John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, our economy has taken a huge hit from the coronavirus, and we have a lot of work to do to recover. There are encouraging signs, and one of those has been the success of the Paycheck Protection Program. The pandemic has presented a particular challenge for small businesses that frequently have very limited cash reserves to draw on. That is why, thanks to the efforts of Senators Rubio, Collins, and others, Congress established the Paycheck Protection Program, which provides forgivable loans to small businesses to help them keep employees on their payroll during this crisis. So far, more than 4.5 million small businesses nationwide have received relief from this program, and the majority of the loans have gone to the smallest businesses. Nearly 3 million of the 4.5 million total loans have been at or under $50,000. In my home State of South Dakota, more than 21,000 businesses have benefited, including some of the many seasonal businesses that have a limited amount of time each year to make the money that they need to survive. I am very grateful to the thousands of bank and credit union employees around the Nation who processed these loans under challenging circumstances during the pandemic. All told, millions of small business jobs have been saved, and a lot of small businesses that might have gone under during the pandemic are hanging on thanks to this program. In fact, the Paycheck Protection Program is undoubtedly one of the main reasons that the May jobs numbers were not as bad as expected. Instead of net job loss, the economy actually gained jobs. Now, that is not to suggest that the May jobs report was rosy. Our unemployment rate is unacceptably high, to put it mildly, but the fact that we gained jobs is a positive sign. It is definitely a step in the right direction, and the Paycheck Protection Program helped us get there. So far, Congress has provided $2.5 trillion to respond to the coronavirus, including the almost $700 billion allocated to the Paycheck Protection Program. That is a staggering amount of money, equal to roughly half of the entire Federal budget for 2020. These were extraordinary circumstances and extraordinary action was required. However, Democrats are now pushing for Congress to rush another massive bill out the door. It is important to remember that every dollar Congress has provided to fight the coronavirus has been borrowed money. Now, as I said, it is money that we needed to borrow, but it is still borrowed money that will have to be repaid. Will we need to provide more money to confront the pandemic and its effects? Probably. But we need to make sure that we are only appropriating what is really necessary. Rushing a $3 trillion bill through Congress, as Democrats want to do, before the $2.4 trillion we have already provided has even been fully spent is not a responsible way to go about providing additional relief. What we need to focus on right now is monitoring the implementation of coronavirus funding so we can identify where we have spent sufficiently and where we may need to do more. The Paycheck Protection Program provides a good example of the strategy that we should be using. Congress provided nearly $350 billion for the Paycheck Protection Program when it was first created. Within a short time, after the program's kickoff, however, it became clear that demand was so great that we would need to provide additional funding, and that is what we did. We provided an additional $310 billion in late April. Then, just a couple of weeks ago, we passed another update to the program--not additional funding but a package of fixes to provide additional flexibility to small businesses. I have proposed a further refinement to the program that I hope Congress will pass in the near future. While the Paycheck Protection Program is open to self-employed workers--which describes many farmers--in practice, the program's guidelines have excluded a lot of agricultural producers. Low commodity prices and a challenging planting season meant that many farmers and ranchers had a negative net income in 2019. And right now, the program's guidelines exclude farmers or ranchers without employees with a negative net income for last year. My legislation would allow more farmers to access the Paycheck Protection Program by allowing them to use their 2019 gross income instead of their 2019 net income when calculating their loan award. This is what we should be doing when it comes to additional coronavirus funding. The best way to make sure that we are spending taxpayer dollars wisely and not burdening our economy with more debt is to carefully monitor the implementation of the funds we have already provided and use that information to guide further action. That is what we have done with the Paycheck Protection Program, and that is what we should do with the other coronavirus funding we passed and the other coronavirus programs we implemented. It is also important to remember that sometimes what is required is not additional money but other types of solutions, like the fixes we passed that add more flexibility to the Paycheck Protection Program. As we move forward, I will continue to work with my colleagues to respond to the coronavirus, and I will continue to do everything I can to ensure that any additional money we spend is carefully targeted to the real needs, with an eye to minimizing the burden we are putting on future generations. We owe younger Americans nothing less. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz).

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Arizona (Ms. McSally), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby).

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, like most other sectors of our economy, agriculture has taken a huge hit from the coronavirus. The pandemic has caused significant market volatility, sending many commodity futures prices plummeting. Increased consumer demand for beef led to significant increases in boxed beef prices, while cattle prices plummeted, which led to significant gaps between cattle producer and packer profit margins. To make the situation worse, temporary closures and reduced processing capacity at U.S. meatpacking plants as a result of the virus further diminished demand for livestock and depressed prices. This has aggravated an already difficult situation for farmers and ranchers. Unlike the majority of the economy, which was thriving before the coronavirus pandemic, the agricultural economy has been struggling for a while. Low prices, extended trade disputes, and natural disasters have meant a tough few years for farmers and ranchers even before the coronavirus hit. Now things are even more challenging. Agriculture is the lifeblood of my State of South Dakota. So supporting farmers and ranchers during the crisis has been one of my top priorities. I fought to get agriculture relief money included in the Coronavirus Aid Relief and Economic Security Act, or the CARES Act, which was signed into