Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, the essence of any American President's job is set forth in the oath he or she swears--an oath that the Founders considered so fundamental that they put it in the Constitution. And that job is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. A President who violates that oath has committed an impeachable offense. That is a truth. There can be no reasonable dispute that a President who fails at this basic responsibility is unfit to remain in office and cannot and should not be permitted to hold that office again. Not only did Donald Trump fail to uphold his oath, he took steps intended to violate it. It wasn't mere negligence. It wasn't even recklessness. Donald Trump engaged in an active, willful, intentional attack on our Constitution and our democracy. Donald Trump incited to violence and riot a mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol and our government. That is a high crime and misdemeanor. We all saw and heard the evidence during the trial. The video. The audio. The tweets. The statements. The affidavits. Months before the election, Donald Trump laid the groundwork for this insurrection, arguing he would only lose the election if there were fraud. After he lost, he repeated over and over again the ``Big Lie'' that the election was stolen. He agitated his supporters who falsely and wrongly believed that the election was rigged. Trump beckoned a mob to Washington for a rally when he knew the Congress would be counting the electoral ballots. Trump's people knew from law enforcement bulletins and intelligence that the mob was armed and dangerous. Yet, he riled them up and then sent them up Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol. That rally became an orgy of violence and hate. Mayhem and destruction ensued, all in Donald Trump's pursuit of staying in office beyond his term. Of ignoring our Constitution. Of preventing a peaceful transfer of power. Of promulgating the Big Lie. Donald Trump did not express horror or outrage at the scenes playing out live on television. He did not quickly and decisively urge his supporters to stop. He did not immediately call out the National Guard. He did not show any concern for the law enforcement officers being beaten, maimed, and even killed at the Capitol. He reportedly delighted in what was happening, unable to comprehend why others were not excited about it like he was. And he has never shown any remorse or an ounce of contrition or taken any responsibility. Instead, he has maintained that he acted perfectly appropriately. The Senate of the United States sat as an Impeachment Court, with Democrats and Republicans serving as jurors. But the vast majority of those Republicans were more interested in fealty to Donald Trump than loyalty to our country. They were more concerned about Trump's base than basic justice. They were willing to ignore the truth to embrace the Big Lie. I had hoped the House managers would call witnesses. Clearly, there were individuals with direct knowledge of Trump's state of mind during the insurrection, the danger at the Capitol as it unfolded, and his support of it. But even before we debated potential witnesses, Republicans had made up their minds. They were unmoving in their fealty to Trump. Republicans were willfully blind to the truth and the facts of the case. The rioters wanted to kill Vice President Pence and House Speaker Pelosi. They told us so. We know that the west side of the Capitol was breached around 2 p.m. and that the rioters had overrun the Capitol. We know that the mob was approaching the Senate floor when our session was abruptly recessed at 2:13 p.m. We know that Vice President Pence was whisked off the Senate floor and that he was in mortal danger, as were all Members of Congress in their Chambers doing their constitutional duty. We know that all this was playing out in real time on television and that Donald Trump had to know it was happening. And yet, about 10 minutes later, at 2:24 p.m., knowing all this, Donald Trump tweeted an attack at his own Vice President. ``Mike Pence did not have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution.'' And we know that around 2:26 p.m., Donald Trump called Senator Tuberville not to ascertain what was happening, not ask how the Vice President was or to offer aid and assistance against the insurrection. No, Trump called to ask Senator Tuberville to delay the certification. It is clear whose side Donald Trump was on. There is no First Amendment defense to what Donald Trump did. The First Amendment has no application in an impeachment proceeding, which does not seek to punish unlawful speech, but to protect the Nation from a President who has violated his oath of office. But even if the First Amendment applied, even if we bought Trump's lawyers' bogus claims that the First Amendment can be a defense, the argument utterly fails. Trump's lawyers relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio, but Brandenburg explained that the First Amendment protects advocacy, ``except where such advocacy is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.'' Once the Capitol was breached, the lawless action was no longer imminent, it was actual. And Donald Trump was still tweeting words of encouragement to the rioters. There was a siege actually happening in the Capitol. There was no longer rhetorical fighting; there was actual fighting. On television. Live for everyone to see. The House managers proved their case with facts and evidence. Donald Trump incited and relished in an effort to violently overthrow our government. He invited. He incited. He delighted. Anyone who is opposed to abolishing the filibuster need only look at the vote to acquit and see how Republicans willfully blinded themselves to truth and facts in fealty to Trump and their party. Their votes to acquit once again show our hurdles to progress: Republican political calculations and their dereliction to truth and justice. The final tally on the vote to acquit does nothing to reassure me that Republicans are willing to work together and transcend party politics. Republicans had the opportunity to recognize that faith in the Constitution is a faith that we all share. Instead, they ignored the Constitution for a Big Lie. How can we expect them to work in good faith with Democrats to respond to the big challenges facing our Nation when they refuse to accept undeniable facts? The only reasonable conclusion based on the evidence presented at the trial was that Donald Trump committed an impeachable offense, should have been convicted, and should have been barred from holding future office. Republicans refused to accept or acknowledge that. I fear that with their votes to acquit, they have sown the seeds of another violent attack on our Constitution and our democracy.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I send a question for the House managers to the desk because the President's counsel did not answer the question which was posed to them.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I am here to emphasize just how important this budget resolution is to unlocking opportunity for millions of children across our country. I am here to shine a bright light on a problem that predates the coronavirus but that has been severely exacerbated by the ongoing pandemic. I am speaking about the homework gap experienced by as many as 12 million children in the United States, who, right now, today, nearly a year into this public health emergency, still do not have internet access at home and are unable to participate in online learning. This is a national disgrace, and it is going to come back to haunt our Nation for a generation. Children should not be missing the third grade because they are not connected. They should not be missing the fifth grade. They are going to pay a huge, long-term price because of that lack of connectivity. Before the pandemic, these students were at an educational disadvantage already because they could not complete homework assignments that required internet access after class, but, today, the problem is exacerbated with most schools being closed and household kitchen tables becoming virtual classrooms during the pandemic. Even as we try to safely reopen schools in the weeks and months ahead, distance learning is not going away both because of the continuing health crisis and the need to make up for severe learning loss during these past 11 months. The bottom line is that, if a young student has no internet connection or device, she cannot learn. That means that those 12 million students in America, right now, without connectivity, who are disproportionately from communities of color, low-income households, and rural areas, are falling further behind in their studies every single day that this pandemic continues. There is no reason the country that invented the internet cannot provide it to children who need it to learn and to develop. We as a society simply cannot allow an 8-year-old to miss the third grade because she does not have the internet at home. These vulnerable students are no longer facing just a homework gap; they are facing a learning gap, and it will likely become an opportunity gap for the rest of their lives because those opportunities come from a good education. To close this gap and correct this educational injustice, we must immediately connect these students to the internet. Given its history and success, it is just common sense that we use the E-rate Program as a guide to connect students where they are currently learning--at home. The E-rate, which already connects schools and libraries to the internet, is a trusted program, deliberately designed to require an equitable distribution of funding to our most vulnerable communities, urban and rural, blue and red. I created the program more than two decades ago, and it has since invested more than $52 billion in the educational connectivity for children, especially in the poorest communities, and that has unleashed another $50 billion. From the State and local levels, which is $100 billion from that E-rate Program that I authored out of the House of Representatives in 1996, it is still the greatest educational technology program in the history of our country. It has led to the deployment of this technology on school desks at the same rate for poor children as rich children. That is the first time that has ever happened. Yet, today, there is a gap because many of these children--millions of them--do not have it at home. That is the gap. In many instances, it is not a digital divide; it is a poverty divide that is leading to this crisis. It is a poverty divide. Because their parents cannot afford the connectivity and because they cannot have this service for their children, we are going to see an absolute disgrace which will befall our country when we look back and see what has happened to these kids. That is why we need in this reconciliation package billions of dollars which are going to be included. We have to make sure that the funding is there for every city, for every school system, for every parent to have a kid who is connected for as long as this takes, and we don't know how long it is going to take. Children are only 20 percent of our population, but they are 100 percent of our future, and, right now, we are leaving behind millions of them who will have much less of an opportunity to be able to maximize their God-given abilities. I am here to say that the one thing we must do this time, which the Republicans forced out of the package in December, is put the billions of dollars in in order to make sure that all children have access to the internet at home for their educational opportunities.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you for rising because I do believe what you are saying about Senator Whitehouse is accurate. In my opinion, like Lou Gehrig, like Cal Ripken, he will go down in history in this longevity streak in highlighting, spotlighting like a true North Star the need for us to take action on these issues, and he is, without question, a climate change hall of famer. And I agree with you, there is a new dawn which has now arrived, with our fingers crossed. And I share your hope, the Senator from Rhode Island, that we might be able to find a way to persuade the gentleman from Oklahoma that it is sunny most of the time in Oklahoma and it is windy most of the time in Oklahoma and there are tens of thousands of jobs yet to be created. And we can work in partnership in order to accomplish that goal. But for today, I just wanted to come over and honor the great Sheldon Whitehouse for his incredible leadership during this time we have been going through with the climate ``denier in chief'' now gone, and there is hope alive. Your leadership is absolutely hall of fame and historic. Congratulations, Senator Whitehouse.