[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 165 (Wednesday, September 23, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5810-S5822]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CLIMATE CHANGE
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, this is a ``Time to Wake Up'' good
news-bad news speech.
The good news from last week is on business community support for
carbon pricing. What is carbon pricing? Well, remember that IMF--the
International Monetary Fund--pegs the fossil fuel subsidy in the United
States at more than $600 billion per year, so the energy market is
dramatically tilted to favor fossil fuels. Carbon pricing helps
[[Page S5811]]
set that right, helps make an even playing field. It is economics 101.
And carbon pricing makes a lot of sense.
What happened last week? The Business Roundtable, made up of all of
these giant American corporations and more--these are the top 50 that I
could fit on this chart, but there are 200 of them--came out in support
of carbon pricing. Their report warned that the consequences of climate
change for global prosperity and socioeconomic well-being are
significant. The world simply cannot afford the costs of inaction.
The Business Roundtable's report went on to urge companies to ``align
policy goals and [greenhouse gas] emissions reduction targets with
scientific evidence.'' Listen to the scientists. We could do more of
that.
The BRT said that a key component of science-based climate policy
should be a price on carbon. Here is what they said:
A price on carbon would provide an effective incentive to
reduce [greenhouse gas] emissions and mitigate climate
change, including through the development and deployment of
breakthrough technologies. . . . Establishing a clear price
signal is the most important--
The most important--
consideration for encouraging innovation, driving efficiency,
and ensuring sustained environmental and economic
effectiveness.
So this is big news--these are big companies--and this is good news.
These companies at the Business Roundtable employ more than 15 million
people. They have more than $7.5 trillion in revenues. Their unified
voice is a good thing and a big deal.
With all of that good news from all of these big American
corporations, what is the bad news? The bad news is that corporate
America often shows one face to the world and a very different face to
Congress, and the face they show to Congress is not at all aligned with
this policy they just announced to the world. This discrepancy, this
misalignment, is a persistent problem, and it needs to be fixed.
The problem has three dimensions. One, even these companies don't pay
much attention to climate change in their lobbying and election
activities. For most, it is zero attention.
By the way, that silence is deafening around here, and that silence
by these companies is compounded by the trade associations through
which they consolidate their lobbying work. Most trade associations do
nothing on climate.
Here is Coke and Pepsi's trade association. By the way, here are
Pepsi and Coke on the list of companies that joined the Business
Roundtable pro-climate, pro-carbon-price statement. But when they
lobby, here is their American Beverage Association, the trade
association. As you can see, they haven't been spending much money
lately, and they haven't been spending anything on climate.
In 2009 and in 2010, they spent a lot of money. Why? Because we were
starting to work on ObamaCare and there was an idea that the companies
that sold sugary beverages that created health issues should help pay
the cost of the health issues that their sweetened beverages created.
So off to battle went the American Beverage Association with millions
and millions of dollars in spending.
This, by the way, is just the number of lobbyists. This is their
spending. So if they cared about climate change and wanted to put a
little bit of lobby pressure on, this is what they are capable of
doing. This is what they are doing.
Here is a pitch, in my hands right here, entitled ``TechNet:
Remaining Legislative Priorities for 2020.'' This is 13 pages of
advocacy for all the things the tech sector wants from Congress through
their trade association, TechNet--13 pages. The list goes on and on.
``Top priorities,'' and then page after page, in small print, of all
the priorities, of all the things that they want Congress to do for
them--and there is not a single mention of climate change, not a single
mention of carbon price.
What do you think Congress will respond to--general noise made to the
world or your specific asks to Congress?
Here is the list of companies whose CEOs signed that Business
Roundtable report and came out for action on climate and a carbon price
and who are also in TechNet, which, the week before, came here with 13
pages of legislative priorities that didn't include either climate
change or carbon price.
You have to line things up, you guys. These are big players. Look at
them: Honeywell, Amazon, Microsoft, Cisco, Dell, Visa, GM, Apple,
Comcast, Oracle, Accenture, Hewlett-Packard, and PayPal--all on both
sides of the issue within the same week here in Congress. So those are
the trade associations that do nothing on this issue.
It gets worse because there are trade associations that are our worst
enemies on climate action. In fact, InfluenceMap has done some research
and tracked which groups and which corporations are the most climate
friendly and which are the most climate hostile. If you look all the
way over, right next to Marathon Petroleum in hostility is the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce. There was actually a tie. The U.S. Chamber of
Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers were
statistically tied as the two worst climate obstructers in America.
So they are out here, having worked hammer and tongs to stop climate
legislation and prevent a carbon price, and you have the Business
Roundtable statement supporting action on climate change and supporting
a carbon price.
So here are the companies that are members of the Business Roundtable
and came out last week for action on climate change and supported a
carbon price and that are also members of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
which relentlessly opposes all serious climate action and,
specifically, a carbon price.
Look at them all. Look at them all. I don't know if the camera can
pan in on that, but these are some of America's biggest corporations. I
would bet you that, if this group said, ``Hey, we have just made a new
decision over in the Business Roundtable, wearing our Business
Roundtable hat,'' and went to the Chamber and said, ``We are not going
to do your opposition any longer; we are not going to support your
opposition to climate action; we are actually serious about being for
climate action and a carbon price''--if all of those companies actually
said that to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and threatened to quit if
they didn't clean up their act at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, that
would make a very big difference.
And around here that would make a very big difference because the
Chamber is the biggest kahuna of lobbying. It is electioneering all the
time, usually against Democrats, almost inevitably for the worst
candidate on climate, and they are over in courts and in regulatory
agencies opposing climate action all the time. So why support that if
what you really support is doing something on climate, including a
carbon price?
So the National Association of Manufacturers was the other group in a
tie with the Chamber for America's worst climate obstructer. These are
all the companies whose CEOs signed the Business Roundtable statement
supporting climate action and supporting carbon pricing and are members
of one of the two worst climate obstructers in America, at the same
time. So that creates a little bit of a problem.
Now, I should go back to the Chamber one just briefly and put a
caveat in here. We don't know who all the Chamber members are. It is a
very secretive organization. Many of its members report that they are
members of the organization, and that is how we can assemble a list
like this. But if the company doesn't report that they are members, we
don't know.
So this is not necessarily complete, but this is all that we can know
out of this secretive, very oppositional, worst climate obstructer
organization--the Chamber of Commerce.
There are some other odd discordances among these Business Roundtable
leaders. We go back to Business Roundtable membership who signed on
this; that is, companies like Google, Amazon, AT&T, and Verizon, which
are on the BRT list. There is Verizon right there. They are donors to
something called the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute is the group that put that
flagrant, some would say almost nutty, climate denier Myron Ebell onto
the EPA transition team. The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a
dramatic antagonist to either anything serious on climate
[[Page S5812]]
or a price on carbon. Yet companies that signed this Business
Roundtable statement support the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Many people will remember when we came to the floor in groups of
Senators to talk about the web of denial and the web of front groups
that the fossil fuel industry set up to hide their hands and do their
dirty work and stop climate action in Congress. That is the Competitive
Enterprise Institute right there--right there, right smack in the
middle of the web of fossil-fuel-funded climate denial, and Google,
Amazon, AT&T, and Verizon were all supporting that group while
supporting the Business Roundtable.
Now, none of this would matter much if Congress was just a sideshow
and it was really up to corporations to do their own thing, but that is
not the case. Action in Congress is actually the main event in
succeeding on climate. That is why the fossil fuel industry has worked
so hard to set up this web to deny climate science and to obstruct
climate action here in Congress.
So when these Business Roundtable companies come to Congress through
their other groups and say, ``Don't bother on climate'' or ``Don't do a
carbon price,'' it matters. And it makes it a little hard to really
take action in Congress based on their statement that they support
climate action and a carbon price when, through other groups, they are
funding the opposition to the position that they claim to support.
So, to the BRT, thank you for what you did. I don't want to under
appreciate that. It is a big deal. It is a good, good thing. But now
you have to make it real. You have to make it real in Congress. No more
zero effort from you. No more zero effort from your trade associations.
No more support for our biggest climate obstructers from you.
If you want the results of what you asked for, you have to align your
actions in Congress with your values. Align what you say in that
statement with what you do through your groups here in Congress. That
ought not to be much to ask--to align what you do in Congress with what
you say you want to do to the outside world.
I have a few suggestions, if you are interested. One, think about
commissioning a lobbying and electioneering audit of your own company.
If you are the CEO, commission an audit of your own company's lobbying
and electioneering so you actually know what your company is doing on
climate.
I suspect a lot of the CEOs signed this in good faith. They don't
know. So commission an audit. Learn what your company is really doing
on climate.
Do an audit of your trade associations. If you are a member of a
trade association, get in there and see what they are up to. I bet that
you will find that what I say is true.
Three, demand that your trade associations declare where they get
their money. It seems obvious that the reason that the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers became the two
worst climate obstructers in America is because they were paid to. If
you, CEOs on the Business Roundtable, had known that, this might not
have happened. We might not have been here by now.
