Christopher Coons

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I have 6 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Armed Services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on Tuesday, March 16, 2021, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 16, 2021, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 16, 2021, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Finance The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 16, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 16, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on a nomination. Select Committee on Intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 16, 2021, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a closed briefing.

Mr. COONS

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Madam President, it has long been said that ``neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays'' our U.S. postal ``couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.'' These words, in fact, are chiseled in granite above the entrance to the post office on 8th Avenue in New York City--one of the grandest post offices in our Nation. It is the adopted creed of the faithful and hard-working letter carriers and frontline workforce of our Postal Service. As I have said before, I have no beef with the men and women of our Postal Service, but I have real and deep concerns about how the Postal Service is being run under the current Postmaster General. President Biden doesn't get to choose a new Postmaster General just because he is the new President. In fact, the current officeholder, Louis DeJoy, was chosen by the Board under the previous administration. Weeks ago, I joined with many colleagues and with Chairman Peters of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which is responsible for the Postal Service, to send a letter to Postmaster General DeJoy to restore on-time delivery and stop the harmful systemwide changes that have caused unacceptable mail delays. Sadly, that is not the first time I have had to reach out, with Senators in this body, to the Postmaster General. In fact, on five separate occasions, we have written the Postmaster General, between August and February, last year to this year. We have demanded transparency. We have insisted on the restoration of mail sorting machines. We have asked for assistance with vote-by-mail deliveries and wrote for just simple answers to pending constituent inquiries. In my hometown of Wilmington, DE, last August, I joined our attorney general, Kathy Jennings, my senior Senator, Tom Carper, Congresswoman Lisa Blunt Rochester, and a series of union leaders for a day of action to save the Postal Service. A few days later, I drove myself to our mail distribution center in New Castle after leadership of the Postal Service denied my request to visit. Thanks to having been alerted by some frontline employees, I drove around back and was able to see a dismantled massive piece of mail handling equipment left outside in the rain. In January and February alone, my office received hundreds of messages from constituents complaining about mail issues. Since last April, I have heard from nearly 5,000 Delawareans--folks asking for robust funding for the Postal Service, wanting stronger vote-by-mail initiatives, and hundreds and hundreds of them reporting delays in the mail. I want to take a few minutes, if I might, and just go through some of these concerns I have heard, which, I have also heard from colleagues, are being replicated across our Nation. Gloria Lester, down in Lewes, in Sussex County, said that mail that previously took just 3 to 4 days is now taking her 4 to 6 weeks. Her bills are due before she even gets the statements. And her husband's VA medication took a month to arrive from the date they mailed it. Jim Nichols of Milford wrote concerned about the delay in getting his newspapers, his magazines, and his other periodicals. And Jim is not alone. I have heard from local and regional newspapers that rely on the Postal Service to deliver out-of-State and out-of-area subscribers. We have a beach area with a lot of homeowners who live here in our Nation's Capital or elsewhere throughout the region. And Chris Raush, who is with the Cape Gazette, which gets mailed to folks all over our region, told me some of their out-of-State subscribers don't receive the paper for a month, and then, when they do, they get a big bundle of old papers. And now with papers not showing up weeks at a time, they have had to tell subscribers this is just out of their control and offer refunds. Megan Stibbe, of the Delmarva Farmer, another local paper, said that she has ``been having a lot of trouble with Delaware deliveries. The postal system,'' as she said in writing to me, ``is very screwed up right now. Delmarva Farmers have not received their newspapers at all in January.'' I have received dozens and dozens more emails, texts, letters, and phone messages from frustrated constituents. Dianne Boyle, of Magnolia, DE, felt so strongly about this ongoing debacle of delayed delivery in the Postal Service that she hand delivered her own letter of concern to my Dover office. Richard Bilkski of Selbyville, a gentleman with real and significant heart issues that require him to be on medication, was down to his very last pill on January 25. After calling and calling and calling, it turned out that his medication had been sitting in the Wilmington post office for 3 weeks. Toby Rubenstein, from Hockessin, wrote me and said: I have paid my bills by check all my life. [And now] the Postal Service is so unreliable, that I now have monthly problems paying [my] bills on time. [And] I'm not alone in this. Claudette Richardson of Newark, DE, wrote me a note saying that she had mailed her sister a Christmas card on December 14, and it arrived February 12. Marcy Leib Rolmann wrote me and said: Our ``mail here in Sussex County as everywhere is horrible, despite our great letter carriers.'' Geiana Hollis of Wilmington wrote to me last month because of her passport sitting idle at a Philadelphia distribution center for 10 days. She was set to travel abroad and had to delay her trip. Bill Powers, former county councilman I know well from New Castle County, a member of the Farm Bureau, is a longtime turkey grower who now provides fresh eggs for local farmers markets. Bill has experienced significant losses with turkey and chick deliveries and called my office with concerns. And I want, before I close, to mention one last story, from Trebs Thompson, of Newark, an egg farmer with Whimsical Farms. Trebs wrote: Largely our postal system has been a jewel. It handles a large volume of mail cheaply, with a high degree of speed and accuracy. Many of us depend on it for government paperwork, medications, orders, payments, and for farmers like me, seeds [and] day-old chicks. The Post Office has been shipping day-old chicks to farms like mine for over 100 years. Today, all 20 baby hens arrived cold and lifeless. I cried [as I opened the box]. The [postal] supervisor cried. The gentleman who normally delivers my mail apologized profusely, but [it is] not his fault. Whatever one feels about mail-in ballots or politics, I am asking you to put this aside and do what you can to restore the Postal Service. Trebs Thompson is right. No farmer should ever have to open a box of dead chicks. No constituent should have to hand deliver a letter to their Senator. Our veterans shouldn't be going without lifesaving medication. Postmaster DeJoy appeared before Members of the House last week and apologized for the slow mail delivery and said he has a forthcoming plan, which I am concerned includes further cuts to delivery service. So let me summarize. My understanding is that DeJoy's plans for the future of the Postal Service include higher prices and slower delivery. Delawareans are tired, and our Postal Service workers are tired, too, of the constraints placed on them. How will we solve this problem? In my view, we need to confirm as quickly as possible President Biden's nominees to the Postal Board of Governors: Ron Stroman, Amber McReynolds, and Anton Hajjar--all folks who have deep experience in the postal system. They could get us back on track. We also have to prioritize investments in the Postal Service. Congress secured $10 billion for the Postal Service in the unanimously passed CARES Act to provide the resources to maintain operation at a time when families are relying on mail service more than ever during this pandemic. I will continue to support the Postal Service. I will continue to petition the Postmaster General, and I won't stop until there is a solution to this critical and pressing issue. Our letter carriers and our customers shouldn't suffer because of toxic leadership at the highest levels of our Postal Service. I yield the floor to my colleague from the State of Maine.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to address the body today about the bill we are to take up and debate and advance this evening and about several different provisions that are of specific concern and interest to me, to the residents of the State of Delaware, and to our Nation. Let me just remind all of us the moment that we are in. There are 26 million Americans who have been infected by COVID-19, a dread, deadly, global pandemic, and 445,000 Americans have been killed so far in this pandemic--far too many. In my little home State of Delaware--just 900,000 people--we not too long ago passed 1,000 deaths, and, like many other States, we are racing to deliver vaccines and to address the economic and the human wreckage of this pandemic and the recession caused by the bungled mishandling of this pandemic by the now previous administration. I am encouraged because there is also a positive number: 34 million Americans have been vaccinated. Delaware has been at the forefront of delivering vaccines quickly and safely, and now with President Biden and his team at the helm, they are pulling together the resources of our Nation--using the Defense Production Act to deliver needed PPE, testing capabilities, and vaccines to every corner of our country. They have a lot of work to do. They are behind because of some of the failures of the past, but I am excited by the promise of the future. Yesterday, I had the honor of meeting with President Biden in the Oval Office for an hour first thing in the morning, and we talked about this pandemic and his plan, the American Rescue Plan, the $1.9 trillion in badly needed relief that will touch almost every American family and move us quickly out of this pandemic and back toward growth and security, health and prosperity. And his determination, despite all the back-and-forth about numbers--his determination, at the very core of what we do, is to keep in mind the middle class of this country, the folks who have been overlooked, underserved, and most disadvantaged. He is passionate about seeing the ways in which this pandemic has revealed the deep inequities in our country and making sure of how we respond to educational needs, to housing needs, to transportation needs, and to healthcare needs, that we combat the profound inequalities of our society and Build Back Better. As Senator Carper and I were sitting with President Biden, going over $1,400 checks and this many months of unemployment extension and this much for housing and homelessness or this much for transit, he said: Wait, wait. Just remember at the end of the day, keep in your mind's eye a family--a plumber and a teacher with two kids at home, one of them laid off, desperately trying to pay their rent, trying to figure out how to pay their bills, trying to figure out how they can keep a roof over their kids' heads. Remember the people we are trying to help and serve. I am reminded of Mark from New Castle, who called my office to tell me he had been laid off, and he was desperately afraid, that he was struggling because he was fighting cancer, a health condition, and fighting homelessness, concerned about losing his home. Fighting housing and homelessness, combating homelessness and ensuring security of housing has got to be at the center of how we respond to this crisis. Economist Mark Zandi says there is $57 billion in owed back rent unpaid. One of the best things we have done as a body is to extend the eviction moratorium that the CDC imposed last year. A key piece of the bill we are taking up and debating is to ensure that more Americans have an opportunity to safe, sanitary, decent, and affordable housing. Before this pandemic, more than 17 million American households spent more than half their money on rent or mortgage, unaffordable to any household--those 17 million households stretched to their limits. The pandemic has made the risk of eviction or foreclosure greater than ever. Some know my early years were spent working around issues of housing and homelessness. I served with the National Coalition for the Homeless in New York and in five other States around the country, staying in homeless shelters in the late eighties, when homelessness was an explosion, a crisis across this country that impacted families and communities of all types and backgrounds. People experiencing homelessness are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19. Homeless individuals infected are twice as likely to be hospitalized, four times as likely to need critical care, and three times as likely to die. In Delaware, on Martin Luther King Day, as part of a service project, I got a chance to visit the Hope Center. The Hope Center used to be known as the Sheraton. It was a hotel in foreclosure, and an innovative county executive used some of the CARES Act money that we provided federally to the State and local governments to buy it at auction and to reopen it as a source of 192 emergency housing rooms that can have up to 400 people in it. It was great to tour that center on Martin Luther King Day, to be part of those delivering personal items and material for those who are now resident at the Hope Center. But it is just one of many examples of how Federal resources we provided last year have been used creatively to help keep people in rental housing, in emergency housing, or in their homes. The CDC Federal eviction moratorium was extended in the bill we passed in December, but it runs out in March; thus, the urgency of our acting. And President Biden's American Rescue Plan includes $30 billion in emergency rental assistance and $5 billion to prevent further outbreaks of COVID-19 among America's homeless population. We need to make this a key piece of this provision, an important part of this bill, and it is my hope we can find support on both sides, but if we don't, we must move forward. Let me speak to two other topics before I yield the floor, if I might. Those of us on the East Coast, and my colleague from Maryland and my colleague from New Jersey are certainly among them, travel by Amtrak frequently. Before this pandemic, Amtrak carried a record 32 million passengers just 2 years ago. But just like the airlines when the pandemic hit, it lost the vast majority of their passengers. So, too, did Amtrak and commuter rail all over our country. It has been a key piece of our society, our competitiveness, our interconnectedness for over a century, and there are millions who depend on it as their way to commute up and down the East Coast corridor in particular. My office recently heard from Ken Potts, the Delaware representative for the Rail Passengers Association, about the urgent need for funding; and, frankly, this is a warning notice for those of us who don't realize that I-95, right as it goes through Wilmington, DE, is about to be shut down for most of the next 2 years on a generational repair project. There is going to be 100,000 people deterred off of the highway, and hopefully onto rail, but only if it can keep running. There are 1,200 furloughed Amtrak employees on the east coast and other places around the country. Those are the folks I interact with on the days when I commute from Wilmington to Washington. I get a chance to talk to the staff, the conductors, the people who work at Union Station or in Wilmington's Joe Biden Station. Twelve hundred furloughed employees and families struggling, just like the airlines, every bit as deserving of relief, and the budget resolution would allow for the $2 billion over the course of this pandemic that they need. We have provided relief before. We need to provide relief in this bill and going forward. As I mentioned in my opening, getting the vaccine distributed as quickly as possible is the most urgent thing before us. Last Saturday, I had the chance to volunteer for several hours at a vaccination site with Drs. Coker and Hockstein, put together at ENT & Allergy of Delaware. They vaccinated over 150 people, and they had connected to and reached out to some churches that