Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. The Commerce Committee substitute, as proposed, contains three provisions that are cause for concern for my colleague and me. I would yield to my colleague from Maryland, a distinguished member of the Appropriations Subcommittee that funds NASA, to outline these concerns.

Mr. CARDIN. Will the Senator from Washington confirm that it is not the committee's intention or desire to force NASA to establish a university affiliated research center or to see either sections 818 or section 819 enacted without sufficient peer review, to avoid even the appearance of a perception that any favorable recommendation is predesignated for a specific institution or set of institutions?

Mr. CARDIN. I thank the Senator for her assurances and ask her, knowing that the future of this bill's fate in this Congress is uncertain, if she will agree that she will work with my colleague from Maryland and me to fix these provisions to our satisfaction early in the next Congress before a new NASA authorization bill is introduced?

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to ask the Senate to join me in recognizing my constituent and friend Cathy Hughes on the 40th anniversary of Urban One, Inc., formerly known as Radio One. Urban One, headquartered in Montgomery County, MD, is America's largest broadcast company primarily focused on African-American consumers. Over the last four decades, it has elevated and celebrated African-American voices while telling stories from their perspective. Today, Urban One employs more than 1,500 people and reaches an estimated 82 percent of African-Americans nationwide. This remarkable success is attributable to the skillful and passionate leadership of Cathy Hughes. Not long after Cathy started her radio career in her hometown of Omaha, NE, she found herself lecturing at Howard University's school of communications and serving as general sales manager at the university's iconic radio station, WHUR. Cathy started Radio One in 1980 with the purchase of her flagship station WOL-AM in Washington, DC, and served as its morning show host for 11 years. As founder and chairwoman, Cathy has directed the successful expansion of Radio One into new radio markets nationwide while generating original content across the spectrum of radio, television, and digital media. I am proud to note that Baltimore was the first city into which Radio One expanded. Urban One's remarkable 40 years of growth are all the more impressive given the obstacles that Cathy has overcome, not least the racism and sexism she has encountered during her groundbreaking career. In her initial search for financing to buy the station that would become Radio One, 32 banks rejected Cathy's bid. Cathy has steered her company successfully through the changes and challenges in media markets over the years, most recently navigating the impact of COVID-19. While Radio One itself has been hurt by the pandemic, she chose to support her community by providing free advertising to Black-owned businesses. Cathy's philanthropic work rivals her exceptional business achievements. Of note is her passion for education, demonstrated by her strong support of the Piney Woods School in Piney Woods, MS. This school, which her grandfather established in 1909, currently serves as the largest of four African-American boarding schools in the county. Cathy has been recognized for extraordinary contributions many times over the years: National Association of Broadcasters Hall of Fame in 2019, the Woman of the Year Award by 100 Black Men of America in 2018, the Ida B. Wells Living Legacy Award in 2011, and the Essence Women Shaping the World Award in 2018. In 2019, Howard University named its school of communications after her. I ask the Senate to join me in recognizing the extraordinary career of an extraordinary woman, Cathy Hughes, on the 40th anniversary of Urban One.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I introduced the Progressive Consumption Tax Act of 2020. We need a tax code that is fair for American families and for employers. We need a tax code that rethinks how our Nation collects the revenue that allows us to build our roads and bridges and keeps our Nation safe. We need a system that values our most vulnerable Americans, small businesses, and makes our U.S.-based businesses more competitive. In our recent history, comprehensive tax reform has been out of grasp. Congressional leaders have long called for a 1986-style tax reform in which the tax code would be streamlined and simplified to broaden the tax base and lower income tax rates. The 2017 tax law was a representation of how hard this type of tax reform is. It kept in place much of what makes the tax code complicated and inefficient, did not secure permanent income tax rate reductions for working families, and it increased the deficit by nearly $2 trillion. It is time we take a new approach. As we look to the future and work towards the goal of a sustainable economy that works for all, my colleagues and I will need to think creatively about how to raise revenues and provide for the services the government must and can deliver. Austere and regressive spending cuts are not the answer to the question of how to set the country on a sustainable path and support working families. Instead, we should look at ways to raise reasonable revenues and make the tax code work better for all. The Progressive Consumption Tax Act should be part of that conversation. I introduced versions of this bill in the past to provide an opening for discussion and an opportunity to review legislative language for this type of comprehensive tax reform. Now more than ever it is critical Congress revisit the thinking about comprehensive tax reform that is lasting and progressive. The 2017 tax law was constructed with many temporary policies that will require future action on tax policies as these provisions expire. While some of those will be years from now, this conversation can never start early enough. We know that good ideas can take time to become mainstream. In a world where about 150 countries now have a consumption tax, it is time the U.S. join this mainstream thinking. The legislation I have introduced today is an example of truly progressive, fiscally responsible, pro-growth tax reform could look like. It also provides an opportunity for the U.S. to catch up with the rest of the world. All OECD countries except the U.S. have a consumption tax. The Progressive Consumption Tax Act would put this country on a level playing field by providing for a progressive consumption tax, or PCT, at a rate of 10 percent. The PCT would generate revenue by taxing goods and services, rather than income. The revenues collected by the PCT would eliminate an income tax liability for most households in this Nation. Lower income individuals, those currently eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit, would receive rebates to cover the cost of their PCT burden, cementing the progressivity of this new system. For those who do still have an income tax liability under this Act would have lower rates and a simplified income tax. Under current law, the top marginal income tax rate is 37 percent. Under the Progressive Consumption Tax Act, the top income rate would be just 28 percent. The 2017 tax law reduced the corporate tax rate to 21 percent. This Act would further reduce that rate to 17 percent. Businesses would be more competitive and this would contribute to a pro-growth economy in the U.S., all while collecting reasonable revenues. As we discuss this proposal, you will hear me say this over and over again: An overarching goal of the Progressive Consumption Tax Act is ensuring the tax code is progressive, meaning that those who make less in income don't have a higher tax burden than wealthy people. The provisions included in this Act--removing an income tax liability for most households and providing rebates--are meant to maintain progressivity in the tax code for families. For those who worry that a consumption tax will bring in ``too much'' money, my legislation remains balanced. It is designed to raise stable and reasonable tax revenues. However, if more revenues than envisioned are collected under this legislation, a ``circuit breaker'' would return additional revenues to taxpayers. Again, we put money back into the hands of the taxpayers. In 2017, I offered the Progressive Consumption Tax Act as an alternative to the tax legislation considered that year. While it would have been a responsible choice to enact then, it could still provide a fresh start now. Since that law was passed, there has been increased interest in looking at ways to reform the nation's tax laws to tilt any benefit more towards those who were left behind and raise reasonable revenues. My colleagues in Congress and stakeholders are searching for forward- looking ideas for how to modernize the tax code. I am excited that President-elect Biden has put forward tax reform proposals and Congressional leaders have done the same. The longer we wait to put this country in a better, more competitive, progressive position, the harder it will be. That's why I am reintroducing the Progressive Consumption Tax this year. As this Congress closes and the new Congress convenes, I hope we will seriously consider the tax system in this country and consider the types of reforms proposed in the Progressive Consumption Tax Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill appear in the Record following these remarks.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I take this time, along with my colleague from Maryland, Senator Chris Van Hollen--and I am also pleased that we are joined by Senator Stabenow and Senator Reed. We take this time, on a very sad note, to announce the death of Paul Spyros Sarbanes, our former colleague in the U.S. Senate, who passed away on December 6, 2020, at the age of 87. I first got to know Senator Sarbanes when he first ran for public office in 1966. We both were elected to the Maryland General Assembly that year, and we became good friends. Delegate Sarbanes at that point made a name for himself on the House Judiciary Committee in the Maryland General Assembly and was a rising star from his first day in the Maryland General Assembly. He shortly thereafter ran for the House of Representatives. He served three terms in the House of Representatives with a very distinguished career. During that time, it was the time of the Watergate issues, and Congressman Sarbanes was on the Judiciary Committee and was given the responsibility of the first Article of Impeachment against President Nixon. That article dealt with obstruction of justice. It was the key engagement against President Nixon on impeachment, and it is very telling that that responsibility was given to a young Member of the House of Representatives, Congressman Paul Sarbanes. It was because of his work ethic, his commitment to scholarship, and his understanding of issues that he was entrusted with that responsibility. He then served five terms in the U.S. Senate, the longest term for any Senator in Maryland. Paul Sarbanes was known as a Senator's Senator for his integrity, for his public commitment to public service, and his strong commitment to principles. He was a Rhodes scholar who chose to serve the public rather than using his skills in the private sector for his own personal gain. His entire life was devoted to public service. What a legacy he has left us by his incredible public service. In 2002, the Enron scandal hit America, and Chairman Sarbanes, the chairman of the Banking Committee here, teamed up with Chairman Oxley in the House to pass the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation. George W. Bush-- President Bush--said it was ``the most far-reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.'' The leadership of Senator Sarbanes was deeply needed at that time, and he delivered on behalf of the American people. Senator Van Hollen and I know firsthand what Senator Sarbanes did in helping to create the Federal partnership in the Chesapeake Bay Program. It was during the time that he was the junior Senator from Maryland, along with Senator Mathias, that the two of them partnered in order to develop the Federal program for the Chesapeake Bay, and then Senator Sarbanes carried the burden of that partnership. For many years, it was through his efforts in the U.S. Senate that we were able to continue and expand the Federal partnership for the bay. Now, those of us who live in the bay region--and I know that Senator Stabenow has heard me talk about this many times when we talk about the great water bodies. We know that the Chesapeake is the largest estuary in our hemisphere. It is the most diverse estuary, and it is a challenge because of the way that the water flows and it cleanses itself. So we started this Federal partnership--Senator Sarbanes did-- and it has provided incredible dividends for the people of Maryland and the people of our Nation--indeed, the global community. He was an expert on foreign policy. He served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He was involved in the leadership of passing ratification of the Panama Canal Treaty, and there are so many other areas in which Senator Sarbanes excelled. We all receive honors; I know that. I am just going to mention three because they were really reflective of what Senator Sarbanes accomplished during his career. He got the Paul H. Douglas Ethics in Government Award for his incredible standard of integrity and ethics; the Roth Award for extraordinary impact on policy, on economic business, and finance--his lasting legacy on the financial institutions here in America; and the Cox, Richardson, Coleman Award for distinguished public service. He was a Senator's Senator. He devoted his life to public service. In a way, Paul Sarbanes represents the American success story. He was a son of Greek immigrants, grew up on the Eastern Shore of Maryland in Salisbury, and rose to serve in the U.S. Senate. His lifetime partner was Christine. All of us remember Paul and Christine together. What a couple they made. What a love story it was. There are three children. John, whom we all know very well because he serves in the House of Representatives, holds the seat in the Third Congressional District. It is the same seat that Barbara Mikulski held, the same seat that I held; the same seat that Paul Sarbanes held is now being held by Paul's son John, and what a great job he is doing. It is interesting that he was the leading sponsor of H.R. 1 in this Congress, which was basically the good governance legislation that passed overwhelmingly in the House, and so many other things that follow in his father's tradition. Paul's other son Michael has had a distinguished career, and Janet, his daughter, has also had a distinguished career. Paul had seven grandchildren. Christine predeceased Paul. I want to just talk a moment about the partnership between Senator Sarbanes and Senator Mikulski. They had different styles. I think most people would acknowledge that from the beginning, Paul was very much stately and represented the traditional, I guess, demeanor that you would expect of a U.S. Senator. And I love Barbara Mikulski, but no one would ever accuse her of having that type of demeanor. But the two of them had an incredible relationship together. They were called the ``Diner Democrats'' because Paul's father's family ran a diner, and Barbara Mikulski's family ran Mikulski's Bakery, as we all know. They worked together in true partnership over so many years. It was a friendship that was really one of total trust and respect. I had a chance to communicate with Senator Mikulski, and she, because of COVID, could not join us tonight. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that her statement be printed in the Record of these proceedings

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Van Hollen and myself, I want to thank our colleagues for their tribute to Senator Paul Sarbanes--Senator Stabenow and Senator Reed. I know that Senator Schumer and Senator Durbin have spoken on the floor. Many of us have and many have expressed their condolences through our office to the family. We just want to express our appreciation. As Senator Van Hollen said, I had the honor--or the challenge--to follow Senator Sarbanes in this body. I have his seat in the Senate. When I was sworn in almost 14 years ago, Senator Sarbanes escorted me to take the oath of office. As I mentioned earlier, he is an inspiration to all of us. I want to thank our colleagues for the tribute they have paid to an outstanding Marylander, an outstanding American, and he will be missed by all I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, let me conclude by just quoting from Senator Sarbanes himself on the final speech that he gave when he left the Senate. He said: Throughout my years in public service, I have worked to the limits of my ability to provide the people of Maryland and the Nation dedicated, informed, and independent representation based on the fundamental principles of integrity and intelligence. I have been guided in this effort by the vision of a decent and just America, based on a strong sense of community and offering fairness and opportunity to all its people. Service in this body has reinforced, many times over, my understanding and commitment to the institutions upon which our system of Democratic governance critically depends. So long as [that] vision of America's promise continues to shine brightly in this body, I have every confidence that our Nation will prevail in the face of great challenges and that its future will be assured. It is our responsibility to heed those words of Senator Sarbanes and strive to carry out his legacy. Before I yield to Senator Van Hollen, the two of us, on behalf of all of the Members of the U.S. Senate, have filed a resolution to honor Paul Sarbanes. This has been cleared. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 797, submitted earlier today.