It is very likely that the Chamber and the NAM leaders snuck up on
you, taking floods of fossil fuel money that they didn't tell you about
and selling out their organizations to the fossil fuel industry,
leaving you high and dry, having to explain why you are supporting the
two worst climate obstructers in America.
So do your audit, and then give those trade associations a deadline
to align with your policy or you will quit--you will quit on the
deadline if they haven't. Don't let them slow-walk you through endless
discussion and process while they are still loading up on fossil fuel
money and running fossil fuel errands in your names. Don't let them do
that.
Finally--finally--recommendation five, ask your lawyers. Ask your
lawyers, particularly if you are on the board of climate obstructer
groups: If these groups were trafficking in fraudulent information,
what is the board's responsibility? That is a lawyer question.
If they loaded up with fossil fuel money, how was your due diligence
on the board of that organization in detecting that warning signal that
your trade association had loaded up with fossil fuel money and was
arguing against your position when it came to Congress, carrying the
water for the fossil fuel industry? Your lawyers may have some advice
about whether you have met due diligence.
Final point, climate is not really a partisan issue. It wasn't in
2007 to 2009, when Senator Cardin and I got here and the Senate had
multiple bipartisan climate bills.
It wasn't in 2008, when Republican John McCain had climate on his
party platform as the Republican nominee. It all started with Citizens
United in 2010, when the fossil fuel industry was allowed to trade up
its political weaponry from muskets, corporate PACs, to tactical nukes,
unlimited spending, secret super PACs, phony front groups--the whole
apparatus of climate obstruction.
Today, as a result of that, the Republican Party has been so captured
that on climate it is little more than the political wing of the fossil
fuel industry. It doesn't have to be that way.
To these big companies who signed this wonderful pledge: Fix your
politics, push back on the fossil fuel obstruction, clean up your
obstructor trade associations, wake up your sleepers, and make climate
a real priority in Congress, and you will see what looks like magic
begin to happen.
For you all, it is less time to wake up to climate change than it is
time to wake up to your own political indifference and presumably
unknowing complicity in the political logjam on climate action that the
fossil fuel industry has deliberately created here in Congress.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Whitehouse for his
longstanding leadership in the U.S. Senate on addressing the concerns
of climate change. He has been there every week, every day, leading us
to take action to prevent the horrors of climate change.
We have made some progress but not enough under his leadership. We
have to do more, as he points out, and what he just told our
colleagues. But I just really want to thank the Senator--as I look at
the wildfires in the West, I look at the frequency of the hurricanes,
when I look at the receding shorelines in Maryland, as I look at our
efforts on the Chesapeake Bay--and recognize that if we don't do what
we need to do, what science tells us we could do on carbon emissions,
we are doing this at our own peril.
It is not just America. It is the global communities. It is our
leadership globally. Senator Whitehouse and I traveled with other
Members of the Senate to the climate meetings, and we made progress. We
have to get back to it. I just want to thank Senator Whitehouse for his
leadership.
Coronavirus
Mr. President, on Sunday, the Washington National Cathedral marked
the 200,000 American lives lost to COVID-19 by tolling the Bourdon Bell
200 times--once for every 1,000 lives lost. Nearly 113,000 people have
died since May 15, when the House of Representatives passed a
comprehensive COVID-19 relief package known as the Heroes Act.
As of September 20, the 7-day moving average for new infections was
over 41,000. The 7-day moving average for new deaths was almost 800.
Put another way, from a fatality standpoint, we have the equivalent of
the 9/11 terrorist attack every 4 days. The United States, which has
4.3 percent of the world's population, accounts for 21.1 percent of the
COVID-19 deaths worldwide.
When President Trump delivered his Inaugural Address in January 2017,
he stated:
This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.
We are one nation. . . . We share one heart, one home, and
one glorious destiny. . . . So to all Americans in every city
near and far, small and large, from mountain to mountain,
from ocean to ocean, hear these words--you will never be
ignored again.
Fast forward to last week when President Trump--referring to the
total U.S. fatalities--said:
If you take the blue states out, we're at a level that I
don't think anybody in the world would be at. We're really at
a very low level.
Of course, talking about COVID infection.
[[Page S5813]]
President Trump has said many appalling things. Dividing America
during a pandemic into so-called blue and red States and devaluing the
lives of Americans from blue States may be one of the most appalling
things so far.
As former Secretary of Homeland Security and Republican Governor of
Pennsylvania, Tom Ridge, remarked, ``It's so unworthy of a president.
It's beyond despicable. It's soulless. It's almost unspeakable in the
middle of the pandemic to try to divide the country on a political
basis when COVID-19 is really bipartisan.''
Not only was President Trump's statement appalling, beyond
despicable, and soulless, it belies the fact that COVID-19 does not
care about State boundaries or any other boundaries. The States that
President Trump lost in the 2016 election currently account for about
12,000 more COVID deaths than the States that he won. But the 11 States
with the highest number of COVID-19 cases per million residents are all
States that he won, and 14 of the 19 States with caseloads above the
national average are States that he won. So the grim gap is closing,
but it really should not matter because we are the United States of
America. I wish President Trump could understand that.
Speaker Pelosi has stated that she intends to keep the House in
session until Congress passes another comprehensive COVID-19 relief
package. And I agree with the Speaker.
The Senate may adjourn as soon as it passes the fiscal year 2020
continuing resolution to keep the Federal Government open. I fear this
would be a grave mistake and an abdication of our duty. The Senate
should take up the Heroes Act. The so-called skinny amendments Senators
Johnson and McConnell brought to the floor over the past few weeks were
so woefully inadequate they failed the fundamental test of serving as
the beginning block for a bipartisan compromise. Even President Trump
indicated the Senate Republicans need to do more.
I would like to take the next few minutes to outline some of the
things we need do to respond appropriately to the twin health and
economic crises our Nation faces.
Remember when President Trump promised that the novel coronavirus
would magically disappear as the weather got warmer? Well, that did not
happen, and now summer has turned to autumn; the weather is starting to
get cold again; and the flu season is approaching.
The next COVID-19 supplemental package should include provisions that
increase the Federal Matching Assistance Payment, FMAP, and maintain
Medicaid payments and permanently expand telehealth flexibilities that
have increased healthcare access to patients around the country and
address health disparities that COVID-19 pandemic has worsened.
The Urban Institute estimates 12 million additional Americans will
turn to Medicaid for access to affordable healthcare amid the pandemic.
In my State, more than 45,000 Marylanders are newly enrolled in
Medicaid. At the same time, State revenues are plummeting, leaving
States facing budget deficits that could amount to $555 billion through
2022.
If unaddressed, these budget shortfalls will lead States to making
dramatic cuts to Medicaid, just as they did during the past economic
downturns, at a time when those newly and previously enrolled need
healthcare the most. The National Governors Association has called on
Congress to further raise the FMAP and maintain access to essential
Medicaid benefits.
Another important policy that will increase access to healthcare
services during the COVID-19 pandemic is permanently extending
telehealth permissions and privileges implemented under the CARES Act.
Specifically, Congress should permanently remove regulatory barriers so
that patients in rural, underserved, and urban areas can use telehealth
to see their primary care providers, mental health counselors, and
chronic disease management teams. Reimbursement for these services
should adequately reflect the care delivered and allow patients to use
their homes to receive these services. Telehealth increases access to
care in areas with workforce shortages and for individuals who live far
away from healthcare facilities, have limited mobility or
transportation, or have other barriers to accessing care
This is a bipartisan proposal to expand telehealth. It makes abundant
sense. We have done it. Now let's make it permanent. That helps rural
America; that helps people who have a hard time with transportation to
get to where they need to be; it is more efficient; and it is safer.
Let's make sure that is done before we leave.
At a time when many are unable to visit their health provider in
person, we must depend on telehealth to deliver high-quality healthcare
to millions of Americans around the country.
We have seen how COVID-19 has disproportionately affected communities
of color, highlighting how the United States fails to extend critical
resources, support, and healthcare access to these communities.
According to the data from the CDC, communities of color experience
higher rates of hospitalization and death from COVID-19 than White
people do. Black Americans, Native Americans, Alaskan Natives are five
times more likely to be hospitalized than White people are.
African-American Marylanders account for 30 percent of our State's
population but 41 percent of its COVID fatalities. Marylanders of Latin
American descent account for 17 percent of the State's population but
21 percent of its cases.
This is why the next supplemental package must focus on and contain
policies that address health disparities that have been worsened by the
COVID-19 pandemic.
I have authored two bills focused on addressing health disparities:
One, the REACH Act, with Senator Scott of South Carolina; and, two, the
COVID-19 Health Disparities Action Act with Senator Menendez. Both
bills create targeted grant programs that would help community-based
organizations and local health departments provide culturally
appropriate outreach, education, and health services to Black, Latino,
indigenous, and our communities of color. Both bills are important
steps to rectifying the ills of systemic racism from going forward.
Communities of color have longstanding and tragically appropriate
mistrust with the medical community, for good reason, sadly. Our
government deliberately misled Black patients and research participants
during the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. Today, physicians still undertreat
or underdiagnose pain in patients of color. The REACH Act and the
COVID-19 Health Disparities Action Act should be included in the next
COVID-19 supplemental to help promote trust within the communities of
color for future COVID-19 responses, as we look beyond the pandemic.
Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, our State and local
governments have faced significant financial challenges to meet
declining revenues, as well as emergency costs related to COVID-19. It
is well beyond time we listen to those on the ground dealing with the
COVID-19 pandemic and provide them the resources they need.
What does this mean for communities back home? For our
municipalities, it is funding for first responders and community
services. For our counties, it is funding for schools. For our States,
it is funding for public health.
The revenue losses our State, county, and local governments face are
dramatic, and they threaten to cause deep, lasting cuts to public
safety, education, public health, and other critical essential services
that will adversely affect far beyond the public health battle against
COVID-19.
Our Governors have issued a bipartisan plea. Governor Cuomo of New
York, a Democrat, and Governor Hogan of Maryland, a Republican, who are
the chair and previous chair of the National Governors Association,
respectively, joined with all of our Nation's Governors--all--in April
to say they need help from the Federal Government.
They need help to maintain critical missions of public safety, public
health, and public education with at least $500 billion for our States
and additional funding for local governments beyond what we already
provided under the CARES Act.
The Heroes Act, which has passed the House, provides $875 billion for
our State and local governments. Of that amount, $500 billion goes to
meet the State's needs, and $375 billion goes to meet local government
needs, with one-half to the counties and one-half to
[[Page S5814]]
municipalities. This funding goes directly to counties and local
governments of all sizes to support their urgent needs. The funding is
meant to address urgent COVID-19 response activities, and State and
local governments may also use it to replace lost revenue to avoid
making draconian cuts to essential services.
That would go a long way to meeting the needs of our local first
responders, our police, our firefighters, our sanitation workers, and
our educators.
The Senate Republicans' HEALS Act, in its most recent iteration,
provides no new funding to help State and local governments; rather,
they merely extend the deadline for use using CARES moneys. That is not
adequate. We must do more.
This is too little, too late. Our State and local communities in
Maryland have already allocated funding for programs that support
renters, small businesses, and support frontline workers who face
increased risk of exposure to COVID-19. Those dollars are spoken for.
I urge my colleagues to recognize the lasting harm the failure to
support our State and local governments will cause and support the
NGA's bipartisan request to provide additional funding to State and
local governments.
If we learned anything when the school year ended so abruptly this
past spring, it is a greater appreciation for our educators and the
work they provide for our students in the classroom. It is so difficult
to duplicate the interaction between educators and students, yet our
colleagues across the aisle appear to be unwilling to provide our local
school systems with the resources they need to allow school systems to
educate students safely this fall.
Our local school leaders are making incredibly difficult decisions
while facing political pressures from the Trump administration to
ignore public health recommendations from Federal, State, and local
officials; legitimate concerns from educators on the safety of
returning to the classroom; and questions from parents who need answers
on how to continue their child's education while meeting their own work
responsibilities.
With dwindling State and local government revenues because of COVID-
19, the school leaders have already started to face budget crunches
even as schools' financial needs have increased things like cleaning
supplies now necessary to meet CDC public health guidance, educational
technology, and trainings for educators to meet the new demands of
online education.
Without additional Federal resources, we fail to provide our local
school leaders with the tools necessary to strike the balance between
maintaining the highest quality level of education for our children
while protecting student and educator health.
The Heroes Act provides $100 billion for a State-level Fiscal
Stabilization Fund for education, with $90 billion for States to
support their public institutions of education. In Maryland, this would
provide nearly $900 million for our local school districts for meeting
the needs of growing numbers of low-income students and our children
with special needs; retaining educators vital to the education of our
children; and ensuring that schools have resources to improve the
virtual learning environment that frustrated so many students, parents,
and educators last spring.
This funding would rightly support the decisions of local school and
public health officials on how schools may reopen in the fall, whether
virtual or in-person or hybrid. It does not attempt to coerce school
districts into reopening their classroom doors in an unsafe manner as
the only way to receive critically necessary Federal funds.
The Federal Government should provide local leaders with adequate
resources to support well-informed and reasoned public health decisions
rather than dangerously mandating school reopenings. In addition, the
Federal Government needs to take the leadership in eliminating the
digital divide. Access to reliable internet service should be available
to every household in America.
The best action Congress can take to help small businesses is to
provide State and local governments, health providers, and first
responders with the resources they need to protect our communities from
COVID-19, as I mentioned a moment ago. I am proud to be the ranking
Democrat on the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee. I have
worked very closely with Senator Rubio on proposals. First, we have to
get this COVID-19 under control. Only after it is safe for small
businesses to resume full operations and safe for parents to send their
children to school will our economy truly begin to recover.
Getting the virus under control is especially important for small
businesses in the food services, hospitality, live events, travel and
tourism sectors. Businesses in those sectors are especially reliant on
large gatherings in order to make a profit.
Restaurants, for example, have been able to make up for lost indoor
dining capacity by increasing their outdoor dining capacity, which will
become increasingly difficult in many parts of the country as the
weather gets colder and more inclement.
Similarly, communities that rely on tourism revenues generated during
the winter months, such as Deep Creek Lake in my home State of
Maryland, are likely to experience decreased cashflow this year due to
the pandemic. Employers on the Eastern Shore missed their prime summer
months. Congress cannot leave small businesses and the communities that
rely on them out in the cold.
In addition to getting the pandemic under control, Congress must
build on the lessons learned during past economic downturns. The most
important lesson is that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to
rescue the economy during a crisis. To help the most employers we can,
Congress must preserve the multiple support tools in the toolkit.
There is already bipartisan consensus that we must provide small
businesses with a second Paycheck Protection Program loan. More than 3
months ago, Senators Coons, Shaheen, and I introduced legislation to
create the Prioritized Paycheck Protection Program, which would provide
vulnerable small businesses experiencing significant losses due to
COVID-19 with a second capital infusion. Our proposal--P4--would allow
small businesses that have 100 or fewer employees to receive a second
PPP loan if they can demonstrate a loss of revenue of 50 percent or
more due to the pandemic. The bill would also reserve $25 billion for
small businesses with 10 or fewer employees and extend the deadline to
apply for an initial PPP loan through the end of this year.
There is also bipartisan agreement on the need to improve the
Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program, EIDL. I support Senator Rosen's
and Senator Warren's efforts to shore up the EIDL Program so that more
small businesses have access to the long-term, low-interest rate loans
the program makes available. With their maximum loan amount of $2
million and repayment terms as long as 30 years, EIDLs provide small
businesses with flexibility, capital that they can use to retool their
businesses to respond to COVID-19
There is also bipartisan agreement on the need to expand the employee
retention tax credit, which is a provision from legislation I
introduced with Senator Wyden that was included in the CARES Act. The
House acted on this bipartisan agreement. The Heroes Act makes
substantial enhancements to this program so that it could benefit close
to 60 million workers and over 6 million businesses.
If the Senate fails to act now--before adjourning--to support small
businesses by getting this pandemic under control and providing capital
to our small businesses, our communities will pay a heavy price for
that inaction, as many more small businesses will close their doors,
and I am afraid they will do it permanently.
Studies have shown that maintaining the employer-employee
relationship is key to a swift, robust recovery. With tens of millions
of Americans relying on unemployment benefits and permanent job losses
on the rise, it is critical that we do all we can to keep workers
connected to their jobs and prevent further layoffs. I am disappointed
that, despite bipartisan agreement on several of the measures needed to
support American small businesses struggling to survive COVID-19, the
response to the pandemic has turned into a partisan fight.
For the sake of our communities and small businesses, I urge my
Republican
[[Page S5815]]
colleagues and President Trump to accept Speaker Pelosi and Senator
Schumer's offer to meet Democrats in the middle so we can pass a
bipartisan bill that helps our communities get COVID under control and
begin the recovery process.
The Heroes Act also extends the weekly $600 emergency Federal
unemployment payment. This special benefit lapsed in July. President
Trump's program to provide $300 a week in emergency benefits through
FEMA is a weak half measure, and Congress must do more. These extra 6
weeks will expire very shortly, and it comes out of the FEMA funds,
which are desperately needed as we know how many emergencies are
occurring throughout our country with the wildfires and the hurricanes.
The full benefits the Heroes Act provides would strengthen the
critical safety net for the record number of Americans who are
unemployed as America faces its most serious economic challenge since
the Great Depression.
By way of example in Maryland, we are seeing first-time claims for
unemployment benefits at a rate of about 13,000 a week, peaking in
early May, with nearly 110,000 new weekly claims filed. We have seen
the total number of filings since March exceed 1.5 million. These are
numbers that cry out for us to extend the unemployment benefits. We
really need to do that, and we need to do that before we leave.
These are some, but not all, of the issues we must address
immediately and for a sustained period. Former President Harry Truman
had a sign on his desk in the Oval Office that said: ``The buck stops
here.'' ``Passing the buck'' means something entirely different to
President Trump. On March 13, 2020, as we began to grasp the magnitude
and impacts of the coronavirus, President Trump said: ``I don't take
responsibility at all.'' That may be the most honest and accurate thing
he has said since he has become President. We have ample evidence to
take him seriously. Therefore, it is up to Congress to provide the
leadership and relief Americans desperately need.
