Jeanne Shaheen

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together and help ensure that our Nation's hospitals, nursing homes, physicians, and other healthcare providers have the financial support they need to get through the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 25, 2020, this body came together and passed the CARES Act, by a 96-0 vote--exactly 1 year ago today. The CARES Act helped to provide the resources needed to ramp up testing and vaccine development, ensure that small businesses would have support to continue to pay their workers, and provide much-needed financial relief for healthcare providers on the frontlines of this pandemic. A year later, we can start to see the light at the end of the very long tunnel that is this public health crisis. More than 100 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been administered across the country. And we are starting to see job growth as more companies start hiring again. However, with hundreds of millions of Americans still needing to be vaccinated and the threat of COVID-19 variants still looming, we need to continue to support our frontline healthcare providers and help keep them financially strong for the months ahead. That is why Senator Collins and I came together to introduce the Medicare Sequester Relief Act, a bill that would suspend the 2 percent Medicare payment cuts that are scheduled to hit healthcare providers starting on April 1. As a result of the CARES Act and through subsequent relief measures, these payment cuts have been suspended through March 31, and they need to be suspended again. With American hospitals and nursing homes projecting tens of billions of dollars in additional financial losses this year due to the COVID-19 crisis, we need to continue to avert these Medicare payment cuts until we are further past the worst of the pandemic. The substitute amendment that Senator Collins and I are offering today is a reasonable compromise. It delays the Medicare payment cuts through December 31. And it ensures that the cost of this delay is paid for, so that we do not increase the Federal budget deficit. This week, I heard from Wentworth-Douglass Hospital in Dover, NH. They highlighted that this legislation would result in $2.1 million in desperately needed additional revenue for the hospital. The hospital's chief financial officer, Peter Walcek told me: ``These are real dollars supporting our organization's recovery from tens of millions in lost revenue and added costs during the pandemic. . . . By passing a continued moratorium through 2021, Wentworth-Douglass will be in a better place to care for those in need and respond to any future crisis affecting the health of our community.'' I also heard about the importance of Medicare sequester relief for New Hampshire nursing homes. Patricia Ramsey, from the Edgewood Centre nursing facility in Portsmouth, NH, said ``the Medicare sequestration suspension, although not a cure, will help us mitigate the added operating expenses and losses we continue to experience, especially with the exacerbated workforce shortage.'' I have heard stories like these from so many healthcare providers across New Hampshire, and I believe there are healthcare providers in each of our communities that would share similar stories. We need to provide them with more financial support so that they can be there to care for patients, as we continue to make progress in combating this pandemic. We cannot allow our hospitals and healthcare providers to go under as we fight through the worst public health crisis of our lifetimes. I urge my colleagues to come together again, like we did in the CARES Act, and support this legislation when it comes up for a vote today. Thank you.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, on January 6, 2021, the heart of American democracy was attacked by a violent mob seeking to stop the counting of electoral votes in Congress and the peaceful transition of power. The peaceful transition of power is the hallmark of any healthy democracy and the foundation of our government by the people. That tradition has endured in our country since the ``Revolution of 1800'' when John Adams lost his election to Thomas Jefferson, marking the first peaceful change of Executive party in the United States. Years later, Jefferson would write about the ``Revolution of 1800'' and say, ``for that was as real a revolution in the principles of our government as that of 76 . . . not effected indeed by the sword . . . but by the rational and peaceable instrument of reform, the suffrage of the people.'' Sadly, the attack on the Capitol was an attempt to return to the ``sword,'' and it was incited by the President of the United States. Donald Trump's actions leading up to and on January 6 demonstrated what I believed following his first impeachment: He was unfit for the Presidency and betrayed his oath to faithfully execute the office of President and preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. Donald Trump engaged in a months-long campaign of lies and misinformation about voter fraud in the 2020 election to mislead the American people and maintain power. This campaign was waged with a singular purpose: to overturn a free and fair election through any means necessary. It included calls to State election officials in Georgia where he urged them to ``find votes'' that would allow him to win the State; wild conspiracy theories that voting machines had been rigged against him; and baseless lawsuits that were rejected more than 60 times by Federal courts at all levels. This insidious effort culminated at the ``Save America'' rally on January 6 when the former President urged his supporters to ``fight like hell'' and directed them to march on Congress where the counting of electoral votes had begun. The House Managers presented a detailed timeline of the former President's actions before, during, and after the election that exposed his effort to subvert the Constitution and defy the will of the American people. The evidence presented against the former President demonstrated that he sought to undermine and ultimately overturn the results of the 2020 election. It showed that when his challenges in court had failed and the electoral results had been certified, he turned his attention and all the power of the Presidency to January 6. He encouraged his supporters to come to DC to ``stop the steal'' and pressured former Vice President Pence to assert power he did not have under the Constitution to overturn the election. Trump amassed a crowd of individuals waiting for his direction, including armed individuals who had planned an attack for weeks in response to the President's claims that the election was stolen. The former President's actions had deadly and destructive consequences. Insurrectionists stormed the Capitol building, desecrating the seat of American Government and the physical manifestation of freedom for people across the world. The insurrectionists viciously beat police officers defending our democracy, vandalized the building, and terrorized those inside. All the while, the mob chanted ``hang Mike Pence,'' ``President Trump sent us'' and ``traitor, traitor, traitor.'' When the attack was over, hundreds of police officers and others were injured, and five people were dead, including a brave Capitol police officer who lost his life defending our Capitol. The attack was viewed across the world and has undeniably tarnished America's reputation as a beacon of freedom and democracy. What was the former President's response to this treasonous attack on our constitutional process? It was to repeat the sinister lies that had led to the attack in the first place and refer to the insurrectionists as ``great patriots'' whom he loved. The House Managers showed that the President could have stopped the attack, but he chose instead to continue his effort to obstruct the counting of the electoral votes. According to the testimony of Congresswoman Herrera Beutler submitted to evidence, the former President responded to House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy's pleas for help by saying, ``Well, Kevin, I guess these people (the insurrectionists) are more upset about the election than you are.'' These are not the actions of a President trying to defend the Constitution and uphold his oath of office; they are the actions of an individual intent on retaining power by any means necessary. The actions of Donald Trump before, during, and after the attack on the Capitol reflected our Constitution's Framers greatest fear that a president would do anything to retain power contrary to the will of the people. They knew well the dangers of a despot and the capacity of power to corrupt the Republic they had established. That is why I voted to convict the former President to protect our system of government from those who would use their office to undermine our Constitution. Senate precedent, history, and tradition clearly demonstrate that a former President could be convicted having been impeached by the House while still in office. The former President's legal team made no persuasive argument as to how his remarks on January 6 would be considered protected speech under the First Amendment or why he could not be convicted as a former President. As House Manager Raskin said during his argument, ``if this is not impeachable conduct then what is?'' I believe it fits squarely within the high crimes and misdemeanors identified as an eligible offense for impeachment in the Constitution. Thus, I exercised my responsibility as a juror to vote to convict and ensure that the actions of the former President would not go unchecked. Donald Trump betrayed his oath of office and he betrayed the American people. His actions must not go unanswered. The oath that I took and my allegiance to it require that I preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution by voting to convict a former President whose zealous pursuit of unchecked power will forever be remembered as one of the darkest days in American history. As a U.S. Senator, I will continue to take a stand against actions that violates the fundamental norms and ideals of American democracy.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I would like to call up amendment No. 834, as modified, and speak for 30 seconds and then turn the mic over to my colleague Senator Murkowski, who is the cosponsor of this amendment.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, this amendment supports organizations serving survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and child abuse. As we know, because of COVID, those survivors and families have been hit particularly hard, and there has been very little money that has gone to support them. This amendment would say very strongly we need to do better. Senator Murkowski.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, again, I would just like to correct what my colleague is saying. We do not use foreign aid money to perform abortions overseas. In fact, a poll conducted by CHANGE, Center for Health and Gender Equity, demonstrates that 59 percent of likely voters--if we want to talk about polls--59 percent of likely voters in America oppose banning U.S. global health assistance going to organizations in other countries that provide legal and safe abortions or abortion referrals. Only 30 percent support this policy. Research published in the Lancet medical journal last July found that the global gag rule under President George W. Bush--which was implemented on an exponentially smaller scale than what was done by President Trump and what is proposed in the law that my colleague from Utah is asking for unanimous consent to put forward, that kind of reduction in access to services increases a country's typical abortion rate by 40 percent while reducing the use of modern contraceptives by 3.5 percent. See, this is what happens when you don't base policy decisions on scientific data. You get these kinds of narratives that are absolutely inaccurate. What we know and what is repeatedly evident through the research is that the global gag rule or, as my colleague calls it, protecting life in global health assistance, actually increases abortions. It is, unfortunately, simple logic. Decreasing access to family planning methods like modern contraception, counseling, and the health spacing and timing of pregnancies, directly leads to more unwanted pregnancies. But because this policy also limits abortion services that organizations provide with other non-U.S. funds, women with unwanted pregnancies are forced to seek out unsafe abortions. That is why we see the abortion numbers increase. So it is a lose-lose policy, and, of course, it is women and children who pay the price. The Foundation for AIDS Research found that one-third of 286 PEPFAR Programs implementing partners who were surveyed had altered their services or organizational operations in response to the global gag rule under former President Trump--a great program, PEPFAR, under George W. Bush, that has saved millions of lives, and yet what we saw under the Trump implementation of the global gag rule is that they had to alter the services that they provided, including reducing sexual and reproductive health and pregnancy counseling, youth outreach, contraception services, and HIV counseling, testing, and treatment. The policies that my colleague is advocating for makes the situation worse for women and families, and if he would look at the scientific data, he would understand that. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, my colleague from Utah tells a nice story, but it is not accurate. He is not being honest about what is going on with the global gag rule, and I am really disappointed that he is once again trying to push this dangerous legislation. As I pointed out when I objected to the same bill less than a year ago, the policy in question closes health clinics, decreases care, and needlessly puts the lives of women, children, and families at risk. In fact, instead of protecting life, the global gag rule erects new barriers to critical health services, including reproductive health services for people and communities that already have limited access to affordable, quality healthcare. And let's be clear: America's taxpayer dollars do not go to fund abortions overseas. What my colleague is objecting to is funding for family planning services to help women protect their families. And the policy that he wants to codify into law is dangerous in the best of times, but during a global pandemic, when care is already stretched, it is downright deadly. The Guttmacher Institute estimates that a 10-percent--just a 10- percent decline in family planning services, including reduced access to reversible contraception and pregnancy and newborn healthcare, results in 49 million more women with unmet contraceptive needs; 15 million additional unintended pregnancies; 1.7 million women and 2.6 million newborns who will experience major complications due to not receiving the care they need; and most unfortunate and sad, 28,000 more maternal deaths and 168,000 more newborn deaths because of this policy. And that is just a modest 10-percent reduction in family planning access. So if you really care about families and newborns, you will ensure that they have access to the critical services that they need so they don't have those unintended pregnancies. It is safe to say that the COVID-19 pandemic, which has diverted care and shut down access to family planning clinics across the globe, is greatly exacerbating the situation. So now is not the time to place draconian limits on family planning dollars. In fact, we need a renewed commitment to comprehensive family planning. That is why last week, along with 47 of our colleagues, we reintroduced the bipartisan Global Health Empowerment and Rights Act. The bill, also known as Global HER, would ensure that care is not limited based on the President in the White House because if we are going to actually get serious about improving the lives of women and girls, we should be working to end the global gag rule, not to expand it. So for all of these reasons, I object to my colleague's request.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, on January 3, I, along with 31 of my colleagues, stood in this Chamber and swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. It is both ironic and deeply disappointing that only 3 days after swearing these oaths, some of my colleagues are coming close to breaking this promise. Since 1797, each U.S. President has peacefully handed over power to the next, and that will happen again on January 20, when Donald Trump, despite the protesters today, the violence today--when Donald Trump leaves the White House at noon and Joe Biden becomes President. We have heard tonight from both Democrats and Republicans about the importance of the voters speaking in the election and about the fact that there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud. But this is not just an issue for us here in the United States; this is an issue for nascent democracies around the world, which, as Senator Romney said, look to the United States as an example. We are the shining city on the hill. We give those struggling under oppression hope for a better future. Now, like so many of us in this Chamber, I have traveled to developing democracies around the world--to Afghanistan and Iraq, to the Western Balkans, to Africa, to the country of Georgia. I went there with my colleague Senator Risch. In 2012, we went to Georgia to observe officially, on behalf of the Senate, the election between outgoing President Mikheil Saakashvili and his United National Movement Party and the challenge by Georgian Dream, which was a newly formed party supported and funded by billionaire oligarch Bidzina Ivanishvili. It was a battle for Parliament, but also for control of the government. Senator Risch and I visited multiple polling places on election day, and we agreed with the international assessment that that election was free and fair and that Georgian Dream were the winners. But there was real concern in the country that Saakashvili was going to refuse to give up power--that that would lead to violence, and it would end the nascent democratic reforms that were happening in that former Soviet Republic. So Senator Risch and I, the day after the election, went to visit President Saakashvili to try and talk him out of staying in power. I remember very clearly going to his home, and we sat down with him, and we pointed out that the hallmark of a democracy--what he had worked so hard for in his 8 years as President of Georgia--the hallmark of that was to turn over power in a peaceful election to the person the voters chose. Well, President Saakashvili listened to us, and he did leave office peacefully. But it is important that future generations recognize that America-- like democracies everywhere--depends on a peaceful transition of power, on believing in what the voters say, and ensuring that happens. Unfortunately, we have heard from some Senators today who have been enabling President Trump's willful disregard of the votes of our citizenry, even as they speak out against foreign leaders who ignore their own people. They will fail, and history will remember them. I hope that future generations will view the actions of some of those folks today as little more than an unfortunate anomaly. Future opportunists may use this ill-fated effort to seek short-term political gain over the long-term stability of our Republic. But for the sake of our great country and America's standing in the world, I ask my colleagues today to fully endorse the results of the free and fair election and set aside this partisan attempt to subvert the will of the people. We should be venerating the peaceful transition of power, even if our own preferred candidate didn't win. That is, after all, who we are in the United States of America. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Warren and Jane Allen of Spofford, NH. The couple served our country with distinction during World War II, and the life they built together is emblematic of the many who came home from war, raised a family, and helped to build the America we know today. Warren, or ``Bill'' as he is known to close friends, was born on March 14, 1923, in Calhoun, GA. He joined the U.S. Marine Corps in 1942. When asked years later why he decided to enlist, he replied that he saw a movie about the Marines and liked the look of their dress blues. His service brought him across the country, from boot camp at Parris Island in South Carolina to ``tower school'' in Fort Worth, TX, and eventually to a posting at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point in Havelock, NC. An air traffic controller, Bill remembers having to stand on orange crates to direct aircraft traffic at MCAS Cherry Point. The control tower had not been built yet. Jane Post was born on April 26, 1923, in Spofford, NH. She enlisted in the recently formed U.S. Marine Corps Women Reserves in June of 1943. She trained at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina and attended control tower school in Atlanta, GA. Following her training, she arrived at MCAS Cherry Point and was assigned to the air station's clearance center. It was her responsibility to keep track of all arriving and departing aircraft at the station. It was at Cherry Point that Jane's path crossed Bill's in 1943. By November of that year, Bill had risen to a supervisor position at air station. One day, a plane carrying a U.S. Marine Corps general was descending and given clearance to land. Suddenly, a fighter pilot radioed that his plane was losing air pressure and requested permission for an emergency landing. The control tower instructed the fighter pilot to circle the air station and allow the general's plane to land first. Upon hearing this, Bill sprinted up the stairs of the control tower and demanded to know who gave those instructions. It was Jane Post. Though he disagreed with her judgement on which plane should have landed first that day, Bill struck up a relationship with that control tower operator. They were married 5 months later on April 20, 1944, and have been inseparable ever since. Bill continued to serve in the U.S. Marine Corps until 1946. He reenlisted in 1947 and kept his rank of technical sergeant. In 1952, he was honorably discharged from the Reserves. Jane served in the Women Reserves until January 12, 1945. She was honorably discharged upon the news that she and Bill were expecting their first child. The Allens eventually settled in Spofford, NH, a small community in the western part of the State. Bill went on to work at a number of local banks after a short stint as the owner of the local Tuttle's Store. He retired as president of the Savings Bank of Walpole in 1993. As their children grew up, Jane returned to school and obtained a bachelor's degree in home economics from nearby Keene State College. They also applied the leadership qualities that they refined in the Marine Corps to a variety of community endeavors. Bill served as town moderator and a longtime member of the local budget committee. He was also a captain at the Spofford Volunteer Fire Department. Jane worked to establish the Chesterfield Historical Society and was a driving force in raising funds for a new library in town. Bill and Jane were both fixtures at Keene State College basketball games, Bill as an official scorekeeper and Jane as a dedicated fan. Last year, they celebrated their diamond wedding anniversary among family and the many friends they have made in their journey from Cherry Point to the Granite State. On behalf of the people of New Hampshire, I ask my colleagues and all Americans to join me in thanking Bill and Jane Allen for their service in World War II and the many contributions they have made to their community in the years since. We wish them all the best in the years ahead.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to really highlight the important work that has been underway by Members on both sides of the aisle in the Senate and Members on both sides of the aisle in the House to try to come up with an agreement to deliver urgently needed relief to address the challenges from the coronavirus that people are facing across this country. I also hope that we can work together to get this across the finish line and that Senate leadership will be willing to join in that effort. I think most of us are painfully aware of the devastating impact this pandemic has had in communities across our Nation, but the numbers do bear repeating. More than 15 million Americans have been infected with the virus, more than 285,000 Americans have now died from COVID, and we recently hit a new record high of 102,000 people hospitalized with COVID. Just to provide some context, our largest city in New Hampshire is Manchester. It has 112,000 residents. So we have enough people in the hospital across this country to fill the city of Manchester. The situation is dire. People need help. Every one of those numbers that I have referenced is much more than a number; it reflects an American life, an American family, our communities. The human toll of this crisis is crushing, and we are up against the clock as our hospitals run out of beds. This crisis has been all-encompassing. In addition to the severe strains on our healthcare system, so many others are being battered by this pandemic. Small businesses are closing, and even more are on the verge of collapsing if we don't get them some help. Our transportation networks, from buses to airplanes, have been forced to lay off staff, cut routes, and in some cases just discontinue service altogether. American families are going hungry. We have all seen the long lines on the news at night showing the number of people waiting to get food from food banks. Too many people are facing homelessness. In New Hampshire, in the city of Manchester alone, we have 35 homeless encampments--35. Two years ago, we did not have that number of homeless. Parents are struggling to help their children continue their education at home, sometimes with no access to broadband or really bad access. We know women are leaving the workforce because of the strains of trying to provide support to their children and deal with the other challenges of COVID. State and local governments have been stretched to the maximum. In New Hampshire, we are facing severe budgetary shortfalls, and many of our communities may have to make some difficult decisions to cut first responders or teachers or other municipal workers if they don't get help. We hear every day the number of people who need our help, and they can't wait any longer. This is the holiday season, the end of the year. We are headed into the worst months of winter. In New Hampshire, we have restaurants that can no longer be open because they don't have outdoor seating. We have small businesses that are worried about getting through the next few months. For the past 3 weeks, we have had a group of bipartisan lawmakers in both the House and Senate--so bipartisan and bicameral--who have been engaged in good-faith negotiations to get a relief package out the door as swiftly as possible. We were able to reach an agreement on a broad bipartisan framework last week, and we have continued negotiations around-the-clock since that was announced. In New Hampshire and throughout this country, our small businesses have been some of the hardest hit by this pandemic. In