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, first, I want to thank all of the first responders who helped to protect this sacred Chamber today and protect those electoral college ballots. Today is a special day. On a day when some 2,500 or more Americans will lose their lives to the coronavirus, when another 130,000 will be hospitalized with it, when hundreds of small businesses will close their doors and put thousands of Americans out of work--on this day-- the U.S. Senate is not debating how to get more lifesaving vaccines into Americans' arms or how to put 2,000 badly needed dollars into their pockets. No. Instead, we are using the first days of the new Senate and Congress to give time to our radical Republican colleagues' baseless and damaging claims of election fraud--all in an attempt to keep Donald Trump in office in violation of the U.S. Constitution. There is a word for this. It is called ``sedition.'' All of these unfounded objections to State electors are seditious. They are nothing short of an insurrection against the established order of the U.S. Constitution and our democratic Republic. This is a historically shameful day for the Senate and for our country. To be clear, the notion that there is any meaningful voter fraud that has been identified in the 2020 Presidential election is a dangerous, anti-democratic, treasonous fiction. Joe Biden won. Donald Trump lost--period--but that hasn't stopped the President and his supporters from making allegations of voter fraud in some 60 legal challenges across the country, heard by some 90 judges, including Trump judicial appointees. Not one of these challenges succeeded--not one. Despite this reality, my radical Republican colleagues claim we must have a commission to investigate the fraud. Well, we do know one of the most undeniable instances of substantial and significant election fraud ever. We even have a recording and a transcript of it. It is of President Trump, talking like a Mafia boss to the Georgia Secretary of State--a Republican no less--pressuring and threatening him to fix the election in Trump's favor, and holding out the prospect of criminal prosecution if he doesn't. ``Find me 11,780 votes,'' Trump said. Well, someone should find Donald Trump a real lawyer and measure him for an orange jumpsuit, because the list of statutes that this latest, shocking Presidential phone call may violate is too long to recite. The President's words on that phone call--indeed, his conduct since his election--demand a serious response, one much more serious than the sham before us today. First, Federal and State law enforcement authorities should investigate Donald Trump for election fraud, extortion, conspiracy, and whatever other charges fit the bill and, if warranted, indict and try him for any crimes he has committed. Second, we must recognize that Donald Trump is and will remain a danger to our Constitution and our democracy. So, while time is certainly limited, we should impeach Trump again and bar him from holding office in the future. Finally, we should abolish the electoral college. It is a vestige of a racist Jim Crow America, and we have outgrown it. Every person's vote in every State should count just the same--one person, one vote. Election fraud and reform are very serious issues. Election reform absolutely should be debated in Congress, which is why, instead of today's Kabuki theater, I invite my Republican colleagues to stand up and say: Yes, we need to protect and expand voting rights and election security. We need automatic voter registration. We need online voter registration. We need same-day voter registration. We should make election day a Federal holiday. We should restore voting rights to people with prior felony convictions. We should support independent redistricting commissions. Let's spend our time debating that on the floor--debating how to reduce the influence of big money in our political system, to slow the revolving door between government officials and lobbyists, to stop gerrymandering and voter suppression. That is the real election reform that we should be debating and supporting, not these shameful, craven, baseless objections. More than 350,000 Americans have died from the coronavirus. That is the truth. Nearly 8 million people have fallen into poverty because of the economic crisis caused by this virus. That is the truth. Wearing a mask saves lives. Vaccines are safe and effective. That is the truth. Joe Biden won. Donald Trump lost. That is the truth. I urge all of my Senate colleagues to vote against these objections, affirm our democracy, and recognize that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will rightfully be sworn in on January 20 as the President and Vice President of the United States

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I rise to echo the sentiments of the Senator from Vermont. He is right. The Republicans are wrong on this issue. On every single part of this debate, Senator Sanders is right; the Republicans are wrong. We are in the middle of an unprecedented crisis in our country. We have a healthcare crisis, we have an unemployment crisis, we have a hunger crisis, we have a housing crisis, we have an addiction crisis, and we have a moral crisis in this country. The U.S. Government should be responding to the needs, to the desperation of families in our country at this time. There is a crisis of faith that the American people have in its government's ability to respond to human suffering. Well, this institution has been created to respond to human suffering. That is our job Tony Fauci has made it very clear that the worst of the pandemic is ahead of us, not behind us. We know what is coming, and yet we are not responding. We know this is not going away soon, and yet we are not responding. A program, Operation Warp Speed, was created to create a vaccine, but because for 7 months the Republicans have refused to fund the public health system of our country at the State and local level, we have ``Operation Snail Speed'' to put the vaccinations in the arms of the American people. It was anticipatable. Tony Fauci and others were warning us back in May and June and July that there would be a second wave and the second wave could be bigger. We got the warning. The Republicans refused to heed that warning. And here we are now, without the public health infrastructure to deal with the overflow capacity in emergency rooms, in ICUs all across the country, while simultaneously asking those same medical institutions to put vaccinations in the arms of healthy people, without the resources provided by the Federal Government to help those States and local communities to deal with that crisis. Sometimes Daniel Patrick Moynihan would say that when you deal with an issue you deal with it with benign neglect if you don't want to help or you don't want to hurt--deal with benign neglect. What has happened with the Republicans this year is that they created a program which is designed neglect. It is an actual plan not to provide the funding, not to provide the help for those families, for those communities, for those institutions that are now being overwhelmed, and asked, on top of that, to put this extra burden of putting vaccinations in people's arms, but without the extra resources. And what do they do on the Republican side? They throw out these red herrings--so many red herrings that you would need to build an aquarium in the well here of the Senate in order to deal with all of them--that gets away from the central issue: Yes or no, up or down, will you provide $2,000 to Americans who are going to need it through what Tony Fauci is saying will be the worst part of this pandemic? Yes or no, up or down, where do they stand on this issue? Here is what we do know. Republicans seem more focused on funding the Defense Department than they do on funding the defenseless in our country, and Americans are becoming more defenseless as each day goes by. The headlines are screaming that this panic, which is absolutely understandable and based upon fact, is sweeping our country. There is protection that the Federal Government should be providing to these families. We hear it. They are hungry. They could be without their homes. The addiction crisis is rising. They need help in their families. So from my perspective, we have a moment in time, and Donald Trump happens to agree with us--even though a broken clock is right twice a day. And we do agree with him. He is right. We do need this help, which we should be providing to these families. As we watch more and more of our American loved ones fall sick and die, families are facing a new and unprecedented hardship. They are having to make impossible decisions as to whether to put food on the table or keep the heat on through the cold winter months, and the U.S. Government has an obligation to help working people who, through no fault of their own, are seeing all of the things that they care about, all of the success that they have worked for, and all the financial security they have earned be washed away. And yet the Republicans want to put another ``Operation Snail Speed'' in place. The damage to these families is anticipatable. We can see what is unfolding. Dr. Fauci is telling us that we are at the worst part of the pandemic and it is going to continue. So let us act in anticipation. Louis Pasteur used to say that ``chance favors the prepared mind.'' That is what Dr. Tony Fauci is telling us. Let us prepare. Let us help families prepare for what is about to arrive. Just in Massachusetts alone, 21,000 new people applied for unemployment insurance in the week before Christmas. Food banks across Massachusetts and across the country are seeing double-digit increases in demand with families who never faced food insecurity before. People are literally starving, cold, and without homes. Meanwhile, the majority leader and Republican leadership would rather head home for the New Year and ignore the financial and health crises that are taking a toll on our families. For millions of Americans, this will be a New Year holiday where they won't know if they can put food on the table that night. Republicans are claiming that giving $2,000 in direct cash payments to working Americans would be too expensive, that it would inflate our national deficit, that our budgets are already bloated. I have to ask, though, where was this outrage when Republicans blew up our national deficit to give a $1.5 trillion tax cut to billionaires and corporations? These are the crocodile tears from the right, as Americans are shedding real tears thinking about where their next meal will come from, the eviction notice on the front door, or losing healthcare in the midst of this crisis. Americans are actually tired of being told that $600 is ``sufficient'' as an amount of money as relief, as billionaires receive their tax breaks and grow their wealth by the trillions of dollars during this crisis. The rich get richer, and the rest are there left suffering. They have had enough of being told that there just isn't the money for support for the well-being of their communities when they can see tax breaks going to those companies that are actually laying off workers. Americans are tired of being let down by their government time and time again, as Donald Trump and his Republican allies have abandoned them during this response to the pandemic. Americans need support. They need to be able to trust their government, and they need $2,000 now. So that is the issue: Yes or no, up or down, on providing $2,000 to Americans to help them make it through the worst part of this crisis. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12:30 p.m. on Thursday, December 31, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 9051, a bill to provide a $2,000 direct payment to the working class; that the bill be considered read a third time and the Senate vote on passage of that bill without intervening action or debate; further, that if passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; and that immediately following the vote on H.R. 9051, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the veto message on H.R. 6395; that the Senate immediately vote on passage of the bill, the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, this is our historic moment. We can see the suffering across our country. We can see how desperate people are. We can see how during this holiday season, the people are looking at the prospect, in the words of Tony Fauci, where the worst may be ahead of us for these families. The worst may yet to have been actually inflicted upon families and our country. Yet the Republicans are refusing to allow for a vote on giving each individual $2,000 in order to make it through the rest of this pandemic. Senator Sanders today speaks for the millions of Americans who are suffering through a devastating health crisis, an unemployment crisis, an eviction crisis, a hunger crisis, and a crisis of faith--faith that their leaders in this country will stand up and provide for Americans in their hour of need. Meanwhile, we here in Washington must confront a moral crisis: Why can't we keep working families from starving even as we stand ready to approve a massive defense bill? That is why I am here with my colleague Bernie Sanders to call for a simple vote to provide $2,000 in direct cash payments to Americans across our country. It is this simple. Just like they did in the House of Representatives, the Senate should have a vote--up or down, yes or no--on providing these increased cash payments to desperate Americans. We can get this done quickly and before the holiday if Leader McConnell will simply agree to do it. They already had this vote in the House, and 44 Republicans voted for it. Give the Republicans in the Senate the same opportunity to vote. We already know that many of them have already said they will vote for the $2,000 if they get a chance to vote. It is this simple. We can do this because a simple vote will just say that you want to provide a grand total of $2,000 to Americans who need it to pay the rent, to keep the electricity on, to buy diapers, to pay for lifesaving medication--just to survive this devastating pandemic. There are 44 House Republicans who voted for the $2,000 checks. I believe that the Republicans in this Chamber will do so as well, and President Trump has already made it very clear that he will sign the bill. So we can see where the opposition is. It is with the leadership of the Republicans in the U.S. Senate. People across our country are falling ill and falling behind on their bills, and for the families of the hundreds of thousands who have died from coronavirus, the medical and funeral expenses are compounding their grief. They need money in their pockets. In Massachusetts, this past Sunday, we hit 100 deaths in a single day--the highest death toll our State has seen in a 24-hour period since the very beginning of this pandemic. In the week before Christmas, 21,000 new people in our State applied for unemployment benefits just as Donald Trump let these protections lapse before millions of Americans lost their benefits, and that is a tragedy. A $2,000 check is the most direct and effective mechanism for delivering economic relief right now to those who are barely holding on throughout this crisis, particularly low-income Americans, immigrant communities, and our gig and service workers--our essential workers. They need help. They have been helping our families, and we need to help their families. Right now, these checks would help 158 million people across our country pay for housing, put food on the table, and make sure that grandma and grandpa have their diabetes or heart medication. That is why Senator Sanders, Senator Kamala Harris, and I introduced legislation to provide every person in our country, regardless of immigration status, with $2,000 monthly recurring payments in order to help weather this storm. We knew then, 7 months ago, that a single $1,200 relief check was not going to be enough to help families get by, and the $600 payment in the latest coronavirus package is a crumb to the working people who have faced economic hardship through no fault of their own. It won't even cover a month of rent, let alone heating bills, food bills, Wi-Fi bills for students who are learning from home, and all of the other expenses that are piling up for these families. Now, some of my Republican colleagues have said that providing $2,000 would be too expensive. Well, here are some other costs they seem to have forgotten. If our proposal to increase stimulus checks to $2,000 is soaring, the overall cost of the stimulus bill would go from $900 billion to $1.36 trillion. Yes, that is a $464 billion increase over what we were currently projecting for this bill, but it is only a fraction of the $740 billion Defense bill that this Chamber stands ready to approve again this week. I hate to say this, but my Republican colleagues seem to be more interested in funding defense than in funding the defenseless, and that is what this debate is all about. What do we do to help these defenseless families? In this moment of national crisis, we were able to afford spending three-quarters of a trillion dollars on a bloated defense budget--spending that was supposed to protect our country yet did nothing to inoculate against the most profound public health emergency in a century--but we can't give hungry and suffering Americans $2,000? That is a moral failure for our country. Give Americans this money. Most of my colleagues support this defense budget. They got to vote on it a few weeks ago, and I know they stand ready to override President Trump's racist, belligerent veto. We are here today, asking the same thing for $2,000 payments--a simple up-or-down vote. Let's bring the House bill up for a vote. Leader Schumer is committed to bringing it forward. We can get this done before the holiday. We can do this for Americans before the year is out. We must remember that what makes America the envy of the world is not simply the strength of our defense and military but the strength of our people--people like Ahmed Jaya, a parent of three, who was laid off from his job as a doorman at the Omni Parker House in Boston this past March. Ahmed receives $400 a week in unemployment benefits, but it is not enough to cover the bills that keep rolling in as he now faces expiring health coverage as well. It is people like Tanya DiStefano, from Spencer, MA, who gave birth to a beautiful baby boy on Halloween, to return from the hospital to find an eviction notice taped to the front of her door. These are the stories that should be driving our fights. These are the people who need relief now. And these checks will go right back into our economy because people will spend this money. They need it for the necessities that are confronting their families right now. Last week, Donald Trump used these people as political pawns. He stalled signing the coronavirus relief package, claiming that he wanted to give $2,000 checks to every American. By delaying, President Trump may have stiffed unemployed Americans out of $300 this week in unemployment benefits--benefits that they will not get back. So let's now hold Donald Trump to his word. Let's bring this to a vote, and let's pass $2,000 relief checks for every person in our country and put that bill on Donald Trump's desk. This pandemic has laid bare the tragedy of two Americas--one in which billionaires have grown their wealth by $931 billion over the course of this pandemic, an America where the rich continue to get richer, and the other America that has seen unprecedented economic uncertainty, Great Depression-level unemployment rates, and devastating losses. It is one in which Blacks and LatinX workers suffer disproportionately higher rates of unemployment and their families suffer higher rates of coronavirus infection and death; where workers get laid off while CEOs get raises and companies engage in stock buyback plans; and where residents get evicted or their electricity shut off but major corporations barely pay taxes. For those workers and families and struggling households in America-- for the very vast majority of America--$2,000 is a lifeline, and it is time for Leader McConnell to bring this legislation to the floor for a vote. The American people have a right to know where every Member of the Senate stands on this issue. They now know where President Trump says he stands, and they now know where every Member of the U.S. House of Representatives stands. The American people have a right to know, in this desperate time that we are living through, who was on their side to give their families the help they needed. Senator Sanders is right. We should have a vote--it should be yes or no--and we should do this before the end of this year. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to honor my good friend and my colleague Senator Cory Gardner. Cory and I were friends in the House of Representatives. Our friendship deepened in the Senate, especially after he took the reins as chair and I as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on East Asia of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the 115th Congress. We were unlikely partners in a lot of ways. He is a conservative Republican and I am a liberal Democrat. I know that Tom Brady is the best quarterback ever. He just might say that it is John Elway. But like me, Cory is a pragmatist, and we did find common ground. In fact, we were a two-man legislative wrecking crew, with several credits to our names. Gardner-Markey collaborated on such hits as the Asia Reassurance Initiative Act, ARIA, sweeping Asia-focused legislation to reorient our Indo-Pacific strategy around alliances, common values, and mutual security; the Cambodia Democracy Act, to stand up for civil society the rights of a political opposition; the Taiwan International Participation Act of 2018, to signal both our commitment to the island nation and our displeasure with China's efforts to shut it out of international organizations; and the Leverage to Enhance Effective Diplomacy Act, to build the conditions for a future North Korea that no longer threatens its neighbors and the world with nuclear weapons. With Cory as chair and myself as ranking member, we convened hearings, drafted broad legislation, hosted foreign leaders. As the foreign policy gravitational pull rightly moved to the Indo-Pacific in recent years, Cory brought the top policymakers, human rights defenders, and government witnesses to the fourth floor of the Dirksen Senate Office Building--not exactly the Diplomatic Room of the White House. In the 115th Congress, we held 11 hearings. It was a constant beat of meetings and hearings that Cory would be leading. I was always honored to be partnered with him in organizing those efforts. Cory grew up on a farm, so it is no wonder that he is a workhorse. Each time he gaveled in a hearing, he was professional, prepared, good- humored. And he, on more than a few occasions, allowed particularly verbose Senators to blow past their allotted time. Nowhere did I enjoy our work together more than in the drafting and the ultimate passage of the landmark Asia Reassurance Initiative Act. Our bill, which is now the law of the land, adopts a long-term U.S. strategy for the most consequential region in the world, the Indo- Pacific. It was a credit to our foreign policy staffs--led by Igor in Cory's staff and Zack in mine--that we were able to get it past the finish line. A fully resourced ARIA will ensure that the United States will remain a Pacific power. Investments through ARIA offer a critical counterweight to China by helping our partners in the region build defenses and defend democracy and the rule of law. But Cory understood passage of a law alone does not equate to the implementation of policy. When ARIA was signed into law, he and I convened a series of hearings to ensure the Departments of Defense and State and the USAID were putting resources to the challenge. The Asia-Pacific is home to 60 percent of the world's population. This fact and the wide geographic scope of the region means that we need to respond nimbly to the latest international crisis of the day. When North Korea policy vacillated between ``fire and fury'' and detente, he used the subcommittee to provide critical oversight. When China and Hong Kong authorities turned to batons and tear gas in a futile attempt to end democratic protests, he hosted one of the architects of the student-powered Umbrella Movement, Nathan Law. When just this past year, some wished to shake down our Japanese and South Korean allies, we partnered on two resolutions, which reaffirmed our ironclad relationships to both allies. In his farewell address, Cory said that the pillars of the Senate Chamber are principles shared by all Americans. They are immutable. Cory, it was a pleasure to work with you these past years to also strengthen the pillars of U.S. foreign policy, standing up for human rights, our allies, and the rule of law around the world. I hope that this son of Yuma, CO, is not finished with public service yet. I am grateful for what we accomplished together on the Asia Subcommittee and even more grateful for our friendship. My best to Jaime and your wonderful family and to you, my friend. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MARKEY

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

Mr. MARKEY