The House has done its part in passing the Heroes Act. It is now time
for the Senate to act.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Government Funding
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, here we are again. It is late September,
and the budget work has not been completed yet. It seems terribly
familiar to this body, and it is frustrating. It is not as if no one
knew September was coming; it was on the calendar. When I first looked
at it in January this year, September already existed on the calendar.
It is not as if we didn't know what all the deadlines were. Everyone
knew full well what all the deadlines were.
We can say it is the pandemic that slowed everything down, except for
the fact that all of the appropriations work could have already been
done, and much of the committee work could have been done. Some was
done by the House but not completed. It can be done by the Senate, but
it was not.
So here we are again, watching the countdown clock toward a
government shutdown as we discuss what happens next.
Things have been tied up this week with what is called a continuing
resolution. This body knows--others may not--that a continuing
resolution is literally taking last year's appropriations bills,
changing the dates, and moving them over to the new one. This
particular continuing resolution stretches until December 11, when we
would have to pick it up and pass more appropriations for another
continuing resolution at that time.
The fight this week has been over whether we are going to support
rural America and agriculture. The House originally drafted a
continuing resolution that left out all of the agriculture projects
that were in it. The Senate, obviously, threw a fit over that and
asked: Why are we supporting everything, including benefits to Sri
Lanka to get added to the House's proposal for the continuing
resolution, but you won't do so for America's farmers?
So, in the back-and-forth conversation this week, the House had to
extend. Then it went another day. Then the House finally put the
agriculture projects back in--and still left in, by the way, benefit
for Sri Lanka.
Our ongoing conversations continue, though, about airlines. On
October 1, airlines across the country are going to lay off 100,000
people--100,000. We have asked for some engagement on the issue of
these airlines. In the CARES Act, back in March, we gave an extension
to those airline workers so that the airline workers and the airlines
could still stay connected to each other even when we were in this
downtime. We are getting very close to a vaccine. It is like we can see
the light on the other end of the tunnel, but it is not a train this
time; it is actually light. We are going to get through this pandemic,
but for whatever reason, the House refuses to deal with the issue of
how to help airline workers at all, not even to do half of what was
done in the past, not even to do a portion of what was done in the
CARES Act. It has been exceptionally frustrating.
It has been the same issue with the House in its not wanting to do
anything on the Paycheck Protection Program. For the smallest
businesses in America and for nonprofits, the House has put out a
multitrillion-dollar proposal, and it doesn't even include anything for
small businesses.
We have continued to ask how we can address the issue of small
businesses here. How can we extend the Paycheck Protection Program and
give a second round to the hardest hit businesses? We don't think it is
that unreasonable. As we are nearing the end, we need to help them
bridge the gap at this point, but for whatever reason, it is not
included either as we work our way through this process.
Now, I don't know what will happen in the next few hours as we deal
with the continuing resolution that will come from the House, but there
is no reason we should be talking about a government shutdown again.
A year ago, I and Senator Hassan, the Democratic Senator from New
Hampshire, sat down to talk through how we could end government
shutdowns forever so that government workers across the DC region and
across the country would not be living in fear of being furloughed and
so that Americans who would want to be able to connect with different
agencies would be able to do that at all times, but we would still be
able to have the arguments that are needed to be able to resolve budget
issues.
It may be surprising to some people across the country that
Republicans and Democrats don't agree on everything in the budget.
Shocking, I know. We should be able to have that fight, though, on the
budget, but it should not lead to a government shutdown in the process.
Government shutdowns cost us money every time it happens.
So my and Senator Hassan's simple resolution resolves the issue by
just asking one question: Who needs pressure applied to them to deal
with the issue, and what is the pressure that needs to be applied?
Our straightforward answer is this: Members of Congress and our
staffs and the Office of Management and Budget and the White House
should have the pressure applied to us to get it done. The easiest way
to apply pressure to all of us is to take away our time. It is pretty
straightforward.
Here is our proposal: If you get to the end of the budget year and
the appropriations work is not done, we will have mandatory quorum
calls in this body at 12 noon every single day, 7 days a week, until we
get all of the appropriations work done. None of us could travel. We
would all stay here in DC.
I will tell you that I really want to see my family on the weekends.
I also have people back in my State with whom I have appointments whom
I need to be able to see, and I have responsibilities there. I want to
get back to my State of Oklahoma and be with those folks.
I am sure all of you would love to get back to Oklahoma, but you
would probably head back to your States instead.
We want to be home. We want to be able to meet with our constituents.
We want to take care of the practical needs that are there. The way to
do that is to get our work done here.
[[Page S5816]]
I have had folks say: Well, just take away everyone's money. Say,
``No budget, no pay.'' It makes a great bumper sticker. The problem is,
as many people in this body know, there are a lot of folks in this body
who are multimillionaires, and if they were honest, they would say
their congressional salaries are rounding errors to their investments
every month.
Good for you, but it is not a pressure point. Taking away your
congressional salary is not an emphasis to actually get the work done.
Taking away time is a way to be able to press people to actually get
their work done.
Senator Hassan and I have worked it through the committee process;
have passed it through the Homeland Security Committee; and have set it
up. It has already been rule XIV'd, and it is on our Calendar now. At
any moment, we in this body could determine to end government
shutdowns. We will never have one again. If we get to the end of the
fiscal year, a continuing resolution will kick in automatically, and we
will all stay until we finish the negotiations for the appropriations
work. However heated, however long that may take, we will stay and
finish it until it is done.
It is the right thing for us to do, and it is the right way to handle
it. It is not pressure on the Federal workers. The Federal workers
don't have the ability to make the decision here.
Some people say: Well, those folks in DC can just tough it out
anyway.
Well, it is not just those folks in DC, though there are a lot of
folks in DC who are working very hard for Americans all over the
country. Just in my State of Oklahoma, there are 4,300 Federal
employees who work in agriculture, who work for Housing and Urban
Development, who work for the FAA--who work for all kinds of entities
that take care of families in Oklahoma. They also deserve the privilege
of continuing their service to their neighbors, just as always, while
we are resolving our differences here.
So my request is the same as it was last year: Why are we talking
about the possibility of there being a government shutdown again when
we could take that off the table forever with a straightforward,
bipartisan proposal that says we will never again have a government
shutdown?
We will work out our differences because we do have differences, but
we will not hold Federal workers hostage in the process. We will just
stay and work out our differences.
I look forward to seeing the vote on the continuing resolution and
avoiding a shutdown again, but I look much more forward to never having
shutdowns again when Senator Hassan's and my bill is finally voted on
and passed
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). The Senator from Nevada.
Remembering Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Ms. ROSEN. Mr. President, I stand here to honor the life and legacy
of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
In everything Justice Ginsburg did--from her pivotal role in the
fight for gender equality, to her storied legal career, to her serving
on the DC Court of Appeals and, ultimately, as a member of the U.S.
Supreme Court--throughout her life's journey, she used every ounce of
her ability to give voice to the voiceless and build a more just and
equitable world.
Justice Ginsburg was a lion on the bench. She ruled on monumental and
historic cases, and the decisions she made--and even the dissents she
wrote--have shaped this country and set us on a better path.
This remarkable woman inspired countless Americans to fight for the
best of us even when it was hard, even when it was inconvenient. I know
I wouldn't be here without Ruth Bader Ginsburg's leading the way. We
have a responsibility to honor her legacy, her work, and the ethos of
Justice Ginsburg. Part of her legacy was her decision to uphold the
constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, and we have seen too many
attempts to dismantle this key cornerstone of her legacy.
In my time as Senator, I have met countless Nevadans, and I have had
the chance to speak with Americans from all across the country. I can
say with certainty that there is no issue that matters more to the
American people than their health, especially now.
This administration has worked since day one to take healthcare
coverage and critical protections away from millions of Americans. It
has failed time and again to dismantle the ACA through legislation, and
it has also attempted to destroy and dismantle the ACA through the
courts.
In one of my first actions as a Senator, I co-led and helped to
introduce a resolution to defend the Affordable Care Act's
constitutionality against this administration's assault. In my first
speech on the Senate floor, I called on the Senate to take it up and
pass it. I cannot even begin to count the number of Nevadans who have
shared how they would be affected by the ACA's demise. Everything is at
stake if these individuals and these families are denied access to
care.
Justice Ginsburg's replacement will help to decide whether
individuals with preexisting conditions can be denied coverage and,
thus, be left behind. Let me be clear: What this potentially means is
that any of us with a preexisting condition could no longer obtain
health insurance.
This next Justice will decide if we see an end to the tax credits
that make healthcare coverage affordable for middle-income families.
This next Justice will decide if we see an end to preventive care
without copays.
This next Justice will decide if we see an end to the ability of
young adults, until the age of 26, to stay on their parents' insurance.
This next Justice will decide if we see an end to expanded Medicaid
benefits, which have helped over 200,000 Nevadans get coverage.
This next Justice is going to decide who has healthcare during an
unprecedented and deadly pandemic that has already, tragically, taken
the lives of over 200,000 Americans.