I am familiar with and fond of-- Seeds of Greatness, Bethel AME. But we are under pressure because there are new variants of this virus emerging around the world. What viruses do is they mutate. Some of you know there are new variants from South Africa, from Brazil, from the UK that are more transmissive and, potentially, more deadly. So one of the things we have to keep an eye on is that we cannot close ourselves off from the world. Something that is missing from the Republican proposal and that is urgently needed that is in the Biden American Rescue Plan is $11 billion to help with global vaccination relief. I recently spoke with Strive Masiyiwa, a dear friend from Africa who is leading the African Union's plans for how to vaccinate the 54 countries on the Continent of Africa Sure, the Russians have offered their Sputnik vaccine, which was not fully and transparently developed and tested. The Chinese are offering their vaccine. But what I believe the developing world would welcome with open arms, if we would just fund it and provide it, is the rapid scale-up, production, and manufacturing in countries like South Africa, India, and elsewhere of the tried, true, tested, scientifically sound vaccines made available by Pfizer, by Johnson & Johnson, by Moderna, by the Western companies like AstraZeneca and others that have shown that their vaccines are safe. The United States has long been a leader in world health. We have inspired the world in the way in which we have brought our medical advances, our scientific capability, and our humanitarian commitment to the world. This should be another chapter in that long and great history. And we must remember that no one in this world is safe from this pandemic until the entire world has been successfully vaccinated. If we do not contribute to the global vaccine campaign of COVAX, if we do not participate in the World Health Organization in meeting the needs of the developing world, it will simply come back to the people of the United States. Of course, we must prioritize vaccinating our Nation, our people, Delawareans. But just as Joe Biden in the Oval Office earlier this week asked me to keep in my mind's eye that family sitting around a kitchen table, worried, struggling with finances, with their health, with their future, we have to keep our eye on the horizon, on having passenger rail available to recover when our country recovers, on having housing and affordable housing options for families who are struggling with homelessness, and our eye on the horizon of the potential threat from the rest of the world of more dangerous variants, which is why we need to contribute to a global campaign to ensure that all of the world's people are safe from this pandemic. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to these three connected concerns, all of which touch on Delaware's families and our Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I have a question for all of my colleagues this evening, which is this: What happened here today, and how is it different from what we expected as we assembled in this Chamber early this afternoon? Sadly, much like the impeachment trial of just a year ago, I think as many of us slogged our way to the Nation's Capital and dutifully filed into this Chamber, we expected hours and hours of debate and discussion, knowing the outcome, knowing that what was being engaged in by a handful of our colleagues was a political stunt, feeding the ego of our President, who is chasing conspiracy theories about how he actually won the election 2 months ago that he lost and indulging his belief that somehow, somehow, the Congress could still, at the last moment, snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. Even in the last day, President Trump had been haranguing his own incredibly loyal Vice President, Mike Pence, as if somehow Vice President Pence would simply declare him President today. We knew that President Trump had been stirring up the spirits of thousands, urging them to come to Washington. We had an inkling that he might go out and speak to them, but I don't think, as we filed into this Chamber, any of us--any of us--expected that, for the second time in our Republic's history, the perimeter of this Capitol would be breached, Members of the Senate would be rushed to safety; that not just the Capitol Police but U.S. Marshals and FBI officers and fully combat-geared soldiers would be in the U.S. Capitol, taking it back from a riotous mob of thugs. Just a few moments ago, I went to the Rotunda to see the litter and the trash, the residue and the remnants of those who took over this building today, and to say thank you to the men and women of law enforcement who helped secure it after it fell to an angry mob. But, folks, we have to think about the consequences of what happened here today, why this happened, and what it means and what it teaches, because, frankly, tonight, now, the whole world is watching. The entire world is watching a montage of scenes--of folks cavorting in the Capitol, half-naked men taking that seat, scrawling things on different surfaces, parading up and down the Capitol corridors with a Confederate flag and a Trump flag, and in other ways signaling that they had done something significant. No. In fact, what they have actually done is weakened our democracy, showed some of its fragility, and encouraged our opponents around the world. In the last 2 months since the election, we have one man who has abandoned his post, who has mostly spent his time golfing and tweeting and indulging himself in conspiracy theories and been less and less attuned to our national security and to a raging pandemic, and another man, our President-elect, who is preparing to take over the responsibility for leading this country out of this pandemic and out of its current state of deep, deep division. President Trump has abandoned his post. He does not deserve to be President any longer, and he poses a real and present threat to the future of our democracy. But let me also say this to my colleagues, half of whom changed their intended vote today after seeing what happened in the Capitol. There were, as we began, roughly 13 Senators--Republicans--who said they were going to vote against the certification of the election, and when we actually finally called the roll, it was just 6--7 of them having been chastened by the events of today. But two who continue on this quest clerked for the Supreme Court Chief Justice, are deeply schooled in the law, and know better than what they did today. And in the House, in the debate going on over in the House even now, more than 100 House Republicans continue with this effort. On this floor earlier today, this evening, there were strong and clear and brave speeches by Republicans and Democrats alike. So I have a question as we move forward. When will this fever break? When will we finally say to each other: Enough is enough of indulging and following populism and demagoguery. Is it time to finally show who the leaders are and to uphold our Constitution that every one of the House Members and a third of us swore to uphold just 3 days ago? I will tell you, as I look ahead, that I am confident that 2 weeks from now, Joseph Biden will be sworn in as the next President, Kamala Harris sworn in as the next Vice President, and we have a unique moment in my lifetime, because, as Presidents and leaders in the Senate of both parties over the last decades have observed, the Senate has steadily shrunk in its significance, its role, in its power, and the Presidency has steadily grown. Not in my lifetime--not since LBJ--have we had an incoming President who spent 36 years in this Chamber. We have a chance with Joe Biden, a President-elect who ran on bringing our country together, a President-elect who ran on turning the page from our moment of national division, and a President-elect who respects and honors and understands the significance of this body. So we have to take this opportunity to heal, to hear each other, to compromise, to work together, and to see the real challenges facing the American people and take this last best moment. What happened here today should leave all of us gravely concerned about the health and the future of our democracy, and the opportunity we will have 2 weeks from today is one we should not let pass us by. I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS

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

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, 2020 has been a difficult year for so many. We have lost far too many mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, sisters and brothers, neighbors and friends. My own heart and the hearts of many in Delaware grew heavier this week as we said goodbye in Delaware to a whole series of friends, folks who had long been champions of our community, folks who were exactly the sort of people who helped build and sustain community. I am grateful for the privilege of the floor to speak for a few minutes about the legacy of these lions of Delaware, these folks who were giants of service and who gave their hearts to us. On Monday, we said goodbye to Elaine and Wayne Manlove, who were loved by so many, and I rise first to pay tribute to them--some of the most special people I have ever known. They were killed in a tragic accident literally the day before last Tuesday's election. On that day, we lost two of Delaware's greatest diamonds, Mary ``Elaine'' Manlove and Lambert ``Wayne'' Manlove from Hockessin and Ocean View. It was always striking they went not by their first names but by their middle names. They were known as Elaine and Wayne Manlove. These are proud patriots, people dedicated to our State and community who spent decades giving to others. Elaine I knew best in her role as State elections commissioner and as someone who fought hard here for funding for election security and election systems. The very last time I saw her, she was proudly showing off the brandnew statewide election system in Delaware. She didn't, tragically, get to see the fruits of her labor--the deployment of these new, state-of-the-art digital voting machines. Her many professional achievements in that role: increasing our voter rolls, modernizing machines, bringing elections to the classrooms, carrying off just this last Tuesday a near flawless statewide election. While impressive, it was just a very small part of who Elaine was. Deeply proud of her Irish heritage, known for her kindness and her generosity, her Irish Catholic faith that she and Wayne shared was a foundation for them and for their family and their lives. St. Patrick's Day in Wilmington was often the highlight. Elaine was one of the folks who helped organize the annual St. Patrick's Day mass and breakfast--a breakfast that raised money for the St. Patrick Center that serves some of the neediest and most marginalized in Wilmington but a breakfast that was a celebration of the intersection of faith, politics, service, hope, and community. My own wife Annie worked with Elaine for years in New Castle County government long before her time as the State elections commissioner, and they remained close for years afterward. Annie knew her as the best mom and grandmother and friend to so many people. Margaret Aitkin, one of Elaine's closest friends, who also served with her and my wife in county government, said: Elaine never sought the spotlight, and she never tried to be the center of attention--she was like a warm fire that you just gravitated towards. She wasn't the life of the party; she was the reason for the party. Elaine had a special and giving spirit that had a lasting and transformative difference on thousands of Delawareans, from Kirkwood Soccer, to the county, to her work for elections, to her deep commitment to her faith, her family, and her community. Wayne, her husband of 51 years, was a union electrician, a proud member of IBEW Local 313 for 53 years. Wayne loved hosting neighborhood dinners, annual crab feasts, watching his beloved Eagles with family and friends, and confounding his son because he could never get his players straight. He loved sharing the Eagles with all three of his sons. For Wayne and Elaine, their sons, Matthew, Joe, and Michael, were the beginning, middle, and end. The Sun rose and set on their boys. They took huge delight in sharing stories about them with everyone who would sit still and listen. They did everything it took to put them through college and through parochial education. They sacrificed hugely for their children, and it made a lasting difference in their lives. Once Elaine and Wayne were your friends, they were always your friends. They brought together people from grade school, high school, from work, and from all different walks of life. They were strongly rooted in and connected to St. Elizabeth's parish, where Elaine was baptized, where they were married, and where they just last year renewed their vows for their 50th wedding anniversary. On Monday, hundreds of us gathered to wish them farewell. So my condolences, my deep and heartfelt condolences go out to Matthew and Meghan, to Joe, to Michael and Mary, to Elaine's brother Grant and wife Ruth, and their four grandchildren who gave them such joy: Catherine, Elizabeth, Margaret, and Finn. I am turning now to consider another Delawarean and friend, someone I knew for decades who exemplified character, bravery, and integrity. Mike Rush--Edward Michael Rush, Jr., who passed away late last month in Bear, was someone who always rose to the tasks and challenges at hand--a Marine Corps veteran, a small business owner, a firefighter, a member of the American Legion, a stalwart of his parish, and a great friend. He was a proud graduate of Salesianum High School and Goldey-Beacom College and a proprietor and leader of a family-owned business, Rush Uniform. He started working there in 1963, and he helped build and lead his family-owned business for decades. I first really got to know Mike through the Better Business Bureau, where he and his family sponsored an award for ethical behavior by a family-owned business. He sponsored the Edward M. Rush, Sr. Memorial Award. Mike was also someone whose whole heart was in the fire service. The volunteer fire service in Delaware is one of the backbones of communities up and down our State, and he was a life member of two volunteer fire companies. He was 50 years with Wilmington Manor, 33 years with Christiana, president of the New Castle County Volunteer Fire Chiefs Association, president of the Delaware Valley Fire Chief's Association, and then, ultimately, while I was county executive, president of the Delaware State Fire Chiefs Association. Mike was also someone who did the hard work of being a fire school instructor for our State for 30 years. Mike did so much for so many others through his parish, through his fire company, through his training service, and through his service to our Nation in the military. He has earned accolades for his decades of bravery and his commitment to our community. But more than anything, because I was not able to make it to his service, I wanted to share my condolences and the gratitude of our State and Nation for Mike's wife of 45 years, Winnie; his sisters Barbara and Catherine; his children Megan and Barbara; and his beloved grandson Seamus. Let me now turn to another anchor of another community in our State and offer greetings and condolences to the family and the beloved of Pastor Lottie Lee-Davis. She was an ordained minister from the east side of Wilmington and a hallmark of resiliency and faith. She was a preacher's daughter, a voice for the voiceless, and a beacon of hope for many. A friend, Alethea Smith-Tucker, told our Delaware News Journal that it was unending how many people Pastor Davis had touched and encouraged without judgment and without regard. She was the devoted pastor at Be Ready Jesus is Coming Church. She answered the call to serve beyond the confines of the pulpit. She provided housing for single mothers and their children. She led efforts to renovate parks for the community, and she recently garnered funding to build a mixed-use property just a block from her church to provide housing for those in need. Sadly, that which she launched, she will not get to see come to fruition in this life, but I am confident that Pastor Davis will continue to inspire and engage and move the community of Wilmington, the congregation she helped lead, and the families who will benefit for years to come from her vision and her leadership of this project she just launched. Her legacy will continue to live through her work. I wanted to give my condolences to her husband Flalandas; to her daughter Amira; and to members of the congregation, family, and friends. Last, but certainly not least, this past week we lost someone beloved to me and to so many in the Hockessin community, Gloria Ignudo