[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.

                          ____________________