I would say they are already starting to do that. So, extending unemployment benefits to next year would deter people from trying to return to work because, why would they? Why would someone choose to do more work for less money? Well, I understand the need to support the American people until they are able to get back on their feet, but I am afraid this move would stunt--would retard--any hope of economic recovery, and it would deepen the hiring struggle businesses are already facing--and I am glad that they are hiring--and ensure that the ``Sorry, we're closed'' sign remains on the door of Main Street businesses throughout the country. As we begin to recover from the economic crisis that this virus has caused, our country will need a lot more from Congress than a blank check written in a back room. Rushing to appear to do something while doing absolutely nothing, which is what House Democrats have done, will not do any good unless we are taking the time to find out what America's healthcare professionals, small businesses, and workers actually need. That is what we are doing every day: listening. How is what we have already done working? What are the mistakes that need to be corrected? Where are the gaps that need to be filled--at a time when about a half- trillion dollars of that money from the CARES Act isn't even out the door yet from the Main Street lending facility that is being set up through the Federal Reserve. I am not blaming Treasury. I am just saying, they are covered up, and they are working 24/7, but let's see how what we have already done works before we continue to shovel more money aimlessly out the door. Earlier this week, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing to examine liability around the coronavirus pandemic. One of our witnesses was Kevin Smartt, a Texan from Bonham, TX--the home of Sam Rayburn--who is CEO and President of Kwik Chek food stores. I think he has 47 fast-food stores. In his opening statement, he outlined the steps that Kwik Chek took to protect the safety of its employees and customers while continuing to provide access to essential items like food and fuel. They followed the constantly shifting guidelines from the CDC and other Federal, State, and local government agencies and adjusted and adapted accordingly. Like millions of businesses across the country, Kwik Chek implemented strict cleaning protocols. They installed sneeze guards in their stores, they put markers on the floor to help customers maintain social distancing, and they made every effort to obtain masks and hand sanitizer, but have often struggled to overcome supply disruptions. In his testimony, Kevin said: Unfortunately, despite trying to do everything we can to protect the health and safety of our customers and employees during this pandemic, my companies now have targets on our back because our doors have remained open. That's just not right. We are all in this together, and my businesses shouldn't become targets for liability threats just because they serve their communities. I found this is a common fear for businesses small and large alike, as well as for our dedicated healthcare professionals. Can you imagine serving on the frontline of this fight against the pandemic, doing everything you can possibly do to help people who are sick and injured, and, despite acting in good faith to protect employees, customers, or patients, we know that a certain element of the bar are lining up to file opportunistic lawsuits against these hard-working men and women, people who I think we all consider to be heroes. Across the country, lawsuits have already begun rolling in by the hundreds. Unless we take action, we are going to wake up from this pandemic only to find ourselves in a legal nightmare. Now, I want to be clear. Bad actors don't deserve blanket immunity. We are all in agreement on that point, but hard-working Americans who are trying to do the best thing and follow, in good faith, the guidance that their government gives them deserve a safe harbor from frivolous litigation and nuisance lawsuits. This Chamber is full of lawyers-- Democrat lawyers, Republican lawyers--who are well aware of just how damaging this unlimited litigation that will ensue will be on our economic recovery. While House Democrats have been crafting their dead-on-arrival liberal wish list, we have been working on legislation which can and should gain bipartisan support and protect our frontline workers in the process. We are working on legislation to provide liability protections for the men and women who have supported us through this crisis and who will be the key to our recovery from this crisis. We simply must protect those who have acted in good faith from having to defend costly legal battles--only to win--only to lose their business because they can't survive that additional burden--going through the pandemic, the shutdown, only to find, just when you think you are coming out of it, that you are being drowned with litigation costs. I believe we should continue to provide an opportunity to seek legal recourse for those who act willfully or exercise reckless disregard for the health and safety of others. Those are the kinds of cases that deserve, in my opinion, access to compensation. Make no mistake, our country's road to recovery isn't going to be easy, and we have already caught a glimpse of the next epidemic, the lawsuit epidemic, that is waiting around the corner. Unlike House Democrats, who are moving full-speed ahead, the Senate has chosen to tap the brakes and figure out the best way to avoid hitting the brakes, economically and from a public health perspective.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate to proceed to executive session for the en bloc consideration of Executive Calendar Nos. 583 and 633 through 639 and all nominations on the Secretary's desk; that the nominations be confirmed; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, all en bloc, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the bill, as amended.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 3434 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. CORNYN. I further ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 3 p.m., Monday, May 18; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired and the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; further, that following leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume the consideration of the Rash nomination. Finally, notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture vote on the Rash nomination occur at 5:30 p.m.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks from the Senator from the great State of Alaska.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration and that the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 555.

Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.