Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. COVID-19, as we all know, has thrown a wrench into America's corners of commerce and manufacturing, in addition to threatening lives and the loss of lives. The unprecedented effort to stop the spread has shut down life as we know it, closing schools, movie theaters, gyms, salons, and restaurants in a hysterical approach to it. I always say we have had pandemics before, but never have we shut down the government, shut down Congress the way we have. Our moves have disrupted our food supply chain and pulled the rug out from underneath our economy. Yet, across my home State, Iowa businesses and industries stepped up to the plate. Ethanol plants, local distilleries, and others teamed up to produce hand sanitizers for hospitals, nursing homes, and local law enforcement. Others retooled their factories and redirected their workforce to sew masks and produce face shields and other supplies to replenish personal protective equipment for our frontline workers. Across Iowa, businesses have shown there is nothing halfway about the Iowa Way. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, 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 pandemic has disrupted just about everything Americans take for granted in life, including our food supply. Empty grocery store shelves have greeted U.S. consumers, perhaps for the first time in their lifetimes. The pandemic shines a national spotlight on the ``farm to fork'' supply chain. Market disruptions are forcing farmers to make tough choices--milk being dumped, eggs destroyed, and market-ready hogs may have nowhere to go. Farmers are shouldering a heavy burden, with profound impact to their livelihood and mental health. As a champion for American agriculture, I am leading efforts to help our farmers get through these tough times. There is a lot of help coming from other people as well. As always, Iowa pork producers want to do what they do best, which is put food on our tables. They are teaming up with local meat lockers and food banks to do what is called Pass the Pork, a statewide initiative launched by Iowa Governor Reynolds. The Pass the Pork Program aims to stock food pantries with hogs donated by local farmers and from financial contributions to cover the costs of processing and distribution. Where there is a will, there is a way. We all know it. I salute Iowans pulling together the Iowa Way. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, in the last several weeks, a lot of information relating to the FBI's Russia investigation has been declassified and made public. That is in large part thanks to action taken by Attorney General Barr and action taken by Acting Director Grenell at DNI on declassification of a lot of things that should have been declassified a long time ago. Their acts of transparency are finally shining a light on the dark corners of the Federal Government. The public's business ought to be public. There is too much overclassification in the Federal Government. Barr and Grenell are doing what they ought to do, and I hope they keep it up. In the last several weeks, we have also seen a lot of denial from some quarters in the media about the information that has been released. Also last week, former President Obama said the rule of law is at risk because of the Justice Department's dismissal of the Flynn case. Contrary to what President Obama believes or the media might say, I believe the opposite is true. The rule of law is at risk if the Federal Government can get away with violating the Constitution to do what they did to Lieutenant General Flynn. When it comes to those violations and other misconduct by former government officials, Obama and the mainstream media pundits all seem to be silent all of a sudden. I have heard no comment from Mr. Obama about the independent inspector general's findings that Andrew McCabe lied under oath to Federal investigators multiple times or about how Department of Justice prosecutors falsely told the court that they had produced all Brady material to Flynn. I didn't hear them when the Federal Government surveilled an American citizen connected to the Trump campaign without probable cause and based on intelligence that the FBI knew was questionable at best. There is too much silence on something that now is so obvious. Since 2017, I have aggressively pursued the Flynn investigation to find out more about why the FBI decided to interview Flynn, make him a subject of an investigation, and then why the Justice Department eventually charged him. From the beginning, I wanted to know the facts of the case, and from the beginning, none of what I found looked right. Having done good government oversight for over 40 years, I know a government foul-up when I see it. The public knows a lot more than they did in 2017 when the news first broke about this Flynn case. For example, we know that on January 4, 2017, the FBI wrote a closing memorandum on Flynn, who was code-named ``Crossfire Razor'' by the FBI. That memorandum said the intelligence community could find no derogatory information on the general. On the very same day the FBI was ready to close the Flynn case, Peter Strzok asked another FBI agent something like this: ``Hey, if you haven't closed Razor, don't do it yet.'' So Strzok obviously had another agenda. The case was still open at that moment, and Strzok asked that it be kept open ``for now.'' Strzok then quickly messaged Lisa Page, saying that Razor still happened to be open because of some oversight and said: ``Yeah, our utter incompetence actually helps us. 20 percent of the time . . . '' During the course of my oversight activities of the FBI, I have uncovered and made public large amounts of Strzok's and Page's messages. When reviewing all the faults and disasters of the Russia investigation, these text messages are very, very important. They are the free expression of these top FBI employees' mindset, unencumbered by rules or decorum. They give us a look at what the drivers of the Russia investigation actually believed. In August 2016, just after the FBI opened the Russia investigation, Page said: ``Trump's not ever going to become president, right? Right?!?'' She is the one who edited Flynn's 302 summary along with Strzok, which contradicted the original 302. Strzok responded to the Page quote that I just gave about whether Trump would ever become President this way: ``No. No he won't. We'll stop it.'' Their animus towards Trump helps to explain why they cut corners and why they didn't follow regular protocol in running their inquiry. On January 5, 2017, the day after Strzok moved to keep the Flynn case open, President Obama met with Director Comey, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, Vice President Biden, and National Security Advisor Susan Rice. At that meeting, they briefed President Obama on the Russia investigation. It is unclear to what extent they discussed the details of the investigation amongst each other, but given all that we know now regarding the fake foundation to the inquiry, it is time we asked: What did Obama and Biden know, and when did they know it? During the course of my oversight, I acquired an email from Susan Rice. She sent herself an email on Obama's last day in office, January 20, 2017. That email memorialized the alleged contents of the January 5, 2017, meeting with Obama that I previously referred to. As I noted in 2018 when I made the email public, I found it very odd that among her activities in the final moments of the final day of the Obama administration, that she would write herself an email about a meeting that happened several weeks prior about this investigation. According to Rice, Obama wanted everything done ``by the book.'' Of course, we now know that never happened. She also said, in part: ``The President''--as in Obama--``asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team.'' Then, 1 week later, on January 12, 2017, somebody in the Obama administration leaked the Flynn-Kislyak call to the Washington Post that, for the very first time, ignited rumors about Flynn's association with Russians and a possible violation of the arcane Logan Act. Now, wasn't this really a perfectly timed leak--one that would help to create a fake foundation to interview Flynn? Well, guess what happened. Twelve days later, on January 24, 2017, Strzok interviewed Flynn in the White House. Prior to that interview, Comey chose not to follow normal protocols to inform the White House that the FBI intended