Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I want to talk about the World Trade Organization. I have said what I am going to say now before. So I want to say it again: The United States must reaffirm its commitment to significant reform of the World Trade Organization. The United States must move to revitalize that organization because the World Trade Organization advances the cause of free and fair global trade, and they necessarily do it because of the modern economy we are in. It is imperative that we continue to double down on the efforts that demonstrate the United States' leadership at Geneva, the headquarters of the World Trade Organization. That includes our efforts to reform the World Trade Organization appellate body, to work on subsidies that too many countries are using, and to continue ongoing negotiations to accomplish these goals. The World Trade Organization can and should play an important role in the global economic recovery from our virus pandemic. I urge the administration and my colleagues here in the Senate to advocate for our interests. I urge the Trump administration to confront trade distortions, and most importantly, this administration must encourage all World Trade Organization members to unite in an effort to lift us out of the nearly unprecedented global downturn we have had in trade because of the virus pandemic. I yield the floor

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Former Vice President Biden and Minority Leader Schumer have indicated a willingness to end the so-called filibuster if Democrats gain a majority in the U.S. Senate after this year's election. Meanwhile, Democrats used the same rule to prevent even taking up Senator Scott's very thoughtful police reform legislation. The rule in question is the cloture rule, which brings debate and amendments to a close so we can get to the finality of a bill. What Democrats blocked was ending debate on proceeding to police reform and starting to consider any amendments that wanted to be offered, but it would have taken yet another cloture vote to get to final passage. The cloture rule ensures that no police reform bill could be passed by the U.S. Senate unless at least 60 Senators were satisfied with the outcome of the amendment process. In other words, it guarantees that the concerns of the minority party--whether that be Republican or Democrat--would have to be addressed. There was no excuse for preventing the Senate from even beginning the legislative process on this extremely important and timely issue of police reform. There is also no excuse for Democrats who claimed to oppose the 60- vote requirement to cut off debate on principle when they were last in the majority, who then immediately began using cloture to block bills that had majority support when they lost their majority, and who still continue to use cloture to block progress on important issues today, but who now fully admit that they will change the Senate institution-- the protection for the minority--if it suits their partisan purpose in the future. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. About half an hour ago, Leader McConnell gave an outline of the bill that will be before the Senate in regard to carrying on where the CARES Act left off. Those of us who are chairmen of various committees or have input into this process would like to go into some detail--but not in-depth detail--of our parts of the bill. I am chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and within our jurisdiction, our proposals take on several issues facing Americans during the crisis. For unemployment insurance, we boost the Federal Government's reimbursement to local governments and nonprofits to 75 percent, up from 50 percent in the first CARES Act. We do that to prevent further layoffs from local governments and nonprofit organizations. In the same legislation we maintain some of the current boosted benefits, but we must also responsibly hone those programs to target help where it is really needed. Our bill transitions from a flat rate to a replacement of 70 percent of lost wages for people who have become unemployed. This is a much more responsible approach that we didn't have time to work out in the first CARES Act. Regardless, the boosted unemployment benefit is significantly more than Democratic Senate and Democratic Presidents approved in the 2009 economic crisis, which, by the way, was only an additional $25 a month when we had the worst recession in this country since the Great Depression of the 1930s. So I heard people cry just a few minutes ago about our not doing enough. It doesn't make sense to do what we knew we were doing wrong, but we had to do it to get help out to the people who were unemployed. For the last 4 months, we were paying out of the Federal Treasury $600 a week, in addition to what each State would pay for those unemployed. In other words, we have learned what we knew at the time--that when you pay people more not to work than they would get working, what do you expect? People will not work. What this country needs is more workers. If we are going to get this country turned around, it is not going to come from money from unemployment to individuals because government doesn't create wealth; it only consumes wealth. If you want to create a bigger economic pie for everybody, more workers are going to be