law in late March. The final bill included $14 billion to replenish the Commodity Credit Corporation to allow the Department of Agriculture to provide income and price support for farmers and ranchers, plus an additional $9.5 billion in emergency support for agricultural producers affected by the pandemic. Days after the bill passed, I led a bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives in a letter to Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue urging him to use a portion of the funds to provide support for hard- hit cattle producers. In mid-April, the Department of Agriculture responded to that letter and other petitions by announcing that it would issue $16 billion in direct payments to agriculture producers affected by the virus. Signups for this funding began at the end of May, and, as of June 8, South Dakota agriculture producers had received approximately $80 million. Over the past 2 months, I kept in constant contact with the Department of Agriculture and others to amplify producers' concerns and to urge swift relief. I have also been focused on developing additional legislation to help farmers and ranchers weather this crisis. Last week, I introduced legislation to allow emergency haying and grazing on Conservation Reserve Program acres for the duration of this crisis. Under current law, ag producers can hay or graze their CRP acres during weather-related disasters without a reduction in their CRP payments. My legislation would extend that provision to cover pandemics, including the COVID-19 pandemic. Thanks to low prices and a reduction in capacity of meatpacking plants as a result of the pandemic, farmers and ranchers are having to hold on to their livestock for longer than expected. This bill would help ensure they have adequate forage for their animals. Earlier this week, I introduced another bill, the Paycheck Protection for Producers Act, which would help more farmers and ranchers benefit from the Paycheck Protection Program. The coronavirus relief legislation that we passed in late March established the Paycheck Protection Program, which provides forgivable loans to small businesses to help them keep their employees on their payroll during this crisis. Self-employed Americans, which describes many farmers and ranchers, are eligible for these loans, but, in practice, the program's guidelines have excluded a lot of agricultural producers. Low commodity prices and a challenging planting season meant that many farmers and ranchers had a negative income in 2019. And right now, the program's guidelines excludes farmers and ranchers without employees with a negative net income for last year. My legislation would allow more farmers to access the Paycheck Protection Program by allowing them to use their 2019 gross income instead of their 2019 net income when applying for a loan. I am hoping to get both of these bills through Congress in the near future. In addition to direct relief, another thing that we can do to support our Nation's agriculture producers is to support the ethanol industry. Ethanol and biodiesel producers buy up a significant amount of American corn and soybean oil, but decreased demand for fuel as a result of coronavirus has significantly diminished this crucial market for our farmers, and that is why, in addition to direct relief measures for farmers and ranchers, I have also focused on what we can do to support the ethanol industry. American ethanol has stepped up to help during the coronavirus crisis by providing ethanol or alcohol for hand sanitizer. Thanks to the FDA's temporary policy for preparation of certain alcohol-based hand sanitizer products during the public health emergency, qualifying ethanol can be used as an alcohol content in hand sanitizer. I imagine there are few Americans who haven't significantly stepped up their purchase of hand sanitizer during the current crisis. In addition to measures like social distancing and mask wearing and frequent hand washing, it is key to preventing the spread of the virus. When water and soap are not immediately available, hand sanitizer can step in as a substitute. We need a steady supply of hand sanitizer to help curtail virus transmission. To help us meet this need and support our Nation's ethanol producers, today I am introducing the Hand Sanitizer Guidance Extension Act of 2020. Put simply, my bill will extend the FDA's temporary ethanol-based hand sanitizer policy for at least 2 years. This will give ethanol producers that have made investments or changes in operations to meet the need for hand sanitizer a longer time to recoup their investment costs. I recognize that there is ongoing deliberation with the FDA about denaturants and other accepted chemical limits for hand sanitizer ethanol, and my bill would not hinder those discussions. My bill would simply provide ethanol producers with a baseline of certainty while still allowing the FDA to make case-by-case approvals and to waive or reduce other requirements as necessary to meet the public health emergency. Now, the amount of ethanol required for hand sanitizer is just a drop in the bucket for our ethanol producers, and I am committed to finding additional ways to bring this clean American-grown fuel to market. Every little bit helps, and this legislation will at least give a small measure of certainty to producers while helping to meet the nationwide demand for hand sanitizer. The coronavirus crisis has highlighted just how much we rely on our Nation's agriculture producers. I am grateful every day for their work, and advocating for them will continue to be one of my top priorities. I am committed to helping our farmers and ranchers through the challenges they are facing and seeing our Nation's agricultural economy thrive.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, one of the things that we have really seen during the COVID-19 pandemic is the value of telehealth. As a resident of a rural State, I have long been a proponent of telehealth for the access it gives to rural communities. If you live in a major city, you usually don't have to think too much about where you will find a doctor if you need one. If you need a cardiologist, for example, you don't spend a lot of time worrying whether you will be able to find one within driving distance. In fact, there is a good chance you will have a choice--a wide range of choices for cardiologists. If you have a heart attack, you know you are in reach of at least one hospital and maybe several. That is not always the case for Americans in rural areas. In the smallest towns in America, access to specialty care can be a challenge. The only providers may be a primary care provider, a nurse, or a pharmacist. These providers are essential to rural families, but sometimes specialty care is needed. When there isn't a specialist close by, telehealth can help get these rural providers and their patients the medical care they need from a remote location through the use of technology. The coronavirus has highlighted the fact that telehealth