This next Justice will also decide if the nearly 7 million Americans
who have already tested positive for COVID can be denied healthcare
coverage because they contracted a disease that this administration
initially ignored and has been unable or unwilling to combat with a
national plan.
So much hangs in the balance for the American people. Millions could
lose healthcare because of this Supreme Court pick. We could go back to
a world in which people with preexisting conditions could not afford to
pay for lifesaving medicine or treatment. Using the courts to take away
the American people's healthcare, especially at this moment in our
Nation's history, is not only cruel--it is dangerous.
Amid a global pandemic and the worst economy in generations, our top
priority right now should be the needs of the American people--the
relief and care that matches the urgency of this crisis. We cannot
afford to play political games or to threaten the American people's
health coverage when they need it the most. The American people deserve
better. They deserve the stability and security of healthcare coverage
for themselves and their loved ones.
I ask that my colleagues truly listen to the American people, who
need us now more than ever.
I had hoped that my Republican colleagues would have honored their
own precedent in this process--the McConnell rule--and ensured that the
American people would have their say at the ballot box before filling
any vacancy. Instead of political gamesmanship, I ask that my
colleagues honor the dignity of our democratic institutions and the
health of the American people.
In 2015, when asked how she would like to be remembered, Justice
Ginsburg responded: ``As someone who . . . [helped] repair tears in her
society, to make things a little better through the use of whatever
ability she has.''
That is how she wanted to be remembered.
We, too, have the ability to repair tears in our democracy, and we,
too, have the ability to make sure things are better for all Americans
by ensuring that their health remains protected.
I urge my colleagues to follow Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's example
and honor her life and her life's work.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
[[Page S5817]]
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Coronavirus
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am on the floor today to talk about
what the Senate and the House ought to be doing before we leave town
for the election, and that is helping people who are in need because of
the impact of the coronavirus.
I know this is the week when we are focused on the passing of Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and that is appropriate. There is a lot of
discussion also about filling her seat.
We should, of course, all take time to mourn our Nation's loss, but
we are also in the middle of an unprecedented healthcare and economic
crisis. I think we have a responsibility to continue working on COVID-
19 legislation to respond to those challenges.
Since this crisis began, Congress has actually come together
repeatedly, as Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate, and working
with the White House, to pass five coronavirus relief bills--
legislation to address both the healthcare crisis and the economic free
fall that was caused by the virus and the shutdowns. The biggest of
these bills was the one you hear about the most--the roughly $2
trillion CARES Act that was passed by a vote of 96 to 0.
Again, these have been bipartisan efforts up until now.
Unfortunately, since May, when the last of these five bills was
enacted, partisanship has prevailed over good policy, and Washington
has been paralyzed, unable to come together for the public good.
Last week I came to the floor to highlight how this dynamic has
played out with regard to a single issue that has become strictly
important for so many people in my home State of Ohio and around the
country. That is the expanded Federal unemployment insurance supplement
included in the CARES Act back in March.
I had a tele-townhall last night. I am trying to do a tele-townhall
or a Facebook Live townhall every week during the pandemic, in part
just to stay in touch with people because it is so hard back home now
to visit with people in person. Again last night, I had two callers
call in, both of whom are taking advantage of the current $300-per-week
Federal supplement provided really by the Trump administration, and
they talked to me about how they are going to plan for the future.
These are individuals who don't have a job to go back to. One, by the
way, is a musician who makes his living playing music--the piano and
singing and so on--at long-term care facilities, nursing homes, and
each one of his previous clients has said that he is not welcome to
come back now, for good reason. But that makes his life pretty tough
because that is what he does for a living.
So his question to me was this: You know, look, I really appreciate
the 300 bucks. I need it to get by. And I got my rent, I got my car
payment, and what are you guys going to do about that?
Well, the truth is, nothing at this point, and that is too bad
because that $300 supplement has now ended. In effect, what the
President did to continue some help at the Federal level had limits
because he did it under the only choice he had, really, which was the
Disaster Relief Fund, and that has now run out. So that is where we
are.
Early on in the pandemic, both Republicans and Democrats recognized
the need to bolster the State-run unemployment insurance programs to
help offset the massive job losses we saw in March and April. The
initial amount was $600 per week, and it was provided by the CARES Act.
It came at a big cost to taxpayers. It also provided an income source
that made the difference for a lot of folks in the State of Ohio and
around the country.
During those early months, you remember the government was actually
shutting down a lot of businesses, and workers were losing their jobs
through no fault of their own, like this individual last night--through
no fault of his own not having a job.
As the year has gone on, we have made progress. We slowed the spread
of the coronavirus in most States. We have added more testing and
personal protective gear. More and more parts of our economy have been
able to reopen in a safe and sustainable manner, and that is great.
With the reopening, hiring has picked back up, and we now have far
fewer people on unemployment insurance than we did at the beginning of
this pandemic.
Unemployment is now about 8.4 percent. That was the number for
August--down from over 15 percent back in the spring. That is a big
change. Over 4 million jobs have been added. At the same time, 8.4
percent is still high--very high. Remember, we were at about 3.5
percent in February of this year.
By the way, February was the 19th straight month of wage increases of
over 3 percent. We had record-low unemployment for many sectors of our
economy, and here we are at 8.4 percent. So we are not out of the woods
yet. We still have a way to go. Ohio's unemployment number just came
out the day before yesterday. For August, it was 8.9 percent. So 10
percent unemployment is something we are now under. In fact, we are
under 9 percent, which is way, way faster than the projections. But
still, 8.9 percent unemployment in Ohio is something that we need to
focus on.
I will say that overall, we are going in the right direction and that
unemployment claims, I think, are now either steadily dropping or
holding level in almost every State. That is certainly true in Ohio.
So it is fair that Congress wanted to take another look at that
original unemployment insurance supplement, which was set to expire at
the beginning of August, and it did expire, and we wanted to look at it
to see what the new supplement ought to be given the changing economy
and given some of the improvements that we saw and also given the need
for more workers as more businesses were reopening
Now, $600 per week was a relatively generous benefit--to the point
that the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan group around here
that gives us advice, said: If you kept that $600 until next year--
which is what the Democrats proposed in their Heroes Act--8 out of 10
people getting 600 bucks a week would be paid more on unemployment
insurance than they would be at their jobs.
In other words, you would be making more money unemployed than you
would if you were working. That is not the way unemployment insurance
is supposed to work. That is not good for an economy that is trying to
reopen.
I have been all over my State and talked to employers--small, mid,
large-size employers. I have talked to the nonprofits. I have talked to
people who are working hard to try to provide care to people in the
healthcare sector. They all tell me the same thing: That $600 is a
problem because some people were not coming back to work because,
again, for most of those people, they could make more on unemployment
than they could working. So we needed to adjust it. Yet Democrats
insisted 600 or nothing--or nothing--and so we got nothing.
Some of us had proposed $300. In that case, some people would be
getting paid more on unemployment, but most would not. In fact, most of
them would be getting less than some percentage of their salaries. But,
again, if you lose your job through no fault of your own, particularly
because of a government decision to shut down your sector--say a movie
theater or a bowling alley or a bar--it seems to me that we ought to be
helping.
So the $300 that we proposed was to go until toward the end of the
year, but Democrats said no--kind of a ``my way or the highway''
approach, like it is going to be $600 or we are going to give these
people nothing. We gave people nothing. To me, that was a big mistake.
A number of us came to the floor and actually said: Let's continue
$600 for a week so we can negotiate something.
Democrats said: No. We want to end it. We don't even want to have it
temporarily at $600 to be able to negotiate something between
Republicans and Democrats.
That is too bad.
When Congress failed to act, President Trump and his administration
stepped in, and they said: $300 is about the right number. We will
provide the States a $300 supplement through what is called the
Disaster Relief Fund.
[[Page S5818]]
Now, in the CARES legislation we talked about earlier, which was the
$2 trillion legislation that passed 96 to 0 around here, a lot of money
went out for various causes--for our hospitals, for our schools, and
for our families through unemployment insurance. But it also provided
some funding for what is called the Disaster Relief Fund for COVID-19
purposes. So the President took some of that money for COVID-19
purposes out of the Disaster Relief Fund and said: We are going to, for
6 weeks, allow the States to use this $300 supplement if they choose to
do so.
They also encouraged the States to provide their own match. What
happened was, every State but two took the government up on that. So
the vast majority of States said: Yes, we will do it.
They didn't add their match, by the way, but they did take the 300
bucks, and a lot of people have been helped by that because over the
past 6 weeks, that funding has been available. Unfortunately, sometimes
it got paid as a lump sum because by the time the State systems figured
out how to administer it, you know, we were close to the end of the 6
weeks. But people knew that was coming. They knew they had 300 bucks
for paying their rent, paying their car payment, paying their mortgage,
and that was helpful. That was helpful.
Now we are at a point where President Trump's emergency Lost Wages
Assistance Program, which is what that was called--the Lost Wages
Assistance Program under the Disaster Relief Fund--has tapped out.
Forty-four billion dollars was made available to the States, leaving
$25 billion in that Disaster Relief Fund because that $25 billion was
what was projected to be necessary to deal with the natural disasters.