necessary for a bigger economic pie. Going to our tax provisions in this same bill, our tax provisions aim to help Americans get back to work and help businesses safely open. We expand access to the CARES Act employment tax credit for small and medium-sized businesses. We expand the work opportunity tax credit for larger employers hiring people currently receiving unemployment compensation. We also provide a new credit for expenses, like personal protective equipment and cleaning needed to maintain a safe and healthy workplace for employees and for customers. The Republican plan provides for another round of $1,200 economic impact payments for most American adults, but we also include in the additional $500 for each dependent-- some people we didn't intend to leave out last time, but we did. So regardless of age, some of these dependents will now be helped. For healthcare providers we relax the terms of loans received from Medicare. We ensure that Medicare telehealth options don't expire before Congress can determine what should be made permanent. We extend for 5 years the CARES Act provision that pays clinics and health centers for telehealth to provide a downpayment on meeting healthcare needs in rural America, and we help by freezing Medicare premiums at 2020 levels to head off a predicted spike next year that would otherwise happen to senior citizens. We also assist nursing home patients and workers. State and local governments have also asked for Federal help. Our proposal extends the timeframe in which governments can utilize the $150 billion in funding provided under the first CARES Act by also providing more flexibility and allowing some funds to be used to cover revenue shortfalls. This proposal sets out a responsible, holistic approach to address the problems our country faces. I hope my Democratic colleagues are interested in compromise and solutions for the benefit of all of the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on this very day in 1940, Acting Secretary of State Sumner Welles issued a statement outlining U.S. policy toward the Soviet Union's annexation of the Baltic States. It began: ``During these past few days the devious processes whereunder the political independence and territorial integrity of the three small Baltic Republics--Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania--were to be deliberately annihilated by one of their more powerful neighbors, have been rapidly drawing to their conclusion.'' It expressed the sympathy of the people of the United States for democratic self-government and, at the same time, articulated the policy of the United States to oppose predatory activities using force or the threat of force or any intervention in the affairs of another sovereign state. The United States continued to recognize the sovereignty of the Baltic States throughout about 50 years of Soviet occupation. Things that go around come around. Now we have a historical footnote. Vladimir Putin has been trying to rewrite this history for his own devious purposes--reverting to the absurd Soviet claim that the Baltics in 1940 joined the Soviet Union voluntarily. There are also clear parallels we ought to take notice of to this current Russian occupation of parts of the Republic of Georgia and the Ukraine. The principles in Secretary of State Welles' Declaration are as relevant today as they were 80 years ago.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on another issue--and more current-- earlier this year, after the longest economic expansion in U.S. history, the government told the American people to stay home and businesses to close--the first time in 240 years of our country. Countless lives have been saved because Americans heeded their government's call. And at the same time, whether they wanted to or not, they were sacrificing for their fellow Americans. There is no doubt that containing this virus has caused economic pain not seen since the Great Depression. Hopefully, we are racing toward a vaccine answer to this pandemic. In the meantime, Americans must continue to sacrifice, just as previous generations did for the sake of their neighbors, families, friends, and loved ones. Make no mistake, we will beat this virus, and the United States of America will emerge stronger and even more prosperous than before. Today, Senate Republicans, hopefully, will unveil an unprecedented expansion of previous assistance to help our country get through this crisis. As Finance Committee chairman, I look forward to introducing further assistance to individuals, relief for workers and employers, support for patients, providers, and foster youth, and additional flexibilities for State and local governments to fight this disease and the economic pain that has come before it. I call on my colleagues to, once again, work together and not let partisan politics or gamesmanship get in the way of delivering for the American people. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased that earlier today the Senate passed S. 3841 by unanimous consent. This is a commonsense measure that will ensure the $1,200 economic impact payments Congress provided to help individuals meet essential needs during these trying times don't instead end up in the pockets of creditors and debt collectors. The CARES Act, which authorized the economic impact payments, sought to ensure that individuals in need received 100 percent of the payment they are eligible for by generally exempting such payments from administrative offset for past due debts owed to Federal or State agencies. However, as currently written, this language does not protect these payments from bank garnishment or levy by creditors or debt collectors. The bill we passed today will further the original intent under the CARES Act of ensuring that the economic impact payments go to help individuals struggling to make ends meet as a result of government- enforced lockdowns and economic fallout of the current pandemic. It does this by extending protections against bank garnishment to economic impact payments that are very similar to what is provided to Social Security benefits under current law. Moreover, it continues the policy under the CARES Act of providing an exception for child support enforcement orders to ensure noncustodial parents who owe back child support fulfill their legal and moral obligations to their children. I would like to thank Senators Brown, Wyden, and Scott of South Carolina for working with me on this important bill. I hope that the House passes an identical measure as soon as possible so that we can get a bill to the President's desk and these protections can be put into effect.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, before I speak, several of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, over the next several minutes-- well, probably for more than a half hour--will be coming to the floor to discuss what I am discussing, which is a very important problem we have of rapidly increasing drug prices. After I speak, these other Senators will come to the floor: Senator Braun, Senator Cassidy, Senator Collins, Senator Hyde-Smith, Senator McSally. All of these people have been very favorable in support of the Prescription Drug Reduction Act, and I want to thank them for participating in bringing attention to this very important issue of unjustified increases in drug prices. After these folks I just mentioned speak, I understand that my colleague from Iowa, who is in support of the legislation, is going to come at a later time today. So thank you to my colleagues. According to a recent Gallup poll, 9 out of 10 Americans are concerned about prescription drug prices. Specifically, they are concerned that the pharmaceutical industry will take advantage of the current pandemic to increase drug prices. That poll was published a month ago. Unfortunately, those concerns have become a reality now. Two weeks ago, POLITICO reported that pharmaceutical companies have raised prices on hundreds of prescription drugs just during the pandemic. The report says that there have been more than 800--800-- price increases just this year. I have been working on a bill for over a year and a half to stem these increases and rein in drug prices. It would cap costs for Medicare recipients, cap increases to the rate of inflation, and save taxpayers nearly $100 billion. It wasn't simple, but I am glad to have produced this kind of bill with Ranking Member Wyden and my colleagues here with me today. But I am disappointed. My partner and all of my Democratic colleagues who approved this bill in committee by a vote of 19 to 9 declined to cosponsor an improved version of the bill that they helped put together in the first place, and this is the work of about 18 months. I can't be sure why, but I have to assume it is because it is an election year, and, somehow, passing a bill that would do so much good in a time with so much hardship might help Republicans who also support the bill, hurting Democrats' chances of taking the majority. As we consider a new relief bill, we ought to put aside that kind of politics-before-people method of legislating. We need to approve the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act as part of this package. Our country is facing the most serious public health crisis in a generation--not just a generation, if you think back--in generations. Millions of Americans are newly unemployed, and many small businesses have slowed or shuttered altogether. People across the country are stretching their paychecks and their savings to get through this virus pandemic. In the CARES Act, passed in March, and in subsequent legislation, we helped slow the hurt caused by this virus. But there is only so much a stimulus check or tax relief can do when your bills just keep coming and going up--meaning the pharmaceutical bills. These drug price increases are a weight that Americans shouldn't have to bear, especially seniors on whom the virus is taking a particular toll. The increases aren't a result of a functioning marketplace or an industry with healthy competition. Addressing these price increases is also something we all largely agree on. In 2016, the President campaigned on making the marketplace for prescription drugs fairer and more affordable for patients. He won. He even talked about that promise in a State of the Union message when he said that he wants Congress to send a bill for him to sign this year. So the President made that campaign promise in 2016, and the President has done many things since then to carry out that campaign promise. He has even helped me in the development of this legislation. That was 2016. This is 2020. In 2018, we have had many House Democrats campaign on making the marketplace for prescription drugs fairer and more affordable. Many of them won, and they took over the House of Representatives. It is time to put politics aside and finally act. Just because Big Pharma was bankrupting patients before the pandemic doesn't mean that we should allow them to keep on doing it now. In fact, there is no better time to put an end to Big Pharma's price gouging than right now. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask permission to speak for 1 minute in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, there is an area in Bosnia that goes by the name of Srebrenica. This month is the 25th anniversary of a massacre that took place there. It happens to be the worst genocide on European soil since the Holocaust. Twenty-five years ago, 8,000 Bosnians were murdered out of ethnic and religious hatred. Many Bosnians, who witnessed this horrific atrocity, became refugees and found a home in my State of Iowa. We must remember for those Bosnians, Iowans, and for all Bosnians who suffer as they continue to deal with unimaginable memories. It is also important for the rest of us to make a point of remembering what has happened so we can prevent it from happening again. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement entered into force on July 1, and I am eager to see the modernized agreement deliver on its promises to spur job growth for American farmers, workers, and businesses, and even help our innovators. Also, at the same time, it will create new opportunities with our North American trading partners. The U.S-Mexico-Canada Agreement fixes many problems we had for 30 years under NAFTA, and it also creates several new, modern trade provisions for our 21st century economy--things that were negotiated that weren't even thought of 30 years ago when NAFTA was negotiated. However, even with this agreement going into effect and being a tough agreement to negotiate, it isn't going to be simple from here on out. There is plenty of work remaining to ensure the agreement is implemented fully and properly. I urge the administration to be expeditious in addressing any enforcement issues or noncompliance from our trading partners under the dispute settlement mechanism. I also encourage close consultation between Congress and the administration so we may continue to be successful in the U.S-Mexico-Canada Agreement implementation efforts-- allowing Americans to reap the benefits of this agreement. I raised questions with the administration, but I have no doubt that they are going to be on top of it. I remember President Trump as a candidate, 2015 to 2016, running on a platform to get rid of NAFTA. Trump was elected. By May of his first year in office, Trump started negotiations. They were successful negotiations. NAFTA is now gone. Now USMCA is going into effect. Trump delivered on his campaign promise. I have no doubt that he will see that the U.S-Mexico-Canada Agreement is properly implemented. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute in morning business

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, representative government is a two-way street. To hold up my part of that commitment, I am on my 40th year of holding at least one Q&A in every county every year. Over the past 2 weeks, I had Q&As in 29 counties. Iowans raised their concerns about the virus, unemployment insurance, the rising cost of prescription drugs, China, and access to rural broadband. Iowans applauded Congress's swift action on programs like the Paycheck Protection Program and getting much needed resources to our rural healthcare workers. As always, I will continue to bring Iowans' voices to the policymaking tables, and I look forward to finishing my annual 99 county meetings later this year. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Department of Defense is the only agency that can't get a clean audit. Sometime around 1990, there was an audit law passed directing Departments to get to a point where they could get a clean audit. DOD is still the only one that hasn't. Sometime around 2010, I believe, we laid down a requirement that the clean audit date ought to be met by 2017. Well, that wasn't met. So, for decades, DOD has been saying that they are almost there. Now they say it will be at least another 5 years before a clean opinion can be reached. One reason they haven't been able to do that is the outdated mess of hundreds of financial management systems. Yet the Department of Defense still wants to spend almost $200 million on an annual audit. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to pause the audit effort that is doomed to fail anyway and, instead, invest that $200 million in updating the Department of Defense financial management system because, until they get the financial management systems right, DOD will never be capable of having a clean audit. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have made a career in the Senate fighting against government waste, fraud, and abuse. Most recently, I have found this waste in an office within the Department of Defense called the Office of Net Assessment. Its purpose is to produce an annual net assessment, which is a long-term look at our military's capabilities and those of our greatest adversaries. I am here to say to my colleagues that that office has lost its way. When I began a review of Stefan Halper's contracting work at the Office of Net Assessment, something didn't look right. So I asked the inspector general to look into it. For those who are unaware, Stefan Halper was a central figure in the debunked Russia collusion investigation. Stefan Halper secretly recorded Trump campaign officials during Crossfire Hurricane. Halper also received over a million taxpayer dollars from the Office of Net Assessment for several ``research'' projects, but the inspector general found some problems with that contract. The Office of Net Assessment didn't require Halper to submit evidence that he actually talked to the people he cited in his work, which included Russian intelligence officers. Secondly, the Office of Net Assessment couldn't provide sufficient documentation that Halper conducted all of his work in accordance with the law. And, three, the Office of Net Assessment didn't maintain sufficient documentation to comply with all Federal contracting requirements and Office of Management and Budget guidelines. The inspector general also found that these problems were not unique just to Halper's contracts, which indicates, then, systemic issues within the Office of Net Assessment. Moreover, it has been reported that some of the individuals that Halper cited as sources in his research have denied contributing to Halper's work. Oddly, Office of National Assessment Director James Baker has repeatedly told me that Halper's deliverables were ``high quality'' and ``conformed to the requirements set forth in the contract.'' What planet does the Office of Net Assessment live on? The office spends almost $20 million a year of taxpayers' money every year. Yet according to a deposition of Mr. Baker, the Office of Net Assessment hasn't performed any annual net assessments since 2007. A net assessment is the Office of Net Assessment's core mission. It even says so in the title. Its purpose of doing net assessments got lost along the way. Moreover, after I began my oversight work at the Office of Net Assessment, a Department of Defense directive regulating the Office of Net Assessment was changed to provide cover for the unit's lackluster performance. Isn't that convenient? When your work is to do net assessment and you have been in existence for decades, and since 2007, you haven't been doing your net assessment, you issue a directive changing what the purpose of the Office of Net Assessment is all about. They did it pretty simply. On April 14, 2020, the word ``shall'' was removed from the December 23, 2009, version of the directive that required the Office of Net Assessment to produce what their title said--``net assessments.'' The new version also changed the Office of Net Assessment's research scope to generic research, seemingly untethered to a net assessment--how convenient. This swamp needs to be drained. Last week, I introduced an amendment to the Defense bill that does several things. First, it reduces Office of Net Assessment's budget to $10 million a year instead of $20 million a year. Second, my amendment requires the Secretary of Defense to create a comprehensive plan to ensure that the Office of Net Assessment performs what the title of the agency says it is supposed to do--an annual net assessment--and complies, at the same time, with every dollar they get with Federal contracting requirements. This would take it back to the reason why it was first created decades ago. Third, the amendment would require the Department of Defense inspector general to study and report on the Office of Net Assessment's contracting failures and determine if the net assessment can be done for less than $10 million. And, fourth, it requires the Government Accountability Office to perform an audit of the effectiveness of the comprehensive plan. Right now, it is pretty clear that the Office of Net Assessment lacks leadership and discipline, and it is also pretty clear that it has wasted tens of millions of dollars over the years. Congress must take a stand. That is why I am here to encourage my colleagues to support my amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act of 2020. This is a bill that I have been working on for the past 18 months. I made lowering prescription drug costs one of my top priorities as I resumed the role of Chairman of the Finance Committee at the beginning of this Congress. I made it my priority as it's a top concern for Iowans and all Americans. My constituents throughout the state voice concern about being able to afford their prescription medications. I hear about this issue as much as any other. Poll after poll shows that the concern I hear in Iowa is shared across the Nation. The need for Congress to act to provide patients with much-needed relief is also a common takeaway from these polls and from talking to my colleagues. Iowans want action. Americans want action. Lowering prescription drug costs and providing relief to patients is actually what this bill does. For the vast majority of my time working on the bill, the Senator from Oregon, Ranking Member Wyden, has been my partner. All of the policies in this bill, which improve Medicare and Medicaid and bring much needed transparency across the supply chain, were co-authored by the Ranking Member. The Finance Committee reported the initial version of this robust bill in July 2019 by a vote of 19-9. I worked with Ranking Member Wyden and others to make bipartisan improvements to the bill. These improvements have made an already good bill better. I'm introducing this updated version today. It remains a truly bipartisan bill. It's a bipartisan bill that helps patients and reduces government spending. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the bill would save seniors and Americans with disabilities $72 billion in out-of-pocket costs in Medicare Part D and reduce premiums by $1 billion. The entire bill would save taxpayers nearly $100 billion--a rare source of bipartisan budget savings in an era of trillion dollar deficits. Even Americans in the commercial market would see savings. It's a bipartisan bill that helps patients, reduces Federal spending, and lowers commercial costs. That's a rare feat. It's something of which we should all be proud. So why is the bill only being introduced with Republicans as co- sponsors? The reason, unfortunately, is that the Democrats recently walked away from the bill. They walked away from the good faith negotiations that produced this bipartisan product. They did so for political reasons. They put politics, and their drive for power, ahead of patients. From conversations I have had with colleagues on the other side of the aisle, this was a leadership-driven decision. Maybe the thinking is that they'll block Senate Republicans from securing a win, or that they'll be able to say that President Trump hasn't followed through. They can say that, but it doesn't make it true. The introduction of this bill, with a number of my Republican colleagues, shows that Republicans are the ones on the side of patients. And to question the commitment of President Trump to lowering prescription drug prices is outlandish. President Trump campaigned on expanding prescription drug affordability and fairness. He released a comprehensive plan that included numerous policy ideas. He and his Administration have taken bold regulatory action. Some of those actions are being fought in the courts by stakeholders that support the status quo. Some have been opposed by Congressional Democrats. As the Administration's ability to act through regulation can only take us so far, President Trump called on Congress to pass an overhaul of the drug pricing system. In fact, he mentioned my work on this specific bill in his State of the Union address earlier this year, and he called on Congress to send a bipartisan bill to his desk. We should be celebrating the introduction of this bill today as another key step closer to responding to President Trump's call for bipartisan action. While it remains the most prominent reform bill that contains bipartisan policy solutions, today's introduction reveals that Democrats are more interested in positioning for elections than producing results. This is disappointing to me. But it makes clear to the American people that they can count on Republicans to take action on the issues that are important to them. President Trump has worked harder to lower prescription drug prices than any President in memory. He has stood up to special interests. I, along with my colleagues cosponsoring this bill, and other Republicans, stand with him. I only wish my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were as committed. I urge that they stop the political posturing and work in a bipartisan way to deliver the relief that Iowans and all Americans deserve. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Congress has taken action in response to the coronavirus pandemic and its significant effects on workers, families, and the economy. It is because the State, Federal, and local governments shut down the U.S. economy for the first time in the 240- year history of our country. We enacted four laws in March and April, which CBO says has increased the deficit by at least $2.4 trillion, but that doesn't measure the entirety of the relief. If you add in support from programs initiated by the Fed and the Treasury, you would add trillions more of relief. One of the recent pieces of legislation, the CARES Act, devoted $150 billion of direct Federal relief to governments of the States, localities, territories, the District of Columbia, and Tribes. That is around 16 percent of the total fiscal year 2020 State general fund expenditures enacted prior to the public emergency. In addition to the $150 billion, CBO has identified hundreds of billions more from the various relief programs that are directed to State and local governments. From the $340 billion of emergency funding in the CARES Act alone, the Senate appropriators have told me that more than 80 percent, or roughly $275 billion, goes to States and localities. So, you can see, the CARES Act alone provided $150 billion of direct aid to State and local governments, and the emergency funding added $275 billion. That means that $425 billion in the CARES Act is directed to governments of the States, localities, territories, Tribes, and the District of Columbia. That happens to be 47 percent of the total State general revenue expenditures enacted prior to the public emergency for fiscal year 2020 and about the same percentage of enacted total State revenue. On top of that, the Fed has allowed use of municipal securities as collateral for bank lending to help ease borrowing costs for local and State governments. Treasury and the Fed also established