[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 183 (Saturday, October 24, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6430-S6432]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                   Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 1

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, well, for more than year and a half, 
Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans have refused to take action on 
the House-passed For the People Act at a time when our democracy is 
under siege in so many ways. The For the People Act is a bold proposal 
that will restore people's trust in our democratic system, a trust that 
is fading. It is for the people. In order to make a more perfect Union, 
it would shore up our elections from threats from abroad. That is 
something we have just recently read more and more about. Why aren't we 
doing more on that?
  In fact, when Senator Van Hollen, a few days ago, put on the floor a 
UC of an act that would say Russia should have sanctions imposed on it 
if they interfere with our elections, the other side blocked it. I hope 
they are not following Donald Trump's obeisance to Russia and his view 
that Putin is just OK.
  It would also dismantle systematic hurdles that discourage voter 
participation. One of the worst things the Supreme Court has done--and 
there are quite a few under this conservative majority--is the Shelby 
decision, where Justice Roberts, leading the charge, said: We can 
dismantle the toughest protections under the Voting Rights Act. He 
said: States aren't going to discriminate anymore.
  And within a year, 20 States passed laws making it harder to vote. 
That is despicable. That is an awful case.
  It would help beat back decades of loose finance rules that empowered 
special interests at the expense of the American people. We all know 
about the dark money that is cascading into our system. In fact, 
Sheldon Whitehouse yesterday asked to make that public, to disclose 
those kinds of contributions when it came to the Supreme Court, where 
rightwing money pours in to make sure that rightwing nominees get on 
the Court and move to pull the American agenda so much further to the 
right than the American people ever would.
  Well, in general, there is too much dark money, too much special 
interest money. This would undo it. As election interference remains an 
urgent threat, as efforts to disenfranchise voters--especially voters 
of color, young voters, and low-income voters--persist, and as powerful 
special interests continue to exercise outside influence in our 
elections, the need for this legislation couldn't be more clear.
  Unfortunately, the Republican leader has other priorities. Rather 
than strengthen our democracy, rather than protecting our right to 
vote, rather than fighting big money or tackling corruption, rather 
than addressing any of the myriad of problems in our democracy that 
this country faces, Leader McConnell is undoing democracy by rushing 
through a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court mere days before an 
election.
  You couldn't find a more different set of priorities from that of 
everyday Americans if you tried. I urge Leader McConnell to stop this 
unprecedented and nakedly partisan process and instead put this 
important legislation on the Senate floor for a vote now. Let's discuss 
it. Let's debate it. Let's not just reject it at a time when we need to 
do so much of this.
  In order to proceed to the consideration of H.R. 1, For the People 
Act, I

[[Page S6431]]

ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to go 
through just a few--and it is really more than a few; it is a lot--of 
what is embedded in this bill. I would call it the ``Democratic 
Politician Protection Act.'' Let's listen to a few of these things.
  The Constitution vests primary responsibility in the States to set 
time, place, and manner of elections. States and localities have 
determined how to conduct elections for a long, long time. H.R. 1, 
through a top-down, Federal approach, completely reverses this 
longstanding tradition. Rather than strengthening the election process, 
it paves the way for rampant, I think, fraud, abuse, and litigation 
that diminishes the value of a legitimate vote, by doing these rushed 
reforms.
  Let's look at the 2018 midterm elections. Polling showed that 92 
percent of voters found their experience very easy or somewhat easy. 
Why fix it if it isn't broken? It imposes a DC-style election process 
on the States, requiring all State agencies and Federal agencies, 
including colleges and universities, to automatically register voters, 
including those who are 16 and 17 years old. It preempts State 
registration deadlines and requires same-day registration without 
verification safeguards. It expands the number of agencies that must 
contribute voter records, even to those who have no experience or 
expertise in voter enrollment, forcing States to accept a sworn 
statement as proof of identity, instead of photo identification, and to 
record the vote as a regular ballot. It expands absentee ballot 
availability and requires States to provide prepaid postage for all 
mail-in ballots.
  It does so many things that are different from what we currently have 
in a system that in most places is working fine. It does not include 
provisions that require or encourage States to remove inaccurate voter 
information. It reduces the integrity of voter rolls by restricting the 
State ability to maintain voter rolls and records that ensure voter 
identity accuracy.
  There are no penalties for anyone who is falsely registered. It 
prohibits States from being able to continue routine maintenance on 
their own voter lists. It also creates numerous private rights of 
action that pave the way for trial lawyers to sue when the results of 
an election are not to their liking.
  It makes the Federal Election Commission a partisan body. It 
politicizes the FEC by changing the neutral, evenly divided, six-member 
body into a five-member panel. It makes a new partisan FEC. It changes 
the latitude to determine and interpret the subjective enforcement test 
established by this bill. It, in essence, takes what is working and 
complicates it with a top-down Federal system.

