Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, further parliamentary inquiry. There is not a question of mob violence. The question is that imputing to Members who did not agree with the framework and language of this resolution that they are supporting mob violence--that must be in violation of rule XIX if this is going to be a deliberative body.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, we have learned something today. We have learned that my colleagues are unwilling to call out the President of the United States when the President of the United States uses language that incites violence; says that White supremacists in Charleston are as good as everybody else; retweets a video of White Americans saying ``White power;'' retweets a video of two individuals with guns pointed at peaceful protesters; uses the force of the State to clear out peaceful protesters in Lafayette Park; goes and says, in fact, ``when the looting starts, the shooting starts.'' That has a historical context to it, and the ``liberate Virginia. It is under siege,'' and so, so much more. So, yes, I look forward to that debate because I have legislation to deal with the rising tide of White supremacists' actions that, at the end of the day, have even been recognized by some of our law enforcement entities as a growing national threat. So I look forward to having that debate, look forward to having that legislation on the floor, and we will see how our colleagues act then. But it is totally unacceptable to cast aspersions that do not equal those of the person who leads our country, and we should recognize that. What it shows me is that I guess President Trump is right--he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it, and certainly my colleagues here would not hold him responsible.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak to S. 3669, the COVID-19 International Response and Recovery Act of 2020. As of this weekend, there are an estimated 10 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 worldwide. More than 2.5 million of those cases are right here in the United States. The disease has claimed over 125,000 American lives. For anyone who questioned why we should care about what happens elsewhere in the world, this pandemic has certainly been most assuredly a wake- up call. The virus didn't start here, but it came here and Americans are now suffering from the effects of an epidemic that shows no signs of stopping. Even if we bring it under control in the United States, in the absence of U.S. leadership for a truly global response, the virus can and will return. We cannot safeguard American lives without one, but we cannot lead or even meaningfully participate in a global response when we don't have a coherent and effective domestic strategy. The President's desperate denial, his refusal to take this pandemic seriously, and his seeming inability to care about the health and well- being of all Americans are as shocking as they are dangerous. As opposed to a pandemic response strategy, the White House seems to have a dangerous public relations strategy focused on perpetuating a false narrative that insists the pandemic is almost over, blames China and the World Health Organization for its own preparedness and response failures, overstates the administration's domestic and international response, and refuses to be candid with Congress and the American people about the consequences of its irresponsible actions. Make no mistake, contrary to what the White House would have us believe, the COVID-19 threat is far from over. As Dr. Anthony Fauci testified, it is a lack of serious response--not as some in the White House would have us believe, more tests--that is leading to the skyrocketing case numbers and hospitalization rates we are seeing today. Unfortunately, the haphazardness that has characterized the White House's response at home has also shaped its response abroad. Secretary Pompeo is right. The American people are the most generous on the planet, but that belies this administration's actual response. The reality is that when it comes to discussions about what it is doing to end the pandemic globally, the administration is trumpeting programs it has spent 3 years consistently and aggressively cutting, which explains perfectly why Secretary Pompeo, to this day, refuses to come before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to defend his proposed fiscal year 2021 budget. America, the world needs a strategy to end this pandemic, not a PR blitz to cover inaction. The blame game will not help us either. Yet, instead of taking care of the business at hand, the administration is channeling its energy toward fault finding and divisive, racially inflammatory rhetoric. First, the White House tried to say that the U.S. epidemic was the World Health Organization's fault, despite the fact that the United States was regularly communicating with and receiving information from the WHO, including through U.S. Government employees embedded at the WHO headquarters in Geneva. In May, the administration announced a 30-day plan to review the organization's handling of the pandemic response. But less than 2 weeks after it announced that sham review, the President said he was going to withdraw from the organization--so much for the 30-day review. Next, the administration doubled down on blaming China. The President, the Secretary of State, and the Deputy Administrator of USAID have all used racially stigmatizing language to describe COVID- 19, in direct contradiction to guidance issued by our own Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And the insistence that the rest of the world agree to use such language has prevented us from reaching consensus on statements at the G-7 and in the U.N. Security Council and seriously weakened our standing. If this administration is truly concerned about China's malign intent at the WHO and elsewhere, there is a simple answer: Take action. If the United States leads, others will follow. If we leave the field open, others, like China, will step into the vacuum. Isolationist, go-it-alone tactics are not the way to end a pandemic. At a time when the United States should be leading the global response to one of the greatest threats we face in the 21st century--and this pandemic will, most certainly, not be our last--I have to wonder if, instead, what we are witnessing is the death of American leadership and the end of American exceptionalism, brought about by the inattention and ineptitude of the Trump administration, both here and abroad Meanwhile, the rest of the world is stepping up and stepping past us. For example, when Chinese President Xi Jinping addressed the World Health Assembly in May, he pledged $2 billion over 2 years to combat COVID-19. Secretary Azar used the opportunity to attack the WHO and cast blame on China for the pandemic. The European Union held a pledging conference on vaccines in May, at which $8.2 billion was raised. The United States was invited to participate, but the White House declined the invitation. Is this what the President means by ``America first''? Well, if this EU consortium comes up with a vaccine before we do, it will mean America last, as we wait for them to share it with us. This approach is not only isolationist, shortsighted, and foolish; it is dangerous. It is clear that the administration's response is not keeping the American people safe, and it is just as clear that there are actions we can take to effectively respond to this pandemic and better prepare for future pandemics. Since the administration doesn't seem to have any ideas, Democrats on the Foreign Relations Committee introduced a bill to provide some. S. 3669, the COVID-19 International Response and Recovery Act, or CIRRA, presents a clear strategy to confront the ongoing pandemic--the ongoing pandemic--and prepare the United States to deal with the next. It compels the Trump administration to constructively engage with other countries, international organizations, and multilateral fora to stop the spread of the coronavirus. Specifically, our bill authorizes an additional $9 billion in funding to fight the COVID-19 pandemic through contributions toward vaccine research at the Coalition for Preparedness and Innovations; a contribution to the Global Fund for Aids, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, for its COVID-19 response mechanism; additional funding for emergency overseas humanitarian assistance in response to the pandemic, ensuring that these funds are provided both to the U.N. for its global response plan, as well as directly to NGOs working on the frontlines; and a new surge financing authority at the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, or DFC, that will allow the DFC to expedite decisions and make strategic investments quickly to aid in COVID-19 reconstruction efforts. CIRRA also puts in place mechanisms to help us prepare for the next pandemic. It requires an annual national intelligence estimate on pandemic threats, and it establishes a White House adviser for global health security to coordinate a whole-of-government U.S. response to global health security emergencies, aimed at improving both domestic and international capacity to prevent, respond, and detect epidemic and pandemic threats. It clearly delineates the roles for the State Department, USAID, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in responding to pandemic threats, and it directs the U.S. Executive Director at the World Bank to begin negotiations to establish a trust fund at the World Bank designed not to compete with or supplant the World Health Organization but to work in tandem with the WHO on incentivizing countries to mobilize their own resources for epidemic and pandemic preparedness. Now, my Republican colleague on the Foreign Relations Committee finally did introduce a modest bill in response to the pandemic. In keeping with the Republican effort to pretend that the pandemic is over, it completely ignores the current crisis. Instead, it focuses on giving legislative cover to elite proposals from the White House that seem to strip essential pandemic response functions from USAID and put them in the State Department, and sets up a structure at the World Bank that would allow the White House to channel funding meant for the WHO into another multilateral mechanism. Colleagues, to say that that approach is inadequate to meet the crisis of the century would be so much of an understatement as to almost be a lie in and of itself. The chairman's legislation completely ignores the current pandemic while setting us up for failure when we are confronted by the next pandemic. We quite simply must do better. More than 700 Americans a day are dying. Neither the finger-pointing, blame-game, race-baiting statements linked to the origins of the disease, nor a strategy centered on denial will win the battle against COVID-19. It is painfully apparently that Congress will have to lead in this effort, just as it led in domestic relief and recovery efforts. If we fail to develop a proposal that boldly and robustly addresses the current crisis, ensures that we are adequately prepared for the next one, and aids countries around the globe with recovery, we will have failed the American people and fallen painfully short of the legacy created through initiatives such as the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief and the Marshall plan, to name a few. We must understand that there is a recent report that came out of a potential swine flu. Well, whether it is that or something else, we have the risk of the next pandemic. Our engagement globally is not just about being a good global citizen. It is about security and health here at home. When we can engage abroad to stop the flow of a virus, then, we ultimately achieve the success on behalf of the American people, and we leave the world with a better response. That is what we are seeking to do, and we will come back to the floor at the appropriate time to seek to move that legislation. Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 5084 Madam President, turning to a different topic for the moment, one that my colleague from Louisiana is also here to join me in--and I appreciate his being here--I come to the floor today, in addition to speaking about the COVID-19 international legislation, to seek unanimous consent on H.R. 5084, the Improving Corporate Governance Through Diversity Act of 2019. This is a bipartisan piece of legislation aimed at increasing transparency in America's corporate boardrooms and ultimately lead to greater diversity in the upper tiers of America's companies. We know that corporate America has a diversity problem. Boards and executive offices across the United States do not look like the customers they serve. Multiple studies, including my own, have demonstrated this hard fact. Since 2010, I have conducted four surveys focused on the Fortune 100 companies looking into this problem. They had very big response rates, for which I am grateful to the companies who participated. My latest survey revealed that since 2010, women and people of color have made only marginal gains in representations on corporate boards. For example, in 2018, women held only 25 percent of corporate board seats on Fortune 100 companies. Despite making up over half of the entire U.S. population, they held only 25 percent of corporate board seats, and only 5.8 percent of that 25 percent were women of color. While men make up 75 percent of Fortune 100 corporate board seats, only 13.7 percent of those are men of color. If we wanted to take a broader look, the picture is even bleaker. Latinos and Latinas make up 25 percent of the U.S. population, yet they held only 2.7 percent of corporate board seats in Fortune 100 companies. I could go on, but I think I have made the point. I was originally hopeful that the Securities and Exchange Commission would help address this problem through its 2009 diversity disclosure rule, but the 2009 rule failed to even define diversity and gives companies far too much discretion on what they report. That is why I introduced a bill last year with Representative Meeks to improve the SEC rule. The bill does three main things. No. 1, it requires public companies to disclose specific information related to the racial, gender, ethnic makeup and veteran status of corporate boards and senior management-- simple disclosure. No. 2, it requires public companies to disclose whether they have policies in place to promote diversity in their leadership. No. 3, it requires the SEC to establish a diversity advisory group composed of government, academic, and private sector representatives to study strategies for increasing gender, racial, and ethnic diversity in corporate America. Let me be clear. The bill does not force companies to be more diverse, but it does require them to be more transparent about their numbers and their practices. That is valuable information that the public and potential investors should have when deciding where to put their money. The House passed this bill on a bipartisan vote in November, and it enjoys bipartisan support here in the Senate. It is supported by a fantastic coalition that includes the NAACP, the National Urban League, the Latino Corporate Directors Association, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Corporate diversity is not just morally right; corporate diversity makes financial sense. McKinsey & Company studies have consistently found that greater diversity on executive teams has led to greater profitability. The need for increased corporate diversity is not an act of benevolence; it is a necessity for businesses looking to compete in a diverse 21st century economy. Before I proceed to my unanimous consent request, I would like to yield to Senator Kennedy for some remarks he has on this issue, and then I will proceed to that consent request.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, let me thank my colleague, the ranking Democrat--the senior Democrat--on the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, for his passion and his commitment. He has really elevated housing within the jurisdiction of the committee, which is something I am passionate about. Very often, everyone refers to the committee as the Banking Committee, but housing is a critical element of what it does. He has elevated it, and I really appreciate his passion on behalf of the millions who rent or who are fortunate enough to own homes and want to keep them to try to be able to do so. I would just say to my distinguished chairman of the committee that I do have the highest respect for him. Look, with the CARES package, we lumped in trillions of dollars, but overwhelmingly that money went to businesses. Of course, I support that, but it went to businesses. It went to sustain businesses. It went to ultimately help small, midsized, and even large businesses. It went to sustain sectors of our economy like the airline industry and others. What we are talking about goes to the very essence of what it is to have a home. ``Home'' is one of the most important American concepts. It is where we are taken when we are born. It is where we are nurtured while we are young. It is where we are schooled. It is where good times and bad times take place. Ultimately, it is where we build a life around our families if we are fortunate to have a home. Then, in a pandemic, we have learned that it is also a place in which to shelter. I come to the floor today to warn of an impending storm that is brewing, and it is headed our way. When the funds for the PPP--for the business program--ran out, we didn't have regular order to see if the PPP had been working well. No. There was a rush to put more billions in it. It was only when we said ``Wait a minute, this isn't working so well for small and midsized businesses'' that we made some reforms. So there was a rush then. There was no regular order. We have a storm that is brewing and is headed our way. It will bring with it enormous financial pain. It will threaten public safety. It will make fighting the pandemic that much harder, and it will set back our Nation's economic recovery. If the Senate fails to respond to this looming crisis, Americans will needlessly suffer; families will be displaced; personal fortunes will be wiped out; and the scars will run so deep that it could take decades to heal the wounds. As the COVID-19 pandemic took hold, the one saving grace most of us had--the one place we could take refuge to protect ourselves and our families--was our home. Our leading medical experts all urged us to stay home. If you are sick, stay home. If you have an underlying condition or are immunocompromised, stay home. If you are elderly or otherwise at risk, stay home. If you can, work from home. If you are a student, go online and learn from home. If we have learned anything from this pandemic, it is that staying home can help to contain the virus, flatten the curve, and save lives. What if you don't have a home? As we speak, millions of our fellow Americans are asking themselves that very same question. At a time when COVID-19 cases are spiking across the country, the provisions that we passed in the CARES Act to help renters and homeowners stay in their homes are about to run out. If we do nothing, we could face a foreclosure and eviction crisis far greater than that which we encountered during the great recession. There is a storm on the horizon. Americans shouldn't have to fear being thrown out on the street if they miss their next rent or mortgage payments through, really, no fault of their own. They shouldn't have to fear losing their greatest personal assets or that one safe place in the middle of a pandemic, further exposing themselves and others to the virus. The Senate can stop this if it wants to. We can make sure that every American has a safe and healthy place to call home. That is why I joined my Democratic colleagues on the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs in introducing two bills last month that will provide assistance to homeowners and renters. The Housing Assistance Fund, led by Senator Reed, provides $75 billion in targeted assistance to keep people in their homes while they search for new employment or a way to get back to work. This money can go toward mortgage payments or utilities or as other support to prevent eviction, delinquency, or foreclosure. The Emergency Rental Assistance and Rental Market Stabilization Act, led by Senator Brown, would provide $100 billion in rental assistance to help families pay rent and help property owners maintain safe and healthy housing. It will help the economic recovery by stabilizing the rental market overall. We also have to empower Americans to make informed financial decisions--to help them navigate the maze of lenders, landlords, government agencies--to find a sustainable path to stay in their homes. We all know there is a housing affordability crisis in this country that jeopardizes the aspirations of millions of Americans who hope to join the middle class, and just as they have borne the brunt of the COVID-19 pandemic, low-income and minority Americans will disproportionately suffer during economic downturns. The provisions that the chairman talked about in the law that we passed in order to help are going to be expiring. To the extent that you know about it, you might invoke it to protect yourself against an eviction or a mortgage foreclosure, but if you don't know about it and either the financial institution or your landlord looks the other way and doesn't follow the law, well then, you won't get the protection. That is why I and 19 of my Democratic colleagues introduced a bill on Monday to provide $700 million in housing counseling assistance. Research shows that homeowners who receive housing counseling have better outcomes than those who don't, and that evidence is overwhelming. Their risk of default goes down, and they are more likely to see their credit scores rise and their debt levels fall. In rough times like we are in right now, these borrowers are more likely to get sustainable mortgage modifications and are less likely to end up in default. The benefits of housing counseling flow to the community at large because when a family is able to buy a home, pay their mortgage, build equity, and ultimately achieve the American dream, our towns and cities thrive. And during a pandemic, having a safe and affordable place to live could mean the difference between life and death. It is also especially important for senior citizens, who are more susceptible to COVID-19. So tomorrow I will introduce legislation to provide $1.2 billion in aid for older adults living in federally assisted housing. This bill provides additional rental assistance for senior housing, personal protective gear, and staffing to help maintain a healthy community. So the forecasts are in. The storm is coming. The question is, What are we going to do about it? The Fourth of July is Independence Day. It is nice to have independence from the fear that I will lose the place that I call home. That would be a tremendous gift on the Fourth of July. Are we going to help our most vulnerable citizens during this pandemic or are we going to just watch them suffer, lose everything, and exacerbate this public health crisis? Today is July 1. The rent is due. Mortgage payments are due. The Senate's work is due. I remember--and I will close with this personal anecdote--when I was growing up poor in a tenement in New Jersey, the son of an itinerant carpenter and a seamstress, there wasn't always work, which meant that sometimes paying the rent was a real tough choice. And it was a choice of paying the rent or putting food on the table. I saw the anxiety in my mother's eyes. I saw the fear in my siblings not knowing whether that apartment in that tenement was something we were even going to be able to keep. That wasn't in a pandemic. That was just in normal times. Imagine in a pandemic, you are told to stay home, and there is no place to call home. We can do much better than that. We can do much better than that. July 1, the rent is due. The mortgage payment is due. The Senate's work is due. Let's pass this bill today and make sure every American can weather the pandemic in a safe and affordable place to call home. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the Senator from Louisiana for his words and for his support, and I wish we had this already. It is not very difficult--transparency, information for which consumers can make decisions and investors can make decisions, and you would think in the 21st Century, that is not a problem. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from further consideration and the Senate proceed to H.R. 5084; I further ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I am not surprised, but I am deeply disappointed that my colleague takes that position. First of all, the SEC has had a diversity rule since 2009. It has a diversity rule, but the diversity rule as they devised it doesn't do anything about transparency of information. So we are not creating something at the SEC that the SEC itself wasn't pursuing in the protection of investors If I were an investor, I would like to know whether a company is diverse or not. Latinos represent 25 percent of the population, the fastest growing, largest minority in the Nation. I would like to know if the money I am going to put into a stock--buying a stock of a company--does it reflect the understanding of that community in any way? African Americans--does it reflect that understanding? Does it reflect the understanding that 50 percent of the population are women? The free market--yes, the free market works on information. You make decisions in the free market based on information, but when the information is hidden from you, when you can't find out, in fact, what is the diversity of the corporate board, senior executive management, procurement and other things, then the free market doesn't work very well, does it? The heavy hand of government--oh, my God--to disclose, to be transparent--that is the heavy hand of government? When the government doesn't work to make our systems more transparent so that investors and consumers can make decisions, who will do that? The free market? I don't think so. The Senator from Utah, I know, has been very much an advocate of transparency in other matters; somehow, in this one, it seems to be a problem. And to protect investors--yes, we ought to protect investors because investors who would be making investments in a company that is devoid of African Americans, devoid of Latinos, devoid of the representation of who America is today may think twice about the large pension funds and other entities. They may say: Wait a minute. Maybe that is not the type of company I want to invest in. But the investor will not know that unless they have that information. I would think, in the 21st century, when we see the national debate that is taking place today on the questions of race, on questions of ethnicity and other things, we would want to at least have the data so that we can make intelligent decisions. By the way, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--the Chamber of Commerce is normally not on my side. They came and testified specifically in support of this provision. They represent business in America, and they came forth and said: We believe that, in fact, this is good for business. If it weren't good for business, they wouldn't be there. They wouldn't be advocating for it. So we will succeed at this. We may not have done it today by this process, but we will succeed at this because the Nation requires it. It is good accountability. It is good transparency. It is good for the free market to know what the information is so people can make decisions. It is certainly, at the end of the day, about protecting investors. So I look forward to making that happen at the appropriate time.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I appreciate the intellectual exercise we are going through on the floor. I will just make two final comments because I know that my colleague is anxiously waiting to talk about the need for people to be able to put food on the table. Look, the Securities and Exchange Commission exists, yes, to protect investors and also the marketplace, but they make all types of demands upon the companies that are publicly traded in terms of disclosure of information, so I don't know what is so difficult about that. I will say this: The Nation will have a rude awakening if it thinks it can continue with business as usual--a rude awakening. Something as simple as simply knowing the information about diversity on corporate boards, which every study shows actually improves the bottom line and which investors should be able to have to make those decisions--and we are not talking about the employees; we are talking about the corporate board members, my God, the people who make billions of dollars of decisions, who ultimately decide whether they go to a community or don't go to a community to invest in, who ultimately get the dollars from the communities that I like to see represented. It is good enough to take our money, but it is not good enough to have us have any representation. And evidently this body is not even good enough to have the information so I know who is taking my money without representation. That cannot be. That cannot be the American way. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to clarify a point concerning my amendment No. 2270 to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, S. 4049. This amendment would establish in law the position of the Special Envoy for Hostage Affairs at the State Department and provides that the Special Envoy shall have the rank and status of ambassador. Under article II of the Constitution, the President's power to appoint ambassadors is subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. Accordingly, it is my view that the appointment of the Special Envoy with the rank and status of ambassador, pursuant to this amendment, requires the advice and consent of the Senate.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues to stress the urgency for Congress to provide robust, flexible assistance to State and local governments on the frontlines of the COVID-19 pandemic. Because this administration has failed to devise and deploy a national response to a national emergency, the burden of containing and defeating the virus has largely fallen on our States, our counties, and our municipalities. They are expending enormous resources to expand testing, shore up hospitals, process unemployment claims, and get our residents the help they desperately need. At the same time, revenues have fallen off a cliff due to the economic fallout. Monies collected from sales, property taxes, building permits, court fees, parking meters, transit fares--you name it--are all down. I served at every level of government in New Jersey--the school board, mayor, State legislature. I know exactly what they are going through. It isn't about any irresponsibility on their part. It is the consequences of a national pandemic. We didn't ask for 14,000 of our citizens in New Jersey to die. We didn't ask for nearly 180,000 New Jerseyans to ultimately be infected. But that is our reality. And that is not only our reality. There are other States similarly situated. Unlike the Federal Government, virtually all State and local governments are constitutionally obligated--constitutionally obligated--to pass a balanced budget. Forty-five States have a June 30 deadline. That is tomorrow. Others are fast approaching. This isn't a blue State or red State issue. This isn't about pensions, as some have tried to suggest. This is a red, white, and blue issue. It is an American issue. This virus doesn't see political boundaries. This isn't an issue of fiscal responsibility. No one--no one--is immune. We see it across the Nation, huge spikes taking place in Florida, in Texas, in Arizona, and others. Earlier today, the bipartisan National Governors Association, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the U.S. Conference Mayors, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, and the International City/County Management Association sent a joint letter to Senate leadership. I have been a part of some of those organizations at different times. I have never seen them all come together on any given issue. They came together on this one. Over 170 businesses and organizations signed on, all unified with a clear message that, if we fail to provide our States and communities with immediate assistance, we will only hamper our Nation's ability to fully recover, and Americans will needlessly suffer. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than 1.4 million public employees and counting have been laid off or furloughed across the country--over 90,000 in Texas; 65,000 in Ohio; nearly 30,000 in Kentucky; 25,000 both in Colorado and Florida. Every State and community is bleeding. We are talking about first responders, teachers, nurses, sanitation workers, and other employees on the frontlines of the COVID fight. We need them on the job, not the unemployment line. It would be the height of irony that the result of the pandemic or, more importantly, our government's unwillingness to respond to the challenge of State and municipalities is that those whom we needed the most, those whom we still need the most, those whom we will need the most tomorrow are going to be laid off. The essential services our residents and businesses rely upon are being slashed left and right. For instance, the National League of Cities reports that more than 700 U.S. cities have halted roadway repairs and delayed equipment purchases to plug local budget holes. We are seeing deep, painful cuts across the board. Moody's projected last week that State budget shortfalls will top $500 billion over the next 3 years. Now, I have heard some in this body argue that if we just reopen our economy, we would negate the need for Congress to act. Well, that has been proven a fallacy. COVID-19 cases are spiking across the country, especially in those States that were quick to reopen. We are seeing daily records being set in places like Arizona, Florida, Georgia, and Texas, forcing some areas to tighten their restrictions. Yet, in my home State of New Jersey, which was second only to New York in the number of COVID cases, we have not just flattened the curve; our infection rates are dropping. As we methodically and responsibly reopen, there is no doubt that the emergency protection measures we took in New Jersey helped stop the spread of COVID-19 and save lives, but that progress has come with tremendous economic pain and personal sacrifice that no State and community will be able to escape. So we can't allow ourselves to be handcuffed to partisan ideology. This isn't about left or right, conservative or progressive politics. I honestly believe that most of our colleagues on the Republican side understand this. Most recognize that forcing States and communities to go bankrupt is not a conservative principle, that the last thing we need during an economic crisis is to send 3 to 4 million public workers to the unemployment line without the ability for them to respond on our collective behalf. We need bold bipartisan action to address this national crisis. That is why the State Municipal Assistance for Response and Transition Act, or the SMART Act, is the commonsense solution we need to give our communities a fighting chance and to stop the economy from freefall. I want to thank Senators Cassidy, Hyde-Smith, Collins, Manchin, and Booker for joining me in this bipartisan effort, and we are working every day to build more support. The SMART Act provides $500 billion in flexible Federal funds that will help our communities dramatically expand the testing capacity and contact tracing we need to contain the virus, which is a necessary step to restoring consumer confidence and restarting the economy. It will help stave off massive layoffs, tax hikes, and deep, painful cuts to essential services. It will keep our EMTs, firefighters, public health workers, teachers, and other essential employees on the job during this critical time--because it is not just about defeating COVID-19. We still need to keep our first responders on the job, our children learning, the trash picked up, the roads maintained, and the buses and trains running on time. Unless we act soon, we will see more mass layoffs, devastating tax increases, and a breakdown in public safety and essential services. We cannot--in all good conscience--sit back and watch our States, counties, cities, and towns fail. We cannot shift the Federal Government's responsibility and then leave them holding the bag. We can't turn our backs on the American people. A national emergency requires a national response, and it is this body's sworn duty to act, to send our States and local communities the resources they desperately need to combat COVID-19 and to continue to serve the constituents we have all been elected to represent. If the safety and security of the American people is job one, this is also safety and security. I will close with this. I appreciate that there are different points of view, but I really get upset when I hear that States like mine or others somehow want to be bailed out. I will tell you what--New Jersey would be happy to take the excess money it sends to the Federal Treasury rather than what it gets in return--billions of dollars--and say: We will handle the problem on our own. We would like to see some of our fellow States here, which receive more money than they contribute to the Federal Treasury, return it. We are not a moocher State; we are a donor State. So some of my colleagues here should look: They get $20 billion, $30 billion more from the Federal Government than they pay into the Federal Treasury. We in New Jersey pay more than we get. Now that we are in the midst of a national emergency in which we have thousands of our citizens dying, thousands more still infected, and we did the right thing in order to stop the dying, we should pay a greater consequence because we did the right thing in doing job No. 1: the safety and security of our citizens? I don't think so. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to address the nationwide call for reasonable, sensible police reforms. Last month, the American people watched in horror as a police officer kneeled down on the neck of George Floyd for 8 minutes and 46 seconds, killing him. ``I can't breathe.'' It was a slow execution caught on video, a metaphor for the systematic racism and injustices Black and Brown communities endure every day. But unlike other horrific videos of police killings that have sparked protests, this feels different. This is a moment when people of all races and walks of life have taken to the streets in cities and communities across the country. They are crying out: Enough is enough. It is time for us to address the institutional racism, economic, societal, and environmental inequities and injustice that have plagued this Nation since its founding. The American people are demanding real, meaningful change--bold, comprehensive action that starts by reforming our police system that has historically dealt a heavier hand toward communities of color. What did the Republican majority do to answer the public's plea? They have offered the American people the JUSTICE Act. They call it justice, but justice for whom? This bill fails to meet this moment in history before us. It offers only lip service to the families of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor and Tamir Rice and Eric Garner and all of those tragically lost at the hands of the police. The Republican JUSTICE Act is nothing more than a glorified suggestion box filled with half measures and placations that sound good on paper but simply will not deliver the real change the American people are demanding from this body. There is no justice in the JUSTICE Act; rather, it is a wholly inadequate response to the injustices faced by Black and Brown communities at the hands of the police. It merely asks, suggests, recommends, and encourages. It says to law enforcement: Hey, would you mind? Could you kindly? Do you think you might be able? Nowhere in this bill does it compel, require, mandate, or insist upon the commonsense structural reforms the American people are demanding. The JUSTICE Act calls for reports and a commission, but we have had 400 years to study the stain of slavery and institutional racism in this country. We don't need a study to tell us that too many young Black men are dying at the hands of the police or that you are more likely to be shot and killed by the police if you are Black than White. A commission will not save the life of the next George Floyd. My Republican colleagues may think that the American people will praise them for passing an empty bill named ``JUSTICE'' that does no justice to the deep-seated, systemic failures in our policing system. They are mistaken. Indeed, I would encourage my Republican colleagues to consider the Justice in Policing Act, led by Senators Booker and Harris, which I am proud to cosponsor. It requires a comprehensive set of reforms designed to increase police accountability, improve transparency, and invest in training. The Justice in Policing Act bans no-knock warrants in drug cases, the kind that led to Breonna Taylor's death. It establishes a national public registry on police misconduct so that the bad actors who make it harder for the good cops to do their jobs can't just move from department to department. Our bill requires data collection and publication on the use of force. The Republican bill does none of those things. While the Justice in Policing Act bans deadly choke holds and other tactics that restrict blood flow to the brain, the Republican bill stops short of any such ban. The JUSTICE Act is also silent on racial profiling and the militarization of local police departments. It is silent on funding independent investigative channels to prosecute police misconduct and fails to strengthen pattern and practice investigations. It fails to establish national standards for police misconduct. While it would provide additional money to law enforcement, it does so without actually requiring any substantive change, so it fails us. The JUSTICE Act fails to create a system of policing that is about community safety and equal application of the law. So, again, I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle: Where is the actual justice? Where is the justice for Breonna Taylor, George Floyd? Where is the justice for those murders that were not captured on video? Where is the justice for thousands of Black men sitting in prison, victims of overpolicing and racial profiling? Senator McConnell would have us think that the JUSTICE Act is our only option, that if we don't acquiesce to these half measures, then we don't really want reform. That is simply not true. It seems to me that the Republicans and the President don't want real reform. They want window dressing and fresh paint instead of fixing the very foundation on which our policing system stands. They want to say that they did something without actually doing anything meaningful. They want to blame Democrats for holding out for real justice and refusing to play these political games with people's lives. The House is going to pass the Justice in Policing Act on Thursday. I urge Senator McConnell to take up that bill so that we can have the meaningful conversation on police reform our constituents and the Nation are demanding. We know that reform can work. Camden, NJ, offers us concrete evidence about what we can accomplish when we get serious about making real changes. With one of the highest murder rates in the Nation, excessive force complaints were dramatically reduced, both in terms of homicides and excessive force issues. So before I close, let me make perfectly clear the profound respect that I have for the men and women in law enforcement. Policing is a very tough job, and the vast majority of officers go out and perform their jobs every day with dignity and professionalism and care for the people in the communities in which they serve. I am deeply grateful for their service throughout the State of New Jersey and, indeed, throughout the Nation. These officers, who do their jobs with dignity and respect for the people they serve, share our demands for real change. In fact, in Camden itself, a White chief of police joined with hundreds of protesters who were marching for change. Across the country, tens of thousands of Americans did not brave a pandemic and endure being shot at with rubber bullets and tear gas just so that Congress could create another commission and mandate another report. They demand that their elected officials in Washington meet this moment in history and actually do something that lives up to the American promise of a nation where every man and woman, regardless of their race, ethnicity, gender, or orientation, is treated equally-- equally under the law. I will just close by saying that the Nation will rue the day it answered the call for reform with business as usual. There will be a rude awakening. Who among us--who among us, if this were our daily experience, would be satisfied with the counsels of patience and delay? Who among us? The American people are calling for real justice. We should listen. We should act, and we should deliver real justice. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my remarks be allowed to be concluded in full before the vote.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the nomination of Michael Pack to be the Chief Executive Officer of the U.S. Agency for Global Media. Yet, before I get into the specifics of the Pack nomination, I need to say a few words about the moment we are in and how we got here. We are facing two devastating crises. Over 100,000 Americans have died from COVID-19 in just a matter of months, and that number continues to grow. The scale and the speed of the tragedy is almost impossible to comprehend. We certainly stand with all of our families who have lost loved ones, and we cherish their memories. Unlike COVID- 19, the second crisis is one of our own making. Over centuries of injustice, African Americans and other people of color have not been treated like human beings; they have not been treated like every American deserves to be treated, like every person in the world has the right to be treated. No. All too often, they have been treated like George Floyd, with a knee on the neck as they gasp and choke ``I can't breathe.'' As a result, our country has erupted with protests. In this moment, these grievances have been met with the petty antics and deplorable, violent tactics of notorious dictators around the world. I am shaking in having to say this. I am shaken to the core that President Trump, with the assistance of his Attorney General, used violence against peaceful protesters--people exercising their First Amendment rights--all for a photo op with a Bible. That is not right. It is not acceptable, and that is not America. This body has to act. We have to act quickly and effectively to address these twin crises. The moment calls for leadership at every level. We all know this, but we are not doing it. Why not? The answer is that President Trump and the Republican majority of this body are focused elsewhere while our country is suffering--perhaps like never before. They are focused on domestic political errands. Yet, while trivial, these errands are corrosive to this body, to our country, and to the Constitution. I need to say a few words about what is and what is not happening in the Committee on Foreign Relations, because it bears directly on how and why Michael Pack is getting a vote on the Senate floor today. The Committee on Foreign Relations has helped to shape our collective response to some of the country's greatest challenges--from Vietnam to September 11, to Afghanistan. We ought to be rising to the challenges of our time and shaping the international response to COVID-19. Yet, tragically, we have not held one public hearing on COVID, and the committee has not debated or voted on a single COVID-related bill or amendment despite our being months into the crisis. I know the Democratic members of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations came together and offered a bill as part of an effort to be bipartisan so as to begin to address the crisis, because we understand that viruses and diseases know no borders. For as long as anyone can remember, until its current chairman, the committee has operated pursuant to what is known as comity. While that sounds like a fancy word, it simply means that we have found a way to work together to achieve a process that has worked for all members--the majority and minority alike--even if we haven't always agreed on the substance. Had the chairman engaged to our condition of comity, we would have almost certainly had a business meeting that would have focused on COVID, which is the crisis at hand, and not Mr. Pack--a blatantly flawed nominee. I know that ``comity'' sounds awfully quaint in the polarized times in which we live, but it has worked. It has worked for the members, for the committee, and for the country. It has been the force that has bound us together, the force by which we have found common ground to advance the national interest I am sad to report that the Michael Pack nomination was the nail in the coffin for comity. The chairman ignored the requests of every member of the committee's minority--a simple request: Let's not vote on Michael Pack until we have collectively worked through all of the serious background problems that exist. The letter that was sent to the chairman did not even get responded to prior to ramming Pack through the committee. That silence and the actions that have been taken have changed the committee and, I believe, the Senate for the worse. I don't have the time or the inclination to go through every violation of the rules and norms that marred the committee's process on Michael Pack, but there is one violation that I have to speak to, one that is so serious and so corrosive that it needs to be documented and should never be repeated. I am speaking about the chairman's refusal to allow a video stream live of the committee's debate and vote on Mr. Pack. Yes, the chairman intentionally