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to serve as an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. This is no ordinary nomination, and it comes at no ordinary time in the life of our Nation. We are in the midst of a global pandemic that has already claimed more than 225,000 American lives. We are a mere 8 days away from a Presidential election. Donald Trump announced his nomination of Judge Barrett even before we could fully mourn the death of the great Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Senate Republicans then rushed this nomination to the Supreme Court. In doing so, they violated the rule that their leader, Mitch McConnell, imposed in 2016, which kept Merrick Garland off the Supreme Court after President Obama nominated him in February of that year to fill the vacancy that arose with the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. That rule was clear. That rule was concise. That rule was definitive: The Senate would not consider a nomination to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court during a Presidential election year. Many of my Republican colleagues echoed Leader McConnell's pledge. In fact, my colleague, Senator Lindsey Graham, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, admonished us to use his own words against him if he went back on his promise: ``If there is a Republican President in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of that term, you can say that Lindsey Graham said, let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.'' But the majority has ignored the McConnell rule and broken their promises to follow it as they engage in the outright theft of yet another seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. You can't spell ``shameful'' without ``sham,'' and that is what Senate Republicans have turned this Supreme Court nomination process into--a sham. What else is unprecedented about the circumstances surrounding the Barrett nomination? Well, in Donald Trump, who made the Barrett nomination, we have a President who has repeatedly refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power, should he lose the upcoming election. In Donald Trump, we have a President who has openly stated that he needs Judge Barrett on the Supreme Court to cast a crucial vote if cases arising out of a disputed election reach the Court, like Bush v. Gore did after the 2000 Presidential election. In Donald Trump, we have a President who has vowed to appoint to the Supreme Court a Justice who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and take away a woman's reproductive rights and freedom. Even before he was elected in 2016, he pledged: ``I will appoint judges that will be pro- life, yes.'' In Donald Trump, we have a President who has expressly promised that he would only nominate a Justice who would vote to get rid of the Affordable Care Act--ObamaCare--and coverage for preexisting conditions, and President Trump made that another bright-line litmus test for this nomination. In Donald Trump, we have a President who has told us that he needs Judge Barrett on the Bench to rule in the Affordable Care Act case the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on November 10, 1 week after the election--a case that will decide the fate of that law and the availability of health insurance for millions of Americans suffering during a pandemic and well afterward. If Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Court and votes the way Republicans expect, nearly 3 million people in Massachusetts with preexisting conditions could face higher costs, fewer benefits, and could have trouble finding insurance coverage. Massachusetts was the model for the Affordable Care Act, but if Donald Trump and his Supreme Court nominee have their way, more than 335,000 Bay Staters enrolled through the Medicaid expansion could lose their coverage. As we experience the highest number of 1-day coronavirus deaths since the spring, we have a Republican-led Senate that has been unwilling and unable to work with their party's own President to craft desperately needed legislation that would provide relief to the hundreds of millions of Americans who are suffering during this pandemic--Americans who are out of work through no fault of their own; Americans whose small businesses, the engine of our economy, are struggling or going under; Americans who can't get the medicines, the testing, the protective equipment, or the medical care they need; Americans who right now are lacking access to online learning and the promise of an education. For weeks and weeks, Senate Republicans would not lift a finger to help our workers and our families during this crisis. They would rather our States and our cities go bankrupt; that our students go without Wi- Fi--Black, Brown, and poor children in our country go without the internet at home and without the funding to provide it to those kids. Right now, at the height of the pandemic, there are going to be millions of children who do not have access to the tools they need to be in the third grade, to be in the fifth grade. And even today our nurses go without the masks they need. Yet, when it comes to filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court and confirming a far-right Justice, these same Republicans made the Senate move with speed that would make Usain Bolt jealous. Jamming through this nomination in this fashion is unprecedented. It renders this process and this nomination illegitimate, period. If Judge Barrett is confirmed, it will only serve to further erode the stature and the legitimacy of the Supreme Court in the eyes of the American people. Now, everything to which I have just pointed--the pandemic, the election, the corruption--is just the place settings. It is the table onto which Donald Trump has served up the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett. Judge Barrett is a proud originalist and textualist in the mold of her mentor, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the staunchest and most arch-conservatives ever to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. As Judge Barrett put it at her own confirmation hearing, ``Justice Scalia's judicial philosophy is mine, too.'' As Judge Barrett describes so-called originalism, it means she is supposed to interpret the Constitution's text and understand it to have the meaning it had when the Constitution was ratified, but interpreting the Constitution in that manner has been used over and over to deny rights to women, to communities of color, and to LGBTQ individuals-- members of our society who had no rights when the Constitution was ratified. Originalism is racist. Originalism is sexist. Originalism is homophobic. For originalists like Judge Barrett, ``LGBT'' stands for ``let's go back in time''--a time when you couldn't marry whom you love; a time when you couldn't serve in the military if you were trans; a time when rights were not extended to gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, or intersex individuals. ``Originalism'' is just a fancy word for ``discrimination.'' It has become a hazy smokescreen for judicial activism by so-called conservatives to achieve from the bench what they cannot accomplish through the ballot box and an elected Congress. As a result, they roll back individual rights through judicial decisions The activist originalist Justices on the Supreme Court and lawyers in its legal community are poised to repeal the Affordable Care Act, deny reproductive freedom, and repeal same-sex marriage. They will welcome a Justice Barrett and a 6-to-3 conservative majority with open arms. We know a lot about Judge Barrett's judicial philosophy of originalism. What about her application of it and her views? Well, in early 2017, 4 months before Donald Trump nominated her to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, she wrote a law review article in which she criticized Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion in NFIB v. Sebelius, which upheld the Affordable Care Act. She made clear she didn't think much of Justice Roberts' opinion, arguing that he ``pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.'' We know from another law review article that Judge Barrett, like many originalists, does not give precedent the respect that it deserves. In 2013, she wrote that because a Justice's duty is to the Constitution, there is ``more legitimacy in enforcing her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she thinks clearly is in conflict with it.'' In other words, she believes that her own interpretation of the Constitution is more important and more legitimate than precedent such as Roe v. Wade. We know from her dissenting opinion in Kanter v. Barr that she believes a felony conviction shouldn't necessarily result in losing the right to own a gun, but she is OK with felony convictions taking away the right to vote. She would make it easier for a felon to own a gun than to vote. That is the kind of result that Judge Barrett's originalism gets us into. So, on many of these issues, Amy Coney Barrett has shown us that she couldn't be further in spirit from Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the late, great Justice whose seat on the Nation's highest Court she will fill. While Justice Ginsburg always had us looking forward, Amy Coney Barrett and her originalism will always have us looking backwards--and backwards is precisely the direction in which this Nation should not be going. What we know from Amy Coney Barrett's own words is very troubling. Yet then, at her confirmation hearing, we learned that there are many basic, fundamental legal issues on which she would not say a word and she would keep her views hidden. At her confirmation hearing, Judge Barrett declined to answer questions about such important propositions as whether it is unlawful to engage in voter intimidation--spoiler alert: it is; questions about whether the President can delay a Presidential election--news flash: he can't; questions about whether Presidents should commit to a peaceful transition of power--listen up: they should; questions about whether Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark Supreme Court decision recognizing the right to gay marriage and making marriage equality the law of the land was correctly decided--no doubt about it, it was; questions about whether the nondiscrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act protect LGBTQ people from discriminatory treatment in healthcare--of course they do; questions about whether Roe v. Wade was correctly decided and is a superprecedent--it was and it is; questions about whether Medicare is constitutional--of course it is; questions about whether climate change is real and whether human beings cause it--it is and we do. On these and so many important issues and questions, Judge Barrett refused to give the obvious and indisputably correct answers, but based on her judicial philosophy, her writings, and her record, I have little doubt where she really stands, and that is in the same corner with rightwing, reactionary jurists who are far outside the mainstream of American jurisprudence. Finally, there is another question that Judge Barrett would not answer: whether, if confirmed, she will recuse herself from the Affordable Care Act case and any election cases that reach the Supreme Court. There is a Federal statute that governs the recusal decision. It requires recusal in situations where a judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. President Trump himself put Judge Barrett's impartiality at issue when he confessed that he needed Judge Barrett on the Supreme Court to decide any election disputes. He did it when he said he would only appoint a Justice who would help to overturn the healthcare law. After reviewing Judge Barrett's record and listening to her testimony before the Judiciary Committee, it is becoming clear that we have a binary choice: We can have the Affordable Care Act, or we can have Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court. We can have the ACA, or we can have ACB, but we can't have both. Judge Barrett needs to do the right thing and recuse herself. I will conclude by noting the irony that Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Mitch McConnell were both on the same page as to this nomination. In 2016, Senator McConnell gave us his promise that the Senate would not fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court in a Presidential election year. After she passed, we learned that it was Justice Ginsburg's dying wish that she not be replaced until a new President is installed. So let's hold Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham to their words and honor Justice Ginsburg's fervent wish: no confirmation before inauguration. But if Republicans succeed here today in their effort to confirm yet another conservative Supreme Court Justice just days before the Presidential election, as soon as the Democrats take back control of the Senate in January, we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court. We cannot allow such corrupt partisanship to take precedence over justice and liberty in our country. I will vote against the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court and urge my colleagues--all of my colleagues--to do the same I yield back.