people spend money on -- the unemployment money on. they said they always seem to be in the grocery store. i said they are paying for rent and groceries and essentials. they sure aren't using unemployment money to buy scarves orphansy things from jefer shall -- or fancy things from overseas. so my view is the senate has no choice but to extend the enhanced unemployment insurance. and, madam president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill to provide continued assistance to unemployed workers which is at the desk. i further ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read three times and passed, that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: reserving the right to object.

i just want to say because my colleague from oregon, as he pointed out, he and i have worked closely together on a number of issues, trade issues, tax issues, particularly in the digital space. i know he is a person who tries to find common ground, tries to find bipartisan solutions and so i appreciate that and i hope there's lots more issues, on the finance committee, he's the ranking member on the committee and find things we can do that are good for our economy. right now what he is proposing is to extend unemployment insurance benefits at $600 a week. now, democrats had said that they don't want to do a piecemeal approach. yet that's exactly what's being offered right now. and i guess the question is, what's changed? because less than two hours ago my democratic colleagues voted to block, notious extending additional -- not just extending additional federal employment benefits but also against providing more paycheck protection for small businesses,

through the p.p.p. program, funding for schools and universities to reopen, more money for testing and vaccine development, helping for the u.s. postal service and relief for farmers -- all, madam president, i would argue are bipartisan priorities. this should be a no-brainer. and what's ironic about it is our position on it all a-- along has been just because we can't do everything doesn't mean we can't do something. the democrat position is because we can't do everything, we would rather do nothing. we think the american people are paying a price for that. so instead of supporting our comprehensive package, which deals with all bipartisan priorities, we've got a proposal here that i think frankly is stuck in the past. for example, this bill would restart extra unemployment payments that gave most people

more money not to work than to work. and just to correct the record and one point that my colleague from oregon made, the amendment offered by republicans when the cares panel was being considered wasn't to gut the unemployment program. the senator from oregon fought very hard to get that provision in the cares package. there was an amendment offered on the floor that would have calibrated that federal unemployment benefit to what an individual was make. in other words, 100% wage replacement. 100% wage replacement. that's what was in that proposal. and it was voted down on a party-line vote. but if you'd look at what the c.b.o. estimates, 80% of people would be paid more for not working if the $600-per-week benefit were continued. there's a recent study under the $600-plus-up that median unemployment workers would receive a benefit of is 145% of

their prior wage. now, in south, i will tell you the median wage replacement rate was 155%. so think about that. if you are -- you're making minimum wage, $15 an hour, $35 30,000 a year, in my state of south dakota, under the gentleman from oregon's proposal, that individual would make $45,000 a year, 150% of wages or north of that -- 155%, as i said, is the median wage replacement in my state of south dakota. my dad -- we just -- he passed away in august. he was 100 years old. but he used to say that some things, john, are just kind of old-fashioned horse sense. and i think in this case, this

is someplace where you can apply just old-fashioned horse sense. if you offer somebody a benefit that dramatically exceeds, not by a little but by a lot, you can see what's going to happen there. when i went back for my father's funeral in august, in the middle of the travel season in south dakota, normally an incredibly busy time, there will little eating places in high hometown that weren't open. why? they couldn't find workers. i think at the time -- and i've talked them to about that. and i've talked to a lot of small businesses in my state. and i think the $600 payment has acted as a tremendous disincentive for people to come back into the workforce when there might be -- when there might be jobs available. so it ended about three months ago, the $600 payment. and yet the same idea is being offered up, even though the unemployment rate has fallen. in april it was 14.7%. in september it was 7.9%.

in my state, it is 4.1%. so the idea that we would now, with the economy recovering, come back to pay people more for not working than working seems to be counterintuitive. so, again, our plan, which was opposed by the democrats two hours ago, would have provided an additional $300 per week payment through the end of the year -- three the end of the year -- and that's real help that could be made available right now. and even without this additional $300 payment, some expanded unemployment benefits are still available through december. if you look at the senator for oregon mentioned self-employment independent contractors, gig workers not normally eligible for unemployment, are going to get that help through december. given the problems with this bill and because it doesn't address the broader issues that i enumerated earlier, i object. mr. wyden: madam president?