New Hampshire, we are a small business State. They are the lifeblood of our economy. They account for 99 percent of all of our businesses and more than 50 percent of our workforce. In the country as a whole, two-thirds of our jobs are created by small businesses. In the bipartisan framework that we are negotiating, we have another round of the Paycheck Protection Program, which has been instrumental for so many of our small businesses since back in March when we passed it and created the program in the CARES Act. Overall, our bipartisan relief proposal would provide significant financial assistance for our small businesses, for our restaurants, for our live venues, which in many cases have been shut down completely, and for our childcare centers. In New Hampshire, if we don't get some help for our childcare centers, at the end of this pandemic, we will have lost fully 50 percent of our childcare centers. That means the families who depend on that childcare so that they can go to work are not going to have any safe place for their kids. I hear frequently from New Hampshire businesses that have used the PPP program effectively to keep workers on payroll and make rent that they still need more assistance if they are going to get through this winter. Our tourism and hospitality industries are particularly hard hit, and they are vital to New Hampshire's economy. They are our second biggest industry. Restaurants in New Hampshire account for nearly 70,000 jobs and for $3 billion in sales, according to the National Restaurant Association. We have to provide some help for them. The future of our small businesses in New Hampshire and throughout the country hang in the balance. If we fail to act, we fail them. For many American families, the past 9 months have been the most difficult economic challenges of their lives, and the bleak jobs report last week reaffirms what we have been seeing in our communities. Nearly 10 million jobs have been lost since the start of the pandemic. That means people are out of work, struggling to put food on the table for themselves and their families, struggling to keep a roof over their heads. The eviction moratorium is about to expire. That is the story for 10 million families. In the bipartisan framework that we have been negotiating, we have urgently needed funding for additional unemployment insurance. We provide rental assistance to help not just those people who might lose their housing but also the landlords, who have been hit very hard because people haven't been able to pay their rent. It also increases funding for food assistance programs to combat the surging food insecurity in our communities. We can't afford further delay in delivering these resources. The unemployment benefits are due to expire at the end of the month, and time is of the essence. One of the important areas of concern that this bipartisan proposal addresses is the need for Federal funding to help our State and our local communities. They are facing massive revenue shortfalls--at least in my home State of New Hampshire--and that threatens their ability to provide essential services. We can't afford to lose those people who provide those services, who, if they are laid off, may be forced to go someplace else and won't be available when we have the money to rehire them. We can't afford to lose the teachers, and already we are seeing too many teachers who are retiring or leaving the profession because they are worried about safety and exposure, or they don't have the resources to be able to do the online teaching that is required now. If we don't get this funding out the door, we are going to see more of those losses. In New Hampshire and in our cities and towns, they are being stretched to the limits. We are at the precipice of this crisis. Cases are continuing to go up. Hospitalizations are going up. The death toll is going up. People need help, and they need it now. In New Hampshire, our nursing homes have been especially devastated by this crisis. We have the highest percentage of COVID deaths in our long-term care facilities of any State in the country. Eighty-one percent of our death toll has been tied to nursing homes. Our bipartisan relief framework includes necessary Federal support for the Provider Relief Fund, and it allocates urgently needed help for our nursing homes that are on the frontlines. We also provide help to address substance use disorders and mental health. What we have seen across the country is that COVID-19 has exacerbated what already existed in the opioid epidemic. We were beginning to make some progress in New Hampshire and in many States across the country until the coronavirus hit, and now we are seeing that progress being lost. Our plan bolsters support for Federal investments in a number of programs that respond to the substance use disorder crisis in our communities, and it also addresses suicide prevention. This pandemic has created significant burdens for those who are struggling with substance use disorders. And, of course, we have heard the number of mental health issues has been greatly exacerbated. Our bipartisan plan addresses three of the most important pieces of the strategy to get on the other side of this pandemic: testing, tracing, and vaccine distribution. As overwhelming as this crisis has become, we can't just throw our hands in the air. We have to continue to prioritize robust testing and contact tracing so we can track and contain community spread. Of course, we need to follow the CDC guidelines--wearing masks, maintaining social distancing, staying home as much as possible, hand washing--so that we can help flatten the curve and help our hospitals. And now, as we are, we hope, just weeks away from having a vaccine, we need to ensure that every measure is taken so we are ready to go on day one. The manufacturing and distribution of a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine are critical to putting an end to this pandemic, to reopening our economy, and to restoring normalcy in our society. Our COVID framework boosts funding for each of these three priorities. When the Senate came together during the early days of this crisis, we worked in good faith to deliver the CARES Act that provided relief to Americans throughout the country. We did it before, and I believe we can do it again. This bipartisan framework is the only bipartisan measure in Congress. It is the only bicameral measure in Congress. It is the only proposal that has an opportunity to clear both Houses. We aren't done, obviously. Negotiations are ongoing. There are a lot more people who have to see this work and, hopefully, will decide to support it, and we still have more concerns to sort out. But this is a compromise. It doesn't have everything I want to see. It is not what I would have written if I had been able to write it by myself, but it is a compromise that I believe we can get majority support to pass. Of course, it is step one. It is a relief bill to help Americans stay afloat over these next very difficult months, and our work doesn't end if we can provide this relief. We are still going to need a stimulus bill to get our economy moving again. But, right now, the most urgent need is to address those concerns that individuals and families have. If Congress fails to act and get this over the finish line, the consequences will be dire. Our hospitals are already overwhelmed. Too many small businesses are closing. Families are going hungry and facing homelessness. Inaction is really not an option. We need to get this done. There is no reason we can't come to an agreement. We have done it before. I urge Senators on both sides of the aisle to join in this effort. I urge Leader McConnell and Leader Schumer to move forward with us to help us get this proposal over the line so that together we can deliver much needed relief to Americans and do it before the holiday season so that people will have something to look forward to. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I come to the floor today to raise the concern about the need to pass another package of assistance to address the coronavirus. I had a chance over the weeks that we were in our home States in October and after the election to travel around New Hampshire and to talk with a number of our small businesses, representatives from nursing homes, from our hospitals, from so many of the people who are affected by what is happening with COVID-19. And what I heard was that too many people are struggling; too many people are hurting, and they need help. New Hampshire has a small business economy. It is an economy where over 50 percent of our workers are employed by small businesses, where about 98 percent of the businesses in New Hampshire are considered to be small businesses. And I was very proud of being able to work with Senators Cardin and Rubio and Collins to design the Paycheck Protection Program as part of the CARES Act that has helped over 24,000 small businesses during the time after it was passed--small businesses and nonprofits. That also was instrumental in bringing $2.5 billion into New Hampshire and keeping 200,000 people employed. Many of those small businesses have bounced back to where they were before COVID-19, but too many of them still need help, and they are worried about whether they are going to be able to get through the winter. Of special concern are businesses in the hospitality industry--our hotels and restaurants. Tourism is our second largest industry in New Hampshire. Recently, I had a conference call with a number of folks from the Hotel and Lodging Association. One of the things that they told me is that they are not sure how they are going to get through the winter. For many of our restaurants, about a third of their business has come over the summer from outdoor eating, and that, of course, is ending in New Hampshire as the weather gets cold. How they are going to make that up is a real question. Restaurants were the first businesses to be shut down in New Hampshire; they were the last businesses to open up; and now we have a huge industry that is not sure how it is going to get through the year. The second highest number of workers in this country are in the restaurant industry. We have got to provide some help for them, and it needs to be significant. We also have to look at the hotels. Again, a big piece of what we have got to address. There was a recent report from the American Hotel and Lodging Association that showed that business travel over the holidays is going to be down significantly. That is a big source of revenue for many of those businesses, and we have got to provide some help and some additional help for those businesses as we look at trying to get a package of assistance. Another round of the PPP program is probably important. We know we had about $125 billion left in that program, but we need to think about how we can target it best to those industries that are most affected, also to minority businesses that may not have a relationship with a financial institution. So as we think about what we have got to do, that is one of the big pieces. I had a chance to visit a restaurant over in the western part of our State. It was a business that I visited 6 years ago, right after it had opened--a restaurant and pub. When I went there, they had five employees. It is a young man and his mother who run the business. I asked him if he was able to get a PPP loan. He said, yes, but he said: My mother and I haven't taken a salary since March because it didn't seem right to lay off one of my five employees who have families just so that I could take a salary. He said: So we are doing everything we can to get by. We hope we will be able to make it, but it is not at all clear that we will be able to do that. I looked around the restaurant, and in the middle of the restaurant was a big barrel, and it was filled with canned goods and dried goods-- food. On it was a sign that said, ``Take what you need,'' because we have so many people who are desperate--desperate for food, desperate for housing. As I talked to the mayors in New Hampshire, particularly in our two largest cities, Manchester and Nashua, housing and homelessness is a huge issue. Homelessness has increased exponentially. In Manchester, our biggest city, we have 35 encampments of the homeless. The biggest one is on the grounds of the State superior court. What does it say when, in the richest country in the world, we have so many people who are homeless? And the problem is getting worse. I talked to the community action agencies in New Hampshire, which are providing help for people with housing. They told me they are seeing people they have never seen before--people who need help because of COVID. Then there are the childcare centers and camps. In New Hampshire, our camps have been a special part of our summer experience. We have people from all over the country who come to camps in New Hampshire. Only six of our overnight camps were able to operate through the summer, and they operate on a margin that says if they don't make it in the summer, they are not going to get any revenue for another year until next summer. They are worried about whether they are going to go under between now and next summer. Our childcare centers--I heard from Jackie Cowell, who runs an organization called Early Learning New Hampshire, which is an umbrella organization for childcare in New Hampshire. What she told me is that if they get no help, by next year 50 percent of the childcare centers in New Hampshire will be out of business. As I talked to employers at some of those small businesses, they tell me one of the challenges they have is being able to bring workers back when they are able to operate because they don't have any childcare for their