Tim Scott

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam President, today I would like to take a moment to recognize and honor SGM Thomas P. Payne of Batesburg- Leesville and Lugoff. Just last week, on September 11, the 19th anniversary of the painful attacks on American soil, Sergeant Major Payne received the Medal of Honor, the country's highest recognition of military bravery for his outstanding efforts to liberate dozens of hostages from ISIS captors during a rescue mission in Iraq. In his 18-year career in the Army, Sergeant Major Payne has deployed 17 times in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation New Dawn, and Operation Inherent Resolve and to the U.S. Africa Command area of responsibility. Thomas ``Patrick'' Payne enlisted in the U.S. Army shortly after graduating from Batesburg-Leesville High School in 2002, and 13 years later, his efforts have saved the lives of many. He holds several awards and decorations including the Medal of Honor, Bronze Star Medal with bronze ``V'' device, and three bronze oakleaf clusters, the Purple Heart, and many, many more. Sergeant Major Payne is currently serving as an instructor assigned to the U.S. Army Special Operations Command and is stationed at Fort Bragg, NC. I want to thank Sergeant Major Payne for his service; South Carolina is very proud to have such a brave hero.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, as we continue our efforts to tackle the effects of COVID-19, both in terms of healthcare and the economic fallout, CARES 2 could be a critical piece to the puzzle. Americans continue to mask up, social distance, and do what we can do as individuals to slow the spread of the virus. Here, in the Senate, we know that we must find additional ways to keep our people as healthy as possible while we reopen our economy as safely as we can. We also know that low wage and service industry workers have taken the hardest economic hit from the virus. This stems, in part, from restaurants either being closed or operating at a limited capacity. In April, one out of four individuals to lose their jobs lost their jobs in the restaurant industry. That is 5.5 million Americans who lost their jobs in the restaurant business. While those losses have certainly begun to recover, and even as our restaurants adjust and innovate to find new ways to serve customers, there is no doubt they need some additional help. That is why I worked on the provision in this legislation that will provide a 100-percent deduction for business meals--up from 50 percent. We know that through outdoor dining, carryout, delivery, and, in some places around the country, limited indoor dining, we can keep folks safe. This incentive will lead to more orders that will translate into more take-home pay and more hours for wait staff and kitchen staff and more revenues for millions of small businesses. That is a great thing and an easy thing to accomplish with this simple provision.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to complete my remarks before the rollcall vote.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, we come here today with an opportunity to say to America and specifically to communities of color: We see you. We hear you. I have experienced your pain. I have been stopped 18 times in the last two decades, and 1 year, I was stopped seven times, as an elected official in this body, trying to get into the Chamber and into the office buildings on the congressional side. I understand some part of what too many have experienced. This police reform legislation addresses that. It provides clear opportunities for us to say: Not only do we hear you, not only do we see you, but we are responding to your pain, because we in America believe that justice should be applied equally to all of our citizens, with no exceptions, and when we see exceptions, it is our responsibility to do something about those exceptions, and this legislation helps us get there. I say to my colleagues on the other side, we received a letter from Senator Schumer saying that there were five things about the JUSTICE Act that did not meet their principles. My response was a simple one: Let's have five amendments on those things. If we can get the votes on these two sides of the Chamber, we should include that in the legislation. I met with other Senators on the other side who said that there are more than five things that we need to have a conversation about. I said: Let's include an amendment for every single issue you have. They did not stick around for that meeting. My concern is that 80 percent just won't do. My concern is that our friends on the other side will not take advantage of this opportunity to say to the communities that are suffering: We see you. We hear you. We are willing to respond as one body. I implore all of us to vote for the motion to proceed so that if there are recommendations that come in the form of amendments, we have a vote up or down on those amendments. I have offered as many amendments as necessary for this bill to be seen by the public, and, in consultation with the other side, let it be their bill--not Tim Scott's bill, not the Republican bill, not the Democrat bill, but a bill that starts to address the issues that have plagued this Nation for decades. This is not my first start at this legislation. I started on this bill 5 years ago, but I could not find voices that would push forward reforms brought to our attention by the Walter Scott shooting in 2013. I will close with this: I respect people with whom I disagree. They have the right to disagree. My pastor tells me I have the right to be wrong, which means I am not right all the time. But on this bill, if you don't think we are right, make it better. Don't walk away. Vote for the motion to proceed so that we have an opportunity to deal with this very real threat to the America that is civil, that is balanced. This is an opportunity to say yes--to say yes not to us but to those folks who are waiting for our leadership to stand and be counted.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I thank the Senator from Georgia. Mr. President, there is scripture in the Bible in the Book of Ezekiel, chapter 33, somewhere around verse 6. This scripture talks about a watchman on a wall, and his job is to simply say there is danger coming. It is a very important job. The watchman's job is to simply say there is danger coming. As Senator Perdue said, I had that conversation 5 years ago. I didn't find anyone on the other side who was willing to engage in that conversation then, and here we are 5 years later. There is danger coming. I want us to hear this clearly because, as we look out on the streets of America and we see more unrest and we see more challenging situations, realize that there is danger coming. The watchman's responsibility is to call out the danger, and as the bloodshed happens, the blood, according to Ezekiel, will not be on the hands of the watchman, but if he does not shout out, if he does not articulate that there is danger coming, then the blood will be on his hands. There is danger coming. We are in dangerous times. The source of this danger is not the failure of this bill on this floor at this time. No, this is merely a symptom of the danger that, I believe, is right in front of us. This is only a symptom of a much deeper issue--a systemic problem. Let me explain. I am a kid who grew up in poverty--in abject poverty in many ways. There is much worse poverty in America and, certainly, around the world than that in which I grew up. I am talking about the poverty of when you come home and hit the light switch, and there is no light. I am talking about the kind of poverty of having a phone attached to the wall, and when you picked it up, there was no sound. There are people who have lived in worse poverty than I, but that is poverty from my perspective, and I lived in that poverty. One of the challenging situations of poverty that manifests is hopelessness. I was that hopeless kid in America, mired in poverty, in a single-parent household, under the impression that the only way I could escape poverty would be through athletics or through entertainment. I was hopeless. From 7 years old to 14 years old, I drifted, and all drifting leads one in the wrong direction. I failed high school. I embarrassed my mom, who was working 16 hours a day, because I felt there was no hope in this country for a little Black boy like me--14 years old. I failed Spanish, English, world geography, and civics. Civics, as we all know, is as close as it gets to failing politics. I will say that, today, this body, as a whole, is failing civics, or is failing in politics. As the Lord would have it, I had an amazing mother who believed that it was her responsibility to pray me out of the hard situations I found myself in, and I had the good fortune of meeting a mentor after I got through summer school, who redirected me. I pulled myself together with the help of a powerful family, a praying grandmother, and a whole lot of faith. I caught up with my class, and I graduated on time. I earned a small football scholarship. I went to college and earned a degree in political science. Along the way, as a youngster, I