Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this legislation to provide a critical source of aid to small businesses and nonprofits during the COVID-19 pandemic. While the Paycheck Protection Program was established as an eight-week program, it was clear from the start that the economic impact of the pandemic would last far longer. I am proud that the House addressed this issue by expanding the covered period to 24 weeks in the Heroes Act earlier this month, and I am glad this bill also includes a 24-week extension. The extended timeline will give borrowers the flexibility to spread out the loan proceeds over the full course of the crisis, and in a manner that is best for their small business or nonprofit. The legislation also takes action to change the harmful ``75/25'' percent rule that the Small Business Administration established to limit the use of Paycheck Protection Program loan proceeds for nonpayroll expenses to 25 percent. While increasing the current limitation on the use of loan proceeds for nonpayroll expenses from 25 percent to 40 percent will allow many small businesses to apply for the program, I am disappointed that this legislation falls short of the Heroes Act and fails to eliminate the rule. Congress intended for the Paycheck Protection Program to be a critical resource for all small businesses impacted by the pandemic. We must make sure that the program will be there and workable for microbusinesses in high rent areas like New York City. Microbusinesses--such as ``mom and pop'' shops and corner stores--are the lifeblood of our communities. I will continue working to ensure that the small business assistance programs created in the CARES Act are accessible and viable for the most vulnerable small businesses. I am also disappointed that this legislation was amended to remove language to retroactively establish a five-year minimum maturity on Paycheck Protection Program loans for amounts not forgiven. While the CARES Act allowed a maximum maturity of up to ten years from when the borrower applied for the loan, the Small Business Administration limited the minimum maturity of the loans to two years just hours before financial institutions began accepting Paycheck Protection Program loans. To address this issue, the Heroes Act established a minimum maturity on PPP loans of five years to enable borrowers to amortize loans over a longer period of time, decreasing their monthly payments on any portion that is not forgiven. While this legislation also establishes a five-year minimum maturity on Paycheck Protection Program loans, it fails to make the change retroactive for the millions that have already received their loans. I will continue to call for the minimum maturity on Paycheck Protection Program loans to be extended for all Paycheck Protection Program borrowers.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, bills like the USA Freedom Reauthorization Act touch deeply held beliefs on all sides. The bill we intended to consider last night strengthened privacy protections and made substantial improvements to the law. The bill, as amended by the Senate, is a good and important package of reforms. Now, you may disagree with that assessment, you may genuinely believe that the bill doesn't go far enough to reform the FISA system or perhaps that it goes too far with those reforms. If you disagree with me on the merits of the bill, I respect that disagreement. What I cannot accept, and what I suspect many Americans will not accept, is a transparent, inexplicable, totally unjustified flip-flop on this bill, a bill important both to the security and the privacy of the United States. Just a few weeks ago, 126 Republicans joined 152 Democrats in support of a nearly identical measure, different only in that the Senate has added one amendment, a good amendment with almost universal support. Virtually all of those 126 Republicans changed their position in the past 24 hours. Madam Speaker, the American people see through those excuses. Nobody believes that this sudden reversal has anything to do with complaints about proxy voting. Nobody believes that the flip-flop is about Michael Flynn or Roger Stone, or even President Trump, whose cases have nothing to do with the authorities we hope to reform. There have been no real policy demands to explain the sudden reversal, no demands for changes in the bill. If my Republican colleagues had asked for substantive changes to the bill, we would have heard them out and tried to address their concerns. But that is not what happened. The Republicans abandoned this bipartisan project for one reason, and one reason only: the President tweeted, on a whim, and told them to oppose this bill. Madam Speaker, this is just one more example of how the President and his enablers in this body have stood in the way of national security, of civil liberties, and of our responsibility as Members of Congress. I refuse to let our efforts to reform FISA die simply because Republicans are unwilling to stand up to the President's whims. This legislation ends the NSA's call detail records program; it applies the cutting edge of Fourth Amendment privacy protections to section 215; it forces the government to disclose years of secret FISA court opinions; it increases transparency across the board; it raises the stakes for any government attorney who would dare mislead the court; and it dramatically expands the role of the amicus to be an advocate for privacy and civil liberties and to push back against claims that should have been rejected by the court long ago. It is our responsibility to continue our work, to pass this bill, to send it to the President's desk, and to ensure that these reforms are made law. None of us should rest until we have done that work. I would be very interested to hear what changed in the bill between yesterday morning and yesterday evening that caused the Republicans to withdraw their support from a bill they had agreed to, from provisions they said were improvements to national security, from provisions they said were improvements to civil liberties of American citizens, and suddenly all oppose it. What changed, other than the President's tweet? Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this motion and send the bill to conference where we can do the job we were sent here to do. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I am glad the gentleman learned all this since noon yesterday when he testified in front of the Rules Committee in favor of this bill. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I repeat what I said before. We have a choice. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as everybody agrees, is not in good shape. FISA is necessary to preserve the security of the United States. I think everyone agrees with that. But we need improvements to FISA to make sure that while we protect the security of the United States against foreign aggression and foreign subversion, such as the Russian attempt to subvert our elections 4 years ago, we also must improve FISA to provide greater protections against unwarranted surveillance and provide greater protections for American civil liberties and privacy. This bill does that. It may not do it as much as some people want, but it goes a heck of a lot further than what we have now. This bill must be passed if we are going to have the protections of civil liberties that we want. Madam Speaker, this bill is a decent balance. I urge its adoption. To do that, we have to go to conference. I urge the adoption of the motion to go to conference, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, let me just say, first of all, of course, much of what the distinguished gentleman from Ohio said is fiction, as we all know. But, second of all, this bill as of yesterday noon was supported by Republicans and was supported by the gentleman from Ohio as making sufficient reforms, as making the reforms that we all recognize we need in the FISA system. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I listened to the distinguished gentleman a moment ago: We shouldn't pass any legislation that the President won't sign. The King of England used to have the royal prerogative, an absolute veto. The President of the United States does not. This House and the Senate should do its job and pass proper legislation, and let the President do his job. We had two-thirds of the votes in this House for this bill. Yes, the gentleman from Ohio mentions the Lofgren-Davidson amendment. I support that amendment. If we had gone forward, we could have gone with it. But the fact of the matter is, they have withdrawn their support because of the President's tweet, and for no other reason, we are where we are now. To preserve the ability to have the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and preserve national security as well as the improvements in the act embodied in this bill and in the Senate version of the bill that improves security while improving privacy protections against surveillance, we must approve this motion to go to conference. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 2746) to require the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to provide information on suicide rates in law enforcement, and for other purposes.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, in this time of great national crisis, we are all even more dependent on our law enforcement personnel, on our first responders, on the heroes that we honored by the title of the bill we passed a couple of weeks ago, the HEROES Act. It is unfortunate, obviously, that the stress that some of these heroes undergo, the stress that our police officers undergo, leads to a greater suicide rate. Especially in this time of crisis, we can expect that only to increase. It is imperative that we do whatever we can to safeguard the lives of those we depend on, to safeguard the lives of the heroes that we all need. Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that we do not have a national database with which to inform proper actions to help deal with this problem and save lives. That is why we are supporting this bill today, to solve this problem, to eliminate this void, so that we can better inform ourselves, the country, all the different agencies in the country, and State, Federal, and local agencies as to what actions might be taken to mitigate this threat to the lives of those we depend on. Madam Speaker, I very much urge the passage of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 2746, the Law Enforcement Suicide Data Collection Act, which requires the FBI to establish a data collection program that gathers data on law enforcement and former law enforcement suicides at the local, State, and Federal levels. We consider this bill today in response to a growing epidemic of law enforcement suicides in America. Tragically, more than 227 U.S. law enforcement officers took their own lives last year, an increase of more than 50 deaths from the year before. While law enforcement officers are tasked with the responsibility of protecting our communities and responding to often dangerous emergency situations, the number who have died as a result of suicide has, in recent years, exceeded the numbers of officers lost in the line of duty. My community has been particularly affected by this issue. Last year, the New York Police Department lost nine officers in a deeply troubling string of suicides. With long, late hours, regular traumatic experiences, life-threatening situations, and work in constant proximity to firearms, law enforcement officers are at an increased risk for mental illness such as post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and anxiety. A number of reports over past decades indicate that that law enforcement officers have an increased risk of suicide when compared to the general public. While suicide is currently the leading cause of death for law enforcement officers, the nearly 18,000 law enforcement agencies in this country lack a unified reporting mechanism for collecting data on these tragedies. Without the proper information and statistics, law enforcement agencies and local, State, and Federal leaders are hindered in their ability to educate, prevent, and respond to this epidemic of suicides. This bill directs the FBI to establish the Law Enforcement Officers Suicide Data Collection Program to prevent future suicides and to promote the understanding of suicide in law enforcement by collecting information from Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies. Data allowed to be collected pursuant to this bill includes details relating to both suicides and attempted suicides, including the circumstances and location of each event, as well as demographic information