is a valuable resource for every American. During the pandemic, we have seen healthcare providers of all types turn to telehealth to continue serving their patients without running the risk of spreading the virus. Telehealth has always allowed patients to access a variety of services that might have been risky to obtain at an office or hospital during the height of the pandemic. Telehealth's usefulness will extend long beyond the coronavirus crisis. While telehealth has particular value for rural areas, rural, urban, and suburban areas alike experience provider shortages and a lack of access to care. The Association of American Medical Colleges estimates that there will be a shortage of up to 122,000 doctors in the United States by the year 2032. Even in areas without shortages, telehealth can make life easier for patients by reducing the number of times that they have to visit a doctor's office for care. While there will always be a need to see a doctor in person, for many patients, some office visits can be replaced with telehealth appointments. That can make a big difference for individuals whose health requires them to see a doctor frequently. It is also a convenience for patients in the workforce or caring for children or other family members who may need to be able to access services quickly and easily. I was very pleased when Congress expanded access to telehealth in the coronavirus relief bills that we passed. We advanced the principles of value-based insurance design by allowing high-deductible health plans to cover telehealth services prior to a beneficiary's reaching his or her deductible. We also permitted the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to waive certain Medicare restrictions on telehealth during a public health emergency, which has been hugely helpful to both seniors and the providers who care for them. With this waiver authority, providers can be paid for seeing patients in their homes, regardless of whether the patient lives in a rural area. We also expanded the types of services that are reimbursable via telehealth under Medicare. In addition to video, providers are able to offer telehealth appointments using audio-only technology, which is helpful for patients who don't have access to internet or to a smart device. Congress's coronavirus legislation also increased telehealth access for community health centers, rural health clinics, home health hospice, and home dialysis for the duration of the pandemic. I would like to see us make many of these measures permanent. I will be pushing for that in the Senate over the coming months, along with the CONNECT for Health Act, which I have cosponsored with Senators Schatz, Wicker, Cardin, Warner, and Hyde-Smith for the last several Congresses. This legislation, which influenced many of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act telehealth provisions, addresses restrictions that limit the use of telehealth in Medicare, including by providing waiver authority for the Secretary of Health and Human Services. In addition, the legislation would remove restrictions that affect Medicare reimbursement for Indian Health Service and facilitate the use of telehealth for emergency medical services and mental health care. I will also continue to urge passage of the bill I introduced in March to increase telehealth services in nursing facilities. My Reducing Unnecessary Senior Hospitalizations Act, or what we call the RUSH Act, would allow Medicare to establish agreements with a medical group to provide care to nursing home patients remotely, with the goal of reducing instances of avoidable trips to the emergency department. Access to on-demand support from providers equipped to treat seniors would enable a nursing home's onsite staff to immediately address a patient's needs without waiting for emergency room transport or for a doctor to arrive. As a result, patients would be more likely to receive early intervention and avoid hospital visits, which can pose significant risk to the elderly, especially, of course, during the current pandemic. Reducing the costs that come from untreated medical complications or expensive emergency room visits would also be a win for taxpayers and for the Medicare Program. One healthcare provider in my home State of South Dakota conducted a telehealth pilot program to provide specialized care to nursing home patients and ended up saving Medicare more than $342 per beneficiary per month. That is a significant savings. It is a savings that came from providing nursing home patients with better and faster care. One of the many reasons I push so hard to expand access to high-speed internet in rural areas and to ensure that rural communities have access to 5G is because of the opportunities this provides for the expanded use of telehealth, which translates into greater access to care for rural Americans. I will continue to do everything I can to make telehealth more available to underserved patients in rural communities and to the country as a whole. The coronavirus pandemic has highlighted just how valuable a resource telehealth can be for literally every American, and we should ensure that all Americans can access its benefits. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, as I begin this morning, I would like to just briefly comment on the outlandish idea of dismantling police departments that has seen substantial coverage in recent days. While there are exceptions, the vast majority of our Nation's police officers are men and women of character who care deeply about protecting everyone in their communities, and they provide an essential service--a service that we cannot do without. The idea that any city can exist without a police force is so absurd that it is difficult to believe anyone is seriously discussing it. We absolutely need to look at policies at the State, local, and Federal levels to ensure that we are holding police officers to the highest standards, and I hope we will be having serious bipartisan discussions on these issues in the coming weeks. I know at least one Senate Republican has already introduced legislation to require law enforcement agencies to report the use of lethal force. But bipartisan discussions will not be forwarded by extreme and irresponsible proposals like abolishing the police departments that help protect our communities. I hope that such proposals will not gain any traction here in the U.S. Senate. Business Before the Senate Madam President, we are very busy--hard at work--here in the Senate. Our main business on the floor this week will be the Great American Outdoors Act, legislation crafted by Senators Daines and Gardner and others, that will help address the significant maintenance backlog in our national parks, among other things. Out of the limelight, Senators will also be discussing how best to respond at the Federal level to the tragedy of George Floyd's killing. Responding to the coronavirus continues to be at the top of our agenda. Right now, we are focused on monitoring the