Mr. CARDIN. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to; that the preamble be agreed to; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I now yield the floor in anticipation that my colleague from Maryland--the two of us have joined together to pay tribute to Senator Sarbanes--be recognized.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I just really want to thank Senator Udall for his commitment to public service. When I think of a person of his talent, his expertise, and his effectiveness, he has devoted his entire life to public service to make New Mexico better, to make America better, and for global justice. I just really want to thank him for his many years of public service. I know that he has not finished his commitment to try to help our community, but we are going to miss him on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I had a chance to work with Senator Udall when he and I were in the House of Representatives, and we worked on so many issues--from the environment to justice issues, to integrity in the process to make sure our system of justice, our system of law, and our system of legislating meet the high expectations of our democracy. We know that we can do better to form a more perfect union. We are on that path, and we can do better. And thanks to Senator Udall, we have done better, but we still have a road ahead of us. So, you are an inspiration to all of us. We want you to know that. We love you. We greatly admire your service to this body and to our community. As has been said by others, we are not only going to miss your relationship on working with issues here; we are going to miss the friendship and seeing you on a more regular basis. We know that your life partner Jill has been a steady supporter of what you have done. So on behalf of your colleagues in the U.S. Senate, we say thank you for a job well done. We are proud to have called you our friend and associate, and we will continue to work with you. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, earlier today, Senator Wicker and I participated in a call with our colleagues from Europe in regard to their efforts to pass a Global Magnitsky statute. I mention that because this month represents the 11th year anniversary of the tragic death of Sergei Magnitsky. Sergei Magnitsky was a lawyer in Russia, representing a client when he discovered the largest tax fraud in modern Russian history--$230 million. Many of the individuals who were involved in this corruption had ties with Russia's President, Vladimir Putin. Mr. Magnitsky did what any lawyer is required to do, he reported the fraud that he discovered to the local authorities and asked for them to investigate the issue. Instead, Sergei Magnitsky was arrested. He was imprisoned without parole; he was beaten; he was tortured; and he died in jail without medical help in November of 2009. There was no accountability for the perpetrators of this atrocity. In fact, many of the perpetrators actually were promoted. We did something about it. As members of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, we recognized, in 1975, the countries that comprise the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, including Russia, committed to basic human rights for their people, that their government would be honest, and that they would protect the rights of their citizens. The Helsinki Final Act gave every member state the right to question what other States were doing in compliance with the Helsinki Final Act ideals. It is legitimate for us to question what Russia is doing in carrying out its commitment, so we did something about it. I introduced legislation known as the Magnitsky Act. I want you to know this was a bipartisan effort. My partner in the passage of the Magnitsky Act was the late Senator John McCain. My partner in passing the Global Magnitsky Act and the Magnitsky Act is my good friend Roger Wicker, who is the chair of the Senate U.S. Helsinki Commission. We worked together to make sure that we passed these Magnitsky Acts. What does it do? What it does is the country does not hold accountable those who violate basic global human rights of its citizens; we impose sanctions. Those sanctions prevent that individual who perpetrated these acts from visiting the United States through the issuance of a visa or participating in our banking system. Why do we do this? Today, we heard from Mr. Kara-Murza, who is one of the activists on human rights in Russia who has been poisoned twice by the Russian Government. What he said about the mantra of the Kremlin is: They steal at home and spend abroad. They don't want their money in rubles; they want their money in dollars. So if we can prevent them from using our banking system, we can really make it hurt. Let me tell you how important this is. It is not limited to Russia. We passed the Global Magnitsky law so it applies to all of the countries where they have violations of human rights. If you want to know how important this statute is, it has been reported that when Mr. Putin and Mr. Trump met in their first summit, the first order of business that Mr. Putin raised with President Trump was: Can't we get rid of these Magnitsky sanctions? Believe me, they work. They deter bad actors around the world. It is a legislative initiative. We talked today about the fact that there is one common ingredient in every country that has considered the Global Magnitsky laws; that is, the initiative that comes from the legislators. There is a natural reluctancy among the bureaucrats not to burden themselves with additional problems in their bilateral relations with other countries, but we recognize that it is important for America, the leader of the democratic world, to speak up for democratic principles. We passed the legislation. We didn't have the enthusiastic support of the administration, but we did it. We did it. And we wanted it to be a global standard that was clear to human rights violators, but we needed other countries to act. I am pleased that other countries have followed the U.S. leadership. The UK, Canada, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania all have enacted similar Global Magnitsky bills. Currently, Japan and Australia are considering similar bills and legislation. Today, we had a very positive conversation with the European Union, and they are considering the passage of a Global Magnitsky bill. This would add 27 countries to be covered under the Sergei Magnitsky law. This is one of the, I think, leading moments for the U.S. Senate and Congress, where we showed leadership on behalf of speaking out for those otherwise who would not be heard. As a result of our action, I am convinced we saved many lives, and we made it clear that in our foreign policy, we will embed that in the principles that have made this Nation the great democratic Nation it is, the respect for universal human rights With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the pending confirmation vote of Amy Coney Barrett to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whom we lost in September of this year. Justice Ginsburg was a champion of women's rights and civil rights, and she is going to be sorely missed on that Court. Article II, section 2 of the Constitution provides that the ``President shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the Supreme Court.'' One of a Senator's most solemn responsibility is to evaluate the nominee's qualifications as well as the process the Senate uses to provide their advice and consent for a lifetime appointment to our highest Court. I believe, on both substance and process, this nomination should be rejected. First, on process. Let's talk about fairness. Let's talk about the integrity of the Senate. Let's talk about living up to your own words. Let's talk about using the same rules for Republicans that you use for Democrats. Let me remind my colleagues what happened in 2016 in the Senate during President Obama's final year of a term in office in a Presidential election year. Justice Scalia died in February of 2016. Within just a few hours after the death of Justice Scalia, Leader McConnell unilaterally announced that the Senate would not consider a replacement for Justice Scalia until after the November 2016 Presidential election, which established a yearlong vacant Supreme Court seat. The Republican leader's action, backed by his caucus, set a very clear precedent: Under no circumstances do Senate Republicans consider a Supreme Court nominee in a Presidential election year. It did not matter that in March 2016, President Obama appointed Merrick Garland, a respected DC Circuit judge, with bipartisan support. They would not meet with Judge Garland, hold a hearing, or allow a vote on him for 293 days. In 2016, the Presidential election was nearly 9 months away. Four years ago, our Republican colleagues said: 9 months was not time enough. Leave it up to the voters. We will do this whether it is a Democrat or Republican in the White House. The Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, said: Mr. President, the next Justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country, so of course--of course the American people should have a say in the Court's direction. . . . The American people may well elect a President who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration. The next President may also nominate somebody very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice in filling this vacancy. . . . The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so [let's give] them a voice. Let's let the American people decide. . . . The American people should have a voice in selection of the next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President. That was the Republican leader. Several Judiciary Committee members made similar statements after the death of Justice Scalia. Senators Grassley, Graham, Cornyn, Lee, and Cruz signed a letter to Leader McConnell, which read, in part as follows: [W]e are in the midst of a great national debate over the course our country will take in the coming years. The Presidential election is well underway. Americans have already begun to cast their votes. As we mourn the tragic loss of Justice . . . Scalia and celebrate his life's work, the American people are presented with an exceedingly rare opportunity to decide, in a very real and concrete way, the direction the Court will take over the next generation. The letter from my Republican colleagues concluded: We believe The People should have the opportunity. . . . Because our decision is based on constitutional principle and born of a necessity to protect the will of the American people, this Committee will not hold hearings on any Supreme Court nominee until after our next President is sworn in on January 20, 2017. Current Judiciary Committee Chairman Graham explicitly addressed this point in 2016. In March 2016, Senator Graham, then a member of the Judiciary Committee, said: I want you to use my words against me. If there is a Republican President in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say, Lindsey Graham said let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination. You can use my words against me, and you'd be absolutely right. We are setting precedent here today--Republicans are--that in the last year of a Presidential term, you are not going to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court based on what we are doing here today. That is going to be the new rule. I have repeatedly stated that the election cycle is well underway, and the precedent of the Senate is not to confirm a nominee at this stage of the process. By the way, Senator Graham reaffirmed that in 2018. In the case of Justice Ginsburg's death and vacancy in 2020, we are about 40 days away from a general election--not 9 months. Mail-in voting in record numbers has already begun in several States. And, of course, early voting has started in many States also. We are proceeding to a final vote on this nominee for a lifetime appointment just days before election day. Americans, millions of Americans, have already cast their ballots. Once again, within hours of Justice Ginsburg's death, Leader McConnell unilaterally decreed that the Senate would fill the vacancy before the election. Leader McConnell said that ``President Trump's nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the Senate.'' So I implore my Republican colleagues to stop this blatant hypocrisy now. Let's follow the McConnell rule and let the American people pick the next President and Senate so they can weigh in on this decision, just as Senator McConnell argued in 2016, when President Obama nominated Merrick Garland for Justice Scalia's seat. Let the Senate honor Justice Ginsburg's legacy by continuing to fight for the rights she fought for her entire career, both as a litigator, a circuit judge, and, finally, as a Supreme Court Justice. Let us honor Justice Ginsburg's dying wish: ``My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new President is installed.'' President Trump's agenda is quite clear when it comes to a tragedy for the Supreme Court. President Trump has repeatedly said he would appoint Justices in the mold of Justice Scalia. As President Trump said on the campaign trail, when asked what kind of Justice he would nominate, ``We're going to have a very strong test. We want . . . strong conservative people that are extremely smart. Scalia is a terrific judge. Clarence Thomas, you look at him, he's been a stalwart, he's been terrific, and we have others.'' President Trump also talked about the type of Justices he did not like when on the campaign trail. He said: I'm disappointed in Roberts because he gave us Obamacare. He had two chances to end Obamacare, he should have ended it by every single measurement and he didn't do it, so that was a disappointing one. Everybody thought he was good, he was a Bush appointee, he was somebody that should have, frankly, ended Obamacare, and he didn't. When President Trump announced Judge Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court, Barrett herself highlighted the ideological parallels between her and her mentor, Justice Scalia. She said about Justice Scalia: ``His judicial philosophy is mine, too.'' Judge Barrett was a Supreme Court clerk for Justice Scalia. Justice Scalia was one of the most staunchly conservative members of the Supreme Court. Justice Scalia voted to strike down key parts of the Affordable Care Act. He frequently called for overturning Roe v. Wade. He opposed marriage equality. He voted to gut the protections for voting rights in the Shelby case. He voted to gut our campaign finance laws in the Citizens United case. He made it harder for workers discriminated against by their employers to seek justice in court and further stacked the deck in favor of wealthy business owners and corporations over working-class individuals. By nominating Judge Barrett, President Trump is attempting to bring Justice Scalia's judicial philosophy back to the mainstream in our Nation's highest Court. Placing Judge Barrett on the Supreme Court puts at risk so many of the rights and protections Americans have fought for and gained. So let's look at how the law could change if Judge Barrett is confirmed. That is the second reason to oppose this nomination--her judicial philosophy--in addition to the flawed process. You cannot always predict how a Supreme Court Justice will act after her confirmation, but Judge Barrett has given us clear views on her philosophy. So many American rights are on the line, but let me start by talking about the Affordable Care Act. Judge Barrett has made her views quite clear about the Affordable Care Act. In a 2017 law review article, she concluded that the ACA is unconstitutional. She wrote: ``Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.'' Judge Barrett argued that Chief Justice Roberts' approach to NFIB