Tim Kaine

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, good afternoon. I rise today to talk about the American Rescue Plan and its effect on my economy. It has been a tough year. It was a year ago tomorrow that I sent my Senate staff home for a trial-run, 2-day telework in case we ever were to need it, and they never came back. Until now, as people are starting to get vaccinated, they are coming back personally to the office after having worked, in a pretty amazing way, virtually for the year. It was just about a year ago that I got coronavirus. It was just about a year ago that I gave my wife coronavirus. It has been a long, long year: more than 500,000 Americans dead, more than 10 million still out of work. After sizable work by Congress in five bills in 2020 to inject resources into the economy, we are still down 10 million jobs. But today is a bright day. Just within the last few hours, the House of Representatives passed the Senate bill that we sent to them Saturday afternoon on the American Rescue Plan, building off the original House proposal, and that bill is filled with things that will make a tangible difference nearly immediately in the lives of so many Americans: payment to everyday families, individuals, children; acceleration of the vaccine deployment; resources so that we can open our schools and our colleges and our childcare centers, which are all preconditions to seeing the economy reopen. In Virginia--just making this about my home Commonwealth--State and local governments in Virginia will receive about $6.8 billion to cover costs of COVID, revenues lost due to COVID, but also projects that can help the economy accelerate so that we can climb out of the economic catastrophe that has been COVID. Eighty-four percent of Virginians--that is more than 7 million people, 2 million of whom are children--will receive stimulus checks because of the bill the Democrats got passed in the House and Senate. Just think of that. Seven million Virginians will receive stimulus checks. The average per filer--and many file jointly, so this will be sort of a household average--would be nearly $3,000. The child tax credit portion of the American Rescue Plan will provide additional resources on top of those checks to 1.6 million Virginia children, lifting 85,000 currently below the poverty level to above the poverty level. Just in my State, 85,000 children below the poverty level will no longer be there. The expanded earned income tax credit in Virginia will affect nearly 420,000 adults, enabling them to work with more dignity, with less financial stress, as they try to manage the challenges of their life in this tough time. Also, 250,000 adults whose unemployment benefits were in danger of expiring are now protected through early September because of the bill. Small businesses, which have suffered so much, will get a significant uplift--just restaurants, with the $28 billion restaurant fund in the American Rescue Plan. There are 15,000 restaurants in Virginia, all of which have suffered because of COVID, because of social distancing requirements, supply chain challenges, workers who have been out sick. That $28 billion fund offers great hope for my restauranteurs. For Virginia education, our local school systems--134 cities and counties operate K-12 systems--will receive more than $2 billion to deal with the costs of COVID, including expanded broadband so that their students can have better access to online course curriculum, including money that could be used for summer instruction, for example, so that we can tackle learning gaps that occurred during the last year; and $845 million for Virginia higher education institutions And something that I am particularly excited about--I have a child who is an early childhood worker. That is what he does. Forty percent of Virginia childcare centers were closed for much of the year because of the pandemic. Virginia will receive nearly $800 million in additional childcare support so our childcare centers can be open, which will not only be good for children but will enable their parents to return to work more easily. In the healthcare space, accelerations of vaccines, lower healthcare premiums because of expanded subsidies for those who are purchasing insurance, mental health expansion to deal with the significant psychological and emotional traumas of the last year, housing, food, transit, broadband, pension reform. There is so much in this bill for Virginians. There is so much in this bill for the residents of red States, blue States, in-between States. Every ZIP code in the United States, every family in the United States will see some impact that they can see, touch, and feel. It is not often that you pass a bill where you can say this about it--that the tangible results for virtually every American will be seen so quickly. I want to focus a little bit, having talked about the tangible benefits in Virginia, just on the analysis of the bill nationally, and I have a couple of charts I want to show. Coincidentally, or maybe not coincidentally, the size of the American Rescue Plan was pretty close to the size of the Trump tax cuts that were done in December of 2017. The Trump tax cuts were about $1.9 trillion, and the American Rescue Plan ended up being at about $1.75 trillion. So they are pretty close. And what these two plans demonstrate, if you look at the Trump tax plan and you look at the American Rescue Plan, is that you will see how very, very different the priorities of the two parties are. The recovery plan passed in this body with every Democratic vote and no Republican votes. The Trump tax plan passed in 2017 with every Republican vote and no Democratic vote. I believe these two plans are almost a perfect representation of the priorities of the two parties right now in this body--not just in this body but all around the country. If you analyze the content of these two bills, which were nearly identical in size, you can definitely understand a lot about the priorities of the two parties. On the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the Trump tax cuts, 54 percent of the $1.9 trillion benefit went to people making more than $75,000 a year, 16 percent went to people making less than $75,000 a year, 31 percent were tax cuts for businesses. If you look at the American Rescue Plan, you see something very, very different: 44 percent of the aid was aid to individuals, 21 percent was pandemic and other policies that focus on getting us out of the healthcare crisis, 9 percent is to our schools and universities, 18 percent for our State and local governments to try to forestall massive layoffs of governmental employees, and then 8 percent are tax cuts to individuals. These are very different priority sets between the GOP's key accomplishment with the 2017 tax cuts and now this accomplishment that the Democrats have worked so hard to achieve in the American Rescue Plan. This tells you about priorities, but the next chart is probably my favorite because I think it makes it even clearer. This is a chart that shows the benefits of both the American Rescue Plan in blue and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in red, and I don't think those colors were coincidentally done by my staff. It shows how the benefits of these two bills--they are identical in size--were arrayed across the income groupings, income quintiles of the American public. The top 20 percent of the American public in income got 65 percent of the benefit from the Trump tax cuts. They get 11 percent of the benefit from the American Rescue Plan. In the 60-to-80-percent quintile, you will see that the two plans were pretty close to equal. Not exactly--the Democratic plan was a little bit better in terms of the benefits at that level. But as you move into the 40-to-60-percent quintile, that midrange of Americans, the Democratic proposal gave much more of the benefit to people in that income frame, that income quintile, than the Republican proposal. In the 20-to-40-percent range, it is quadruple the Democratic allocation of benefits to that lower middle-class portion of the American public, quadruple what the Republican tax plan allocated. But what you really see is, in the lowest quintile income of the American public, the people who struggle the most and during the pandemic were hurt the most, 23 percent of the benefits of the American Rescue Plan went to that lowest 20 percent of the American public while only 1 percent of the benefit of the Trump tax cuts was allocated to that hard-hit, struggling group of people. Again, if you want to look at the priorities of the two parties by analyzing these two sizable bills that each side claims is an accomplishment they are proud of, you just need to look at this particular chart and understand who each side, each party, is battling for and who is each side, each party, trying to help. Finally, one last chart and then a concluding comment. The last chart shows the poverty rate in this country beginning in 2007. Now, we know we had an economic challenge in 2008, 2009, 2010 that was significant, and then the poverty rate started to come down late in the Obama first term and continued to come down into the Trump first term. But you will see what has happened since 2017 with the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. If that had not happened, the poverty rate would have started to tick back up again after having come down for a number of years. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act did have an effect on the poverty rate. It knocked it down a little bit. So there was a positive effect on the poverty rate from the Republican tax proposal, but it was not very significant. But the projection about the American poverty rate following the passage of the American Rescue Plan is a dramatic reduction--a dramatic reduction of poverty from more than 12 percent down to poverty just above 8 percent--and we would expect to see that by the end of the year. We are not talking about by the end of the decade or by the end of 5 years or by the end of this Congress. We are talking about by the end of the year. I think these charts--and, again, particularly this chart that arrays the benefits of both the tax cuts bill of 2017 and the American Rescue Plan and shows to whom the benefits were allocated--speak volumes about two very different philosophies about the economy, two very different philosophies about equity, two very different philosophies about how to truly include everyone in legislation that is big, tough, challenging legislation. Finally, I will say this as I conclude: The passage and the signing of the American Rescue Plan will also start a realtime economic experiment because the Republican tax plan was done in 2017, and we can measure what that has done and what it hasn't done from 2017 to the beginning of the pandemic. You would not want to include the pandemic necessarily; that wouldn't be a fair way to measure. But if you look at the passage of the tax cut plan in December of 2017, say, to March of 2020, you can get a pretty good view of what that tax bill did or didn't do to the American economy. Now, in the passage of the American Rescue Plan and the allocation of the benefits of the plan, as demonstrated here, we are going to start the clock on a realtime experiment of a different economic philosophy. If you take government action and you try to direct the focus of it on middle and lower income people, my surmise is, those dollars will likely be spent; they will be spent in community institutions and stores and purchasing properties or maybe buying a car. They will be spent, and they will have a multiplier effect throughout the economy. They are not going to be used to buy back stock. They are not going to be used or socked away because there is nowhere to spend it. I think you will see that the spending effect of allocating benefits in this way is going to have a significant, positive effect on the American economy at a time when it needs it and at a time when the people who are most helped are most in need. We need to build an economy coming out of this crisis that is not only robust but that is also sustainable, meaning environmentally sustainable but sustainable and less subject to boom, busts in areas that leave people high and dry. We also need to build an economy that is more equitable, not measured just by GDP increase or stock market increases that can affect some but measure more in statistics like wages, reduction of poverty, startup of new businesses that demonstrate an economic vitality that is spread broadly among the population. We are starting the realtime clock on that experiment today. We will be able to compare the value of the $1.9 trillion tax cut to the $1.75 trillion American Recovery Plan in years to come. And I am very, very excited to understand that because I think it may point the way forward to additional economic advances that will make us stronger. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, by supporting the development of a workforce trained in in-demand skills, we can accelerate the recovery of our economy. The Nation's continued progress and the socioeconomic mobility of our citizens are contingent on the education and skills of the American workforce and its ability to adjust to and fulfill the needs of the 21st century economy--especially in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. Career and technical education (CTE) programs are vital to every student's education, providing them access to the important knowledge, skills, and credentials needed to obtain careers in rapidly growing, high-demand industries. Today, approximately 12.8 million students across the Nation are enrolled in CTE programs offered by thousands of career academies, comprehensive high schools, CTE high schools, community colleges, and CTE centers. Through applied learning, these students obtain workplace skills and technical training that mirror in-demand positions in the workforce. In the next decade, millions of skilled workers will be needed to fill infrastructure positions in the United States, including jobs related to designing, building, and operating transportation, housing, telecommunication, and utilities facilities. CTE programs intentionally match skills with workforce demands, lowering the probability of high school drop-out and increasing the likelihood of on time graduation rates. These CTE programs will help fill the estimated 30 million U.S. jobs available with an average annual income of $55,000 that do not require a bachelor's degree yet necessitate some level of postsecondary education. Across Virginia, I hear about an increase in workforce needs from frontline health services to manufacturing PPE to contract tracing--the list goes on. As we see a surge in unemployment overall from the pandemic, it is essential that we highlight the important role of CTE in the country's ability to meet the challenges we face in economic recovery and development, student achievement, and global competitiveness. In 2018, Congress affirmed the importance of CTE by passing the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act which supports CTE programs in secondary and postsecondary education. We also need to ensure we continue reskilling and upskilling workers by supporting workforce development programs. Today, with my Senate CTE Caucus co-chairs Senator Portman, Senator Baldwin, and Senator Young and more than half of my colleagues in the Senate, I am pleased to again introduce a bipartisan resolution to designate February as Career and Technical Education (CTE) month. CTE Month encourages students, parents, counselors, educators, and school leaders to learn more about the diverse educational opportunities offered in their communities, and recognize the valuable role of CTE in developing a well-educated and highly skilled workforce in the United States. By formally recognizing CTE Month through this resolution, we hope to bring greater awareness to improving access to high-quality career and technical education for millions of America's students and our nation's ongoing economic competitiveness.