to interview an employee. Now, we all know that the FBI would normally work through the White House counsel to have discussions for approval and who would be present at that interview. You have seen it on television several times this weekend: Comey bragging about getting away with skirting the rules. When he was asked in a 2018 interview about how he did it, Comey said--and this is what showed up in these last weekends: I sent them-- Meaning he sent the FBI agents to interview. I sent them. Something I probably wouldn't have done or even gotten away with in a more organized investigation, a more organized administration. According to Comey's former assistant, Comey said: ``We just decided, you know, screw it,'' in reference to their breaking protocol with the White House. Now, I referred to an email that said the President wanted to do this by the book. Well, what I just described to you is hardly ``by the book.'' Flynn was never told during this interview what he was being secretly interrogated for, and the whole thing was done without Flynn having an attorney present. In fact, I think I recall they even told him he didn't need an attorney. Now, we know that the FBI had no real investigative purpose to interview Flynn. We also know, based upon FBI notes, that agents apparently interviewed Flynn to trick him in a lie so that they could prosecute him or get him fired. That prosecuting him or getting him fired are very clear in some notes that we got from the FBI, handwritten notes. Keep in mind that the FBI had prepared to close this case weeks before, except it didn't quite get closed because Strzok came in and said: Can we keep it open--or something to that effect. The FBI already had the transcript of the Flynn-Ambassador Kislyak call. They knew exactly what was discussed. So what was the point of interviewing Flynn if they already had the transcript? Well, lucky for Strzok, the FBI had not technically closed the Flynn case. So he figured yet they could lay a trap for Flynn, and they did lay a trap. In doing so, they didn't warn him that he was under investigation. They went around the Justice Department, and I made it very clear how they bypassed the White House on interview protocols, because Comey was bragging on television about that. Under Comey's leadership, the FBI abused government powers in ways that our Founders and Framers feared most, because they had had enough of George III. They weren't going to let it happen again in the United States. That is why they wrote the Constitution the way they did. The Russia investigation, in other words, is a textbook example of what not to do. At every step of the investigation, the government sought evidence to advance it, never got the evidence that they needed to advance it, and advanced the investigation anyway. That is pretty clearly an abuse of power. Let's recall that Comey also leaked his memos of his private discussions with President Trump to get the special counsel, Mueller, appointed. Comey is pretty smart. He had a plan. It worked. That plan worked to get Mueller appointed. Mueller did his work for 2 years, and it cost the taxpayers $30 million. In the end, Mueller found no collusion and no obstruction, which is exactly the same information that the House Intelligence Committee's 50-plus depositions told us. Those were done way back--not way back but a little way back--in 2017. Mueller finished his job in 2019. That is more than $30 million just to reinvent the wheel. Now, with respect to Comey, I think it is monumentally important to point out a piece of his testimony from 2017, before the House Intelligence Committee. Comey said the following: . . . we had an open counterintelligence investigation on Mr. Flynn, and it had been open since the summertime, and we were very close to closing it. In fact, I had--I think I had authorized it to be closed at the end of December, beginning of January. Now, Comey leaked his memos so that the public would know the President allegedly said to him that he hoped Comey would let the whole Flynn thing go. That is what the hook was to getting a special counsel appointed. Not once in Comey's memos did he mention that by the time that conversation occurred, he had already authorized the Flynn case to be closed. Don't you think that is a material fact that would put the proper context on his interactions with Trump? Attorney General Barr is exactly right. What the FBI did to Flynn cannot be justified by any angle of review. What the FBI did is to flout the rules, the law, and the Constitution. Entrapment is unconstitutional. That is where the outrage ought to be--not on the dismissal of the case but on facts that the case was brought in the first place and a good man's life was destroyed. Mueller had all these facts. He had documents. He had the Brady material. He had the FBI notes and contradictory 302 summaries. He had the emails. He had all the information that showed Flynn was set up, targeted, and pressured to plead guilty in a secret side deal between the Mueller team and his former lawyers, only because he was running out of money and the government was coming after his son. Flynn did what maybe a lot of people would do when your family is at stake. Flynn did what he did to save his family from financial ruin and his son from reputational ruin. He did what any father would do for his family. If it can happen to Flynn, it can happen to you. It can happen to any American, and, in some ways, this also happened to a person named Carter Page and with the illegal surveillance on Carter Page. You know, in this business of self-government and this business of constitutional safeguards, we still are in a constant battle between liberty and tyranny, and we have seen some tyranny in regard to Flynn. My fellow Americans, let's use the Russia investigation and all of its shortcomings to forever guard against the tyranny of the Federal Government. On one last thing, people are constantly phoning our offices and wanting to know when all the people who did the injustice to Flynn are going to be prosecuted, because they think there are two standards of justice. You know, they announced yesterday that McCabe isn't going to be prosecuted. But Flynn was entrapped to be prosecuted, and how wrong that is. A lot of people want justice brought to the people who did the injustice, and I think they ought to be prosecuted. But even more important than prosecuting him, it is about time that these facts get out so the public knows the injustice that is going on within our government, within the FBI, in the highest levels of the FBI. We aren't finding fault with the people in the FBI who are doing what needs to be done to bring law and order to our country, but when we have these unusual, illegal, unconstitutional, corrupt things that happened to Flynn, it ought to wake up the American people. It ought to wake up those of us in government to make sure it never happens again. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, my Iowa offices are located in Cedar Rapids, Council Bluffs, Davenport, Des Moines, Sioux City, and Waterloo. My State staff serves as my eyes and ears in communities from one side of the State to the other. From the Mississippi to the Missouri Rivers, my staff has their fingers on the pulse of Iowans, and this pandemic is no exception. They are working tirelessly to troubleshoot problems Iowans are facing related to the public health emergency and the economic fallout. No matter the concern, the problem, or circumstance that is affecting a farm, a business, school, or local hospital, my staff is on the ground ready to help. In the early weeks of the pandemic, they helped troubleshoot issues for Iowans who were overseas to get them back home to the United States. One example: In Peru, several young people were stranded and wanted to come home. They didn't get them home very fast, but they are home now. Since Congress passed the CARES Act, my staff has answered countless questions from Iowans about the Paycheck Protection Program, economic injury disaster loans, and economic impact payments. Whatever the question or redtape may be, my staff goes the extra mile to serve Iowans. They do whatever it takes to track down an answer and help make government work for the people as the government should work for the people. As always, they are in the trenches during this pandemic, working to help Iowans get through this and get through it together. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 90 seconds.