Corrozi. Gloria was a mainstay of one of the landmark couples of our State for decades. Gloria spent 30 years working at DuPont, and like so many of her generation who had a successful career at DuPont, she also was engaged in lots and lots of other community activities, engagements, and services. She spent a lot of her life also helping the Delaware Chapter of the American Diabetes Association. She served as cochair and raised tens of thousands of dollars year after year after year for this important cause. But, frankly, her great joy was her family. Her beloved husband of 55 years, Philip Corrozi, was someone who was an incredible mentor and friend to me at work, at home, and in public service. Phil was an elected Republican, chairman of the Budget Committee, leader in our State general assembly, and someone who, with Gloria's tireless affection and support, crafted lasting solutions for our State. Gloria was a blessing to an incredible network of friends and family, nieces and nephews, all of whom knew her as Aunt Gloria. I had the opportunity to get to know her best in the decade I spent working with Phil at a global manufacturing firm in Delaware. But Phil Corrozi, frankly, was someone who, when he gave his heart to a cause, Gloria was right alongside him and often pushing him. For a woman who never had children of her own, Gloria had so many people who knew her and thought of her as a second mother. My heart goes out to Gloria's family and friends who, today, gathered at St. Anthony of Padua Church in Wilmington to say their final goodbyes to this gracious, kind, funny, giving, loving, powerful woman, whose witness was an important influence on my life, as well as so many others. These are just some of the individuals our community has lost this year. Delaware is a State of neighbors, and we all feel these losses profoundly. There was a strong, common thread amongst those I have just honored and those who have been a gift to our State. I want to return to a powerful message that Joe, Wayne and Elaine Manlove's son, gave in a eulogy just Monday at St. Elizabeth Church. It was funny; it was memorable; it was wide-ranging; it was personal; and it was touching. But at the conclusion, Joe said this. While today is sad and painful and so unexpected for all of us, I want to leave you with this thought: When you leave here today thinking of my parents and feeling the void in your life, do the following--join a civic committee, help organize your kids' Little League, volunteer for something you care about, help a neighbor with a home project, and when some email comes out saying ``We need people to help,'' respond that you are in. Do all of it without a thought of compensation. Do it because it is the right thing to do. Do it because you want to improve the world around you. Do it because there is nothing more powerful than the heart of a volunteer. That was them, Wayne and Elaine, but that was also Mike and Lottie and Gloria and so many other friends and neighbors who helped weave together across different backgrounds, different political parties, and different places of origin and different communities--they weaved together a State of neighbors and left a lasting legacy. That legacy is that we love one another as we have been called to do. May we continue to be grateful for their legacies of service and live lives that would make them and their families proud. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask the question, as I have for several weeks now: Why are we here? What I hear from my constituents in Delaware, as I heard earlier today at an event at Westside Health: Why is this Senate in session now in the midst of a nationwide pandemic, focusing on rushing through a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court rather than doing everything we can to work across the aisle to craft a solution to the problems, the crises facing our Nation--tens of millions of Americans unemployed, hundreds of thousands of businesses permanently closed? There are schools all over the country that are either not yet open or are just barely open, and thousands upon thousands of Americans have died alone, in pain, uncomforted by family and uncertain of how they came to be in this place, uncared-for by their country. There have been 8\1/2\ million infected and 220,000 or more who are dead. We are in the middle of a tragic pandemic and a recession made worse by our President's bungled mishandling of that pandemic, and instead of coming together and providing the relief that all of our States and all of our people are calling for, we are doing this. We are doing this. Instead, my Republican colleagues are walking over a dangerous precipice. They are doing something that was, according to Chairman Graham of the Senate Judiciary Committee, unthinkable just 2 years ago. In the last 10 days before a Presidential election--in the last month before a Presidential election--they are ramming through for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court President Trump's nominee. This is a rushed and partisan process in the midst of an ongoing Presidential election. Why? Why are we here, and why are they doing this? I have heard a lot of talk from my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee and here on the floor about Justices and how they are not policymakers; about how they are distinct from politics; about abstract methodological terms and ideas like originalism and textualism; about judges and Justices as neutral arbiters whose decisions couldn't possibly be predictable. But you don't work this hard to confirm a Supreme Court Justice in the middle of a pandemic while the majority of American States is voting--tens of millions have voted--and while election day is just 8 days away and a third of us are up for reelection because you care most about abstract ideas or neutral principles. You don't go against your own promise--your own promise--after you have claimed, as a matter of high principles, that Justices shouldn't be confirmed during Presidential elections and after you blocked a highly qualified nominee for exactly that reason--because you care most about neutral arbiters and judicial methodology. No. This race to fill this seat is about power. It is about political power. It is about knowing the American people have turned against the President, especially because of his failed, flawed, and ultimately disastrous response to this pandemic. We are not turning the corner as he declared just this week. We have a record-high number of cases in dozens of States, an outbreak uncontrolled, unmanaged, and leadership that is uncaring. My colleagues know the election is upon us. Many are up for reelection. So, when Justice Ginsburg tragically passed away just a few weeks ago, President Trump and my colleagues saw one last opportunity-- one last chance--to decide the balance of the Supreme Court not just for a year or a term but for decades and to come and entrench a hard- right majority, whose views are far outside the American mainstream. As my Democratic colleagues and I have been laying out in the Judiciary Committee and in speeches here on this floor, that hard-right turn will have lasting, serious, significant, even devastating consequences for the American people. After digging into and studying Judge Barrett's record as a law professor and as a judge--her writings, her speeches, her opinions--I am convinced that she will come to the Supreme Court with both a deeply conservative, originalist philosophy in the style of Justice Scalia and a judicial activism even further to the right that will put at risk longstanding rights the American people hold dear in nearly every aspect of our modern lives. Simply put, Judge Barrett as Justice Barrett, I am convinced, will open a new chapter of conservative judicial activism unlike anything we have seen. Why would I think this? First, Judge Barrett was handpicked by President Trump after he made clear he wanted a new Justice to overturn the Affordable Care Act, with there being potentially catastrophic consequences for a majority of Americans protected by the ACA. Everyone watching at home has heard my colleagues say for the last decade that their top priority was to repeal the Affordable Care Act. All of the Republican Senators on the committee talked publicly, repeatedly, about their desires to get rid of the law, and they voted that way. So did our President. Yet, despite their best efforts, he and my Republican colleagues failed to get the vote here on the floor of the U.S. Senate. So now they are taking their last and best shot at overturning the ACA, and they are trying to do it through the Supreme Court. This is where Judge Barrett comes in. As she admitted during my questioning, Judge Barrett has written in no uncertain terms that she thinks Chief Justice Roberts got it wrong in his ruling 8 years ago that upheld the ACA against a constitutional challenge. She wrote this article just 3 years ago, in 2017. Soon thereafter, she found herself on President Trump's short list for the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the Justice Department, under President Trump's leadership, has joined the challenge to the ACA, which is now back in front of the Supreme Court. That will be heard by the Court just 1 week from the election and 2 weeks from tomorrow. President Trump and his administration are arguing in no uncertain terms that the Court must get rid of the entire ACA. My Republican colleagues have said this is fearmongering in that this is a different case and a different issue, but to anyone who thinks the characterization of this challenge is farfetched, just read the brief. Read the brief that has been filed by the Solicitor General of the United States or the brief that has been signed and cosigned by 18 Republican State attorneys general. President Trump himself lashed out at Chief Justice Roberts over and over again for upholding the Affordable Care Act and its protections for a majority of Americans, and he pledged as Candidate Trump that his nominees would do the right thing and overturn the law. So here, in the last minute of the last act of the Trump show, he may at long last have his chance. Yet it isn't just the Affordable Care Act that is on President Trump's Supreme Court agenda. He made clear he wants a nominee to do three things: overturn the ACA, overturn Roe v. Wade, and perhaps most chillingly for the future of our democracy, hand him the election if there is a dispute in the courts that makes its way to the Supreme Court. On that second point about overturning Roe, Judge Barrett steadfastly refused to say whether she thought Roe had been correctly decided, because it is the subject of legislation and litigation that is currently being contested. She refused to say, as well, whether the foundational case of Griswold v. Connecticut was right, which was decided 55 years ago and protects the right to privacy and the right to use contraceptives by a married family in the privacy of their own home. In the recent past, even indisputably conservative nominees--nominees chosen by Republican Presidents, such as Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito and Kavanaugh--have said that of course Griswold was rightly decided and is settled precedent. So I found Judge Barrett's hesitation--even refusal--to say so to be chilling. More broadly--and this is important--Judge Barrett's approach to precedent itself suggests she will lead the way in reversing longstanding cases upon which our rights rely. Precedent has been called the foundation stone of law. Precedent protects the rights and freedoms that many Americans rely on today--the right to be safe in your home from government intrusion, the right to marry whomever you love, the right to control your own body. Yet I have come away convinced that Judge Barrett, if confirmed to the Court, would be even more willing than Justice Scalia to overturn those precedents with which she disagrees. This is rooted in things that she has written and said as a law professor and as a judge. She has made clear that judges and Justices should feel free to overturn cases they believe have been wrongly decided regardless of how many people have ordered their lives around those decisions and have come to rely on them. She even said that those with her conservative, originalist philosophy have abandoned a commitment to judicial restraint. As I made clear in my questioning, the cases that could be in jeopardy with a Justice Barrett on the Supreme Court cover a vast range of issues, issues which together affect hundreds of millions Americans' lives from healthcare to education, to consumer protection, to marriage equality, to criminal Justice. Over the past several decades, the Supreme Court has decided more than 120 cases by a 5-to-4 margin, with Justice Ginsburg in the majority and Justice Scalia in the dissent. Just as a matter of analysis to help folks see the scope and the reach and the consequences of the decision being made here tonight, we look at what would happen if Justice Ginsburg in the majority were replaced by somebody with Justice Scalia's philosophy or with one further right. These cases include not only the key ruling on the Affordable Care Act--NFIB v. Sebelius--but also on Obergefell v. Hodges, which, based on that privacy jurisprudence that started all the way back in Griswold, upheld the idea that marriage equality was the rule of the land; on Grutter v. Bollinger, which upheld race conscious admission policies at universities; on Tennessee v. Lane, which held that State governments must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act; on Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which upheld the constitutionality of nonpartisan redistricting; on Massachusetts v. EPA, which allows the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases; and on Roper v. Simmons, which prohibits executing people for crimes they committed while they were children. Think about the scope and reach of the cases that touch labor rights to Native American rights and consumer rights to environmental protection. Yes, our comments on the floor and in committee focused on the Affordable Care Act, and they focused on reproductive rights and privacy, but the scope and reach of the consequences are breathtaking. Even to this day, I fear that we as a nation have not fully reckoned with the impact that a 6-to-3 conservative Court will have on so many aspects of our lives. As to President Trump's third demand that a Justice chosen by him will help to decide the election, I was deeply dismayed to hear Judge Barrett refuse to commit to recusing herself from any case involving an election dispute. President Trump is the reason I ask that question. President Trump himself is actively undermining the integrity of our election. He is spreading baseless rumors about voter fraud, encouraging voter suppression, and engaging in a disinformation campaign so egregious it is hard to believe it could be coming from an American, let alone an American President. His statements have been so indefensible that, when my colleagues asked Judge Barrett whether the President should commit to conducting a peaceful transition of power if he loses the election--a question that is an obvious no-brainer and a matter of basic civics--Judge Barrett said she couldn't respond because President Trump's statements have turned this fundamental tenet of our democracy into a partisan, political question. Before now, to my knowledge, no President has ever demanded that his nominee to a Supreme Court seat be rushed through so that this Justice, that ninth Justice, could look at the ballots, as he has said, and hand him an election. Never in our history has the U.S. Senate confirmed a Supreme Court Justice in circumstances like these--just 8 days before the final election day in an ongoing Presidential election. At the very, very least, given President Trump's unprecedented overreaching, inappropriate comments about the election and her nomination, I asked Judge Barrett if she would recuse herself in the event of an election dispute. To be clear, nothing is stopping her from making that commitment, and she would not do so. Recent events have made it clear that this issue is anything but hypothetical. Just last week, the U.S. Supreme Court was divided 4 to 4 on a question arising from Pennsylvania, and it came to the brink of adopting a novel--even radical--theory advanced by the Republicans in Pennsylvania that would empower the Supreme Court to override a State supreme court's interpretation of its own State laws and constitution in a way that would disenfranchise thousands of voters. A new Justice Barrett joining that Court could well provide the fifth vote in support of this outrageous theory, which her mentor, Justice Scalia, accepted in Bush v. Gore. And to no one's surprise, the Pennsylvania Republican