implementation of the $2.4 trillion that Congress has provided so that we can identify what more we need to do to fight this virus. Our committees play a leading role in this, and they have kept up a steady stream of hearings examining implementation and identifying next steps. This week, we have no fewer than eight--eight--committee hearings on various aspects of the COVID crisis, including unemployment insurance, a Senate Finance Committee hearing later today that I will be participating in, reopening schools, and the Federal Government's procurement and distribution strategies. The Democratic leader has spent a lot of time on the floor lately, complaining about what is happening in the Senate. He is, apparently, not happy that we are in session, and he claims we are not doing anything on the coronavirus. Well, on the first point, I would just like to say that the majority leader brought the Senate back into session because we have responsibilities that we need to fulfill. One of the issues that we have to respond to, as a matter of our constitutional obligation, is the issue of dealing with nominations, both to judicial and executive branches of our government. We continue to have to do that. There are important vacancies that we need to fill, some important national security vacancies, judicial vacancies. Last week, we confirmed the inspector general for the pandemic, somebody who was confirmed by a 75-to-15 vote. Now, it is possible that we could do those and not be here. The Democratic leader has said on various occasions he doesn't know why we are here doing these types of nominations. Well, the reason we are here doing these types of nominations is that they insist on it. Even in cases where the nominee has broad bipartisan support--in some cases, overwhelming support--we continue to have to stay here and go through the procedural roadblocks that Democrats throw up to getting these nominees across the finish line. In fact, if you look at the historical context of nominations, we are living in unprecedented times. The Democrats have filibustered now-- totaled--314 nominees that President Trump has put forward. For all of the previous Presidents combined--all of the previous Presidents combined in our Nation's history--only on 244 occasions did cloture have to be invoked to shut down a filibuster on nominees. Think about that. In the first 3\1/2\ years of President Trump's term, we now have had 314 nominees--judicial or executive-- filibustered. In the rest of the history of the U.S. Senate, even if you go back and say that the advent of the filibuster is only in the last half century or so. Think about that: 244 times, throughout all of the Presidencies combined--combined--in our history, but this President has seen his nominees filibustered 314 times. So if the Democratic leader wants to know why we are here doing nominees, that is why. We have to. It is our job. It is our constitutional responsibility. If the minority continues to make it as difficult as they have and continues to filibuster and force the leader to file cloture on all these nominees, we have to be here to vote. That is our job, and that is why we are here. Of course, there is also the work, as I said, of responding to the coronavirus. There is also work we have to do that doesn't stop just because there is a pandemic. If you look at the Paycheck Protection Program, when it ran out of money, it took way too long to convince Democrats to do something as simple as appropriate more funding for pandemic-stricken small businesses. Funding our government, protecting our Nation, making sure these important positions in the government, as I mentioned, are filled--we just can't skip those things because of the coronavirus, and they have made it increasingly difficult--virtually impossible--for us to do any of this by unanimous consent while the Senate was out of session. As for the Democratic leader's charge that the Senate hasn't been doing anything on coronavirus, as I pointed out, that is just a simply ridiculous charge to make. Coronavirus has been at the forefront of the Senate activity since we returned in May. Our committees have held a constant stream of hearings examining implementation of the coronavirus assistance that we have already passed and looking forward to what will be needed in the future. As I mentioned, last week, we confirmed the nomination of Brian D. Miller to be Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery at the Treasury Department, a key position with responsibility for ensuring the coronavirus funding is spent properly. We also passed last week legislation to update the Paycheck Protection Program to give additional flexibility to small businesses. Clearly--clearly--the Senate has been making coronavirus a priority. I would argue that much of what we have already done is having the desired result. The jobs numbers that came out last week are encouraging. Obviously, we have a lot of work to do. We have to keep it in perspective. It is no time to be spiking the football. But those job numbers were encouraging. I think one of the reasons we had those strong numbers is because we have a very resilient economy, No. 1, and, No. 2, because of policies we have put in place--tax and regulatory policies that have encouraged businesses to invest, consumers to spend. The PPP program, the Paycheck Protection Program, obviously, I think has done a lot of good out there. It has kept, literally, millions of businesses in business. It has kept, literally, tens of millions of workers employed, and that is exactly what we wanted to see happen. Those dollars were among the best spent dollars, I think, of all the several trillion dollars that we put out there. My State of South Dakota is a good example. We have over 21,000 businesses that have benefited from the Paycheck Protection Program, to the tune of about $1.6 billion. I bet, if you look at the numbers in every other State around the country, you would see the same thing. It is one of the reasons, I believe, that we are seeing some encouraging economic numbers and employment numbers. Let's hope that we can continue to build on that. I guess that when the Democratic leader complains that the Senate hasn't been doing anything on coronavirus, what he actually means to say is the Senate hasn't passed another $3 trillion bill. The House of Representatives, the Democrat majority there, in a very partisan way with zero Republican support and, in fact, some Democrats opposing it, passed another $3 trillion. Well, it is true we haven't done that here in the Senate. It is because we don't believe we should be playing fast and loose with the American people's money like that. As I pointed out, Congress has already provided $2.4 trillion in funding to respond to the virus, which is a staggering amount of money, equal to roughly half of the 2020 Federal budget. It was money we needed to spend, and we were glad to do it. We will probably have to spend more before this crisis is over, but we have to make sure that we are