v. Sebelius, which was joined by Justice Ginsburg, ``express[ed] a commitment to judicial restraint by creatively interpreting ostensibly clear statutory language'' and that ``its approach is at odds with the statutory textualism to which most originalists subscribe.'' In another Supreme Court case, King v. Burwell, the Supreme Court, in the 6-3 decision joined by Justice Ginsburg, affirmed health insurance tax credits for millions of families. Nearly 9 million Americans depend on these tax credits for coverage. Barrett criticized the decision, stating: I think the dissent has the better of the legal arguments. Elsewhere, she wrote: Justice Scalia, criticizing the majority's construction of the Affordable Care Act in NFIB v. Sebelius and King v. Burwell, protested that the statute known as ObamaCare should be renamed ``SCOTUScare'' in honor of the Court's willingness to ``rewrite'' the statute in order to keep it afloat. . . . By this measure, it is illegitimate for the Court to distort either the Constitution or a statute to achieve what it deems a preferable result. It is clear to me--and it should be clear to all of us--that Judge Barrett has a clear bias against the Affordable Care Act. President Trump has repeatedly stated that he would appoint judges who would overturn the ACA and has consistently done so in terms of his appellate and trial court nominations. Judge Barrett appears to meet President Trump's litmus test. I mention these cases to underscore the importance of the Supreme Court Justice in the lives of all Americans. So much is at stake in the filling of Justice Ginsburg's vacancy. Your healthcare is literally on the line. The Affordable Care Act that President Trump has tried to repeal and that Republicans tried to repeal in this body but have failed, they are now going to take it to the Supreme Court. A hearing is scheduled this November 10 in the case of California v. Texas, just 1 week after the general election. This is a real risk for tens of millions of Americans who depend on the law for their healthcare coverage and other benefits. Twenty million Americans could lose their healthcare, and people with preexisting conditions could lose those protections. That is 133 million Americans, during the coronavirus pandemic. That is what is at stake. We are talking about pregnancy, cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure, behavioral health disorders, high cholesterol, asthma, chronic lung disease, heart disease, and numerous others that have been held to be preexisting conditions before the protection in the Affordable Care Act. And you can now add COVID to those preexisting conditions for 8 million Americans and counting. That protection is in the Affordable Care Act. This is on the line before the Supreme Court this November. If the Affordable Care Act is struck down, insurers could bring back annual lifetime limits on coverage. Adults covered by Medicare expansion would lose vital health services. Young people would be kicked off of their parents' insurance. And insurers could sell skimpy plans that don't even cover essential health benefits like prescription drugs, emergency room visits, mental health, substance use, and maternity care. The Affordable Care Act increased access to care for millions who were previously uninsured or underinsured. Through Medicaid expansion, 13 million low-income Americans now have dependable, comprehensive health coverage. In Maryland alone, over 1.3 million low-income individuals depend on Medicaid, including 512,000 low-income children, 107,000 seniors, and 152,000 individuals with disabilities. That is just in Maryland. We must protect the Medicaid expansion population and other uninsured and underinsured populations from the Trump administration's effort to eliminate their access to affordable care. It is at risk. I have similar concerns about women's healthcare issues. Judge Barrett has already gone on record in opposition to reproductive rights and freedoms. So it is clear to me that she would try to roll back the clock on those rights as a Supreme Court Justice. In a 2013 speech she entitled ``Roe at 40,'' Judge Barrett explained that ``Republicans are heavily invested in getting judges who will overturn Roe.'' She wrote that the ``framework of Roe has essentially permitted abortion on demand, and Roe recognizes no state interest in the life of a fetus.'' In a 2003 article, Judge Barrett suggested that Roe v. Wade was ``an erroneous decision.'' Recall that President Trump has already said he would only nominate justices who would ``automatically'' overturn Roe v. Wade. Judge Barrett appears to have met this litmus test as well. Indeed, Judge Barrett may hold an even more extreme record when it comes to reproductive rights than I have already stated. She refused to say at her confirmation hearing whether Griswold v. Connecticut was rightly decided, in which the Court held that the Constitution guarantees a right to marital privacy and that a law criminalizing the use of contraception violated that right. Now, note that Justices Roberts, Alito, Kagan, and Kavanaugh all discussed the Griswold case at their confirmation hearing. Yet Judge Barrett said that Griswold's correctness ``is something I cannot opine on.'' Judge Barrett's views on immigration also raise concerns. Our most vulnerable individuals are at risk as well with the naming of a new Justice to the Supreme Court. Let me talk about one specific group. On June 18 of this year, in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice Roberts and joined by Justice Ginsburg, the Supreme Court held that the Department of Homeland Security violated law when it rescinded the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival, or DACA, Program. There are approximately 643,000 DACA recipients--these are our Dreamers--in the United States, and approximately 29,000 are healthcare workers and essential workers who are serving us during the COVID-19 pandemic, who have saved lives and eased suffering. But for the 5-4 decision, those individuals' lives could have been totally disrupted, and they could have been ordered to leave our country. These are individuals who know no other home but the United States of America. They are our neighbors and friends. The next Justice could very well determine the fate of the Dreamers. Unfortunately, Judge Barrett already has demonstrated a judicial track record which is hostile to immigration. In Cook County v. Wolf, Judge Barrett authored the dissenting opinion from a ruling that struck down the Trump administration's cruel ``public charge'' rule. The rule basically penalized immigrants for exercising their legal rights to use benefits that Congress has made available. And in the case of Yafai v. Pompeo, Judge Barrett wrote the majority opinion and held that U.S. consular officials have virtually unchecked authority to deny visa applications to those seeking entrance to the United States. It was pointed out in the minority opinion that the majority has created a constant ``dangerous abdication of judicial responsibility'' that would lead immigration officials to deny visas on the basis of ``impermissible bias.'' So let me turn to the rights of the LGBTQ community. In the Obergefell v. Hodges case joined by Justice Ginsburg, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry, in a 5-4 decision. Unfortunately, Judge Barrett has demonstrated hostility to marriage equality and to LGBTQ rights more generally. In speeches, Judge Barrett seemed to be critical of the Supreme Court's decisions in Obergefell, indicating that she was worried about the ``who decides'' question when it comes to the courts or legislatures deciding who can marry and start a new family. But fundamental rights under the Constitution should not be up for debate. Every American should have the same rights, benefits, and obligations of marriage regardless of their gender or who they love. Notably, Judge Barrett referred to sexual orientation as ``sexual preference'' in her testimony, implying that sexual orientation is a choice instead of an immutable characteristic. As Justice Kennedy concluded in Obergefell: No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right. I would hope that we agree with Justice Ginsburg, but I am afraid that is a view that is not shared by Judge Barrett. Judge Barrett was critical, as well, of the extension of civil rights laws to protect transgender people, saying at an event that ``it does seem to strain the text of the statute to say that Title IX demands it.'' However, the Supreme Court held otherwise in Bostock v. Clayton County, where Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Ginsburg, held for the Court in a 6- 3 decision that the prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of ``sex'' should be read to include gender identity and sexual orientation. Judge Barrett has issued several disturbing findings that indicate a cramped and narrowed view of civil rights laws designated to protect American workers from discrimination based on race or age. In EEOC v. AutoZone, Judge Barrett voted against rehearing a panel decision that ruled against an African-American employee whose company involuntarily transferred him to another store based on race. The EEOC had charged that AutoZone had an unlawful practice of segregating employees by race when it assigned African-American employees to stores in African-American neighborhoods and Latino employees to Latino neighborhoods. The dissent argued that the court upheld a ``separate but equal'' arrangement that is contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education when the court interpreted the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to find that separate facilities can't really be equal. The dissent wrote: This case presents a straightforward question under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Does a business's policy of segregating employees and intentionally assigning members of different races to different stores ``tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities'' on the basis of race? The panel answered this question ``not necessarily.'' I cannot agree with that conclusion. Once again, Judge Barrett was on the side of denying protection against racial discrimination. In Kleber v. Care Fusion Corporation, Judge Barrett sided with the majority that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act only protects current employees from discrimination due to disparate impact and not outside job applicants--a very narrow view. Then there are Judge Barrett's views on gun safety, which I find deeply concerning. Judge Barrett's record strongly suggests that she would strike down commonsense gun safety laws, even as Congress and the States continue to try to combat gun violence, which kills nearly 40,000 Americans every year. According to the Center for American Progress, from 2008 to 2017, over 6,200 people were killed with guns in Maryland, and from 2014 through 2018, there were 42 mass shootings in Maryland, killing a total of 45 people and injuring 156. That is just in one State. That is just in one State. The next Supreme Court Justice could hold the decisive vote should Congress or the States adopt commonsense gun safety laws to curb gun violence, such as requiring universal background checks, banning assault weapons, or banning high-capacity magazine clips. In Kanter v. Barr, the Seventh Circuit held that a law barring felons from possessing a firearm did not violate the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court previously held in the District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment conveyed an individual right to bear arms, separate from the right of the militia to do so. But even Justice Scalia--Judge Barrett's mentor and President Trump's role model for an ideal Justice--wrote in his majority opinion for the Court in Heller that ``nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons.'' Yet Judge Barrett dissented in Kanter and concluded that the bar on gun possession should apply only to violent felons. She argued that the majority was treating the Second Amendment like a second-class right. She went on to note that the government could deny nonviolent felons the right to vote but not the right to bear arms because ``history does show that felons can be disqualified from exercising certain rights--like the rights to vote and serve on juries--because these rights belonged only to virtuous citizens.'' So ultimately Judge Barrett bizarrely seems to treat voting rights as a second-class right compared to gun ownership. That is pretty extreme. I have always expected that in America, we could move forward in protecting individual rights under our Constitution; that in each Congress, in each session, the Supreme Court would advance those rights for individual protection under the Constitution of the United States. The filling of this Supreme Court vacancy could very well reverse a trend of protecting rights and deny many in our community their rights. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights has sent a letter to the Senate, signed by a diverse group of 150 organizations, in opposition to the confirmation of Judge Barrett. The letter urges the Senate to ``oppose the confirmation of Judge Barrett and allow the president duly chosen in the 2020 general election to fill the existing Supreme Court vacancy.'' Groups opposing the nomination include the Alliance for Justice, Human Rights Campaign, NAACP, NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland, National Council of Jewish Women, National Employment Law Project, National Organization for Women, People for the American Way, SEIU, United We Dream, and the Violence Policy Center. The list goes on and on. On October 15, 2020, the Leadership Conference reiterated its opposition to the Barrett nomination with a letter from over 400 State and local officials asking the Senate not to confirm a new Justice until after Inauguration Day. The Leadership Conference ends their letter by saying: ``It is shameful that, instead, the U.S. Senate is rushing through a nominee who is likely to eviscerate the Affordable Care Act and deprive millions of people of access to health care, destroy reproductive freedom by gutting Roe v. Wade, and suppress our right to vote, making it harder for Americans to have their voices heard in our democracy.'' I am gravely concerned that the rushed and sham process the Senate is using here will undermine the public's faith in the independence and legitimacy of the Supreme Court as a fair and impartial body. A group of former Federal judges recently wrote to the Senate: Our citizenry is sharply polarized--a foreboding sign for the health of any democracy. The judicial confirmation process has increasingly become dangerously politicized. Injecting a Supreme Court confirmation fight into this noxious mix will ultimately change and diminish the public's faith in this vital institution. Public opinion polling does indeed show that a supermajority of Americans want the winner of the upcoming election to fill the current Supreme Court vacancy. I again reference the Leadership Conference letter opposing Judge Barrett, which states ``Judge Barrett's extreme record on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, along with her ideologically driven writings and speeches, demonstrate that she is incapable of rendering equal justice under the law.'' After reviewing Judge Barrett's full record, statements, and committee testimony, I am not convinced that Judge Barrett would administer impartial justice and guarantee equal protection of the law and equal justice of the law; so therefore I must vote against her nomination. She is certainly not a mainstream jurist. Let's follow the McConnell rule and let the American people pick the next President and Senate so that they can weigh in on the decision, just as Senator McConnell argued in 2016 with