joined the NAACP. I joined the Urban League. I joined many organizations in the community because I knew that part of my responsibility was to be socially engaged and to make a difference no matter how small that difference would be. The one organization I didn't even think about joining was the Republican Party. Why would I ever think about joining the Republican Party? While growing up, every African American and every Black person I knew of was wed to the Democratic Party because it was better to have a seat in the room than to be outside. That was the heritage I grew up in. Let me fast-forward to where we are today, and I will return to that. We lost--I lost--a vote today on a piece of legislation that would have led to the systemic change in the relationship between communities of color and the law enforcement community. We would have broken this concept in this Nation that somehow, some way, you have to either be for law enforcement or for communities of color. That is a false binary choice. It is just not true. This legislation spoke to the important issues that have brought us here today. We wouldn't be here, as Senator Perdue alluded to, if it were not for the death of yet another African-American man, George Floyd. His murder is why the country has given us the opportunity to lead, but my friends on the other side just said no, not no to the legislation. They just said no. Why am I saying that they didn't just say no to the legislation? It is that, along the way, I sat down with many of them and asked: What do you need? Senator Schumer sent a letter, telling, I believe it was, Senator McConnell that there were five things in the legislation that needed to be improved. I said: Let's give them the five amendments. I sat down with more Senators, and they said: Wait. It is not just five. There are 20. I asked: How about 20 amendments? And they walked out. You see, this process is not broken because of the legislation. This is a broken process beyond that one piece of legislation. It is one of the reasons why communities of color--young Americans of all colors--are losing faith in the institutions of authority and power in this Nation, because we are playing small ball. We are playing for those in the insulated chambers. We are playing for Presidential politics. That is small ball. Playing the big boys' game is playing for the kids who can't represent themselves, and if you don't like what you see, change it. We offered them opportunities--at least 20, I offered--to change it, and their answer to me was, you can't offer us 20 amendments. I said: Why not? They said: Well, because Mitch McConnell won't give you 20 amendments. I spoke to Mitch McConnell. He said: You can have 20 amendments. I told them that. We went to a press conference yesterday, and we said: An open process. They didn't want an open process. They want one thing. I am going to get to that. So I asked my friends--I said: What is it you don't like about where we are going? They said: Well, the data collection area. This is the problem. The data collection area is the problem. I said: Well, tell me the problem. Well, the problem is that we are not collecting data. I am like, well, wait a second. I could have sworn when I wrote the legislation, we were collecting data. So I flipped through the pages and realized we are collecting data for serious bodily injury and death. They said: Well, we want to collect data on all uses of force. I said: Put it in an amendment, and I will support it. That was just one bone of contention. I said: Well, tell me another one. They said: Our bone of contention is that we need you to ban no-knock warrants because of the Breonna Taylor situation. I said: Your bill does not ban no-knock warrants for the Breonna Taylor situation; your bill bans it for Federal agents. There was not a Secret Service agent showing up at Breonna Taylor's door; that was a local police department. So the fact that they are saying they want to ban no-knock warrants knowing they cannot ban no-knock warrants tells me that this is not about the underlying issue. It is bigger than that. I said: Well, I will give you an amendment, though, and we can have that fight on the floor of the U.S. Senate. As a matter of fact, I said: Tell me any issue you have with the legislation. Well, we went through deescalation training, the duty to intervene, best practices. I said: In the legislation. In the legislation. In the legislation. I thought--you know, I don't have any hair, so I didn't pull it out, but here is what I said next. I said: Well, let's talk about tactics, then. They said: Well, you don't ban choke holds. I was like, I could have sworn I banned choke holds in there somewhere, and then I read the bill. They don't ban choke holds at the local level, at the State level. Do you know why? There is this little thing called the Constitution. They can't ban choke holds. Eric Gardner's situation would not have been cured by their ban on choke holds because their ban on choke holds was for Federal agents. Our legislation instructed the Attorney General to ban choke holds for Federal agents. What else did we do? Well, we said we would reduce funding by 20 percent. They reduced funding by 10 percent. So our penalty was twice the penalty of the other side, and this is supposed to be an issue. I am not sure we have found the issue. We haven't. It is not choke holds. It is not the duty to intervene. It is not data collection, because I said: On choke holds? They said: Senator--I sat there at their meeting with them--it is your definition of ``choke holds'' that is the problem. See, I assumed that when you think of choke holds, you think of a choke hold, but there is a distinction of the carotid airflow versus blood flow. They said ours covered only one, not the other. I said: OK. You can have an amendment. I will vote for it. We will change it. They said: We are not here to talk about that. I said: Wait a second. If we are not here to debate the issue on the motion to proceed so that we can fix not 50 percent of the bill, not 70 percent of the bill, but literally slivers, slight changes on parts of the bill that would move this entire process forward, and you have the amendment to do so--I even said something that I didn't think I would say. I said: What about a managers' amendment? Let's just fix everything in one fell swoop. They said: No, thank you. So I find it disingenuous that people say: Well, why don't you just sit down with one Member and work it out? Well, if a managers' amendment won't do it, if the 5 amendments they wrote in a letter saying that they needed to have these things fixed won't do it, if 20 amendments won't do it, and you have an open process on the floor of the U.S. Senate that requires 60 votes to get off of the bill, then what, pray tell, is the problem? Well, I finally realized what the problem is. The actual problem is not what is being offered; it is who is offering it. It took me a long time to figure out the most obvious thing in the room. It is not the what. I have listened to the press conferences. I have read the newspapers. I am not sure that anyone who is actually reporting on the bill has actually read the bill, because the next time I see another story or editorial that says we don't do this, their bill does that, and you put the two together, and it is not just off, it is just dead wrong--I realized, finally, it is the who that is offering this. I have dealt with the problem of who before. As a Black man, I get the who being the problem. It is one of the reasons I went to Senator McConnell and said: I want to lead this conversation. I am the person in our conference who has experienced firsthand racial discrimination, racial profiling by law enforcement, and I am still a fan because I believe that most law enforcement officers are good. But I am the guy. I am your guy, Mitch, because this is my issue. This is an issue for every poor kid growing up in every poor neighborhood in this Nation who feels like, when I leave my home for a jog, I might not come back. This is a serious issue. This is an issue for every single kid who says: Is this my country? We have heard no. This is the issue that we should be solving, not the legislative issue. That is not the issue. The issue is, do we matter? We had an opportunity to say: You matter so much, we will stay on this floor for as long as it takes and as many amendments as it takes for us to get to the issue that says ``Yes, you matter.'' But we said no today. Fifty- six people said yes--four short--four short of saying yes; yes to having enough information to direct training and resources in such a way that we could hold people accountable. We were four votes short of saying yes to having a powerful tool of pulling resources to compel behavior on choke holds, because I believe that if we had gotten on the bill, we would have passed this bill. But that is the problem, by the way. That is the who I am talking about. See, as a Black guy, I know how it feels to walk into a store and have the little clerk follow me around, even as a U.S. Senator. I get that. I have experienced that. I understand the traffic stops. I understand that when I am walking down the street and some young