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce in the Senate, with my colleagues Senators Young, Duckworth, Lee, Coons, Grassley, Durbin and Paul a bipartisan resolution to repeal the 1991 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iraq. This legislation will formally end the authorizations for the Gulf and Iraq wars--30 and 19 years, respectively, after these AUMFs were first passed, reasserting Congress' vital role in not only declaring wars, but in ending them. The repeal of these authorizations also recognizes the strong partnership the United States now has with a sovereign, democratic Iraq. The United States is no longer at war with Iraq and our legal frameworks should reflect this reality as much as our policy frameworks, to include the Strategic Framework Agreement that Iraq and the United States signed in November 2008, which affirms the establishment of a long-term relationship of cooperation and friendship, based on the principle of equality in sovereignty and the rights and principles that are enshrined in the United Nations Charter. Since 2014, U.S. troops have been in Iraq, alongside Iraqi forces, at the Government of Iraq's request for assistance in combating the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Current Administration officials, including President Biden, Secretary of State Blinken, Secretary of Defense Austin and Commander of the United States Central Command, General McKenzie, have routinely emphasized that United States military forces remain in Iraq at the invitation of the Government of Iraq and in respect to its sovereignty. Recent presidential administrations have maintained that the 2002 AUMF only serves to ``reinforce'' any legal authority to combat ISIS provided by the 2001 AUMF and is not independently required to authorize any such activities. As such, repealing the 1991 AUMF and the 2002 AUMF would not affect ongoing United States military operations. It would however, prevent the future misuse of the Gulf and Iraq War authorizations and strengthen Congressional oversight over war powers. It is past time to repeal both AUMFs and formally mark the end of the Iraq War that resulted in a devastating loss of life and wounded tens of thousands of our troops. It makes no sense that two AUMFs remain in place against a country that is now a close partner. They serve no operational purpose, run the risk of future abuse by the President, and help keep our nation at permanent war. I am proud to join this group of Senators in introducing a bill to repeal these outdated and unnecessary authorizations. I hope we can continue to find bipartisan compromise on these tough war power issues to include revising and replacing the 2001 AUMF.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce in the Senate, with my colleagues Senators Young, Duckworth, Lee, Coons, Grassley, Durbin and Paul a bipartisan resolution to repeal the 1991 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iraq. This legislation will formally end the authorizations for the Gulf and Iraq wars--30 and 19 years, respectively, after these AUMFs were first passed, reasserting Congress' vital role in not only declaring wars, but in ending them. The repeal of these authorizations also recognizes the strong partnership the United States now has with a sovereign, democratic Iraq. The United States is no longer at war with Iraq and our legal frameworks should reflect this reality as much as our policy frameworks, to include the Strategic Framework Agreement that Iraq and the United States signed in November 2008, which affirms the establishment of a long-term relationship of cooperation and friendship, based on the principle of equality in sovereignty and the rights and principles that are enshrined in the United Nations Charter. Since 2014, U.S. troops have been in Iraq, alongside Iraqi forces, at the Government of Iraq's request for assistance in combating the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Current Administration officials, including President Biden, Secretary of State Blinken, Secretary of Defense Austin and Commander of the United States Central Command, General McKenzie, have routinely emphasized that United States military forces remain in Iraq at the invitation of the Government of Iraq and in respect to its sovereignty. Recent presidential administrations have maintained that the 2002 AUMF only serves to ``reinforce'' any legal authority to combat ISIS provided by the 2001 AUMF and is not independently required to authorize any such activities. As such, repealing the 1991 AUMF and the 2002 AUMF would not affect ongoing United States military operations. It would however, prevent the future misuse of the Gulf and Iraq War authorizations and strengthen Congressional oversight over war powers. It is past time to repeal both AUMFs and formally mark the end of the Iraq War that resulted in a devastating loss of life and wounded tens of thousands of our troops. It makes no sense that two AUMFs remain in place against a country that is now a close partner. They serve no operational purpose, run the risk of future abuse by the President, and help keep our nation at permanent war. I am proud to join this group of Senators in introducing a bill to repeal these outdated and unnecessary authorizations. I hope we can continue to find bipartisan compromise on these tough war power issues to include revising and replacing the 2001 AUMF.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Cost of Police Misconduct Act. This legislation strives to increase transparency and accountability, saving taxpayer dollars and potentially lives by requiring Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to report police misconduct allegations and related judgments or settlements to the Department of Justice. Last year, the horrific murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery made it clear that systemic reform in policing is needed now more than ever. On top of having to bear the loss of friends and loved ones, these very communities who suffer from this misconduct have to foot its bill, yet they are often in the dark on the full size of that bill. Citizens deserve to know what they are paying for unjust policing practices. In the last 10 years, 31 of 50 cities in the Nation with the highest police-to-civilian ratio spent more than $3 billion to settle police misconduct lawsuits. These large judgments and settlements paid by State and local governments are typically paid from liability insurance, from a general or dedicated municipal fund, or from issuing bonds. In particular, municipal bonds have become increasingly more commonplace to cover the cost of large judgments and settlements that exceed insurer liability coverage or the capacity of dedicated municipal funds. This often results in passing costs to taxpayers, who must pay nearly double the cost of the judgment or settlement because the city or county must pay fees to financial institutions and interest to investors. This is unacceptable. Specifically, the Cost of Police Misconduct Act seeks to remedy this costly and pervasive issue by ensuring the Department of Justice maintains a comprehensive public database of misconduct data and trends that have gone largely unreported by Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies. Furthermore, this legislation makes certain important data--such as the type of alleged misconduct, the total amount of the settlement, and the source of funds used to cover the cost of any one judgment or settlement--is properly preserved in an easily accessible manner. Additionally, this legislation directs the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study of the information reported to determine the leading cause of judgments and settlements related to allegations of misconduct and what interventions are necessary to prevent them. Police misconduct takes lives, erodes trust, and sparks fear. I am hopeful the Senate will act upon my legislation this year to shine a light on the price of police misconduct, ending the secrecy and hopefully spurring agencies to put a stop to it.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Cost of Police Misconduct Act. This legislation strives to increase transparency and accountability, saving taxpayer dollars and potentially lives by requiring Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to report police misconduct allegations and related judgments or settlements to the Department of Justice. Last year, the horrific murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery made it clear that systemic reform in policing is needed now more than ever. On top of having to bear the loss of friends and loved ones, these very communities who suffer from this misconduct have to foot its bill, yet they are often in the dark on the full size of that bill. Citizens deserve to know what they are paying for unjust policing practices. In the last 10 years, 31 of 50 cities in the Nation with the highest police-to-civilian ratio spent more than $3 billion to settle police misconduct lawsuits. These large judgments and settlements paid by State and local governments are typically paid from liability insurance, from a general or dedicated municipal fund, or from issuing bonds. In particular, municipal bonds have become increasingly more commonplace to cover the cost of large judgments and settlements that exceed insurer liability coverage or the capacity of dedicated municipal funds. This often results in passing costs to taxpayers, who must pay nearly double the cost of the judgment or settlement because the city or county must pay fees to financial institutions and interest to investors. This is unacceptable. Specifically, the Cost of Police Misconduct Act seeks to remedy this costly and pervasive issue by ensuring the Department of Justice maintains a comprehensive public database of misconduct data and trends that have gone largely unreported by Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies. Furthermore, this legislation makes certain important data--such as the type of alleged misconduct, the total amount of the settlement, and the source of funds used to cover the cost of any one judgment or settlement--is properly preserved in an easily accessible manner. Additionally, this legislation directs the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study of the information reported to determine the leading cause of judgments and settlements related to allegations of misconduct and what interventions are necessary to prevent them. Police misconduct takes lives, erodes trust, and sparks fear. I am hopeful the Senate will act upon my legislation this year to shine a light on the price of police misconduct, ending the secrecy and hopefully spurring agencies to put a stop to it.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to assess the feasibility of establishing a National Heritage Area in the Great Dismal Swamp, as part of an effort to study, recognize, and preserve the historic and natural treasures within this region. As we continue to celebrate Black History Month, this bill underscores the ties between the natural landmark and African American history. The Great Dismal Swamp contains one of the largest collections of artifacts from maroon colonies, and it served as both a home for early colonial Free People of Color as well as one of a few known water-based stops for freedom seekers on the Underground Railroad. The Great Dismal Swamp also encompasses historic and ancestral lands of Native American tribes such as the Nansemond Indian Nation and the Haliwa-Saponi and Meherrin Tribes. Today, the Dismal Swamp offers unique educational opportunities, recreational adventures, and environmental benefits. It is an important wildlife refuge for an impressive and diverse list of animal, insect, and plant species. If designated as a National Heritage Area, local communities will have access to technical assistance and advice from the National Park Service while maintaining full ownership, authority over decision-making, and stewardship of the biodiverse land. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague Senator Mark Warner on this bill, and I am thankful to Congressman Donald McEachin's leadership on this effort in the House with Representatives Bobby Scott, G.K. Butterfield, and Elaine Luria. There is great potential for community and economic development stemming from a National Heritage Area designation. I look forward to such grassroots, community-driven development, and plan to personally contribute to the boosted tourism and recreation. As a student of history I am looking forward to learning more from the trove of culture and history the Dismal has to offer. I encourage the Senate to consider this legislation to help highlight, study, and conserve the unique ecology and cultural history contained in the Great Dismal Swamp for generations to come.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, 1 year ago, I said upon the conclusion of President Trump's first impeachment trial,``Unchallenged evil spreads like a virus,'' and that acquittal would lead to worse behavior. The events of January 6--seven dead, the first siege of our Capitol in over 200 years, the disruption of the peaceful transfer of power--are the direct result of that first acquittal. I voted to convict because seven needlessly died and hundreds were injured by a former President's egregious lies. So many risked all to protect us. The least we can do is protect them by voting to condemn and thus prevent behavior that should never be repeated.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. 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 Commerce, Science, and Transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 3, 2021, at 9:30 a.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 Wednesday, February 3, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing nominations. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 3, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Environment and Public Works The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 3, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on a nomination. 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 Wednesday, February 3, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on a nomination. Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship The Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 3, 2021, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a closed briefing.