Party is again preparing to file in the Supreme Court a renewed claim. In light of this conflict of interest, in light of the appearance of bias, her involvement in this case could have lasting, negative, devastating consequences for the independence of the Court and for our democracy. So I urge my Republican colleagues to consider, before voting to confirm tonight, the very real impacts their actions will have, not only on millions of our constituents but on our democracy and this institution itself. As for me, I will be voting no on the confirmation of Judge Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court. I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues from Ohio and from New Jersey in saying that we should not allow this OCC rule, gutting the core elements of the CRA, to move forward. The Community Reinvestment Act is a landmark civil rights and anti-redlining law created to improve the welfare of low- and moderate-income Americans all over our Nation and to assess banks lending to, investing in, and serving of the communities in which they do business. The Community Reinvestment Act works. Since its enactment in 1977, it has resulted in trillions of dollars invested in low- and moderate- income communities. It promotes fair treatment and equal access to credit and capital for Black and Brown communities, for underserved populations, and it is essential to the economic health of our country. It is a successful incentive for banks to provide mortgage lending and financial services to neighborhoods of color and low- and moderate- income communities. There is a long legacy of racial discrimination in our Nation in financial services, and the Community Reinvestment Act has been a vital tool in helping to fight that cruel legacy. In Delaware, I have seen the benefits of the CRA firsthand. I have seen investments in affordable housing, homeownership opportunities, and economic and small business development as a result. Discover Bank, for example, partnered with the Delaware State Housing Authority to provide mortgages to low- and moderate-income borrowers throughout the State by purchasing loans. WSFA made a $1.5 million investment in NCALL's Restoring Central Dover Initiative and a $500,000 line of credit to help build homes for new homeowners who were low- and moderate-income and gave a $1 million low-interest loan for economic development in our capital city. Capital One recently made a $20 million loan to finance the community education building in downtown Wilmington where Kuumba Academy is residing. The OCC final rule is wrong in substance and in process. The CRA has been beneficial for more than four decades. Sure, there is some room for modernization or improvement, and it is necessary to continue to build on this monumental act, but the OCC final rule goes in exactly the wrong direction. In substance, it is unlikely to encourage investment in underresourced and overlooked regions. Instead, it expands qualifying CRA activities to include ones that don't directly benefit communities in need. This OCC rule will cause harm to current investment areas, leading to less community development in Delaware and across our Nation. The OCC rule would allow banks to pass their CRA assessments with broad-stroke, large investments instead of smaller, targeted investments in underserved communities. In process, the OCC hasn't worked to achieve consensus with fellow Federal regulators, the Fed and the FDIC, nor with banks, community advocacy, and civil rights groups. That is why I am joining my colleagues from New Jersey, Ohio, and many other States in voting for congressional disapproval of this OCC final rule. It undermines and actively weakens this important civil rights law. We must ensure changes to the CRA strengthen the law, not weaken it, and all the related regulators and stakeholders must work together to ensure that any changes to the CRA work to combat racial inequality and to lift up communities long overlooked by traditional banking and their investment priorities. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS

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

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, on this past Friday evening, on Rosh Hashanah, our Nation lost a giant of our Supreme Court. We lost a trailblazer for women's equality, a woman who, though diminutive in size, was a giant and a force for justice. For my daughter and for all Americans, I am so grateful for the work and the service and the life of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Having passed on Rosh Hashanah, the tradition of the Jewish people teaches that she is especially blessed, particularly righteous. It is heartbreaking that her dying wish, dictated to her granddaughter, was that the voters should choose the next President, and that next President her successor, and, already, there are some who are racing to undo that wish. This was her wish because she understood the consequences of this decision for the Senate, for the American people, and for the Supreme Court, to which she dedicated 27 years of service. If we push through a nominee now, just 43 days before an election, as half of our States are already voting, the very legitimacy of the Supreme Court may be undermined by further politicization in an already divided country. My friends, my colleagues in the other party, used the argument in blocking the nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016 that we must give the American people a voice for the selection of the next Justice. That argument was advanced 10 months before the next election. Here, today, on this floor, the exact argument is being advanced just 43 days before an election in which half of our States are already voting. As a colleague from Alaska recently said, the precedent set by the majority in 2016 is the precedent by which they should live now. Fair is fair. I cannot agree more. On the ballot, on the agenda, on the docket of the Supreme Court is healthcare. This decision will have an impact on all Americans of all stripes and backgrounds. One week after the election, a case will be argued in front of the Supreme Court, Texas v. United States, which seeks to remove all that is left of the Affordable Care Act's protections--protections against preexisting condition discrimination for 100 million Americans and health insurance itself for 20 million, in the middle of a pandemic in which 6 million Americans have been infected and have new preexisting conditions, and, in some ways most gallingly, that provision of the Affordable Care Act which prohibits gender discrimination by insurance companies. All of this is at stake, as are protections going forward after this election for clean air and clean water, for equal pay for equal work, and the right to organize. It is all on the ballot and will be on the docket. Let me close by calling on my colleagues to do what is fair and what I believe is right: to respect their own precedent and let the American people have a voice in just 43 days and then proceed, after the election, to honor Justice Ginsburg's dying wish; to focus on delivering relief to the American people in a package to address this pandemic in our next few weeks, rather than diving deeper into division. It is my fervent prayer that we can yet find a way together to listen to the voice of the people and the voice of this most storied Justice.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues this afternoon in asking: Is this just another Thursday--is this just another afternoon in a week, in an average year, or in an average August--when it is fine for all of us to simply head to our other commitments and concerns? Sometimes here in Washington it is awfully easy to feel and be disconnected--disconnected from the daily concerns and grinding anxiety of the pressing issues that make the lives of the folks we represent so different. I want to start by reminding us of something a Senator--a Senator from Minnesota--once said in the 1970s. It was Hubert Humphrey who said: The moral character of a society can best be gauged by how they treat those at the dawn of life, its children; those in the shadows of life, the disabled, the disadvantaged; and those in the twilight of life, senior citizens. Well, if that were the measure of this place in this day and this time, then we are failing. I think every person here, every person listening or watching knows that we are in the midst of three crises at the same time: a global pandemic, the COVID-19 pandemic, in which a highly transmissive disease has spread rapidly across the world. Many other nations have gotten ahead of it, have managed it, have stabilized it, but here in the United States, we have failed to get our arms around it, to stop it, and to deliver the coordinated resources and supplies needed to give some confidence, some positive direction in our public health infrastructure; in our schools, in our senior skilled nursing centers; in our communities. It has gotten away from us. More than 150,000 Americans have died so far, and States that thought they had it well under control are seeing it reemerge, and States that early on saw no impact are seeing record deaths and infections. And coming right on the heels of it, a recession--a recession deep and sharp. In the last quarter, a nearly 40-percent drop in our GDP; the sharpest since we began recording that. And then third, a renewed focus on inequality in our country. We have seen, because of this pandemic and recession and because of the brutal killing of George Floyd, a reminder of the ways in which we are unequal in our access to healthcare, our access to opportunity, our access to housing. So that is the environment we are in. Several months ago, we all came to this floor and unanimously voted-- unanimously, in this bitter and divided partisan time, we unanimously voted to deliver $2.3 trillion in assistance and support that sent checks to individual Americans and families, that sent checks to those who were newly unemployed, that sent support for small businesses at risk of going under, that sent support to State and local governments, that sent support to hospitals. It was the single largest spending bill since the Second World War--some reminder of just the seriousness, the gravity, and the scale of this challenge. And 2 months later, the House of Representatives took up and passed the Heroes Act--another $3 trillion to provide support across many of those same areas. And for weeks, this body, the majority, failed to act, to propose an alternative, to take it up and examine it, to send something back, to put something on the table. It was just this Monday, the 27th of July, that we got to see the answer, and that answer fails to meet this moment. I am from a small State, the State of Delaware--a State below a million people. Our Department of Labor, since March, has received over 130,000 claims for unemployment in a State of less than 1 million. More than 1 in 10 Delawareans have filed for unemployment assistance. We have had huge challenges delivering all over our country the assistance we voted on months ago. Out of that 130,000, 27,000 of them are still waiting to get their unemployment checks. My office and other offices in our delegation are helping hundreds of individuals and families who have called, who have emailed, who have texted, and who have reached out for help. And yet, this body, through inaction, allowed the additional $600 a week in unemployment insurance that has sustained so many families to expire because we can't work out a simple agreement on how severe this moment is, on how deep the need is, and on what the right path forward is. When I talk to my Governor, my mayor, my county executive in my home State, in my city, my county, one of their biggest needs is for additional support for State and local governments. There is robust support in the Heroes Act sent over by the House-- $875 billion. That is a lot of money. There is nothing in the HEALS Act presented this Monday. And why? So far, 1.5 million public employees, public servants--State, county, local employees--have been laid off. And some folks I hear on television talking about this speak as if they are faceless bureaucrats in gray buildings. But they are teachers; they are paramedics; they are nurses in county hospitals; they are the folks who administer these unemployment claims. They are the folks who help support small businesses. They are the folks who help make sure our water is drinkable, that our parks are mowed, that our libraries are functional, and that our schools can open safely This moment is the tale of two worlds--a world in the House of Representatives that says we are in a crisis and an emergency, and when the American people see a challenge this big, this deep, they often look to our Federal Government for the resources that will make it possible for their States and their counties and their communities, for their hospital, for their school to get through. And here there has been a resounding silence for weeks. I hear week in and week out from parents, from teachers, from paraprofessionals, anxious: How are our schools going to reopen? What is the plan? Where are the resources? What are the details? How do we get testing? How do we get personal equipment--personal protective equipment? Even now there are conversations urgently going on in my home State about how and when and where we will be able to reopen. When it comes to childcare, millions of Americans are unable to return to work because there isn't support for childcare. And when it comes to small businesses, thousands have closed their doors; thousands more are at risk. We will not get through this unless we can pull together and deliver a sustained and meaningful response. So to my colleagues and friends, I don't know where the rest of our colleagues are. I don't know what they are hearing, but I know what I am hearing from my constituents in Delaware. The way they make sure that we don't get disconnected from our home when we are here in Washington, boy, they text; they email; they call; they post on social media. Some even still write good old-fashioned letters. And the thousands of letters and emails and comments that I got in the first few weeks of this pandemic and recession motivated me-- motivated this entire body--to vote unanimously on the CARES Act, one of the biggest moments of Federal assistance in our Nation's history. So what is going on now? Why the lack of focus? Why the sense this is just another Thursday afternoon? Well, let me read to you for a few minutes from a few of the folks who have reached out to me from my home State. Christine in Wilmington lost her job, now, months ago. She is a single mother. She is raising a 12-year-old son. She got just one unemployment insurance check. She has been barely hanging on, and ultimately had to sell her car to buy groceries. She sent me a message, painful in its focus on the urgency of there being an additional $600 in Federal aid. She has no job prospects in sight. The $1,200 stimulus check that came from the CARES Act months ago and that one unemployment insurance check so far has been critical to keeping food on the table and the lights on and a roof over their head for her son. She is just one of millions of Americans right now--right now, wondering what it is going to take to get this body to put down the tools of partisanship and work together. Some folks say: Well, why don't you just go back to work? There is a study out from the Department of Labor that says for every four unemployed Americans there is only one job that is even posted. And there are others who cannot work because of their family circumstances. A husband and wife from Millsboro who are senior citizens reached out to me. The wife wants to go back to work. She has an opportunity to go back to work, but her husband has a serious, chronic condition, a lung disease, and she is terrified of going back to work, catching COVID, and infecting her husband in a way that would lead to his death. They have also relied on this additional unemployment, the $600 a week, which, if it runs out, they will have to make very hard choices. She wants to work, but she wants to protect her husband. A friend of mine, Jeff, runs a small candy store on Rehoboth Beach. This time of year it would normally be just humming with clients and customers, folks stopping in for Snyder's Candy, a great small business. Business is down 50 percent. He applied for and he got one of those PPP loans in the CARES Act, but he received just $9,000--far too little to keep everyone on his payroll, to stay fully open, and he is waiting, waiting to see if we will work together to come up with a compromise, with a next step, with a next round of loans. Another person, a woman Shari, who runs a daycare in Wilmington, small daycare in her own home. She had six families