  We should not be rushing into something like this that is that 
comprehensive. We should be paying attention to the process of getting 
a bona fide judge across the finish line, which I think most of us 
intend to do.
  Therefore, I object to this bill and to moving to legislative 
session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Romney). Objection is heard.
  The Democratic leader.


 Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 5619, H.R. 5572, H.R. 4861, and H.R. 
                                  4585

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I have another request.
  As Americans face job loss, health crises, isolation, and enormous 
daily stress during the pandemic, the risk of suicide has tragically 
gone up. The CDC found that since the pandemic began, twice as many 
Americans report serious consideration of suicide. The rate of suicide 
risk is especially high among young Americans, minorities, essential 
workers, and caregivers.
  Unfortunately, this is hitting our Armed Forces, as well. The Army's 
Chief of Staff, General McConville, stated that he sees a correlation 
between COVID and a rise in military suicides. My office recently 
received a note, a tragically sad note, from a veterans group in 
Rochester, NY, about a veteran in their region, 50 years of age, 
unemployed, and struggling during the pandemic. When he stopped 
receiving the $600 unemployment assistance, he was unable to make his 
mortgage payments and, unfortunately and sadly, very recently committed 
suicide.
  I have no doubt that there are more American veterans out there who 
are going through the same struggle. Each one is a separate and 
heartbreaking tragedy. These men and women who risked their lives for 
us are taking their own lives. It is incumbent upon us to do something 
about it.
  Congress can implement suicide prevention initiatives. We may be able 
to make a difference. The House has passed a number of bills to get 
suicide prevention funding and new resources out to communities.
  I am going to ask that we go into legislative session to consider 
four of those House-passed bills. This pandemic has taken so many 
lives, and we sometimes forget that it is not just those who contracted 
COVID, but those who are pushed to unimaginable stress and devastation 
because of what COVID has done to our economy, our friends, and our way 
of life. The Senate should be passing these bills and helping out those 
who may be hiding in the shadows but crying out for help.
  There are four bills. I think I will ask for consideration on the 
four of them en bloc; is that permitted?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is by consent.
  Mr. SCHUMER. In order to proceed to the consideration of H.R. 5619, 
Suicide Prevention Act; H.R. 5572, Family Support Services for 
Addiction Act of 2020; H.R. 4861, Effective Suicide Screening and 
Assessment in the Emergency Department Act of 2020; and H.R. 4585, the 
Campaign to Prevent Suicide Act, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate proceed to legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Reserving the right to object, when the COVID crisis 
first hit, this body, all of Congress, recognized how serious the 
situation was, and we acted. We acted in a very bipartisan fashion. We 
acted in a massive fashion, as a matter of fact.
  We understood that the American people, through no fault of their 
own--businesses were shutting down, people were unemployed--and we 
needed to provide a massive level of relief, and we did that in a 
bipartisan, almost unanimous fashion.
  All the needs have not been met. Republicans completely understand 
that, which is why we spent the August recess in daily calls, talking 
amongst ourselves, trying to focus and target where the relief is best 
directed.
  What we understood when we passed the more than $3 trillion of COVID 
relief in the early parts of this pandemic was that our efforts were 
going to be far from perfect, but they needed relief and, again, we 
supported it.
  One of the things we were trying to focus on, when we are already $27 
trillion in debt, was recognizing the fact that we don't have an 
unlimited credit card; that we had to really take the time and hone the 
next relief package.
  We did that over the August recess, and we came together with a very 
targeted, very appropriate, and still a very expensive package, over 
$600 billion when you add up the plus-up for unemployment benefits, 
$300 per week, a level that is sufficient but not so high that it 
actually provides incentive for people to stay on the sidelines and not 
enter the workforce.
  In my State of Wisconsin, one of the biggest problems employers have 
is they simply don't have the ability to track people off the sidelines 
when you have a $600 plus-up. We provided additional funding for PPP, 
particularly for small businesses that have been devastated. Owners 
have seen their life savings wiped out. That additional over $200 plus-
up in relief for small businesses would be targeted, would be 
appropriate, and it is necessary.
  There is over $100 billion for schools, tens of billions of dollars 
for additional testing and vaccines, billions of dollars for childcare 
and agriculture. In total, on top of $3 trillion, which is 14 percent 
of our GDP--by the way, a fair amount of that is still unspent and 
unobligated. We took a little bit of that which was unspent and 
unobligated and repurposed it for this new targeted package.
  Fifty-two Republican Senators voted for that bill twice. Rather than 
take yes for an answer, rather than saying: Thank you, we will support 
this level of relief for the American people, our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle just said no.