So that is where we are today. Forty-four billion has been depleted.
People who have had unemployment insurance since this disaster began
are not going to have it now. It is going to end. For many people, it
ended this week; for some, next week; for some, the week before.
The point is, we as a Congress need to act. My view is, let's provide
some more funding for the Disaster Relief Fund, at least. If we can't
come together with a big COVID-19 package that helps the schools, that
helps small businesses with the Paycheck Protection Program, which I
support extending, that helps with regard to getting more money for
testing and getting our vaccine more quickly and getting the therapies
up, let's at least provide the administration with some funding in the
Disaster Relief Fund so they can continue to respond to need.
Let's also provide them that funding because they need it for natural
disasters. What do I mean by that? Well, the other thing that has
happened in the last 6 weeks, as you probably noticed, is that we have
had a lot of natural disasters in the West with fires and in the South
with hurricanes. So that funding left in the Disaster Relief Fund ought
to be supplemented for that purpose as well.
This is a temporary program meant to provide a bridge while Congress
acts. And it would be great if Congress were to act, but, frankly, I am
getting kind of discouraged about Congress's ability to come together
again on a bipartisan basis, as much as I wish we would.
I have spoken on the floor about what I think I can see as the points
of compromise and the overlap between our two approaches because there
is a lot of it. Every single Republican save 1, 52 Members--a majority
of the Senate--voted for a proposal a couple weeks ago that was viewed
as a targeted proposal that did provide help for COVID-19 for families,
for small businesses, and for healthcare.
Democrats had their own idea, which is the $3.5 trillion that they
wanted. Ours was about $500 billion. There is something in between
there. We could come together with something that is sensible, but it
looks like that is unlikely.
So at a minimum, let's move forward with these unemployment insurance
supplements that we have been doing. Let's give the administration the
ability to do it again through the Disaster Relief Fund. This funding
shortage would be easy for us to put into the legislation that is
likely to come before this Chamber in the next 24 hours, which is the
continuing resolution. That is the funding that is going to pay for
government to continue operating.
You know, Congress is supposed to pass individual appropriations
bills. There are 12 of them. We didn't do them this year because of the
partisan gridlock around here, so once again we are turning to a
continuing resolution to provide the funding going forward.
The House is acting this week, and we are going to act this week or
early next week, as I understand it. It would be the perfect place to
put more funding into this Disaster Relief Fund for us to be able to
provide that $300 benefit that the administration has been providing to
all States but two and to also provide for more help for the natural
disasters that are upon us.
Senator Thom Tillis and I have proposed legislation to do just that.
We have a bill out there that we hope Congress will be willing to pass,
and we are also interested in adding it as an amendment to the
continuing resolution, to the appropriations bill that is on its way
through here.
With Congress deadlocked on how to come up with a broader solution
for COVID-19, let's at least do this. Let's say to the administration:
We want you to continue this program that is now in place. The States
know how it operates. The States have been implementing it.
My home State of Ohio has provided funding to people through this. We
are appreciative of it.
Our proposal is very straightforward. It simply appropriates $86.6
billion to replenish the Disaster Relief Fund, first to give FEMA the
resources it needs to fully and effectively respond to the natural
disasters that are hitting parts of our country hard right now and
those that are yet to come. The money won't be wasted; it will be spent
for appropriate things.
Second, it would allow the $300 per week for the Lost Wages
Assistance Program to continue through November 21, giving Congress
what I hope would be more than enough time to come up with a broader
solution to the COVID-19 issue. But at least through the period of time
between now and just before Thanksgiving, people would be able to know
they will continue to get this $300-per-week supplement to be able to
put food on the table, pay the rent, or pay the car payment or the
mortgage, and we as a Congress will be able to say to the people we
represent: We haven't forgotten about you. You lost your jobs through
no fault of your own. We ought to be able to continue providing some
help through this interim period.
This isn't about political wins and losses; this is about lives and
livelihoods that are at stake. I hope my colleagues will join me in a
bipartisan effort to support this important, commonsense legislation so
we can bolster our response to the COVID-19 unemployment crisis and to
the natural disasters that are currently facing our country.
I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Remembering Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of my
personal heroes, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She spent her life in
service to the American people, quite literally. Whether the Supreme
Court was hearing arguments about civil rights, reproductive rights for
women, protecting our environment, our precious water and air, or
standing up for our workers, Justice Ginsburg could be counted on to
put the needs of the American people first every time.
She may not have looked like much of a fighter, but this tiny Jewish
grandmother in the lace collar punched far above her weight. The
American people were so fortunate to have her on their side of the
ring. I feel fortunate as a woman in America. My daughter and my
granddaughters, too, have known she was there over and over again,
fighting for us
That certainly was the case on healthcare. I have said over and over
again on the floor of the Senate that healthcare isn't political; it is
personal for each one of us. It is personal. Justice Ginsburg
understood that in her bones. As a person who had experienced her own
health challenges and health challenges in her family, she knew that
when a beloved spouse is diagnosed with cancer or a child with a fever
needs to go to the emergency room, politics is the last thing on their
minds.
[[Page S5819]]
When people tell me their healthcare stories, they don't start by
telling me whether they are a Democrat or a Republican. That is because
when it comes to healthcare and the health of our families, it simply
doesn't matter.
People in Michigan just want to know that if they or their loved ones
get sick or are hurt, they are going to be able to take them to the
doctor and get the healthcare they need. Unfortunately, with the loss
of Justice Ginsburg, Michigan families and families all across the
country have an extra reason to be very concerned right now.
One week after the election--just 1 week after the election--the
Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case that could overturn the
Affordable Care Act, overturn everything, all of the protections--
including, of course, the preexisting conditions coverage--all of it.
By the way, the President of the United States, Donald Trump, has
weighed in and is in favor of having that happen.
Everything is at stake, including coverage for 17 million people
through the expansion of Medicaid, where minimum-wage workers right now
in States like Michigan that have expanded Medicaid no longer have to
pick between minimum-wage jobs and not working and having healthcare.
It is so important.
Also at stake is the ability for children to remain on their parents'
health plans until age 26, which has transformed so many families'
opportunities and young people's opportunities, and coverage for
preventive services like cancer screening and maternity care.
Prior to the Affordable Care Act, you had to get extra coverage for
maternity care. It wasn't viewed as basic. It was basic for me when I
was having my children, and for women across the country, it is pretty
basic. It wasn't viewed as basic, essential care. It now is under the
Affordable Care Act.
Also at risk are mental health care and treatment for substance use
disorders, lower prescription drug prices for seniors, and protections
for people with preexisting conditions.
It is estimated that about half of Michigan families include someone
with a preexisting condition, everything from heart disease to asthma,
to high blood pressure, to cancer. Nationwide, we are talking about 130
million people. How many more people now, after COVID-19, will have a
preexisting condition?
In other words, what happens in the next few months--what happens in
terms of filling another Supreme Court vacancy, as well as what happens
in the election--could have life-or-death consequences for Michigan
families and families across the country.
In case anyone has forgotten, we are in the middle of a once-in-a-
lifetime pandemic. More than 200,000 Americans have already lost their
lives, and unfortunately that number is going up every single day. In
my own State, nearly 7,000 people have lost their lives--7,000 moms and
dads, grandmas and grandpas, brothers and sisters, children and
friends. Even though some have survived COVID-19, they may be left with
long-term health issues, from heart damage to breathing difficulties,
to neurological problems, which, as I said before, creates preexisting
conditions.
This is not the time to be ripping healthcare away from American
families. There is never a good time but certainly not now. Yet that is
exactly the scenario we could be facing.
As Justice Ginsburg said, ``Health care is not like a vegetable or
other items one is at liberty to buy or not to buy.'' When a Michigan
single mom discovers a lump and finds out that she has breast cancer,
she can't just hope it will go away. When a Michigan senior with
diabetes needs insulin, he can't just wait for a big sale and stock up
when the price is right. When a child spikes a high fever in the middle
of the night, her parents can't just tell her: Well, you know, the
money is tight right now, so you are going to have to wait to see a
doctor. That is the horror for all of us as parents, that our child
will get sick and we won't be able to take them to the doctor.
Healthcare isn't political; it is personal. It isn't about policy; it
is about people--people. It is about the people in our States who sent
us here to fight on their behalf.
I sincerely hope that by the time the Senate votes on the next
Supreme Court Justice--if, unfortunately, it comes before the people
have their say about who should be making that nomination and
confirming that appointment--if that is going to be rushed through,
jammed through by this Senate, I hope there will be four U.S. Senators
on the other side of the aisle who will have the courage to stand up
for the people who need healthcare--and, frankly, that is all of us.
One thing I do know for sure is that the American people are
courageous. Time and again, they have called us and written letters and
have even come to DC to make their voices heard. From the amazing
Little Lobbyists to ALS warrior Ady Barkan, to my friend Lauren Kovach,
who fights so hard to find a cure for Alzheimer's disease and other
dementias, these folks would probably rather be spending their time
doing something else, but they understand that healthcare isn't a
luxury; it is a necessity.