appropriating what is really needed and not mindlessly throwing around trillions of dollars. The way we do that is by monitoring the implementation of the funding that we have already put out there, that has already been delivered, which is exactly what we have been doing. I have to say, for a lot of the funding that has been authorized, some of it hasn't even been put out there yet. The $175 billion that we have authorized to help healthcare providers--hospitals, nursing homes, those folks on the frontline--only about $75 billion of that has been made available already. So less than 50 percent of those dollars are even out there yet. It is pretty hard to decide whether you are going to throw more money at something before you have determined whether the money you have already spent is having the desired effect and whether there is a need for more. So we need to see where that money goes before we decide what else we need to appropriate. I have said it before, and I will say it again. Every dollar that we have provided to fight the coronavirus is borrowed money, a significant addition to an already massive amount of national debt. Democrats may like to pretend that we can continue to borrow more and more money forever, but the truth is we cannot. The greater our national debt, the greater the threat it represents to the health of our economy, not to mention the future of today's younger workers. So while we may need to borrow more money to meet our needs before the crisis is over, it is crucial that we keep that borrowing as low as possible and spend only what is absolutely necessary. So far, the Democrats' major proposal for the next phase of our coronavirus response is a $3 trillion bill produced by the House of Representatives that mentions the word ``cannabis'' more often than it mentions the word ``job,'' which I think tells you all you need to know about how seriously some are taking this issue. If Democrats really wanted to move additional relief forward, they would be sitting down with Republicans to develop reasonable legislation that actually has a chance of passing Congress and being signed by the President, but they are not. Instead, they are proposing outlandish, far-left messaging bills and engaging in the kind of partisanship that has become the modus operandi during this administration. While I am talking about Democrats' unhelpfulness, I just want to mention the Democratic leader's offensive suggestion on the floor last week that the judges that we are confirming in the Senate will not protect civil rights. This is, unfortunately, right in line with their general attitude that the only legitimate judges are Democrat judges, but it is, nevertheless, particularly irresponsible to be fanning the flames of division in this country right now by suggesting, untruthfully, that only Democrats' preferred judicial candidates will show a commitment to upholding civil rights. The continued partisanship, even during a national crisis, has been pretty disheartening. But I am a hopeful guy, and I like to think that at least some Democrats are more interested in actually helping Americans than in far-left messaging bills, and I would invite those Democrats to work with us. There is a lot more that we need to do before this pandemic is over, and Republicans are committed to getting our country through this crisis and to helping Americans thrive on the other side. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr).

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, responding to the coronavirus continues to be one of our top priorities here in Congress, I think, as evidenced that yesterday the Senate moved a bill across the floor of the Senate that will be on its way now to the President's desk for his signature, previously passed by the House, that makes some modifications to the PPP program--things that were sought by both sides, improvements, I think, that enable that program to be used with greater flexibility, extending the amount of time in which those dollars that have been received can be used, and allowing some greater flexibility in how they are used. So I think that is evidence, again, that this body, and both Democrats and Republicans working together, can get things done for the American people that address the very direct needs and challenges they face right now as a result of the coronavirus. I credit the authors of that--Senators Collins and Rubio on our side, along with their Democratic counterparts--for working together to structure a program that has not only helped many businesses stay in business--millions of businesses stay in business--but has kept tens of millions of people in this country employed at a time when we desperately need to keep those jobs. So, again, I think it is evidence of this body's and our Senate majority's focus on the coronavirus and things we can do to help assist those who have been most harmed economically by that, as well as addressing the very real health emergency that we need to continue to focus on in terms of finding those therapeutics and vaccines that will enable the American people to have confidence, once again, that they can go out.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I want to speak here in just a moment to the issue of internet traffic and how that has been impacted by the coronavirus, how it has impacted our lives during the coronavirus. Before I do that, though, I want to just respond to a few things the Democratic leader mentioned. He again pointed out that the Republican Senate isn't doing work here. It is hard to fathom how he can possibly come to that conclusion. The Democrat-run House of Representatives is out of session for the entire month--the entire month of June. They are not even here. The Democratic House of Representatives isn't even in town. The Senate is here doing work, and important work, I might add. He said we haven't passed any legislation. Well, the week before the Memorial Day break we passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act reauthorization, a critical piece of national security and intelligence legislation that all our intelligence experts tell us is critical to fighting the war against terrorists. Pretty important legislation, I would say. He pointed out that the agenda for the month of June doesn't include much. Well, that is only if you don't think that the National Defense Authorization Act is not important. Funding the military, authorizing the weapons systems, paying the personnel, the technology, the intelligence, all the things that go into protecting the country seem to me to be pretty important. So the National Defense Authorization Act is a piece of legislation that the Senate will process during the upcoming weeks here in the month of June. In fact, that will probably take a good week to move across the floor of the Senate. It typically does. It is something we have to do on an annual basis, but there is nothing more important and more critical to the national security of the United States than the