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of the first responders in our country. Every day, brave women and men on the frontlines of the COVID-19 pandemic rely on T-Band, a spectrum that makes it possible for them to communicate with each other. T-Band is the radio frequency that is set aside for these public safety officials so that they can talk to each other to keep all of us safe, all of us healthy. In 11 metropolitan areas, the T-Band system enables our courageous public safety personnel to work quickly and effectively during life-and-death situations. T-Band allows emergency medical service teams to relay important information about patients' conditions. T-Band permits 9-1-1 dispatchers to send first responders to emergency scenes. Firefighters use T-Band to quickly coordinate strategy. After the Boston bombing, after the marathon bombing, first responders used T-Band to communicate with each other during the ensuing manhunt. This resource is nothing short of a lifesaver. T-Band really stands for ``trusted band.'' It is the resource public safety can rely upon. Unfortunately, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 required the Federal Communications Commission to begin to auction off the T-Band, the trusted band, by February of 2021, but it would cost between $5 billion and $6 billion for first responders--police and fire--to relocate from the T-Band. That is much more money than an auction of that spectrum would ever generate. Plus, for many first responders, there is simply no alternative to the T-Band; this is their only option. That is why this body must pass the Don't Break Up the T-Band Act, which repeals the requirement that public safety stop using this spectrum. The heroes who jump into action when we need them shouldn't have to scramble to figure out how they will communicate with each other. They shouldn't be left in limbo. My legislation has support from an inspiring coalition of advocates and public safety groups. The International Association of Fire Chiefs, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, the National League of Cities, the United States Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials, the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council, and many others are demanding that we preserve the T-Band. These groups and the people they represent are not asking for a favor; they are just asking to be allowed to do their jobs effectively. I thank Leader Schumer for his partnership on this issue and his longstanding commitment to the public safety community. I also want to thank Ranking Member Cantwell and Ranking Member Schatz for their work and dedication to this effort. But don't just take our word for it. Listen to what the current Republican chairman of the Federal Communications Commission recently said about T-Band. Earlier this year, Chairman Ajit Pai stated: ``An FCC auction of the T-Band is a bad idea.'' This is not a partisan issue. It is a public safety imperative. There is no cost associated with stopping the T-Band auction, and Congress must ensure that the people who step up to keep us safe are taken care of. If we fail to act, the FCC will have no choice but to move forward and strip this resource from our first responders. To allow that to happen during a public health crisis like the one we face today would be reckless. First responders already face enormous strain economically and enormous pressure to address the pandemic, as well as deadly natural disasters across the country. The last thing we should be doing is saddling them with millions or billions of dollars in costs to needlessly alter their critical communications system. Congress can no longer drag its feet. We have run out of time. The FCC has called on this body to stop the T-Band auction, but the Commission has no choice but to start laying the groundwork to auction the T-Band. We can and we must resolve this problem today. Today is the day to do it. Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 451 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I just think that we are missing an enormous opportunity here. It is a shame the Senate is not acting with the urgency it needs in order to help our brave men and women who are first responders in our country. We can work on issues of spectrum going to the private sector. We can do that in a separate bill, and we can do it together. But, here, we have an opportunity to help our first responders, the brave men and women who every day risk their lives, and we have to make sure they have the spectrum they need to communicate. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to address the Senate for 10 minutes.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, we are fast approaching nearly 200,000 deaths from the coronavirus. But the moral and physical injury done to our country during the pandemic will never be contained in just one number. As that number continues to climb, so too do the frustration and the pain and the outrage of the American people. We know that Donald Trump recognized the threat of the coronavirus and deliberately downplayed it for his own political gain. He is in large part responsible for these deaths. We now have 31 million workers who have either received or applied for unemployment benefits. Since March 15, Massachusetts alone has seen more than 2 million claims to our unemployment programs. In Massachusetts, we have the highest unemployment rate in the United States. Families across the country are facing devastating choices. Cities and towns are struggling to keep programs running and employees at work. We know the Republicans recognize these threats, and they are choosing to ignore them. They are, in part, responsible for the suffering. After 4 months of callous calculations, when they chose to respond, the Republicans put out on the floor a coronavirus package that was insulting to Americans who have been awaiting relief. The extent of the misery facing our families is unimaginable. Yet Republicans and Leader McConnell responded by designing a bill so intentionally weak and insufficient that it was destined to fail. It is all just a game to the Republican Party, but for Americans, this economic and public health crisis is a matter of life and death. We need a robust, comprehensive response right now that matches the scale of this crisis, and we have an opportunity to deliver some real justice to working Americans and their families. First, we need to give Americans a monthly cash payment of $2,000 so that they have the funding to able to pay their bills. A single check is not sufficient for households. Families need more than just one payment. Providing recurring monthly payments is the most direct and efficient mechanism for delivering economic relief to those most vulnerable, for lower income families, immigrant families, and our gig and service workers. I see these families suffering today. They are the same kinds of working families I grew up with in Malden. I know that $2,000 each month would mean the world to them--so that they can sleep at night; they can pay the rent; they can pay the electricity bill; they can buy the medications they need. A monthly payment is the kind of big policy that provides relief on the scale that is needed. Our government needs to tell our families: We are here for you. We will not let you down during this crisis. Second, we need at least $4 billion for my E-rate Program to connect every student to the internet at home. The pandemic has shown a bright light on the homework gap being experienced by the 16 million students in this country who do not have internet access at home and are unable to complete their homework. This is unconscionable and a threat to our country's future. We cannot allow this homework gap to become a larger learning gap, which ultimately is going to become an opportunity gap for these young people. Research shows that the homework gap affects students in both rural and urban areas and disproportionately affects lower income students and students of color. Trump and the Republicans are blocking this investment in education, but we can't let them. We will not leave these students behind. Third, we need to extend unemployment insurance, the weekly $600 benefit, through January of 2021. This is not just a line in the budget; it is a lifeline for workers who cannot go to work through no fault of their own. This crisis will be solved only by investing in workers. We cannot simply cut them off when we know harder days lie ahead for those workers in our country Fourth, we must continue a national evictions moratorium and provide $100 billion in emergency rental assistance. No one should have to suffer the indignity of being escorted out of their home by the police. A country that allows evictions during a pandemic--because of a pandemic--has failed its people. The same goes for electricity and energy shutoffs. We need a national moratorium that keeps the lights on, ensures drinking water, ensures that wastewater services aren't disconnected or interrupted during the emergency period due to nonpayment. We cannot cast families into the dark as they are struggling to stay afloat. It is wrong to allow a pandemic that has not been created by these families to result in catastrophic conditions that will look like the Great Depression in terms of their impact on families in the same way that it impacted my family during the Great Depression. We owe these people more. They have worked hard. They have worked constantly throughout their lives. Now, through no fault of their own, the pandemic has hit them, and they are unemployed. Finally, we need $1 trillion in funding for State and local governments so that our teachers, nurses, postal workers, and other dedicated public servants are not laid off--the essential workers who drive the buses, pick up the garbage, fight the deadliest of fires, educate our young people. Despite providing the services we rely upon every day--including every single one of us in this Chamber--our municipalities are aren't getting any money because Republicans refuse to provide it. State and local governments have been pushed to the brink to support their residents and are in desperate need of relief. To my Republican colleagues I say that this funding isn't blue or red; it is green. And all of our mayors and Governors and city councilors--whether Republican or Democrat--need that money right now. I have been traveling around my home State of Massachusetts talking to families. They tell me the same thing: They want a livable future for their children. That means they need the government to do its job effectively in managing this COVID-19 pandemic. Instead of making excuses, they need a government that works on solutions, even if the problems are unprecedented, and they want that government to recognize the rights and dignity of everyone. Our families want something so basic and so simple, they almost shouldn't have to say it: They want their children to dream about the future instead of fearing about the future. They need political leadership from us right now--not political games, not the political calculation of just 20 Members of the Senate Republican caucus. To my colleagues I say that the gravity of this crisis requires us to respond right now. We know we have a President in the White House who is irresponsible. The President knew. It turns out he knew the virus was deadly. He knew it as well as we knew it, but he lied to us. He told us it would magically disappear. He said it was no worse than the flu while on tape we hear him say that it is lethal. On February 10, he said: You know, a lot of people think it goes away in April with the heat, when the heat comes in. That is what the President said in February about the coronavirus. He also tells us that climate change is a myth. He tells us that our planet is not in grave danger. He makes fun of the science of climate change the way he makes fun of wearing a mask. Now the ``Denier in Chief'' says when it gets cooler it will go away, that the fires in the west coast will just go away. His answer to coronavirus is that when it gets warmer, it will go away. When he deals with the science of climate change, he says: When it gets cooler, the fires will go away. The west coast of the United States is on fire, and 10 percent of Oregon is under evacuation order. A warning--that is half a million people. We have dozens of wildfires burning right now in California, including the largest in the history of that State. It has blotted out the sun for hundreds and hundreds of miles. The Southwest is shrouded in a horrifying, constant twilight. We can keep looking at these things in isolation, as if somehow or other they are not connected. Each fiery conflagration, each hurricane, each devastating flood, each ungodly windstorm that wipes out a whole year of crops--we can say they have nothing to do with each other or we can look at the truth and listen to the science and say enough is enough. We can lie to ourselves and say, as Trump does, that one day these things will just ``magically disappear,'' depending upon whether the heat or cooling will solve the problem. But we all know better. We know that unless we act now, the fires will happen annually and burn hotter and larger each summer, each fall in our country. We know that the hurricanes will get worse and more frequent. Two made landfall at once this year. We know that they will disrupt and destroy the economies of the gulf and the eastern seaboard. How many times can we ask our people to rebuild? We know that midwestern floods will grow each year, drowning out a whole way of life and making refugees of our farmers. We know that the windstorms like those this year will continue to destroy crops. Iowa lost 43 percent of its corn and soybeans this year.