This should not be political. It is personal to each and every one of
us. Again and again, people across the country have stepped up. They
have gotten engaged. They have put their passion to work protecting our
healthcare. Their voices and the voices of millions of Americans have
made the difference in this Chamber to the majority in this Chamber--
saying no to repealing the Affordable Care Act and ripping healthcare
away from millions of Americans. That only happened because people
stood up and made their voices known and were actively engaged in
saying what was important to them and their families.
It is easy to throw up our hands and give in and let the sadness and
feelings of loss for Justice Ginsburg and all of the frustrations and
chaos and the suffering take over all of us, but RBG would never let
that happen. If she were here right now, she would say: No, no, no.
This is the moment to focus and engage and to fight even harder.
When, as a Harvard Law student, she was asked by the dean why she
felt entitled to take a slot that otherwise would have gone to a man,
she didn't let that faze her. When she struggled to land a job after
graduation, she took to teaching at Rutgers School of Law and hid her
second pregnancy under baggy clothes until her contract was renewed.
She later challenged the New Jersey law that forced pregnant teachers
to quit their jobs. When she was diagnosed with cancer for the first
time in 1999, she fought back and kept on fighting for more than 20
years.
It is time now for all of us to fight, all of us who care about our
freedoms and our very way of life in this country. It is time to fight
like our beloved RBG, like she did everyday of her life for us.
Justice Ginsburg once said this: ``Fight for the things that you care
about, but do it in a way that will lead others to join you.'' I am
asking the American people right now to join us in this fight. This is
not a done deal. It is not over, and we all as Senators will be held
accountable for what we do.
Call your Senators, write emails and letters, talk to your friends
and neighbors, and let them know what is at stake--from healthcare and
reproductive rights for women to protecting our air and clean water, to
the capacity to be able to collectively bargain for wages and safety
and benefits, to voting rights and civil rights. We can go on and on.
It is all on the line right now. We need to step up and fight and not
assume anything is a done deal. We need to hold our Republican
colleagues accountable.
Don't let them get away with taking healthcare away from millions of
people. We did it before when we stopped the repeal of the Affordable
Care Act. I think we have to fight now to do the same thing and vote
like your life and the lives of your family depend on it, because they
actually do.
Justice Ginsburg dedicated her life to making our country more fair,
more free, and more just. Now is the time to continue her fight for our
future, for our children, and for our grandchildren.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Supreme Court Nominations
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as we all know, President Trump will
announce his nominee to fill the seat vacated by the death of Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The Senate is prepared
[[Page S5820]]
to examine the qualifications of that nominee and hold a vote here on a
timely basis.
This, of course, is set in line with the precedent set by Presidents
and Senates that were elected long before we became Members of this
body or were even born, and we are prepared to follow suit. There were
29 times when there was a vacancy during the election year where the
party occupying the White House and the majority of the Senate were the
same, and 29 times there were confirmation processes, and it will be
the same again this year with the 30th.
As always, we will be thorough. As a member of the Judiciary
Committee, I have had the privilege of participating in a number of
confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justices. I know every member
of the committee takes this job very seriously--our role of advice and
consent under the Constitution. We will not rush the process. Every
Member of this body will have an opportunity to vote for or against the
nominee once the nominee is voted out of the Judiciary Committee.
But it seems that for our friends on the other side of the aisle,
precedent is not enough. The prospect of another Trump-appointed
Supreme Court Justice has mobilized our Democratic colleagues to launch
an attack that has been months in the making on our very independent
judiciary.
One of the hallmarks of our Constitution and our democracy is an
independent judiciary--an umpire, if you will--that will mediate the
fight between the executive and legislative branches and rule on the
very constitutionality of the laws that are passed. Long before this
vacancy even existed, though, our Democratic colleagues were sounding
the alarm, suggesting they would expand or pack the Supreme Court with
liberal Justices that will rubberstamp the political results they could
not achieve through legislation.
During the Presidential primary this year, candidates were especially
eager to share their vision for a larger and solidly liberal Supreme
Court. A number of our Senate colleagues were among those open to the
idea, including the current Democratic candidate for Vice President,
the Senator from California.
Over the last several months, Democrats in both the House and the
Senate, including House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, have
expressed an interest in upending the integrity of the Supreme Court
and its role in leading the independent judicial branch. Once the
Supreme Court vacancy went from a possibility to a reality, these
comments have now turned into threats.
Over the weekend, the junior Senator from Massachusetts tweeted that
``when Democrats control the Senate in the next Congress, we must
abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court.''
The Senator from New York, the minority leader himself, reportedly
told his Members on a call this weekend, which was reported in social
media: ``Nothing is off the table.''
Now, mistreatment of conservative nominees to the courts is nothing
new, including 2 years ago, when Democrats waged an all-out smear
campaign against Justice Kavanaugh. But now, even before the nominee is
announced, our Democratic colleagues are taking aim at the institution
itself.
We know this isn't the first time that our colleagues have floated
institutional changes to shift the political tide in their favor. When
they lost the Senate majority, they decided they wanted to add new
States. They are uninterested in bipartisanship. So they want to end
the legislative filibuster. And now they threaten to pack the court
with liberal Justices to give them a political outcome. They are taking
the saying, ``if you can't win the game, change the rules,'' to a whole
new level.
This isn't just political gamesmanship anymore. It is an assault on
the Constitution itself, along with the integrity of our article III
courts and our system of checks and balances. This court-packing threat
isn't new. It preceded the death of Justice Ginsburg in the creation of
the vacancy that we will soon consider, but they are now trying to
rebrand the reasoning behind it.
Since the idea was previously viewed as too radical by members of
their own party, with even Justice Ginsburg opposing it, they are
trying to shift the blame to Republicans. By following the precedent of
29 judicial confirmation hearings occurring during an election year and
undermining or challenging the Senate's constitutional duty to provide
advice and consent, our Democratic colleagues claim that it is we who
are responsible for an attack on democracy. They, in effect, are
holding the Supreme Court hostage in saying: Don't make me kill the
hostage.
Democrats aren't just trying to prevent a single conservative Justice
from joining the Court. They are trying to dismantle the very
institution itself. The Supreme Court has had nine Justices for more
than 150 years. As the balance has shifted in many different directions
over the years, Members of Congress have respectfully refrained from
engaging in such dangerous threats.
This isn't just about a conservative Justice or a liberal Justice. It
is about preserving one of our most basic institutions--a free and
independent judiciary.
Economic Growth
Mr. President, now on another matter, by virtually any measure our
economy was booming at the start of this year. Successful reforms under
the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act allowed workers to keep more of what they
earned and gave job creators the freedom to create new economic
opportunities for the American people.
Within the first 2 years of these changes, we experienced record
gains in employment and increases in household income for families
across the country, including Hispanic and African-American households.
New census data paints a clear picture of just how strong the economy
was in 2019. The median household income reached an all-time high of
$68,700. That is a 6.8-percent increase over the previous year. Not
only that, if you look at the dollar amount alone, it is almost double
the next highest dollar amount in annual growth.
As I said, Black and Hispanic Americans each experienced a higher
than average growth rate and historically low unemployment rates.
Median earnings increased 7.8 percent for women, compared to 2.5
percent for men, representing progress in the fight to close the pay
gap.
The benefits of our booming market, though, didn't stop there. The
new jobs and opportunities created during this boom drew more workers
who had been on the sidelines into the labor market, and the result was
spectacular. The poverty rate dropped to 10.5 percent, which is the
lowest since 1959. Every population group made gains. Regardless of
race, gender, age, disability status, or marital status, each group
experienced a decline in the poverty rate.
Make no mistake about it. We still have a long way to go to ensure
that no family in America lives in poverty, but we also ought to be
willing to assess progress when progress is made. There is no doubt
that our economic engine was humming and the American people were
seeing and feeling the benefits of our strong economy every single day.
And then, of course, the pandemic hit. Suddenly, after years of adding
new jobs and creating economic opportunities for millions of Americans,
it felt like the gains we made were erased in the blink of an eye.
Through no fault of their own, businesses were forced to close their
doors to help slow the spread of the virus, and with no tables to wait
on, customers to serve, or travelers to accommodate, millions of
workers were left without a way to earn a living. Well-meaning
employers, sadly, handed their workers pink slips and said they hoped
to have jobs for them to come back to once the pandemic was in the
rearview mirror.
Until that could happen, millions of Americans relied on enhanced
unemployment benefits, which ended at the end of July, including an
extra $600 a week in Federal benefits. But there are still families
across Texas struggling to make ends meet, and there are workers
waiting to return to their jobs with no end in sight.
While we have made progress against the virus, we have to make
progress, too, in recovering our economy. In the beginning, restaurants
and retailers began adding curbside service and delivery to regain some
income, and throughout most of Texas now, these
[[Page S5821]]
businesses are able to open to 75 percent of capacity. Gladly, we are
seeing more and more workers returning to work and our children
returning to school.
In Texas, unemployment has steadily declined from a peak of 13.5
percent to 6.8 percent in August. I think a lot of that progress is due
to the success of the CARES Act and, especially, the Paycheck
Protection Program, which sent more than $41 billion in more than
417,000 different loans to small businesses in Texas alone.