kids. And, of course, with schools going so remote, there is a real concern about parents and how they are dealing with their kids. Most parents and most schools want to bring the kids back, but in order to do that, they have to make sure that it is safe, and they need help in order to make sure it is safe. They need help with HVAC systems and with the cleaning supplies and the PPE that are necessary in order to make sure the schools are safe for the students. We have to provide help for those schools. We have to provide help for the childcare centers and help for our small businesses. Then, of course, I met with nursing homes in New Hampshire. Long-term care facilities have had about 40 percent of the deaths as a result of COVID-19 in this country, and yet they have only gotten about 4 percent of the funding. In New Hampshire, where we have the highest percentage of deaths in our long-term care facilities of any State in the country, 82 percent of our deaths have been in nursing homes. Right now they have a workforce shortage that averages about 25 percent. It is so bad that our Governor this week reinstituted a stipend for long-term care workers. It is something that he started back in April. It ran through July. As things got better, they needed less help. But now they are back in a situation where they can't get the help they need. I visited a nursing home in the northern part of New Hampshire, Coos County, our northern most county that borders the Canadian border. What they told me is that while they have some personal protective equipment, they don't have enough to guarantee what they need long term. So here we are, 9 months into this pandemic, and we still have nursing homes that can't get the help they need, can't get the personal protective equipment that they need. They are struggling to get by, struggling to get the workers they need. Then there are the hospitals. In New Hampshire we have a lot of rural hospitals. One of them has gone bankrupt in the last couple of weeks because of COVID. The hospitals in our two biggest cities have had the majority of the hospitalizations that we have seen in New Hampshire. We have four hospitals, two in Manchester and two in New Hampshire, that have dealt with the most COVID patients in the State. Just when they were beginning to see their patients come back in September and early October, we are now seeing the cases rise again, and hospitalizations are up. So they are looking at financial shortfalls at the end of this year. If we can't provide help for those hospitals, if we can't provide help for some of our rural hospitals, we are going to see more bankruptcies. That means not just an impact on the healthcare that they provide, but for many of those institutions, they are the biggest employer in their community, so more people are going to be out of work. So we are looking at this downward spiral that is going to get ever worse if we do nothing to address the needs of our businesses, of the people who are unemployed, of hospitals, childcare centers, and our schools. It is critical that we come to some agreement. We ought to be able to reach a bipartisan agreement. It is one of the things I heard as I was campaigning around New Hampshire. People need help. They need help now. Why can't we work together to get that done? I think we need to all double down and try to come to some sort of compromise that allows us to provide help to people who need it immediately because if we don't, it is only going to get worse. The number of coronavirus cases are only going to continue to increase, and we need to work to address that. We need to have a transition that allows the next administration to work with the current administration to make sure that the efforts to get this new vaccine out--the two vaccines that look like they are promising--are going to be effective and we are actually going to be able to get people immunized and have the funding to do that. In order for that to happen, we have to see a change in the transition, and we have to work together to make that happen to provide the help that the States need. So I am going to be continuing to do everything I can here in this body to see if we can't come to some agreement around a package that would provide help to those who need it, and I hope that all of my colleagues will do the same, that we will all double down on the efforts. I am not saying we should help people who don't need it. That is obvious. But we should help the people who need help because they are struggling, and it is not going to get any better unless we provide some assistance. I hope we are going to see some action in the next couple of weeks between now and the end of the year I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

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

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today in opposition to the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. I am truly disappointed that my Republican colleagues have chosen to ram through this partisan nominee in the middle of a pandemic when an election is underway and tens of millions of Americans have already cast their ballots. The Senate should be focused on a bipartisan COVID-19 relief package to help Granite Staters and Americans across this country who are struggling to pay the bills and put food on the table during this pandemic. Instead, Leader McConnell's only priority has been to push through a nominee who will fundamentally alter the balance of the Court and affect the lives of generations of Americans, all just days before ballots will be counted to decide the next President of the United States and the makeup of this very body. The stakes in this nomination could not be higher. I want to read an excerpt from an email I received from a constituent. This is from Dave in Portsmouth, NH. Dave writes: What is at stake with the Supreme Court nomination . . . among the topics that have stricken the deepest sadness, pain, and fear in eyes, minds and hearts are the goals of this administration to dismantle . . . the Affordable Care Act . . . A woman's right (and only her right) to make decisions about her body and her life . . . and the rights of the LGBTQ community. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the full text of this email to be printed in the Record

Mrs. SHAHEEN. The President and his allies here on Capitol Hill are trying to tear down the healthcare law that has helped provide millions of Americans with coverage in the middle of the greatest public health crisis in a century. They pressed forward with this reckless attempt, even though they don't have a plan for what to do when as many as 23 million Americans--and in New Hampshire, more than 100,000 Granite Staters--would lose their healthcare coverage. I want to repeat that. This administration and congressional Republicans have no plan for what to do if millions of Americans lose their healthcare coverage if the Affordable Care Act is overturned. For the last 6 years, we have seen congressional Republicans try to repeal the ACA numerous times, and they have failed every time because the American people have raised their voices and made it clear that they want to keep the Affordable Care Act and strengthen it, not repeal it. Now we are seeing the administration and congressional Republicans try to do in the courts what they were not able to get done in Congress--to overturn the Affordable Care Act. We have also seen with Judge Barrett that she has made her feelings very clear about the ACA. She disagreed with decisions to uphold the ACA the last two times it went before the Supreme Court, and she wouldn't answer questions about the healthcare law during her confirmation hearing. Striking down the ACA would deal a crushing blow to our most vulnerable populations during this pandemic. If the Court strikes down the Affordable Care Act in its entirety, Granite Staters and Americans across the country will lose access to Medicaid expansion. Medicaid expansion is a critical source of coverage for millions of Americans and, in New Hampshire, for thousands of Granite Staters who have lost their jobs during this pandemic. In fact, since the start of this pandemic, what we have seen is that enrollment in Medicaid expansion in New Hampshire has increased by more than 11,000 enrollees as we have seen job losses mount. For these individuals and all of the more than 60,000 Granite Staters who are covered through Medicaid expansion, the loss of the ACA in the Supreme Court--the Supreme Court's overturning the ACA--would eliminate a critical lifeline for coverage during this public health crisis. In New Hampshire, if we lose Medicaid expansion, we will also lose our most important tool for combating the opioid epidemic. Without the ACA, we will go back to a time when insurance companies had sweeping power to undercut coverage. They will be allowed to charge women higher premiums than men for the same coverage. The health insurers will be able to remove essential health benefits like prescription drugs or maternity care. They will also be allowed to jack up premiums or deny coverage altogether for individuals with preexisting conditions. More than 8 million Americans, including nearly 10,000 Granite Staters, could be denied coverage because they have previously contracted COVID-19, which could now count as a preexisting condition, and without the ACA, seniors could, once again, find themselves stuck in Medicare's doughnut hole for prescription drug coverage at a time when we are seeing drug prices soar. In her confirmation hearing, Judge Barrett even refused to say whether the Medicare Program was constitutional. With Judge Barrett on the Supreme Court, the health coverage that the ACA, Medicare, and other Federal programs provide will be under a constant threat. Sadly, women's reproductive rights are also on the line with Judge Barrett's nomination. When he ran for President in 2016, Donald Trump said that he would appoint judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade. Well, we are seeing that very clearly with Judge Barrett's record. It shows that President Trump is trying to do just that--overturn Roe v. Wade. Amy Coney Barrett's dissenting opinions, while serving on the Seventh Circuit, show that she is comfortable with laws that make it difficult or nearly impossible for a woman to exercise her right to make her own reproductive health decisions. Judge Barrett has even publicly supported an organization that is opposed to in vitro fertilization, which is a procedure that has helped millions of American couples start families. Almost 50 years of precedent of upholding a woman's right to control her own body are in jeopardy because the Republicans are playing politics with the Supreme Court and packing the Court with extreme Justices. There are nearly 20 abortion-related cases that are currently one step away from reaching the Supreme Court. A partisan Court would likely disregard longstanding precedent in these cases and put a woman's health and well-being at risk. Let's be very clear: Repealing Roe v. Wade is not going to reduce the number of abortions. If history is any indication, what it will do is increase the number of abortions in the country. Unfortunately, the Affordable Care Act and women's reproductive rights are just two of the many areas of American life that a partisan Supreme Court could dramatically alter. Equality for LGBTQ Americans is another major concern. Millions of gay and lesbian Americans have been married since the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, but in a recent dissent penned by Justices Thomas and Alito, these Justices challenged the constitutionality of that decision and called for it to be revisited. When asked in her confirmation hearing about the precedent of the Supreme Court decision to legalize same-sex marriage, Judge Barrett was evasive. So you can understand the anxiety and fear that same-sex families are experiencing as they watch the Republican-led Senate rush this nomination. The stakes are also incredibly high for voting rights, for worker protections, for commonsense gun laws, and for so many other issues that are in jeopardy with the appointment of Judge Barrett. Now, I know the die has been cast. We saw that yesterday with the 51- to-48 cloture vote, but I believe this effort to politicize the Supreme Court is a decision that those who care about our democratic institutions will come to regret for many decades to come. If today's vote is the same as yesterday's--51 to 48--this will be the closest vote for a Supreme Court Justice in our Nation's entire history. We should not be doing this today. We should be focusing on what the American public is most concerned about--help with the coronavirus I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together to resume negotiations on a comprehensive relief package for Granite Staters and Americans across this country. Six million Americans have missed their rent or mortgage payments since September. The lines at food pantries in my State of New Hampshire and across the country are growing longer and longer. Yet the partisan Supreme Court nomination seems to be the only priority of the Republican leadership here in the Senate. The American public are tired of partisan posturing. They need relief, and they need it now. That is why Congress should pass a bipartisan, comprehensive package that addresses the challenges we are facing in the short and long term. Congress needs to provide assistance for our hospitals and healthcare providers, especially nursing homes and long-term care facilities, which account for 81 percent of COVID-19 deaths in New Hampshire. That is the highest percentage in the country. We should also provide additional support