President Obama's nominee of Merrick Garland for Justice Scalia's seat. Let the Senate honor Justice Ginsburg's legacy by continuing to fight for the rights she fought for her entire career, both as litigator, circuit judge, and finally as a Supreme Court Justice. Let's honor Justice Ginsburg's dying words: ``My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.'' With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, once again, the Republican leadership is circumventing and abusing the rules of the U.S. Senate. In this Congress, this has happened over and over and over again--denying debate on the Senate floor, where we have the opportunity to offer amendments and have a debate, which the Senate is very famous historically for engaging in. I can give you numerous examples. There is Justice in Policing. After all of the problems that we have seen around our country, there has been no opportunity on the floor of the Senate to consider legislation, to offer amendments, and have debate. As for the environmental challenges that our Nation and world face, there has been no debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate. As for gun safety, we have heard from students and communities of all of the tragedies that have occurred during this Congress, but there has been no debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate, where we would have an opportunity to offer amendments and have a full debate. As for immigration reform, it is something that has been talked about a great deal, but there has been no real action taken on the floor of the U.S. Senate during this Congress. With election reform, once again, there has been no debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate and no opportunity to offer amendments. We are not doing what the American people expect us to do, and I can name many, many, many more examples. At last count, somewhere around 400 bills have come over to us from the House of Representatives--many bipartisan--that have not been considered by the U.S. Senate. Then, of course, the Republican leadership changes the rules when it suits itself in order to do what it wants to do, particularly with judicial confirmations. We are seeing that right now in the attempt to fill Justice Ginsburg's vacancy. They are changing the rules. The rules that apply to the Democrats don't apply to the Republicans. They do whatever they want to do. That is not what we should be doing. Now we see the Republican leadership circumventing and abusing the rules of the U.S. Senate as it relates to our responsibility with COVID-19. Everyone knows, including the Republican leader, that we are not going to enact the bill that is currently before the Senate without the amendments being offered by the majority leader. Why are we taking up these issues? There is one simple answer: political cover votes. That is the only reason for it, but there is a consequence to this. It makes it more difficult for us to get relief to those who need it. Whether it be small businesses or whether it be our schools or whether it be our State and local governments or whether it be those who are unemployed or whether it be American families, it makes it more difficult because, as we are taking up these issues, Secretary Mnuchin, on behalf of the Trump administration, and Speaker Pelosi are negotiating, from which we hope there will be a comprehensive package to deal with COVID-19. I must tell you that Secretary Mnuchin has a very difficult challenge. First, he has to represent the President of the United States, who changes his mind every few minutes on whether he wants a package or doesn't want a package, which makes it very difficult for Secretary Mnuchin to negotiate with Speaker Pelosi. Then he has to deal with the Republicans in the U.S. Senate. We will be voting tomorrow, I understand, on a proposal from the Republicans that will be less than one-third of the amount of money that President Trump has authorized in negotiations, pulling us further apart and making it more difficult for us to reach an agreement to help the people of this country. Since mid-May and again several months ago, the House did its work. It sent over to us a comprehensive bill to deal with the next phase of COVID-19. There have been no efforts--none whatsoever--by the Republican leader to bring that legislation to the floor of the U.S. Senate so that we can have an open and full debate with amendments as to what to do. That bill has been here since mid-May, and we can't find the time to have that type of debate. So what is Leader McConnell suggesting? You will have to follow this because I know, if it were not so serious, the public would find it somewhat amusing. First, he wants to withdraw the amendment that was championed by the Republicans that deals with preexisting conditions. I must tell you that we all on our side of the aisle said that this was just another political cover vote. Now Leader McConnell is making that prediction very clear by withdrawing it and offering it again later as an effort to block the Democrats from being able to offer a clean vote on an amendment. We are going to make it a clean vote anyway, but that is his motivation. He is withdrawing the amendment that deals with preexisting conditions so that it will no longer be a part of the bill. Then he is going to offer an amendment to the underlying message, S. 178, which is legislation that deals with sanctions against China. You heard me right. This is a message on legislation that deals with sanctions against China. It already includes the underlying amendment that Leader McConnell is offering--the amendment that we are voting on in a few minutes. Then he is going to file a motion to table, which means he will want to kill the amendment. Then he is going to vote against his own motion. I hope you all can follow that. Here is the irony or hypocrisy of all of this: If the motion to table carries, the provisions that are in the amendment are still in the underlying bill. In other words, it has no effect whatsoever because it is already in the bill. So this is a vote for one purpose only--to give political cover. The American people understand that, and they understand that this is strictly about dealing with a partisan, political type of trickery, and we should have no part of that. Let's talk about the process that we have used. There will be no chance in this legislation of helping businesses with the passage of a comprehensive bill under the approach taken by the Republican leader. Now, there is a model we could follow. It has worked before, and it can work again. Look at the CARES Act. We had partisan differences, and we bridged those partisan differences. We worked together and put the American people's interests first. As a result, we passed the CARES Act with a proud 97-to-0 vote in the U.S. Senate and provided desperately needed help in dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic itself, in dealing with the health professionals and the public health people, and for testing and for vaccine development. We provided money for State and local governments, and we provided money for businesses and taxpayers. We also dealt with unemployment insurance. We did all of that. When we passed that bill in March, we thought this pandemic would be behind us by now and that we wouldn't still be in the first wave and be increasing the numbers of people infected with COVID-19. We need more help, not less help, so we need a second round. I am frustrated in regard to the provisions affecting small business. I say that because Senator Rubio, the Republican chair of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, and I, as ranking Democrat of that committee, were proud to work together and put the interest of our country first and develop the tools that were included in the CARES Act, which included, yes, the Paycheck Protection Program, the PPP. It also included EIDL loans and grants. It also included loan forgiveness in an effort to help small businesses. It was truly a bipartisan working effort. We were, I think, the first of the different provisions that were included in the CARES Act that were basically worked out in a bipartisan manner. But that is not the process the majority leader is following today. The proposal he is making is not a bipartisan proposal that has been worked on by Senator Rubio and me. We haven't come together. We could easily resolve our differences; I have no doubt about it. If we get the parameters on how much money we have, and give us a few minutes to negotiate, we will come to an agreement, as we have done in the past. I have every confidence in the world that we will do it. But this process doesn't further that aim--a process that cannot lead to help for our small businesses. Let's talk about what our small businesses need. First, they need comprehensive help. Similar to what we did in the CARES Act, they need a second major influx of help. They need help for State and local government. Why? Because the stability of the services provided by State and local government is critically important for the climate in which small businesses need to operate to get back to some degree of normalcy. They need help for our schools because our schools need to reopen as fully as they can safely, whether it is virtual or in classroom or hybrid, and they don't have the resources to do it. Our economy will not get back on track unless parents are confident about the educational opportunities of their children and can fully participate in our economy knowing their children are safe. Small businesses need that type of support. They need help for the people who are unemployed. That $600 a week went directly to helping small businesses by providing customers that use small businesses. We have 12 million Americans who are uninsured today. We didn't anticipate that in March when we passed the CARES Act, that we would still have those numbers. We need a comprehensive approach, and, yes, we need to get COVID-19 under control. We need confidence among Americans that it is OK to go out and shop and use services and participate fully in our economy. But until they are confident they can do that safely, the economy will not rebound the way it needs to. So small businesses need a comprehensive approach. Food services are still doing very poorly, and now we are entering into the cold months, when it is more difficult to eat outdoors. It means restaurants are going to need more help, not less. The hospitality industry is still very much impacted by COVID-19. We know that there are no large gatherings or events. The travel and tourism industry has taken a hit. I saw that during COVID-19, during the summer months, down on the beaches when the normal crowds were not there. We will see it again this winter in the western part of our State, as we see fewer people are traveling to Deep Creek Lake. We all recognize that we need to give attention to these types of conditions to get consumers back, that this economy is OK, to help small business. Now, the House has acted not once but twice, and Senator McConnell instead brings up a bill one-third the offer the President--less than one-third of the offer the President has already put on the table and probably about a quarter--less than a quarter of what the Democrats have passed in their most recent bill. So Senator McConnell is going to first file an amendment that would provide a second round of the Paycheck Protection Program. I agree we should have a second round of the Paycheck Protection Program. We need a second round--that is nothing new. We have had hearings in our committee where Secretary Mnuchin acknowledged that, the Democrats acknowledged it, and the Republicans acknowledged it. I filed legislation in June with Senator Shaheen on a second round of PPP--in June. It is now October, and we haven't brought that bill to the floor so we could reconcile differences if we were going to bring it up on its own, if it is not going to be part of a comprehensive package. But what Leader McConnell is saying is we are going to bring it up on our own, but it doesn't take into consideration the lessons we learned from the Paycheck Protection Program, the first round. What did we learn? We learned that underbanked, underserved communities were not treated fairly; that they didn't have the relationship with the banks that allow them to get the money in a timely way, get as large of a loan as the more established small businesses were able to get; that the lenders were more likely to do business with those who had existing relations, with the larger loans; and that we needed to empower the mission lenders who go into underserved communities and we needed to concentrate on the smaller and the smallest of the small businesses. If you look at what is being brought forward today, the legislation does not adequately provide for the underserved community. We also learned from the first round of help in the CARES Act about the importance of the Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program, the EIDL Program. Now, you see, the EIDL Program provides loans, and those loans are critically important because that is working capital. That is not just payroll; it is working capital. Small businesses need long-term, low-interest EIDL loans that are able to be paid over a long period of time and to get a break in the first year or two where they don't even have to make payments. They needed the EIDL loans, but we also created an EIDL grant program. Now, I must tell you something. Many small businesses-- particularly the smaller of the small businesses--are reluctant to take out any more loans. They don't know how they are going to pay them off. They need grants. They need grants. We provided originally $10 billion and then another $10 billion. We provided $20 billion, but that is gone. We need to replenish that money for the grant program. The amendment the leader is bringing up doesn't provide any help for that grant program. In addition, we need to think more strategically about grants under the EIDL Program, and there is a way of doing that. I will come back to that in a minute. It is not in the leader's amendment. We need to do something about the arbitrary cap that the administration placed on the EIDL loans. They placed a $150,000 cap. The law says $2 million. They compromised the effectiveness of this. Now, here is the good news. We have bipartisan support for these changes. Senator Rosen and Senator Cornyn have filed legislation that would allow us to move forward with the EIDL Program, but it is not in the amendment being offered by the majority leader. There are so many other programs in the small business field that are important. There is the loan forgiveness program--Senator Coons worked on that--that forgives loans for 6 months under the 504 and the 7(a) programs. We can reduce the cost of small business loans. We can approve microloans. I could mention so many other areas where we could provide help. We know we have specific industries that need special attention, such as the restaurant industry, such as local newspapers, such as nonprofits that weren't covered under the first PPP program. Those are not covered under Leader McConnell's amendment. Here is the tragedy: There is no opportunity under this process for us to correct errors in Senator McConnell's amendment. No chance to amend. Never had a chance to amend. Never went through the committee. And, by the way, is on a bill unrelated to this relief and has no chance of passage. That is not what we should be doing. We have other options. We could bring the revised House Heroes bill to the floor of the U.S. Senate. It is a comprehensive approach. It has been compromised. We could open it to amendment. We could debate it and pass it and provide comprehensive relief. It includes all of the small business provisions that I mentioned earlier. They are included in the House-passed bill. They passed a couple weeks ago. If Leader McConnell is just determined to bring a small business bill to the floor, then I have filed such legislation today with many of my colleagues--a bill that works with issues of concern to small businesses, which is very much bipartisan. It includes not only the second round of PPP but also includes important help for the underbanked communities and mission lenders. It provides real help for the smaller of the small businesses. It increases the EIDL Program-- similar to the Rosen-Cornyn bill but also adds a new opportunity for grants under the EIDL Program. It strengthens programs in areas for the hospitality industry, for our local newspapers, for our nonprofits. It provides help in many of the small business existing programs, such as the loan forgiveness program. The cost of small business loans are reduced. Microloans are improved. We could bring up that legislation, and then we have a bill that really deals with small business that can be debated, amended. We can have amendments and vote on it. But at least we have a comprehensive bill that has a chance of being enacted. Why do I say it has a chance of being enacted? Because the House has already acted on this. It is included in their package. We don't have to try to conference this. Look, we should have passed this months ago, but we all know elections are coming up in 2 weeks. We have to act if we are going to act. Here is a bill we can act on now and get done because we know the House has already voted on a similar package. We know small businesses need help. They are in desperate need of help. Our economy needs help. Americans need the Senate to stop playing procedural political games and to be serious about taking up legislation that can deal with their needs. I am ready at any time to sit down with my Republican colleagues and work out such legislation, but the way the majority leader is going about this is just wrong, and it should not be supported by any of us. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I mourn the loss of a tremendous champion for human rights and the State of Israel and one of my personal heroes and mentors, Ambassador Richard Schifter. Ambassador Schifter lived a truly remarkable life. After escaping Nazi-occupied Austria in 1938, he bravely returned to Europe just a few short years later as one of the U.S. Army's ``Ritchie Boys'', German-speaking officers trained in counterintelligence at Camp Ritchie in Maryland. While serving in Europe, he learned that all of his family had been killed in the Holocaust. At just over 20 years old, Ambassador Schifter had experienced more adversity than most of us see in a lifetime. Nevertheless, he spent the next seven decades demonstrating incredible faith and courage as he strived to make the world a better place. Ambassador Schifter was successful in this mission. After he graduated from Yale Law School, he went on to become an attorney, advocating for the rights of Native American Tribes facing discrimination at the hands of the U.S. Government. Under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, he served as Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, U.S. Representative to the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Commission, and as Deputy U.S. Representative to the UN Security Council. Under President Clinton, he served as Special Assistant to the President on the staff of the National Security Council and as Special Advisor to the Secretary of State. As a diplomat and public servant, he fought against oppressive regimes around the world. He pressured the Soviet Union to release political prisoners, end the criminalization of dissent, and allow the emigration of Soviet Jews. After leaving the U.S. Government, Ambassador Schifter went on the lead the American Jewish International Relations Institute, where he fiercely defended the State of Israel and worked to ensure that other people would never suffer his family's fate under the Nazis. Until his last day, Ambassador Schifter fought to promote fairness and democracy and to protect the security and freedom of others. I would be remiss if I failed to commemorate Ambassador Schifter's enormous impact on our home State of Maryland. Ambassador Schifter served for 20 years on the Maryland State Board of Education, leading both the Governor's Commission on Funding the Education of Handicapped Children and the Governor's Commission on Values Education. He was also the chairman of the Montgomery County Democratic Committee. In all these roles, he worked to expand equality and opportunity for everyone in our State. Even as his professional responsibilities spanned the globe, Ambassador Schifter remained committed to building a brighter future for his neighbors. Ambassador Schifter's passing is a staggering loss, but his legacy lives on and will serve as the true North Star for all of us who share his devotion to human rights, democracy, and decency. His parent's decision in 1938 to send their 15-year-old son to a new country, alone, saved not just his life, but also countless others on whose behalf Ambassador Schifter worked so indefatigably throughout his illustrious career. I extend my deepest condolences Ambassador Schifter's children and grandchildren and all those who were fortunate enough to call Ambassador Schifter a friend.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Reserving the right to object, I want to thank my friend Senator Cramer for bringing attention to this issue. I think he knows that the PPP program was included in the CARES Act. I take great pride in working with Senator Rubio--Republican and Democrat--and other members of our committee. We were the architects of the PPP program. It was bipartisan. It was included in the CARES Act, and it was enacted in March. It is very interesting that if we would have gone with the original bill that came out of the Republicans, it would not have been a bipartisan bill, and much of the help for small businesses would not have been there in the CARES Act. It is only through bipartisan legislation that we were able to advance the types of tools that are necessary to help America's small businesses. I must tell you, the No. 1 priority today for small businesses is to safely be able to resume full operations. They need it to be safe for parents and their children to be able to get back to school. They need us to get this virus under control, so businesses that depend on large gatherings--such as food service, hospitality, events, travel, and tourism--can literally survive. The House took its action to help accomplish these goals last May when they passed the Heroes Act. To this date, the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, has not allowed us to take up the comprehensive legislation that will help our country, help deal with the virus, help our economy, and help small businesses. Just today, Speaker Pelosi has updated the Heroes Act because it has been over 4 months since it was passed so that we now have a Heroes Act that is within the range between what the Republican Senators originally suggested and the Democrats originally suggested. That is moving toward a bipartisan bill. That is what we need. In the Heroes Act, there are so many provisions that are desperately needed for small business that are not in this unanimous consent request. Let me point out a few. We need a second round of PPP. Businesses have suffered significant revenue losses. The hardest hit, the smaller of the small businesses need more help. The PPP program is designed for an 8-week pandemic. This pandemic has gone long beyond 8 weeks. The House legislation includes resources for mission lenders, such as CDFIs and depository institutions. I mention that because we have found that when you rely on the 7(a) commercial loans in order to get forgivable loans, those who are traditionally underserved are not able to get the same type of attention--minority businesses, women-owned businesses, businesses in rural areas. We need to pay special attention to providing additional resources and allocations to mission lenders. That is not included in the unanimous consent request. We need to expand PPP eligibility. We have heard from our nonprofits that were left out of the first round. They need to be included. Local newspapers were not included. Previously incarcerated individuals were denied certain help. The House legislation--the Heroes Act--makes those changes so that all eligible small businesses would be able to qualify for these loans. The Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program, EIDL, is desperately in need of congressional attention. We have bipartisan support for significantly increasing the resources going into the EIDL Program-- Senator Cornyn, Senator Rosen--so that we could replenish the grants and provide the grants that are desperately needed for small businesses. We can eliminate that $150,000 arbitrary cap that was put on by the Small Business Administration, which is contrary to law. We need to make it clear that the loans could be made up to $2 million under the EIDL Program. We need to help State and local governments. That is in the Heroes Act. It is not in the unanimous consent that is being suggested. We have to help State and local governments because their services are critically important for small businesses to be able to operate effectively. The House bill provides a separate amount of funds so that the local governments can directly help small businesses. That is not included in the unanimous consent request. We can approve the 7(a) Loan Program, 504 Loan Program, and Microloan Program. They are in the House bill, not in the unanimous consent request. We have all heard from our live venue operators. They need help. They are going to close if we don't do something to help them. It is our responsibility to do that. It is in the Heroes Act. It is not in the unanimous consent request. We need to expand the employee retention tax credit, which allows workers to be retained by small businesses. This was expanded in the Heroes Act, but it is not in the unanimous consent request. I could go on and on about all of the provisions that we need to take up now that are necessary to help small businesses. If we wait until after the elections, more small businesses will be shuttered forever. That is the No. 1 priority of small businesses. We also find that we need to help in regard to streamlining the process of loan forgiveness. I agree with my colleague. I agree that we need to simplify that process. I have had my arguments with the Small Business Administration and so have those who have oversight in the executive branch. We know what they did to the EIDL Program. They didn't administer it the way we said--3 days to process grants. They didn't do that. They didn't give us the data we needed so we could understand the program. So why do we have confidence that, under the Senator's unanimous consent request, he will do the right form? You give them the authority to issue the form, and I am not exactly sure that will work. Here is the good news. We want to do something in this area because the Senator is right in that we need to streamline the process. The SBA is not doing it the way we intended it to be done. The House took action, but the House's action is a little bit different. The House has said: Look, for those loans under $50,000, why don't we do it without any paper. Let them retain the records, but let's eliminate any possibility of the SBA's delaying the loan forgiveness. I think that is one we should look at, but we can't do that if we are to let this unanimous consent go forward. Lastly, this consent also deals with safe harbor for the PPP lenders. It would provide safe harbor from claims under the Small Business Act, the False Claims Act, the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act, the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, and the Bank Secrecy Act, or any other Federal, State or criminal or civil law regulations. I think we should look at that before we just, all of a sudden, agree that we should give that type of blanket safe harbor. Small businesses need help now. My colleague is correct. They need help now, but they need help far broader--far broader--than this unanimous consent takes us. There is also a need for negotiations in regard to the provisions that the Senator has brought to the floor. I can assure him that I will continue to work with Senator Rubio in a bipartisan manner once we get the numbers from the powers that be--they being the Speaker of the House, the Secretary of the Treasury, the administration, and our leaders. As we did under the CARES Act, we will put together a comprehensive program to help all small businesses, not just those that are struggling right now with this form but those that can't even get the loan because they were not eligible but should have been eligible or those that need additional help or those that need the EIDL Program to work well or a microloan. We want to provide that comprehensive help now--this week--for small businesses, but this unanimous consent just does not get us there. The commitment to my colleague is that we are going to work with him and our other colleagues, as we always do, and that we are going to include the provision to make it easier for small businesses to get loan forgiveness because we agree that the SBA has not interpreted our law the way we wanted it to. For all of those reasons, I object.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to enter into a colloquy with Senators Moran and Tester, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to discuss H.R. 561, the Protecting Business Opportunities for Veterans Act. H.R. 561 is important legislation that seeks to prevent large companies from using a veteran-owned small business as a front to win a small business set-aside or sole-source contract that the small business contractor is incapable of performing. To prevent this, H.R. 561 places certain subcontracting limitations on the Department of Veterans' Affairs Vet's First contracting program. For the agency's small business set-asides for veteran-owned and service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, the small business prime would need to certify that it will perform 50 percent more of the work. This limitation on subcontracting can only be circumvented if the small business prime subcontracts to a ``similarly situated'' business. However, as ranking member of the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, I have two concerns with this legislation. The first concern is that all the penalties for violating the limitations on subcontracting fall on the small business prime contractor and does not provide the agency with the flexibility to impose penalties on the subcontractor that is using the small business as a front to win the contract. This is inconsistent with similar Small Business Administration regulations governing other small business set- asides that provide the necessary flexibility to penalize the appropriate party. The second concern is that the bill requires the Department of Veterans' Affairs to monitor compliance by using a reporting system that is not used by small business prime contractors because small businesses are exempt from the requirement to provide a small business subcontracting plan. The current system does not have the capability to record compliance on limitations of subcontracting and a system has not been established by the Small Business Administration. Simply put, there is no system in place for small businesses to report into and needs to be created. While I recognize the importance and need for H.R. 561 and believe it should be sent to the President for his signature, would the chair and ranking member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee provide assurances that we can work together on future legislation to address my concerns?