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. COVID-19 has put America through the wringer. There will be many lessons learned and stories to tell from this chapter of our history. Today, I salute the heroes working on the frontlines during this pandemic. I can't overstate the debt of gratitude we owe the healthcare professionals who selflessly put their own lives on the line to care for COVID-19 patients. Our doctors, nurses, respiratory therapists, nursing home workers, pharmacists, and first responders are among those who have shouldered physical and mental exhaustion to heal the sick. In fact, today is National Nurses Day. So I give our nurses an extra applause on this their day. To the legions of healthcare professionals across America, thank you for the full measure of devotion you have shown to your community and to our great country. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I would like to speak for 1 minute in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, despite the hardships and headaches and heartaches that so many families are experiencing right now, there are countless acts of kindness that show humanitarian goodness taking place in the entire country, but I notice them across my State of Iowa. From rainbow art decorating windows to inspirational chalk messages on sidewalks, Iowans are donating their time, talent, and treasure to support local businesses, food pantries, and grab-and-go meals for students. As just one example, the residents of a retirement community are sewing 35 to 40 masks per day for healthcare professionals and laundry service workers at the University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics. They are also supplying local food banks and others who need them in their community. The Iowa City senior threaders are among the countless silver linings that are lighting America's path to recovery. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, when it comes to the virus pandemic that faces the world, the World Health Organization is not serving its member nations the way it should. The World Health Organization's mission is to promote worldwide health, to reduce the burdens of disease and poverty, and to provide access to healthcare, especially for the world's most vulnerable populations. The World Health Organization states as its guiding principle that all people should enjoy the highest standard of health regardless of race, religion, economics, social condition, or political belief. It serves primarily as a coordinating body to share information and best practices by connecting experts in different countries. The virus that emerged in Wuhan, China, which has caused the disease now known as COVID-19, has had a devastating impact on the health of people worldwide as well as the global economy. Nations, including the United States, have been scrambling to deal with the impact of the virus since the beginning of the year. Without a doubt, worldwide efforts to combat COVID-19 would have been greatly benefited from independent, unbiased, and informative data from the world's leader in health, the World Health Organization. Unfortunately, information coming from this organization since the beginning of the year has left much to be desired in its often providing information that we know now to be inaccurate or at least incomplete. The American people and the citizens of every country--all of whom rely on direct and truthful information--deserve better from Dr. Tedros and his team who lead the World Health Organization. China, which is where the current crisis began, has not done its part either in its seeking of or in providing that very crucial information that, had it come out sooner, would have saved many lives. As an example of China's not cooperating, a doctor in Wuhan, China, by the name of Dr. Li Wenliang, raised concerns about the growing pandemic in early January. Dr. Li tried to blow the whistle on the spread of one of the world's deadliest diseases. Do you know what he got for doing that? He was punished by the Communist Chinese Government for ``spreading rumors.'' Tragically, Dr. Li passed away in early February due to this virus, COVID-19. After the death of Dr. Li, he actually became a rallying point for Chinese citizens who were very upset about their government's coverup of this virus. Only then, after he died and after the public outroar, did the Chinese Government apologize to his family and posthumously drop Dr. Li's reprimand. Throughout this time, the World Health Organization demonstrated no interest in the accurate and verifiable information on the true dangers of this virus. We now know that, in late December 2019, Taiwanese officials sounded the alarm directly to the World Health Organization about the human-to- human transmission of the virus. Prior to that, it was only thought there was an animal-to-human transmission, but Taiwanese officials blew the whistle. The Taiwan Centers for Disease Control sent an email to the World Health Organization--an email that has now been forwarded to my office and has been widely reported. It warned of ``at least seven atypical pneumonia cases in Wuhan, China.'' Additionally, this email communication noted that those individuals had been isolated for treatment, which we now know is said to be the standard operating procedure for preventing human-to-human transmission, but still, at that time, it was considered to be animal to human. Taken together, this information should have been very much a red flag to the World Health Organization's leadership that the virus was capable of having human-to-human transmission. Unfortunately, the World Health Organization chose to ignore these warnings and, thus, failed to pass on this critical information to other countries. Instead, what did the World Health Organization do? It was complicit in the Chinese Government's coverup. It stated the opposite--that there was not human- to-human transmission. In fact, the World Health Organization even retweeted Chinese propaganda on January 14--that there was ``no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission,'' which is contrary to the information that the World Health Organization got from the Taiwanese. It ought to be very clear that misleading the public like this is simply egregious. By sidelining Taiwan's participation, which has one of the lowest known COVID-19 infection rates per capita, despite its proximity to Mainland China, the World Health Organization stymied information about a more effective response to the pandemic. It was during these critical days back in January when the spread of the virus could have been greatly slowed or even contained and could have saved a lot of lives. The World Health Organization's mandate is to coordinate responses and facilitate information sharing to all of its members on a health emergency--members which include probably almost every country on this globe. This gross mishandling of the organization's most important mandate has cost countless lives around the world. While China covered up the extent of the virus's spread, the World Health Organization continued to praise China for its so-called proactive response and transparency. General Secretary Xi waited a crucial 6 days, until January 20, before announcing the findings by China's National Health Commission about the danger of the widespread human-to-human coronavirus contagion. Now, just think for a while of the time lost between Taiwan's warning to the World Health Organization in late December 2019 and General Secretary Xi's admitting on January 20 of its human-to-human transmission. That time lost could have saved the whole world thousands of lives because they could have been on top of the situation as to how bad it was, which was much more than anybody knew at that particular time General Secretary Xi's government also delayed an access request for the World Health Organization's experts to visit affected regions at the end of January by almost 2 weeks--another 2 weeks lost. He has also continually fed disinformation to foreign citizens via several misleading tweets by his foreign ministry and multiple unfounded claims that have been posted on state-run media websites. Despite this and also other evidence that China actively silenced whistleblowers and doctors domestically and that the Communist Party's officials were aware of the spread well before reporting it, the World Health Organization's officials continued to praise China's response and transparency. The World