Mr. MARKEY. No, it will not magically disappear. We need a Green New Deal. We need a solution that matches the magnitude of the problem. I yield back to the Presiding Officer. I appreciate his indulgence.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I am proud to speak in support of my amendment with Senator Sanders to prioritize investments in our communities over a bloated Pentagon budget. I thank Senator Sanders for his leadership on this issue, bringing forth this fundamental tension that exists within our society. The men and women of the Armed Forces deserve our admiration, our respect, and our support. Day in and day out, they defend our country's interests in all corners of the world, and their families sacrifice alongside them. But what makes America the envy of the world is not simply the strength of our military but the strength of our people. And 2020 has brought historic challenges: a global pandemic, a growing recession, a reckoning on the systemic racism that pervades our country. We have also seen an estimated 5.4 million American workers lose their health insurance between February and May, leaving them even more vulnerable to a virus surging in every corner of this country. The Sanders-Markey amendment states that we cannot afford, in this, our moment of national crisis, to spend three-quarters of a trillion dollars on bloated defense spending--spending that is supposed to protect or country yet did nothing to inoculate against the most profound public health emergency in a century. This amendment is also in keeping with President Eisenhower's warning, as Senator Sanders said, that ``we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.'' Persist it has. This $740 billion fiscal year 2021 budget before us is the fulfillment of Ike's worst fears. In his address to the American people, President Eisenhower also predicted that a permanent arms industry would come to call the shots. After Japan surrendered aboard the USS Missouri in 1945, ending the Second World War, that permanent arms industry made its fixture. After we emerged victorious in a historic and ideological struggle against the Soviet Union that brought us to the brink of nuclear holocaust, Eisenhower's feared permanent arms industry stuck around and retooled to advocate for new weapons to fight the endless war to come. The catastrophic attacks of September 11 led to more than a doubling of the Pentagon's budget. Multiple Presidents have stretched a limited authorization of military force to go after those responsible for the 9/11 attacks--to fight new enemies in new geographies, outside of Afghanistan. All told, so far, we have spent $6.4 trillion in the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and other places since 2001. Even as those wars wind down, the defense industry is pushing for costly new acquisition programs to maintain superiority over China and Russia. The forecasted ``permanent arms industry'' begins to explain why the Pentagon accounts for half of the entire fiscal year 2021 U.S. discretionary budget. Our military budget is larger than the next 10 countries combined. Our battle fleet is larger than the next 13 navies combined, with 11 of those 13 navies represented by our allies or our partners. However, every dollar spent on the Pentagon is one fewer available to fight the scourge of poverty in this country, to strengthen the social safety net and protect American families. Our communities have suffered while we spend ourselves into extreme U.S. military dominance. I fear that the Pentagon budget we debate today shows to a child that we don't prioritize giving him or her a quality education; shows mothers and fathers that, in the wealthiest country in the world, they will forever remain one illness away from financial ruin; shows a family that the dream of homeownership, much less affordable rental housing, will remain out of their grasp; shows frontline heroes working in hospitals and nursing homes in Chelsea, MA, and across the country that they have no choice but to go work sick because their employer does not offer paid leave. I reject the false choice between a strong U.S. military and strong American communities. Trillions of dollars in defense spending did nothing to protect us from the coronavirus pandemic. The defense spending can't protect us from the destruction of the environment and the worsening climate crisis. Yet we are due to spend nearly 70 times more on defense than we will to protect against the next pandemic and other global health challenges. We must no longer equate national security with our inventory of planes, missiles, and nuclear weapons system, and if coronavirus is truly a war, as President Trump says it is, he is duty-bound to embrace the fact that national security also means health, housing, and financial security, and national security means doing everything we can to save and improve lives in American communities, particularly communities of color, that have been neglected for too long and that have born the worst of the coronavirus impacts. Our amendment begins that important work by making smart cuts of 10 percent to the budget of the Pentagon for this fiscal year and redirecting those funds to the Department of the Treasury to administer a grant program to strengthen vulnerable, low-income communities. For example, in Massachusetts, we would be eligible to receive up to $1 billion in Federal funding to create jobs by building affordable housing, schools, childcare facilities, community health centers, public hospitals, libraries, and clean drinking water facilities, removing lead pipes and replacing vacant or blighted properties; to improve education by hiring more public school teachers to reduce class sizes, increasing teacher pay, providing universal nutritious meals, and providing free tuition to attend public colleges, universities, or trade schools; and to make housing more affordable by providing rental assistance and eliminating homelessness. We should prioritize eradicating poverty, not war. We should prioritize battling global killer diseases, not developing a new weapon designed to eradicate the human race. It is time we funded education, not annihilation--Medicaid, not missiles. Where do we start to make Defense Department cuts? First, we must end the war in Afghanistan, which would save tens of billions of dollars. The time is long overdue to bring our men and women home. And it is time to double down on other tools of U.S. statecraft--diplomacy and development--to shape a better future for Afghanistan, particularly Afghan women. As we work to put a stop to endless war and repeal the 2001 AUMF, the Pentagon must realign its budget to reflect the cold, hard wisdom of Ronald Reagan that ``a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.'' Between the Departments of Defense and Energy, we are due to spend nearly $50 billion on nuclear weapons in fiscal year 2021. Over the next three decades, we are on course to spend $1.7 trillion on nuclear weapons overkill. We can field a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent--one that assures our allies and partners--all without breaking the bank. Our people, not our military parades, are the source of American greatness. Over the past few months, this country has experienced a reckoning, as Americans from all walks of life have had enough. They have had enough of being lied to by the President about the true threat of a deadly disease. They have had enough of people of color being murdered in cold blood by the very police forces meant to serve and protect them. And they have had enough of being told there just isn't enough money to support the well-being of their communities, while they can see billions in taxpayers' dollars going to unnecessary wars and nuclear weapons programs and to benefit the President's friends and family. The choice today is very clear. We are ready to take the smallest step, a 10-percent cut, to begin to address the gap in resources in this country. This is the time for us to stand up. We are about to have a debate on how much money we have to help families in this country through this pandemic. We are being told that money is not there for unemployment insurance; for cities and towns not to have to lay off teachers; for cities and towns to have the testing, the contact tracing, and the personal protective equipment to protect families in our country; to make sure we can provide sick care leave; and to make sure we can provide childcare for families in this country. We are told there is not enough money. Yes, there is, and that money is in the defense budget of the United States of America, so that we can protect those families. Too many people right now are nostalgic for a time that never was, instead of having the idealism which we need to battle the issues of today. But for the poor, the sick, the elderly, the disabled, the Black and Brown and immigrant families in this country, the past is just a memory and the future is their hard reality. This is the time for the U.S. Senate to stand up and to begin the funding of the programs which every family needs to protect themselves. I urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment, and, again, I thank Senator Sanders for his incredible progressive leadership on this issue and for so many others. I yield back. Vote on Amendment No. 1788

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of S. 4019, the Juneteenth National Independence Day Act--legislation that I have introduced along with Senator Cornyn. We have 54 cosponsors and broad bipartisan support that would make Juneteenth a Federal holiday. In a few minutes, I will ask unanimous consent that the Senate take up and pass this important bill. Our country is in the midst of a long overdue reckoning on race and justice. The murder of George Floyd by members of the Minneapolis Police Department has galvanized the Nation as protesters have taken to our streets, demanding justice--justice for George Floyd, justice for Breonna Taylor, and justice for countless other Black and Brown Americans who have been hurt or killed at the hands of law enforcement. Yet this reckoning goes well beyond seeking accountability for police officers who betray the trust we bestow upon them. The disparate treatment and mistreatment of Black and Brown Americans permeates our society. It infects our courts, our schools, and our places of work. It reflects the unfulfilled promise of a nation built upon the notion that all are created equal, and it has its roots in our Nation's original sin--slavery--a crime against humanity that we have for far too long failed to acknowledge, address, or come to grips with. One way to further the process of racial reconciliation and healing is to recognize, honor, and celebrate the formal end of slavery in the United States and to do so at the Federal level. Perhaps the most effective, direct, and far-reaching way to do that is with a Federal holiday commemorating that historic event. For more than 150 years, the Juneteenth holiday, which marks the emancipation of slaves, has been observed one way or the other across our Nation, including in Texas, but it is long past time to place Juneteenth on par with other Federal holidays so that all Americans in all 50 States will celebrate Juneteenth alongside Veterans Day, Memorial Day, Martin Luther King Day, and other Federal holidays. The celebration of Juneteenth dates back to June 19, 1865, when Union soldiers, led by MG Gordon Granger, traveled to Galveston, TX, with the announcement that the Civil War had ended and that the enslaved were now free. This was 2\1/2\ years after the date of President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, but either the news of Lincoln's order had not reached many, including those in Texas, or local officials had refused to enforce it. On June 19, 1865, Major General Granger read to the people of Texas General Order No. 3, the first lines of which told them clearly and unequivocally: ``The people of Texas are informed that, in accordance with a Proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all slaves are free.'' Juneteenth celebrations followed as did the recognition of Juneteenth as the formal end of slavery in the United States. Since 1865, communities all across the Nation have celebrated Juneteenth with parades, cookouts, prayer gatherings, historical and cultural readings, musical performances, and many other celebrations. These events have provided many with the opportunity for reflection, education, and a deeper understanding of our history as a nation--the whole history--and how it has affected and shaped the lives of Black Americans. Nearly every State and the District of Columbia have passed legislation recognizing Juneteenth as a holiday or observance, and the Senate has passed a resolution designating June 19 as Juneteenth Independence Day, but Juneteenth has never received the higher status it deserves as a Federal holiday. The Juneteenth National Independence Day Act rights this wrong and makes Juneteenth a Federal holiday. We still must travel a long and difficult road to justice and equality in the United States, but we cannot get there without recognizing the original sin of slavery and marking its end. It is incumbent upon all Americans to truthfully acknowledge and understand our past and how it affects our present and our future. Making Juneteenth a Federal holiday will not right all of the wrongs of the past or fix what remains broken, but it is an important step. It is the truth of our history and the missing half of the story of our Nation's freedom and independence. It is long past time to recognize Juneteenth as a Federal holiday. Let me stop there and recognize my partner in this effort, the senior Senator from Texas