lady clutches her purse and my instinct is to get a little farther away because I don't want any issues with anybody. I understand that. But what I miss in this issue is that the stereotyping of Republicans is just as toxic as poison to the outcomes for the most vulnerable communities in this Nation. That is the issue When Speaker Pelosi says one of the most heinous things I can imagine--that the Republicans are actually trying to cover up murder, the murder of George Floyd, with our legislation--that is not politics. That is not a game to win. That is, you lose--you will sooner or later lose--but immediately, every kid around the Nation who heard that nonsense lost at that moment. You see, what has become evident to me is that she knows something that we all know. She knows she can say that because the Democrats have a monopoly on the Black vote. No matter the return on their loyalty--and I am telling you, the most loyal part of the Democratic construct is Black communities--no matter the loyalty of the people, the return they get will always continue to go down because in monopolies, you start devaluing your customer. You see, today we could have given at the very minimum 70 percent of what they say would be important for the people we say we serve, but instead of having a debate on that today and not getting 5 amendments but 20 amendments, a managers' amendment--instead of going forward and getting what you want now, they have decided to punt this ball until the election. Do you know why? Because they believe that the polls reflect a 15-point deficit on our side; therefore, they can get the bill they want in November. All they have to do is win the election, and then roll in January, and they get a chance to write the police reform bill without our support at all. Well, this is what they did in the House, right? No amendments in the House of Representatives on their bill. We are saying amendments on our side. Democrats are saying no amendments in the House, but you here in the U.S. Senate, because we are the world's greater deliberative body, you can have amendments--not in the House, not under Speaker Pelosi, but under Leader McConnell, you get at least 20 amendments. And I thought, what the heck, I will throw in the managers' amendment too. But that was not good enough because the irony of the story is not the bill; the irony of the story is that today and through the rest of June and all of July, what we are going to have here is, instead of gaining 70 percent of what you wanted, or more, you are going to get zero. How is that for a return? How is that for loyalty? How does that work for the little kid at home in North Charleston where Walter Scott got shot? How does that work around the country when, instead of getting 70 percent of what you wanted, today and tomorrow and next week you get zero, and you are going to wait until the election to get more? OK. Well, why wouldn't you take the 80 percent now, see if you can win the election, and add on the other 20 percent? You have got to be kidding me. Because the who matters, they cannot allow this party to be seen as a party that reaches out to all communities in this Nation. Unfortunately, without the kind of objectivity in the media that is necessary to share the message of what is actually happening, no one will ever know because if you don't read it in the paper, it must not have happened. If you don't see it on TV, on MSNBC or CNN, it must not be true. That is a problem. Let me just say this: I think we are willing to compete for every vote everywhere, all the time. That might not be true in every corridor of the Nation, but it is true of most corridors of the Nation. And this party has reinforced that truth, not by the words coming out of my mouth but by the actual legislation signed into law. Senator Perdue started talking about the important work that we did on opportunity zones--and I am going to wrap it up in 2 minutes here. It is lunchtime. In 2017 we passed tax reform. I included in the opportunity zones-- $75 billion--real money to the most distressed communities in this Nation. How did that happen? Well, President Trump and I had a serious disagreement on his comments after Charlottesville. He, being a person I was not looking forward to having a conversation with, invited me to the Oval Office. I sat down with him, and I said: What do you want to talk about? The President said: Tell me about your perspective on racial history. I was stunned because if you know President Trump like I know President Trump, his love language is not words of encouragement. It just ain't. I know ``ain't'' ain't a word, but it is not. He listened, and at the end of our conversation, he simply said: Tell me how to help those I have offended. I didn't know what to say, so I pulled out my back pocket and got opportunity zones. I didn't go there prepared for him to listen. That is not supposed to be funny, but it is. I mean, I didn't expect him to listen, but he did. He listened. He leaned in, and he said: Tell me how to help the folks I have offended. I said: Let's work on opportunity zones together. He said: Yes. I said: What? He said: Yes. He was concerned enough about the communities he had literally just offended. He was concerned enough to go to work on their behalf. And that is why we have opportunity zones. I was like, well, this might work again. So I went back to the President and said: You know, there is a lot of work that needs to be done around the HBCUs, historically Black colleges and universities. He said yes. He said yes. We said yes. Let me just tell you this: When we started saying yes, we controlled the White House, we controlled the Senate, and we controlled the House. So it wasn't because some Democrat came over here and said: In order to get our votes, you have to do this. That is not what happened. He said yes because the Republican Party said yes. We stood together with all three leaders of government under our control. We got opportunity zones done. We started a process of reinvesting in historically Black colleges and universities. And the head of the United Negro College Fund said at my last fly-in that this is a record level of funding ever--his words, not mine. I am not sure what ``ever'' is. Maybe that is longer than I have been alive. Literally more money for HBCUs than ever--brought to you by the Republican Party. I said: Well, that is working. Let's do it again. So we went to stem cell research, which--stem cell research for sickle cell anemia, which is a 100-percent--basically speaking, 99.5 percent--African-American disease. He said yes. Lamar Alexander, the chairman of our Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee--we were fighting over funding for HBCUs. We made it permanent--permanent funding for the HBCUs led by a Republican chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, President Trump signs it, and we have delivered historic funding and permanent funding for HBCUs. Because I am running out of time, I am not going to go through the pre-pandemic numbers in minority communities for unemployment-- unemployment not only at a record low, but we had labor force participation rates increasing. Let me say that differently. Not only did we get more jobs for Black folks and Brown folks, but the number of folks in the community--we started having an increase in the number of folks working. This is called basic conservative politics. It works, creating 7 million new jobs benefiting two-thirds of African Americans, Hispanics, and women, and with a full economy, all boats started rising. Don't believe me, check your accounts. That is what it looks like. COVID-19 hit us, and what did we do? We not only approved $2.3 trillion and then another $500 or so billion dollars, and $450 billion that would be multiplied in the commercial facilities by probably 7 or 8--a $6 trillion relief package. What did we do inside that package? We targeted small businesses to save small businesses, and, by the way, we added $1 billion for historically Black colleges and universities. Let me tell you what the biggest threat is. The biggest threat is that this Republican Party keeps showing up and delivering. I have 12 more pages to go. It is like being at church with my closing. I have 12 more pages of accomplishments to talk about. I am not going to talk about it. Don't look relieved. I am not going to talk about it. I am just here to state that if we are going to be serious about criminal justice reform--and we passed it with the House, Senate, and the White House in the hands of Republicans. We passed criminal justice reform to make up for the Democrat bill--the 1994 crime bill that locked up disproportionately African-American men. The Republican Party passed criminal justice reform with all three levers in our hands. I am frustrated. I am frustrated because it is not a competition for the best ideas. It is not a competition for how to improve the poorest performing schools in America in the public education system that is consistently in Black and Brown communities--that your ZIP Code determines the outcome of your life because you are not going to have a good education because we will not touch teachers' unions and we will not touch