Health Organization lauded China for releasing the virus's genome in mid-January while it neglected to mention that it took China at least 14 days to do this even as the virus continued to spread across Europe and reach America. Dr. Tedros said in early February that there was no need for measures that unnecessarily interfered with international travel and trade in trying to halt the spread of that coronavirus. Now, early February was a few days after President Trump stopped travel from China except for American citizens who were coming home. Yet, during that period of time, Dr. Tedros thought it was unnecessary to interfere with international travel. Time and again, the World Health Organization endorsed and also repeated Chinese Government talking points, and it did it all to the rest of the world's detriment. We now know that there was a continued flow of misinformation that came from the Chinese Government since the onset of the pandemic with there being little to no pushback from the World Health Organization as to whether that information was accurate. In mid-February, officials from the World Health Organization--yet again, uncritically--parroted Chinese Government propaganda by stating that there were signs that confirmed and suspected cases of COVID-19 had declined in China. The U.S. intelligence community has, in fact, asserted that China misrepresented both the number of cases and its death toll from the virus, concealing the real extent of the outbreak in its country, and that China intentionally hid or even destroyed evidence of the virus' outbreak. In a dossier that was leaked to the Australian Daily Telegraph, it is alleged that China began censoring information as early as December 31, 2019--precisely when Taiwan, in its caring about the whole world as it knew what might be going on, was sounding that alarm to the World Health Organization. Previously, Chinese leaders came under incredible scrutiny by the World Health Organization back in 2003 for the SARS outbreak. China was not transparent with SARS, just like they weren't transparent until too late in regard to this virus pandemic that we are fighting today. Back then, the Chinese Government made sure that information regarding the outbreak was not made public. At that point, the World Health Organization did what they are responsible for doing: They publicly reprimanded China back in 2003 on the SARS outbreak. Chinese leaders then quickly fell in line with the rest of the world in sharing its data with the World Health Organization member countries. If the World Health Organization had been doing its job on this pandemic, then maybe China would have been quicker admitting that its spread was human-to- human and how bad it was even in their own country. However, we are seeing a very different approach now to the organization's handling of China's information suppression campaign, with the World Health Organization often praising China for its information sharing, but make no mistake, China has been nothing but deceptive in its handling of COVID-19. We must remember that China has a long history of not being transparent with respect to the outbreaks of viruses, and there is little to no evidence suggesting we should start believing China now-- meaning, of course, the Chinese Communist leaders. Nobody in this world is going to hold the Chinese people responsible for this. Global leaders are now coming to realize that China is responsible for this pandemic, with global sentiment against the Chinese Communist Party at its highest since the 1999 Tiananmen Square crackdown. It is important that world leaders, including President Trump, keep pressure on China to finally be transparent with its data so we can join together in combating this deadly disease. We have a report from the Department of Homeland Security that says that China ``intentionally concealed the severity'' of the pandemic from the world. To make matters worse, the report further states that while China continues to downplay the pandemic, it began to increase imports and decrease exports of medical supplies. This report from the Department of Homeland Security suggests that China was beginning to hoard these medical supplies from the rest of the world. So they knew how bad this was in their own country. Secretary Pompeo recently stated that there is a significant amount of evidence that this virus came from the laboratory in Wuhan, China, contrary to what Chinese Communist Party propagandists have been pushing throughout the world. On April 9, I wrote to the World Health Organization seeking answers to several questions regarding the organization's handling of COVID-19. I wanted to know what the World Health Organization knew and when they knew it. I asked that my questions be answered no later than May 1. Much to my dismay, the World Health Organization has refused to answer my questions about its handling of the virus. It would seem that the organization is much more focused on covering for China than it is in answering questions that every single American has a right to know. Not only does the United States have the right to know this information for the benefit of the world, because transparency brings accountability, but because we give about $400 million a year to support the World Health Organization. I believe we are the largest contributor to it, and I believe China gives about 10 percent of what the U.S. taxpayers put in. I want to state that I will continue to push the World Health Organization for answers. There are probably a lot more questions that ought to be asked in addition to the questions in my letter. Ultimately, the primary responsibility for this pandemic lies with the Chinese Communist Government authorities who actively concealed the outbreak since the fall of 2019 and suppressed the spread of accurate information about the virus, but the World Health Organization also bears responsibility for aiding and abetting the Chinese Communist Party's coverup. That is why I support a full congressional investigation into how the World Health Organization has bowed to Chinese pressure with the COVID-19 outbreak. The leaders of the World Health Organization need to be held accountable for their role in promoting misinformation and helping China cover up this global pandemic. Americans deserve to know what the World Health Organization leaders knew and when they knew it. I yield the floor

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Iowa Safe Schools is holding its 15th annual Iowa Governor's Conference on May 11, this time as a virtual conference, given the circumstances. I understand this has been an annual tradition starting in 2006. It is an effort to help end bullying in our schools and to create leadership opportunities for LGBTQ youth students from not just Iowa but from States across the Midwest. I wish all the participants a successful conference. I hope you have a good time.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask permission to address the Senate for 1 minute in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Americans from coast to coast hunkered down to stop the spread of the virus. Office workers, including my staff in Washington, adapted to work from home. But not all Americans can do their jobs from home. Many must work away from home to provide essential services for our communities. I am talking about workers who harvest, process, and deliver our food; the crews who provide sanitation services and keep our communications, transportation, and energy grids running around the clock; America's postal workers and truckdrivers who deliver mail and transport goods across the country; the grocery store clerks and factory workers who make toilet paper, diapers, and consumer products we can't live without. On behalf of Iowans and the rest of America, I thank the frontline workers who are on the job, working away from home, in the line of duty. Thank you all for your service and sacrifice. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, since June of 2018, I have objected to the nomination of William R. Evanina to be Director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center. Today, due to the recent actions by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence ODNI, and the Attorney General to finally respond to my very longstanding oversight requests, I withdraw my objection to Mr. Evanina's nomination. When I noticed my intention to object to this nominee in June of 2018, I made it very clear to the public and to the administration my reasons for doing so. I did not question Mr. Evanina's credentials in any way, and I put my statement of those reasons in the Record. I have done that consistently, not only since the rules of the Senate first required every Member to do that, but even before that rule was put in place. At the time, I experienced difficulties obtaining relevant documents and briefings from the Justice Department and ODNI related to the 2016 election controversies. On several occasions, then-Deputy Attorney General--DAG--Rod Rosenstein personally assured me that the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which I was chairman, would receive equal access to information provided to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence--HPSCI--with regard to any concessions in its negotiations regarding pending subpoenas from that committee. However, I, and the Judiciary Committee, never received equal access from DAG Rosenstein. For example, on August 7, 2018, I wrote to the Justice Department and pointed out that the House Intelligence Committee had received documents related to Bruce Ohr that the Judiciary Committee had not received. The Department initially denied those records had been provided to the House Intelligence Committee. After my staff confronted the Department, we eventually received some Bruce Ohr documents. In that same 2018 letter, I also asked for other documents based on my equal access agreement with DAG Rosenstein. I then learned that the Justice Department took the position that then-ODNI Director Dan Coats prohibited the Department from sharing the requested records with the committee. Needless to say, it was your typical bureaucratic blame-game. Then, some personnel changes took place. I voiced my concerns to Acting Director Grenell and Attorney General Barr. Recently, thanks to their commitment to transparency, I have received access to the types of documents that I asked for almost 2 years ago in June 2018. Moreover, both Acting Director Grenell and Attorney General Barr have gone multiple steps further by declassifying much of the information that I had sought access to. Credit should be given when it is due and Acting Director Grenell and Attorney General Barr deserve that credit here today. If their predecessors had simply respected legitimate congressional oversight and their agreements with me and the Judiciary Committee from the beginning, Mr. Evanina would have been confirmed long ago. Now, I also want to remind everyone, especially future administrations, that the Senate Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction extends to the intelligence community. In the authorizing resolution that created the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the Senate explicitly reserved for other standing committees, such as the Senate Judiciary Committee, independent authority to ``study and review any intelligence activity'' and ``to obtain full and prompt access to the product of the intelligence activities of any department or agency'' when such activity ``directly affects a matter otherwise within the jurisdiction of such committee''--S. Res. 400. The Senate Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over all federal courts, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, FISC. As I understand it, the records at issue here fall into that category. Let this also be a reminder that when it comes to congressional oversight, I will use all the tools at my disposal to get to the truth of the matter and get access to the records that I believe are necessary to advance my investigations. The executive branch must recognize that it has an ongoing obligation to respond to congressional inquiries in a timely and reasonable manner. As I have said many times before, transparency brings accountability and congressional oversight helps to bring about the sunlight necessary for that to happen.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as the chairman of the Finance Committee and the head of the Tax Task Force, I want to highlight a few areas of the bipartisan economic relief bill we will be voting on today. Recovery checks to give Americans needed cash to provide for their families and get through our current health crisis look like this: $1,200 for individuals, $2,400 for married couples, and $500 for each child. There is no minimum, no phase-in. It starts out at the lowest level. Anyone with a Social Security number who is not a dependent of anyone else should be eligible for a check under the income caps. We also have very strong unemployment compensation additions to the present program in this bill. We also have incentives to help charities because they play a very important role in this recovery. My colleagues across the aisle said last week that the business tax issues were corporate bailouts. That couldn't be further from the truth, and I think my Democratic colleagues now agree. This is about helping our workers keep their jobs. Our economic relief package to recover this economy has provisions to help businesses so that they have the cash to keep the doors open and keep making payroll. We all worked hard, along with the administration, to get this job done. Now it is time to vote on this bill and deliver relief for the American people and to recover this economy--get the strong economy back that we had. 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. President, I know we have a very important piece of legislation before us to turn this economy around and help in our battle against the virus. While we are waiting to vote on that, I have come to the floor for a couple of points that I would like to make. The first one is to honor a famous Iowan. This month is Iowa History Month, so I have come to the floor to speak about one of Iowa's favorite sons, Dr. Norman Borlaug, whose birthday is today. He is considered the father of the Green Revolution. Raised on a farm near Cresco, IA, Borlaug is credited with saving more lives than anyone in history with his breakthroughs in agronomy. It took him several years to accomplish what a lot of scientists do now in a laboratory in regard to fighting diseases in plants. He did this in Mexico and India. His work helped to overcome malnutrition and famine across the world, saving over 1 billion lives in the process. His achievements won him the Nobel Peace Prize--not only that famous prize but also the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal. I think there are only five or six people who fall into the category of winning all three of those prizes. His achievements also prompted the State of Iowa to honor him with one of Iowa's two statues in Statuary Hall here in the U.S. Capitol. Coronavirus Mr. President, on another subject, some pundits, and even Members of this body, have suggested that it is inappropriate to criticize the Chinese Communist Party for its mishandling of the coronavirus that originated in Wuhan, China, because it distracts from bashing the President. We went from mainstream media outlets routinely referring to the virus by its origin to this being totally politically incorrect. There is an excellent timetable published by Axios that lays out the Chinese coverup that prevented early action to contain the virus. The Chinese pro-democracy activist, Wei Jingsheng, warned that General Secretary Xi is ordering people back to work prematurely, risking another massive outbreak of what he called Wuhan pneumonia. Telling the truth about the Communist Party's misdeeds does not preclude talking about how we can improve our own response. We can learn from free countries like South Korea, which has been able to contain a widespread outbreak, and Taiwan and Japan, which appear to have been able to prevent widespread outbreaks. So this is not the time for political correctness or political point- scoring to get in the way of telling the truth or working together in a clear-eyed way to address the challenges at hand. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, every American is facing a very uncertain future that the new virus has brought to our country and to the world. Our daily lives have become transformed for right now and maybe, to some extent, for a longer period of time. Grocery stores have been open--in fact, one of the few businesses that need to stay open. While it may shock some living in large cities, food does not come from grocery stores; food comes from farms. Today, we celebrate National Ag Day. Let me assure you, American farmers and ranchers are up to the challenge of producing food to fill the shelves of every grocery store and the fridges and cupboards of our households. Farmers are only 2 percent of the population, but they will provide for the other 98 percent. When you eat today, thank a farmer, as I will thank the 88,000 family farmers in Iowa. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation in response to the coronavirus outbreak. I submitted this proposal to Senate Leadership earlier this week. It is my expectation that the language I've developed will be included, in some form, in the final agreement we're negotiating. The legislation is designed to remove a stumbling block to enactment of a third coronavirus relief package. Specifically, the proposal I've developed responds directly to the concerns--voiced by some of my colleagues in recent days--that we should add accountability provisions to the relief package now under consideration by this chamber. It's my understanding that the Senate leaders are seriously considering including this or very similar language in their compromise. I applaud them for their efforts and strongly urge my colleagues' support for these sensible provisions. My proposal would impose strict congressional oversight over the Treasury Department fund that is tasked with extending lending and other assistance to air carriers and American companies that have been hard hit by the coronavirus pandemic. It mirrors closely the language that this chamber adopted in 2008, during consideration of the Troubled Asset Relief Program. For example, this bill, like that 2008 statute, calls for the creation of a special inspector general for the coronavirus relief program and would authorize $50 million for this purpose. The special inspector general would be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. As stated in the bill, this appointment must be made ``on the basis of integrity and demonstrated ability in accounting, auditing, financial analysis, law, management analysis, public administration, or investigations.'' The bill I've developed also calls for creation of a bipartisan oversight board, comprised of five high ranking executive branch officials. This board would meet every two weeks to review the activities of the Exchange Stabilization Fund, a Treasury Department vehicle through which hundreds of billions of dollars in loan assistance would flow to distressed sectors of the United States economy. This oversight board would have to report suspected fraud or malfeasance to the special inspector general that this legislation creates. Again, it is very similar to a board that Congress established in 2008, during another National crisis. In addition, my proposal calls for the head of the Office of Management and Budget to issue regulations to minimize conflicts of interest that may arise in coronavirus relief activities. It also imposes limits on executive compensation to senior officers of companies that accept lending assistance through the Treasury Department's Exchange Stabilization Fund. The bill also calls for greater oversight and audits by the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan watchdog agency of Congress. Specifically, GAO is tasked with ongoing oversight, including conducting audits of the programs and financial transactions of Federal agencies that extend financial assistance to private companies in response to the coronavirus pandemic. The bill also creates a bicameral, bipartisan Congressional Oversight Panel within the legislative branch. This panel would be comprised of five members of the House of Representatives and Senate, appointed by the other chamber's Speaker and the Senate Leader. This oversight panel would review the state of the financial markets and submit regular reports on certain topics, such as Federal officials' use of coronavirus relief authority and the impact of Federal assistance on the financial markets, air carriers, and medical providers. This congressional panel would have the ability to convene hearings, call witnesses, take testimony, hire staff, get official data, and meet regularly. The panel, like many of the programs established under this bill, would terminate after this emergency ends. Mr. President, my office has approached multiple colleagues, including those on the other side of the aisle, about these provisions. We've received encouraging comments from many. I believe this language could be accepted and urge that it be included in the final relief package, so that we can remove one of the remaining obstacles to moving forward. Sec. 1. Short Title and Table of Contents This title may be cited as the ``COVID-19 Funding Accountability Act.'' Sec. 2. Purpose Provides that the purpose of this Act is to ensure that the Federal authority and assistance that is extended to private entities in response to the outbreak of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is used in a manner that-- promotes economic sustainability of severely distressed sectors of the United States economy; promotes jobs for working Americans and maximizes overall returns to the taxpayers of the United States; and provides public accountability for the exercise of such Federal authority and assistance. Sec. 3. Definitions Provides definitions of selected terms: ``Appropriate Committees of Congress,'' ``Congressional Support Agencies, ``COVID-19 Relief Program,'' ``Exchange Stabilization Fund.'' Sec. 4. COVID-19 Relief Oversight Board Creates a COVID-19 Relief Oversight Board (``Oversight Board''), comprised of executive branch officials, which is responsible for reviewing the exercise of authority under the COVID-19 Relief Program that relates to policies implemented to-- increase loan forgiveness, loan eligibility, and loan deferment of eligible small businesses under section 7(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 6636(a); extend grants or other forms of financial assistance to business concerns in response to the outbreak of COVID-19; make resources available, through the Medicare and Medicaid programs, to hospitals and long-term care facilities for the elderly in response to the COVID-19 outbreak; extend emergency relief to distressed sectors of the United States economy through the Treasury Department's Exchange Stabilization Fund. Tasks the Oversight Board with reviewing the effect of such policies and initiatives on the supply chain and the economy and with making recommendations, as appropriate, to designated executive branch officials. Specifies that this Board also shall have the authority to ensure that the policies implemented through the Treasury Department's Exchange Stabilization Fund are-- in accordance with the purposes of this Act; in the economic interests of the United States; and consistent with protecting taxpayers' interests. Clarifies that Oversight Board may appoint a credit review committee for the purpose of evaluating the exercise of the authority provided under the COVID-19 Relief Program. Also calls for the Oversight Board to report any suspected fraud, misrepresentation, or malfeasance to the Special Inspector General for the COVID-19 Relief Program (created under this Act) or the Attorney General of the United States. Calls for the Oversight Board to meet every two weeks, report to Congress at least quarterly, and include in its membership the following: (1) the Administrator of the Small Business Administration; (2) the Secretary of the Treasury; (3) the Secretary of Transportation; (3) the Secretary of Commerce; (4) the Secretary of Health and Human Services; and (5) the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Administration. Calls for the chair to be elected by members of the board from among the board members (other than the Administrator of the Small Business Administration and the Secretary of the Treasury). Specifies that the Oversight Board's role comes to an end after the expiration of the national emergency declared by the President with respect to the COVID-19 or after the Exchange Stabilization Fund ceases to make loans, loan guarantees, and investment or other assistance to air carriers and other key businesses affected by COVID-19. Sec. 5. Conflicts of Interest Calls for Director of the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') to issue any regulations or guidelines necessary to address and manage, or to prohibit, conflicts of interest that may arise in connection with the administration and execution of the authorities provided under the COVID-19 