the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: madam president, just to respond to my colleague from south dakota, it has always been a bedrock argument from senate republicans that somehow unemployment insurance is a disincentive for people to work. well, if that was the case, unemployment benefits expired in july -- july 31. if somehow those unemployment benefits were shackling the economy, creating disincentives to work, why wasn't there a megaboom in the workforce in august? the reason is pretty obvious -- those unemployment benefits were not a disincentive.

and that has been the case as well into september and october. now, the one thing i do want to take exception to with respect to my colleague's remarks is he said republicans never sought to gut the $600. that's just not accurate. on the floor, the republicans wanted to take out that amount, which everybody was going to get, and replace it with something that was completely unworkable and wouldn't have gotten benefits to unemployed workers quickly, and you don't have to take my word for t eugene scalia, the secretary of labor, during days and days of negotiations, as we talked about

the concept my friend from south dakota has raised, the whole notion of wage replacement had the secretary of labor said, can't be done. the states don't have the technology to do it. so in those discussions -- and they went on for days because republicans were insistent on going with this wage replacement idea, which has now been characterized by a republican labor official in georgia as one of the dumbest ideas he had heard of because it was so unworkable -- finally i said, we're not going to stiff these workers. so we'll take an average. some people will get more than they normally would, some people would get less than they normally would from their wage and their benefits. we'll take an average. but, by god, the checks will get

out quickly to people who had been sent home, through no fault of their own -- they were quarantined, as we all know, because we were desperate to beat the virus -- and people would have that money for groceries and rent. that's why we went with $600. because the idea that my colleague from south dakota has spoken about today, that republicans always talk about, was declared by the republican secretary of labor, eugene scalia, as being unworkable. and if we were going to get a check to people in a timely way, we'd to go with the $600. my staff and i put it together. we used this smartphone, madam president, to make the calculation, showed it to secretary mnuchin because it stayed within the budget limits, and that was how we with got to

$600. it was the only way to get an unemployment check out to people quickly. thank goodness -- thank goodness the republican motion to strip it was defeated. but without it, had the republicans won, there would have been a lot of people during those four months essentially ending july 31 who couldn't have made rent, couldn't have paid groceries. that's just plain, old wrong. so we're going to continue to work in a bipartisan way, and my colleague and i agree on that point that we want to do big things in the finance committee. you got to work in a bipartisan way. but i just say to the president and my colleagues to go back to what my friend from south dakota says is the way to go, even though the secretary of labor said it couldn't be done is a

mistake. and that is why we have advocated going with something that we know worked and provided an awful lot of relief to people and does not create a disincentive to work. and if it did, we would have had -- when it expired, we would have had a hiring boom in august, and that wasn't the case. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: just, again -- and i would simply point out that the bill that we voted -- the democrats all voted against earlier today did include a formula, not unlike what the senator from oregon is suggesting, and that is a flat payment on top of the standard unemployment benefit. it was a $300 payment as opposed to ads 600 payment. but that would not be complicated to implement. the amendment that was offered when the cares act passed was a

full wage replacement. there were concerns about whether or not that could be implemented by department of labor, to be fair. but, honestly, if you think about it, i'm not sure what would be terribly complicated about having somebody come in and say -- ask them, what do you make? show me what you make. okay, that's what you're going to get. 100% wage replacement. that to me makes sense. again, i would come back to the idea that you can a pay somebody more not to work than to work -- if people naturally, and i think we all do, respond to incentives, it seems pretty crazy to suggest that you could offer people 150% or more -- in my state of south dakota -- of what they were working in the form of a benefit and not have them say, oh, gee ... i can make 150-some percent more not working than working, decide to take that benefit. i thiothece what we run -- i think that's what we run into.