education in the way that needs to be touched. Governor Scott did it before he was a Senator. That is one of the reasons why I went down there and campaigned for him, because he was serious about helping poor kids get up and move on. Let me just close with this. I don't know what it is going to take to wake up an entire nation about the importance of a duopoly and not a monopoly. Look at the results. Look at the results you are getting. By the way, when this bill is gone, and next week we are on the NDAA or something else, we will forget about this. We will move on. People will forget about it. And do you know what is going to happen? Something bad. And we will be right back here talking about what could have been done, what should have been done, why we must act. I am telling you, I had this conversation 5 years ago, and I am having this conversation right now. We could do something right now. You know, here is the truth. Detroit, Atlanta, Minneapolis, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and all of these cities could have banned choke holds themselves. They could have increased the police reporting themselves. They could have more data information themselves. They could have deescalation training themselves. They could have duty to intervene themselves, Minneapolis as well. All of these communities have been run by Democrats for decades--decades. What is the ROI for the poorest people in this Nation? And I don't blame them. I blame an elite political class with billions of dollars to do whatever they want to do. And look at the results for the poorest, most vulnerable people in our Nation. I am willing to compete for their vote. Are you? (Applause, Senators rising.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam President, I come to the floor to continue a conversation, a dialogue, about the importance of moving forward on the motion to proceed on the JUSTICE Act. It was just an hour and a half ago, in front of the entire press corps, when I, Leader McConnell, and the leadership team on the Republican side had a very open conversation with the press about fact that voting for this motion to proceed is voting for an open process. He said--and I agree--that this process must be open. I have asked that we have amendments, and the leader has said yes. So, to my friends on the other side who believe that somehow--in some way--this does not include an actual open process, wherein you have a chance over several days, in the sight of the public, to talk about and offer your amendments, that is wrong. If you want a process whereby you will have an opportunity to persuade those in this body and the American people about the value of your amendments, this motion to proceed is a motion you should vote for. More importantly, rather than persuading the American people that this is a motion to proceed that you should vote for, if you really want to get into police reform, we will need a vehicle with which to get there. The JUSTICE Act is that vehicle. Speaker Pelosi herself said--and I do not often quote Speaker Pelosi or even paraphrase Speaker Pelosi about something that she and I might agree on, but I agree here--that it would be important for us to have a conference, which would require this body to pass legislation. Then it would go to conference with the House. The only way we will pass legislation in this body is for there to be a bipartisan coalition of Republicans and Democrats, working together, because a majority of the Senate is not 51 out of 100. From a legislative purpose, the majority of the Senate is 60 votes. That means we require 60 votes to even start the process of saying to little boys and girls in communities of color around this country: We see you. We hear you. I grew up in some impoverished communities and in a single-parent household--mired in poverty. I understand how it feels to leave your home, get in a car, and be afraid of being stopped. I get that. I have spoken about that too many times already. What I will say is that this body has a chance to say to those kids: We see you. We hear your concerns. A motion to proceed is simply a procedural motion that says: Let's debate the underlying bill. Let's have a conversation in front of all of the American people about the importance of doing police reform the right way. If you don't trust the Republicans or if you don't trust the Democrats, you get to watch the process play out right here, within the world's greatest deliberative body--you can watch it play out right here, live on C-SPAN--and come to your own conclusions about the seriousness of this issue. Yet if we miss that golden opportunity--if we miss the opportunity to debate the underlying issues--all you will wind up with will be talking points and campaigns. You see, some believe that one side would rather campaign on police reform than solve police issues. I believe that both sides of the aisle have vast majorities of people who are willing to come to the table to have a serious debate on the underlying issues that have brought combustion into this Chamber and solve them, not have them explode. All of us do not have to tackle the issues like I did when I was 16 and 17 and 18 and 25 and 26 and 30. We are all here now on this sacred ground, and we have the ability to say to that young man and to that young lady: We didn't just see you. We didn't just hear you. We acted on it. By doing so, I believe we can make a difference in the lives of Americans whom we actually save. There have been some criticisms. I sat in my office and listened to some of the criticisms about our JUSTICE Act by my friends on the other side. One of the criticisms was that the JUSTICE Act does not require new reporting measures on use of force. What? I sat in my office, speechless, because our legislation absolutely, positively, unequivocally requires more information. The House bill has a 10- percent penalty, and our legislation has a 20-percent penalty, or twice the penalty. I heard that our legislation does not ban no-knock warrants, which is critically important because, in Louisville, KY, the conversation around no-knock warrants took a drastic turn in the wrong direction that led to the killing of Breonna Taylor. My friends were talking about how the House bill--their bill--bans no-knock warrants in drug cases, but when you open the legislation and read the pages, what it does ban are no-knock warrants for Federal agents. In Louisville, KY, those were not Federal agents. So the complaint and the concerns about what actually helps situations in places like Louisville, KY, aren't answered by the House bill I will be honest. In our legislation, we want to get the data around no-knock warrants so that we can actually direct the resources and the decisions in the right way. So, yes, you could say ours allows for a more deliberative process. Well, let's debate that, and let's come to an agreement. Next, I heard that the JUSTICE Act would not end choke holds and that their legislation would actually ban choke holds. Let's take a closer look. That is false. With strict penalties facing local police departments, they go after choke holds by holding off on grant dollars for local agencies and State agencies. Our legislation does the exact same thing. We go after local departments and State agencies by withdrawing some grant dollars. What theirs says about the ban on choke holds applies only to Federal agents. That is really important. Why is that important? When you are watching at home, you hear there will be a ban on choke holds, but you don't necessarily make the correlation or have the information to reach the conclusion that they are talking only about Federal agents. Why is that important? Because Eric Garner's was not an incident with a Federal agent. It was not. For 700,000 of the 800,000 law enforcement officers, the ban would not apply. That is really important information to share with the American people. Why is this so? It is called the Constitution. It is a pesky, little thing sometimes, but it is a fact. The Constitution does not allow for the Federal Government to dictate to those in local law enforcement what they can and cannot do. So they use the inducement of resources at the Federal level. I talked to 10 Democratic Senators today, and I told them all the same: Let's get on the floor and amend the bill and see what happens. By the way, our legislation says the same thing. We instruct the AG to figure out how to ban it for Federal officers, and we reduce money and take money away as a penalty for those departments that have not banned choke holds. The President's Executive order says that the certification process must include being certified by a governing agency that doesn't look favorably on choke holds. So whether you are in the House or whether you are a Senate Democrat or Republican or are in the White House, we are all closing in on the same outcome. Here is what may be just as important as the distinctions that, I hope, I have cleared up as to the differences that are not necessarily the biggest differences on the important issues of what they said this morning was not what we were doing. I think selling something is important, but you can sell by manipulating or you can