for childcare centers and schools that are working to safely reopen and operate during the fall term, and we shouldn't condition those education dollars on whether a school is physically open, as Republicans have repeatedly proposed. That decision should be made by State and local officials, and it should be based on safety. We also need to support our local communities so they can continue to pay our first responders, firefighters, police, and teachers. Under no circumstances should our communities have to cut essential services and frontline workers. After months of inaction, Leader McConnell has forced the Senate to vote twice on a partisan package that was written in his office without any bipartisan input. Not surprisingly, that package doesn't even come close to addressing the public health and economic issues that our country is facing. We need to provide more financial support to hospitals, long-term care facilities, and other healthcare providers that are struggling on the frontlines of our fight against this pandemic. Senator McConnell's skinny bill does not provide any money for grants to healthcare providers. That is zero dollars for our Nation's hospitals, even though hospitals like the Lakes Region General Hospital in New Hampshire just filed bankruptcy this week and hospitals across New Hampshire are projecting hundreds of millions of dollars in losses this year due to the cancelation of elective procedures and nonemergency visits to deal with the pandemic. It also provides zero dollars for nursing homes and long-term care facilities at a time when nursing facility residents account for 81 percent of our COVID-19 deaths, and nursing homes, while they have seen 40 percent of the fatalities from this pandemic nationwide, have gotten only 4 percent of the funding. The bill provides zero dollars for community health centers across the country--community health centers that are providing care to millions of individuals, newly uninsured because they have lost their jobs due to the pandemic. The most recent version of the Heroes Act that passed in the House earlier this month would provide $50 billion in new grants for healthcare providers, as well as $7.6 billion to support our community health centers. I have joined Senator Casey in pressing for additional dedicated funds, specifically for long-term care facilities, to help them retain and hire staff--one of the biggest challenges they are having right now--acquire testing materials and PPE, and take other steps to ensure that our Nation's seniors are kept safe. We also need much more funding to support testing. The Heroes Act provided $75 billion for a national testing and contact tracing plan. Leader McConnell's bill would only provide a fraction of that amount. It is pretty simple. We are not going to get ahead of this pandemic and help our economy recover if we fail to make investments in testing and contact tracing and if we leave our healthcare providers in a financial hole. These investments are key to getting life back to some semblance of normal. We also need to provide more funding to support our ongoing fight against the opioid epidemic. In New Hampshire, we have seen that epidemic exacerbated by the pandemic, and we are beginning to see overdoses go up again. The McConnell skinny bill provides no financial help for families struggling to pay the bills and put food on the table and no funding for State and local governments that are facing massive revenue shortfalls due to COVID-19. The State of New Hampshire is facing a budget shortfall of nearly $540 million, about 20 percent of our State revenues. The Republican proposal would provide no assistance, forcing local governments to make very difficult choices about cutting essential services, including whether to lay off teachers, firefighters, and police officers or reduce trash collection and other essential services. And the Republican bill includes nothing to address broadband needs, depriving communities from making improvements in telehealth and remote learning. And it doesn't do nearly enough to address the needs of our small businesses. Congress must also provide additional support to help small businesses survive the economic fallout caused by the COVID crisis. As a member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I was proud to be part of the bipartisan working group that came up with the Paycheck Protection Program. As part of what we did for small businesses in the CARES Act, we greatly expanded and added a grant component to the Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program. We provided 6 months of relief for existing SBA borrowers to make use of the 7(a), 504, and Microloan Programs. Our intent then was to deliver relief to small businesses that are truly hurting, and that effort has been largely successful. To date, 501 million small business borrowers have received more than $525 billion in assistance through PPP. That includes over 24,000 small businesses and nonprofits in New Hampshire and $2.5 billion that has come into our State alone. Over 11,000 New Hampshire small businesses have received EIDL loans totaling over $660 million. Collectively, these programs represent the largest small business relief effort in our Nation's history by far, but we know that more needs to be done because there are some small businesses that have bounced back and are doing well and have returned to their pre-COVID revenues, but, unfortunately, too many of them still need help to get through the rest of this pandemic. Authorization for PPP has expired with more than $130 billion still unspent, and the funds appropriated for the EIDL Grant Program have been exhausted. I hear frequently from New Hampshire small businesses that have used PPP effectively to keep workers on the payroll and make rent, but many of them, as I said, still need more assistance as our economy reopens, particularly in the tourism and hospitality industries, which are so vital to New Hampshire's economy. This is a critical time. Restaurants in New Hampshire account for nearly 70,000 jobs and $3 billion in sales, according to the National Restaurant Association. Hotels represent another 29,000 jobs and $1 billion in wages and salaries, according to the American Hotel and Lodging Association. We have got to do more to help them. Now, based on these conversations, I worked with Senator Cardin, the ranking member on the Small Business Committee, and others to come up with legislation that recognizes the continuing need for small business assistance. Our bill would extend the deadline for PPP applications and let businesses that have already received a PPP loan but are still struggling to apply again. It would streamline the process for borrowers to obtain forgiveness for their loans, and it would allow local chambers of commerce and destination marketing organizations access to the PPP program. It would also significantly increase funding for EIDL grants and make important reforms to that program. This and other measures must be part of any future COVID-19 relief package, and I would urge the majority leader to quickly bring a package of legislation to the floor that addresses both the public health crisis as well as the economic pain that our communities-- especially our small businesses--are facing. COVID-19 is the worst crisis our country has faced during my lifetime. More than 220,000 Americans, including 468 Granite Staters, have lost their lives to this virus, which has also taken a historic toll on our economy Congress has an obligation to address this pandemic aggressively and thoughtfully. I am optimistic that we can come to bipartisan agreement, but we can't wait until after the election. Americans need help putting food on the table and paying the bills today. Too many can't afford an arbitrary timeline for delivering assistance. We need to set aside our differences and the partisan jockeying and do what is right for the Nation. That is what our constituents sent us here to do. We did it before, and we can do it again. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I join my colleague in coming to the floor to talk about what is at stake as the Senate considers who will fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by the passing of Justice Ginsburg. Justice Ginsburg was not only an extraordinary legal mind, but she was an unwavering advocate for equality under the law. I believe she epitomized what we should seek in any Supreme Court Justice: a respect for the rule of law coupled with an understanding that our Constitution was designed to protect the rights of the many, not just the few. Unfortunately, President Trump and my colleagues across the aisle are doing a disservice to Justice Ginsburg's legacy by attempting to rush through a nominee when the election is already underway. And that is not being dramatic. The fact is, we have 31 States, including my home State of New Hampshire, that have already begun distributing their absentee ballots. In fact, I was at a UPS distribution center in the city of Dover yesterday--actually it was on Monday--and I talked to several people there who showed me their absentee ballots because they had filled them out, and they were getting ready to mail them. So voting is already underway, and this is no ordinary election. It comes during a global pandemic, when cities and towns are struggling to stay afloat and Americans are trying to figure out how they are going to continue to pay the rent and put food on the table. With more than 200,000 Americans, including 439 Granite Staters who have died from COVID-19, we are still experiencing as many as 40,000 new cases each day in this country. Our economy is struggling to get back on its feet. There are still 11.5 million fewer workers employed since the pandemic began, and many are unable to go back to work because the majority of our childcare centers remain closed out of safety concerns. We still have so many schools, at least in New Hampshire, where the students are working from home. If they are lucky, they are going to school part time and working from home part time, but most of them are not back in school full time. Treatment and recovery centers are reporting that the overdose crisis has worsened because of the pandemic. In New Hampshire, where we saw in 2019 for the first time in a number of years the overdose death rate began to fall, we are now seeing an increase again. We are also facing a looming eviction crisis and housing shortage that has been exacerbated by COVID-19. Yet, given this reality, what we are seeing in the Senate is not an effort to pass a bipartisan COVID-19 relief package that is actually going to help the millions who have been impacted by this pandemic. Instead, what we are seeing from the Republican leadership here is a focus on quickly ramming through a nominee to serve on the Supreme Court in just a few short weeks. While that is going on, we have seen Republican leadership in the Senate blocking bipartisan negotiations on a COVID-19 relief bill. That has been going on since May, when we received the House bill called the Heroes Act. During those last 4 months, businesses have been shuttered in New Hampshire and across this country; families have been evicted; hospitals have laid off staff. All of this is going on while the pandemic continues--more than 40,000 new cases a day. Yesterday, I was in Nashua, the second largest city in New Hampshire, and I met with leadership from St. Joseph Hospital there. It is one of two hospitals in Nashua, and it is one of the four hospitals that has treated the most COVID cases of any of the hospitals in New Hampshire. Nashua is one of the communities in New Hampshire that has been hardest hit by the coronavirus. What I heard at the hospital was that COVID-19 has had a huge impact on their facility. Despite the very much needed injection of funds from the CARES Act and assistance from the Medicare advance payments loan program, they are still forecasting significant losses. They have had to furlough employees, many of whom rely on their jobs at St. Joseph not just for their healthcare but also for their childcare benefits. They shared that they have concerns with the lack of availability of testing capability. They have had orders that never arrived at their facility, despite commitments from the companies who are selling the tests. But the leadership and the staff at St. Joseph remain committed to serving their community, as do all of the hospitals across New Hampshire, so many of whom are facing similar financial difficulties and need additional help from the Federal Government. I am hearing from people across my State who urgently need Federal help. I have had letters from people all across New Hampshire, representing different industries in the State and different segments of our communities. I want to read an excerpt from a letter that I received from Pamela Keilig, who works with the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic Violence. She says: The pandemic has had grave consequences on the health and safety of survivors as they encounter ongoing barriers to accessing the support they need. . . . Overall, the statewide hotlines have seen a 7 percent increase in call volume compared to this time last year. Pamela's letter goes on to highlight what is at stake if Congress refuses to act. She says: [P]rolonged inaction in providing additional funding places survivors and their families in increased jeopardy. . . . [T]he time to intervene is now. They need help now. I also want to read a letter from Chris Coates, who is the county administrator for Cheshire County in New Hampshire over in the western part of our State that borders Vermont. Chris's letter describes the important role local governments are playing in mitigating the spread of COVID-19. He says: We are providing essential support and guidance to small businesses, record numbers of unemployed individuals, and those suffering from mental illness and substance abuse disorders. State and local leaders like Chris are facing severe budgetary shortfalls. They desperately need help from Congress. The State of New Hampshire alone expects to experience a budget shortfall of nearly $540 million if Congress doesn't provide additional support. In his letter Chris Coates goes on to say: Cheshire County is not looking for a special handout. My request reflects the simple reality that county governments, along with our state and local partners, are dealing with immense challenges at the community level. Then I also heard from the Seacoast Chamber Alliance, which represents chambers of commerce in the communities of Hampton, Exeter, Portsmouth, Dover, Somersworth, and Rochester. The Chamber Alliance says: The Seacoast Chamber Alliance respectfully requests you and your colleagues in the Senate work together in a bipartisan effort to approve a comprehensive funding relief package to support our businesses. They go on to say: Although we--and our members--are grateful for the support already allocated through previous CARES Act funding relief packages, we know this economic crisis caused by COVID-19 is far from over. And for many, the worst is yet to come. They finally conclude by saying: It is clear that without another round of assistance, many businesses will not survive into 2021. I ask unanimous consent that these letters, including the ones I just quoted from, be printed in the Record