whose children she cared for. Even if she is able to reopen fully and safely, she has heard from those six families. Only two of them are coming back. So she is going to have to close her business, which means she loses her wages, and the families lose childcare. She has seen firsthand that parents can't go back to work if they don't have childcare. There is funding for childcare in the House bill--so far none in the Senate bill. And Robert, a man from Newark, DE, works in the entertainment industry. One of the areas hardest hit is the small stages, the entertainment venues that are so important to the vibrancy of our communities and our culture. He has been relying on unemployment to pay his bills--that extra $600 a week. Robert's message to me: When the stimulus runs out, where do I turn? Do I have my vehicle repossessed? Do I not pay my mortgage or buy food? I have worked my entire life and I am ready to get back to it as soon as there is clear direction for society to follow. Unemployment is not a choice--it is an unfortunate byproduct of not taking this virus seriously enough in the beginning. The publisher of a storied local newspaper in Sussex County shared with me a story that once their PPP funds were exhausted, they had to lay off 20 percent of their full-time staff, half of their contract employees, and he said: The uncertainty in regard to the economic condition over the next few months certainly weighs heavy on the Cape Gazette and our industry as a whole. The loss of local news would be devastating to communities, big and small, across the country. I can see that I have colleagues eager to join me in these remarks on the floor, so let me bring this to a close. One of the moments this became most real for me was when the Delaware Food Bank partnered with the Delaware National Guard to provide supplemental food for Delawareans. I was out at the Christiana Mall, just off I-95--huge parking lot. The mall, of course, closed. This was early on in the pandemic. We thought we would see dozens, maybe 100 households lined up in their cars to get some extra food, much of it from Federal sources. The line went all the way around the mall. Hundreds and hundreds of Delawareans--people who later commented either on radio or letters to the editor that they never thought they would be in a food line. Not since the Great Depression have the food banks of this Nation seen lines as long and made up of as diverse a background and groups asking for, eager for, willing to accept, hoping for support for them and their families. This year alone, 50,000 Delawareans have turned to our food banks so that they can put food on the table for their families. I don't know what my colleagues are reading, what emails they are getting, what calls they are answering, what texts or posts on social media are moving them, but I know that the Delawareans that have reached out to me have shared with me the pain of 150,000 Americans who died, have shared with me the anxiety and concern about how schools and businesses will reopen, and have asked: When will we do our job? Work across the aisle, find responsible compromise, and support our Nation in this moment of crisis. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, on the day that we are remembering our dear friend and colleague John Lewis, ``someone who got in good trouble, someone who got in the way,'' I rise to join with my colleague from the State of Rhode Island to offer tribute to a dear friend who also knew how to get in good trouble and get in the way. Our friend Steve Susman of Houston, TX, at age 79, passed away on July 14 after sustaining serious injuries from a cycling accident and suffering from COVID-19. Steve will be remembered by all he inspired as one of the greatest trial attorneys ever in the United States. Steve is someone who, with incredible skill, prepared painstakingly, mastering the facts, so that he could back up every single thing he said in front of a jury. When it came to courtrooms, it is said that Steve was the smartest guy in the room, but he also believed deeply in teaching young lawyers trial skills. And unlike many famous and leading trial attorneys, he was happy to share the spotlight with younger lawyers--in fact, insisted on it. Two of those younger lawyers happen to be friends of mine from law school, Jonathan Ross and Andrew Golub, who first introduced me to Steve and gave me the joy of getting to know him and all who practiced with him. Steve was passionate about law and justice. He spent his entire life thinking and talking about and working for ways to improve the system of civil justice in America. Motivated by a deep passion for the law, he fought to improve our system and was a crusader. Respected broadly for his leadership and his ability to achieve justice for his clients, Steve is someone who left a lasting impact on his community and our country. His incredible generosity to Yale University, to the University of Texas Law School, to the NYU Law School Civil Jury Project, and to the Anti-Defamation League, among many others, will be remembered for years and years to come. Steve had boundless energy, deep affection for his family, and a passionate commitment to the law. This is a difficult time for his family, his friends, his colleagues, and his loved ones. I want to give my special condolences to his wife, Ellen; his children, Harry, Stacy, Whitney, and Amanda; his brother, Tommy; and his eight grandchildren. I share with them my deepest and sincere condolences in the passing of this lion of the law. We will not see his like again. I yield the floor to my colleague from Rhode Island.

Mr. COONS. So our respect to Steve Susman, a man of rare courage. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to my colleague, my friend, to our American hero who lies in state just now in the Rotunda of this Capitol, Congressman John Lewis of Atlanta, GA. Born in Troy, AL, the arc of his life is known to us all. He gave himself completely to the fight for the dignity of every American and every human being. I wanted to take a few minutes today, if I could, and just reflect a little bit on what made John so special and so different. There are many in this Chamber in the Senate and in the House of Representatives who have fought for equality and justice. There are many who have marched or who have sacrificed, who have fought or who have led in many causes over many years, but John was both fierce in his passion for equality and humble in his spirit, gentle and kind. One of the great blessings of my decade here has been to get to travel with a group called the Faith & Politics Institute on an annual congressional civil rights pilgrimage. Many Members of the House and Senate have done so. Through five different trips I got to travel with John--to Selma and Birmingham, to Memphis and Montgomery, to Charleston and Cape Town, to South Carolina and South Africa, to Alabama and to Delaware--I most treasure the memory of hosting John in Delaware in 2015 when he came and spoke to a whole school full of eager elementary school kids. He spoke to a whole auditorium full of young community leaders and then held a townhall for a discussion about equality and equity and civil rights. John dedicated his life to fighting for others and principally fighting for voting rights. When John, in his childhood, was confronted with the ugly reality of Jim Crow and the legal segregation of apartheid in the United States, he couldn't follow the advice he was given by family and friends to ``stay out of trouble. Don't get in the way.'' He lived his life by the credo: If you see something wrong, act like it. He was dedicated to getting ``into good trouble,'' into ``necessary trouble,'' and into doing the hard work of redeeming the soul of America. Long before America came to believe in John Lewis, he believed in the promise of America. That he today lies in state on the catafalque that also held the remains of the slain President Abraham Lincoln; that he, this week, will lie in state in the State capital of Alabama; and that he will be honored by millions nationwide and worldwide is just a reminder that he was on the right side of history all along. He was arrested more than 40 times in the course of his activism for civil rights, and he proved that courage, as has been often said, is not the absence of fear but the triumph over it. With many others, I had the blessing of being at the Edmund Pettus Bridge with John on several reenactments of that memorable Bloody Sunday march and was with him at Brown Chapel AME Church for a service of inspiration, gathering before that reenactment of the march. He stopped halfway across the bridge and asked each of us to just take a moment and pause at the bridge, which has a crest to it. He recounted how, as they cleared that crest, this line--two by two--of peaceful protesters, marchers seeking to go from Selma to the State capital to make their plea for access to that most fundamental of rights in our democracy--the ballot box--he could see that line of State troopers, of deputies, and a ragtag crowd of those who had gathered to do violence to those protesters and marchers. He was not gripped with fear. He was determined to go ahead even though he said he was certain that might be his last day. You see, John is someone who understood the redemptive power of suffering, someone whom I described as a living saint, someone who was willing to take onto himself the violence visited upon millions of others in sustaining the brutality and the repression of racial segregation in our country. And by taking on and believing in and living a philosophy, a theology, an activist stance of nonviolence, John brought alive the conscience of a nation. I will just say that in my own life, John was someone who made me believe in the possibility of forgiveness, of redemption, and of healing. If a man who had suffered as he did at the hands of so many bigots, so many acts of violence and disrespect, from the lunch counter sit-ins, to the freedom riots, to that march on Bloody Sunday; if that man could be as hopeful, as kind, as generous in spirit, and as forgiving as he was to all who met him, holding on with fierceness to his commitment to justice and equality, yet openhearted and openhanded to all he met; if that man could have walked among us, then I am one step closer to believing in the possibility of forgiveness for us all. I want to express my deepest condolences to his son, John Miles Lewis, and his family and to all who knew and loved and served with him. It is my hope that his legacy will be a blessing, a challenge, and an inspiration for every American. There is now on the floor of this Senate the Voting Rights Advancement Act, renamed for John Lewis. On the 50th anniversary of the march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, I carried a copy of that exact bill of that Congress, named the ``John Lewis Voting Rights Restoration Act,'' and asked a number of my colleagues if they would join in cosponsoring it. One Republican did--a Senator from Alaska--and many Democrats. What matters is not the party but the purpose. I will close by saying that we should never give up on John's pursuit of a more fair and equal America Mr. President, I was going to proceed to make remarks on another individual, but I will gladly yield to the majority leader.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues from Connecticut, from Virginia, and in particular my colleague from Minnesota, who has done such a great job--not just today but as the ranking member of the Rules Committee--in fighting for expanding the right to vote in the context of this pandemic. My colleague from Minnesota has stood to ask for unanimous consent for the enactment of the Natural Disaster and Emergency Ballot Act, which is a broad and bold framework to ensure access to the ballot in every State in the United States in the midst of this ongoing pandemic. We are just 4 months from the election--126 days to be exact--and as day after day the number of infections has risen, it is clear that this pandemic is far from over. So far, 125,000 Americans have died and 2.5 million have been infected. It is completely reasonable for millions of Americans who are senior citizens, who have preexisting conditions, and who have particular vulnerabilities to be concerned about the risk they might take if they go to a polling place to vote. Today is primary day in Colorado, in Oklahoma, and in Utah, and we have seen in primary days just passed in Kentucky, in Georgia, and in Wisconsin, example after example where the State officials involved did not have the resources to hold elections where everyone could safely participate in a pandemic and hadn't worked out the plans. In Georgia, a State long known for voter suppression efforts over decades past, voters waited in line for hours and hours. I was inspired by their passion, their persistence to exercise their right to vote, and concerned, disheartened--even angered--by the fact that no preparations were made sufficient to meet the moment. In Wisconsin, dozens--more than 50--voters and poll workers tested positive for COVID-19 after exercising their right to vote, one of the most fundamental rights in our democracy Across the country we have heard from election officials who have struggled with the infrastructure that is ill-equipped to handle this pandemic. So, as my colleagues have already said, we should come together to advance this legislation, legislation I introduced with the Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from Oregon, which is a series of commonsense solutions to this obvious challenge. It would expand early, in-person voting; no-excuse, absentee vote-by- mail; and reimburse States for the additional costs involved in administering an election during a pandemic. It would ensure American voters aren't faced with that untenable choice: risk their health to vote in person or stay home and not vote at all. Today is June 30. It is also the last day of the Delaware General Assembly, and like several other States, Delaware has passed legislation to provide for no-fault absentee voting in this pandemic, but they lack the resources to fully deliver on this solution. That is why, in the Appropriations subcommittee where I am the most senior Democrat, I have fought alongside my Democratic colleagues to advocate for money in this next COVID relief package--$3.6 billion-- which is what experts across the country say States need for printing ballots, for postage, for new high-speed scanners, for secure drop boxes, for personal protective equipment, and so much more. I appreciate that the Senator from Missouri who came to the floor to object did say that he would support additional funding, and I look forward to working with my colleague from Minnesota to help ensure that that is actually secured, but we have to do more than just provide financial resources. We have to provide this bill. We have to provide the legal framework. We have to provide a clear and confident path forward to voting. Let me close by reminding everyone in this Chamber that voting by mail, voting absentee under exigent circumstances, is nothing new. Our troops back in the Civil War voted by mail so that they could continue to participate in free and fair elections even as they were fighting for the very existence of this Republic. In every election, hundreds of thousands of American troops, diplomats, and development professionals safely and securely cast their votes from around the world--election after election. There is no reason we can't do that now. So let me close by thanking my wonderful colleague from the State of Minnesota, who has been such a passionate, effective, and engaged advocate on this issue. I call on my Republican colleagues. Let's step up. Let's get this done. Let's ensure that the American people can safely exercise their right to vote this November.