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about some friends of mine. Roxie Raines Kornegay Allison. Roxie Raines Kornegay Allison, my across-the-street neighbor for nearly 30 years, died of COVID last Thursday night at 6 o'clock. Roxie has been kind of the matriarch and the pillar of our little four-block-long neighborhood. We have the annual party in the median in October, and Roxie kind of presides. She has been sort of the caretaker, always taking care of a family member or a friend. One of the first persons who reached out to me when Roxie passed was a city councilman in Pasadena, CA, who had heard instantaneously. He used to be the deputy police chief in Richmond. He said: When I moved to Richmond, I didn't know anybody. Roxie was the one who kind of adopted me and showed me the ropes in Richmond. Roxie was a pioneer in Virginia government, making opportunities for African Americans to get hired in key positions--a civil rights leader in the State. My wife and I and our whole neighborhood are just absolutely devastated by the loss. My wife and I were talking about: How old do you think Roxie is? We always viewed her as sort of our age because she is so vigorous and fun and lively. She is 20 years older than my wife and me. Three days before Roxie Raines Kornegay Allison died, another neighbor of mine, Sheila Mandt, who was 55 years old, died of COVID. Sheila was a dynamic activist in the Richmond community, with a real heart for nonprofit organizations that focused on the needs of survivors of domestic violence. She had done pioneering work in that area and worked with other organizations too, like the Salvation Army and others. She was married for a long time to another friend, Chris Hilbert, who had been a member of the Richmond City Council. Three days before Sheila Mandt died of COVID, Patsy Arsenault died of COVID in Richmond. Patsy is the mother of my parish priest, Father Jim Arsenault. It is a tiny little parish in Richmond, and Patsy has been very much a part of our parish community. So in 8 days, three people that I know died of COVID. And this morning, I heard early in the morning that another dear friend--and I am not going to mention his name, but another dear friend of mine--is in the hospital with COVID and on a ventilator. He is somebody I know very, very well. I officiated at his wedding about 15 years ago, when I was Governor. I am a healthy and wealthy and privileged person, so if this is happening to me in my network of friends and family, I know it is happening to others. I think this now makes nine people I know who have died of COVID. I was on the phone yesterday with Taiwan's representative to the United States--representative is essentially their equivalent of the Ambassador. She told me that Taiwan has had nine COVID deaths--dozens of miles from China. They have had nine COVID deaths. I haven't gone back to check that, but my wife and I have nine friends and family, including the mother-in-law of my brother, who have died of COVID. We had 3,406 deaths yesterday in the United States to COVID. Basically, beginning on about December 20, the daily death toll in the United States to COVID has virtually every day eclipsed the number of Americans who were killed on 9/11. We have now eclipsed 447,000 deaths to COVID. So my own feelings of sadness about my friends are just shared in common with everybody. Everybody has been touched by this--knowing somebody who is ill, knowing somebody who has died, maybe having COVID themselves, maybe having lost a job, maybe having lost a business, maybe having not been able to go see a parent or grandparent in a nursing home or not been able to travel to see a brandnew grandchild. This touches everyone. It doesn't touch everyone equally. Those getting COVID and those dying of COVID are predominantly minorities. Those losing jobs to COVID are predominantly minorities, young people working at the lowest end of the salary scale. So why do I take the floor to talk about Roxie and Sheila and Patsy and my other friend who I just learned this morning is on a ventilator in the hospital? I take the floor because this, to me, is just evidence underlined with an exclamation point that we have to act promptly to provide a suffering nation more COVID relief, and we shouldn't be stingy about it. We have to be bold about it because the amount of suffering people in this country are undergoing is still so staggering, nearly unprecedented. The scale of the problem is so big, the health scale of the problem-- that many deaths and millions having had COVID; the economic scale of the problem--we are still down 10 million jobs from where we were 1 year ago, and that is with some significant recovery occasioned by the investments that Congress has been willing to make in the first five bills that we passed. Even with those having had significant effect on our States and communities, we are still down 10 million jobs. And then we are also down in the intangibles. It is not just the number of cases, the number of deaths, the number of hospitalizations, the number of businesses that are closed, and the number of people who have lost jobs; it is the scale of sadness and unhappiness and the consequences that will go on for some significant period of time that we are still living under. Here are two examples, and I could give 50, just as any Senator who stood on the floor could give 50 examples because we are all hearing this. The mental health needs of frontline healthcare workers--I had a Zoom session with doctors and nurses around the State not long ago, and the stories just break your heart. One nurse said: You know, I am used to death. I mean, this is what I do. I have been a nurse for 20 years in this hospital, and I am sort of used to maybe one death per week on the shifts that I work. I am not used to three deaths on a shift day after day after day. Another nurse jumped in from a different part of the State and said: That is right. Let me tell you what the hardest thing is for me. The nurse said this: Maybe the most important thing I do as a healthcare provider is, when somebody is dying in the hospital, I escort their family into their room so that they can have some last moments together as a family sitting around the bedside and holding their hand or exchanging memories with their parent or their spouse or a child or a sibling. You can't do that now. People dying from COVID-- because of exposure risk, I can't make this place sort of a sacred place for family to say a last goodbye, so it is up to me to do it. I have to go in there, and I am wearing a mask; I can't even smile at the person. I am probably not even supposed to hold their hand, but I do anyway. And then what I do is I bring in my iPad, and I hold it a few inches from the dying person's face so that they can have an end-of- life discussion with family members who can't be there at their bedside and be there with them. The nurses who told me this said this is really tough. It is tough to do it day after day after day and be the last person on Earth who so many people are seeing and trying to manage that really intimate and important sacred moment between a dying person and their family when they are gasping their last breath. A third nurse then cut in and said: All those things are true. Let me tell you, for me, what is the hardest for my mental well-being in terms of doing this every day. I do what the other two have just described, and then I get done with the shift, and I am just beat, and I don't want to take that home to my family. I don't want to take that frustration and depression home to my family, so I drive around for a while until I can kind of clear my head. Invariably, when I am driving around, I will go by someplace like a restaurant or a bar, and I will see a whole lot of people there with each other without masks on, people who think the mask thing is fake or it is a political thing, and they are making a statement by not wearing a mask and not following basic health guidelines. After the day that I have gone through and the challenge to my own mental health in seeing this, I see that happening, and I am like: You are going to be in the hospital next week. Do you know what you are doing to yourself? Do you know what you are doing to your family? Do you know what you are doing to me? I am going to be having to hol that iPad in front of your face or maybe somebody else you are with as they talk to family. The healthcare needs of our frontline healthcare workers who have been besieged by this pandemic--they are not going to go away the day we say we are past COVID. The challenges people have endured to be the heroes we claim them to be are not just going to immediately go away. Part of this COVID relief bill needs to be about keeping our own healers healthy. A second example I will give quickly is housing. Thank goodness, in the COVID bills thus far, we have been able to find some bipartisan agreement to extend evictions--put a moratorium on evictions, put a moratorium on foreclosures for properties that have some Federal connection, financed through, you know, Fannie or Freddie, or FHA. If they have a Federal nexus, we provide an eviction moratorium. OK, that is really important, but what about when we get to the end of the moratorium? Families have big obligations that are backed up. Maybe they lost jobs or lost income. Can they come current then on their obligations when we are done with the moratorium, or will they then face eviction? After they have gone through the unimaginable of COVID and now we are past it, will they then face eviction because their resources will not be sufficient to catch them up with their back-due obligations? It is not just the residents. What about the landlords? So many landlords of rental properties are small business owners, and they provide housing to families, and they have to pay off mortgages too. We also want them to keep the properties up, to keep them safe, to keep them habitable, to keep them as dignified places where people can live, but if rent isn't coming in to them, how can they pay off their own obligations? How can they keep up the quality of housing where people live? I could have talked about the needs of the unemployed or the needs of people who use childcare. At one point in the summer, 40 percent of childcare institutions in this country were closed down. That makes it so hard to open our businesses. I could have talked about the tremendous needs of small businesses. Thank goodness it has been a bipartisan priority in all the bills we did in 2019 to prioritize small business assistance. These needs are intense. There are some positive signs. Hospitalizations and cases are starting to go down even though the death toll remains high, but this challenge--we are not done with it. We are not near done with it, and that is why we have to go big, in my view, and that is why we have to do it with a sense of urgency. I want to conclude and just say that the budget reconciliation tool that was part of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is about doing big things with a sense of urgency. I am getting asked sometimes by press, as I wander around: Should you use reconciliation, or should you try to be bipartisan? I said: Hold on a second. Reconciliation isn't partisan. Reconciliation was a part of the Budget Control Act put in place 35 years ago, and budget reconciliation has been used for some of the most bipartisan, positive achievements of Congressmen in recent decades. CHIP, the Children's Health Insurance Program, was done with reconciliation. The earned income tax credit was done with reconciliation. Reconciliation is a tool. You can use it in a bipartisan way or in a partisan way. It has also been used in a partisan way. The effort to undo the Affordable Care Act was done by reconciliation with no support on the Democratic side of the aisle. The tax cut bill in 2017 was done via reconciliation with no support on the Democratic side of the aisle. But choosing the path of reconciliation is not the opposite of bipartisanship. I so applaud President Biden and Vice President Harris for their earnest dialogue with our Republican colleagues, and I applaud my Republican colleagues for going to the White House and talking about what should be in this bill because as they share their priorities, they are going to shape this bill. Without having seen the bill--I know no one has--I can make a guarantee about this bill, and I am 100 percent sure I am right about this. When this bill hits the table and the negotiation is done and before we have a final passage vote on it and we analyze what is in the bill, we are going to see so many priorities in this bill that are not just Democratic priorities but that are Republican priorities, too, things that were drawn from bills that Republicans introduced or that Republicans cosponsored with Democrats, things that were raised by Republican Senators in their dialogue with President Biden and with us. We are going to see a bill that meets the need of Americans who are suffering to do something big and to do something urgent and includes priorities that were Republican Senators' priorities, that are good for Republican voters, and that are good for all Americans. So this is the second time I have done a floor speech where I have gone over the names of people whom I know who died of COVID. I don't want to do a third speech. I don't want to do a third speech. I think it is important to say people's names so we remember them and we honor them. But the best way we can honor them is not through a floor speech; the best way we can honor them is acting in a compassionate and prompt and significant way to ease the suffering of Americans during this most unprecedented time. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President and my colleagues, I applaud the comments of my colleague from Georgia deeply. My first job after school was in Macon, GA, working for a Federal judge, Lanier Anderson. I learned a lot about integrity and a lot about law from him. I also learned some sad lessons, that in the history of Georgia--and, indeed, Virginia and many States--so many people, especially people of color, had been disenfranchised over the course of our history. Our late friend, John Lewis, a Congressman from Georgia, was savagely beaten on Bloody Sunday just for marching for voting rights. That act of violence inspired this body, the U.S. Senate, to come together in March of 1965 and work to pass, in a bipartisan fashion, the Voting Rights Act. We should be coming together today--after acts of violence--as a U.S. Senate, to affirm the votes of all who cast ballots in November. Instead, we are contemplating an unprecedented objection that would be a massive disenfranchisement of American voters. The Georgia result was very clear: a 12,000-vote margin, 2 certifications by Republican officials, 4 separate recounts and canvases, 7 lawsuits, as in the other States. If we object to results like this, the message is so clear. We are saying to States: No matter how secure and accurate your elections are, we will gladly overthrow them if we don't like who you voted for. But, more importantly, what we will be saying--really, what we will be doing--is as the body that acted together to guarantee Americans the right to vote, we will become the agent of one of the most massive disenfranchisements in the history of this country. So I urge all of my colleagues: Please oppose these objections. Thank you. I yield to my colleague from New Jersey.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, on November 9, 2016, I had one of the most memorable experiences of my life. I stood on a hotel stage in New York City and, as my party's nominee for Vice President, introduced Secretary Hillary Clinton to address her supporters and the Nation for a concession speech. The polls in the Western United States had just been closed for about 10 hours, and it was a mere 8 hours after news organizations had called the 2016 election for Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton had made history. She was the first woman nominee of a major party for President, and she had won the popular vote by millions of votes. She was also deeply concerned about the election itself. Candidate Donald Trump had openly solicited help from a foreign adversary to win the election. While the dimensions of the foreign misinformation campaign were not yet fully clear, the Nation's intelligence community had publicly warned that a foreign country was active in efforts to undermine Secretary Clinton's candidacy and create chaos and division in the American electorate. But Hillary Clinton was and is a patriotic American. She knew that she was behind by nearly 77,000 votes in the key States of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. She knew that it was highly unlikely that recounts would change any of those three deficits in any appreciable way. I watched Secretary Clinton struggle with the war between her personal feelings and her earnest search for what was right for the country, and I struggled with those same feelings. I was proud of Secretary Clinton when she walked to a microphone and said these words: Last night, I congratulated Donald Trump and offered to work with him on behalf of our country. I hope that he will be a successful president for all Americans. This is not the outcome we wanted or we worked so hard for and I'm sorry that we did not win the election for the values we share and the vision we hold for our country. We have seen that our nation is more deeply divided than we thought. But I still believe in America and I always will. And if you do, then we must accept this result and then look to the future. Donald Trump is going to be our next president. We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead. Our constitutional democracy enshrines the peaceful transfer of power and we don't just respect that, we cherish it. It takes a strong moral compass to quickly set aside personal disappointment and choose country over your own personal feelings. Hillary Clinton demonstrated leadership that day. I take the floor today to ask why Donald Trump won't put the country over his personal feelings, but I particularly want to ask my Republican Senate colleagues: Why won't you ask the President of your party to do the right thing and put the