[[Page S6432]]

  An analogy I have been using would be, Mr. President, if I said: Mr. 
President, give me $200. The Presiding Officer would look at me in 
shock, but because he is a generous individual, he would say: Maybe not 
$200, but I will give you $100. But just because the Presiding Officer 
didn't give me the full $200, I would go stomping off, and I don't even 
take the $100. That is, in effect, what the Senators on the other side 
of the aisle are doing.
  We are offering and we supported $600 billion on top of $3 trillion 
in relief--necessary relief, needed relief for unemployment benefits, 
for small businesses, for vaccines, for testing, for education, for 
childcare. It is there for the taking. All they have to do is say yes. 
Yet they say no because they would rather have an issue rather than 
result.
  Are they serious about helping the American public or do they just 
want to play politics? I think the answer is quite obvious.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Democratic leader
  Mr. SCHUMER. The emaciated bill filled with poison pills that the 
Senator from Wisconsin talks about was never intended to pass. In fact, 
the Republican majority leader waited 5 months before doing anything 
while people were suffering. The bill does not contain close to what is 
needed.
  Basically, his analogy is incorrect. The analogy would be saying: You 
have a series of serious illnesses; let's treat one because we don't 
want to pay for the others--even though we were willing to increase the 
deficit by close to $2 trillion by giving a tax break to the wealthy.
  So this cry about deficit, when it comes to helping middle-class 
people, hurting people, unemployed people, people who can't feed their 
kids, no, it is the deficit. When it comes to giving a big tax break to 
wealthy corporations and wealthy people, that is fine.
  As much as I respect my colleague from Wisconsin, I don't really take 
his words very seriously. Our Republican friends put this emaciated 
bill on the floor at the last minute because they got such pressure for 
doing nothing. They know it can't pass the House. They know it is 
totally inadequate.
  This is the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, the 
greatest healthcare crisis for 100 years since the Spanish pandemic 
flu, and our colleagues do next to nothing in terms of the crisis. This 
is loaded with poison pills so they know it can't pass. They know it 
can't pass the House, and they waited 5 months.
  The American people know it. When they are asked: Who wants to solve 
this problem, they know that it is the Democrats in the Senate and 
House who want to and the Republicans have resisted. There is no 
question about it.
  The bills I just asked for are small bills, not very expensive, that 
deal with suicide. Of course, the answer is no again. It is sad and 
unfortunate. Fortunately, the American people will be able to have a 
real say, not on the Supreme Court Justice they are rushing through but 
on who will be the next administration and who will do more. We will 
see what their answer is.
  Mr. BROWN. Will the Democratic leader yield?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. BROWN. I hear Senator Johnson talk about employers can't find 
workers. There are 600,000 in my State who lost their unemployment 
insurance just like that at the end of July. Six hundred thousand 
people lost $600 a week.
  I go back to March, when we passed this bill that was so important it 
passed unanimously. There was one amendment Republicans wanted for this 
$2.5 trillion bill. It was to strip out unemployment insurance so that 
those workers didn't get the $600 a week. What are they to live on? Six 
hundred thousand people in my State can't find work, 100,000 in 
Wisconsin, even more in New York, tens of thousands in Iowa and Utah. 
What are they to do?
  We know there is going to be a wave of evictions and foreclosures as 
people are thrown out of their apartments and their homes.
  This Congress continues to--the Senate just won't do its job. Do your 
job. If Senator McConnell would do his job, we could do our job and get 
this economy back on track.
  Thank you.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I would add one final thing. The bill that the Senator 
from Wisconsin talks about was totally partisan, which they know can't 
pass. Then, when Leader McConnell put it on the floor, he filled the 
tree so it couldn't even be amended.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.