that's the situation created by what the senator from oregon is suggesting. to his point about jobs coming back, that's exactly the point i made earlier. the unemployment rate in april was 14.7%. in september twos 7.9%. so jobs are coming back. in my state of south dakota, it is 4.1%. the economy is trending in the right direction, as it starts to open up again. there's demand out there for labor. the demand for labor goes up, the price for labor goes up. that's what i think you're going to continue to see, i believe, along with the senator from oregon, that we need to help people who are unemployed and the bill that was just voted down by the democrats would have done that at a $300 benefit above and beyond what the constituent unemployment insurance program pays and in most states that's about 90% of wage replacement. so it's not, you know, to suggest that the republicans are being heartless, it just isn't true. i mean, obviously the amendment that we offered back in march

when the cares act was being considered had 100% wage replacement, seems shrike a very intuitive, practical thing to do, to say we're going to replace what you were making what you were working. obviously the proposal that was voted down by the democrats earlier today about the state unemployment insurance plus the $300 benefit. oregon is suggesting here, one, is we do this piecemeal, after his side has been saying we've got to have a comprehensive approach. and, secondly, calling up an amendment that frankly we have kind of moved beyond now. we're in a different place in the economy. we still need to help people who are unemployed. but we don't need to encourage people not to work because we would pay them more, the government would pay them more, than they would make if they were working. that to me, sounds

counterintuitive and i think the american people get that. mr. wyden: madam president, just very briefly -- the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: madam president, my friend from south dakota said i had called republicans heartless. that was not my word. but when americans who have a great work ethic and they believe, as my friend from ohio has always talked about, in the dignity of work and they can't get a job and they can't make rent and they can't pay groceries, i don't think we should say when they need a loaf of bread, we will, we'll just -- well, we'll just settle for a slice. the people i met in oregon all through last week desperately want to work. they know that is the path of upward mobility in the private

economy. but as we have seen lots of jobs are gone, you can go down main streets and there's barely a car moving. so that's why we've said when those workers who is my friend from ohio always talks about, believe deeply in the importance of work and know, by the way, that that's the only way you secure upward mobility in the private economy. when they can't do it as a result of this pandemic which is spiking again, we don't think it's wrong to make sure that people get a sufficient benefit to pay rent and buy groceries and with that, madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, madam presiden i notice that the presiding officer and the senior -- the

junior senator from arkansas, the presiding officer right before, i noticed far too often the presiding officers are taking their masks off when they preside. and i also noticed that right below the presiding officer are always three or four staff people fully masked. i also know that a number of our colleagues have been diagnosed with coronavirus and i would hope that the presiding officers starting today would wear a mask when they preside as they speak and project. it puts people at risk that sit right below the presiding officer. and i would hope that they would take -- i know it might offend the president of the united states that you wear a mask when you preside because i know that the president doesn't believe in it but public health officials in tennessee and arkansas and oregon and hawaii do. i would ask the presiding officer, that these -- this presiding officer and others consider the public health when

they preside over this body. before i do my issue -- senator crapo has shown up on the floor to address -- i just want to point out a couple of things that i just heard through senator wyden. it was senatorwide -- senator wyden is exactly right. the only amendment to a $2.5 trillion package, the only amendment the republicans offered was to strip away the $600. i've always been puzzled how much republicans as a party almost since roosevelt, how they've hated unemployment insurance. insurance. don't like social you don't like medicare. you pay into medicare and then you get a benefit when you need it. you pay into social security, you get a benefit when you need it. you pay into unemployment insurance -- i know you don't say you like medicare. every time republicans have a chance, they try to privatize medicare, right, senator wyden? and they try to private social security, right ?p i couldn't believe the number of republicans i heard come to the

floor either publicly saying or privately grumbling to themselves or each other, i can't believe these -- $600 for these people a week is -- we shouldn't be giving that much money to these people. i money, that was the tone of voice with the -- perhaps derision in their voice. i was talking to an unemployed worker today who lost her job. and she was -- she's hurting. i mean, she fortunately has a spouse and the spouse has insurance. but she -- she was talking about, you know, the $600 she got helped local businesses. a whole bunch of people in my communities are getting the $600 a week and it keeps these businesses going, too. i guess i don't understand the republican hatred of unemployment insurance. i would think it would be trumped -- pardon my verb -- by how much it helps small businesses but i guess it's not. on that debate i guess is over. i also note that during that $600 a week when we were doing that, the poverty rate, one