interests of the country over personal or partisan pursuits? It is now 9 days after election day. It is 5 days since all major news organizations called the Presidential election for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. Donald Trump is now behind in the popular vote by more than 5 million votes, and that number is rising. Some suggest that the ultimate margin will be closer to 7 million votes. Donald Trump is behind in the key States of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin--not by the 77,000-vote margin of 4 years ago but by nearly 220,000 votes, and that number is going up every day. Donald Trump has lost two other key States that he won in 2016--Georgia and Arizona. Yet how is President Trump acting? Like a spoiled child. But it is not just a childish refusal to concede a loss; in his weakness, he is willing to speak and act in ways destructive to our democracy. He has not reached out to President-Elect Biden. He has not conceded. He and his White House team are instructing Federal agencies not to cooperate with the Biden transition. He is not allowing congressionally appropriated moneys to be used by the Biden transition. He is spreading unfounded rumors about voter fraud or irregularities without meaningful evidence. He is trashing hard-working election officials--even Republican officials--with his baseless claims. As reported yesterday by Military.com, his legal team is even branding as fraudulent ballots sent in by American service men and women and their families. Just as ominous, President Trump is starting a purge of officials at the Pentagon, beginning with the firing of Defense Secretary Mark Esper. The officials the President is now jamming into short-term acting roles at the Pentagon include some who are unqualified and some who even Republican members of the Senate Armed Services Committee have previously determined are unfit to serve. These actions send a message of chaos and instability to adversaries around the world at the very time when the United States should be trying to send a message of calm and order. It is futile to ask President Trump to put country over his personal interests. He has not been willing to do that. But I do ask my Senate Republican colleagues: Won't you concede that the country has elected a new President? Won't you speak out against baseless claims of voter fraud that whip up dangerous division at home, demean hard-working election officials, and paint an embarrassing picture of the United States around the world? Won't you demand that the Trump administration allow the Biden transition team the resources that we in Congress have provided to assist in that important task? Won't you ask the President to avoid massive firings or other personnel actions in the lameduck period that heighten the sense of American instability? Won't you stand up for the proposition that peaceful transfers of power are a sacred part of our American heritage? I recently took a look at comments that I made on the floor at this very spot on February 4. I was worried then, but my comments read even more frightening now. I stood here to explain my vote for impeachment. I said then: ``Unchallenged evil spreads like a virus. We have allowed a toxic President to infect the Senate and warp its behavior. An acquittal will lead to worse behavior.'' The acquittal of this President has led to worse behavior. He is willing to demean our democracy in the eyes of the world because he is too weak to acknowledge that he lost an election. But there is still time for the Senate to be the adult leaders that this Nation so badly needs. Patriotic and mature leadership will not come from the President or the administration. The Senate must provide it. And in the Senate, at this moment, strong Republican leadership to condemn President Trump's foolishness is key. When we Democrats stand up against the President, it makes little difference. We just get discounted by the President and his supporters. They are quickly forming a dangerous ``Lost Cause'' mythology about a stolen election. Every single Member of this Chamber knows that the myth that is being perpetrated is a lie. But some people will fall for the myth unless Republicans are willing to stand up and call out the lie. The next 10 weeks are filled with peril. With COVID cases rising, hospitalizations increasing, deaths tragically multiplying, and people and businesses still suffering, we should be laser-focused on crushing this virus and rebuilding the American economy. The United States does not have the luxury to engage in conspiracy theories and multiple bogus election challenges. To my colleagues, especially my Republican colleagues, the Nation needs the Senate right now to send a message of calm transition to a new administration. Please put our country first. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of Judge Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court. This process shows how misplaced the priorities of the Senate are at a critical moment in time. There is an epic national crisis that we should be addressing--a pandemic that is raging and causing unprecedented death and economic distress at a massive scale. Yet the Senate has been sitting on its hands since late April when we passed our fourth and final piece of COVID legislation then, reinfusing dollars into the small business protection program. The death toll in the United States was approaching 63,000. We have done nothing since, and the death toll is now approaching 230,000. Here are a few of the many Americans we tragically lost to COVID-19: Benigno Hurtado-Andrade, Amalia Pasqua, James Shanley, Verna and Clarence Cuyler, Betty Damato, Keith Mitchell Jacobs, Ward H. Harlow, Jr., Kyong He Park, James Norton, Charlotte Marie Sims, Guus Smeets, Charles Krebbs, Dr. Gaye Griffin-Snyder, Hugh Freyer, Marcel Borg, Nancy Standage Borbon, Albert Garcia, Helen Flores, Dean Pryor Perkins, Darrell William Jones, Paul Abramson, Everett Pike, Grant D. Ross, Isabelle Papadimitriou, James Hughston, Jose Antoniao Reyes, William D. Shilling, Jr., Ronnie ``Bro'' Baldwin, Larry Singer, Leone (Kitty) Harriman, Sarah Roth, Sara Rose Varela, Kenneth E. Zwick, Sr., Pik Chi Chan, Melinda ``Nina'' Wernick, Roger Diethelm, Alan Zundl, Irvin Umberger, Dr. Kirk Barnett, Danielita Brown, Jose Sanchez. The number of new coronavirus cases is now reaching record peaks. The Saturday headline from the Washington Post, which is the most-read daily newspaper in Virginia, says it all: ``U.S. hits highest daily number of cases since pandemic began.'' Papers all around the country carry similar headlines. Ten months into this crisis, there is no national plan or strategy for dealing with it. The Chief of Staff to President Trump admitted defeat yesterday, claiming that we are not going to control the pandemic. It can be controlled with testing, contact tracing, isolation, and a commitment to mask-wearing, hand-washing, and social distancing. That is how other nations are controlling the pandemic. But the Trump administration is admitting surrender. They now tell us that we will just have to wait for vaccines and treatments, but Americans cannot afford to wait. The economic devastation accompanying this healthcare crisis is catastrophic. The unemployment rate is 7.9 percent, which is 65 percent higher than when President Trump took office. And that number actually understates the magnitude of employment losses as millions have dropped out of the labor market to care for children or their parents or other loved ones affected by this tragedy. Women have been hit disproportionately hard in this forced exodus from the job market. President Trump's job losses are now the worst of any American President on record. Yet the Senate is doing nothing. The largest public health crisis in 100 years, the most significant economic collapse since the Great Depression, and the Senate has done nothing to provide Americans relief for 6 months. This is inexcusable. The House acted by passing the Heroes Act in May. I knew that the Senate majority would not simply embrace a Democratic bill from the House, but I believed they would do something. But the Senate majority would not even surface a proposal until the very end of July, just days before many CARES Act benefits expired and the Senate went into a month-long recess. It was not until mid-September that the Senate GOP finally brought up a vote on what we all called a skinny bill--one- seventh the size of the House proposal and dramatically less than what even the White House said was necessary to deal with the crisis. That bill contained no rent assistance as millions face eviction, no mortgage assistance as millions face default or foreclosure, no food assistance as millions face hunger, and no aid for State and local governments, whose falling revenues jeopardize their ability to employ so many of the health and public safety workers who we know to be essential right now. Democrats opposed the skinny bill in the hopes that rejecting a partisan proposal would lead to a bipartisan breakthrough. That is just what happened in March with the CARES Act. We voted down a paltry partisan package and days later found a robust bipartisan bill to help all Americans. Our ``no'' vote on the skinny bill in September did jump-start serious negotiations between the White House and Democratic leaders, and the negotiations saw the two sides growing closer and closer. But there was a problem. The Senate majority does not want a COVID relief bill. We could get there, but last week the New York Times and other publications made it plain that no deal was forthcoming. Why? ``McConnell moves to head off stimulus deal as Pelosi reports progress.'' ``U.S. hits highest daily number of cases since pandemic began.'' ``McConnell moves to head off stimulus deal.'' This is what we should be working on right now, but the Senate majority abandoned their commitment to helping Americans through this emergency on September 18--the day that Ruth Bader Ginsburg died. Since then, rushing Judge Barrett to confirmation has been all that matters to them--no matter that Americans deeply need COVID relief; no matter that the rush to complete a confirmation in 1 month from nomination to vote is unprecedented in modern times; no matter that the Senate majority broke its word to their colleagues and the American public that a Supreme Court vacancy occurring in a Presidential election year would not be filled until after the election to ``let the people decide''; no matter that the rushed nomination jeopardized the health of attendees at the President's superspreading White House announcement and even staff and Members of this Senate My question is, Why? Why rush this nomination, ignoring Senate precedent to do so, breaking your own word to do so, violating health protocols to do so, rather than spending our time providing comfort to families who are hurting and businesses that are struggling and closing? There could be no good answer to this question, but the actual answer is particularly heartless. The effort to rush the Barrett nomination is driven by the Republican desire to destroy the Affordable Care Act. That has been the goal for 10 years. I have seen it here on the floor virtually every day during the time I have been in the Senate since January of 2013. The Republican majority--particularly during the Trump Presidency-- has done everything they can in Congress, in administrative sabotage, and in the courts to destroy the ACA and take healthcare away from tens of millions of Americans. Congressional Republicans even engineered a complete shutdown of the American Government in October of 2013 to try to achieve their goal, but they failed. More States, even Republican States, have embraced the ACA. It has grown more popular every day with the American public. But by rushing the Barrett nomination, President Trump and the Senate majority see one last chance. In 2 weeks, the Supreme Court will hear the case of California v. Texas, a coordinated effort by Republican attorneys general, the Trump Justice Department, and many in Congress to destroy the Affordable Care Act. The death of Justice Ginsburg on September 18--who had often voted to uphold provisions of the ACA as an appropriate exercise of congressional legislative power--offered a tantalizing chance to select as her successor someone who has written critically of the act and of the Supreme Court's 2012 opinion upholding the law. If she can be rushed to the Court by November 10, she can participate in the resolution of the case. Getting her there quickly matters more to the Senate majority than helping the millions who are suffering during this crisis. If they are suffering now, imagine how the suffering would have been magnified without the ACA--millions without insurance to help them through the health crisis; millions of young people not able to be on family policies; millions turned away from coverage because of preexisting health conditions and now having COVID as an additional preexisting condition that will potentially disqualify millions more; millions facing termination of insurance as COVID-related health expenses run them up against lifetime coverage limits. This rushed Supreme Court nomination not only ignores Americans' demand for help at a time of maximum need, it is done in a way that will likely increase their suffering, with full knowledge that is the case. I will not play any part in an effort of such calculated cruelty. This vote will hurt the body, hurt the Supreme Court, and hurt millions of people in crisis who are struggling, and even dying, as the Senate ignores their needs. Many of our Republican leaders won't even wear masks. They refuse to cover their noses and mouths to protect themselves and those around them. But this soulless process shows that they are glad to cover their eyes and their ears to block out the pleas of our suffering citizenry. I will oppose this nomination. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, thank you. I rise to talk about Americans' health and the health of Virginians. We are living through a crisis--the coronavirus crisis--that is unprecedented in American life since 100 years ago with the influenza of the late 19-teens, and a lot of words have been used on the floor to describe the magnitude of the crisis. I needn't dwell on that. Now nearly 220,000 Americans have died. A recent study that was put out suggested that the actual toll may be closer to 300,000. Many States in the country are experiencing dramatic spikes, with predictions that we could see the worst levels of coronavirus in coming months, at least until a vaccine is developed and widely distributed, and that probably won't happen before the spring of next year. In Virginia, we have been hit--3,515 Virginians have died of coronavirus. My wife and I know three of them--two in Richmond and one in Fairfax County. And 168,722 Virginians have had coronavirus. My wife and I are two in that number. This challenge in Virginia hit first in a tiny part of the State that I really love, the Eastern Shore of Virginia. That is one of the least accessible parts of Virginia. The Eastern Shore has two sizable poultry processing plants, with thousands of workers--a mixture of White workers, African-American workers, Latino immigrants, Haitian-Creole immigrants. In March, at these two plants--one run by Tyson and the second run by Purdue Food Company--they started to see cases multiply. Many were asymptomatic. People didn't know they had it, but that meant they could spread the virus to others. The healthcare network in the Eastern Shore of Virginia was dramatically taxed by this fast-moving and little- understood crisis at the time. That was our first hot spot in Virginia. Other States had their hot spots; that was ours. Thank goodness, as Virginians have grappled with this crisis and as we have grappled with it across the country, there have been some protections, and I want to stand and talk about the protections that have been provided to Virginians during this time by the Affordable Care Act. About 400,000 Virginians have Medicaid because of the Affordable Care Act. Virginia embraced the expansion of Medicaid 2 years ago, so people have been able to get insurance, many for the first time in their lives, and that 400-plus thousand have been able to access care. Virginians have been protected if they had preexisting conditions, and now having had coronavirus is a preexisting condition, and the many people who suffer from long-haul coronavirus symptoms have preexisting conditions. They have been protected. Young people have been able to stay on family policies, which has been particularly helpful in a time of economic challenge, where a lot of young people have lost jobs or not been able to find them. And other people who have lost jobs in the private sector have been able to go on the exchanges and buy insurance, and if their income isn't high, have a subsidy that would make the premiums more affordable. So as bad as this has been, it would have been a lot worse were it not for an Affordable Care Act providing protections for families and individuals. I don't pretend to understand everything. I have been around for a while, but there are a lot of things I still don't understand, and I will just be candid. One thing I don't understand is why the repeal of the Affordable Care Act is like the Moby Dick that the GOP and the Trump administration has been searching to kill this worthy healthcare bill that is protecting people at a critical time. During the time I have been in the Senate, since 2013, I have seen, during the Trump administration, numerous efforts to, via administrative sabotage, weaken the law I have been here as we have cast vote after vote after vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act. I saw a shutdown driven by a Senate colleague from Texas a few years ago all around repealing the Affordable Care Act. It was important enough to shut the entire government of the United States down for more than 2 weeks. I stood here on the floor at the most dramatic moment ever in my political life. You might think it might have been, like, election night 2016. No, the most dramatic moment ever in my political life was the night we stood here on the floor at about 2 in the morning and John McCain, having been diagnosed with a glioblastoma, came out of the hospital and cast the deciding vote to make sure that millions of Americans wouldn't lose their health insurance. And in addition to administrative sabotage and repeated votes in the Chamber, we have seen one court case after the next, sponsored by Republicans, to try to repeal the Affordable Care Act. And now we see sort of Moby Dick coming into sight with the California v. Texas case to be argued at the Supreme Court on November 10. My constituents in Virginia who rely on the Affordable Care Act and are afraid to death for themselves and their family members are petrified. Let me read you some stories from four constituents of the many that I have received. Michelle from New Castle. New Castle is in Appalachian Southwest Virginia. She wrote in about her 9-year-old son Evan. Michelle moved to Virginia from Texas because Texas didn't have expanded Medicaid and Virginia did. I am new to Virginia. I recently moved from Texas, and [I] am incredibly concerned with the Supreme Court nominee and the protections given in the Affordable Care Act. My son Evan, who is 9 years old, was born with a rare abdominal wall defect called an omphalocele. After many surgeries, and staying in the hospital for the first 8 months fighting for his life, he came home. At the time, he was covered by his father's employer-sponsored health insurance. He was protected under the ACA. His health care, which included ventilator support, tube feeding, and a number of surgeries, easily came to millions of dollars. As he has grown, he has received other diagnoses--autism, ADHD, nystagmus and other visual impairments. I know very well from my experience with health coverage in Texas, the constant battle a person faces while trying to get treatment for autism-related therapy, and to even be covered by Medicaid. I was denied coverage for my son, because I ``made too much.'' My income as a single mother was $35,000. I was working sometimes 60 hours a week, paying $650 every month for childcare. The cost of my employer sponsored health insurance for myself and my son and daughter was $800 a month. I could not afford that, and [I] had to choose between having coverage for my children and being able to pay our water and light bills. It took months to receive a decision that we were denied for Medicaid. Upon my move to Virginia, I was able to obtain Medicaid not just for my son, who had been denied in Texas, but for every household member. It took two weeks. The ACA is protecting my son and his ability to be covered by other insurance is so necessary. . . . I'm contacting my Senators on subjects that affect my family frequently. . . . My family means everything to me. My son's life isn't something I take for granted. I fought for him, every day, while he struggled through pulmonary hypertension, and it was four long months before I [even] heard the words ``WHEN he goes home'' rather than ``IF he goes home.'' Dawn from Virginia writes about her 20-year-old daughter--she is from Vienna in Northern Virginia--who works a part-time job with no benefits. My daughter is 20 with multiple health conditions and has a part time job with no benefits, but she is able to be on my insurance. I am concerned about the upcoming Supreme Court vote on the ACA. What will happen to young people like my daughter if the ACA is gone? A veteran, Lieutenant Alvia from Hampton in Hampton Roads. I am a 100% permanently disabled veteran. Although most of my medical care is provided by the VA, my care is supplemented by Medicare and the services of a Medicaid Alert Service Dog. The latter two care services are threatened by the abolishment of the Affordable Care Act and challenges to the American Disability Act. . . . With the Supreme Court scheduled to hear arguments to repeal the [ACA] soon, this puts lives and rights at unacceptable risk. Donna from Henrico in the Richmond area where I live writes about her husband, diagnosed with glioblastoma brain cancer: My husband was diagnosed with glioblastoma . . . back in June of 2020. The insurance claims have now exceeded one MILLION dollars and will continue to rise with doctors and treatments. Thankfully, we have health insurance through the Marketplace. My husband isn't able to work and my job has no benefits. I fear what it would be like for us if ObamaCare is overturned by the Republicans. No private insurance will ever accept us, so we must continue to rely on getting our insurance through the Marketplace. And now we are rushing a Supreme Court nominee. In 2016, I was in this Chamber and saw many of my Republican colleagues make the argument that they would not entertain a nomination by President Obama, not that they would vote against the nominee--that would be consistent with advise and consent--but that they would not let the individual in their office, not have a Judiciary Committee hearing, not have a Judiciary Committee vote, not have a floor debate, not have a floor vote. And the principle that was newly announced in 2016 was ``let the people decide.'' Let the voters vote for President and the Senate, and then we will see about filling a Supreme Court vacancy. And my colleagues looked me in the face and the voters in the face, too, and they said: This precedent is a precedent we will apply equally to a Republican President as a Democratic President. But now that promise is being broken. Those words to colleagues and those words to the public are being reversed. There are some outside this body who think that is just what politicians do. They say things and then do the opposite. They are not surprised by that. I don't think that is true. My experience here since 2013 is when my colleagues tell me something, they do it. I have got great relations with colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle. When they tell me something, they do it. And if they can't do it, they will tell me that. This is very, very different. Changing the tune--we will not fill a vacancy in a Presidential year. We will let the people decide--what is the reason for the change? And I have concluded that since people normally don't go back on what they said--and this is a rare instance in my time here in the Senate-- the reason is a real important one, and the reason is finally we see Moby Dick in our sight, and we have a chance to gut the Affordable Care Act. We have one last chance it do it in a case that is going to be argued in the Supreme Court on November 10. And that is so important to us in a pandemic, with people dying and sick and suffering, that we are willing to break our word to rush a Justice to repeal the Affordable Care Act. For God's sake, why? For God's sake, why? I am struck by the fact I have unfairly used a broad brush to cast aspersions at the GOP in the Senate. I am struck by the fact that two GOP Senators said: You are right. This is wrong. We shouldn't rush the Justice. We should let the people decide. Who were the two Republicans who said that? Senators Collins of Maine and Murkowski of Alaska, who, together with John McCain in August of 2017, stood on the floor in the middle of the night and cast deciding votes to make sure that people would have healthcare instead of millions losing their healthcare. They are sticking by their word because they know what is at stake and they know what this rush means. We shouldn't be rushing a Supreme Court nominee and people breaking their word to do so. On the Court, we should hold folks to their promises. Let the people decide. They are voting; 37 million people have voted already in the United States. Let's let the people decide who the next President is and who the next Senate is, and, obviously, if it is a Republican President and Republican Senate, everyone will understand moving quickly to voting on the nomination of Judge Barrett, but let's at least let the people decide. That is what we should be doing on the Court. And here's what we should be doing instead of forcing an unprecedented rush to a Justice who can be part of destroying the Affordable Care Act: Let's work on COVID. Let's work on the healthcare crisis. But I am disappointed. After good work together on four bills in March and April to inject trillions of dollars to help people, businesses, and hospitals, we knew we needed to do more. The House put a bill on the table at the end of May, and then there were months of delay here in the Senate. I knew that the Senate Republican majority would not embrace the House proposal, but I thought they would do something. But after the House acted in May, June went by--nothing. July went by--nothing. August went by--nothing. Most of September went by--nothing. Eventually, a Republican proposal was put on the table that couldn't even generate strong support within the Republican caucus. It was dramatically insufficient, from my view, because it provided no assistance for housing, rent, mortgage, food, SNAP benefits, State and local government. It provided none of those things. So Democrats and some Republicans voted against it with the hopes that that vote would do exactly what it did when we cast a similar vote in March: We vote down a partisan proposal. It opens the door for negotiations. The White House gets engaged. We do something that is good for the entire American public. Our vote did have that effect-- sort of. The ``no'' vote on the Republican proposal in September did start a more robust discussion with the White House about what should be done to provide COVID relief--but not here in the Senate. Repeatedly, as Democratic leadership has been talking to Secretary Mnuchin over at the White House, we read in the paper that Senator McConnell, the leader, has been telling members of the GOP: We are not doing a deal. Don't do a deal--cold water on the deal. Now we are having some sort of show votes on insufficient proposals this week, but to come to the floor to cast a vote on a motion to table a proposal when everybody knows it is not going anywhere because it is not sufficient at the same time as we are reading headlines in the paper that the majority leader is telling the GOP: Do not do a deal. Do not do a COVID deal. The PPP package that we voted on yesterday was insufficient. We refilled the bucket for small businesses in April, as we should have, and we have to refill it again. But the package yesterday didn't do anything for restaurants, didn't do anything for many in the small business sector, and it included nothing for individuals who are hit hard by unemployment or families who need relief or people who need testing. The bill that we just voted on today, the ``skinny'' COVID bill, was insufficient for the same reasons that led it to be voted down by Democrats and Republicans in September. As I conclude, I want to go back to the Eastern Shore. I have another colleague on the floor who wants to talk, but I started off talking about the Eastern Shore, where Virginia's COVID experience began with a hot spot in two poultry processing plants. I have a good-news story for the Presiding Officer because I was on the Eastern Shore a couple of days ago, but I have a challenging punch line to my good-news story. This is where it started in Virginia--hot spots in these poultry plants. These low-income workers--many immigrants--saw President Trump declare that this was an essential industry, so they stood up and said: If the industry is essential, we are not sawdust. We are not inessential. We are not expendable. We are not throwaway. If the industry is essential and has to sail, then we are essential too. They stood up and asked the Governor to adopt a basic safety rule about how to return safely to work in these plants during a time of COVID. The Governor heard their request and said: Well, maybe, but let me see if OSHA will do something. Won't the Federal labor agencies come and put a safety rule in place? And OSHA did nothing. So, in July, at the request of these poultry workers who are now in an essential industry but are risking their health, the Governor of Virginia enacted a temporary safety rule, not just for poultry plants but for places of work to make sure that, as people are coming back to work, they can be safe. Good news, Mr. President: After that law was enacted, the cases on the Eastern Shore declined and declined and declined, and of the 134 cities and counties in Virginia, right now, even with two of these big poultry plants, the caseload on the Eastern Shore per capita is just about the best in Virginia. But the bill we just voted down, this ``skinny'' bill we just voted down that had a liability protection component to it--it wasn't just liability protection. I would be for liability protection. If you want to protect someone from liability--normally we don't at the Federal level, but you can. What you do is set a standard of care, and then you say that everybody who exceeds the standard of care is protected from liability. The ``skinny'' proposal that we just voted on had liability protection, but it didn't set a standard of care. It just excused people from liability, and it did something even worse. It did something even worse, and that was one of the reasons I voted against it. The bill that we just voted down would have wiped out the Virginia safety rule. It would have wiped out the ability of any State to pass a temporary safety rule to protect workers so that they could come back to work safely in a time of COVID. It is one thing to try to kill the Affordable Care Act in the middle of a pandemic and take health insurance away from millions. It is another thing to rush a Supreme Court Justice in violation of what you said you would do to try to achieve your goal of killing the Affordable Care Act. But trying to wipe out State safety laws that are working in my Commonwealth to effectively protect workers whom the President has declared essential--I have seen everything. I have seen everything I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Would the Senator modify his request so that in lieu of reconvening Monday, October 19, there be additional pro forma sessions with no business conducted at 12 noon on the following dates: October 20, October 23, October 27, October 30, and November 3; further, that when the Senate adjourn on November 3, the Senate next convene at 12 noon on Wednesday, November 4, with the remaining provisions of the original request in effect?