Mrs. SHAHEEN. So in the middle of this pandemic, the likes of which we haven't seen in more than 100 years, what we see here in the Senate is that Majority Leader McConnell has prioritized moving a nominee who would enable the Court to strip away critical health protections that keep Americans safe. Instead of providing more resources for the businesses, the hospitals, the healthcare providers, and the people who have lost their jobs--instead of providing more resources for them, the majority is hoping to confirm a nominee who would strike down healthcare coverage for people, including those with preexisting conditions. My colleague from Connecticut, Senator Murphy, was very eloquent in talking about what the impact of striking down the Affordable Care Act will be. But the fundamental concern is that, instead of working together here to help Americans who are struggling with this pandemic, what the majority has chosen to do, what the Republicans in this Chamber have chosen to do, is to ram through a nominee who threatens to erode these fundamental rights while in the Court. Right now, Granite Staters and all Americans need the Senate to work for them, not for a partisan agenda to radicalize the Supreme Court. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to set aside this effort and to work together for the American people to get people the help they so desperately need. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

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

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, there is a lot going on in America right now. We are in the middle of a pandemic where we have lost over 200,000 people. We have millions who are unemployed. We are only 34 days away from a Presidential election. It is easy to see that a lot of Americans could have missed the fact that we are also in the middle of a decennial census. Under article I, section 2 of the Constitution, since 1790, the United States has conducted a census every 10 years. The U.S. Census Bureau is currently executing the 2020 decennial census. As we speak, census workers are conducting interviews and filling out survey forms in every community in our country despite the tremendous obstacles that have been posed by COVID-19. Their work is of utmost importance. I want to take this opportunity to thank them for their very challenging efforts. The 2020 census will dictate apportionment of the House of Representatives for the next decade. In addition, Federal programs rely on census data to distribute more than $1.5 trillion in funding every year to States, localities, individuals, and businesses. So the stakes are high for the census, and we have only one chance to get it right-- one chance every 10 years. As the vice chair of the Senate Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, I have worked with Members on both sides of the aisle to ensure that the Census Bureau has the resources it needs to ensure a complete and accurate 2020 census. This includes securing, for the past several fiscal years, the entire amount that was requested by the administration, including reserve funding, which has been critical to meet the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, in addition to funding, the Census needs sufficient time to get the job done right. To protect public health, on April 13, 2020, Census Director Steven Dillingham and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross announced that the Census Bureau would delay field operations by 3 months and they asked Congress to delay reporting apportionment and redistricting counts by 4 months in order to ``ensure the completeness and accuracy of the 2020 Census.'' That was Census Director Dillingham and Commerce Secretary Ross. Under this revised plan, the largest and most important field data collection operation to follow up with households that have been nonresponsive would run until October 31. On a bipartisan basis, this request from the administration was welcomed. We want to give the Census both the time and the resources that it needs to do the job right. Over the course of the summer, the Trump administration installed new political appointees at the Census, and a number of reports indicated that the Trump administration was looking to rush the 2020 decennial census operations so that Secretary Ross--despite what he said to us last spring--could transmit the apportionment counts to the President by December 31, 2020. Then, on August 3--just last month, August 3--Census Director Dillingham announced that 2020 field data collection and self-response operations would be shortened by a month, ending today, September 30. This decision to curtail operations was not based on the advice of career Census Bureau experts. Census data collection operations are incredibly complicated even under the best of conditions, but their complexity is greatly exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, this spring, experts made clear that a 4-month delay of statutory deadlines was necessary. In May, Tim Olson, Director for Field Operations for the 2020 decennial census, stated: We have passed the point where we could even meet the current legislative requirement of December 31. We can't do that anymore. That was back in May. After the truncated data collection operations were announced, a career official stated: It's going to be impossible to complete the count in time. I'm very fearful we're going to have a massive undercount. I share this fear. I am deeply concerned that cutting short data collection and processing operations during a global pandemic will necessitate changes that will be detrimental to the accuracy and completeness of the 2020 decennial census. In particular, I am concerned that the Census Bureau will reduce the number of attempts to count households and significantly increase the use of less accurate data collection methods. This could lead to a substantial undercount in historically hard-to-count areas. Those areas include Native American, rural, and immigrant communities. An undercount would mean that these communities would be left disenfranchised, without proper political representation and without millions of dollars of Federal funding. We should be clear about the gravity of this outcome. This would be a constitutional crisis that further undermines faith in our governing institutions. I called for the Department of Commerce inspector general to investigate why the Trump administration suddenly curtailed data collection operations. I have also requested that the Government Accountability Office conduct an investigation into how this rushed timeline could affect data quality and the overall completeness of the census count. Last week, the Commerce inspector general released a preliminary report, finding what we already knew: that the decision to accelerate the 2020 census schedule was not made by the experts at the Census Bureau and that rushed schedule increases the risk to the accuracy of the 2020 census. In particular, the report raises that the curtailed timeline does not provide schedule flexibility in the case of natural disasters. Unfortunately, over the last month, we have seen record wildfires out West and several hurricanes in the gulf. This has delayed operations in those regions. The GAO came to a similar conclusion, publishing a report last month that found that cutting the timeframe for the 2020 census could increase the risk of an inaccurate count. One line from the inspector general's report really stuck with me. It said: A statutory extension would permit the Bureau to adhere, as closely as practicable, to the 2020 Census plan it developed over a decade instead of the replan it developed over a weekend. I hope my colleagues will review these reports. I know everybody is anxious to go home. I am anxious to go home. But I hope people will review these reports and join me in providing the Census Bureau the time the agency needs. This last-minute attempt to shorten data collection and data processing isn't surprising, sadly. The Trump administration has made other attempts to manipulate the count for political gain. It has been well documented that political operatives have pushed the administration and Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross to include a citizenship question as part of the 2020 census and in an attempt to reduce participation in immigrant communities. Ultimately, Secretary Ross's attempt to include a citizenship question was rejected by the Supreme Court. We can't let these latest attempts to undermine the accuracy of the constitutionally mandated count succeed. Last week, a Federal court issued an injunction preventing the Census Bureau from ramping down operations prematurely because there would be irreparable harm to communities from rushing the count. However, this could just be temporary. In defying the court, earlier this week, the Census Bureau announced a mere 5-day delay so that operations will now end on October 5. This is not long enough. The Census Bureau has also announced plans to appeal the court's injunction. This is not solely a rural or an urban issue, a red State or a blue State problem. I hope my colleagues will listen to this because the States with the lowest percentage of households counted are Alabama, Louisiana, Montana, South Carolina, Mississippi--Senator Wicker--and Georgia. Some of these States are on the bubble of gaining or losing Representatives, so an undercount, which is a real risk if operations are rushed and shut down prematurely, would have serious repercussions. That is why I call on my colleagues to pass a 4-month extension of the Census's statutory deadlines so that the Trump administration is compelled to stick to the timeline it had originally announced. Congress already missed an opportunity to address this issue as part of the continuing resolution. Again, there is bipartisan support for this extension, with a bipartisan bill filed. In addition, last month, a bipartisan group of 48 Senators sent a letter to Senate and House leadership that called for the inclusion of legislation to extend the statutory deadlines as part of the next coronavirus relief package, as the House has done in the updated Heroes Act that was released recently. We should also ensure that the data collection operations, including nonresponse followup and self-response, continue through October 31. It is imperative for the census to count every person in the United States and where one lives. This includes communities that have had historically low participation in decennial censuses. The census is too important to allow meddling for political gain. We must take action immediately to ensure that the Census Bureau takes the time to get it right.