a Municipal Liquidity Facility. The purpose of it is to ``help state and local governments better manage cash flow pressures.'' The Fed will buy up to $500 billion of debt from State, counties, and cities. As others have noted here on this very floor, a significant amount of the funding directed to States and localities and the like are still in the pipeline and remain unspent or even unallocated. Some States, as I understand it, have not even allocated any money downstream to their own local governments from the $150 billion of direct aid provided under the CARES Act. Despite all that, we have heard a number of calls for massive amounts of additional spending. The reason, according to most people asking for more, is that the direct aid for States and localities in the CARES Act is too restrictive and cannot be used to replace lost revenue. I am sympathetic to the idea of giving States and localities more flexibility in how to use $150 billion of direct relief provided in the CARES Act if it is not needed for the virus health issues. Beyond that, I want you to know I am more skeptical, until we get more solid numbers on unrealized State and local revenue and the impact of the CARES dollars not yet allowed. I recently heard the minority leader here on the floor attempting to scold us Republicans for not doing exactly what he wants, exactly when he wants it, and saying we need to immediately spend more, including more direct aid to States. Of course, in his partisan political analysis, Republicans are blamed for not wanting massive amounts of additional aid for State and local governments because what he believes is ideological opposition to government in general. Now, that is quite a stretch, even for the minority leader. Republicans supported four pieces of legislation in recent months providing hundreds of billions of dollars in relief to State and local governments in various ways. I heard the Governor of California instruct Congress on moral and ethical grounds, saying that it is our duty to give more funding to States and localities or else first responders will be the first ones laid off by cities and counties. It is almost like the first argument when we were just about ready to shut down the Federal Government, if we don't finance everything, first thing we are going to do is shut down the Washington Monument. While that may have been a subtle threat from the Governor of California to use as leverage to pressure Congress to provide more funds to California, it is unfortunate that State and local governments laid off so many of their workers in recent months. That doesn't seem to be much dedication by government to its workforce. I heard from associations of Governors, associations of counties, cities, and other municipal governments that they need between a half a trillion and a trillion more in direct aid from the Federal Government. Usually, they cite a need to ``replace lost revenue.'' Many have asked for funds to cover lost revenue as far out as two additional fiscal years beyond fiscal year 2020. Most of those requests are based on forecasts of what the pandemic and the economy will look like for the rest of the year and even in coming years. I think you have to take those forecasts with a grain of salt. Just look at what the last employment report looked like relative to the forecasts, and you can tell how cloudy people's crystal balls are right now. I heard from some here on the floor that Moody's thinks States and localities may need hundreds of billions more in direct relief. People haven't been very careful, though, in reading the Moody's reports that are the basis of their arguments. Moody's Analytics, which makes very clear in the report that it is not an arm of Moody's that rates bonds--though, I am not sure everyone is clear on that--Moody's Analytics said in April that under their most severely adverse assumptions about the future, State and local governments would have a budget shortfall of around $172 billion over the next 15 months and more than $450 billion if you extend out to cover the years 2022. Again, this is all based on shaky forecasts, and it is not at all clear that the ratings on municipal bonds done by the Moody's ratings agency align with the forecasts of Moody's Analytics. More recently, Moody's Analytics' chief economist, Mark Zandi, who is a regular proponent of Keynesian stimulus for the Democratic Party, upped the estimate of the needs to about $500 billion. That number remarkably matches what we heard from the National Governors Association about 6 weeks ago. Dr. Zandi promises so-called bang-for- the-buck magic to save States and localities, but the government will have to pony up perhaps a half a trillion more just to start that magic. So I am skeptical, to put it mildly. If you remember, it was that kind of reasoning that led to the Obama stimulus promising vague and relatively quick unemployment deductions following the financial crisis but failed to come even close to these promised results. Finally, regarding funding requests, there is the Heroes Act over at the House. State and local aid in that act provides nearly $1 trillion to States and localities inside a liberal wish list in their bill. That, along with what we have already done, would put State and local relief at more than 75 percent of all combined State and local tax collections for a