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I would like to add, on behalf of my Democratic colleagues, the concerns expressed for the President and First Lady, that they recover quickly and fully. Having had coronavirus--likely contracted here when we were working on the CARES Act in March--I understand how tricky this can be and, knowing four people who died of coronavirus, how serious it can be. Our prayer is that this is a mild case, and it passes quickly. I also extend the same concern on behalf of my Democratic colleagues for the Members of the Senate who have recently tested positive and hope that they either have no symptoms or the symptoms pass quickly. I couldn't help but notice, as I came into the Senate today on the subway from the Russell building, that there is an advisory that has been posted for months down at the entrance to the Senate that says that we are trying to follow CDC guidelines, but the advisory placard says nothing about masks--nothing. I have wondered about that as I passed before it in the past, but in light of the experience over the last few days, I think in order to fairly follow science-based guidelines and give people warnings about what they should do to protect their health, we might consider a different placard. Briefly, with respect to the majority leader's comments--I would love to be working on a COVID bill. The House passed a Democratic preferred COVID bill--the Heroes Act--in May. I understand the majority leader and his colleagues find things about it they don't like. There is no expectation that they would just take up the House Democratic bill and pass it, but we waited through May and then June and then July and then August, until finally, in mid to late September, the majority put a bill on the floor that we viewed, frankly, as insufficient. It contained no funds for State and local government aid, no funds for rental or mortgage assistance, no funds for SNAP benefits or food aid. It would have stricken State laws, such as those that had been passed in Virginia to try to provide a workplace safety standard for people returning to work in the days of COVID. We voted the bill down, as the majority leader knows, but we did so with the expectation that that no vote would function much like the no vote in March functioned when we came in on a Sunday and we voted down a partisan proposal, and a few days later, we had a bipartisan proposal--the CARES Act--that has helped millions and millions of Americans, small businesses, hospitals, families. We hope that no vote would lead to the same negotiation that could potentially find a solution for Americans who are still looking for relief, but the majority wants to now move to a different topic. They want to now speed through a Supreme Court nomination with an unprecedented speed and, indeed, an unprecedented process. I understand that the majority leader might categorize the Democrats' concerns about proceeding at a time of great sickness as a procedural trick, but I don't think there is any unreasonableness to a Judiciary Committee member's request that a hearing on the single most important appointment that the Senate might make should be done in person. If it is done in person, it should be done in person in a way that is safe. That is the request the Democrats would have and that we continue to believe would be in accord with the institution's norms but also the best thing for the safety of all Members. I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to support the efforts of my colleagues to bring the unanimous House bill establishing legal procedures for dealing with White supremacy to the floor of the Senate. I do so in honor of four Virginians. In August of 2017, a group called Unite the Right held a White supremacist rally in Charlottesville, VA. They started on a Friday evening, when Jewish residents of Charlottesville were gathering in synagogues and when students were coming to the University of Virginia to start their academic careers. They rampaged through the campus and community chanting slogans from Nazi rallies like ``Jews will not replace us'' or ``Blood and soil.'' As if that were not terrorizing enough, on the next day, they escalated physical attacks against many. Heather Heyer was a Charlottesville resident and paralegal with an amazing background and story who was peacefully protesting that day, and a White supremacist from another State revved his car up, hit her and killed her. DeAndre Harris was a special education instructional aide in Charlottesville, and he was set upon by a number of White supremacists and beaten severely with objects. There were two Virginia State Troopers, Jay Cullen and Berke Bates, both of whom I knew. Jay Cullen often flew me in a helicopter when I was Governor, and I met Berke Bates, the trooper, because he was part of Governor McCullough's security detail. They were called out on that day, which would have been a day off. They were called out on that day because they needed to provide extra security as this White supremacist rally ran amuck in Charlottesville. On that day, both of them lost their lives as their helicopter malfunctioned. I stand on the floor of the Senate thinking of these four Virginians--two of whom I knew, three of whom lost their lives, and one who was injured severely in this Unite the Right rally--to say that it is time we have laws in this country that would enable us to appropriately deal with the chief source of domestic terrorism. For that, I thank my colleague. I yield the floor

Mr. KAINE

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

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I want to rise just briefly to pay tribute to Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I saw a statement about her in the aftermath of her passing that said she will probably go down in history as one of the greatest women lawyers in the history of the United States. I don't think that does her justice. I want to take the floor to say that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in my view, will probably go down in history as one of the top three judges and lawyers ever in the history of the United States, male or female. I want to describe why. Before I do, I just want to notice the outpouring of support for her. In the 4 days after she passed, from Friday night until Tuesday night, my office received 37,000 pieces of correspondence about Justice Ginsburg, praising her, lifting her up as a role model, expressing concern about what the Court would be without her. In my 8 years in the Senate, I have never seen an outpouring of support for an individual like that. That is just an example of how highly we hold her in regard. Justice Ginsburg is well known and particularly well known in Virginia. One of the opinions she authored that is one of her real pivotal opinions was an opinion that ruled that a public university-- the Virginia Military Institute--could not deny access to women students. That was a very controversial case in Virginia. Justice Ginsburg's opinion was courteous and recognized the great virtue of VMI as an institution but held up its many virtues and values and said women students at this public university should be able to have the same access. Justice Ginsburg as a Justice has left her mark on our society in such an amazing way. I want to talk about Ruth Bader Ginsburg the lawyer because I assert that if Ruth Bader Ginsburg had never been on the Supreme Court, she still would have earned her way into one of the greatest American lawyers or jurists of all time. Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It was a Virginian who wrote into the Declaration of Independence the words that are maybe among some of the most known words in the English language: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'' Those words are so powerful. They set out a powerful North Star for our country in equality and principle but had ambiguity wrapped up in them. Jefferson, although he believed in equality, knew and was deeply troubled by the fact that slaves and other even freed African Americans at the time were not treated equally. Jefferson wasn't particularly troubled by the fact that women were not treated equally at that time. He had an ability to see what the principle should be but not necessarily to apply it to his own life, which is, frankly, a weakness that I think we all have suffered from during our life at times, but at least he set out the right principle and said that it applied to men. I think you can look at the history of our country as a North Star was set for us in 1776, and over time, we sort of progressively realized, wow, that is what equality means. We have to orient closer to the star. A sailor can steer by a star without ever reaching it, and maybe, because we are imperfect people, we can orient by the star of equality and never get fully there because we are imperfect. When we orient by it, we do pretty well. In the aftermath of the Civil War, the Constitution was dramatically rewritten with the addition of the 13th Amendment, banning slavery; the 14th Amendment, creating due process and equal protection of the laws; and the 15th Amendment, blocking limitations of voting based on race. I want to talk for a minute the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment might be the longest amendment in the Constitution. It is power-packed. Every citizen is entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizenship. No one can be ``deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law,'' but especially--that echoing of what Jefferson said--all persons are entitled to the ``equal protection of the laws.'' The 14th Amendment is interesting because in other parts of the amendment, it talks about what you get if you are a citizen, but on the equal protection side, you don't have to be a citizen. All persons are entitled to ``equal protection of the laws.'' When that was passed by Congress and ratified by States in 1870, the Constitution fundamentally changed. One of the fascinating things is, as soon as the Constitution had this 14th Amendment with this particular clause in it guaranteeing equal protection of the laws--let me tell you about one of the first cases that came to the Supreme Court. A woman by the name of Myra Bradwell, living in Illinois, wanted to be licensed to practice law. She wanted to be a lawyer, just like Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Illinois would not allow her to practice law because she was a woman. She said: Wait a minute. We have a 14th Amendment, and it guarantees me the privileges and immunities of being a U.S. citizen, guarantees me equal protection of the laws. She took her case all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court after Illinois denied her a law license. In 1871, 1 year after the Constitution had been amended to guarantee the equality of every person, by an 8-to-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Myra Bradwell could not practice law and Illinois could limit law practice to men if that is what they chose. Let me read from that opinion. Justice Bradley wrote an opinion then on the Court. Here is what he said: The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the oc- cupations of civil life. . . . The paramount destiny and mission of women are to fulfill the noble and benign offices of wife and mother. This is the law of the Creator. By an 8-to-1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court, on which Ruth Bader Ginsburg would later sit after a distinguished career as an attorney, said that Illinois could deprive women of the ability to practice the profession of lawyer. When did the Supreme Court change that ruling? It is still kind of shocking to me that it was not until 1971--100 years later, in a case called Reed v. Reed, a case that came out of the State court system in Idaho--that Chief Justice Warren Burger, for a unanimous Court, said: Wait a minute. The 14th Amendment says all persons are entitled to the equal protection of the laws. Guess what. That applies to women. How the Court in 1871 could have read those words and said it didn't apply to women is kind of hard to imagine, but it should make us humble because it should suggest that even educated, smart people could get things wrong. Yet, 100 years later, in 1971, there was Reed v. Reed, which was a technical, quirky case about Idaho law that preferred men over women to be executors of estates so that, if there were two with equal claims in terms of being a relation of somebody who died intestate, they would prefer a man over a woman. That was a quirky, technical case that came to the Supreme Court. After 101 years, following the passage of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court said: Wait a minute. Women are citizens. Women are people. Women are entitled to equality. Who wrote the brief in that case? The brief in that case was written by a talented, young lawyer who had been one of nine in her class at Harvard Law School, who had often been told she couldn't do this or she couldn't do that, and who hadn't often been offered jobs along the way. The brief in that case was written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In very, very characteristic humility, she was the brains behind the case, but she allowed the case to be argued in the Supreme Court by the Idaho attorney who was very close to Mrs. Reed, who was pursuing the appeal in the Supreme Court. When Reed v. Reed was decided, it was an earthquake. After 100 years, to finally say that, of course, women are equal, and, of course, women can make claims under the 14th Amendment, it was an earthquake, and it affected all aspects of American law. Immediately after Reed v. Reed, Congress went through the entire United States Code. There were dozens--possibly hundreds--of distinctions in the code that gave preference to men over women or made some distinction between men and women. Yet, after Reed v. Reed, Congress scrubbed the laws of this country to eliminate second-class status for women, at least in law. We haven't completely gotten there but maybe in practice. The State legislatures of all 50 States also did the same. There were all kinds of quirky and archaic rules that held women back in property and in civil matters--laws that, for example, said that a married woman, because of being married, couldn't prosecute a rape charge against her husband or that it was a defense to rape if the man married the woman--that this could be a complete defense and could wipe out criminal offenses. All of these weird distinctions in law that had been allowed since the beginning of our country, even with a Constitution that guaranteed women's equality, were suddenly under the microscope with a new way of looking at our society, and it changed because of this tiny giant, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. That is the only point that I really want to make today on the floor. As a Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg changed our country and had a big impact in Virginia in the decision about the Virginia Military Institute. That decision was about one institution, but it became a decision that applied to all institutions--that public educational institutions cannot deprive women of equal access to the educational experience. I will just conclude where I started. If Ruth Bader Ginsburg had never been a Supreme Court Justice, the work that she had done as an architect of helping the American legal system but also the American citizens understand that equal protection of the laws applies to women just like they apply to men would have entitled her to have been viewed as one of the most impactful lawyers of all time. I would put her up with John Marshall, the first great Chief Justice of the Court, who really had to form so many of the doctrines that we now sort of take for granted about our American jurisprudence, and Thurgood Marshall, who, in many ways, carried the same fight for equality to make us realize that it applied to people regardless of the color of their skin and then served on the Supreme Court. They are the two lawyers of whom I think when I think of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and I am not sure that anyone else is in the same class with her other than those two. It is a sad time when someone of such magnitude passes, but I can tell from the 37,000 pieces of correspondence that my office received in the first 4 days after she left that, if you measure a life not by the day that it ends but by the influence that it has and the example that it sets, it is also a time in which we can just admire, be in awe of, and celebrate the accomplishments of a wonderful American. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. I yield.