study showed it kept 12 million people out of poverty. yet i guess everything is okay. the stock market is back up. so trump and mcconnell seem to think everything is final. madam president, thanks to my colleagues for joining on the floor today to be a voice for the millions of people who are frustrated and angry because president trump and senator mcconnell continue to fail to get this pandemic under control. the stock market is back up so trump and mcconnell seem to think everything is fine. they're oblivious to the families staring at stacks of bills who can't pay their rent, who have to run up their credit cards, who go to payday lenders, who don't know what to do. 600,000 people in my state lost their unemployment insurance in august. what are they supposed to do? what are they supposed to do? yet senator mcconnell and president trump are oblivious to the parents overwhelming amount of stress who try to do their jobs and juggle remote learning and worry about whether their school is safe. they're oblivious to the layoffs

that keep coming, especially in local governments, in school systems, it just didn't have to be this bad. we're the greatest, wealthiest country on earth. what good is it if we can't rise to meet a moment like this. trump and mcconnell want you to believe we can't solve big problems. we can't use our resources to help ordinary families. we can't use our talent to produce tests and p.p.e. we can't use our ingenuity to figure out how to open businesses and schools safely. a half million ohioans out of work. 220,000 americans are dead. yet mcconnell and trump have simply said not our problem. you're on your own. it's the story of this senate saying unless you got a family member that's going to be confirmed as a federal judge, other than that you're on your own. they want you to believe it's the best america can do. i think we can do big things. i think we can actually solve problems for the people we serve. we did it in the spring when we put $600 in the pockets of people who lost their jobs and

kept millions out of poverty. we put in place an eviction moratorium. we gave people stimulus checks to spend in this economy. but then mcconnell and trump let it all expire. families are forced to choose between rent and utility bills, between food and prescriptions. nobody around here s. i understand that. nobody here has to choose between food and prescriptions, between rent and utility bills. nobody here does. but a whole lot of people in our states do. they're going -- and they're turning to payday lenders. they're getting trapped in the cycle of debt. they're going to lose their homes. one in six renters, one-sixth of renters are behind in their rent right now. that's 11 million people. most of them are behind in rent because they lost their unemployment checks and they don't have any place to turn. but even with that, extending u.i. would not be enough. it doesn't help you if you still have a job but have your hours cut back. it doesn't help recent college grads, recent high school grads, working odd jobs.

as senator wyden said we haven't modernized our unemployment system well enough. the c.d.c.'s eviction moratorium is also not enough. without dollars to back it up, it will only lead to a wave of eviction come new year's. we need to get money directly to people to pay these bills. a wave of evictions in the middle of a pandemic -- imagine, thinking -- we are thinking, we know as the poverty rate -- hundreds of thousands of people a week are dropping into poverty. we know that the $600 kept a lot of people out. now people are dropping into poverty. there is going to be a wave of evictions. that wave of evictions is going to come -- number one, it's terrible to be evicted anyway. number two it's even more terrible to be evicted in the middle of winter. and three, it's even more terrible to be evicted in the middle of the winter in the middle of a pandemic. how can we sit here and allow that to happen? even now with the trump administration's flawed eviction moratorium, evictions are happening. we see stories every day across

the country. more evictions coming in january. the work we do in this body to get help to people who can't make up for the lack of leadership from the white house but we could mitigate some of the damage. the house did its job. it passed the here rose act five months ago -- heroes act five months ago. mcconnell and trump, i don't see a sense of urgency. they ignored the families. they told the families you're on your own. the house again passed a bill that month to help families make ends meet, provides the help for renters that i come to the floor to offer today. the bill contains $50 billion in emergency rental assistance. it extends the cares act eviction moratorium to virtually all renters through march. it will protect families. it will protect the public health. so it's not just those families that are protected from eviction. it's all of us around those families that will -- that could suffer from a compromise in public health. it will give renters and property owners the help they need to pay their bills. senate republicans refuse to