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues and to express our enthusiasm for the work that lies ahead. I am so grateful to the Senator from Maryland for his leadership in bringing this important effort to the floor tonight. Senator Cardin and Senator Shaheen have been stalwarts in the Small Business Committee. The ranking member and his talented colleague from New Hampshire have worked tirelessly to shape the PPP, or the Paycheck Protection Program, that was part of the CARES Act enacted more than 2 months ago. It has delivered, as you heard tonight, remarkable assistance to nearly 4 million businesses, more than $500 billion--I think $526 billion in assistance--and has helped millions of businesses all over our Nation not have to close. Today--tonight--was supposed to be last minute, the last chapter in the PPP program, but because of the unanimous consent request that was successfully negotiated by Senator Cardin, there is now 5 more weeks of running room for businesses, large and small, across our States--excuse me, businesses small and smaller, across our States--to have an opportunity to get to the SBA to apply for a loan through their lender of choice and to have another opportunity. Why do we need this? Because the pandemic is so far from over. Despite the wishes and the rhetoric of the President and others, we all know that in our States and in other States around the country, a record number of new cases were reported several times this week--the highest number of cases so far in this pandemic. Cases are rising in dozens of States, and small businesses in our country face an uncertain future. In my home State, Governor John Carney, who has made good but hard decisions, has stopped the opening of our economy, like several other States--Maryland, which shares the wonderful Eastern Shore beaches, and New Hampshire, which has wonderful summer and winter hospitality businesses up and down its State. This is a critical time of year for our seasonal businesses. To not have them fully opened is putting a burden and is putting a damper on exactly those hospitality businesses that took the hardest hits right at the beginning of this pandemic. I want to take a few minutes and talk about just a couple of the small businesses I know in Delaware that have benefited from the resources made possible by this program negotiated by these great colleagues. And $1.4 billion has been delivered to Delaware businesses and nonprofits quickly, helping them to stay open or reopen, helping them to hire or retain workers. Yet, even tonight, $134 billion in this program remains unspent. Rather than shutting it down, we are going to make sure that there are windows of opportunity for small businesses in our States. This helps a company like Zoup! in Newark, DE. Eric Ames is the owner. I was there at the opening of his first Zoup! franchise years ago. This PPP loan--a loan-to-grant program--has made it possible for him to keep functioning. Jimmy Vennard, who is the creative, innovative brewer in Newark, DE, of Autumn Arch Brewing has benefited from a PPP loan. Yvonne Gordon, whom I have known for years, who runs Orange Theory Fitness and is a minority business owner in Pike Creek, has been able to stay open and reopen because of her PPP loan. And in Dover, DE, our capital, the wonderful Green Turtle Restaurant was able to stay open because of this loan. These aren't abstractions. These aren't statistics. These are real flesh-and-blood families and businesses that have benefited because of the PPP. As several of my colleagues have said, in the early stages of this program, not enough small businesses and not enough minority-owned businesses, because of fewer banking connections and because of the unpredictability of the rules, were able to access to the PPP. Some were denied by multiple lenders. That is why it is important that we extend this deadline tonight. Let me also speak about what we hope will be the next phase--the Prioritized PPP Act. Extending the deadline of this first loan period for 5 weeks is good but not enough. There are other businesses that can and should get access to the lifeline of a prioritized second PPP loan. As Senators Cardin and Shaheen have mentioned, this would focus on fewer than 100 employees and with more than 50 percent greater revenue loss. I am particularly excited about the set-aside of $25 billion or about 20 percent of the total funding for those with 10 or fewer workers. I know that Senator Cardin and Senator Shaheen will be working hard in the weeks to come to narrow and to focus and to prioritize where we will go in the next relief bill. With the forbearance of my colleagues, I want to talk about one other issue. In my home State of Delaware, today, June 30, was the end of the budget year--the end of our General Assembly session by constitution. All of us received a letter from the seven largest organizations representing State, county, and local governments all over our country, saying it is urgent that this next relief bill include not just another round of assistance to small businesses but critically needed assistance to State and local governments. There are 15 million Americans who work for State and local governments: teachers, paramedics, firefighters, police officers, the folks who make our State and local governments run. And 1.6 million of them have already been laid off as State and local revenues plummet. We have to work together to make sure this is part of the next program. We have to extend unemployment benefits. We need to ensure the American people can safely vote, and we need to expand national service opportunities. There is so much for us to do. I look forward to more successful efforts with my colleagues and for the opportunities for us to work together to address the needs of the American people. Thank you so much to my colleagues, both for tonight's exciting extension of the PPP program and for the work we have yet to do in the days and months ahead With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS

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

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I came to this building, this Capitol, about 12 hours ago today and, first thing this morning, recorded a video to share on social media with the folks back home, who have been eagerly asking: What is up? What is happening? What is next? My message has been simple. After days of disagreement--of tussling and of fighting and of crafting--we have a deal, and I am ready to vote. Let's move forward. Twelve hours later, I stand in a largely empty Chamber and have an odd sense of foreboding, as I have all day and as have many of my colleagues, wondering: What is taking so long? What is the delay? What are the remaining issues? I am hopeful, prayerfully, that we will resolve what is left, move to this Chamber, take up the text, vote it out, send it to the House, send it to the President, and send $2 trillion in support to our Nation. Let me tell you, as I have waited today and yesterday and as I have taken phone calls for whatever reason from the folks from Delaware, they have all asked: When will the Senate act? We have faced a challenge over the last couple of days between our moving swiftly and our moving wisely in putting together a package of this size. With no hearings, no committee proceedings, and no detailed legislative process, it means that there will be rough edges, and it means there will be mistakes in this bill. Is it perfect? No. In fact, some of its pieces, as we will discover as it unfolds, are far from it. But across the country, just as in this Chamber, there is that sense of anxiousness, of anxiety, of when will it happen. Just a few weeks ago, the vast majority of our country was reading about coronavirus--about COVID-19--as something happening in distant countries on far shores. They read about sort of concerns about its alarming and rapid growth in Asia and then Europe. Things started changing as the stories got more dire and more grave, as public health officials began to predict a global pandemic, as the World Health Organization announced it is a global pandemic, as scientific leaders began to say that the United States would inevitably be touched by it, as our colleagues from the Pacific Northwest told us about how their communities were being affected, as extended contacts and friends and acquaintances on social media and then on the press shared how they are or members of their community had become infected. As it began to move across our country, it began to impact a remarkable range of institutions, from baseball to Broadway, the closures of all sorts of treasured American institutions--every major sports league, every major public gathering. And as now State after State has issued edicts, as city and county alike all over our country have asked people to close their restaurants and their bars, their small businesses, as hotels have no occupants, as airplanes fly with no passengers, it has become haunting, eerie--the sense of an imminent disaster. Just before coming over here I read an article in the New York Times about how in my region, in the mid-Atlantic, it has hit. In the borough of Queens, in the city of New York, in a public hospital known as Elmhurst, yesterday, 13 patients died, and in a riveting account, the nurses and the doctors describe a catastrophic situation. Public health officials, trained health aids stretched to their limits, tested as they hadn't been before, struggling to get personal protective equipment, to have enough ventilators, to have enough ICU units--and I will tell you, as, over the last couple of days, I have talked with the heads of each of our major hospitals, folks who run skilled nursing facilities, nonprofits, community health centers, as I have heard from nurses and doctors, I know the level of alarm and concern has steadily risen in recent days. So, folks, tonight, as I stand here on the floor of the Senate, I am mindful that our Nation is suffering; that there are people all over the world but particularly here in the United States, in the States that we represent, who are anxious, who are unemployed, who are uncertain, in some cases now, too many who are infected, who are hospitalized. It has come home to this Chamber, as one of our colleagues has tested positive and one of our dear colleague's husband, her spouse, is hospitalized. We know Members of the House and the Senate, of our staff, and our immediate community have been touched by this dread disease. And we are now at a critical moment in our modern history-- simultaneously a public health crisis and an economic crisis. I have heard too many people say it is unprecedented. It is not unprecedented. The United States and our Nation have made it through tougher times than this. To say that the Great Depression and the Second World War, the Civil War, and the Revolution, the hard work of labor organizing, and the desperate work of throwing off the shackles of segregation and of Jim Crow--to say that those weren't tough and difficult struggles misses the significance of our history and the things we have overcome. But for most of us, for most of our families, for most of our communities, this wave, this pandemic, this virus, and the combined health and economic disaster that is upon us may be the greatest test we have faced. So how have we answered thousands of businesses already closed, millions of people already unemployed, and a nation fearful of a pandemic swamping the resources of our hospitals and our health system? Let me just speak briefly in broad strokes to what is in this bill, which we have, finally, ultimately, hammered out after days of disagreement and in advance of our getting the final official text. In the broadest strokes, the help that will be delivered to the American people by this bill starts with individual assistance-- something the President has championed and the Democrats have supported. We have had different versions of it, but we have roughly agreed on $1,200 to every adult citizen making below $75,000, and it phases out to those making below $100,000. With $500 per child, your average family might well see $3,000 to $4,000. These checks will come out in weeks, delivered directly, for those with direct deposit through the IRS, or by check to those harder to find who haven't filed recently but are eligible. This is a remarkable, direct support to help millions of Americans have cash in their family checkbook to get through the unexpected hardship of these next few months. There is more than $100 billion in this bill to support our health workers on the frontline and the hospitals that make our public health possible--possible. You heard that story about Elmhurst Hospital. In my own home State, there are hospitals rural and urban, large and small, that without this support will struggle to make it through this period. The heroes of this period are the folks who are working--the folks who are cleaning offices, trains, hospital rooms, often without enough protective equipment, often without healthcare themselves, often without adequate pay; the folks who labor at night here in this Capitol in our offices to make sure they are clean and safe from this virus we can't see; the folks who work in public hospitals, work long hours. They are orderlies, they are nurses. They are the paramedics and the ambulance drivers who deliver the sick, and they are the surgeons and the doctors who direct their care. And one of the things I am proudest of that is in this now that was not in this several days ago is $150 billion to States and counties and cities. In the 10 years I spent in county government, I came to deeply respect the men and women who help keep our county government afloat and our communities stronger, safer, and healthy. This direct support to the States and the counties on the frontlines of this pandemic will help them get through. There is a $500 billion fund--the subject of much discussion and debate--that, as initially written and proposed, would help sustain some of our iconic industries like the airlines, but with almost no transparency, in terms of the terms of the loans or the grants that would be given, and almost no restrictions on how the companies to receive them might use them, for what purposes. Broadly speaking, after days of fighting, we have come to agreements that I support and embrace--restrictions on buybacks and dividends and executive compensation, guarantees against layoffs and against the destruction of collective bargaining agreements, and, broadly speaking, transparency and accountability. One of the things I am most proud of is that there will be now an accountability board, a pandemic response accountability committee-- both an inspector general, a special inspector general, and $80 million in this bill for the operation of that accountability committee. Let me move, since I see I have a number of colleagues who have joined me on the floor, to just a few other points, if I could. There is $350 billion in this bill for the Small Business Administration to disburse to small businesses and to nonprofits all over our country, with an incentive structure to change it from a loan to a grant to those who would retain or rehire their workforce. As I have heard from restaurant owners, from hotel owners, from those who work in bars and restaurants and hotels in my community, those are the folks who have been hit the first and the hardest by the closures. This provision will allow those small businesses to reopen quickly and robustly when we get on the other side of this pandemic. And I look forward to working with my colleagues, with the SBA Administrator, with the SBA lenders in my State and around the country to make sure it is done well and that it is done quickly. I wrote the bill that added $17 billion more so that 320,000 current small businesses, which are current SBA loanholders, get 6 months of relief, moves them off the agenda of the SBA staff and the SBA lenders to clear the decks for them to administer this $350 billion. And I supported Senator Cardin in his initiative to add $10 billion for small, rapid grants to the most severely impacted businesses and nonprofits. This section of the overall bill, where Senators Rubio and Collins, Cardin and Shaheen negotiated most of it, struck me as the most bipartisan and most productive. There is so much more in this bill I could speak to--the ways in which the resources of the Federal Reserve are going to be deployed to help medium businesses and small businesses; the ways in which the private sector in my home State has stepped up to partner and to deliver critically needed resources, whether it is refurbishing ventilators or donating surplus PPE from the construction sector that they don't need today, or it is the university that has closed its research labs but makes its resources available to our hospital. There are some remarkable efforts in partnership going on in my community and around the country. But at the end of the day, we have a critical question: Is this bill perfect? No. Could we improve it by more time here arguing with each other, offering more minutes, debating further? Yes. Is there something I badly wanted that did not get in this final bill? Absolutely We have had nine major States delay their elections, delay their Presidential primaries because of this pandemic, and I urged that a bill written by my colleagues Senator Klobuchar and Senator Wyden, that I joined, be added in text to require every State to have a plan to vote by mail during this pandemic. If our troops could vote from the frontlines in the Civil War and Second World War, by gosh, we should have a plan to vote even if this pandemic continues. I was disappointed that text is ultimately not going to be in this bill. Four hundred million dollars will be in to help those States that want to