sell by motivating. I want to be clear that our legislation says what it says, not what others say it doesn't say. Why am I so passionate about this issue? Beyond my 18 stops as a person of color, beyond my issues here in the Senate, beyond the fact that I am the one who grew up in poverty, in a single-parent household--beyond that point--in my legislation, which is the Senate Republican legislation, and the House legislation, there is so much common ground on which we can work, and to lose this moment for the kids and the young adults who are watching this process would be terrible. Let me give you a couple of examples of what I mean by the things that we have in common. Both sides agree on more deescalation training and on duty-to- intervene training. Both sides agree on ending choke holds. Both sides agree on passing anti-lynching legislation. Oh, by the way, I and Senator Grassley--the then-chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary--worked with Senator Harris and Senator Booker to get it passed not once in this Chamber but twice. It stalled in the House before it stalled over here. We got it done twice, and it is another area of agreement. Both sides agree on the importance of more minority hiring in law enforcement. Both sides agree that more body-worn cameras are a good thing. We actually go further and have penalties for not having the body cameras on, but both sides agree. Both sides agree on the creation of a National Criminal Justice Commission, which, by the way, was the No. 1 recommendation of President Obama's Task Force on 21st Century Policing. So why can't both sides agree on a motion to proceed? If there is that much commonality in the underlying legislation, if we are all watching the same pictures that we have all found disgusting and unbelievable, why can't we agree on tackling the issues in a substantive way here on the floor of the world's greatest deliberative body? That is what we are supposed to do here. We debate the issues. I want the Nation to see; I want the public to see; I want the world to see; I want all of America to see our debating this issue. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, I woke up this morning, Wednesday morning, June 17, 2020, and for so many Americans, this is just another Wednesday morning. You wake up; you get ready for work-- but not in South Carolina. In South Carolina, this Wednesday, June 17, is the fifth anniversary of when a racist walked into Mother Emanuel Church, sat through a Bible study for an hour and listened to believers talk about their love of God. At the end of that Bible study, he pulled out a weapon and killed nine people. So for me and so many South Carolinians, this is a hard day. I will tell you this: Standing on this floor, remembering the words of one of the victims' son, Daniel Simmons, Jr., 5 years ago on a Wednesday, 1 week later--I asked Daniel Simmons, Jr., whose father, Daniel Simmons, Sr., had been killed in an attempt to start another race war at the home of the Civil War: What should I say to the people who would be watching around the country? He said what I could not believe. It was this: Please remind them of Romans 8:28--that all things work together for good for those who love God and are called according to His purpose. I was standing at those doors on my cell phone. I could not believe the words he was speaking. In an act of true, unconditional love, he inspired me. He encouraged me. He taught me lessons of strength and courage and mercy our Nation needs to remember. I came to the floor today to speak about my new bill, the JUSTICE Act, our Republican response to police reform. I was sitting in my office when the Senator from Illinois talked about the ``token'' legislation on this day, the day that we remember Mother Emanuel Church and the nine lost lives and my friend, the pastor of the church, Clementa Pinckney--the first person ever to call me a Senator, the pastor of that church, a Democrat pastor of that church said to me ``My Senator,'' in December of 2012--and reflect back on the fact that I have on my phone today the text for Clementa in which I said: Are you OK? He didn't answer because he was already dead. To think that on this day, as we try to make sure that fewer people lose confidence in this Nation, to have the Senator from Illinois refer to this process, this bill, this opportunity to restore hope and confidence and trust to the American people, to African Americans, to communities of color--to call this a token process hurts my soul for my country, for our people. To think that the concept of anti-lynching that is a part of this legislation would be considered a token piece of legislation because, perhaps, I am African American and the only one on this side of the aisle--I don't know what he meant, but I can tell you that, on this day, to hear those comments, again, hurts the soul. To think about how, in the same year, 2015, Walter Scott, in my hometown of North Charleston, running away from the police, was shot five times in the back--I sponsored legislation then, and I don't remember a single person saying a single thing on that side of the aisle about helping to push forward more legislation on body cameras. But, today, this is a token piece of legislation. I think it is important that we stand up and be counted and make sure that we have more resources available for every officer to have a body camera because, as we saw in Georgia with Mr. Arbery, had it not been caught on video; in Walter Scott's case, had it not been caught on video; in George Floyd's case, had it not been caught on video, we might be in a different place. On the other side, they are wanting to race-bait on tokenism, while this legislation would provide resources for body cameras, for anti- lynching, and for deescalation training. But, no, we can't concern ourselves with the families I sat with at the White House yesterday and in my office yesterday. Instead, we want to play politics because this is 2020, and we are far more concerned about winning elections than we are about having a serious conversation on reform in this country. No, we would rather have a conversation about tearing this country apart, making it a binary choice between law enforcement and communities of color instead of working for the American people, bringing the reforms to the table so that we have a chance to balance this Nation and direct her toward due north. No, that is too much to ask on June 17, 5 years later. I started this conversation on body cameras in 2015, in the Walter Scott Notification Act in 2015. But, no, we want to have a political conversation. I reject that. I reject that. I will tell you that I believe my friends on the other side of the aisle are serious about police reform. There are just some who are more interested in scoring political points than they actually are in getting a result. It is not the majority of them. The majority of them have the same heart that we have for the American people. That is where we should be focusing our attention, not the color of my skin, not tokens. It is cool when you are out in the public. I get it all the time on Twitter. I am used to it. But on this day, my heart aches for my State. My heart aches for my uncle's church, which he attended for 50 years before he passed. So I am a little riled up. I sit here quietly trying to pass good legislation that was based on the House bill because I knew that if I wanted a chance to get something done, we had to do it in a bipartisan fashion. I am not running for anything. I am not up for reelection. I am not trying to support someone for their victory. I am simply saying to the families I met with yesterday at the White House without a camera and in my office yesterday without a camera: I hear you. We see you. You are not simply sitting there silent. We are working on serious, tangible, measurable results. Why is that not enough? Why can't we just disagree on the three or four items that we disagree upon? Why can't I say what I have been saying, which is that the House bill is, in fact, the blueprint for some progress? It goes too far for me in some areas, but, yes, I like the concept of more information. This is a good thing. The House does it; we do it. That is a good thing. I like the concept of more training. The House does it; we do it. I like the fact that we are looking for a way to ban choke holds. We do it by taking money from different departments; they do it in a different fashion. We are about 90 percent there. But where do we go? Where do we go? People wonder why our country is so divided. It is because it is so easy to walk onto this floor and say ``token'' and send the same race-baiting message that we have heard for a very long time. If you are a Democrat, hey, it is OK. That is not ever OK. It is not OK to say to our kids: You can't think what you want to think and be who you want to be. If you are not in line with one idea and the way they think, it is bad news. Then you are a sellout What message do you send the kids? I am going to be OK, but what message are we sending the kids throughout our country--that you can't be taught just to think; we have to teach you how to think. That is the kind of conclusion that