of each law enforcement officer and the method used in each incident. It is imperative that the law enforcement community, mental health professionals, Congress, and the American people better understand the extent of, and the reasons for, this crisis. The bill, therefore, also requires public reporting of the FBI's findings so that Congress and others can best support State and local agencies that are grappling with the day-to-day consequences of officer suicide. Madam Speaker, I am grateful for the bipartisan effort to address this important issue. In the House, our colleague, Representative Mike Quigley, authored H.R. 3735, the companion to this Senate-passed bill. I commend him, and I commend the bill's Senate sponsor, Senator Catherine Cortez Masto, for their tireless work on behalf of law enforcement officers and their loved ones. Madam Speaker, I support this bill. I urge my colleagues to do the same, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, we appreciate the service of our law enforcement officers who face unique challenges and risks in protecting us every day. Today, we take an important step to recognize the psychological toll that serving in such an inherently dangerous job can take on law enforcement officers and work to combat the tragic epidemic of suicides among their ranks. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the Law Enforcement Suicide Data Collection Act so that we may be better able to address this crisis and save lives. Throughout our country, the vast majority of police officers execute their jobs with dignity, honor, and respect for the citizens they serve and protect, but it would be remiss if I did not take note of the alarming and appalling incidents involving individuals in law enforcement in the last few weeks. These include the death of Breonna Taylor in Kentucky and George Floyd in Minnesota, both at the hands of law enforcement officers, and the disturbing circumstances surrounding the death of Ahmaud Arbery in Georgia. We must bring all those responsible to justice and work to improve accountability between law enforcement officers and the communities they serve. While we appreciate all of our law enforcement officers, we can't hide from America's history of racism and its deadly consequences. We see it in the disproportionate rate of COVID deaths, in our country's rates of mass incarceration, and, yes, in the treatment of African Americans by a few of our police officers. The ugly truth is clear: Black Americans often live under different rules. It is up to all of us to change them. Working with my colleagues on the Committee on the Judiciary and with Members of Congress from all across the country, I will continue to fight to do so. But the bill before us today is a necessary and worthy bill, recognizing the honorable and selfless service that the vast majority of our police officers provide, and trying to deal with the high suicide rates that the stresses of this job that they do to protect us cause. We should pass this bill so we can start getting a handle on this problem to preserve the lives of the vast majority of our police officers who serve us honorably and without whom we would be adrift. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6509, the Public Safety Officer Pandemic Response Act. I introduced this bill on April 14 in response to the escalating and deadly threat of the COVID-19 virus to our public safety officers, and I am pleased that the House is considering it today. H.R. 6509 expands the Public Safety Officers' Benefits program, known as the PSOB program, to ensure that public safety officers who contract COVID-19 in the line of duty are eligible for benefits under the program should they become disabled or should they die from the virus. Madam Speaker, this bill would accomplish three critical objectives. First, it establishes that a diagnosis, a positive test, or evidence of COVID-19 infection shall be presumed to constitute a personal injury in the line of duty for the purposes of eligibility for the PSOB program, unless the officer was not on duty in the relevant time period. Second, it ensures that officers who were injured or disabled in the line of duty in relation to the attacks of September 11, 2001, and whose injuries in combination with a COVID-19 illness rendered them disabled or caused their death will receive benefits under the PSOB program. And, third, it establishes that the COVID-19-related disability standard is based on whether a PSOB claimant is permanently prevented from performing any gainful work as a public safety officer on account of a COVID-19 diagnosis. Because of the demands placed on public safety officers during this crisis, it is important that Congress enact all of these elements. In seeking to protect and serve their communities in their various roles, public safety officers willingly undertake risks of harm on a daily basis. Because of this, we have established the PSOB program to provide disability and death benefits for them when they are disabled or die due to line-of-duty injuries. During the current crisis of COVID-19 contagion, the risks to public safety officers go well beyond the dangers first responders ordinarily experience. Police officers, firefighters, and EMTs are often the first responders that those with COVID-19 encounter. Current estimates are that nearly 40 percent of COVID-19 carriers are asymptomatic. Therefore, for first responders, even ordinary encounters with members of the community become potentially life-threatening events. On top of this, a lack of availability of appropriate personal protective equipment has unnecessarily exposed thousands of officers to COVID-19. Despite the additional risks they take on, public safety officers continue to faithfully execute their jobs and protect us all. H.R. 6509 acknowledges this by clarifying and expanding certain aspects of how the existing PSOB program for officers who contract COVID-19 is applied. If an officer was on duty during this crisis and contracts this disease, his or her illness should be considered a line-of-duty injury. And officers who are disabled due to COVID-19 should be eligible for disability benefits under a less stringent standard, given the added risks they undertook during this crisis, particularly because many officers have not been given appropriate equipment to mitigate their risk. We must