consider it or the bill i offer here today. the multimillionaire majority leader and his caucus have the audacity to people who lost their jobs and essential workers making $10 or $12 an hour that it's too expensive to give them help paying the bills in the middle of a national crisis. never too expensive to help wall street, never too expensive for a corporate tax cut, never too expensive to help the people that are in charge but it's too expnsive -- expensive to help people making $10 or $12 an hour. people are exhausted, madam president. they're tired of feeling like no one is on their side. the american people shouldn't have to fend for themselves in the middle of a once-in-a-generation crisis. that's essentially what the president and the majority leader are telling people, you're on your own. you're on your own. you're on your own. it means we should be helping families pay the bills and stay in their homes. it means bringing back the $600 u.i. it means getting support to our schools and communities so they

can open. it means helping small businesses. it means putting money in people's pockets. so, madam president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill to provide emergency rental assistance and rental market stabilization, to provide a temporary moratorium on eviction filings which is at the desk. i further ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read three times and passed, that the motions to reconsider be considered made and be laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. a senator: reserving the right to object. mr. crapo: it's remarkable that we see here a series of unanimous consent requests to pass legislation without debate, without the opportunity for amendment and improvement and just a few hours after refusal to proceed to legislation where we could do just that, legislation that had $500

billion of additional assistance coming out to the american people, legislation that did address these unemployment issues that were discussed over the last 45 minutes on the floor was objected to so that we couldn't even get on the bill. and following nancy pelosi's take it or leave it, my way or the high way approach, we are now here seeing our colleagues on the other side pick up pieces of the legislation that nancy pelosi wants to pass without negotiating, without working through the legislative process, and seeing if they can drive those through the senate and objecting to not doing them in regular legislative order. we are ready to engage in major legislation and yet a couple hours after we tried for the

second or third time to put it on the floor and having that opportunity refused by my colleagues on the other side, we are accused of not working on these issues and the take it or leave it proposals from the house-passed legislation are being thrown on the floor of the senate. well, let's talk about the current one where we need the proposal for rental assistance and eviction protection against those in housing markets who need help. i'll say now they need help. as i said the last time this effort was tried, they need help and we need to work together instead of just trying to lob nancy pelosi's bill into the senate when we can't get agreement to even put a major $500 billion relief package on the floor for debate and consideration. six months ago this body came together and unanimously passed

a package that provided historic, unprecedented support to the housing market. both for homeowners and renters alike. we gave the majority of homeowners in this country the option of hitting the pause button on their mortgage payments. we prohibited foreclosures and evictions across a wide swath of the marketplace which was recently expanded by the c.d.c. to cover an even border portion of the market, and extended through the end of 2020. and president trump through his executive orders has extended this further. we appropriated in excess of $12 billion in supplemental funding to specifically enhance federal housing programs. we've provided $150 billion in funding to states and local governments through the coronavirus relief fund or c.r.f. a significant portion of which had been used for rental assistance.

we've worked together in a bipartisan way on the cares act. i wish we could work on this next act the way we worked then. but no. it's take it or leave it. and we are capable of doing the same in coming days if we can simply get on the legislation in the senate. as i've said before on this floor, i agree that we can and should do more to help in rental markets, to help those who are most vulnerable and who are most at risk of eviction. but passing this bill, take it or leave it, that receives no republican support in the house, was just jammed through the house on a partisan vote, is not the way this body has to do its work. the same thing goes for any blanket moratorium, that is what is being proposed right now that would change the hands of many

providers across this country, causing them to collapse, damaging the very industry and the very sector of our economy that we need to strengthen to deal with these critical issues. we still have time to reach a bipartisan solution. i believe a bipartisan solution is possible to help out the renters across our country, and i have been working to develop one. this is likely something if we can get agreement to move on it that provides targeted support to renters who have suffered covid-19-related reduction in their income or job loss and who were current on their rent before the outbreak. avoids creating perverse incentives in our market by ensuring that those who are able to pay their rent continue to do so. and is limited to the length of the crisis and is delivered through a mechanism contrary to what's being proposed here, delivered through a mechanism that is quick, responsible, and