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, in 2015, when I heard then-candidate Donald Trump denigrate the service of my friend, the late Senator John McCain, suggesting that he was a loser and that his status as a POW was somehow cause for shame or embarrassment, I was rock-solid certain that the America I knew and loved would never allow such a man to occupy the office of the President. I was wrong. The McCain attack began a slow reveal of the unsurprising moral bankruptcy of a man and the surprising willingness of Republican leadership to tolerate that moral void. The reveal reached a new level last week with Jeffrey Goldberg's reporting--significantly verified by other reporters--that President Trump as Commander in Chief still denigrates the service of military members, calling them ``suckers'' and ``losers.'' The Trump campaign protested loudly against the charge, but in the same instant put out a social media message ridiculing Joe Biden as he visited the grave of his son Beau, an Iraq war veteran, after church last Sunday. As a Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the father of a U.S. marine, I find President Trump's attack on our military infuriating. In an era when his countrymen were risking their lives in Southeast Asia, the President dodged service with a timely and miraculously short-lived diagnosis of bone spurs. He bragged that his own personal Vietnam was trying to avoid sexually transmitted diseases at home while others were trying to avoid bullets, landmines, and torture in Vietnam. The selfish young man who avoided service and then equated the ultimate sacrifices of others with his sex life has now ascended into the world's most powerful office holding on to those same immature views. It is not just about the President's words and attitude. Solid intelligence suggests that Russia has paid bounties for the killing of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The President and his team have spent time trying to deny the news to the American public with ridiculous efforts to pretend that the President was never even briefed about the matter. The President still refuses to acknowledge the gravity of the threat or hold Russia to account, but, of course, he has described Vladimir Putin as ``a better leader than Obama'' and as a ``friend.'' He must think: Why risk that friendship for suckers? After watching this President for years, I conclude that the attack on the military is part of a broader hostility to the notion of serving others. The President stiffs charities, disrespects Federal employees, denigrates teachers, and undercuts programs like public service loan forgiveness. He treats the office as a personal piggy bank, filling staff positions with family members and cronies, steering business toward his resorts, making his main domestic priority a tax bill that dramatically benefited his own pocketbook. The death, economic depression, deficits and social division that he has caused through his chaos hardly trouble his conscience because he has the satisfaction of knowing that he has used the office to enrich himself. Is this the exemplar that we want for our country? President Trump may be unique among American Presidents in that no one holds him up as an example for America's children. No parent or teacher or minister or youth mentor who I know tells children to act like him or talk like him or treat people like he does. Even his supporters, professing support for his nominees and tax plan, have an instinctive understanding that he is not an example we would want our young people to emulate. Of all the critical issues on the ballot for America in November, the most important is the most elemental. Is America a place where the commitment to serving others matters? Are we our brother's keeper? Do we want our young to join the military or enter the Peace Corps or teach in our public schools? Is service just for suckers or is it the essence of American patriotism? Growing up, I was certain that I knew the answer to that question. I am less certain today, but I am infinitely more determined.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, here we go again. Another day has passed. Nothing has happened--no incremental progress, no compromise. To some it might just be one day, but for too many Americans, another day fighting for your health or how you will pay your rent or how you will feed your kids is a brutal and terrifying thing. What is one more day to an average American? It might be a day closer to the rent being due without having money to pay it. It might be another day with insufficient unemployment benefits while bills pile up. It might be another day closer to possibly needing SNAP assistance or help from a food bank. One more day could mean constrained testing supplies don't pick up as many cases of COVID-19, so the carriers can isolate and protect others. One day today means for one of my staffers--it was move-in day for his oldest daughter at college, but because she couldn't get her test result back quickly enough, that experience, which is an exciting one for a young person, could not happen. These are not simple legislative days while we follow a negotiation strategy. These are days when Americans are struggling and suffering, and we are not responding. Democrats are here. We are ready to compromise any day. In fact, we have already offered to meet the White House halfway on the size of the relief effort. Our meet-in-the-middle offer was rebuffed Friday, and it was rejected by the White House again yesterday. I have heard the majority leader today and on other days characterize the Heroes Act in his remarks as a Democratic wish list. So what I would like to do is walk through the Democratic and Republican proposals side by side. At every step I hope listeners will ask themselves: Which of these agendas is oriented to helping Americans through hard times? The Democratic proposal includes this: continuing expanded unemployment benefits for the duration of this crisis; cash assistance for struggling families to avoid eviction and foreclosure rather than just delaying bills and piling up debt; sufficient funding and flexibility for State and local governments so that we don't have a second wave of job loss when those governments are forced to cut their budgets, and so they don't have to cut vital programs and lay off first responders during a global health pandemic; sufficient childcare funding both to help working families and to allow childcare providers to reopen so that we can get back to work; providing K-12 schools with the funding they need regardless of how they choose to reopen so that they can effectively educate students; ensuring every American can have access to free treatment for coronavirus; helping families keep food on the table by giving an increase in the SNAP benefit plus additional funding for nutrition programs; continuing support for America's small businesses; protection for the integrity of our elections during a period of uncertainty and fear. Those are the proposals that are contained in the Heroes Act. The Republican proposals, combining both the HEALS Act--the Senate GOP proposal--and President Trump's Executive orders, include this: $1.75 billion to keep the FBI headquarters in DC so as to prevent potential hotel competition for the Trump International Hotel; expanded corporate tax writeoffs for business lunches--another top priority for the White House; sharp cuts to unemployment benefits for workers who are suffering and out of work; broad immunity for large corporations even if they are not taking any actions to protect their workers; the effective elimination of State rules, including a rule in Virginia designed to facilitate the safe reopening of businesses and the economy; undermining important protections and enforcement of longstanding civil rights and disability laws; punishing public schools that choose to follow public health guidance but still want to provide their students with an education by reopening virtually; pushing a tax credit program that would make donations to private school scholarships already deductible as charitable contributions--that would make those now preferred over any other charitable contribution, likely draining money away from other charities and hurting government funding, as well; and finally, stopping payroll tax contributions into the Social Security trust fund, creating huge uncertainty for employers and employees but also threatening to undermine the fiscal future of Social Security retirement benefits. These are elements of the Republican HEALS Act and President Trump's Executive orders. Equally important is what is not in any of the Republican proposals-- either that offered in the Senate or implemented by the President's Executive orders. Food aid for hungry kids and families? Nothing. Rental assistance? Nothing. Mortgage assistance? Nothing. Aid to the States and localities where Americans live and work? Nothing. Funding to ensure the integrity of the upcoming elections? Nothing. So I would ask anyone, which of these proposals seems more likely to help Americans who are experiencing hard times? If anyone is in doubt-- and I don't think any are--about what kinds of hard times people are in, yesterday I shared some stories from Virginians who have shared them with me, just as they are sharing them with all Senators. Here are a few more of the constituents who have reached out to me. The owner of a small business with 18 employees in Northern Virginia wrote me: ``My business is struggling, my employees are suffering, and we need further assistance.'' He went on to describe how his business was completely shut down in the crisis. Even now that they are open, they will be operating at less than half their normal revenue for the foreseeable future. Their PPP and EIDL loan funds--they were glad to get them--have run out, and they need Congress to act to prevent the business from shuttering and those 18 jobs from disappearing permanently. A woman from Henrico County, which is right outside of Richmond, wrote: As I watch the news, it gets harder and harder. We desperately need help. . . . My son had COVID, he is still struggling with health issues and cannot work. A woman in Springfield, here in Fairfax County, has been waiting for information that she needs mailed to her so she can get access to unemployment benefits, but the delays in the Postal Service have left her without the benefits she earned and is entitled to. She is a single mother of five and said: ``At this point, I am struggling to feed my family.'' A woman from Dumfries in Prince William County said: I'm asking for help with the aid for the unemployed workers like myself that Covid has affected. We are a family of 4 and I have lost my unemployment that we depended on for groceries. My husband's salary covers the bills but I worked for groceries and any extras. As of now I may be able to get $190 a week from the state if they reevaluate my claim. Please, I'm asking for bipartisan support on an unemployment package that will help families like mine to make it through this pandemic. Finally, a woman from Alexandria--just across the Potomac--wrote: I would like to request consideration for more emergency funding for daycare and preschool facilities. My 14 month old little girl attends daycare 5 days per week. Her daycare is wonderful, but it's at risk of closing in the very near future because it only has 1/3 of the minimum number of enrollees that it needs to be able to afford to stay open. I'm an essential worker in healthcare, specifically in pediatric care, and my husband is an essential Department of Defense employee. If I have to stay home with my daughter, I can't take care of the children of others, and I'm honestly very worried about the prospects of eventually finding a new job, as healthcare facilities are also suffering a large reduction of daily patients. I ask this from the bottom of my heart. Please provide funding for our daycare and preschool facilities, so they can be here for us through and after the pandemic, so parents in Virginia will be able to continue work now or return to work when it is safe to do so. It is not about politics. It is not about credit. It is about coming through for Americans when they need it. It is the case that, yesterday, Democratic leaders reached out again to the White House and repeated what they had offered last Friday. Let's meet in the middle. Let's meet halfway between the Republican proposals laid out in the HEALS Act and the President's Executive orders and the Democratic proposal passed by a sizeable majority in the House nearly 3 months ago. That is what Americans want--negotiate, compromise, meet in the middle, and find common ground, just as we did in the CARES Act. The White House response was, no dice. They refused the Democratic proposal to meet halfway. They said that is not going to happen. We need to get serious. Days continue to tick by as families face hard decisions. Democrats are here, and we are ready. The White House must stop its ``no compromise'' position to meet the needs of American families. Let's buckle down, make a deal, and get this done. The American people can't afford to wait any longer. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the latest coronavirus emergency aid package, but before I do, as a matter of personal privilege, I want to offer some comments in praise of a colleague. Just as we gather together, regardless of party, to mourn when a colleague dies or be together with a colleague who is undergoing a challenge, I think it is good to gather together and acknowledge when something positive happens to a colleague, regardless of our political affiliation. This is the first opportunity on the Senate floor to offer a word about Senator Kamala Harris, one of our colleagues, who, in a historic move, was asked by another former Senate colleague, Vice President Joe Biden, to join him as his preferred nominee to be Vice President of the United States. I have come to know Senator Harris in her 4 years in the Senate, as many of us have, through her service on especially the Judiciary Committee and the Intelligence Committee. Her public service track record is a significant one worthy of praise, from her work as a district attorney, first a line prosecutor, and then the elected district attorney in San Francisco, where she focused on trying to keep her community safe, to serving as California's attorney general, broadening the portfolio to include environmental justice and consumer protection, and now her work in the Senate since 2016. What I find so compelling about Senator Harris, in addition to her track record of public service during a very long career, is her personal story. Raised as the child of two immigrants, a Jamaican father and an Indian mother, as so many in this country raised as children of immigrants, she developed a passion to serve and a patriotic love of country. She is the first African-American woman nominee ever to be on a ticket. She is the first person of South Asian descent ever to be on a ticket. And in the year 2020, when we are commemorating the 100th anniversary of the amendment that guaranteed women the right to vote, I can think of no greater way to celebrate a centennial than for one of our colleagues who is a woman to have a chance to break a glass ceiling that still has existed, whereby no woman in this country has ever been a Vice President or President. We are so good at so much in this country. In fact, we are so good at many things with regard to women in this country, but we are sort of uniquely bad in electing women to higher office. In Congress right now, 24 percent of Congress is women, and that ranks us 76th in the world in terms of our percentage of women in a national legislative body. We are tied with Afghanistan, but we trail Iraq and Mexico and many other nations. So regardless of how it all works out between now and November, and regardless of our own political affiliations, this is a good day, I believe, for the country and a good day for the Senate when 1 of the 100 is recognized in such a way and introduced to the American public with an opportunity to serve at a significant level.