year, depending how you measure things. That is more of a Federal bailout than the partnership that we are asked to finance. I have heard a lot of calls for massive amounts of additional direct aid to our States, funded by Federal debt. Yet there still is a lot of money in the pipeline that hasn't even been used yet. And future needs of States and localities are highly uncertain--too uncertain, in my view--to commit the Federal Government today to half a trillion dollars or $1 trillion more to States and localities, on top of the $425 billion or more of funding already in play and up to $500 billion of credit support. I am highly skeptical of schemes to index future aid to measures of the incidence of COVID-19 cases, since we already have had controversies surrounding those measures, and some of them are political controversies. Of course, I do understand budget rules that States and localities operate under. They do provide constraints. I also believe that proponents of massive amounts of additional Federal aid to States and localities overstate the severity of those constraints. I think State budgets are more flexible and fungible, for example, than some would have us believe. We have seen that flexibility recently in legislators' consideration of altering police funding or using taxpayers' funds to erect barriers in occupied zones of lawlessness as just one example of that flexibility. There are also many issues about incentives associated with massive new amounts of direct Federal funding of State and local governments. Sending massive amounts of additional Federal funds to States that were responsible in good times and built up rainy day funds means that they are treated the same as States that didn't build much, if any, in rainy day funds, as I said, Illinois and New Jersey, for examples. Those States that acted irresponsibly then get rewarded. Since funds in State and local governments are fungible, sending massive amounts of additional Federal dollars to States and localities means that hard-earned Federal tax dollars coming from Iowa, as an example, can end up helping financially unsustainable pension promises of fiscally irresponsible States, and it means that Federal tax revenues get channeled to States run by politicians who will not even enforce existing Federal laws and who use taxpayer resources on lawless occupied zones or sanctuary cities to provide benefits to undocumented residents. There are many of my constituents in Iowa who do not support those uses of Federal funds. So, as I wind down here, I am highly skeptical of sending massive amounts of additional funds to States and localities, since future needs are so highly uncertain and there is still unspent money in the pipelines. I am, however, sympathetic to providing additional flexibility for funds we have already provided in the CARES Act so that State and local communities can make broader uses of those funds. And I believe that if the pandemic and the economy worsens, under those circumstances, future needs can be addressed when needed. I understand that there are a range of views regarding additional funds for States and localities. At this point, I believe it may be useful to entertain more flexibility in what has already been approved, and there may be a need to make sure that States get shares of money they have received to counties and cities. There may even be a reasoned case for limited additional funding to States and localities in the near term, although, as I said, I am a bit skeptical. But approving half a trillion dollars to $1 trillion of additional funds for uncertain future needs right now to cover unknown State and local needs as far out as 2 years down the road just isn't the responsible or prudent action to take. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, if reports are true that Russia has been paying a bounty to the Taliban to kill American soldiers, this is a very serious escalation of what Russia expert Edward Lucas dubbed ``The New Cold War.'' Mr. Lucas said that back in 2008. This sort of movement by Russia, if it is proven--and there are a lot who believe with Russia it is possible--it demands a strong response. And I don't mean a diplomatic response. We have had previous things like this happen with Russia. President Bush tried playing nice with Russia, then talking tough when Putin showed his true nature. President Obama repeated this cycle--you know the word--``resetting'' relations, despite Russia having just occupied parts of our ally Georgia, and then switching gears when Russia invaded Ukraine. Putin is a KGB guy who understands only strength. His popularity has taken a hit lately. It makes him very unpredictable. That may be why he is doing these things, even though Russia has a reputation for doing them all the time. So we need to increase deterrence on NATO's eastern flank. We should also hit back where it hurts. Dictators like Putin fear their own people--and, of course, for good reason. Putin and his cronies have enriched themselves at the expense of ordinary Russians. This week Russia is having a referendum on waiving term limits, allowing Putin to stay in power when his term is up. Of course, Russia will probably be conducting a rigged election. We should point out to the Russian people that they don't have to accept that. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.