minimizes opportunities for fraud, waste, and abuse. we can do this. if we will stop the my way or the highway approach to the house legislation and work together as a senate to do what we did with the cares act in the first place. you know, the argument has been made that we won't even re-up the unemployment insurance when the senator from south dakota made it very clear, the bill that our colleagues rejected just hours ago on the floor of the senate had a 100% wage replacement formula. 100% wage replacement. but the notion of trying to quickly advance the provision that we're talking about by unanimous consent without the opportunity to properly debate it is a concerning precedent and will only cause more long-term damage in the future. accordingly, madam president, i

object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. brown: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank the senator from idaho, and i regret that he will not be my committee partner next year because he is moving on to -- i guess he considers it a better committee. i don't know for sure. the senator from idaho is right. we passed it unanimously back in march, and it worked. the $600 and the help for hospitals and schools and governments, local and state governments actually kept -- one study said 12 million. say it's half that, five million, six million people out of poverty. it worked. we said to senator mcconnell in may or june, because these programs and dollars were running out, we will see what worked, we will jettison what doesn't work, and we will continue those programs. then lo and behold, senator mcconnell kept saying no sense of urgency, no sense of urgency, no sense of urgency and we got

zero in the end when we asked senator mcconnell in august don't let the $600 expire. we know more people will drop into poverty. we know more people will be evicted. we know, as senator jack reed has worked on, we will see more people foreclosed on. senator mcconnell has used the crutch of half the republicans, half my friends on the other side of the aisle don't have -- don't want to vote another dollar. he said they won't vote for anything. so maybe senator crapo is an exception to that, but this proposal of mcconnell, we know how cynical it is. we know how inadequate it is. we know how pitiful it is. we know that speaker pelosi has made several offers. she started with a pretty big package that a lot of us thought was pretty close to ideal. we knew that there would be compromise. she same back with a significantly smaller package. still they just say she rammed it through and they rejected it. so, madam president, i understand the handwriting on the wall that as long as republicans control this body

that we won't take care of people at home, that we won't do adequate, adequate rental assistance, that we won't do adequate unemployment, we'll see a cynical, inadequate, sort of pitiful attempt by the majority leader to put something on the floor that really doesn't meet people's needs. i yield the floor. mr. crapo: madam president, just briefly. the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. crapo: i know we have yet another u.c. request coming. i want to allow time for that to be made by my colleagues here in the senate. i, too, appreciate working with the senator from ohio. we worked in a bipartisan fashion when we put the first cares act on the floor, which as you said got a unanimous vote. i'm hopeful we can do that again. i just want to respond to one thing. that is it is constantly being said that senator mcconnell said there is not a sense of urgency. this was months and months and months ago before our first act had even had an opportunity to play out.

but the urgency that you have seen from senator mcconnell and others today is reflective of the refusal or the inability, let me say the inability of both sides to come together on a deal and is reaching out multiple times, most recently a few hours ago today, and i'm hopeful that we will reach out again and give all of our senate colleagues the opportunity to simply proceed to get a bill on the floor that we can work on. i totally disagree with the argument that what we have been trying to get a $500 billion bill is -- is -- i can't even remember the negative comments that were made at the time, the type of descriptive comments that were made about it. it's a very real, significant piece of legislation. that in itself can be enhanced. it can be enhanced with this rental assistance that we're talking about right now.

i believe we need to get some legislation on the floor, stop the back-and-forth bantering between parties and wean houses -- and between houses in the congress and get serious discussion of serious legislation and move forward. thank you, madam president. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri.