Mr. CARDIN

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. 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 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 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.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, today I thank the 30 million small businesses in America for their contributions to our economy during this year's National Small Business Week, which began on Sunday, September 20 and ends on Saturday, September 26. National Small Business Week is the time of year when we come together to celebrate our Nation's small businesses for their role in moving our economy forward by boosting local economies, improving industries through innovation, and employing nearly half of our country's workforce. Taking time to recognize our Nation's small businesses is especially important this year due to the many ways--big and small--that our small businesses have stepped up to help our communities get through the pandemic. In my home State of Maryland, I have seen distilleries use their facilities to make hand sanitizer when supplies were low; I have seen lacrosse equipment manufacturers produce face shields and masks for doctors and first responders; and I have heard stories about the many small government contractors that are helping Federal agencies address COVID-19. Today I am proud to recognize the founder of one of those small government contractors, Dr. Anton Bizzell, who has been named Maryland Small Business Person of the Year by the Small Business Administration. Dr. Bizzell's company, the Bizzell Group, is an 8(a) certified small business that specializes in strategy and technology and works at the forefront of public health issues. Most recently, the Bizzell Group has been helping the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention keep our communities aware of the latest information regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. After more than 25 years of experience in health services, policy, and management, Dr. Bizzell founded the Bizzell Group in 2010 to provide data-driven and innovative solutions to clients in an effort to build healthy, secure, and connected communities. In the years since, the company has grown to include nearly 100 employees with four offices in Lanham, Rockville, Atlanta, GA, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Dr. Bizzell has said, ``Business is most successful when done with integrity, excellence, and heart, and success is when your end result makes the world a better place.'' His philosophy is clearly at work at the Bizzell Group. Dr. Bizzell and the Bizzell Group are a shining example of the vital role small businesses and entrepreneurs play in our communities. In addition to the more than 100 jobs created by the Bizzell Group, Dr. Bizzell serves on the Maryland Board for the March of Dimes, and he is president of the Delta Lambda Chapter of the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity. I congratulate Dr. Bizzell for being named Maryland's Small Business Person of the Year, and I thank him and his colleagues at the Bizzell Group for their efforts to keep our communities informed about COVID-19 during this unprecedented public health crisis. I am proud to represent them in the U.S. Senate. Now more than ever, these contributions to our economy and communities deserve to be recognized. Dr. Bizzel and the many small business owners like him in communities across the nation are why I will continue to fight for Congress to pass another economic relief bill that meets the needs of our communities and small businesses. So many of our Nation's small businesses have stepped up for us, and Congress must once again do the same for them.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I rise to honor the life and legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The Nation mourns the loss of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died Friday night. She died on the eve of the Jewish new year, Rosh Hashanah. She was the first Jewish woman on the U.S. Supreme Court. Rabbis tell us a very interesting thing about individuals who die right before the new year. They say and they suggest that these are very righteous people who die at the very end of the year because they were needed until the very end. Under Jewish tradition, those who die on the new year holiday are considered tzadik, a title given to the righteous and saintly. Certainly Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was entitled to this honor, being righteous and saintly. At her confirmation hearing, Justice Ginsburg talked about her immigrant experience. You see, her father was a Jewish immigrant, and her mother was barely a second-generation American. So she talked about American values, and then she said: ``What has become of me could only happen in America.'' Then she spent her entire career protecting those values that make America the great Nation it is and the reason why people come here in order to reach their full potential. It guided her well in her public service. Justice Ginsburg was both an inspiration and a trailblazer in every sense of the word. After breaking through the countless barriers thrown in her path, she redefined what is meant to be both a thoughtful jurist and a dedicated public servant. Let me just briefly go over some of her incredible accomplishments: first in her undergraduate class at Cornell University, first female member of the Harvard Law Journal, graduating first in her class at Columbia Law School, first female professor at Columbia University to earn tenure. Justice Ginsburg directed the ACLU Women's Rights Project and argued six landmark cases before the Supreme Court, winning five of those cases. These cases protected not only the rights of women but those of many men who faced discrimination as well. As the National Women's Law Center wrote about Justice Ginsburg's death, they said: [Her passing] is cause for us to pause and honor the unparalleled mark she has left on this country. From co- founding the ACLU's Women's Rights Project, to bringing the first case striking down a law that discriminated against women, to building the case that defined the standard for sex discrimination cases, Ginsburg was a visionary who revolutionized the gender equality movement--and the law-- long before becoming a Supreme Court Justice. For our country, Ginsburg's ethos was greater than just the law. She was an icon and a living symbol of a north star, so we must unite and do for her what she did for us--fight for what is right. As a litigator, Judge Ginsburg helped to shape the law, convincing the Supreme Court that ``equal protection of the law'' under the 14th Amendment applied not only to racial discrimination but to gender discrimination as well. Justice Ginsburg herself knew discrimination firsthand, as she struggled to find a job after graduating law school--notwithstanding her sterling qualifications. She had that difficulty, as we all know, solely because of her gender. She experienced gender discrimination firsthand, and she did something about it not only for herself but for future generations. After serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia for 13 years, she began a 27-year career on the U.S. Supreme Court. There are so many of her decisions that were so consequential, so visionary, expressing the right value, and her ability to express her views was unquestioned. She did that in writing majority opinions, and she is well known for doing that in writing dissenting opinions. So many of her dissenting opinions led the way for change. She was right, and she motivated change. In 1996, Justice Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion of the Court in the finding that the all-male admissions policy at the State-supported Virginia Military Institute was unconstitutional. She said in that opinion: ``Generalizations about `the way women are,' estimates of what is appropriate for most women, no longer justify denying opportunity to women whose talent and capacity place them outside the average description.'' Any differential treatment, she concluded, must not ``create or perpetuate the legal, social, and economic inferiority of women.'' What a difference she made in that decision. I will always remember her dissenting opinion in the Lilly Ledbetter case because it led directly to change. Justice Ginsburg wrote in that fiery dissent: ``Our precedent suggests, and lower courts have overwhelmingly held, that the unlawful practice is the current payment of salaries infected by gender-based (or race-based) discrimination--a practice that occurs whenever a paycheck delivers less to a woman than to a similarly situated man.'' I heard one of my colleagues talk about precedent, but here we see the Court reversing precedent in order to advance discrimination against women. Her dissent led to congressional action, becoming the first piece of legislation signed by President Barack Obama. The text of this bill hung on her office wall for good reason, as it embodied her spirit. She issued a fiery dissent again in the Shelby County v. Holder case in 2013, a case decided by a 5-to-4 vote of the Supreme Court of the United States, which gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Here is what she said in that opinion: What has become of the court's usual restraint? Justice Ginsburg wrote in her dissenting opinion: The great man who led the march from Selma to Montgomery and there called for the passage of the Voting Rights Act foresaw progress, even in Alabama. ``The arc of the moral universe is long,'' he said, but ``it bends toward justice,'' if there is a steadfast commitment to see the task through to completion. That commitment has been disserved by today's decision. . . . Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet. I mentioned these cases to underscore the importance of the Supreme Court Justice in the lives of all Americans. So much is at stake in the filling of Justice Ginsburg's vacancy. It will have real consequences on all of our constituents. Let me just give you a few examples of what is likely to be taken up by the Supreme Court that could affect my constituents in Maryland and the constituents around the Nation. Your healthcare is, literally, on the line. The Affordable Care Act that President Trump has tried to repeal and the Republicans have tried to repeal in this body but have failed, they are now going to take to the Supreme Court. A hearing is scheduled this November. This is a real risk for tens of millions of Americans who depend on the law for their health coverage and other benefits. Twenty million Americans could lose their healthcare, and people with preexisting conditions could lose those protections--that is 133 million Americans--during the coronavirus pandemic. That is what is at risk. We are talking about pregnancy, cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure, behavioral health disorders, high cholesterol, asthma, chronic lung disease, heart conditions, and numerous others that have been held to be preexisting conditions. That protection is in the Affordable Care Act. That is on the line before the Supreme Court this November. That is why Americans are concerned that we follow the right process in selecting the next individual to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. If the Affordable Care Act is struck down, insurers could bring back annual and lifetime limits on coverage; adults covered by Medicaid expansion would lose vital health services; young people would be kicked off of their parents' insurance; and insurers could sell skimpy plans that don't even cover essential health benefits like prescription drugs, emergency room visits, mental health and substance use, and maternity care. The Affordable Care Act increased access to care for millions who were previously uninsured or underinsured. Through Medicaid expansion, 13 million low-income Americans now have dependable, comprehensive health. In Maryland alone, over 1.3 low-income individuals depend on Medicaid, including 512,000 low-income children, 107,000 seniors, and 152,000 individuals with disabilities. That is in Maryland. We must protect the Medicaid expansion population and other uninsured and underinsured populations from the Trump administration's effort to eliminate their access to affordable care. It is at risk. This vacancy is critically important to protecting healthcare, and there are so many other issues. Women's reproductive rights--clearly at risk. Roe v. Wade--I understand it is established precedent, but look at what the Supreme Court has been willing to do in reversing precedent. We know Roe v. Wade is in the crosshairs for change by the Supreme Court, and one more Justice appointed to support that position and a woman's right of choice could very well be in jeopardy. Our most vulnerable individuals are at risk as well. Let me talk about one specific group of people--some of our immigrants. On June 18, 2020, in a 5-to-4 decision written by Justice Roberts and joined by Justice Ginsburg, the Supreme Court held that the Department of Homeland Security violated the law when it rescinded the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival, DACA, Program. There are approximately 643,000 DACA recipients in the United States, and approximately 29,000 are healthcare workers, essential workers, whose service during the COVID-19 pandemic has saved lives and eased suffering. But for that 5-to-4 decision, those individuals' lives could have been totally disrupted had they been ordered to leave our country. These are individuals who know no other home but the United States of America. They are our neighbors and friends--and yet a 5-to-4 decision of the Supreme Court. Justice Ginsburg will no longer be there. This next Justice could very well determine the fate of the Dreamers. LGBTQ community: In the Obergefell v. Hodges case, the Supreme Court, by a 5-to-4 decision, held the Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry. That is a 5-to-4 decision. I always expected that, in America, we would move forward in protecting individual rights under our Constitution; that, in each Congress and each session, the Supreme Court would advance those rights for individuals' protection under the Constitution of the United States. The filling of this Supreme Court vacancy could very well reverse a trend of protecting rights and deny many in our community their rights. I could cite many, many other examples of what is at risk by the Supreme Court appointment. There are many reasons why we believe that we should follow the proper process in selecting the next Supreme Court Justice, so let's talk a little bit about what process we should follow. Let's talk a little bit about fairness. Let's talk about the integrity of the Senate. Let's talk about living up to our own words. Let's talk about using the same rules for Democrats that you use for Republicans. Let's talk about the fairness of the process. Now, I could spend a lot of time on the floor quoting the comments of so many of my colleagues who spoke on the floor of the U.S. Senate 4 years ago on the Merrick Garland nomination by President Obama and how they spoke about the importance of listening to the voters of our Nation, how they said we didn't have the time--and, remember, Merrick Garland was in February of an election year--to do this; that we needed to withhold taking up the nomination; that it was up to the voters to act first; and that this had nothing to do with the fact that it was a Democrat in the White House. So many of our colleagues said: If there is a Republican elected in 2016 and the Senate is controlled by the Republicans, we would say the same thing. Hold off. Let the voters have a chance. Let me quote from one of our colleagues. In 2016, Senate Republicans refused to consider the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland, President Obama's nominee for a Supreme Court vacancy. They would not