National Defense Authorization Act. We will be passing a major parks bill this next week, which will help fund the backlog in a lot of our national parks--something that has been a priority for many Democrats here in this Chamber for a long time. In fact, it is a great bipartisan bill. In fact, I think, out of the Democratic caucus, there are somewhere on the order of 43 of the 47 Democrats who are cosponsoring the piece of legislation that will be called up later this week and be on the floor most of next week. So it is something that has been around here for a while. It is going to be a major legislative accomplishment. It will be a bipartisan accomplishment when it passes. So I would just say that the fact that we aren't doing the things the Democratic leader wants to do doesn't mean the Senate isn't very busy. The things he wants to do, the things he talks about wanting to do, are things that we are doing. We are dealing with the coronavirus on a daily basis around here. I am a member of the Senate Finance Committee. Yesterday, the Senate Finance Committee had a hearing in which officials from the FDA, for example, critical agencies when it comes particularly to pharmaceuticals in this country, attended, and the subject of the hearing was the pharmaceutical supply chain and what we need to do to shore that up, to make sure that in future pandemics, with lessons learned from this one, we aren't dependent upon unreliable supply chains in places around the world that, frankly, may not be dependable. That is a pretty important issue when it comes to dealing with the effects and the impacts of the coronavirus. Today, in the Senate Commerce Committee, another committee on which I serve, we are going to be examining the impact of the coronavirus on our transportation infrastructure and how important this transportation has been throughout the course of the coronavirus in ensuring that we keep commerce going, that we keep food in the grocery stores. We are going to be looking at both the highway aspect, the rail aspect--all of those--and how they are impacted by the coronavirus and what we might need to do to ensure that they continue to be able to provide the services that they do going forward. So we are consistently looking at, on a daily basis, the coronavirus, the impact it is having on our economy, the impact it is having on the health of people in this country, the health emergency, and putting measures in place that would deal not only with that health emergency but also with the economic crisis created by it. In the meantime, we are seeing the economy start to open up again, which I think is a very good thing. I am hopeful we will see, as the economy opens up, that people will get out, consumers will spend, investors will invest, and we will see that economy start to grow again, jobs to come back. Obviously, we have very high unemployment right now--a major concern. We also have a major unemployment insurance piece of legislation that was moved by this Congress earlier to provide assistance and help for those who, through no fault of their own, have had to go on unemployment. To suggest for a moment that we aren't focused on the coronavirus is completely missing the point--as is to suggest, also, that we haven't done a lot already. We passed four major pieces of legislation, totaling almost $3 trillion, and that is $3 trillion if you don't include the amount of leverage we gave to the Federal Reserve and the Treasury to extend credit and create liquidity out there. With the power of that leverage, it is somewhere on the order of about $6 trillion in assistance that we have put out there through different legislative vehicles to the American people. So you are seeing that translated into the Paycheck Protection Program, which is keeping people employed, keeping jobs in this country, keeping businesses functioning and operating. It has been a very successful program. You are seeing it in the form of direct assistance to State and local governments. And $150 billion has been put out there, much of which hasn't been spent, and that is on top of a lot of other assistance to State and local governments, which totals somewhere on the order of about $500 billion. Almost half a trillion dollars, so far, sum total, has gone out to State and local governments. Much of that, as I said, is in the pipeline, hasn't been spent yet. It can be used, as the Treasury has pointed out, given the States' flexibility, for emergency personnel, first responders, police, all the things that the Senator from New York talked about. That is flexibility the States have now to be able to meet the needs that they have and to work with their local governments and meet the needs of the local governments. So there is a lot of money in the pipeline, not to mention, of course, first and foremost, the money we put out there for investment in therapeutics, in vaccines, in diagnostic testing, and all the money that has gone out to hospitals and nursing home providers and long-term care facilities to help them get through this crisis in the form of direct assistance. So there is a lot of money in the pipeline--as I said, about $2.9 trillion that has already been authorized, and I think about 40 percent, maybe, has been spent. So there is still a lot of assistance going out there. My friend, the Democratic leader, would just want to put a whole bunch more money out there without knowing what the need is, and I think, at a time when we are already running a $21 trillion--now $25 trillion--debt, we ought to be very circumspect and pay attention to what is happening in our economy, what the needs are, what we need to keep the economy opening up and responding, what we continue to need to do to help people who are unemployed, what we continue to need to do to help families in this country who are struggling through this crisis. But we ought to do that based on the need, not just somebody saying: Well, let's just throw a bunch more money out there and hope that it has an impact. We have done that. We have flooded the zone with dollars. There is a tremendous amount of resources out there right now, a lot of which has yet to be spent, and it strikes me, at least, that, in the eyes of most Americans, they would view it as pretty important, before we spend more tax money--all of which, I might add, is going to be borrowed money--that we see how what we have done already is working, if it has been effective and is having the desired impact. There is so much going on around here dealing with the coronavirus, it just completely defies any sort of logic to what the Democratic leader suggested was happening here in the Senate. He made one other comment, which I think I have to respond to. He said that the Senate is in the process--Republicans in the Senate are processing rightwing judges who have antipathy for the very civil rights issues that we are dealing with right now. I don't know how you can make a statement like that. I don't know how you can ascribe motive or intent to judges. You