deprived the public of its opportunity to watch this unfortunate episode unfold as it did. This was shameful. It violated the rules. It sent the wrong message to every American and every person around the world. This committee is a beacon of light to the world for those who are oppressed, for transparency, for open government, for the rule of law, for a free press. Well, we shut out the Nation and the world for the first time in my years of being on the committee. Since I got to the Senate, I have been on the committee. I am the longest serving member of the committee from either side of the aisle. Never have we done that. This is a message that we are weak, a message that we are ashamed, a message that has no place in our democracy. Now let me turn to Mr. Pack. If confirmed, Mr. Pack will oversee the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Television Marti, Radio Free Asia, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks. It is absolutely critical that any person in this position maintain a strong firewall between the work of its networks and grantees and political interference or influence from the White House or any others. People around the world have come to view the products from all of the networks and grantees as being reliable and trustworthy news sources. As this pandemic has highlighted, people crave reliable, independent, and credible journalism. The networks of the USAGM are sometimes the only independent journalism a country can rely on to bring free and open media to closed societies. In the past, the agency has made some serious missteps and the board and the agency's head have historically worked with Congress to help to address them. Sadly, the debate over Mr. Pack has not even ripened to a discussion of his substantive qualifications. No. We are stuck dealing with the nominee's serious background problems despite there being multiple efforts to engage Chairman Risch, the White House, and Mr. Pack himself on these matters. The central issue with Mr. Pack is the way that he used--perhaps abused--his nonprofit organization, Public Media Lab, and his refusal to come clean about it. As you can see from this chart, Mr. Pack is the president of both the Public Media Lab and his for-profit company, Manifold Productions, LLC, which he owns. It is where Gina Pack, his wife, is the vice president and sole other employee. Mr. Pack created and controls both organizations. Since creating Public Media Lab in 2008, Mr. Pack has used it to raise more than $4 million from private foundations. Some of those grants were earmarked to make specific films while others, like a $250,000 grant from the Charles Koch Foundation, were simply for ``general operating support'' for Public Media Lab. As you can see from this next chart, Mr. Pack transferred 100 percent--100 percent--of the tax-exempt grant money Public Media Lab received to his for-profit company Manifold. No grants were given to any other organization--none. The IRS would probably call that operating a nonprofit for private benefit, but I will get to that in a minute. Some of that grant money was used to make films, but based on Mr. Pack's financial disclosures, it is possible that up to 75 percent of it--millions of dollars--went straight to Mr. Pack and his wife Gina. What you see on this chart, as was suggested in the debate the other day, is not normal. It is not normal. This is not the standard. This is not how it is done in the industry. That is why the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, where Public Media Lab is incorporated, is now investigating Mr. Pack's nonprofit for possibly breaking the law. The question they are asking is whether Mr. Pack used donations to the nonprofit for his own enrichment--to line his own pockets. From my understanding, this kind of behavior would normally raise some yellow flags at the IRS as well and they would be curious as to why a nonprofit seemed to be operating for the sole benefit of its creator, but the yellow flag never went up at the IRS because, for many years after he created Public Media Lab, Mr. Pack never disclosed that it was doing business with his company--with himself. The IRS asks nonprofits two key questions to determine whether a situation of private benefit might exist, and for many, many years, Mr. Pack falsely told the IRS there was no relationship. When the IRS asked Mr. Pack, under penalty of perjury, whether Public Media Lab provided grants to any entity controlled by an officer of the nonprofit, he said no, year after year. But the true answer was yes. The IRS also asked Mr. Pack, again, under penalty of perjury, whether Public Media Lab conducted business with any entity that it shared officers or directors with. Again and again, year after year, Mr. Pack said no, but the true answer was yes. Had Mr. Pack told the IRS the truth, he would have had to make additional disclosures that might have raised that yellow flag, but the IRS was left in the dark by Mr. Pack's false statements. When the committee confronted Mr. Pack last year with these false statements, he claimed they were ``oversights'' and that he did not need to amend his filings because his false statements were unintentional, but then he turned around and made false statements to the committee about his taxes. Unfortunately, given the false statements to the IRS year after year and then to the committee, we have to be concerned that Mr. Pack has a problem with the truth. Mr. Pack needs to come clean with the Senate, and he needs to come clean with the IRS. He needs to tell the IRS what is on this chart, how much grant money he transferred from Public Media Lab to Manifold, and that he sent it from himself to himself. So let's review what we have learned from these charts. First, Mr. Pack may have conducted unlawful expenditures with his nonprofit and operated it for private gain. Second, the IRS and the Senate don't know the full truth because Mr. Pack has made false statements and refused to provide documentation. Third, Mr. Pack's nonprofit is now under investigation by the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia for the very issues that I have been seeking answers from him for 9 months--9 months. As my friend Senator Murphy solemnly noted yesterday, nominees need to tell the truth to Congress and the executive branch, and if there has been a mistake, the nominee needs to fix it. These are the basic requirements for all nominees who come before the Senate and the absolute minimum standard we used to ask them to meet. We live in an era where the extraordinary quickly becomes routine, but even by that metric, Mr. Pack's path to this floor has been a disgrace. If advice and consent means anything, at rock bottom, it means ensuring that the people we confirm are suitable for public service; and if they are not, we should not move forward. I am aware of the pressure that some of my colleagues face as a result of this nomination. I know that the President has publicly trashed Voice of America, calling it ``the voice of the Soviet Union,'' which I hasten to say is dangerous nonsense. And I know that the President has spoken both publicly and privately of his intense desire to confirm Mr. Pack, come what may. But the objections I have raised today and have been raising for months are not political or partisan in nature. They go to the most basic and critical question: Is Michael Pack fit to serve? Should he be confirmed while he is under investigation and after having been dishonest with the Senate and the IRS? Given his alleged use of a small nonprofit for self-enrichment, can we trust that he will not use the massive resources of the U.S. Government to line his own pockets? Colleagues, I implore you to consider these questions. Please put aside whatever pressure, whatever threats the President has made, and consider the dangerous precedent we are setting here today. If Mr. Pack is confirmed, the new bar for advice and consent is set below that of a nominee who is under open investigation by law enforcement and who blatantly provided Congress and the executive branch false information. This institution has been called the world's greatest deliberative body. The history of this body guides us, and we make our decisions not just based on the immediate needs of the President but on the example we will set for the future. I ask my colleagues who may be inclined to support Mr. Pack's nomination today, are you comfortable with this precedent? The answer should be obvious, and I pray that this body has the courage to get there. Let us turn away from Michael Pack, and let us focus on healing the wounds of our Nation and our democracy. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask to speak for up to 5 minutes before the vote.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I want to, first of all, thank Senator Merkley for his leadership on the resolution and for his thoughtful and substantive contributions as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and to express our deep disappointment that our Republican colleagues are blocking his resolution, which basically says that we should not move forward on a nominee--in this case, this nominee--when there are false statements to the IRS and to the Foreign Relations Committee for which he refuses to correct the record, which would have consequences. Those are indisputable. It is abundantly clear that we need to formalize some standards that apply equally to all nominees, Democrat and Republican alike, and we should think of it as a floor beneath which the Senate should not fall. Now, it is amazing to me that I know my Republican colleagues used to care about tax issues. As a matter of fact, they denied a previous distinguished majority leader of the Senate--on some arcane issue--the opportunity to become the Secretary of Health and Human Services. They have done it a bunch of times. This issue is a $4 million tax issue in which Mr. Pack took his nonprofit, totally controlled by him--totally controlled by him--and had all the moneys that were solicited to the nonprofit then sent to his for-profit company, totally controlled by him--totally controlled by him. And no other disbursements were made from the nonprofit for anyone else, for any other entity. I didn't hear until now that the Justice Department and the IRS has reviewed this. It should be forthcoming, then, that they have cleared this, that this is now in the course of business. We can create a nonprofit; go ahead and get moneys from people; they will get their deductions; and then we can send it to ourselves for profit. That is one heck of a process. Now, the chairman continues to say ``2 years.'' Well, 2 years ago there was a Republican chairman of the committee--our colleague Bob Corker. He did not move this nomination 2 years ago. So with this constant refrain of 2 years, I guess you want to blame former Senator Corker for not moving it during that period of time. At the chairman's request, I met with Mr. Pack. While he may not have been my nominee, I agreed to have a hearing, which is one of the standards we have in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. There is an agreement between the chair and ranking. That has been violated for Mr. Pack. He actually went to a vote before the committee without my agreement, so that comity has been violated for the future. At the end of the day, we have someone who will not ultimately--he says: Yes, I made a ``mistake''--it is a $4 million mistake--and, yes, I should have answered differently. Well, why not correct it? If it is so simple, if it is so benign, why not correct it? The reason you don't want to correct it is that there are consequences that flow from that correction, including probably an IRS investigation. Finally, it is interesting that, I guess, when Attorney General Barr does something, it is not political, but when the attorney general of the District of Columbia does it, it is political. I didn't know we were going to start choosing and picking which law enforcement entities are political in this country. The attorney general of the District of Columbia had an investigation that was preceding before any action of the committee--preceding before any action of the committee or any information brought to the attention of the attorney general. Evidently, he considers it significantly serious enough--potential IRS violations on taxes. So here are our Republican colleagues who, in the past, railed against anyone who had violations of the IRS Tax Code, saying they are not worthy of being a nominee, to going ahead and ramming through someone who ultimately has some serious issues to the tune of $4 million, and that is not a problem. Under investigation--that is not a problem. So I urge my colleagues to consider what you are doing here. Not only was a precedent set at the committee, but you will set a precedent on the floor, and it will be very hard for you to get up and rail about somebody's tax liabilities and what they did and didn't do honestly with the taxes at the end of the day. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise today to engage in a colloquy with Senators Cassidy, Collins, and my fellow Senator from New Jersey, Senator Booker, and I ask unanimous consent that they be acknowledged in that order and that they be allowed to complete their remarks.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, as our Nation grapples with the COVID- 19 pandemic, our State, county, and municipal governments have been on the frontlines taking a leading role in responding to this crisis. As a result, they have been squeezed on both sides of the ledger, spending billions of dollars in unforeseen costs on emergency response while watching as revenues dry up due to necessary stay-at-home orders and the closure of non-essential businesses. The emergency protective measures have been effective at flattening the curve and have no doubt saved thousands of lives, but they also came with a cost. All revenue sources are down. Sales tax revenue has plummeted with businesses closed. Highway trust funds won't have the resources to do basic road maintenance. Downtown parking meters are going empty due to people observing social distancing. Building permits and municipal court fees have fallen. Unless we act soon, we will see mass layoffs, devastating tax increases, and a breakdown in public safety and essential services. Already, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that State and local governments laid off 1 million public employees in April. This challenge is true for every State, county, city, and town in the country. The State Municipal Assistance for Response and Transition, or SMART Act, is the bold, bipartisan, and commonsense solution we need to give our communities a fighting chance and stop the economy from free- falling. It provides $500 billion in flexible Federal dollars that will help our communities dramatically expand the testing capacity and contact tracing we need to contain the virus--a necessary step in restoring consumer confidence and to restart the economy. It will help stave off massive layoffs, tax hikes, and deep, painful cuts to essential services. It will keep our police officers, firefighters, public health workers, teachers, and other essential employees on the job during this critical time, because it is not just about defeating COVID-19; we still need to keep our streets safe, our children learning, the trash picked up, the roads maintained, and the buses and trains running on time. I hear some of my colleagues speak from this floor, calling not for unity but for division. They callously ignore the pleas for help from their fellow Americans, comforted by the selfish but mistaken belief that their communities are immune to the fiscal Armageddon facing our communities. Let me be clear. When your revenues drop 30 percent overnight, it really doesn't matter how fiscally responsible or conservative your State budget is; no one can prepare for that. Moody's just reported that States like Ohio and Arizona are facing the fiscal shock of losing 20 percent of their entire budget, and West Virginia, 40 percent. This is not a red State or blue State issue; this is a red, white, and blue issue. It is an American priority. In December of 1862, during the height of the Civil War, President Lincoln wrote the following message to Congress: ``In times like the present, men should utter nothing for which they would not willingly be responsible through time and eternity.'' I believe that history will look kindly upon those who stood for unity and compromise over demagoguery, those who put the well-being of the country over scoring partisan points, those who stuck out their necks and took a political risk for no other reason than it was the right thing to do. I am proud of the bipartisan coalition we have built, and I want to thank each of my colleagues for their work and their commitment to rebuilding our communities--Senator Cassidy, who has led this effort with me, Senator Hyde-Smith; Senator Manchin, Senator Collins, and my partner in New Jersey, Senator Booker. With that, I turn to my friend from Louisiana, the distinguished Senator who exemplifies these qualities and has been an incredible partner in crafting this legislation and building this coalition over the past month.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, freedom of the press is a fundamental human right, a foundational pillar of democracy, and an indispensable check on authoritarian overreach. Over the past months, as we have collectively come to appreciate a new understanding of ``essential workers,'' we have witnessed once again how essential the work journalists do is to maintaining our democracy. From Wuhan, China, to conflict zones in Venezuela, to cities and towns in the United States, journalists are risking their lives to report, investigate, and keep people informed on the COVID-19 pandemic. Unfortunately, responses to this global crisis have also reminds us that press freedom is under assault across the globe, including in the United States. Fearful of negative coverage of their capacity to protect their citizens and address a global health crisis, autocrats and other governmental figures around the world have focused their attention on concealing information. As journalists fight to advance truth and objectivity under dire circumstances, far too many governments have responded with verbal attacks and prison sentences. Today, we applaud the work and the courage of all those involved in bringing stories from around the world to our fingertips. Amidst the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic, countries across the world from Algeria to Zimbabwe have imposed restrictions and threatened journalists for their work. As they do when credible, reliable, and timely information is an essential commodity, journalists have persisted. In China, in an effort to educate his community and the world about its potential threat, Chen Qiushi documented the impacts of the COVID- 19 outbreak in Wuhan, China, in dozens of videos online. On February 6, 2020, Chen's family and friends lost contact with him, and he is presumed to have been disappeared by the CCP. In Niger, journalist Kaka Touda Mamne Goni reported on a suspected COVID-19 case, was arrested by police on March 5, 2020, and faces up to 3 years in prison on charges of ``dissemination of data likely to disturb the public order.'' In Venezuela, a group of masked police agents detained freelance journalist Darvinson Rojas on March 21, 2020, and interrogated Rojas about his reporting on COVID-19 cases in the state of Miranda. Rojas remains in detention. While the COVID-19 pandemic has spurred new restrictions and harassment, these stories of abuse and resilience are nothing new in the field of journalism. Since 1992, the Committee to Project Journalists has reported 1,369 journalists killed around the world, including at least 25 killed in 2019. Last year also represented the 14th year in a row that Freedom House has noted a global decline in press freedom. As of April 20, 2020, at least 299 journalists were imprisoned for their work worldwide. Of course, the global decline in press freedom and access is not limited to foreign lands. In the United States, the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the struggle of local news organizations to stay afloat. The shuttering of local print publications has left rural populations and marginalized communities without critical sources of information and has chipped away at the foundation of the U.S. free press. From the White House, President Trump continues to target journalists and the media, referring to journalism as ``an evil propaganda machine'' and the free press as the ``enemy of the people.'' Most recently and severely, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the Trump administration restricted most on-the-record access to administration officials and reportedly instructed all officials, including scientific and medical experts, to have public statements cleared through Vice President Pence. This episode is unfortunately the latest in an ongoing saga. Countries around the world have followed President Trump's lead in attacking journalism as ``fake news.'' Between January 2017 and May 2019, at least 26 countries have enacted or introduced laws restricting access and media in the name of ``fake news.'' In attacking the media, President Trump not only undermines the hard-hitting work journalists in the United States do to hold our leaders accountable and keep the public informed, but provides foreign leaders with the permission and vocabulary to do the same. In spite of the unprecedented assault on the free press, journalists continue to take significant risks in the pursuit of truth and transparency. In January 2020, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists revealed how Isabel dos Santos amassed one of Africa's largest fortunes in Angola, one of the world's poorest countries, through embezzlement and corruption using a network of companies and subsidiaries. In May 2019, Caixin journalists reported on business and government actions that resulted in the 2019 Jiangsu Tianjiayi Chemical Plant explosion in China that killed 78 people and injured over 600. Journalists have also continued to report on the situation of Uyghurs and other minorities held in detention centers in China's Xinjiang region, including new revelations from hundreds of pages of leaked CCP documents published by the New York Times in November 2019. I join the international community in honoring and defending the brave journalists seeking to report on the truth and tell the stories that deserve to be told. Over 200 years ago, our Founding Fathers had the foresight to recognize the importance of a free press to a democracy, enshrining it in our First Amendment. Today, that importance cannot be overstated. Recognizing that societies where informed citizens can hold their governments accountable are more stable, secure, and prosperous, we have a responsibility to stand up for the fundamental rights of freedom of expression and a free press. This week, I introduced a resolution commemorating World Press Freedom Day. The resolution highlights increasing threats to freedoms of the press and expression worldwide, especially amid the COVID-19 pandemic, reaffirms the centrality of a free and independent press to the health of democracy, and reiterates freedom of the press as a priority of the United States in promoting democracy, human rights, and good governance. On this World Press Freedom Day, I call on the Trump administration and our world leaders to recommit to advancing press freedom, protecting journalists, and embracing the important role they play in a healthy and secure society.