also address another unique and tragic circumstance. I have long been a champion of the public safety officers who provided their service in responding to the deadly 9/11 attacks on our country. In fact, this bill is modeled on legislation that Congress enacted just days after 9/11, which I authored, to ensure that public safety officers who were injured or killed in the line of duty because of 9/11 received the benefits they deserved. Many first responders lost their lives that day; and in the days and weeks following the attacks, thousands of public safety officers rushed in to help the injured and to seek the remains of those who perished. Numerous studies have sadly shown that, as a result of these attacks, these public safety officers were exposed to a slew of toxic chemicals and dust that directly inhibit lung capacity. Therefore, 9/11 public safety officers are uniquely vulnerable to COVID-19, which attacks a person's ability to breathe effectively. H.R. 6509 acknowledges that the service of public safety officers during and after 9/11 continues to put them at a higher risk of disability or death. This bill allows those officers who were injured or disabled in the line of duty in relation to 9/11 and whose injuries, in combination with COVID-19 illness, rendered them disabled or caused their death to apply for benefits under the PSOB program. To date, Congress has upheld its promise to 9/11 first responders who, on account of their injuries on 9/11, have been tragically succumbing to cancers and other diseases. Today, we will do so again. I note that the Sergeants Benevolent Association of the New York City Police Department wrote to me yesterday expressing strong support for this bill and citing the importance of including provisions addressing the 9/11 issue in this legislation. We have also received letters of support for this bill from the Fraternal Order of Police and the National Association of Police Organizations. I include all of these letters in the Record. Sergeants Benevolent Association, Police Department, City of New York, New York, NY, May 26, 2020. Hon. Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington. DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing on behalf of the more 13,000 members of the Sergeants Benevolent Association of the New York City Police Department to advise you of our strong support for H.R. 6509, the ``Public Safety Officer Pandemic Response Act.'' This important legislation will establish a much needed presumption to enable the Public Safety Officers' Benefits (PSOB) Program to process death and disability benefits for our frontline law enforcement officers, firefighters, and EMTs exposed to COVID-19. Nearly nineteen years ago, thousands of first responders in New York and across the country were exposed to a deadly cocktail of toxins at the sites of the worst terrorist attack in American history. To date, exposure to those toxins has claimed the lives of more police officers than died on 9/11 itself. While today we fully recognize the toll suffered by the rescue and recovery personnel in the months alter 9/11, that was not always the case. And it required nearly all of the past nineteen years to fully secure health and compensation benefits for impacted first responders. The lessons of the 9/11 health crisis are the historical context for which you, the SBA, and others are seeking to address both the actual short-term and potential longterm consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on public safety officers. We are unfortunately experiencing the short-term impact of this disease on the ranks of law enforcement, which has already claimed the lives of more than 100 officers, including six from the NYPD. But we do not yet know the long- term effects COVID-19 will present to those exposed to it. While the PSOB Program currently covers deaths and disabilities from ``infectious disease,'' providing evidence that a disease was contracted in the line of duty is not always straightforward. In this current pandemic, making the connection between an officer's death or disability from COVID-19 and one specific exposure to a carrier of the disease is likely impossible. H.R. 6509 addresses this issue by establishing a full presumptive standard for COVID-19- related death and disability claims for PSOB benefits. It will also create a similar presumptive standard for those officers who are suffering from 9/11 health conditions and are at significantly higher risk from this disease. In so doing, the ``Public Safety Officer Pandemic Response Act'' affords Congress the opportunity to be proactive in its response to the threat COVID-19 poses to the public safety community and ensures that our nation's heroes are not subjected to another lengthy battle to obtain the benefits they are entitled to. On behalf of the membership of the SBA, thank you for your leadership on this legislation and your legacy of supporting positive enhancements to the PSOB Program. Please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Ed Mullins, President.

Mr. NADLER. I also want to note that, as we work to support our first responders today, we must also support other essential workers who are on the front lines of this pandemic, like those in the food and healthcare industries who are putting their lives at risk each day during this crisis. We should ensure that all those who are making the ultimate sacrifice for their communities, for us, are properly compensated. That work begins today with supporting our public safety officers with this bill. I thank my colleagues, Representative Max Rose from New York and Representative Bill Pascrell from New Jersey, for their support of this measure from its inception. And I ask my colleagues in the House to join me in supporting this bill so that we can pass it today. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), one of the authors of this legislation.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, the COVID-19 crisis in this country has taken many lives and impacted every community. In our national response, there are many areas in which we know we must do better and do more to address the public health emergency and the economic impact on our people. This bill, which expands an existing program in several important ways will help address the tragic circumstances of public safety officers who are disabled by or die from this virus. It is one piece of the overall effort, but an important one. Madam Speaker, I, therefore, ask my colleagues to join me in supporting passage of H.R. 6509 today. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6509) to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to provide public safety officer death and disability benefits for certain public safety officers who contract COVID-19, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rose), another sponsor of the bill.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves at a critical moment: 1.4 million Americans are sick; nearly 90,000 people have died; 36 million Americans are out of work. My constituents in New York have been at the epicenter of this pandemic for months. While this bill is not perfect, it goes far to support the country and New Yorkers. First and foremost, State and local governments will see nearly $1 trillion dollars in funding to fill the massive gaps in their budgets and prevent huge cuts to critical services. For New York State and New York City, that funding will mean the difference between recovery and total economic collapse. I am proud the HEROES Act includes two bills I introduced: the COVID- 19 Correctional Facility Emergency Response Act, for testing, treatment, and prevention of COVID-19 in prisons and jails; and the Public Safety Officer Pandemic Response Act, which will make sure that our brave first responders who die or become disabled get their benefits. The bill also includes many priorities for the Judiciary Committee, like additional funding for the Violence Against Women Act to address the surge in domestic violence, funding for Legal Aid and local law enforcement, and a ban on price gouging. The bill includes $100 billion for rental assistance, $75 billion for homeowners assistance so people don't lose their homes, and financial support for the frontline and essential workers keeping our country running. It is vital that door staff who have been working every day in our apartment and office buildings qualify for this additional pay. I look forward to working with my colleagues to make sure that happens. The bill finally puts in place a comprehensive, nationwide, science- based strategy for testing and contact tracing that is essential to limit the spread of the pandemic and to get our economy open again. Additionally, the bill improves PPP and makes loan forgiveness much easier to achieve for millions of small businesses. Nonprofits, the backbone of New York's economy, and housing cooperatives will also now be eligible for PPP. The Postal Service, which has been a lifeline for American families since George Washington and small businesses during the pandemic, will also receive much-needed funding to keep services running. The bill is not perfect, but it is essential. I urge everyone to vote for it.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, small businesses in my district are desperate for assistance, but stymied by a lack of funding and unfair treatment by the big banks and the SBA. I support this legislation, because it is absolutely imperative that we get small businesses a new round of funding and support. I am also pleased this bill provides significant funding for hospitals and for expanded testing without which we cannot safely reopen the businesses and other establishments we are trying to save. I am disappointed that despite the best efforts of my Democratic colleagues, the bill does not give State and local governments the funding and flexibility they desperately need. We must provide for these and other unmet needs in the next bill. But right now, the funds in this bill are desperately needed, and we must vote yes.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, in the last few weeks, my office has been flooded with calls from small business owners desperate for assistance but stymied by the slow response, unfair treatment, and limited funds of the small business programs set up by the CARES Act. I support this legislation because it is absolutely imperative that we recapitalize and improve PPP and EIDL to get small businesses the resources and support they need as fairly and efficiently as possible. I am also pleased this bill provides significant funding for hospitals and expanded testing, without which we cannot safely re-open the small businesses and other establishments we are trying to save. I am, however, all too aware that this infusion of money simply will not be enough to meet demand, and many of the problems my constituents have raised with PPP and EIDL are not addressed by this legislation. I am disappointed that, despite the best efforts of my Democratic colleagues, this bill does not give state and local governments the funding and flexibility they desperately need to support their fights against COVID-19 and fill the massive revenue gaps they are facing. New York State faces a $10 billion loss of tax revenue. While we are the epicenter of the pandemic, we're not alone in our budget shortfalls. Oklahoma faces a $415 million gap, Arizona is looking at a $1.1 billion deficit, and Maryland could face a $2.2 billion shortfall. My Republican colleagues must come to the table and support additional resources for states and cities and give states additional flexibility in how they use the funds, including replacing lost revenue. That being said, it is absolutely necessary that we pass this bill today and provide the SBA additional resources to support small businesses and ensure they make it through this pandemic. Of course there is more we need to do. Transit systems need billions in resources to stay afloat. Cultural nonprofits need funding and flexibility to re- open their doors when this pandemic passes. Renters desperately need emergency assistance to stay in their homes even with the eviction moratorium. The U.S. Postal Service is on the brink of collapse. Families need food assistance to keep their kids healthy. Hospitals and providers desperately need PPE. Our work is not done, and we cannot stop here. But today, we must pass this bill and get this small business funding flowing again. I appreciate the efforts to get this interim bill done as quickly as possible, and I look forward to continuing our efforts to stop this pandemic, keep our country safe, and, when public health experts agree, thoughtfully and carefully re-open our economy.