Relief Program. Deadline for their issuance is ``as soon as practicable after the date of enactment'' of this Act. Sec. 6. Executive Compensation and Corporate Governance Specifies that any private entity receiving loans, loan guarantees, grants, or other assistance through the Exchange Stabilization Fund shall be subject to executive compensation requirements in the Act and the provisions under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as applicable. Bars entities receiving this COVID-19 relief from providing incentives for senior executive officers of a private entity to take unnecessary and excessive risks that threaten the value of such entity. Also bars the entity from making any bonus, incentive compensation or golden parachute payment to a senior executive officer during the period in which such private entity receives Federal assistance through the Exchange Stabilization Fund. Defines the term ``senior executive officer'' as an individual who is one of the top 5 highly paid executives of a public or private corporation or limited liability company. Includes a sunset provision, specifying that these limitations on executive compensation will apply only to arrangements entered into during the period in which the entity received Federal assistance in response to the COVID- 19 outbreak. Sec. 7. Oversight and Audits Calls for the Comptroller General, which heads the nonpartisan watchdog agency of Congress, to commence ongoing oversight of Federal coronavirus relief initiatives and activities. Authorizes this government watchdog agency, the Government Accountability Office (``GAO''), to have access, upon request, to any information or papers, things, or property needed to carry out this oversight function. Calls for the U.S. Treasury to reimburse GAO for costs of such oversight, and requires GAO to report, at least every 60 days, to Congress and the Special Inspector General for the COVID-19 Relief Program established under this Act. Confirms that GAO may also submit special reports under this subsection as warranted by the findings of its oversight activities. Further clarifies that GAO may audit the programs, activities, receipts, expenditures, and financial transactions of Federal entities involved in extending authority or assistance to private entities in response to the COVID-19 outbreak. Federal agencies or departments subject to such audits must take action to address deficiencies identified in the audits, as appropriate or certify to appropriate committees of Congress that no action is necessary or appropriate. Specifies circumstances for termination of GAO's oversight authority after the national emergency ends or the coronavirus relief activities cease. Sec. 8. Special Inspector General for Covid-19 Relief Program Establishes the Office of the Special Inspector General for the COVID-19 Relief Program and authorizes $50 million for this purpose in fiscal year 2021. Specifies that such individual shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate; and the appointment shall be made ``on the basis of integrity and demonstrated ability in accounting, auditing, financial analysis, law, management analysis, public administration, or investigations.'' Sets the rate of pay for such individual and specifies that his or her duties are ``to conduct, supervise, and coordinate audits and investigations of Federal assistance and relief programs established in response to the COVID-19 outbreak.'' Clarifies that, in addition to the duties specified in this Act, the Special OIG shall also have the duties and responsibilities of inspectors general under the Inspector General Act of 1978. Requires that the Special OIG report to Congress within 60 days after his or her Senate confirmation, and every calendar quarter thereafter, on activities. Each report must include, for the period covered by such report, a detailed statement of all purchases, obligations, expenditures, and revenues associated with the Exchange Stabilization Fund and any COVID-19 Relief Program involving the expenditure of more than $5 million. Specifies that this section does not authorize the public disclosure of information that is-- specifically prohibited from disclosure by any other provision of law; specifically required by Executive order to be protected from disclosure in the interest of national defense or national security or in the conduct of foreign affairs; or a part of an ongoing criminal investigation. Also specifies a termination date for the OIG's authority. Sec. 9. Congressional Oversight Panel Creates a Congressional Oversight Panel (``Oversight Panel'') within the legislative branch, comprised of five members appointed by the House Speaker and Senate Leader. Specifies that its duties are to review the current state of the financial markets and submit the regular reports to Congress on the following: The use by Federal officials of authority to implement COVID-19 Relief Program; The impact of the COVID-19 Relief Program on the financial markets, air carriers, and medical providers. The extent to which the information made available on transactions under the Exchange Stabilization Fund has contributed to market transparency. The effectiveness of the program from the standpoint of minimizing long-term costs to the taxpayers and maximizing the benefits for taxpayers. Specifies that reports must be submitted every 30 days after the date on which the Exchange Stabilization Fund begins to make loans, loan guarantees, and investment assistance in response to the COVID-19 outbreak. Also calls for panel to submit a special report on regulatory reform by March 31, 2021, analyzing the current state of the regulatory system and its effectiveness at overseeing the recipients of COVID-19 relief and protecting consumers, and providing recommendations for improvement. Sets the rate of pay and travel expenses of each member of the Oversight Panel, authorizes the hiring of staff, executive branch detailees, and temporary consultants. Bars Oversight Panel members who are full-time Federal employees from receiving additional pay, allowances, or benefits by reason of their service on the panel. Provides that four members of the Oversight Panel shall constitute a quorum but a lesser number may hold hearings. Clarifies that a vacancy on the Oversight Panel shall be filled in the manner in which the original appointment was made. Provides that the panel shall meet at the call of the chair or a majority of its members. Permits the panel, for the purpose of carrying out this section, to hold hearings, swear in hearing witnesses, take testimony, and receive evidence as it considers appropriate. Also clarifies when the panel can get official data, and receive reports required to be submitted to the panel under this Act. Specifies a termination date for the Oversight Panel. Authorizes such sums as may be necessary for the Oversight Panel to operate, with this funding derived from the applicable account of the House of Representatives, and half of which shall be derived from the Senate's contingent fund. Sec. 10. Cooperation with the Department of Justice and the FBI Provides that any Federal financial regulatory agency shall cooperate with the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other law enforcement agencies investigating fraud, misrepresentation, and malfeasance with respect to development, advertising, and sale of financial or other products. Sec. 11. Information for Congressional Support Agencies Provides that all information used by Federal officials in connection with activities authorized under this Act (including the records to which GAO is entitled under this Act) will be made available to the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation, upon request, so that these agencies can assist with congressional oversight monitoring, and analysis of the COVID-19 relief assistance activities.