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise to override the President's veto of S.J. Res. 68, which requires the removal of U.S. troops from hostilities against Iran that Congress may not have authorized. It seems like ages ago that we were truly on the brink of a potentially devastating, costly, and unnecessary war against Iran, but it was actually just a few months ago. Make no mistake--even as Iranians have suffered the worst outbreak of COVID-19 in the Middle East, we have witnessed Iran continue its support for terrorism, harassment of American naval vessels, and general malfeasance throughout the region. Indeed, it now seems that Iran may be principally responsible for driving the spread of COVID-19 throughout the region. I don't think there is any question about Iran's malign activity. More to the point of the legislation at hand, I shed no tears for Qassem Soleimani, who left a legacy of terrorism, bloodshed, and American deaths. However, this body has a constitutional responsibility and prerogative to declare war, to make the decision about whether to send our sons and daughters into battlefields. We have the responsibility to ensure that the Executive is effectively deploying every diplomatic tool it can before rushing recklessly into battle, particularly one without clearly defined outcomes or clarity of purpose. We must exercise our check over the Executive, particularly when it comes to the life and death of Americans. Yet this administration continues to test the strength of our system of checks and balances. We saw it with this strike against Soleimani. Then it played out several times last year regarding congressional prerogatives on arms sales. This is not the first time the President has faced a vote to override his veto. Last year, the House and the Senate made overwhelmingly clear that we had concerns about sales of certain weapons to Saudi Arabia following its disastrous campaign in Yemen and the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. As the administration seeks to sell more weapons overseas, the Congress will continue to assert our prerogative when it comes to foreign policy and war-making. So, as I did earlier this year, I stand in strong support of S.J. Res 68. This body must assert its constitutional and congressional prerogative. Of course, the President has the right to take action to defend against imminent threats to the homeland and to Americans abroad. No one disputes that--no one. While the President has the right to take action to protect Americans from truly imminent threats and dangers, and we must stand in support of our allies and partners, it is our responsibility to ensure that he is taking the right actions to protect Americans and our interests. The President does not have the authority to undertake any kind of military action he likes, nor does he have the prerogative to sell weapons to any country he likes absent congressional consultation and approval. Unfortunately, as has become a pattern with this administration, the legal rational it has offered for these attacks stretches the bounds of credulity. Following a number of briefings from the administration, I found no compelling evidence as to what was the imminent threat or the clear and present danger to Americans. In fact, following the death of Soleimani, we saw even more attacks on American assets and interests. Just a few weeks ago, Iran was harassing our ships in the Arabian Gulf, and Iran also claims to have launched a military satellite into orbit. It does not sound like the administration's actions have meaningfully ``restored deterrence'' of any kind against Iranian malign activity. Additionally, let me reiterate that the idea that somehow the administration has the authority under the 2002 AUMF to attack Soleimani simply because he was in Iraq is completely ludicrous. As someone who voted against the war in Iraq when I was in the House of Representatives during the debate over whether to authorize military action, I can assure you that it was not its intention of that 2002 authorization for the use of military force, and it does not comport with the history, the use, or the plain reading of the text. Colleagues, I urge you to stand up for our congressional prerogatives, our congressional responsibilities, and our constitutional responsibilities, and to make clear to the President that we are a coequal branch of government that will hold the Executive accountable. I want to thank Senator Kaine for his dedication to this issue and to defending our constitutional rights. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a resolution with Senator Risch, as well as other colleagues, to thank countless State Department career officials for their extensive efforts to bring home over 78,000 United States citizens and legal permanent residents during the COVID-19 pandemic. This pandemic caused an unprecedented disruption in global travel, leaving tens of thousands of United States citizens and legal permanent residents stranded overseas with no direct way to return to the United States. While we will have ample opportunity in the future to examine and better understand the decisions made by senior leadership at the Department of State at the onset of the COVID-19 crisis that could have allowed the United States to more effectively respond to this pandemic, including to identify and mitigate repatriation challenges, I will note that once the Department recognized the enormity of the repatriation crisis, it's career professionals sprung into action and, characteristically, rose to meet the challenge and serve their nation with distinction. Staying true to the Department's most fundamental mission, to protect U.S. citizens abroad, State Department officers, family members, and local employees faced great personal risk and long hours to assist U.S. citizens during a time of dire need and stress. For that, my colleagues and I are tremendously grateful. We commend the extraordinary work done by the Repatriation Task Force, embassy and consulate staff around the world, and the United States Transportation Command. Their efforts resulted in the repatriation of over 78,000 Americans on 833 flights originating from 128 countries and territories in just an 18-week period. I would also like to extend my deepest thanks to Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Ian Brownlee and Deputy Assistant Secretary Hugo Yon for their exemplary leadership of and contribution to the Repatriation Task Force, as well as to Wendy Kennedy for her work with the Bureau of Legislative Affairs. Furthermore, I would like to thank Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Julie Chung, Deputy Assistant Secretary Kevin O'Reilly, Consul General Dana Deree (Honduras), Consul General William Bent (El Salvador), Consul General John Barrett (Recife), Deputy Chief of Mission Denison Offutt (Lima), Director for Central America Affairs Marta Youth, and Country Consular Coordinator Alexander Delorey (Quito) for their leadership in facilitating the repatriation of thousands of Americans citizens from countries in the Western hemisphere. I recognize that in calling out these individuals who were especially helpful to me and to my office that I run the risk of not naming the tens, if not hundreds of others who worked just as hard and contributed just as much; they have my thanks as well. I, along with my colleagues, are profoundly grateful to the Department of State personnel who have worked tirelessly these past few months, who have served the United States above and beyond the call of duty, and who have helped their fellow citizen in a time of dire need. I urge the Department to continue its good work and to remain ready to bring home American citizens and legal permanent residents as the COVID-19 pandemic persists.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to the floor because I have been listening for the better part of well over an hour as my colleagues talk about the vote we had a little earlier and why it didn't pass and why, from their perspective, it should have. Let me start off by saying that there is a sense of urgency, but there is also a sense of getting it right and getting our priorities right. The wealth of the Nation will improve only when the health of the Nation improves. This package, as presently designed, falls far short of what is necessary to make the health of the Nation whole. We need a surge at the end of the day to ensure that, in fact, we can have the frontlines--the hospitals, the medical workers, nurses, all of those--be able to achieve the most fundamental goal, which is to make the American people safe from this virus. This, in the first and foremost instance, is a fight against COVID-19. It is first and foremost because if we do not get the health of the Nation right, we will not get the wealth of the Nation right, no matter how much money we spend. There is a lot of talk here about markets. I have heard for the better half of the last hour-plus about markets. The markets are important; I don't underestimate that. Yet what is really important is the health of the American people because when they are healthy, we will prosper, but when they are not, we will not prosper. When we meet the challenge of the pandemic, we will prosper. When we don't meet the challenge of the pandemic, we will not prosper. It is very simple. First and foremost, this is about having a robust figure for the hospitals and health frontline workers. This package, as it presently is devised, fails to do so. Secondly, this is about making sure that not just big corporations get the moneys they need, but that average working families and individuals get the robust assistance they need to get through this period of time. When you have a $425 billion--billion--fund that has total discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury with no guardrails, no guarantees for workers, no guarantees that, despite how much money we spend and give to large corporate entities, they will not guarantee the well-being of workers, then something is wrong. I have been through September 11, and I have been through Superstorm Sandy in New Jersey and the Northeast, and I have never seen anything like this. I also remember the errors we made after the great recession on the TARP and other related programs. In our desire to overwhelmingly respond--we still have that desire today--there were great mistakes made. How many times are we going to get a shot at a trillion-dollar-plus program? We need to not only have a sense of urgency, but we need to get it right in order to affect the well-being of the American people in their health, in their economic well-being, and in the future economic well-being of the Nation. This rush, in a way that doesn't get it right, is dangerous because I don't know how many trillion-plus packages we are going to have. When I look at the language in this present legislation, my God, it is shameful. It is shameful that, in the midst of a pandemic, the ideological views are seeking to be incorporated in a way that has nothing to do with dealing with COVID-19--nothing. The denial of certain health groups to be able to access funding at a critical time in our country has nothing to do with COVID-19. This bill has a $425 billion slush fund with which, basically, the Secretary of the Treasury can say: I like you; you get this. I don't like you; you get nothing. There is no transparency--no way for the Congress to know. Six months after you give a loan is when we might finally find out. That is unacceptable. We have to know, when we are making these investments, that they protect workers and that we are not going to have all this money, in part, be used for stock buybacks; that we are not going to see corporate executives have big increases in their salaries and benefits. That is not what the American people's taxpayer money is for. That is why there were votes against proceeding--because we have to get it right. We have to get it right. How is it that there are no provisions in the present bill for foreclosures or evictions? People are going to face unprecedented consequences, not because of their own making, not of moral hazard. They are fired; they are left without any money. Are we going to evict them from their homes? Does that serve the public health in the midst of a pandemic? No. There are no consequences for that. How is it that we have no parameters for how the Treasury would structure loans? How is it that we have no worker protections to ensure that the very essence of why we want companies to be able to sustain themselves--and we do, small, medium, and big--we want them to sustain themselves, but we want them to sustain themselves for what? To be able to keep workers employed and to be able to keep the economy going, not to improve simply the bottom line. Why is it that we can't have solid stock buyback language, which could be waived under the present legislation by Treasury? Why is it that, when we do talk in this limited way in the bill that is existing, that we are debating, that we voted not to proceed on, it says worker protections to the extent possible or practicable, I should say--to the extent practicable? That can mean anything. That is not a protection. Why do we have no loan transparency? We are talking about giving average Americans a morsel when we are spending billions of dollars with no transparency whatsoever, with no guardrails, with no conditions. That is simply wrong. This is a bill without warrants that can ensure that the government--the government meaning the U.S. taxpayer--will recover its money. These are simply not ways that we can--why is there no student loan forgiveness, not a delay but forgiveness? Why is there no direct grant assistance to small businesses? It is great to get a loan if you are making money, but if you are not making money, a loan doesn't do anything for you because you can't pay it back because there is no revenue coming in. The small businesses are really the backbone of the Nation. They are the backbone that ultimately employs Americans, and we say: We are going to give you a