vote by mail, to expand and strengthen vote by mail, and I will be back. I will be back to insist on this provision in the next bill. But as I have said to many colleagues in the last few days, we cannot all get everything we hope for and want and believe to be important in this bill. We must put down the tools of partisanship and personal interest and sectional concerns; we must put down some of the things we most hope for; we must put down the tools with which we so often fight each other; and we must come together and take up the implements of national purpose, of compromise, of consensus, and deliver these resources to a nation anxious, concerned, and at times even angry at all of us in the Senate for what they see as too long a delay. So with that, let me just say to my colleagues, it is time for us to take up this bill, rough-hewn as it is, pass it through this Chamber, send it to the House. I urge my colleagues in the House to pass it promptly, send to it the President's desk for signature, and then let us all get to the hard work of making sure we do the best we can for the people we represent with this historic stimulus package, this remarkable coronavirus relief package that is going to deliver $2 trillion of assistance and support to communities all over our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, the Senate of the United States has just acted. It has taken up and passed a roughly $104 billion package of assistance that will go out to American families, to American workers, to our healthcare system, to our States, and to our communities. I want to take a few minutes to talk about this important step we have just taken and where we have to go next. The Delawareans I have heard from today and this week and this month are worried, and they are anxious. They have been up all night and are trying to figure out how they are going to care for their children who are home from school and need support and instruction and how they are going to care for their parents who are vulnerable and elderly and sick. They are concerned about our hospitals and our healthcare system and its capacity. They are anxious because they are frontline workers, they are first responders, and they are volunteer firefighters, nurses, and orderlies, who are exposed every day and concerned. They are just average citizens asking: How can I get a test and where? I have heard from the presidents of our major universities, the head of our hospital system, our Governor, and my colleagues in our congressional delegation. We have talked repeatedly to our director of public health, our secretary of health and human services, and I have heard from business owners, large and small, who run everything from coffee shops and diners to restaurants and hotels in our State. There is a lot of anxiety and concern. The folks in my State want to know that we here in Washington are going to put the partisan bickering aside, find answers, and get resources out to deal with this significant public health emergency. And so I hope folks take some encouragement from today's actions. It passed 90 to 8. Very little passes in this Senate 90 to 8, and I have very rarely seen a bill of this size, scope, and magnitude that goes from an idea to bill text, to enactment in such a short period of time, but this moment demands it. Let me talk through, also, the priorities that are reflected in the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, because the name reflects the priorities. Hubert Humphrey, who is a former leader in the United States in our political community and system, once said, ``The moral test of our government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.'' I am pleased that the package just passed here in the Senate takes important strides to take care of exactly those folks. Children home from school, who need support for learning remotely, and those, in particular, who rely on school lunch programs for their one good, stable healthy meal a day, will be able to continue to get school lunches delivered, either through their schools or at home. There are significant resources in this bill for that. Those who are on the frontlines of this crisis, the individuals who are cleaning offices and cleaning hospital rooms and cleaning Amtrak cars and public buses, those who are putting themselves directly at risk by cleaning the spaces we all count on for our society, frontline workers, people who are in our first responder community, people who are working in our hospital emergency rooms--this provides support for them. And for anyone who is concerned about the cost of access to testing, this bill makes clear that testing for COVID-19, for this dreaded disease caused by the novel coronavirus, will have a test for free, including those without health insurance. There are some big pieces in this bill that I will briefly mention. There is paid emergency leave for workers at companies below 500 employees for 2 weeks of sick leave and up to 10 weeks of additional paid family and medical leave. We just had a disagreement over exactly how that is going to get paid for and how it is going to get compensated and on what timeline, and we are going to work out those details. My office's website will have an accessible, readable summary of what is in this bill up later tonight. The larger point was that we thought it essential that folks who we want to stay home, but who are maybe living paycheck to paycheck, know that they will get paid sick leave so they can stay home and we can slow the spread of this disease. There is also an increase in funds from the Federal Government to States for Medicaid, because a lot of our States are going to see increased costs as folks move to Medicaid as the place they get healthcare as they move to unemployment. One hundred million dollars in additional resources will go to the State of Delaware alone to provide support for those who may be newly dependent on Medicaid. Then, last is an expansion of unemployment benefits--26 weeks of unemployment benefits, including temporary unemployment caused because of COVID-19. There are more details as to how this temporary unemployment insurance will work, but it will last longer and have a higher level of benefit and be more flexible than previous versions of Federal unemployment insurance, and it is being delivered in partnership with States. So those are the biggest pieces of this bill. It is just $104 billion, but the bill we are already hard at work on will be an order of magnitude greater, likely more than $1 trillion. If what we have seen in terms of anxiety and concern from families up and down my State and all over our country is any indication, we must take this up quickly and enact it. There are small business owners, whom I have heard from today, who want to keep employing the folks who work for them but have lost half of their business since our Governor took the bold and necessary step of closing our restaurants and bars to all except drive-through and delivery service. Ten percent of the folks who work in Delaware work in restaurants and hospitality. Folks who want to keep their people on payroll but have no work for them to do face a very hard choice. We need to find ways that we can both defer the payments that are necessary for students, for homeowners, for businesses, for those who have outstanding payments on SBA loans or on federally guaranteed mortgages or on bank loans where we can work out some way to provide temporary relief, and then individual payments that will help students, that will help heads of households, and that will help individuals. So there are a lot of different pieces that are being debated and discussed here in the Senate--support for Amtrak, a priority for me because I commute by Amtrak and it is one of the biggest modes of transportation on the east coast; support for the airline and hospitality industries because they employ hundreds of thousands of people and have seen their business drop off sharply; support for long- term structural changes to how we provide access to healthcare, access to skills and training for our workforce, and access to higher education. I have heard very concerning stories from the folks who lead some of the most important nonprofit and faith and educational institutions in my State, and they are looking to us for bold and decisive leadership. Last, we must not forget those on the margins of our society--people who are homeless, people who are incarcerated, people who are uninsured, people who are undocumented. If we want to make sure that we make our country safe, we need to practice not just good hygiene, not just social distancing, but we need to refrain from moral distancing. We need to remember the words of Hubert Humphrey, and we need to be reminded exactly why people look to this Federal Government for prompt action and for significant resources: It is because they look for us to be able to make sure that we see all Americans and that we know that we are all in this together. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly about hard decisions. There are hard decisions that have been made all over our country in recent days and weeks--decisions by superintendents of school districts on whether to shut down their schools and send their children home; hard decisions made by mayors about how to provide for first responders, for those who run the paramedic and ambulance and police services, and the 9/11 centers and the public hospitals; decisions by Governors about where and when and whether to declare states of emergency. We have seen decisions made by faith leaders, by sports leaders, by school leaders--leaders of all types at all levels. But the most important decisions that are being made tonight are around America's kitchen tables, where folks are looking at each other and saying: How much longer will I have a job? How much longer will we be able to put food on the table? How will we care for our kids who are unexpectedly home from school or college or overseas for days or weeks? How much longer can we stay in our home before we have to go see our mom, our grandmom, our uncle, our father, who is in a skilled nursing facility, who is scared and alone? Just this afternoon, seven counties in California announced a shelter-in-place order. We have seen counties, cities, and communities all over our country gradually move from a very relaxed and casual attitude, to a very concerned attitude, to being on high alert, to now, in half a dozen communities around our country, looking more like Italy than they do like America of a month ago. It has been a slow-rolling response, and we should have been here this weekend to make sure that the Senate of the United States stepped forward and did our job and made our hard decisions. I take some encouragement from the fact that the first round of support--$8.3 billion--got crafted, taken up, passed, and signed into law in just a matter of 2 weeks--long overdue, but $8.3 billion that went out for vaccine development, for test kits, for personal protective equipment, to put a floor underneath this burgeoning public health crisis that is COVID-19 as it has spread now to every State in our country. The next package that has already been passed by the House--that should be considered by this body--we must take up and pass immediately, and it directly speaks to those hard decisions at homes all over our country. It speaks to folks who are concerned that they don't have health insurance. It speaks to folks who are concerned that they don't have unemployment insurance. It speaks to folks who don't know where their kids--who used to get school lunches--are going to get their next good meal. It speaks to some of the challenges of the most vulnerable in our country. I don't know about my colleagues, but I took a lot of phone calls this weekend from constituents who are concerned, who are anxious, who are angry, who want to know what we are doing at the Federal level to provide backup; folks who run nonprofits that are struggling to keep their services available and to stay open under great pressure; folks who run faith services in our community who canceled their services, closed their buildings, but now have half a dozen organizations communities rely on, whether it is a food pantry, a clothes closet, or a job-training service; folks who are anxious about what will happen to their staff and their students at their schools; in particular, folks who are anxious about what will happen to the seniors in their skilled nursing facilities or in their hospitals. As you have heard my colleagues speak to, our hospital system does not have the capacity for thousands and thousands of newly diagnosed folks to present themselves at emergency rooms, seeking hospitalization around our country. We should act immediately to deliver the sorts of mobilized Federal resources that the Army Corps of Engineers, the Veterans' Administration, the Department of Defense, and State and local FEMA affiliates and agencies can deliver to scale up our response in a prompt and appropriate way. We should not leave this building and session until we have taken up and put together a package that will provide an appropriate stimulus for working families all over our country, provide a floor for small businesses and for working families who will be gravely concerned tonight about what will happen tomorrow. We have hard choices to make, but that is why people hire us. Instead of being here in a largely empty Chamber with nothing on our agenda tonight, we should be taking up, debating, passing, and sending to the President for signature bold strokes that will give confidence to the American people and address the concerns that families all over our Nation are facing tonight, and then, for our health and the health of our staff and our families, we should go into recess. But we should not do so, as we just did for a long weekend, until we take up and pass these pressing measures of national interest.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Madam President, I come to the floor today to add my voice to the debate on the system of checks and balances that are essential to and that define our very democracy. I am here, in no small part, because of a series of events that unfolded slowly over 40 years, and then, with a sharper tempo, near the end of last year, culminated in a strike by U.S. forces on January 3 that killed General Qasem Soleimani of the Quds Force of the IRGC of Iran. That precipitated a series of briefings and debates here among Senators and with our constituents in the country, and, today, after an important 51-to-45 vote to proceed, we are debating this measure. This measure is S.J. Res. 68, from Senators Kaine, Durbin, Lee, and Paul, to direct the removal of U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress. I want to simply make a few observations today about the importance of the war making power and the role of Congress. In my view, we are at a critical inflection point in our Nation, one where history will question whether we served our Nation or served more partisan or parochial aims. To be clear, I do not seek or want a war between the United States and Iran. I think our best path forward is a multilateral, several- nations-coming-together initiative to deescalate rising conflict between the United States and Iran, with so many--tens of millions of people--displaced from their homes around the world from conflicts ranging from Syria and Yemen, to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to the Central African Republic. There is conflict in many places in our world, and our country has seen what happens in the absence of effective diplomacy. But I came to the floor today really in no small part because, in the group briefings that happened after the strike that killed General Soleimani, a number of points were made that I think deserve to be addressed. One, a suggestion was made by one participant that simply debating whether the authorization for the use of military force that was adopted by Congress back in 2001 or 2002--simply debating whether that authorized this strike and simply questioning whether this strike should be authorized and future actions authorized by this Congress would weaken the morale of our troops and would send a signal to our enemies and adversaries of a lack of resolve by our Nation, and so we in Congress should simply allow the President, under article II, which gives to him, the Commander in Chief, responsibility, to simply exercise the overwhelming capabilities of the United States and our tremendous Armed Forces to keep us safe and to push back on our adversaries. I don't think anything could be further from the truth. I actually think it strengthens our democracy when we engage in a robust and vigorous debate on this question. I actually think showing that we have confidence in our Constitution and that we in