meet with Judge Garland, hold a hearing on his nomination, or allow a vote for 293 days. Antonin Scalia died in February 2016. President Obama nominated Merrick Garland, a respected D.C. Circuit Judge with bipartisan support, in March 2016. In the case of Justice Ginsburg's vacancy in 2020, we are about 40 days away from a general election, and early and absentee voting has already begun in several states. By contrast, in 2016, the formal presidential primary elections had just begun to occur when Justice Scalia died. Our colleagues spoke up then and said: Look, 4 years ago, our Republican colleagues said not enough time, leave it up to the voters; we would do this whether it is a Democrat or Republican. Let me quote from one of our colleagues, the Republican leader, Mitch McConnell. This is his quote on the floor of the Senate. Mr. President, the next Justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country, so of course--of course the American people should have a say in the Court's direction. . . . As Chairman Grassley and I declared weeks ago and reiterated personally to President Obama, the Senate will continue to observe the Biden rule so that the American people have a voice in this momentous decision. The American people may well elect a President who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration. The next President may also nominate someone very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice in filling this vacancy. . . . As we continue working on issues like these, the American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue. So [let's give] them a voice. Let's let the American people decide. Senator Mitch McConnell. We have the McConnell rule, established by the Republican leader. Let's follow the McConnell rule and let the American people pick the next President and Senate so they can weigh in on this decision just as Senator McConnell argued in 2016 with President Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, for Justice Scalia's seat. Let the Senate honor Justice Ginsburg's legacy by continuing to fight for the rights she fought for in her entire career, both as a litigator and circuit judge and, finally, as a Supreme Court Justice. Let us honor Justice Ginsburg's dying wish: ``My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new President is installed.'' I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I rise to commemorate the International Day of Democracy. Since 2007, September 15 has offered an opportunity each year to reflect on the democratic values that we cherish and to recommit ourselves to promoting them around the world. The democratic project is especially important at this moment. Although some communities are experiencing greater rights and freedoms than ever before, there is also an alarming trend of democratic backsliding in many corners of the globe. Countries that were becoming increasingly open and egalitarian are moving back toward authoritarianism under unlawful, oppressive leaders. Meanwhile, countries that were already unfree are suffering even more disturbing civil and human rights abuses. If we turn a blind eye to these developments, it will embolden bad actors to continue undermining freedom, peace, and equality. The United States must lead all democracy-loving people in calling out subversions of democratic rights wherever they exist and holding those responsible to account. One country that requires our urgent attention is China. The Government of China has not adhered to democratic norms for a long time, but we should never allow that failure to normalize ongoing human rights abuses such as the vicious opposition to the Uighurs. International nongovernmental organizations have documented China's mass surveillance, arbitrary detention, torture, and political indoctrination of these communities for no reason other than their religious and cultural differences. We must do everything possible to fight for the freedom and equality of the Uighurs to help end this atrocity. We also need to stand up for the rights of the people of Hong Kong. Beijing's attempt to circumvent Hong Kong's independent legal system with a far-reaching, oppressive national security law is dangerous and in complete disregard of the one-country, two-system principle. I am likewise disturbed that the Hong Kong government inexplicably postponed the September regional elections for another year. The people of Hong Kong deserve to see their democratic aspirations realized and protected. I am pleased that there is bipartisan, strong support in the U.S. Senate and in the House for the people of Hong Kong, and I joined with Senator Rubio in introducing legislation to make that clear. China is certainly not the only place where democratic rights are threatened. We need to look closer to home, as well, to countries like Venezuela. In Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro's illegal regime has produced one of the worst humanitarian crises by plundering the country's resources for personal gain and using the distribution of food as a tool for social control. Maduro has completely ignored the Venezuelan people's call to return to democracy and is using the current global pandemic as an opportunity to consolidate his own power. In addition to addressing quasi-dictatorships in the Western Hemisphere, we must maintain pressure on the so-called ``last dictator'' of Europe, Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko. While Lukashenko's near three-decade rule has been full of corrupt power grabs and crackdowns and dissent, his behavior surrounding the recent Presidential election demonstrates a new level of lawlessness. Lukashenko refused to certify opposing candidates and then imprisoned them. He claimed victory through clearly fraudulent election results. He restricted the free flow of information by shutting down the internet and targeting journalists. And he oversaw the brutal repression of protesters, including many instances of Belarusian security forces repeatedly torturing detained civilians. Lukashenko knows that the Belarusian people are ready for a new democratic chapter that does not include him. Instead of stepping aside to serve the interests of his country, he has abandoned the rule of law in order to protect his own power. It is no surprise that Lukashenko has appealed to Vladimir Putin to endorse this tyrannical approach. President Putin is, after all, a veteran when it comes to destabilizing democracies. He has done so not only in his own country of Russia, where he overcomes dissent by changing the constitution to secure his rule and poisoning political opponents, but also in other parts of the world. That includes his continuous attempts to undermine our democracy here in the United States. President Trump has completely failed to hold Vladimir Putin accountable for abusing his own people's human rights and attacking the United States. Even worse, President Trump appears to have taken a page out of Putin's book, suggesting that if he were not reelected this November, he may not accept the results of that election. It is a sad commentary on the state of our domestic affairs that we have to take such a ludicrous statement seriously. We know that global democracy is in trouble when the leader of the United States is copying undemocratic heads of state instead of condemning them. These are but a few snapshots of what is happening in many countries around the world. If there is anything that I have learned in my many years of public service, it is that we can never take democracy--and all the freedoms, rights, and opportunities it entails--for granted. My work in the House and the Senate on the Helsinki Commission really embodies that commitment to stand up for human rights. The Helsinki Final Act made it clear that all States in Europe, the former Soviet Union, United States, and Canada embraced not only democratic principles and human rights of good governance but also the principle that we have a right to challenge the compliance with those commitments in any other member state. It is not interfering in their internal matters; it is holding them to the commitments they made in the Helsinki Final Act. Democracy is fragile. It must be constantly tended to and protected to survive and flourish. Therefore, while we have a responsibility to monitor the status of democracy in other parts of the world, we have a parallel duty to safeguard and tend to our democracy here at home. I cannot remember a more dangerous time for American democracy since the Civil War. To protect our democracy, we must protect the ability of every individual to exercise her or his right to vote. In the middle of a pandemic, that means expanding the ability to vote by mail so that we do not force people to choose between participating in our democracy or protecting their health. We need to make sure that State and local election boards get the resources they need to cover the costs of mail-in voting, and we need to defend the strength, integrity, and impartiality of the U.S. Postal Service. Our President also openly invites foreign powers to interfere in our election, and his encouragement has been effective. The same external factors that we know influenced the elections in 2016 are once again actively planning to interfere in the upcoming election. Regardless of party affiliation, we should all be able to unite in pursuit of a healthy, functioning democracy. That requires us to take action against the foreign actors seeking to spread misinformation and divide Americans for their own benefit. When we fail to protect democracy in the United States, it has consequences all over the world. After he was confronted about his recent brutal crackdown on protesters, journalists, and opposition members, Belarus President Lukashenko said that the United States ``should sort out their own affairs'' before attempting to interfere in Belarus. His statements made clear that President Trump and his administration and supporters' undemocratic behavior is eroding our credibility on the global stage as a voice for human rights. Let today, International Day for Democracy, be a reminder for us to stand up in defense of democracy, whether we are talking about China, Venezuela, Belarus, or here in our own backyard. The world is counting on us. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I join my colleagues to honor the service and sacrifice of members of the U.S. Armed Forces, veterans, and Gold Star families, and to commemorate the men and women in uniform who made the ultimate sacrifice to protect our Nation. Since the earliest days of this country, we have been blessed by selfless men and women who have run toward, not away from, mortal danger. Driven by a profound sense of patriotism, they laid down their own lives to defend the freedoms that define our Nation. That level of courage is difficult to comprehend and impossible to repay. Therefore, we show our gratitude by remembering these heroes-- their bravery, their strength, and their hope--and also the sacrifices of the loved ones who have lost family members in uniform. One such hero is SFC John David Randolph Hilty from Bowie, MD. Sergeant Hilty was serving in Iraq in support of Operation Inherent Resolve, helping to defeat ISIL, when he died this past March 30, 2020. This was after completing three previous tours to Afghanistan and earning several awards for his valiant service, including the Bronze Star Medal, Army Commendation Medal, and Joint Service Achievement Medal. Those who knew Sergeant Hilty remember him as a devoted son, husband, father, a tremendous leader, and a dear friend. I am thankful for Sergeant Hilty's service to our country and so sorry for the loss of such a wonderful member of our community. We are forever indebted to the brave men and women like Sergeant Hilty who gave their lives to keep the rest of us safe. As President John F. Kennedy once said, ``We must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them.'' All Americans should be reflecting on the values that these men and women defended, and we must redouble our efforts to uphold them. Values like the freedoms to speak, worship, think, and dissent, values like equality, justice, and tolerance, values like truth and fairness, these are the pillars of the democracy that so many have died to protect. We honor their sacrifices by working together to build and preserve the America they fought to defend and support. Our citizen soldiers never need to ask what is in it for them. They know they answer life's highest and most honorable calling. We should all remember the sacrifices that so many servicemen and service women have made defending our freedoms. My thoughts and prayers are with all the families in Maryland and across the United States who have lost loved ones protecting our Nation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, the most recent count of confirmed Americans who have died as a result of COVID-19 is 157,551 souls. In my State of Maryland, that confirmed number is 3,402. Those are the confirmed deaths. We believe the deaths are even higher. Although the United States represents only 4.3 percent of the world's population, we represent over 26 percent of the COVID-19 infections and almost 23 percent of fatalities. These numbers are continuing to grow every day. The Trump administration was ill-prepared, inadequate in its response, misleading and inconsistent in its messaging, missing in the international leadership to deal with this global pandemic, and denied the consequences of the pandemic on our own constituents. Congress took on its responsibility by passing major legislation. The passage of the CARES Act--which was passed in March--was the right response at that time to do what we needed to deal with the pandemic. But we knew by May that COVID-19 would have a much longer impact on our country, would be more difficult to control, and we had to take additional steps in Congress in order to protect our Nation. The House did the right thing in passing the Heroes Act on May 15. It has been almost 3 months, and the Republican leadership in the Senate has failed to respond. We need to take action that is equivalent to the challenge--this incredible challenge. This is the worst pandemic we have seen since the 1918 influenza pandemic, over 100 years ago. This is the greatest economic challenge that we have faced since the Great Depression. This requires bold action in order to protect the people of our country. The help provided by the CARES Act has ended. Unemployment benefits have terminated. State and local governments are out of resources. The small business tools have already been used by the small businesses. American families need additional help. The unemployed need help. State and local governments need help. Our businesses need help. We need to act now and pass a comprehensive package to deal with this pandemic. What should be included in a comprehensive package? Let me start first with the health challenge. I was pleased that the CARES Act provided for a Marshall Plan to deal with the health pandemic. But we have since learned that this health challenge has been different in different communities. There are disturbing facts about the health disparities on the communities that have been particularly hard-hit. Communities of color have had higher infection rates, higher hospitalization rates, higher deaths. We know that this is in part because of systemic discrimination that we have seen in our system of healthcare. We need to take action. Let me give you a few things we could do in this next round that could help deal with the disparities in the health impact. The FMAP, the payment for Medicaid by the Federal Government to the States--you see, it has been estimated that 12 million Americans have additionally needed to rely on Medicaid as a result of COVID-19. The States are unable to act because their budgets have been so badly hurt. There is a risk factor that they will, in fact, even