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to urge that we come together and resume negotiations on a comprehensive, bipartisan COVID relief package--the kind of package that this country has been calling for. Today, nearly 200,000 Americans, including 436 Granite Staters, have died from COVID-19, and we still have as many as 40,000 new cases each day in this country--enough people to fill a baseball stadium each day. As a result, our economy continues to struggle, with nearly 30 million Americans still out of work and more than 1 million filing new applications for unemployment each week. Many Americans have been forced to raid their retirement savings just to pay rent and put food on the table--and that is for those people who actually have retirement savings. Sadly, too many people do not. The President's recent Executive orders have many State unemployment officers tied up in knots. Those orders affect Social Security and Medicare, and they provide no new help for the nearly 13 million households who could be at risk of eviction in the coming months. Unfortunately, the Trump administration and Majority Leader McConnell have refused to recognize that too many Americans are still suffering and still need help. It has been 4 months since the House of Representatives passed the Heroes Act--a bill to provide assistance to Americans who are in need. Instead of negotiating a bipartisan bill, as we did with the CARES Act back in March, Leader McConnell has released partisan legislation-- written in secret--that is woefully inadequate and ignores many of the problems I am hearing about from Granite Staters. Not surprisingly, the bill that was put on the floor last week--the so-called skinny bill because it didn't provide the kind of help so many people need--that bill failed. I opposed that skinny bill because I didn't believe it came close to addressing the public health and economic issues that our country is facing. It provided no funding for hospitals or healthcare providers on the frontlines, and the nursing home and hospital staff I talk to in New Hampshire tell me that more financial support is needed to stem the financial losses from this pandemic. New Hampshire hospitals have already experienced more than $550 million in lost revenue statewide, and they don't see an end this year. Losses of that magnitude are unsustainable, and the skinny bill that we voted on last week would not have addressed those losses. That proposal provided no support for State and local governments that are facing severe budgetary shortfalls. The State of New Hampshire expects to experience a budget shortfall of nearly $540 million, over half a billion dollars. That is about a 20-percent drop in State revenues. In the city of Manchester, which is our largest city, they expect to spend $11 million between this year and next related to COVID-19 expenses--money they hadn't budgeted for. They had hoped that some of those expenses would get reimbursed by FEMA, but under the recent order from the administration, FEMA is being told to no longer reimburse those expenses. So what I am hearing from mayors and municipal leaders in New Hampshire is that they are soon going to have to face some very difficult choices about whether they are going to have to cut essential services like trash collection and water and sewer and whether they are going to have to lay off teachers and firefighters and police officers. The bill we voted on last week, that skinny bill, provided no financial help for families struggling to pay the bills and put food on the table. There was no help in there to feed kids, nothing to address broadband needs--the needs that we have seen in New Hampshire for telehealth and for remote learning. We have significant parts of our State and significant communities where we have students who don't have access to technology to do remote learning. There wasn't nearly enough to help with testing and contact tracing and no real assistance for the Postal Service even as it faces bankruptcy. Funding for schools in that skinny bill? That was tied to whether the students are going in person or learning remotely. Well, in New Hampshire, we believe those kinds of decisions should not be made in Washington; they should be made by States and local school districts. If local school districts don't feel they can bring kids back safely, then they shouldn't be forced to do that just to get the help they need to ensure that kids can go to school safely. I think the American public wants results. They want a bipartisan, comprehensive bill so we can address the needs of Granite Staters and the people of this country. That is what I am fighting for, and I believe it is past time for people to come to the negotiating table so we can get that done. What we have seen during this pandemic is unemployment levels that we have not had in this country since the Great Depression. We need to provide additional unemployment benefits for people who need those dollars so that they can continue to pay their rent, their mortgages, put food on the table, and pay their bills. We need to make sure this emergency relief continues to be available to Granite Staters. Small businesses need a second round of PPP loans, which would prioritize those smallest businesses and those industries that have been hardest hit by this pandemic, industries like tourism and the hospitality sector. We need to provide support to our live venues. I recently visited the Bank of New Hampshire Stage in Concord, our capital. I heard firsthand how their business has been affected by the pandemic and the ripple effect that has on all live entertainment venues, on the performers who depend on those venues to be able to support themselves and the other members who are part of their performances. We need to make sure that childcare centers are supported. I was visiting a small business, a restaurant that has two locations in New Hampshire--one in Portsmouth and one in Epping. The business is called Popovers. It is very popular. What I heard from them is that the PPP loans had made a huge difference. They were able to keep some of their employees on. But as they are looking to the fall, they are worried about whether those employees are going to be able to come back full time because they don't have access to childcare and they are not sure whether schools are going to be remotely or in person. We need to provide help so that those businesses can get their employees back to work and people can continue to support their families. We need a comprehensive bill that provides emergency housing relief and food assistance to Granite Staters. We should support our counties and towns that are experiencing historic drops in revenues and that desperately need help to continue providing the most basic services--schools, firefighters, police, trash collection, water and sewer, and wastewater treatment--because those have been dramatically affected by the loss in revenue. Of course, we urgently need assistance for our nursing homes and for our long-term care facilities, which in New Hampshire account for more than 80 percent of the COVID-19 deaths, the highest percentage in the country. We need an answer from the administration as to why they are not disbursing the funds that Congress directed. For instance, the CARES Act provided up to $200 million for nursing home infection control efforts. To date, only $17 million of that has been sent out to those long-term care facilities that need it. On top of that, HHS has only spent about half of the $16 billion that Congress provided for the acquisition of personal protective equipment and other medical supplies. Nursing facilities and providers across the care system in New Hampshire desperately need this help, and they need it now. We had a hearing this morning in the HHS Appropriations Subcommittee, and I had a chance to ask some of the officials from HHS about why they have not distributed these funds. And, of course, the answer they gave me was this: Well, we don't know. That is not part of our responsibility. Well, that is part of everybody's responsibility--to ensure that funds that Congress has provided get distributed in a way that Congress has said they should be distributed, because we have people across this country who need that help and they need it now. We need a comprehensive bill to help treatment and recovery centers for those who are still struggling with substance use disorders, because we have seen this crisis worsen during the pandemic. We had been seeing deaths go down from overdoses in New Hampshire, and since the pandemic, we are beginning to see those numbers go up again. This isn't a problem that is unique to New Hampshire. I heard Senator Capito in the hearing earlier this morning talking about the challenges that West Virginia is facing. It has become more critical than ever that Congress provide substantial funding for substance-use disorder treatment and prevention. We need real support for the post office, which was lacking from that skinny bill last week. The Postal Service is the only Federal agency mentioned in the Constitution, and every community in New Hampshire and the United States relies on its essential services, especially those States that have rural communities. A lot of rural communities in New Hampshire don't have access to the internet. They depend on the post office for communications going in and out and the packages that go in and out. What I am hearing from Granite Staters is that there are Postal Service delays that are affecting their ability to pay their bills and to receive medications, and that small businesses are not able to complete their transactions. Congress has a responsibility to enact legislation that will restore timely delivery and fully fund the Postal Service. Finally, we need to ensure that the Census Bureau has the time necessary to execute a complete and accurate 2020 count. You know, it has been interesting to me to see the efforts of this administration to try and politicize the census, because this is no red State or blue State problem. The States with the lowest percentage of households that have been counted during the census are Alabama, Montana, Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, and South Carolina. They are mostly in the South, but not all. We must give the Census Bureau time to make a complete and accurate count by including a statutory delay for the apportionment and redistricting count that is part of any package before we go home. This is something that the Census Bureau asked us for last spring, and it is something that we should make sure they receive, even though under political pressure they changed their request. Bipartisanship on these priorities is possible. We were able to negotiate the CARES Act legislation that passed the Senate by a vote of 96 to 0. We did it before. We can do this again because that is how government is supposed to work. We are supposed to come together and negotiate and deliver for the American people. Probably the most often heard remark that I hear in New Hampshire is this: Why can't you just all work together to address the needs of this country? That is what we should be doing around everything, and it is what we should be doing around responding to this coronavirus. We should not recess until we can get a bill to the President's desk. We were sent here to do a job. We have an obligation to get it done. The foot dragging has gone on for far too long. Brinksmanship should end because time is running out on the needs of the American people. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise today to salute Neal Elliott for his many years of dedicated service and forward-looking leadership at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, ACEEE. Neal will soon retire from his role as senior director for research, the capstone to a distinguished career at ACEEE that began in 1993. An internationally recognized expert on energy efficiency, he has helped slash energy waste in the United States. Neal leaves a legacy worthy of our praise and gratitude. ACEEE is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that researches and advances energy efficiency policies, programs, technologies and behaviors as a way to strengthen the economy, reduce pollution, protect public health, and address climate change. Since its establishment in 1980, ACEEE has helped to mold U.S. policies that have cut domestic energy use in half relative to the size of the U.S. economy and delivered more than $2,000 in annual savings per individual. Neal has been instrumental in that success. He has helped to grow not only ACEEE as an organization, which has more than tripled in size since his arrival, but also the field of energy efficiency. He oversees ACEEE's overall research, which includes dozens of reports, fact sheets, and topic briefs each year. He has spearheaded its work on industrial, agricultural, and rural issues, including on such topics as combined heat and power--CHP--electric motor systems, smart energy management, and industrial decarbonization. Neal helped coin the term ``intelligent efficiency'' to reflect the growing need to incorporate the Internet of Things, connected systems, and big data into energy- saving efforts. He was also a key player in the design of the rural energy programs in the 2002 farm bill that expanded into the Rural Energy for America Program in the 2008 farm bill. An expert on energy efficiency policies and programs, he has pushed to overcome market barriers to integrating CHP and distributed energy resources into a cleaner, intelligent power grid. He holds six patents in thermal storage and produce processing, has written dozens of articles and reports, and is a frequent speaker at domestic and international conferences. Just as important, Neal has played a vital, avuncular role in expanding the energy efficiency community. He is adept at bringing people together and forging effective partnerships. With a doctorate degree in engineering from Duke University, where he previously taught, he has mentored and encouraged countless young professionals. He is passionate about energy efficiency, which he sees as a critical tool for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, mitigating climate change, and securing a more hopeful tomorrow for future generations. Neal has been a stalwart friend to me and my staff. I am thankful for his leadership and ACEEE's support for my proposals over the years. On behalf of the people of New Hampshire, I ask my colleagues and all Americans to join me in thanking Neal Elliott for his years of service and wishing him all the best in the years ahead.