the Senate realize that, over decades, we have gradually allowed our central role in authorizing war to be weakened--that retaking some of that role is, in fact, showing confidence in our democracy. Let me be clear up front. I support the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces, and I have great confidence in their ability to carry out their mission. I am clear-eyed about the threat that Iran, the Islamic Republic of Iran, poses to our interests, to the region, and to the world. As one of the world's great state sponsors of terrorism, as one of the great sources of instability in the region, as a country that for 40-plus years has been genuinely opposed to much of what the United States believes in and tries to do in the region--I am clear-eyed both about supporting our troops and about the threat posed by Iran. But if we are to do right by the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces, whom we ask to go around the world and to serve us and to sacrifice for us and to keep us safe, we can do no less than to ask whether we are sending them with the full support of the American people. This S.J. Res. 68 begins with a simple but important finding: ``Congress has the sole power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the United States Constitution,'' and ``Congress has not yet declared war upon, nor enacted a specific statutory authorization for the use of military force against . . . Iran.'' That makes a simple point. Previous administrations of both parties have overused the authorizations for the use of military force passed here in 2001 and 2002. An overwhelming majority of the currently serving Members were not present for the debates that led to those authorizations, and the fact patterns and circumstances that led to their being adopted have long since passed into history. So if we in this Chamber are to exercise our responsible role, we shouldn't simply let the President take the responsibility and possibly the blame for the conduct of war overseas; we should take that responsibility back on ourselves. In 2001, Congress authorized the use of force against al-Qaida and associated forces based on the deadly strike against the United States and our territory that happened on 9/11 but did not authorize the use of force against Iran. In 2002, Congress did the same against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, which is one of Iran's greatest enemies, then and now. So, frankly, I think to suggest that either of these former authorizations for the use of military force, or AUMFs, authorize this action goes way beyond its scope. I have heard from hundreds of constituents at home in Delaware about their rising anxiety and concern, and I have heard from many both currently serving and formerly serving that we should do our job, that Congress has a role, and that we need to debate and demand a strategy from this administration and a path forward that we can articulate and defend. We are in a scenario now where the possibility of military conflict between the United States and Iran is entirely foreseeable. President Trump has drawn a line in the sand, much as his predecessor did, and said: We will never let Iran have a nuclear weapon. With the United States having withdrawn from the Iran nuclear deal, the JCPOA, and with Iran and our European allies increasingly further and further apart on their conduct and with Iran restarting centrifuges and restarting enrichment, it is not an unforeseeable moment that, whether weeks or months or years from now but quite possibly months, a team from the senior ranks of our military will go to the President and say: Here is a range of options. That might include striking Iran. That is a fact pattern that requires Congress to have provided authorization. Yes, I recognize there are exigencies, there are emergencies, there are moments when the President must take action to authorize our Armed Forces to strike in order to defend our troops and to defend our interests at home and abroad, but this entirely foreseeable scenario-- one which we should all be working to avoid but which is foreseeable-- is exactly why I am supporting the bipartisan resolution introduced by Senators Kaine and Lee. The Senate must take back its responsibility for authorizing our Armed Forces to protect us overseas, and we need to show clear-eyed support for our Armed Forces and for the path forward. President Trump, like all Presidents before him, does not have the authority to wage war without consulting this Congress. And Democrats and Republicans are concerned about this administration's apparent indifference toward Congress and its critical role in deciding matters of war and peace. The House has just passed two measures to restrict the President's war-making powers. The Senate needs to have that same debate, that same discussion, and needs to take up and pass this resolution. This is how our system of government works best--through respectful disagreement, through thoughtful, informed debate, and through votes in both Chambers to express the will of the American people. Let me close by saying this to servicemembers whom I meet in Delaware and to many more serving around the country and around the world: War should be our last resort. If diplomacy should fail in this case or others, I will insist our administration produce a clear strategy and a mission for our troops that our service men and women can accomplish and that our Congress provide our military with the resources and authorities they need. We are blessed with a system of democratic governance that challenges us in times when stakes are highest to rise to the occasion and to earn our place in the history of this democratic Republic. We do that by reaffirming our faith in our Constitution, including article I, which gives to this body the responsibility to weigh vital decisions of war and peace. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, the last time this body--the last time the Senate--debated the fate of a Presidency in the context of impeachment, the legendary Senator from West Virginia, Robert Byrd, rose and said: I think my country sinks beneath the yoke. It weeps, it bleeds, and each new day a gash is added to her wounds. Our country today, as then, is in pain. We are deeply divided, and most days, it seems to me that we here are the ones wielding the shiv, not the salve. The Founders gave this Senate the sole power to try impeachments because, as Alexander Hamilton wrote: ``Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent?'' I wish I could say with confidence that we here have lived up to the faith our Founders entrusted in us. Unfortunately, I fear, in this impeachment trial, the Senate has failed a historic test of our ability to put country over party. Foreign interference in our democracy has posed a grave threat to our Nation since its very founding. James Madison wrote that impeachment was an ``indispensable'' check against a President who would ``betray his trust to foreign powers.'' The threat of foreign interference remains grave and real to this day. It is indisputable that Russia attacked our 2016 election and interfered in it broadly. President Trump's own FBI Director and Director of National Intelligence have warned us they are intent on interfering in our election this coming fall. So, to my Republican colleagues, I have frankly found it difficult to understand why you would continue to so fervently support a President who has repeatedly and publicly invited foreign interference in our elections. During his 2016 campaign, Donald Trump looked straight into the cameras at a press conference and said: Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find Secretary Clinton's 30,000 emails. We now know with certainty that Russian military intelligence hackers first attempted to break into Secretary Clinton's office servers for the first time that very day. Throughout his campaign, President Trump praised the publication of emails that Russian hackers had stolen from his political opponent. He mercilessly attacked former FBI Director Robert Mueller throughout his investigation into the 2016 election and allegations of Russian interference. Now we know, following this trial, that the day after Special Counsel Mueller testified about his investigation to this Congress, President Trump, on a phone call with the President of Ukraine, asked for a favor. He asked President Zelensky to announce an investigation of his chief political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden, and he asked for an investigation into a Russian conspiracy theory about that DNC server. In the weeks and the months since, he has repeated that Ukraine should investigate his political opponent and that China should as well. During the trial here, after the House managers and President's counsel made their presentation, Senators had the opportunity to ask questions. I asked a question of the President's lawyers about a sentence in their own trial brief that stated: ``Congress has forbidden foreigners' involvement in American elections.'' I simply asked whether the President's own attorneys believed their client, President Trump, agrees with that statement, and they refused to confirm that he does. And how could they when he has repeatedly invited and solicited foreign interference in our elections? So, to my colleagues: Do you doubt that President Trump did what he is accused of? Do you doubt he would do it again? Do you think for even one moment he would refuse the help of foreign agents to smear any one of us if he thought it was in his best political interest? And I have to ask: What becomes of our democracy when elections become a no-holds- barred blood sport, when our foreign adversaries become our allies, and when Americans of the opposing party become our enemies? Throughout this trial, I have listened to the arguments of the House managers prosecuting the case against President Trump and of the arguments of counsel defending the President. I engaged with colleagues on both sides of the aisle and listened to their positions. The President's counsel have warned us of danger in partisan impeachments. They have cautioned that abuse of power--the first article--is a difficult standard to define. They have expressed deep concern about an impeachment conducted on the brink of our next Presidential election. I understand those concerns and even share some of them. The House managers, in turn, warned us that our President has demonstrated a perilous willingness to seek foreign interference in our elections and presented significant evidence that the President withheld foreign aid from a vulnerable ally, not to serve our national interest but to attack a political opponent. They demonstrated the President has categorically obstructed congressional investigations to cover up his misconduct. These are serious dangers too. We, then, are faced with a choice between serious and significant dangers. After listening closely to the evidence, weighing the arguments, and reflecting on my constitutional responsibility and my oath to do impartial justice, I have decided today I will vote guilty on both articles. I recognize that many of my colleagues have made up their minds. No matter what decision you have reached, I think it is a sad day for our country. I myself have never been on a crusade to impeach Donald Trump, as has been alleged against all Democrats. I have sought ways to work across the aisle with his administration, but in the years that have followed his election, I have increasingly become convinced our President is not just unconventional, not just testing the boundaries of our norms and traditions, but he is at times unmoored. Throughout this trial, I have heard from Delawareans who are frustrated the Senate refused to hear from witnesses or subpoena documents needed to uncover all the facts about the President's misconduct. I have heard from Delawareans who fear our President believes he is above the law and that he acts as if he is the law. I have also heard from Delawareans who just want us to find a way to work together. It is my sincere regret that, with all the time we have spent together, we could not find common ground at all. From the opening resolution that set the procedures for trial adopted on a party-line basis, the majority leader refused all attempts to make this a more open and more fair process. Every Democrat was willing to have Chief Justice Roberts rule on motions to subpoena relevant witnesses and documents. Every Member of the opposing party refused. We could not even forge a consensus to call a single witness who has said he has firsthand evidence, who is willing to testify and was even preparing to appear before us. When an impeachment trial becomes meaningless, we are damaged and weakened as a body, and our Constitution suffers in ways not easily repaired. We have a President who hasn't turned over a single scrap of paper in an impeachment investigation. Unlike Presidents Nixon and Clinton before him, who directed their senior advisers and Cabinet officials to cooperate, President Trump stonewalled every step of this Congress's impeachment inquiry and then personally attacked those who cooperated. The people who testified to the House of Representatives in spite of the President's orders are dedicated public servants and deserve our thanks, not condemnation. Where do we go from here? Well, after President Clinton's impeachment trial, he said: ``This can be and must be a time of reconciliation and renewal for [our country],'' and he apologized for the harm he had done to our Nation. When President Nixon announced his resignation, he said: ``The first essential is to begin healing the wounds of this Nation.'' I wish President Trump would use this moment to bring our country together, to assure us he would work to make the 2020 election a fair contest; that he would tell Russia and China to stay out of our elections; that he would tell the American people, whoever his opponent might be, the fight will be between candidates, not families; that if he loses, he will leave peacefully, in a dignified manner; and that if he wins, he will work tirelessly to be the President for all people. But at this point, some might suggest it would be hopelessly naive to expect of President Trump that he would apologize or strive to heal our country or do the important work of safeguarding our next election. So that falls to us. To my colleagues who have concluded impeachment is too heavy a hammer to wield, if you believe the American people should decide the fate of this President in the next election, what will you do to protect our democracy? What will you do to ensure the American people learn the truth of what happened so that they can cast informed votes? Will you cosponsor bills to secure our elections? Will you insist they receive votes on this floor? Will you express support for the intelligence community that is working to keep our country safe? Will you ensure whistleblowers who expose corruption are protected, not vilified? Will you press this administration to cooperate with investigations and to allow meaningful accommodations so that Congress can have its power of oversight? Why can we not do this together? Each day of this trial, we have said the Pledge of Allegiance to our common Nation. For my Republican friends who have concluded the voters should decide President Trump's fate, we need to do more together to make that possible. Many of my Democratic friends, I know, are poised to do their very best to defeat President Trump at the ballot box. So here is my plea--that we would find ways to work together to defend our democracy and safeguard our next election. We have spent more time together here in the last few weeks than in the last few years. Imagine if we dedicated that same time to passing the dozens of bipartisan bills that have come over from the House that are awaiting action. Imagine what we could accomplish for our States and our country if we actually tackled the challenges of affordable healthcare and ending the opioid crisis, making our schools and communities safer, and bridging our profound disagreements. What fills me with dread, to my colleagues, is that each day we come to this floor and talk past each other and not to each other and fail to help our constituents. Let me close by paraphrasing our Chaplain--Chaplain Black--whose daily prayers brought me great strength in recent weeks: May we work together to bring peace and unity. May we permit Godliness to make us bold as lions. May we see a clear vision of our Lord's desire for our Nation and remember we borrow our heartbeats from our Creator each day.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. Chief Justice.

Mr. COONS. On behalf of myself and Senator Klobuchar, I send a question to the desk, addressed to the President's counsel and the House managers.