is wrong. It is toxic. It is pushing our country toward an implosion that is avoidable. That is why I started my legislative day today with remembering Mother Emanuel. It is why I read my Bible next--because I knew I needed a little extra strength. That is why I turned immediately to my first interview trying to talk about police reform because, as a guy who has been stopped 18 times in the years of the 2000s, I take it seriously. Being stopped seven times in a single year, being stopped this year, being stopped last November, being stopped coming into the Senate with my pin on--sure, I get it. But I don't point fingers at the other side, saying that they are just not serious about the issue. It is just not what we should do. I assume that everybody should be serious about the issue, but I have to tell you, it is with a heavy heart--it is with a heavy heart that I believe that, had we had more money for body cameras, we would be in a different position today than we were in 2015. But I didn't have anybody who wanted to have this conversation or, at least, they didn't have this conversation. I believe there are good people of good intent on the other side of the aisle. I think there are people of good intent on our side of the aisle. I think the fact is that most Americans are tired of Republicans and Democrats talking about Republicans and Democrats. I think most Americans are tired of our talking about election outcomes and polls. ``What about me?'' is what they are saying. I am suggesting that this bill, the JUSTICE Act, is a serious nationwide effort tackling the issues of police reform, accountability, and transparency. It is grounded in bipartisan principles because I believe that the other side has some stuff we have to hear and that our side has some stuff they need to hear. If we do that, we will have the votes to have a real debate next week on this bill, but if we don't do that, we will just talk about scoring political points, and you will go on MSNBC or CNN, and we will go on FOX, and everybody will have their chatter, and more people in the communities of color will have less confidence in the institutions of power and authority in this Nation because we missed the moment. We missed it 5 years ago. We don't have to miss it now. As you know, I am not really into theatrics. I don't run toward microphones. I have had a lot of them these last 7 days. I don't talk a lot in conference because, why say what other people are saying? They have probably said it better. I don't demonize the other side because I know that in order to get anything done in this conference, on this committee, in this Senate, you have to have 60 votes. Plus, if you have a grievance with your brother, talk to them. Talk to them. I have tried to do that. As I am sure I am running out of time, let me just say that the families I sat down with yesterday--they don't think working on body cameras is a token experience. They don't think sitting down with the President of the United States, with tears filling their eyes, running down their cheeks, talking about their lost loved ones is a token experience. The law enforcement officers in that meeting with those families do not believe that having a serious conversation about police reform is a token experience. They don't believe that coresponders for the one man who was in the room, whose son was having a mental episode, who was shot on the scene--he doesn't think this was a token experience. Shame on us. Shame on us if we are unwilling to have a serious conversation about a serious issue that, in my opinion, is a greater threat to this Nation than perhaps anything we have seen. We have never solved it because we are all having political points. That is wrong. It is just not right. Let me say to all of my colleagues, Senator Lankford, Senators Capito, Sasse, Lindsey, Barrasso, and Alexander: Thank you. Thank you for giving a voice to a serious issue.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam President, we are at a critical time in our Nation's history. I think we can all sense the opportunity that is before us. Through the challenges of COVID and the death of George Floyd and its aftermath, we can affect real, lasting change. Perhaps the most famous line in Dr. King's letter from Birmingham jail is ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'' Let me say that one more time. ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'' More than at any time I can remember, people of all ages and races are standing up together for the idea that Lady Justice must be blind. Although COVID has delayed this now-annual reading of Dr. King's letter, it has truly never been more important than it is right now. I want to thank all of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle for reading today and Senator Jones for putting this together again. Every time we hear them, the words of Dr. King teach us something new. I hope the Nation hears these words with an open mind and an open heart and we all come together unified for a bigger purpose. Senator Jones, let me close by saying that the letter from the Birmingham jail was a letter written to the clergy of the time. As Senator Hawley was speaking about the importance of standing up for our religious liberties, the one thing he said at the end was that we should stand up now for all the issues facing our Nation--the economic issues, the racial issues. I thought it important and appropriate that following that speech, you have the reading of the letter from the Birmingham jail to the leaders, the religious leaders, to become involved and engaged in this current struggle. That is how change comes to America. Thank you for leading this process.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, today I would like to take a moment to recognize and honor the life of a great South Carolinian, Lt. Col. John A. Means, U.S. Air Force (Ret.), of Summerville. John was born on a farm in Kansas on December 11, 1918. In his lifetime, he witnessed many remarkable social changes, technological advancements, and international developments that transformed the world. He enlisted in the U.S. Army Air Corps in 1942 and became a pilot in 1943. In 1950, he was called to Active Duty and was deployed to Korea as part of the 6147th Squadron, known as the Mosquitoes. John served in Washington, DC, with the Special Air Missions, SAM, unit, flying dignitaries at home and abroad in Air Force Two. During his time in the SAM outfit, he flew Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon, Charles Lindbergh, and many others. He then retired from the military in 1965 with the rank of lieutenant colonel and moved his family to Summerville, SC. After returning to civilian life, he worked as a mechanical engineer at Avcco and as a machine operator at Bosch. He also owned and operated his own service station. John served his community as a member of the Masons for over 75 years, Scottish Rite, Shriners, and was also president of the Lions Club of Summerville. He also served on the board of directors as vice president of Charleston Mental Health, was an active booster of the Summerville High School Marching Band, and was a founding member and Elder of Dorchester Presbyterian Church. Though Mr. Means has left us, his legacy will continue to live on in the hearts of many. Mr. Means' patriotism, integrity, dedication, and commitment to serve his country are an inspiration to us all. He will not be forgotten, and I am certain South Carolina will continue to benefit from his labors for generations to come.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I thank the Senator. The $600 a week, I think, if I do the math quickly, times 16, is about $9,600. Add on top of that the additional $1,200 per person, or $2,400 per family, and $500 per kid is an important number that we should--I think you have hit on the point that we should all be willing to agree upon that the systems of unemployment throughout our country, perhaps, are working on antiquated equipment that may need to be updated so that we can, in fact, keep people whole during their unemployment. I would love for us to work in a bipartisan fashion to try to figure out, through the Department of Labor, how to fix the problem so that those folks who deserve the benefits get all that they deserve but that we actually have a system that is nimble enough to actually meet the needs, State by State, without exceeding the need so that when we are in a position again, if we are looking at phase 4 or phase 5, we are not again having a conversation about systems that are so antiquated or perhaps even obsolete that we are doing something that was not intended. I am not suggesting we can get that done tonight. I am not even suggesting we can get that done over the next few months. I am, however, concluding that we should work to get it done.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Absolutely.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I am happy to answer that question, if the gentleman will yield.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Thank you, sir. I would say that, on both sides of the aisle, would you not agree that we are both trying to get to the place where we are, in fact, keeping the average person, especially the working-class people, whole as we ponder and discuss this amendment? Would you agree?