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, returning to the latest coronavirus emergency aid package--currently, the package doesn't exist. There have been no bipartisan negotiations on it since last Friday. That is disappointing to all of us who are here, ready and willing to negotiate and vote for a strong bipartisan relief package. The House of Representatives passed its strong package back on May 15, now nearly 3 months ago. Today is August 12. There was some hope that maybe COVID-19 cases were ticking downward. At the end of May, there was some hope that maybe the economic devastation was reducing, but COVID cases did not tick down over the summer as some had hoped. In fact, they have ticked up in many parts of the country, and the Senate has not taken any votes on the House bill or indeed on any bill. That is disappointing. More than that, it is disappointing for millions of Americans who are in the midst of hard times right now. They are worried about their own health or the health of their loved ones. They are worried about whether they will receive unemployment benefits or how they will make rent or mortgage or how their children will get an education. We know in this body we can transcend politics as usual to address the coronavirus because we did so in March by passing the CARES Act, even as Members of the body, including me, were getting coronavirus as we were having those negotiations. Even as staffers were getting it, even as Senate spouses were getting it, we stayed at the table and found a bipartisan bill that helped us deal with the challenge for a few critical months. But we are here debating this again because the magnitude of the crisis is not a crisis of a few months. No, it is such that the aid provided thus far is running out while Americans' hardships continue. That is why it is essential that we not give up and that we stay here as long as it takes to come through for the American people. I have heard some in Congress and, indeed, some in this body say about more Federal aid for the coronavirus response say: I just don't see the need for it. Indeed, the majority leader has candidly acknowledged that approximately 20 Members of the Republican caucus will not vote for more aid. Well, I want to make the case first that there is need for it, and the need is undeniable because the circumstances that people are living in are dire. Last Friday, we found out that the unemployment rate in July was 10.2 percent, which is a number that is higher than at any point during the 2008, 2009 recession. The President called these ``Great Jobs Numbers!'' But I don't see anything great about 1 in 10 Americans who are in the workforce not being able to find work. More than 30 million Americans are collecting unemployment benefits, and last week their benefit checks were cut by more than 50 percent. In Virginia, just as an example, unemployed workers are now receiving a maximum--a maximum--of $378 a week. That is not enough to pay rent, let alone rent, groceries, childcare, electric bills, and many other costs that families face every day. Because they lost their jobs and other income, millions of Americans are now at risk of eviction or foreclosure. The $600 Federal unemployment benefit and Federal eviction moratorium were holding this off for many, but with those relief measures expiring, families are unable to continue paying their August or September bills. One estimate is that 12 million evictions will be filed by October, and 12 million is essentially the combined population of about 6 or 7 States. There could be that many evictions filed by October. Just in Virginia there was a State-imposed eviction moratorium that lapsed for 5 weeks, and just in those 5 weeks, nearly 10,000 evictions were filed, potentially forcing people out of their homes. Three in ten Virginia renters surveyed a couple weeks ago said that they were uncertain how they could pay August rent, and it was more than half of all African-American renters surveyed who said that was the case. Housing instability is difficult at any point in time, but imagine losing your housing during a pandemic. What are people supposed to do during a pandemic? The advice is, if you can stay home and don't go out and don't be with others, that will help keep your family safe. But how can you quarantine at home if you are in danger of losing your home? Like the majority leader, who quoted from constituents in Kentucky, I am hearing from Virginia constituents every day. From Allison in Henrico: I have now exhausted my savings account and have rent due, groceries to buy and bills to pay. I am now desperate for immediate help. From Rhys in Mechanicsville: I have three children, one with significant special needs. My wife cannot work now due to covid-19 and the school closures. I am behind on numerous bills, including mortgage, utility, and other bills. From Dominique in Fairfax: My rent is now 3 months behind as well as my other bills and I am receiving letters [threatening] evictions and services being turned off. Unfortunately, these examples are now not aberrations, but they are common. We all know people--we all know people--who are at risk of losing their home or being hungry or losing healthcare or their savings being depleted because of the absence of work. So we have to make sure that people are not removed from their homes in the middle of a health crisis. We need to make sure they can continue to pay bills until the health crisis is sufficiently addressed and the economy gets back to where it was. Schools and colleges across the country are trying to reopen right now. It doesn't matter if it is in person, online, or a hybrid model, we want them to reopen safely right now, and this is the time to provide schools with the resources they need to deliver quality instruction, not punish them for following public health guidance and data. Working families are struggling to find childcare options. This is critical to reopening the economy. Childcare providers themselves are struggling. Virginia, according to national surveys, is at risk of losing 45 percent of its licensed childcare capacity; that is, 130,000 childcare slots in Virginia without the additional support they would need to help them stay viable. If we lose childcare capacity, that will have a significant consequence in terms of the ability of people to go back to work so that the economy can start to grow again. On the nutrition front, we are facing an unprecedented rise in food insecurity as thousands of Virginians and millions of Americans have newly enrolled in the SNAP program. The Brookings Institute estimates that nearly 14 million children are living in food-insecure households--14 million children. That is nearly six times the number of children who were food insecure just as recently as 2018, and nearly three times as many who were food insecure at the peak of the great recession in 2008 and 2009. I bet all of my colleagues have experienced this because we are all out in our States talking to folks. Food banks have been slammed with demand they have never witnessed before, and it has been harder for food banks to get grocery access because grocery store shelves have also been ravaged because people are going to grocery stores while restaurants are closed. What do food banks do with increasing demand and fewer donations from grocery stores? The Capital Area Food Bank purchased 100 semitruck loads of food in April, which is triple what the food bank purchased in all of 2019. Just in 1 month, they tripled their purchases compared to 2019. The Blue Ridge Area Food Bank, which serves the western part of Virginia, saw the number of new families seeking food assistance quadruple from last year, just as of May. Americans are in a dire state. Their basic needs are at stake. We Democrats want to address that hardship. We did address that hardship in the Heroes Act, which we passed in mid-May. We want to keep people from losing their jobs, being evicted, and going hungry. I know there are many Republicans who share these same goals, but the proposals that have been on the table in this body are simply inadequate. There are areas that we agree on. Aid to small business is important. Broadband is important because as people telecommute or get telehealth or get educational content online, they have to have access to broadband. Testing is important. Childcare is important to open the economy. These are important priorities I believe we can come together on, but the Republican plan that the Senate GOP introduced in this body, which the majority leader again acknowledges that at least 20 Members of the caucus will not support, has large cuts to unemployment aid, no State and local government aid to prevent layoffs of first responders and vital programs and services. The majority leader characterized State and local government agencies as a ``slush fund.'' I was a mayor. I was a Governor. I know what is happening to State and local budgets, and when the revenues to State and local governments decline, there is about one place they can go, and the one place they can go is furloughs, waivers, salary cuts, and cutting personnel. The overwhelming majority of first responders in this country work for State and local governments. It is never a good time to cut police, fire, EMT, ambulance, healthcare workers--never a good time--but the worst time to do it is in the midst of a global health pandemic. It is not a slush fund; it is a necessity that the communities where people live and work have basic services to get through this challenge. The Republican proposal has inadequate education aid, no aid for the eviction tsunami that is facing us to provide rent or mortgage assistance, no nutrition aid in the SNAP program or otherwise to help the 14 million kids who, today, are living in food-insecure households. The Republican proposal did include a comprehensive liability shield to prevent anyone from suing if their employer's negligence causes a virus outbreak. I thought it was interesting that so often on the other side of the aisle in this body, when this prospective bill has been talked about, that has been in the front of the line as if the worry about lawsuits is the biggest concern that the American people have right now. No one in Virginia, when they tell me about their concerns, is putting worries about lawsuits up at the top of the list. We are talking about food, hunger, healthcare, and housing. The liability shield proposal in the GOP goes even further than protecting against liability; it wipes out States' abilities to pass safety regulations. Virginia became the first State in the country to do an emergency temporary standard to provide guidance to public places and employers about safety standards that they could use on the job. It is good to get advice about safety standards because most businesses don't have an NIH or CDC or a health department, so advice about standards that should be followed in workplaces is a great idea. Virginia became the first State in the country to do that. The Republican liability shield would not only give people liability protections, but it would take away the ability of the States to do what Virginia did to try to create lifesaving protections for workers and customers. That is unacceptable--unacceptable. Democrats offered to meet halfway. We knew when the Heroes Act passed--I mean, we have been around the block a few times. It wasn't as if Senate Republicans were just going to say: That is a good idea. We will just vote for it. That is not the way things work. The Senate Republicans would have their proposal just as the House Democrats have their proposal. The two proposals have dramatically different pricetags. The Senate proposal, together with the White House, came in the neighborhood of $1 trillion and the House proposal came in the neighborhood of $3 trillion. There is nothing magic about these numbers, but it is important to understand that willingness to compromise is something Americans expect of us right now. Democrats said: OK, you have a package that is worth $1 trillion, and we have a package that is worth $3 trillion. Let's split the difference. We will have to decide how to compose the $2 trillion package, but let's split the difference. The White House refused. The White House got an offer to meet halfway and said: That is not what we are going to do. We insist on the skinny version. The skinny version is inadequate to meet the challenge of the moment. This is the worst economic contraction in the 145 years that we have had measured quarterly economic growth in this country. This is the worst pandemic that the United States has dealt with since the Spanish flu of 1917 and 1918. A narrow bill isn't enough. If you don't like the Democratic bill because you think the pricetag is too big, how about meeting us halfway? That is the way negotiations so often happen. After the White House rejected the notion of meeting halfway, the President issued Executive orders that he claims break through the logjam. Like many things the President does, though, an analysis of the Executive orders demonstrates there is little substance there. The President proposed a deferred payroll tax collection. That doesn't actually give Americans more money; it just gives them a larger tax bill next year. Because it is a deferral, the President cannot lift the obligation off either the employers or the employees. It is also very confusing to employers to suggest: OK, you should defer, but it is likely to start back up again. That is very, very hard for employers, especially small employers, to figure out. We all know that the payroll tax is the main pillar of Social Security, as every generation pays into the system while they are working so they can enjoy retirement with dignity in their senior years. President Trump has said that this isn't just a deferral, but if he has his way and is reelected, he is going to permanently cancel the tax. That would undermine retirement security for all future generations. The Executive order with respect to housing did actually nothing. It just ordered agencies to look into delaying evictions and foreclosures, but no assistance and no dollars for those facing eviction or for those facing foreclosures. Look into ``can you delay them.'' Governors are already saying that the Executive order dealing with unemployment aid is unworkable. It would be very difficult for them to reconfigure their UI systems to do what the President has asked them to do and asked them to help pay for in the Executive order. Even if States could figure out how to launch a completely new system, the benefits would run out in 5 weeks. On the surface, the Executive order with respect to student loan relief looks like an extension, but if you dig into it, that is not what it is. The order still leaves out 8 million Federal student loan borrowers, and it doesn't even mention whether borrowers' credit ratings and credit scores will be protected if they take advantage of what is offered to them under the EO. What about the millions of students who are struggling to financially find a way to go back to college, or the schools that are trying to find a way to still make sure students get an education when they reopen, or the working families that are struggling to find childcare? School boards and superintendents around the country have come with a proposal saying that to open schools safely would cost about $175 billion, and that is what Democrats have put on the table. That is not addressed at all in the Executive orders, even as we stand at the threshold of schools reopening. In sum, the President's Executive orders address virtually none of the hardships, solve virtually none of the hardships, and lift virtually none of the burdens that Americans are suffering through right now. We are having hard times. We are having hard times, and it is our duty to try to address that hardship. Democrats are willing to compromise. When we say, ``Hey, we have a plan but we will meet you halfway in your plan,'' and the White House says, ``No,'' you know, what are we supposed to do? What are we supposed to do? A skinny version isn't sufficient for the magnitude of the crisis. The Senate Republican proposal has some elements that we support, but it leaves so many others unaddressed that it is not adequate. The Republican White House has rejected compromise. President Trump's Executive orders are partly illegal, partly unworkable, and completely insufficient. It doesn't have to be this way because there are many areas on which we can find agreement. I know many in this body are hearing from their home States' Governors, mayors, local governments, colleges and universities, school boards and housing authorities, food banks, hospitals, and the chambers of commerce. You are hearing the same thing that I am hearing from Virginians. So, as I conclude, it doesn't have to be this way. We can put together a good bipartisan deal, but it can't be a ``White House my way or the highway.'' It has to be a willingness to meet and find compromise between a Democratic proposal and a proposal that is acceptable to at least some on the GOP side and the White House. Any large compromise in a divided government is bound to be imperfect. I am reminded of a quote from FDR during the Depression years. You never really had to use quotes from the Depression because the magnitude of the Depression was different than what I have experienced during most of my life, but now quotes from the Depression, I think, bear some revisiting. Here is what FDR said as the administration and Congress, at the time, were doing everything they could to figure out a way to help out needy Americans: ``Better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference.'' By now, everybody knows somebody who has gotten COVID-19 or somebody who has gotten sick or even died or somebody who has lost a job or somebody who is worried about rent or food. We all know those people, and many of us have experienced this in our own families. Are we going to help or are we going to be frozen in the ice of our own indifference? Let's surprise the Senate. Let's work together and get this done. With that, I yield the floor.