loan. That is great, but I have no income coming in. I am shut down. How is it that a loan is going to ultimately be able to help me survive so that I can have Americans return back to a job? I need some direct grant assistance. Who is on the frontline? I learned on September 11--when I was in the other body in the House of Representatives--that it wasn't the Federal Government that responded on that fateful day. It was the States; it was the local municipalities. We lost 700 citizens in New Jersey on September 11. We triaged people from downtown Manhattan into New Jersey hospitals. It wasn't the Federal Government that responded; it was the States and local municipalities. How is it that you cannot be forceful in giving a significant amount of money to States and local municipalities that are at the frontline of COVID-19? The Federal Government isn't there. The States are burning up enormous amounts of money from their State treasuries to do what is right by their citizens, but we are not giving them any money. There is virtually nothing in this bill for that. The National Governors Association--Republican and Democratic Governors--say they need at least $150 to $200 billion. They get a pittance in this bill. How are they, as the frontline defense, going to continue to meet this challenge? They will go bankrupt. How is it that there is no SNAP increase for the most vulnerable in our society? We have never seen a downturn in our economy in which we have not considered SNAP as a critical element of being able to feed people. So that is why I voted no. That is why I voted no. I am all for helping businesses have the capability of ultimately surviving. I want them to survive because I want their workers to be able to survive as well. Above all, I want the American people to get healthy, and I can't get them healthy unless we have a Marshall Plan for our hospitals and providers at the frontlines. I can't solve a problem if I don't have the States and municipalities able to achieve what they critically need as the Federal Government waits. We can't have the health of the Nation unless we have a surge on testing protective equipment for our first line of defense and then, ultimately, unless those who face the greatest risk under this virus have a shot at surviving life or death with ventilators. This bill falls short in all of those regards. None of us want to vote no to proceed, but we can't proceed to something that is a false hope to the American people. We have to do what is right. What is right is to protect the health of the American people--be able to beat COVID-19--and be able to stand up individuals, families, workers, and companies that will honor their obligation to workers as part of the Federal response to them and that will help the States and municipalities in their frontline challenges. That is why we could not vote to proceed. That is why there exists a precious moment. Every other bill started off with both Houses and the leadership of both Houses negotiating the bills. The first two iterations had bipartisan support because they were done that way. This one was done whereby the Republican majority in the Senate decided, We are going to decide what we want to see. Then we will offer it to you, and maybe we will change some things or not. In the midst of a pandemic, that is not the way to, ultimately, work. We lost nearly a week. Instead of making the bipartisan efforts that we could have made nearly a week ago, we are pressed and have created this drama that, if it is not done right now, there will be a consequence. That is unacceptable. We have to get this right. We are not going to get multiple shots at trillion-dollar programs. We have to get this right. Ultimately, we have to have the effect of helping the American people survive the critical challenges before them. That is what is before the Senate now. I hope that the minds will prevail here to work toward a bipartisan agreement that will bring all of these elements together. Yes, no side has a better view of how we achieve this, but both sides have critical views that are necessary. From our perspective, this is about beating COVID-19 first. It is a surge for our hospitals and frontline healthcare workers. It is a surge for workers and for protecting individuals and families. It is a surge for small businesses and the opportunity to make sure they survive so that, at the end of the day, people can go back to work. That is what this is all about, and it is why I felt compelled to come to the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, first of all, I want to thank the staff here in the Senate. Even in these difficult times, they answer the call of doing the work of the American people, and I want to appreciate their being here so that the Senate can conduct its work. They are essential to being able to do that. So I want to acknowledge that. I come to the floor today as our country grapples with a global pandemic that, tragically, has claimed the lives of thousands of people around the world, including dozens throughout the United States and three in my home State of New Jersey. I come to the floor because I hope that people understand the fierce urgency of ``now''--the fierce urgency of ``now.'' This is a public health crisis, and we can't wait to act. The rapid spread of COVID-19, also known as the coronavirus, has disrupted our daily lives. It has destabilized our economy and has imposed an enormous strain on our healthcare system. I think many failed to grasp the scope of this threat--the lack of a national response just as the virus began to reach America's shores. But I am not here to talk today about where the administration went wrong; I am here to talk about how it can start making things right. If there is anything we have learned in recent weeks, it is that you have to be proactive. In the past week, the number of confirmed COVID- 19 cases here in the United States jumped from around 1,000 to well over 4,000. While other countries were testing thousands of people, the United States was testing mere dozens. While other countries were staging makeshift hospitals, we were overloading ours. While other countries implemented aggressive social distancing measures to limit the spread of COVID-19, our government sent mixed signals to the American people about the sacrifices they must make in order to save, maybe, their lives and, if not, the lives of others. State leaders like my own Governor, Phil Murphy, stepped in to fill the leadership void. Earlier this week, he, along with the Governors of New York and Connecticut, imposed new restrictions on restaurants, shops, and other public gathering spaces. These are tough, unquestionably, but we need every New Jerseyan, as well as every American, to take Federal and State recommendations about social distancing seriously, avoiding gatherings of more than 10 people, washing your hands frequently, and if you feel sick, staying home and calling your healthcare provider immediately. We all need to be part of the solution or we can become part of the statistics. We all need to be part of the solution. This is one time in which we all must come together as Americans and be part of the solution so that we are not part of the statistics. Already families are feeling the impact, whether in lost wages, smaller paychecks, school closures, restaurant curfews, or outright job losses. That is why I am calling on the Senate to act today--today--on legislation that will provide paid leave and unemployment assistance to impacted workers, food assistance to children and seniors, more funding for Medicaid. We cannot leave families alone to weather the storm. We also need to do more to help restaurants and shops and other businesses struggling with the economic fallout of the coronavirus from mandatory curfews to supply chain shortages, to decreased demand for their services. They need help. At the end of the day, we want them to be able to survive the crisis in order to offer the employment that will be necessary to revive the economy. But we must remember that this is first and foremost a public health crisis. The wealth of our Nation will ultimately depend on the health of our Nation. Nothing economically will be solved without dealing with the health of the American people, and we cannot ignore the demands that COVID-19 will make on our healthcare sector and, especially, hospitals in the days and weeks to come. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the CDC, has projected that between 160 million and 214 million people could contract COVID-19 in the United States and that between 2.4 million and 21 million of those infected could require hospitalization. As a means of comparison, our hospital system has less than 1 million staffed beds, which would be inadequate even under the CDC's most optimistic projections. Hospitals must also have the resources and equipment available to treat the expected influx of patients. There is a significant concern that the Nation's supply of mechanical respirators and ventilators is inadequate to meet the exponential need we will likely experience in the coming weeks and months. The latest data indicates that there may be only 62,000 hospital ventilators in the entire nation. Even if only half of those hospitalized require ventilation, our supply would be wholly inadequate to fill the demand. Healthcare workers also need protective gear to do their lifesaving work without risking infection to themselves. Unfortunately, there have been multiple reports of shortages of personal protective equipment even during the opening days of this outbreak. Failure to protect our healthcare workers and support staff would cause a cascading effect that would cause our entire response to collapse. Simply put, we need the Federal Government to step in and provide real leadership. In the midst of a pandemic, State and local governments should not be left on their own, scrambling to find or purchase ventilators for patients, personal protective gear for healthcare workers, and other critical medical supplies. The Federal Government has a tremendous obligation and an opportunity to help save lives by assisting State and local governments in locating resources, using existing authorities to increase manufacturing of ventilators and other critical equipment, and preparing for the staging of temporary hospitals and beds, and more. Let's look at military facilities that have been closed. There is one in my State. Let's open them up. Let's construct MASH units. Let's not wait. Let's rent out hotels that are closing. These are some of the many actions that can be taken if we are decisive in our work. That is why I am calling on the President to immediately exercise the powers authorized by the Defense Production Act to defend the health and safety of the American people in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic. While the administration's response has so far lacked the energy this crisis calls for, invoking the powers vested in the Defense Production Act will enable the Federal Government to step up and take the types of aggressive steps needed in this time of uncertainty. It is that act that can give the Federal Government the power to say: We are going to become your partner. We want to infuse massive amounts of money to create the ventilators that we need, the personal protective gear that we need, and if we can't get you to produce it, we are going to produce it. We need to use the power of the Federal Government to have the type of response that this moment calls for, that this crisis calls for. That is what government in its most significant moment is supposed to be all about. That is really what the Federal Government is supposed to be all about. What States cannot individually do or individual communities cannot do, it is the power of the Federal Government that can do it. We must be willing to mobilize that power. It is time the United States of America live up to its history of defeating extraordinary challenges and prevailing in the face of great uncertainty. It is time to harness the ingenuity of our people, the might of our manufacturing base, and the wisdom of our healthcare experts to confront COVID-19 to protect our families and our communities, to slow the spread of the virus so we don't overwhelm our hospitals so that we can save lives. I have seen some of the projections. I hope, for God's sake, they are wrong. But we will lose many people unless we all take this seriously and unless we act. This is a moment for action and to show the world once again that there is no challenge too great for the American people. I yield the floor.