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. My final thought is that my goal isn't to come down here and have a disagreement, as much as it is to illuminate a very important part of the process that, if we can get it fixed throughout our country as we tackle these issues in the future, more folks on both sides of the aisle will have greater confidence in giving these resources to the States so that our people can be whole. That is all I wanted to say.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Thank you.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, let me be abundantly clear. I plan to support this legislation tonight, but I do want to fix it first. Our amendment is a very simple amendment. First, it is our responsibility to every extent possible to take care of the American people. I want to provide 100 percent of the salary while an American is laid off because of COVID-19--100 percent of the salary of someone laid off because of COVID-19. My goal is to do it the right way. The right way is that you get your income as if you are still working because you have been laid off because of COVID-19. It is not a raise for not working. It is not 200 percent of your income while on unemployment. The goal is simply to keep you whole while you are unemployed because of COVID-19. I cannot stress enough, as a former employer, and, frankly, as a former employee, the relationship between the employer and the employee is critical. Our Nation is built on the dignity of work. What this bill does, without fixing it, is simply say: You can earn more money by being on unemployment than you can while working. That isn't an incentive. That is perverse. We cannot have intended to encourage people not to work and make more money than to go back to work and receive their normal pay. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, today I rise to speak about the fact that the past 2 weeks--especially the last 2 weeks--have been incredibly difficult times for South Carolinians and for Americans throughout the country. As we always do, our American family has shown resilience, and so many are working to lift up those in need. I think about the folks who are going to drive-throughs and leaving tips. I have heard stories throughout South Carolina--and I am sure it is true throughout America--of folks paying for groceries for the single moms and for those in need behind them. I have heard of restaurants in South Carolina from the Halls food chain that are providing meals for single parents as well as for the homeless. There are so many positive stories coming out today and yesterday about the will of the American family to pull together during these incredibly unprecedented and challenging times. We have also learned a lot about social distancing and how to keep our restaurants open when folks are not allowed to go in. Schools have had to close down and shift to online-only learning environments, taxing both parents, as I understand, and teachers. Many workers have been furloughed or laid off. I am sure it is true in North Carolina, but it is certainly true in South Carolina that so many of our restaurant owners--I have been on the calls with hundreds of them talking about shuttering their entire operations. Last Thursday and Friday, I saw that one restaurant with several different locations--I think 6 locations--laid off 900 employees, all going to the unemployment line. Another small restaurant chain with 6 or 7 locations laid off another 1,000 employees. In Myrtle Beach, SC, one of the meccas of tourism in the Nation, restaurant after restaurant, hotel after hotel is laying off parts of their family. Workers who have become family members over a decade or two of working at the same place and serving amazing people are today without work, today without the paycheck that gives them the glue to not only keep their families together but to keep their finances together. Small businesses are scrambling. I have run three different small businesses. I know the pain of not signing the front of the paycheck for yourself, not being able to sign the back of that same paycheck for yourself because you are willing to do whatever it takes to make sure your employees get to cash their paychecks. I understand the turmoil in the heart of the employee and the employer who simply don't have the resources they had just a couple of weeks ago. Even worse, because they did nothing wrong, they find themselves completely and totally exasperated, unable to comprehend and understand how outside of their own control, they no longer have the resources necessary to take care of their own family. We find ourselves in unprecedented times, but in these times, I am reminded of the entire group of heroes who show up every single day, and typically we are only talking about the law enforcement community and first responders, but today we have to add to the list of American heroes those folks who are clerks in grocery stores, filling the shelves over and over again. We have to add to that list those folks who are helping in the takeout delivery so folks can have hot meals when they go home. We undoubtedly keep in mind the true American heroes--our healthcare workers, the doctors and nurses and, as my mother has been for 45 years, nurse's assistants, showing up in hospital environments, putting their lives on the line for fellow Americans, folks they don't even know. They do so not just because it is their job, not just their duty, but it is their calling and their mission. We are blessed to live in a nation where everyday people understand that which it seems we do not in this Chamber. That is what makes the last 3 days so incredibly frustrating. On Saturday, it looked like this was all about over. We were so close to a deal--so close that Senator Schumer himself said on TV that he was very pleased with the negotiations, and he spoke about how bipartisan the negotiations were. And then the Speaker of the House returned to town, and the tide of bipartisanship seemed to be coming to an end. We were making real progress, and the bill text was even released, and then, for absolutely no reason, the Speaker's passion for partisan hogwash started causing the type of delay that doesn't simply cripple our economy but imperils our healthcare response to the people who are infected by the coronavirus. It impairs our response to the healthcare workers who are providing the response. It compromises our ability to respond with the PPE or, said differently, the material, equipment, and the uniforms necessary to protect the healthcare workers. I honestly cannot believe we are still here not having already passed legislation that would make such a big difference in the lives of so many. Instead, we have to waste time explaining to the Speaker and to some of our friends on the other side that airline fuel emissions is not important in this legislation. We can debate that at another time. If you want the airline industry to be carbon neutral by 2025, let's have that debate, but let's not have it when people are desperately searching for help. We may even debate the importance of same-day registration and early voting, but let's not hold up $1 trillion-plus from the hands of the people who can't take care of their families because of a strong desire to use this crisis to achieve partisan ends. We all should be interested in diversity, but let's not hold up assistance to families because some folks, like the Speaker, want to use this legislation as a way to bring diversity to boards. This is not a place for this debate. This conversation should be a conversation about our healthcare workers, about those infected and those impacted, not about partisan political gains. Imagine that--wasting time on 1,119 pages of the Speaker's political hierarchy. Thankfully, the American people are smarter and more resilient than those folks in Congress. The American people may be concerned, and they may feel the sense of uncertainty about how long--weeks or months--that this will play out, but they know what we need: Immediate help for workers, for small businesses, and for healthcare professionals. That is why, in this legislation, we fund hospitals. More than $70 billion for hospitals are being held up right now. More than $20 billion for veterans are held up right now. Tens of billions of dollars for vaccines, billions of dollars for the CDC, billions of dollars for FEMA, billions of dollars in block grants for the States, and tens of billions of dollars of emergency assistance for public transportation so you can get there are held up. What are they blocking? Well, they are blocking hundreds of billions of dollars in unemployment relief. Let me say it differently. In South Carolina, the average maximum benefit for unemployment is $326 a week. If you are making 30 bucks an hour or $60,000 a year--$5,000 a month, $1,250 a week--the maximum benefit currently is $326 in South Carolina. It is $327 in Tennessee. In our legislation, no less than an additional $600 would flow to the unemployed. It is not just the traditional unemployed, as we