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the Senator from Texas. This is a thoroughly bipartisan effort, and it is long overdue. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration and that the Senate now proceed to S. 4019; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, reserving the right to object, the Senator's proposal--rather than allowing this unanimous consent request to go through, the Senator proposes to hold it hostage to taking away the leave benefits that come with paid holidays for American workers. That is something we have never done before, and with good reason. We shouldn't be penalizing our workers by taking away benefits, especially not in the current environment and especially not as the price to pay for recognizing a long overdue Federal holiday. I object.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, due to a clerical error, the junior Senator from California, Ms. Harris, was not added as an original cosponsor of S. Res. 602, a resolution that we introduced together on June 2, 2020, recognizing that the murder of George Floyd by officers of the Minneapolis Police Department is the result of pervasive and systemic racism that cannot be dismantled without, among other things, proper redress in the courts. Senator Harris understands that law enforcement should not be completely shielded from accountability when they violate someone's civil rights, and that the Supreme Court's qualified immunity doctrine is broken. I thank her for her support in leading the effort to abolish qualified immunity for law enforcement officers in its current form.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I want to start my remarks by saying to the people of Massachusetts and families all across the country: Many of you are making big sacrifices--quarantining yourselves, postponing or canceling major events, dealing with closed schools and daycare. We are grateful. Right now, our primary goal needs to be to slow the spread of this virus, and we all share in that responsibility. So we thank you for everything you are doing to keep your loved ones and everyone else's loved ones safe at this time. We are at war with the coronavirus, and we need a massive wartime manufacturing mobilization for coronavirus testing kits and personal protective equipment for medical personnel and emergency responders. That is why, last weekend, I was the first to call on President Trump to immediately use existing authorities under the Defense Production Act to bring all of the power of the Federal Government to bear in mobilizing industry to meet this crisis. It is why I authored the Senate resolution calling on him to do so. It is why I spoke directly to Vice President Pence yesterday to urge the administration to take this critical action, and I am glad they are doing so. The Defense Production Act allows the Federal Government to direct supplies of critical materials and equipment that our hospitals and first responders need. It allows us to mobilize industry to expand production and gives us the power to coordinate industry to respond to this crisis. We need to fully use all of those powers that are provided under this law. That is why I am so glad President Trump has today invoked the power of the Defense Production Act to respond to the coronavirus crisis. I am glad he is exercising it. I am glad that after my conversation yesterday with Vice President Pence, they decided to put this on the agenda for our country. We need to massively increase private production of the lifesaving personal protective equipment, medical supplies and devices, and diagnostic testing supplies we need to combat this viral enemy. We need to activate our capable and talented domestic industry and bring the full weight of the Federal Government behind this effort. We are talking about gowns, gloves, face shields, surgical masks, N95 respirators, ventilators, disinfectant wipes, and hand sanitizers. We do not have nearly enough of this lifesaving equipment. For instance, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimates that the United States could need up to 3.5 billion respirator masks. Let me say that again. Our own Department of Health and Human Services says that we could need upwards of 3.5 billion respirator masks. But our strategic national stockpile, the country's emergency medical supply bank, holds only a tiny fraction of that, just 12 million respirator masks--not 3.5 billion but 12 million. The medical community calls this personal protective equipment ``PPE,'' but ``PPE'' also stands for a ``promise to protect everyone,'' and this is a promise we should make and keep for our hospital personnel, first responders, and patients. Invoking the powers of the Defense Production Act will help ensure that we can keep this promise to our American heroes who are on the frontlines of battling this epidemic. I have been in regular contact with the Massachusetts Health and Hospital Association and the Massachusetts Nurses Association, and both have issued a terrible alarm: There are insufficient medical equipment and supplies to test and treat affected individuals and protect healthcare workers and first responders. For example, the Berkshire hospital told me that they required 3,500 respirator masks a day. That is 35,000 in just 10 days for the Berkshire hospital, which is in the least populated part of our State--for just that one smaller hospital. Yet the entire State of Massachusetts recently received only 70,000 of these respirator masks. That is not nearly enough. We do not want our nurses and our doctors reusing or rationing masks. Additionally, hospitals and labs across the Nation are trying to ramp up testing capacity but face shortages in test kits and supplies. But we need to dramatically scale up testing and ensure our continued ability to test. Our Nation must be able to conduct tens or hundreds of thousands of tests daily, ultimately testing millions of people over the course of our response. That means producing swabs, which we are now running short of, and other testing materials. We have used the Defense Production Act before--during the Korean war--to mobilize defense infrastructure and during the Cold War. Make no mistake, we are facing an equally deadly enemy in this virus, and we need to bring all of our authority and resources to bear to defeat it. All of us owe a debt of gratitude to our frontline health and medical care workforce. They don't have a roadmap for what is happening right now. It is unprecedented. They just have skills, a commitment, and the hearts of heroes. We owe them the resources they need to be protected in order to do their jobs. Sadly, this pandemic is going to get worse before it gets better. I had been calling for the President to declare a national emergency, which he finally did last week. Now that he has done so, we need Massachusetts to get all of the funding that is due. I have been in regular contact with Governor Baker and Mayor Walsh, and I will support their requests for Federal resources. As the Senate works on an economic relief package that matches the scale of this crisis, we need to ensure that we put people and family first--no half measures, no hidden bailouts and giveaways just to big corporations: paid sick time for all workers; unemployment insurance for all workers, including for tipped workers, gig workers, contractors, home workers; expansion of SNAP, WIC, and other food security programs; no evictions, no cutting off of utilities, no cutting off of Wi-Fi; halting all deportations and releasing of detained immigrants who pose no threat to public safety; provide free Wi-Fi to low-income households with students who cannot afford it but are going to be at home because of school closures so that we don't have a huge homework gap that now explodes in our country, as poorer children don't have access to the Wi-Fi technology at home, so they can learn at the same pace that kids who just happen to live in wealthier families will have. We cannot allow that to happen. These kids should be able to learn at home, regardless of their income. We need free Wi- Fi for those kids. We have to reimburse our States and cities and Tribes. They are bearing the brunt of this crisis, and they need resources immediately. My commitment to protecting the health professionals, ensuring the consumers, workers, and families of Massachusetts get relief from the impacts of the coronavirus is my No. 1 priority. We have to protect the small businesses in our country. We have to make sure they receive the resources they need. Millions and millions of small businesses right now are feeling enormous stress. We have to make it possible for them to receive the relief they need, the help they need in order to survive, and we have to put upfront whatever the capacity is to make sure they get the resources they need. If that system in our country, where 48 percent of all workers are employed--small businesses in our country--and they are living on the margin, then we are going to have an economic catastrophe by August or September where millions of these small businesses will just declare bankruptcy. That is the bottom-line economic fact of the matter. We have to give them help, and we have to make sure we have the resources inside the Federal Government--the personnel--that will ensure we can deliver that relief too. To the people of Massachusetts, I want you to know I am here for you, and I will help any of you individually who need any assistance during this emergency. This current moment may call for distancing and isolation, but we cannot and should not sever our basic human connections to one another because we are all in this together. I want to end with the most important remark. We must continue to listen to the guidance of scientists and medical professionals. This pandemic is unprecedented and will require an unprecedented mobilization and response at every level of society. We can get through this, but it will require a commitment from every single one of us. We are one big family in the United States. Many families are going to be suffering. It is going to be our job to make sure that we protect those families, and it is the job of this institution to do so. We are the legislative first responders. We are the ones who have to provide the resources that then allow the first responders, the families in every community across our country to have the resources to help everyone in our society. That is our goal. A pandemic should know no partisanship. Let us come together and produce the big package our country right now so desperately needs. With that, I yield back.