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, 24 hours ago, we thought we would have this legislation passed and that it would be on its way to the House of Representatives and, soon this week, on its way to the President for his signature so we could respond to the crisis we are in. This legislation about which you have heard several speeches tonight is the answer to the crisis--the economic crisis--just like two other pieces of legislation we passed in the last 2 weeks that were signed by the President and that responded to the public health crisis. America is suffering. I don't have to tell you the stories of personal hardship and the loss--particularly economic but now real life loss--because of this virus. This serious health crisis is quickly becoming a serious economic crisis. Through no fault of their own, Americans have been sidelined to fight the virus, and the economy is unraveling as a result of the public health crisis. Every hour, more people are being laid off. Every hour, more businesses are closing their doors. Every hour, families are being forced to figure out how they are going to pay their bills. Without a doubt, this is a crisis. Hundreds of thousands of people this week are going to the unemployment office, but you wouldn't know it by watching the Senate Democrats as they drag their feet on much needed relief for Americans. It is not just for Americans; it is to get the entire economy moving. So how has this evolved to the point that it has now? No. 1, last night and not once today but twice today--so three times--we tried to get this bill up on the U.S. Senate floor just for debate. We have been filibustered on procedural votes just to allow us to debate this relief package. It is a package that we have been working on in a bipartisan way for several days now. This sort of activity by the Democratic Senators is outrageous. They are blocking a bill that includes relief that we all agree is needed for the American people. They say this wasn't a bipartisan effort. That is what we have heard all day. Really? Well, I have had very good working relationships, very good dialogue, and some disagreement but a coming together with several of my Democratic colleague on the Committee on Finance in meetings on Friday and Saturday to work out a bipartisan bill that we could be voting on now. So they say it was not a bipartisan effort. Really? Then who were all of those people who were sitting in the same room I was, negotiating around the clock for multiple days? The fact is, we have worked with the Democrats on this bill, and we have worked in good faith together--both sides. We have included many provisions the Democrats want because we started with what the Republicans thought was a good bill in order to solve these economic problems. We had to change some Republican issues, and we had to add some Democratic issues. In fact, they don't want to admit it of the legislation, but many of my colleagues on the other side, on just this very day, have come to the Senate floor to brag about the areas on which we agree. These are provisions in this bill. But in the same breath, they call this a partisan bill. That makes no sense. Why would they want to say that a bill that we worked on for several days, working out differences between Democrats and Republicans, is a partisan bill? They also claim that this bill contains so-called corporate bailouts and not enough funding for workers and healthcare providers. Well, let me say that loaning money to small business and big business that has to be paid back--in the case of small business under this bill, I have to admit that if they have fewer than 500 employees and they get benefit from it and they don't lay anybody off, it will be a forgiven loan. But for really large corporations--let's say like getting the airlines flying again because the public depends on them and because there are millions of jobs connected with the airlines-- giving them loans is a bailout? No, it is not. It is a jobs bill so those millions of people working for the airlines can continue to work and the flying public can fly when they want to fly. That is my response to the fact that this is not a corporate bailout like they want you to believe. And no help for individuals? Let's look at the facts for helping individuals. This bill would send $1,200 to almost every American immediately; couples, $2,400; and families would get $500 for each child. It is meant that this money would be out to these families who need this help just as fast as the IRS can get it out. And it is no different from what we did in 2008 with the great recession that we were going into at that particular time. This bill also responds to what Democrats asked us to do: Beef up the unemployment insurance program, benefiting those people laid off. Now, all 50 States have a different figure for what unemployment pays unemployed people in that particular State. But whatever that figure is, our bill would add $600 per week for a period of 3 months. And if somebody says ``Well, that is not long enough,'' well, if we don't get this economy turned around in 3 months, we are going to be here doing it all again anyway. But it beefs up the unemployment by $600 in each of those States on top of what those States are already paying out. The unemployment part of this bill makes unemployment benefits available to more Americans than ever before. Now, I am chairman of the Finance Committee. These are just the provisions in the Finance Committee bill. There were three other bipartisan groups of people working on other parts of the economy to get this bill put together to help unemployed people. Our bill, though, in the Finance Committee also includes assistance for businesses of all sizes. It keeps them afloat so that folks have a job to go back to when they come out of this pandemic. So don't try to say that this bill doesn't help workers. The bill also includes about $100 billion for healthcare workers and helps to speed up delivery of treatments and helps to get potential vaccines developed a lot faster. This bill also helps health professionals. But it helps nobody--nobody gets any help--as long as the Congress sits on its thumb, and that is what we have been doing all day, when this bill could have been passed and sent to the House. My colleagues complain that this unprecedented aid package is not sufficient. I don't know what the exact figure is at this point because there are still some negotiations going on, but the last I heard it was fast approaching $2 trillion. Somehow, that is not enough. They are saying it is not enough help. So while they are saying it is not enough help, nobody is getting any help. I don't understand it. As I have already alluded to, we passed phase 1 legislation to help 2 weeks ago; we passed phase 2 last week; we are working on phase 3. So if we need more help down the road, we will have that opportunity when we know for sure what the situation is. We don't have to address the next 10 years in what they are trying to negotiate now. We can address these problems if we don't get the pandemic under control by then. So there is no excuse for not delivering what we can do this very day. Instead, the Democrats are playing politics while the rest of the country suffers, while there is great anxiety out there, while they are looking to their leaders for help and not getting it. If you don't think this is political, just look at the political wish list that Pelosi has put out. The scholar of the U.S. Senate, Senator Sasse, is going to speak about that, I think, coming up here, and you will see a picture of this great big bill that she put forward. But just let me name two or three things that I know about because I haven't read an 1,100-page bill like he probably has. They want to erase the Postal Service debt. What does that have to do with hundreds of thousands of people going to the unemployment office today? They want to require same-day voter registration. What does voter registration have to do with the crisis of unemployment and the pandemic that we are facing today? They want to saddle the airlines with crippling new emission standards. What does that have to do with the unemployed today, the people who are suffering, the anxiety that is out there that people have because they don't know how bad this situation is and they know they are losing their job? This legislation also wants to resurrect the Green New Deal at the same time families are losing their income. My colleagues, now is just not the time for this sort of horseplay. There will be plenty of opportunities to debate these policies later, not when we have a crisis on our hands--in other words, not now. Just a few days ago, our bipartisan talks were going very well. We made incredible progress over the course of the few days that we put this together, so we have a bipartisan bill. So to my Democratic colleagues, please put your swords away. Please focus on the task at hand. Please stop the delaying tactics and the politicking. America needs us to deliver. Now is not the time for more foot-dragging and procedural delays I yield the floor.