have always defined it, but we have expanded the definition of unemployment, who would be eligible, to include the 1099 or the person working for themselves because we want to make sure that the average person in this Nation, who is taking the risk and taking the chance to do something that they have always dreamed of doing, and they are working for themselves--that if this crisis has caused you to lose your paycheck and you are self-employed, we, in a bipartisan fashion, wove together legislation that takes you into consideration. So instead of giving the $326 in South Carolina or the $327 in Tennessee, you receive more than an additional $600 on top of that because we know the crisis that you are in is not of your own making. We provide direct payments in this bill. It is very controversial and very debatable, but here it is, a minimum of up to $75,000 in individual income, $150,000 in household income. With two parents working, 75,000 and 75,000, you can get up to $1,200 per working adult and $500 for the children. That is $3,000 almost held up in a partisan debate. As a small business owner, knowing how hard it is to keep employees when business is ripped out of your hand and you did nothing wrong, this legislation provides loans to keep your employees on the payroll if that is something that makes sense. If you use the funds that you borrow to keep your employees on the payroll, it becomes more of a grant than a loan. That is a good thing because it is far cheaper for your employer to keep you on the payroll than it is to gamble on the unemployment insurance line. So I am thankful to the American people. I am thankful to the American people because they have provided us everything. They have provided us examples of hope, reasons to be optimistic, the picture of strength and tenacity and toughness, and, most importantly, in the midst of a crisis, they have provided us a picture of unity--people helping people. That is the part of the story that we haven't heard a lot about--people helping people. So, as this charade finally comes to a close, hopefully, by the time we go to sleep tonight, I want to tell my folks back home in South Carolina and the doctors in Washington State, the nurses in New York City, and the restaurant owner in Myrtle Beach one thing: Thank you. Thank you for showing us all what it means to be an American, especially during unprecedented times. Thank you for reminding those blinded by politics in Washington what the actual goal really is. I know America will not simply survive. America will, in fact, thrive in the aftermath of this crisis. I know it because I know many, many Americans, and that is what we do. God has blessed the United States of America. Let us be a blessing to each other and get this done. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, over the past few weeks, we have heard a lot of arguments, accusations, and anecdotes. Some very skilled speakers on both sides have presented their case both for and against impeachment. I listened intently, hour after hour, day after day, to the House managers and the President's lawyers, and the word that kept coming to me, that I kept writing down in my notes was ``fairness'' because, you see, here in America you are innocent until proven guilty. As the President's defense team noted, ``[A]t the foundation of those authentic forms of justice is fundamental fairness. It's playing by the rules. It's why we don't allow deflated footballs or stealing signs from the field. Rules are rules. They're there to be followed.'' You can create all the rhetorical imagery in the world, but without the facts to prove guilt, it doesn't mean a thing. They can say the President cannot be trusted, but without proving why he can't be trusted, their words are just empty political attacks. You can speak of David v. Goliath, but if you were the one trying to subvert the presumption of innocence, if you were the one to will facts into existence, you are not David; you have become Goliath. Our job here in the Senate is to ensure a fair trial based on the evidence gathered by the House. I have been accused, as have many of my colleagues, of not wanting that fair trial. The exact opposite is true. We have ensured a fair trial in the Senate after House Democrats abused historical precedents in their zeal to impeach a President they simply do not like. During prior impeachment proceedings in the last 50 years--lasting around 75 days or so in the House--the House's opposing party was allowed witnesses and the ability to cross-examine. This time, House Republicans were locked out of the first 71 of 78 days. Let me say that differently. The ability to cross-examine the witnesses who are coming before the House against the President, the House Republicans and the President's team were not allowed to cross-examine those witnesses. The ability to contradict and/or to cross-examine or have a conversation about the evidence at the foundation of the trial? The White House counsel and Republicans were not allowed. Think about the concept of due process. The House Republicans and President's team, were not allowed for 71 of 78 days in the House. This is not a fair process. Does that sound fair to you? Democrats began talking about impeachment within months of President Trump's election and have made it clear that their No. 1 goal--perhaps their only goal--has been to remove him from office. Does that sound fair to you? They have said: ``We are going to impeach the . . . '' and used an expletive. They said: ``We have to impeach him, otherwise he's going to win the election.'' Now that might be the transparency we have been looking for in this process--the real root or foundation of why we found ourselves here for 60 hours of testimony. It might be because, as they said themselves, if we don't impeach him, he might just win. What an amazing thought that the American people and not Members of Congress would decide the Presidency of the United States. What a novel concept that the House managers and Congress would not remove his name from the ballot in 2020, but we would allow the American people to decide the fate of this President and of the Presidency. They don't get it. They don't understand that the American people should be and are the final arbiters of what happens. They want to make not only the President vulnerable, but they want to make Republican Senators vulnerable so that they can control the majority of the U.S. Senate because the facts are not winning for them. The facts are winning for us because when you look at the facts, they are not their facts and our facts, they are just the facts. What I have learned from watching the House managers who were very convincing--they were very convincing the first day--and after that what we realized was, some facts mixed with a little fiction led to 100 percent deception. You cannot mix facts and fiction without having the premise of deceiving the American public, and that is what we saw here in our Chamber. Why is that the case? It is simple. When you look at the facts of this Presidency, you come to a few conclusions that are, in fact, indisputable. One of those conclusions is that our economy is booming, and it is not simply booming from the top. When you start looking into the crosstabs, as I like to say, what you find is that the bottom 20 percent are seeing increases that the top 20 percent are not seeing. So this economy is working for the most vulnerable Americans, and that is challenging to our friends on the other side. When you think about the fact that the opportunity zone legislation supported by this President is bringing $67 billion of private sector dollars into the most vulnerable communities, that is challenging to the other side, but those, too, are facts. When you think about the essence of criminal justice reform and making communities safer and having a fairer justice system for those who are incarcerated, that is challenging to the other side, but it is, indeed, a fact, driven home by the Republican Party and President Donald John Trump. These facts do have consequences, just like elections. Our friends on the other side, unfortunately, decided that if they could not beat him at the polls, give Congress an opportunity to, in fact, impeach the President. My friends on the left simply don't want a fair process. This process has lacked fairness. Instead, they paint their efforts as fighting on behalf of democracy when, in fact, they are just working on behalf of Democrats. That is not fair. It is not what the American people deserve. House managers said over and over again, the Senate had to protect our Nation's free and fair elections, but they are seeking to overturn a fairly won election with absurd charges. The House managers said over and over again that the Senate has to allow new witnesses so as to make the Senate trial fair, but they didn't bother with the notion of fairness when they were in charge in the House. Their notion of fairness is to give the prosecution do-overs and extra latitude but not the defendants. Actions speak louder than words, and the Democrats' actions have said all we need to hear. Let's vote no on these motions today and get back to working for the American people.