I am still hoping that we can come to an agreement on another
coronavirus relief bill that would extend the Paycheck Protection
Program and provide some enhanced level of Federal employment benefits,
but those measures alone will not support our economic recovery. We
know that regaining lost ground will not happen overnight. It is going
to take time for our country to return to the pre-pandemic economy that
the President and Republican Senate fought so hard to achieve.
As we consider the most effective ways to tune up our economic
engine, our guiding principle should be that of the doctor-patient
oath--the Hippocratic oath: First, do no harm.
Raising trillions of dollars in new taxes, as a number of leading
Democrats have suggested, would be counterproductive. It wouldn't grow
the economy. It would kill the economy. In 2009, as the Nation was
fighting to recover from the 2008 recession, President Obama was asked
about the possibility of raising taxes, and he didn't mince words. He
said: The last thing you want to do is raise taxes in the middle of a
recession.
That is exactly right, but that is exactly the opposite of what the
leading Democratic candidates, including the Democratic nominee for
President, are advocating. They are advocating for a huge tax increase,
even as we are hopefully closer to the end of the pandemic than we are
the beginning. It is just the wrong medicine for what ails our economy,
as President Obama noted.
Families, we know, are still struggling, workers are still hurting,
and the American people need more money in their paychecks, not less.
We need to look at what made the 2019 economy such a success and try to
ensure that those changes prop us up for a strong comeback, and I think
the best place to start is with the success of the Tax Cuts and Jobs
Act.
After it passed almost 3 years ago, I traveled across my State and
met with business owners and employees who were reaping the immediate
benefits. Those were in the form of new hires, bonuses, raises, and
401(k) match increases. Employees at every business of every size were
seeing the benefits of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. While some of the
provisions of that law are permanent, others are set to expire in 2025,
and, without action, things like the lower income tax rate for
individuals and the increased child tax credit will expire.
As we work to support our country through the recovery process, we
need to emulate the reforms that made our booming economy a reality in
the first place. As I said, I don't expect the road to recovery to be
quick, but there are steps that we can take to make it easier.
First, we could do our job by supporting the individuals and
businesses hit hardest by the pandemic. Time and again, our Democratic
colleagues have objected to us even considering legislation to continue
those important provisions of the CARES Act. We can take the
government's boot off of job creator's necks, and we can fight to bring
jobs back that were shipped overseas because we learned a lot about
vulnerable supply chains and manufacturing that needs to be returned to
the United States.
Following tax reform, millions of new jobs were created, and
Americans brought home more of their hard-earned money. As a result, we
reached 3.5 percent unemployment--the lowest unemployment rate in a
half a century. That progress was possible because of the right
policies that increased take-home pay for workers and unleashed the
power of the private sector. So I have no doubt, as we rebuild our
economy, that we will do so if we continue to embrace the policies that
made 2019 a banner year.
Let me just conclude by saying that we must pass another COVID-19
relief bill. Time and again, Speaker Pelosi has refused to negotiate in
good faith to come up with a compromise. In the meantime, airlines that
employ tens of thousands of people in my State and across the country
will begin laying off their employees beginning October 1. Businesses
that were sustained by the PPP program have now run out of those funds,
and they need to be replenished.
I get questions time and again about the lapsing of the enhanced
unemployment benefit that was part of the CARES Act. We tried to extend
that at some reasonable level, but our Democratic colleagues objected,
blocked it, and stopped it.
What I fear, as Chairman Powell of the Federal Reserve and Secretary
Mnuchin, the Treasury Secretary, have suggested, is that the massive
stimulus that we provided, roughly $3 trillion through four bills that
were passed on a bipartisan basis--that has sustained our economy and
brought us to where we are today, even in the darkest of times through
this pandemic, but if we leave here with our Democratic colleagues
having prevented us from providing another COVID-19 relief bill, I
think it guarantees nothing but pain for the economy, American workers,
and American families. We should not go down that path or tolerate it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Blackburn). The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed
to finish my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Washington State Wildfires
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I rise to speak about three critical
matters impacting families in Washington State and across this country
today.
First of all, I would like to say that even though the wildfires in
my State are being contained, thanks to the skilled work of brave and
dedicated firefighters, wildfires and health impacts of smoke are still
creating hazardous conditions throughout the Pacific Northwest. Until
we begin addressing the drivers of those natural disasters, like
climate change, we know these crises and the suffering they bring will
only continue getting worse.
Judicial Nominations
Secondly, I want to talk about three nominees under consideration for
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or the EEOC.
One of these nominees is Jocelyn Samuels. She is exactly who workers
need right now. As the coronavirus continues to impact workplaces
across the country, workers are facing unprecedented challenges, and
they need a champion at the EEOC who will work tirelessly to defend
their rights. Jocelyn Samuels is that champion.
With almost 20 years of experience in the Federal Government,
including at the EEOC itself, she has spent her career working to
address discrimination and making sure no one is treated unfairly
because of their age, their race, or their disability.
I am confident she will be an excellent Commissioner. I am proud to
vote to confirm her nomination and strongly urge my Senate colleagues
to join me in supporting her nomination.
Unfortunately, the other two nominees already approved by the
Senate--Andrea Lucas and Keith Sonderling--will likely have disastrous
consequences for workers' rights. These are two people who have spent
their careers working to protect corporations, not workers.
As a lawyer, Andrea Lucas has never defended workers. Her only legal
experience is defending corporations when workers tried to fight back
against sexual harassment or age discrimination and disability
discrimination. That is exactly the opposite type of experience and
values we need at the EEOC, which is why I voted against her
nomination.
Keith Sonderling's record is no better. During his time at the Trump
administration's Department of Labor, Keith Sonderling worked to churn
out policies that hurt workers.
From his joint employer rule that lets massive corporations off the
hook for minimum wage, overtime, and equal pay violations to his
initiative that gives companies a ``get out of jail free'' card for
wage theft, Keith Sonderling's legacy at the DOL has made it harder for
workers to fight for their rights and easier for companies to abuse
them. For those reasons, I opposed his nomination.
[[Page S5822]]
Finally, right now, our Nation is facing truly trying times. Two
hundred thousand lives have been lost to COVID, millions are
unemployed, and we just lost a treasured American hero, Justice Ruth
Bader Ginsburg.
So much hangs in the balance now, and people are already voting and
organizing to make sure their healthcare, their rights, and their
futures are protected in this election.
For those nationwide who have already cast their ballots and who will
vote in the coming weeks for the future of our country and to help
ensure trust--trust in our democracy--the people must have a vote in
this nomination.
The next President should choose Justice Ginsburg's replacement as
she wished to spare our democracy the painful chaos of making such a
decision so close to an election.
People are speaking out, and the Senate must listen, as Majority
Leader McConnell insisted only a few years ago. But, unfortunately, it
seems like my colleagues on the other side are content to ignore these
cries, just like they have neglected the cries of our constituents for
a COVID-19 relief package that meets this moment instead of
shortchanging our communities because nothing--nothing is more
important than pushing through their ideological agenda to jam as many
partisan judges on the bench as possible, especially on the Supreme
Court, and tip the balance of our Federal judiciary even further
against everyday people, packing our courts to ensure we can't make
progress to defend affordable healthcare and preexisting conditions
protections or addressing the climate crisis or strengthening
protections for workers or doing anything on the critical issues that
people in my home State of Washington and around the Nation care so
deeply about and that have been blocked time and again by the
Republican Party.
I will be doing absolutely everything I can to make sure everyone
from Washington State to Washington, DC, and my Republican colleagues
here in Congress know just how much is at risk if President Trump gets
to appoint another hard-right nominee an unprecedented 41 days before a
Presidential election.
It is truly impossible to understate the consequences for families
and communities across the country now and for generations to come.
President Trump has made it clear he wants a nominee who will gut
protections for preexisting conditions, who will take healthcare away
from millions of people nationwide, and do everything they can to
undermine basic rights and freedoms and protections through the Court,
including crucial worker protections that Justice Ginsburg, herself,
helped secure and the EEOC is tasked with enforcing.
I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting today to honor an
important part of Justice Ginsburg's legacy and vote for the nomination
of Jocelyn Samuels. Then let's keep fighting for people's healthcare,
for protections for preexisting conditions, for workers' rights, and
voters' rights, and LGBTQIA+ rights, and for the vision of a just and
equal country--a just and equal country Justice Ginsburg fought so hard
to advance.
Thank you.
I yield the floor.
Vote on Hinderaker Nomination
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is,
Will the Senate advise and consent to the Hinderaker nomination?
Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) and the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr.
Johnson).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 70, nays 27, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 191 Ex.]
YEAS--70
Alexander
Baldwin
Bennet
Blunt
Booker
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Crapo
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hassan
Hirono
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Jones
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Loeffler
Manchin
Markey
McConnell
McSally
Menendez
Merkley
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rosen
Rubio
Sanders
Schatz
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--27
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Boozman
Braun
Cotton
Cramer
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Gardner
Hawley
Heinrich
Hoeven
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Moran
Paul
Rounds
Sasse
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sullivan
Thune
Young
NOT VOTING--3
Capito
Harris
Johnson
The nomination was confirmed.
____________________