don't know who these judges are. We have a judge we are going to be processing here for the DC circuit. It is a pretty important circuit in this country. He is the district judge from Kentucky. He has been rated as very ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association. The American Bar Association isn't a rightwing group at all. In fact, many on our side think they certainly drift the other direction. Yet they have said this judge is a well- qualified judge. Do you think they would be saying something like that about a judge who had antipathy for civil rights? I mean, that is just, I would say, a reckless and irresponsible statement unless you have something to back that up and support it. So I just thought it would be important to respond to some of the things that the Democratic leader just said with respect to the agenda here in the Senate, which, as I pointed out earlier, is a very full one. If you compare it to the agenda of our colleagues in the Democrat- controlled House, which is zilch because they are not here for the entire month, it seems to me the Senate is getting a lot of work done. 5G So, Madam President, what I came here to talk about--I came down to the floor a couple of weeks ago to talk about how the coronavirus is highlighting the importance of strong internet networks. Despite the surge we have seen in internet traffic that the coronavirus has produced, with Americans using the internet for everything from work to school to family dinners, U.S. networks have held up tremendously well. Americans have been able to enjoy the same speed and streaming quality that they typically enjoy, something that hasn't happened in a lot of other countries, and that is a direct result of the United States' light-touch approach to internet regulation, which has encouraged American companies to invest in the latest communications infrastructure and new technologies to make more efficient use of spectrum. Our Nation is currently preparing for the widespread adoption of the next generation of internet technology--what is known as 5G. We need to make sure that our 5G networks will be as strong as our current networks, but we still have some work to do to get to that point. I come down here frequently to the floor to discuss that work, which includes paving the way for the widespread installation of the small cells that are necessary for 5G networks, enhancing the availability of the mid-band spectrum that is necessary for 5G deployment, and investing in a 5G workforce. But there is also another aspect we need to think about when it comes to 5G, which is sometimes not talked about as much, and that is network security. With its incredible speed and connectivity, 5G will usher in a new era of innovation: advances in medical care, the large-scale deployment of precision agriculture, safer transportation technologies. 5G will bring all of these things and more. But like any new technology, 5G networks will present new risks and vulnerabilities. And because 5G will mean a vastly greater number of connected devices, the risks with 5G will be greater. That is the why a central part of deploying 5G networks has to be looking at how we can mitigate security risks. We need to ensure that our component parts of our devices and, critically, the component parts of telecommunications networks, like cell towers and the small cells that will be required for 5G, are secure. A primary way to do that is by ensuring that 5G equipment comes from trusted vendors. Currently, one of the biggest suppliers of 5G equipment worldwide is a Chinese company, Huawei, which is supported by the Chinese Government. China's 2017 national intelligence law requires Chinese companies to support the Chinese Government's intelligence activities. American security officials have raised concerns that much of Huawei's equipment is built with back doors that give the Chinese Government access to global communications networks. I don't need to tell anyone that we should be wary of China's motives and that China's interests are frequently opposed to those of the United States. China's handling of the coronavirus is a striking current example of the Chinese Government's prioritizing its own interests or pride over the public good. As a New York Times article noted in February, ``The [Chinese] government's initial handling of the epidemic allowed the virus to gain a tenacious hold. At critical moments, officials chose to put secrecy and order ahead of openly confronting the growing crisis to avoid political alarm and political embarrassment.'' Whether it was driven by the hubris of the Communist Party or merely the callous indifference the Communist state has for the well-being of its own citizens, China was not transparent about the grave danger of COVID-19. It failed to release accurate information about the nature and spread of the virus, and it took active steps to make sure the truth did not get out in other ways. Whistleblowers were punished; the centers were censored; and journalists were expelled. Despite the fact that its negligence undoubtedly contributed to the global spread of COVID-19, China still continues to be less than forthcoming about the virus. Unfortunately, this is run-of-the-mill governing in China, as we saw with the SARS outbreak in the early 2000s and as we have seen in many other instances. Not content with its role in aggravating the spread of the coronavirus, the Chinese Communist Party has also taken advantage of the pandemic to strip Hong Kong of its autonomy and freedom. China's hope is that our Nation is too preoccupied with this pandemic to notice its efforts to undermine what should be Hong Kong's autonomy under the one state, two systems construct. We have noticed. As many of my colleagues and I have expressed, we stand with Hong Kong. We must carefully consider an appropriate response, one that will rebuke the Communist Party of China without negatively affecting the people of Hong Kong, their well-being, and their democratic aspirations. We didn't need COVID-19 or China's recent actions in Hong Kong to know that giving the Chinese Government a backdoor into American communications networks is a bad idea. But it certainly underscores the need to make sure that 5G infrastructure is not made by companies beholden to the Chinese Government. The United States has taken a number of steps to prevent equipment from Huawei and another suspect Chinese company, ZTE, from being used in U.S. communications networks, but these companies still pose a risk to the United States. For starters, some U.S. broadband providers, often in rural areas, still have equipment from Huawei and ZTE in their communications networks. A number of our allies and trade partners--entities with whom we regularly share information, including sensitive national security information--have used or are using technology from Huawei and ZTE. What can we do? An initiative is already underway to replace suspect telecommunications components in U.S. networks with hardware from trusted