cut back benefits because they don't have the funds to maintain the current benefits before COVID-19, let alone the additional number of people who have been thrown into the need for Medicaid. We need to take steps and improve the FMAP by the Federal Government. Telehealth has proven to be a very effective tool in dealing with COVID-19. We know that people cannot travel, cannot go to offices as easily as they could, and we have seen a natural desire to do as much telehealth as possible. We have passed legislation to expand the types of services and geography that can use telehealth services. It is very important for rural America, very important for the underserved community, and very important for the transportation-challenged community. We need to make those provisions permanent. I have introduced two pieces of legislation with my colleagues: the REACH Act, with Senator Tim Scott, and the COVID-19 Health Disparities Act, with Senator Menendez. These bills work on fundamental problems of why COVID-19 has had a disparate impact on communities of color. We want to make sure we have a workforce that represents our communities. We want to make sure there is adequate funding. We want to make sure testing is done, targeted to those communities that are most vulnerable. We want to make sure the vaccine, when it is developed, is fairly shared. We want to make sure we have outreach and education in all communities. These bills deal with those issues. The health challenge, as it relates to health disparities, needs to be part of the legislation that I hope we will be considering in the very, very near future. The legislation needs to include an extension of unemployment insurance benefits, which is a lifeline for individuals and our economy. Individuals desperately need these funds in order to take care of basic needs for their families. But our economy needs the influx of these resources in order to keep our economy afloat during COVID-19. The Heroes Act, which, again, was passed almost 3 months ago, extends the $600-a-week payment through the end of January; whereas the McConnell bill, the HEALS Act, cuts it back to $200 and only through October and sets up a test for local--on the percentage of your previous salary that UI, unemployment insurance, administrators in the States tell us is not administrable, making a roadblock for those even to get the money provided in the HEALS Act, the bill introduced by Senator McConnell. We need to act boldly. The impact on our economy is here today and is showing no letup. We need to extend the $600, and we need to do it through at least January of next year. The impact of COVID-19 has been cruel to families meeting their basic obligations, including housing for both renters and homeowners. The moratorium on eviction and foreclosure has now expired. The protection is not there. It has been estimated that $12.3 million American households are now at risk of eviction. We need to act now. We need to provide help against eviction and foreclosure, including direct assistance to renters and homeowners. It will not only be, again, the right thing to protect American families during this pandemic, but it will also help deal with stability in the real estate market, making sure we can maintain financial viability for that critically important industry. It is a win-win situation. But look at the contrast between what was done in the House and what we are asking--the Democrats are asking--to be considered on the Senate floor. The Heroes Act provides $100 billion to assist renters and $75 billion to assist homeowners. The legislation offered by Senator McConnell, the HEALS Act, provides zero assistance. We need to do what is right for American families and make sure that they have a roof over their heads. That needs to be part of our comprehensive response. State and local governments are in desperate need. You see, they have balanced budget requirements. They have to balance their budgets, and now they are juggling 2 fiscal years--one for most States that ended on June 30 and another that started on July 1. In both of those fiscal years, they are projecting large deficits. I can tell you, in Maryland alone, the fiscal year June 30 deficit is now projected to grow by $1 billion. Here is the challenge. It is up to our State and local governments to fund things such as first responders and public safety and schools and public health and critical, essential services, but they don't have the resources to do it. Without help from the Federal Government, without help in this round, we are going to see additional layoffs and services that are essential in our community not being carried out. The CARES Act helped, but the CARES Act did not deal with the loss of revenue sustained by State and local governments. Let's just use our common sense here. What do you think our State and local governments are looking at in sales tax revenues with so much consumer activity that has not taken place? Let's take a look at our income tax revenues by our State and local governments. With income being so severely restricted, those revenues are dramatically reduced. In recent years, we have seen the State and local governments rely more and more on specific taxes, generally with hospitality--dealing with hotels and car rentals and parking. Those revenues are nonexistent. We need to act. It was for good reason that Governor Hogan, the Republican chair of the National Governors Association for Maryland, and Governor Cuomo, the vice chair--the Democratic Governor from New York--came together with all of our Governors, saying: You need to help us so that we can help our constituents. By the way, their constituents are our constituents; the same individuals are served by State and local governments and by us in the Congress. The Heroes Act, once again, provided robust help, recognizing that this pandemic will have an impact not only on the fiscal year that ended June 30 but the fiscal year that began July 1. They provide $900 billion of help to State and local governments, providing for its use for revenue loss and providing direct assistance to our larger subdivisions. The legislation that was suggested by Senator McConnell on behalf of the Republicans contains zero--no help for State and local governments. One of the essential functions that State and local governments need to carry out is educating our children in our schools. There are different needs in different communities. Our aid has to be flexible to allow the local school districts to do what is right for their children as it relates to public safety and education. That is our responsibility. I recently met with educators in Maryland and looked at their challenges. They went over with me the cost challenges that they will face this fall, whether they are doing in-classroom, distant learning, or a hybrid approach. Safely reopening is costly. Following the CDC guidelines to make sure they have the cleaning supplies and protective equipment and infrastructure changes that are necessary to safely have students in the classroom and educators in the classroom; how bus routes need to be changed, which is going to be more expensive; dealing with distant learning and the technology that is needed; the tutoring and special education needs that are going to be more challenging; the training of teachers--all this is going to cost more funds. State and local governments have less funds to operate with. I particularly want to mention the digital divide. We knew before COVID-19 that if you did not have access to broadband high-speed internet in your household, you were at a disadvantage. It puts your children at a disadvantage because even though they learn at school, learning does not stop at the end of the schoolday, and access to high- speed internet is critically important for students. It is also important for their parents and for everyone to be able to get access to the internet. That has really come to light during COVID-19. Yes, we have a digital divide. We know that in rural America, it is more difficult to get broadband. We also know about the economic circumstances of many families who can't afford the internet. We need to take steps to remove that digital divide. We need to do that now. We need to do that in this legislation so that our children can get the maximum opportunities this fall through distant learning--those who are going to participate in distant learning. We need to do everything we can so children don't fall further behind because of a lack of access to broadband. The Heroes Act provides robust funding both for State and local government but also dedicated to education. That is what we need to do and make sure it is part of a robust response. In November, we will be having our national elections. There is nothing more important to our democracy than protecting the free and fair election process in America so that every eligible voter in our country can cast their ballot safely, that they can do it without fear for their public health, and that we can make sure it is done without influence from foreign actors. That requires additional resources. I was on the phone with the head of our election board in Maryland, talking about the challenges they have. Governor Hogan has suggested a hybrid approach to the November elections. It is going to cost millions of dollars more to conduct that election. The local governments don't have those funds. The Heroes Act provides funds to protect the integrity of our election system. It needs to be part of it. We all know there are foreign actors trying to interfere with our elections. We need to take steps to make sure it is protected. Once again, the bill brought to us by the Republicans, the HEALS Act, provides no help. The Heroes Act provides $3.6 billion. This week, I was on the phone with several of my constituents concerning the U.S. Postal Service. The U.S. Postal Service is mentioned in the Constitution as one of the primary functions of the Federal Government. It is essential. Ask seniors who rely on the Postal Service to get their medicines in a timely way. We now know how important it is for timely conducting our election process. Yet we are seeing delays in service. We are seeing compromises to worker safety. We are seeing unreasonable restrictions imposed by the Postal System, and they have a desperate need for additional resources. There is a lack of overtime, a lack of being able to pick the hours that you make your delivery so that you can get your mail delivered promptly and in the safest way considering the weather and COVID-19. All of that has been compromised because of a lack of resources and, I will also add, the management, the Postmaster. We need to provide additional help. We knew that before COVID-19, and it is now even more critical post-COVID-19. The Heroes Act provides $25 billion for our Postal System. We need to make sure that is done. Once again, contrast that with the offer that was made by Senator McConnell, where no money was provided for those services. Nutrition and the SNAP program are all critically challenged as a result of COVID-19. We need to make sure we make more resources available. The Heroes Act provides more resources to make sure our families receive the nutrition they need. One of the things is delivering meals. When students are in the classroom, they usually get their food there, and it is a lot more efficient to do it that way. When they are not in the classroom, it has to be delivered, and that is more costly. We have to provide those resources to make sure our children are protected. We have to deal with childcare. Many families have challenges with childcare. The Heroes Act provides help there. Essential workers. We talk about essential workers all the time and talk about how we applaud them. They are our heroes. What do we do for them? Well, the House bill deals with hazardous pay to show our appreciation through compensation. That is what we should do. As we pass comprehensive legislation, that should be part of it. Let me say that we should also do that in regard to our own Federal workforce. We should make sure there are adequate resources to make sure every Federal worker has the protection they need to stay safe from COVID-19. We should do everything we can to encourage telework when telework makes sense for our Federal workforce. Let me conclude with the area that I probably have spent the most time with, and that is small business. In regard to small business, we have had a bipartisan working group that has made tremendous gains on behalf of tools that help small businesses. Yes, I do want to acknowledge Senator Rubio and Senator Collins and, on the Democratic side, Senator Shaheen. The four of us worked together in the CARES Act to produce the Paycheck Protection Program, which was successful in getting money out quickly to small businesses so they could stay alive. The problem with the PPP program is that we thought that by now, the economy would be back on track and that small businesses would be able to continue without additional help from the Federal Government. That is not the case. Secondly, we learned in the PPP program that the underbanked community--the minority small businesses and the smaller small businesses--was left behind when it started because they didn't have the same priority relationship with the lenders as the more sophisticated small businesses had. As a result, they were denied help. In the early stages, their loans were not as large; they didn't get the same type of attention. As we look at a second round, we need to make sure that it is targeted to those small businesses that need the help and have had revenue loss as a result of COVID-19. That is targeted to the smaller of the small businesses. They are the ones that don't have the same degree of resiliency, and they need attention at this particular moment. Yes, we need to build up the capacity and make sure that mission lenders--those that are most sensitive to the underserved community-- have the capacity and the volume of loans necessary to reach out so that we don't make the same mistake on the next round that was initially made in the PPP program. I think we can get that done. There has been strong bipartisan talk about these issues. I think we can make progress and get this done. There is another program that was left out of the HEALS Act by Senator McConnell that I was very disappointed about, and that is the economic injury disaster loan and grant program, the EIDL Program. PPP provided help to small businesses to deal with their payroll expenses and some utility expenses, but it didn't deal with the long-term capital needs of a small business. We know that they need help in addition to just the paycheck issues. That is where the EIDL Program came in. You can make both an EIDL loan and a PPP loan. Yet we ran out of EIDL funds very early. Instead of issuing loans up to $2 million, the SBA only issued loans up to $150,000. The grant program was $10,000 in cash to small businesses. It doesn't have to be repaid. That is a lifeline for the smaller small businesses. They are the ones that use the EIDL Program. They are the smaller of the small businesses. The SBA imposed a $1,000-per-employee cap, so they didn't get the full amount of the grant. We have to make sure that we provide additional resources to deal with these issues so that the EIDL Program can provide long-term financing to small businesses. Coupled with the PPP program, we can keep small businesses alive, because we all know they are the growth engine of America. They are the heart of our economy. We need to make sure that is part of the next legislation. COVID-19 is a once-in-a-lifetime challenge for us. Pandemics happen once in a hundred years. This impact on our economy is similar to the Great Depression. Let's rise to the challenge. Let's pass a bipartisan--I would say a nonpartisan--bold bill to deal with the challenges that are before us, and let's stay here and get it done now I yield the floor.