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I wanted to join my colleagues on the floor today to support legislation that would address the needs that we are hearing from State and local governments and that would support bipartisan legislation to address this pandemic. That is what we have had to date, and there is no reason why we can't get there this time. As you know so well, last week the United States crossed a devastating milestone. More than 150,000 Americans, including 417 Granite Staters, have died due to complications from COVID-19. Sadly, as we all know, those numbers keep increasing. The coronavirus pandemic has also wreaked havoc on our economy. The Commerce Department reported on Friday that our gross domestic product had shrunk to nearly 33 percent--the sharpest economic decline in modern American history. For months, my colleagues and I have been coming to the floor, week after week, urging the majority to take up proposals that would provide critical changes to our healthcare system and comprehensive relief for our economy, but what we have gotten is a package that fails to address many of the concerns I have heard from Granite Staters. The bill that was presented to this Senate by the Republican majority doesn't provide dedicated funding to help nursing homes and long-term care facilities, which are the most vulnerable to COVID-19. In fact, in New Hampshire, 80 percent of our deaths from coronavirus have been to people in long-term care facilities--the highest percentage in the country. This package doesn't include housing assistance and eviction protections. It inadequately funds testing, and it pressures schools to reopen in order to receive assistance. Importantly, the bill lacks any support for State and local governments that are struggling to maintain essential services while they are also on the frontlines battling this pandemic. Every day, mayors and community leaders tell me about what they are facing--the massive reduction in local tax revenues and increased costs due to COVID-19 response efforts. These challenges have left our State and municipal governments in dire straits. I would like to read an excerpt from a letter I received from Mayor Joyce Craig, the mayor of Manchester, New Hampshire's largest city. She says: Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Manchester was thriving. Over the past two years, we saw over $250 million in new, private investments in economic development; we expanded air service from the Manchester-Boston Regional Airport; and we were seeing a continual decrease in opioid overdoses. But due to the COVID-19 pandemic, our bright path forward has grown foggy, and I am concerned about what lays ahead for my city. Mayor Craig goes on to say that since the pandemic began, Manchester's revenue is down by over $3.5 million, including a $1.6 million decrease in property taxes that are collected. In total, the State of New Hampshire expects to experience a budget shortfall of nearly $540 million. That is about a 20-percent drop in State revenues. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter I quoted from Mayor Craig of Manchester be printed in the Record

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Today, I also spoke to the mayor of Nashua, Jim Donchess. The mayor told me that he expects to lose 10 percent to 20 percent of the revenue base in Nashua. That is $7 million to $15 million. That means that services would be affected and workers would have to be laid off. In fact, as he told me, if he had to take all of the savings that he would need to achieve from the revenue losses from just one agency, it would result in laying off half of the entire police department in the city or laying off 150 to 200 teachers. Obviously, that is not tenable. I also heard from the mayor of Berlin, Paul Grenier, the mayor of New Hampshire's northernmost city. He told me because of the impacts of COVID-19, the State of New Hampshire is also facing revenue shortfalls. As I said, they are expecting about $540 million in revenue losses. As he said, if the Federal Government doesn't provide some help to State and local communities, his city of Berlin is expected to lose not just any potential funding at the Federal level but State funds it had budgeted for because it was anticipating that it would get State funding as it usually does. So losing help from Congress in any COVID-4 package would have a double impact on the city of Berlin and other cities and municipalities across New Hampshire. I heard from mayors, town administrators, from local leaders, and from our Republican Governor Kirsten Noonan. All of them are grappling with whether they will be able to fund the services that they have committed to, whether they will have to lay off first responders, firefighters, police and teachers if Federal assistance doesn't arrive soon. New Hampshire is not alone. We just heard Senator Schatz talking about the impact on Hawaii and Senators Cortez Masto and Rosen talking about the impact on Nevada. Everyone who has been to the floor is talking about what will happen in their States if we don't do something to help. No State could have anticipated the economic fallout from this pandemic. That is why it is essential that Congress provide Federal support to help State and local governments as they respond to this crisis. We have done that before in the bipartisan CARES Act. New Hampshire was able to receive $1.25 billion to help reimburse the State for its COVID-19 response. These funds have been used in New Hampshire to create relief programs for county and municipal governments, small businesses, nonprofits of all sizes, frontline workers, and for healthcare providers. But of course, as we know, that money is running out, and so more needs to be done. We need State and local funds to provide additional support for families who are experiencing housing insecurity or homelessness, minority- and women-owned small businesses and individuals in recovery or are in need of mental health services. New Hampshire has been severely affected by the opioid epidemic, and people who have substance use disorders are feeling the impact of this coronavirus perhaps more than their neighbors and other people in our State. In addition to providing dedicated funding for State and local jurisdictions, the next relief package should remove bureaucratic restrictions preventing these governments from using emergency relief funds as they see fit. Congress should also provide dedicated funding for counties, cities, and for municipalities with fewer than 500,000 residents. They need access to this funding because they are just as much on the frontlines--the rural communities in my State--as the biggest cities in this Nation. Communities of all sizes are facing substantial loss of revenue due to COVID-19, and they need our help. Local leaders are calling out for help. We can't just sit idly by and let these governments go bankrupt, as the majority leader suggests. This shouldn't be a partisan issue. We all have a common interest in preserving as much of our economy as possible so that we are positioned for a full and robust recovery once we get this coronavirus behind us. So I would hope that all of my colleagues in the Senate would recognize the urgency of this situation we are in and that we will take up and pass legislation that will provide assistance to State and local governments and provide the relief that Americans are calling for. The House passed legislation more than 2 months ago. Too much time has been lost, and it is time for Congress to act now. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Dr. John Ruairidh ``Ru'' Morrison, chief of Clan Morrison, as he steps down from his position as the founding executive director of the Northeast Regional Association of Coastal Ocean Observing Systems, NERACOOS. During his 10 years at NERACOOS, Dr. Morrison has been a visionary in the world of ocean observing for the people of New Hampshire, the Northeast, and this country. I know I speak for so many others when I say that we are deeply grateful and thank him for his service. Originally from Scotland, Ru became a true advocate for New Hampshire when he began his position as an assistant research professor at the University of New Hampshire in 2003. During his tenure at UNH, Ru was an inspirational teacher whose work advanced the science of remote sensing. A primary focus of his efforts centered on building a better understanding of Great Bay, a resource that many in New Hampshire consider to be a cornerstone of our coastal environment. When Ru transitioned to NERACOOS in 2009, he brought with him his extensive knowledge of marine science and technology, the coastal and ocean environment, and, most importantly, his collaborative nature, which was instrumental in establishing a successful regional ocean observing system. NERACOOS, 1 of 11 regional associations of the U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System--IOOS--addresses the ocean monitoring and forecasting needs of the people of the Northeast. As executive director of NERACOOS, Ru's charisma and outgoing nature, coupled with his ocean science expertise, allowed him to bring together scientists, resource managers, fishermen, NGOs, and the public into a system notable for its espirit de corps. My staff and I all have many fond memories of joining him for boat rides on Great Bay to get a firsthand look at NERACOOS's work on the estuary. Anyone who's worked with Ru can attest to his warmth, wit, and self-deprecating sense of humor, which made working with him and NERACOOS a real pleasure. Over the past decade, Ru has grown the organization's prominence and expanded collaborations among its many users. Even more impactful, though, is a decade's worth of Ru's infectious enthusiasm, which invigorated the organization and its stakeholders alike. Under Ru's stewardship, NERACOOS became a morning ritual for fishermen preparing for their day at sea, and with the formation of the Northeast Coastal Acidification Network--NECAN--NERACOOS has become a national leader in facilitating regional responses to changing ocean chemistry. Ru's influence extends far beyond his backyard. He is the past chair of the IOOS Association; a member of the IOOS Federal Advisory Committee; councilor of the bi-national Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment; board director of the Marine and Oceanography Technology Network; and science advisory board member for the Lake George Jefferson Project. I was pleased to invite him to Capitol Hill in 2016 to testify before the Senate Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee to share his expertise with Congress. I and my staff are greatly indebted to him for all of his advice and counsel over the years. It is truly difficult to overstate the breadth and significance of his service. Ru would be the first to say that the foundation of his success is his family: his wife Ann Michelle and their children, Alistair and Marin. I know that everyone at NERACOOS and throughout the ocean observing community joins me in thanking Dr. Morrison and his family for his instrumental leadership and vision. We wish him all the best in retirement.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a great American and an exceptional member of the U.S. Air Force. Lt. Col. Joseph ``Joe'' Wall has distinguished himself through his professional character and dedication by serving this Nation in uniform. A leader and expert communicator, he has provided distinguished service to our country while assigned to the Air Force Senate Liaison Office. He is an outstanding leader and has been the perfect airman to represent the Air Force on Capitol Hill. Joe is a command pilot with more than 3,000 hours in the T-37B, T-1A, and KC-10A aircraft with over 100 combat and combat support missions, supporting operations over Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and the Horn of Africa. Throughout his career, Joe has demonstrated his exceptional abilities; he was a ROTC distinguished graduate at the University of Miami, graduate of the Air Mobility Command Phoenix Mobility program, and he is an Olmsted Scholar fluent in German. Prior to his current assignment, Joe had the privilege of leading airmen as a squadron commander for the 79th Air Refueling Squadron at Travis Air Force Base. As a legislative liaison in the Air Force Senate Liaison Office from June 2018 to July 2020, Lieutenant Colonel Wall performed his duties well and without reservation. His strategic thinking and foresight helped to strengthen and improve our national security. Joe accomplished this utilizing his in-depth Air Force knowledge with numerous engagements between Congress and the Department of the Air Force. During this assignment, Joe conducted congressional engagements to provide Members of Congress and staff insights into the development of the ``Air Force We Need'' plan required to support the National Defense Strategy. He also actively engaged Members of Congress regarding the fielding and production of the KC-46A Pegasus Tanker. Last year, Joe led the effort to make sure that the New Hampshire Congressional Delegation was front and center to receive the first KC-46A at Pease Air National Guard Base. Joe organized dozens of direct engagements between senior leaders at the Department of the Air Force and Members of Congress in order to convey important information on behalf of the Air Force. All of these conversations and engagements helped stakeholders understand the defense equities and the impact on national security. Due to his direct involvement, Members of Congress were able to make informed decisions and ensure the Department of the Air Force was properly resourced. After serving in this important role for the past 2 years, Lieutenant Colonel Wall will move to his next assignment, the Dwight D. Eisenhower School at the National Defense University. Joe, his wife Trysta, and their son Tavin have sacrificed much as a family in service to our Nation. I am thankful for Joe's service and his work with my office and the Senate over the past 2 years on issues important to the State of New Hampshire and this great Nation. I salute him, an American patriot whose service has kept our country safe and strong. Thank you