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I echo what the Senator from Illinois has said and what the Senator from Ohio has said. We have a national emergency. We should have already finished this phase of dealing with this crisis, for there are many more phases to deal with. As part of this debate, we should ensure that there is sick leave for every single worker in our country. That is not in this package that is coming through right now. We have to make sure everyone is covered. We need unemployment insurance, and we need to ensure that it extends to workers in the gig economy--tip workers, domestic workers, and contractors. We have to cover people so they stay home. We have to let them know that unemployment insurance is going to extend to them during this crisis. We cannot allow our inaction--our thinking through of what we have to do--to shut down any potential for this crisis' not growing to a level which we are seeing in other countries. We can do it, but it is the Senate that has to be here. It is the Senate that has to deliberate on these issues, find the solutions, and deliver them to the American people. They are desperate for answers right now. They are being told to go home right now. Waiters, bartenders, and contractors are being told to just go home. What is going to happen to them if they don't have sick time? What is going to happen to them if they don't have unemployment insurance? What are they going to be doing in terms of caring for their families? We should be here this week, taking care of the package that has already been agreed to and beginning the debate immediately on everything else we have to do. I will give you an example. Let's just take the hospitals of our country. For most of the major cities in America, a high percentage of the revenue for those hospitals comes from foreign patients who fly in from around the world and into our major cities. That revenue stream is going to be cut off for an indefinite period of time. Hospitals depend upon elective surgeries. That is going to be cut off for an indefinite period of time. That is the revenue flow that goes into hospitals that then allows them to take care of the poorer people in each and every one of our communities. If they don't have that revenue stream, it is going to place enormous pressure on them to lay off doctors, to lay off nurses, and to lay off other key personnel because the revenue stream will not be there. We are the ones who are going to have to provide the revenue stream. At this time, we cannot have a hospital system in crisis in our country. We should be here, deciding whether we are going to provide a fund of $100 billion or $200 billion or $300 billion to ensure our healthcare system stays robust at this time of all times in our history. We are heading into issue after issue that this Senate has to deal with. If we are here--if we are back--we should deal with it. We should deal with it this week. We should deal with it on the emergency basis that we are telling every family to with regard to this crisis, but every other family is dependent upon us to provide the answers for them and their families. So I agree with the Senators. This is something that requires our attention. We are here, and we are the answers for them. If we don't give them, then there will be no answers. We know that the first bill-- the $8 billion bill--was three times larger than the White House wanted, but we made sure that the extra funding was going into each and every one of our States. We know that this bill that was just negotiated with the Speaker and the President last week is just being held up by a Republican with regard to a procedural obstacle. That is why. We have to deal with this on a war footing. We are at war with an invisible enemy that is moving into every single city and town and into every single part of our economy as we speak right now. If we don't provide the defense for our families, then we are going to be looked at as being those who failed the American people. We should already have robust testing, but we don't. We should have the protective gear in the hands of every doctor and nurse all across our country, but our doctors and nurses are being told to reuse their masks--to reuse them. The Senator from Illinois was already talking about how hard it is to get that extra protective gear for his hospitals, and the same thing is true all across our country. We know there is a crisis. We know there is a shortage. We know there is a huge gap that exists between what we have and what we are going to need, but we don't have any more time. We didn't use the time in December. We didn't use it in January, and we didn't use it for most of February. There were warnings that were coming, but we now know it is real. We know it is in every community already and in every State already in our Nation. We should stay here, and we should do this work. We should make sure that our hospitals know for sure that they are going to have the help they need, especially the community hospitals because they are going to be very fragile--very, very fragile--in terms of the revenue stream going in while great expectations will be expected from them in terms of what they are going to do for their local communities. So let's stay. Let's debate this. Let's make sure that the frontline workers have the protective gear they need, have the testing equipment they need, and have the guarantee that their salaries are going to be paid and that they are going to be taken care of, because we are going to need them to be putting themselves in harm's way in our country for, potentially, months. This is the time for us to stand up and to stay here in order to get these issues resolved this week. We shouldn't do it next week. We should do it this week. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I just want to first say that I agree with everything the Senator from New Jersey just said, and I think it is important to heed his message, because as of this afternoon, we are officially facing a global pandemic. The coronavirus pandemic has spread to more than 100 countries around the world. The World Health Organization has declared it a pandemic. The economic repercussions have taken on a global dimension. This is also a virus that is impacting Americans on a very personal dimension. Massachusetts residents are worried about keeping their children, their families, and themselves safe. Day to day, even hour to hour, there is a lot of uncertainty during this public health emergency. Will I be able to work? Will I be able to get medical care? Will I be able to pay the mortgage or the rent? There is one thing I want my constituents to know for certain. I share your concern for your loved ones, and your safety is my top priority. We need our response to this emergency to match the seriousness of the crisis. I commend the Governors and mayors across this country who have stepped up and provided leadership to their constituents, including Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker, who has wisely and swiftly declared a state of emergency in Massachusetts, and our great mayor of Boston, Martin Walsh, who has led early on this issue to make sure that we deal with this crisis. We need that leadership more than ever because we are seeing a dangerous complete abdication of leadership from Donald Trump. His mismanagement of this crisis is unconscionable. It is immoral, and the harm it is causing the American people is an injustice. The Trump administration has let this crisis spin out of control. President Trump has repeatedly said the risk is low and minimized the implications of the disease, even saying that Americans are unlikely to die from an infection. But just today, Dr. Tony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Nation's leading expert on infectious diseases, explained that coronavirus is 10 times more lethal than the flu. The administration overruled health officials who wanted to recommend that the elderly and physically fragile Americans be advised not to fly. Trump has called efforts to draw attention to the real risk of coronavirus, the new Democrat-created ``hoax.'' Just today, it is being reported that the White House has ordered top officials to treat top- level coronavirus meetings as classified, further hampering information sharing in our response to this virus. We saw what a lack of transparency, misinformation, and denial did in China with the spread of this virus. We cannot allow that to happen in the United States of America. The bottom line: Families need clear, nonbiased, accurate, and reassuring information. They need it from public health officials. They need it from their elected leaders. There should be no partisanship in pandemics. The President and his administration have undermined science and our scientists. We have the best scientists in the world. We must put their expertise to work to solve this challenge. We have shown that we can do that. Congress came together and quickly passed $8.3 billion in emergency funding to respond to this crisis, but we can do much more. First, the President should immediately declare the coronavirus pandemic an emergency under the Stafford Act. That direction would allow FEMA to access over $42 billion in disaster relief funds and support States and communities directly as they deal with the spread of this virus. I am officially calling on President Trump to do that today: Declare this an emergency under the Stafford Act. Free up the FEMA money of $42 billion in disaster relief so that we can work on this issue right now, dealing with it in a way that reflects the seriousness of the threat. The President should act today. Second, we need widespread and free coronavirus testing and affordable treatment for all. Third, we need to increase the Federal Medicaid assistance percentage. This would increase the amount of Federal dollars that go into Medicaid, immediately pumping more resources into States to deal with this health crisis. We did this during the great recession as a way to assist States in providing medical care. We should do it again, and I will be introducing legislation to accomplish that. Fourth, we need to ensure paid sick leave for our workers. We need to pass Senator Patty Murray's legislation to provide an additional 14 days' sick leave immediately in the event of any public health emergency, including the current coronavirus crisis. Fifth, we need to enhance unemployment insurance and expand and support programs like SNAP and Women, Infants, and Children and school lunch and other initiatives to support food security. Banks should suspend payments on mortgages for those struggling with the economic impacts of this crisis, and we should provide rental assistance for those who need it. Sixth, we need to protect consumers, and that includes shielding them from scams and price gouging, which I called on Amazon to do. Amazon took action by removing bad actors from the site who were charging upwards of $400 for hand sanitizer. No one should be allowed to reap a windfall from fear and human suffering. We need to provide clear guidance on protections for frontline health workers and access to needed protective equipment. In a pandemic, our healthcare workers are heroes, but these heroes need help. We have to make sure they get the protective gear they need. The coronavirus is not the first and it will not be the last biothreat the United States faces. That is why I have introduced legislation that provides $1 billion for research into a universal coronavirus vaccine that prevents the next biothreat that would come in the form of a coronavirus. They morph into different types of coronaviruses. We have to plan for the future. We need to find a universal coronavirus vaccine now, and we have to fund it, which is why I am asking for $1 billion for that solution to be found. Sadly, the reality is that this pandemic is going to get worse before it gets better. But this is our call, and this is our time to come together. We all have a responsibility to act, to show leadership, and to support those who are most vulnerable and will be most impacted by this virus. The elderly in nursing homes, our young children, the uninsured, the undocumented--they need our help right now. These are the lives to be saved, livelihoods to be protected, and futures to ensure. I will continue to work with my colleagues and fight for legislation that provides Massachusetts residents and businesses and those all across our country with the resources they need. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in this commitment to action. With that, I yield back. I suggest the absence of a quorum.