companies. In March, the President signed legislation developed by the Commerce Committee chairman, Roger Wicker, the Secure and Trusted Communications Network Act, to help speed up this process. This legislation, which I cosponsored, will help small telecommunications providers with the cost of replacing network components that pose a security risk. Also, In March, I introduced legislation to help address the other part of the problem, and that is the use of Huawei technology by our allies and our trading partners. We regularly exchange information, including sensitive national security information, with our allies and trading partners. And this information can only be secure if networks on both ends are secure. That is why the United States has called for other countries to reject telecommunications technology from Huawei and ZTE. A number of countries have committed to using trusted companies to build out their telecommunications networks, but other countries are still planning to make use of Huawei's technology. My legislation, the Network Security Trade Act, would make telecommunications security a key objective when negotiating future trade deals. We should be using trade agreements to push for enhanced network security globally, which would benefit not only our country but every country with which we do business. We recently opened negotiations on a new trade deal with the United Kingdom, which has been using Huawei technology to build its 5G networks. I am pleased that it now looks like the UK is reconsidering its use of Huawei components. I hope they will decide to reject the suspect technology. I hope the trade negotiations will emphasize the importance of using trusted companies to build out the UK's telecommunications networks. The security of our communications with our trading partners and allies--particularly those allies like Britain--needs to be a priority. As we move forward into the 5G future, we need to make sure that our technological advancements are matched with advancements and network security. That starts with keeping Huawei and other suspect technology out of our networks and, if at all possible, out of the networks of our allies. I will continue to do everything I can to ensure that we have not only the infrastructure but the security needed to keep American networks at the forefront of the telecommunications revolution. Before I close, let me just say one more word about China. As I said earlier, China's coronavirus deception is undoubtedly partly responsible for the fact that this virus has now spread to every corner of the world. China's recent actions with regard to Hong Kong underscore the hostility of the Chinese Government to the values that freedom-loving countries hold dear. China has a lot of work to do if it ever hopes to rebuild trust with other nations. At a bare minimum, we expect China to uphold its recent trade commitments, which are critical to America's hard-hit farmers and ranchers. I will be looking, and our entire government will be looking, to see if China's word on trade agreements can be relied upon. I hope that the Chinese Government will live up to its commitments. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, last Monday, George Floyd died in the hands of a Minnesota police officer. This senseless death left Americans reeling, most of all because there have been too many George Floyds and Breonna Taylors and Ahmaud Arberys. As a nation, we need to work to ensure that what happened last Monday in Minneapolis never happens again and that the perpetrators of crimes like this one are held accountable and brought to justice. We also need to acknowledge how deeply many of our fellow citizens are suffering in the wake of George Floyd's senseless death. A lot of our fellow Americans are afraid right now, shaken by another death and worried that that could easily have been their son or husband or brother. Too many Americans feel unsafe in their own communities, and we need to listen to them with humility, to listen to those whose experience of America has often been very different from many of ours. In the wake of George Floyd's death, Americans took to the streets and cities across the country to express their outrage. They joined a powerful tradition and exercised a cherished right. Peaceful protest is an American institution, and as the civil rights movement demonstrated, a powerful agent for change. These protests aren't relegated to big cities. We are seeing them in towns across South Dakota and in many other places in the United States. Unfortunately, though, there has also been counterproductive and unnecessary violence. Arson, looting, and destruction of property have happened in cities around the country, and communities have suffered damage that will be felt for years. Communities' faces and community buildings have been damaged. Local businesses have seen their shops defaced and their aisles ransacked, and innocent bystanders have been injured. This is not a solution to the problems highlighted by George Floyd's death, and this violence needs to end. Putting others' lives in danger cannot be an acceptable response to an unjust death. Around our country, our law enforcement officers have been called out to respond to these riots. I just want to say a couple of words about our police officers. It was a police officer who caused George Floyd's death, and, around our country, other police officers are sickened by that officer's actions and the tragic result. Most of our Nation's police are like Houston's police chief, who went out and marched in solidarity with protesters, or like the police chief of Norfolk, VA, who did the same, or like the police officers in Camden, NJ, who joined locals to march, led by their police chief. There are certainly exceptions, sadly--too many exceptions. But the vast majority--the vast majority--of our Nation's police officers are men and women of character who care deeply about protecting everyone in their communities and who strive to do their jobs with justice and with integrity. For too many years, the promise of the declaration that ``all men are created equal'' was denied to many. Even in our own day, with both slavery and segregation now mercifully in our past, the effects of these great national sins still make themselves felt. We must rededicate ourselves to ensure that the promise of liberty and justice for all is realized for every American. It will take work, but I have faith in our country and in my fellow Americans, and I believe that we can get there. My prayers today are with George Floyd's family and with all those who are suffering because of his unjust death. ``And what does the Lord require of you,'' the book of Micah asks, ``but to act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.'' May we all seek justice and mercy and walk humbly in the days that are ahead. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven) would have voted ``Yea'' and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran) would have voted ``Yea.''