mr. hawley: madam president, i'm here to talk about who runs america, the big tech giants or the american people. i'm here to talk about the big tech oligarchs' attempts to install themselves as a de facto ruling class of this country to usurp the power of the people, and i'm here to talk about what we can do about it. for years, the tech giants, google, facebook, twitter, they have spied on us without our knowledge. they have taken our private information without our consent, and they have used all of it to manipulate us and turn massive profits in which the american people have had no share. that's their business model. it's like the strip mining of america. but now not content with exploiting and extracting the tech monopolies want to control our news and opinions, and they want to intervene in a

presidential election. for the better part of a week, the tech giants have been actively suppressing the reporting of alexander hamilton's newspaper, the "new york post." and why? because they don't like the story and they don't want people to read it, and they are willing to use their power to stop the distribution of a story written by the free press in this country. now, this isn't about hunter biden's e-mails, although those are important, and we deserve to know whether hunter biden was giving his father kickbacks on faiments from foreign oligarchs in exchange for changes to american foreign policy. but this is about something even more than that. this is about whether a small handful of corporate executives, mark zuckerberg, jack dorsey, sergei brynn whether they get to

decide who sees what. which newspapers break the stories and which are censored. which political party will get bad news press at the height of the season and which will get it amplified. and most important, it's about you. it's about what normal, everyday americans get to see. it's about what you get to say. it's about the news you read in your news feeds and the content that comes to you in your notifications and your video play lists, because, yes, the tech companies control all of those things, and they use them to try to shape what you're thinking, even how you're feeling. oh, yeah, they have run experiments on all of that. they have run experiments on how to manipulate the content that they control and deliver to you in order to manipulate your emotions and influence your views, to influence how you feel and what mood you're in and,

yes, what presidential candidate you favor. it's their roller coaster and we're all just riding on it. that's their world. that's the world that they want. that's the america that they want. the struggle against the tech giants is a struggle for control. do the tech platforms control america, or do we control them? and it's time the united states senate did something about it. this body is supposed to represent the people of this nation. this body is supposed to defend the people's interests. but for too long, this body has done the bidding of big tech. it has given tech lavish government handouts and then looked the other way while tech captured one government agency after another. do you know, a recent news report found that the f.t.c., the body in charge of enforcing supposedly much of our antitrust law and our competition law,

that two-thirds of the f.t.c.'s employees have conflicts of interest related to tech. that's good old-fashioned government capture by big business, by the megacorporations, and that's exactly what has been going on in washington for years right under the most of the united states senate. and if we're being honest, it's really no surprise. tech has spent outrageous sums of money, outrageous sums of money to purchase influence in the capital of the united states. it is time for those days to end. this body must act in defense of the american people, and we can. we can tear down the main pillars of big tech's power. we don't have to tolerate their monopolies. we don't have to accept their strangle hold over -- stranglehold over speech and our data and our news and our

personal information and our social communications. we can force them to change the way they do business rather than allowing them to force us to change how we think. we can ban manipulative ads, and we should. we can repeal the immunity shield. we can crack down on addictive platform design. and i have introduced plenty of legislation over the last 22 months to do all of that. and i'm still waiting for a vote on almost all of it. heck, i'm still waiting for hearings on any of it. if this body is not ready or willing to say that these platforms need to change, -- to change the essence of what they do, well let's at least tell them they cannot censor us with impunity. let's at least make them live up to their word when they tell us that they want open conversation. let's at least tell them that if they violate their promises to us and if they censor us

arbitrarily, that we can have our day in court to fight back. let's at least put some power back in the hands of the american people to fight the tech giants, and let's allow americans to have their day in court. that's why i am moving this legislation here now today on this floor to provide every american that right. we should get this done now. there should be no further delays. and let's haul those tech executives in to testify under oath about what they did last week and at whose behest. let's get binding commitments from them under penalty of perjury about how they will do their work in the short remaining days of this election season and about the future of their censorship policies. let's get the truth out of them. and i would just say to my fellow republicans we're supposed to be the opponents of concentrated power.

that's what the fight against big government has been about all along. so what have we been doing with our senate majority to fight the greatest concentration of power americans face today? what have we been doing to confront this great threat to american democracy? well, let's just tell the truth. the truth is many members of the republican establishment love big tech. they love it. the big tech loves the money. the lobbists love the work they provide. politicians love the cheap ads that they get to run on facebook. now washington, d.c., does really well under the current arrangement. really well. big tech works really well for washington. heck, big tech owns half the town. but if you're an every day american, if you're an independent journalist, if you're a pro-life advocate. if you're somebody who doesn't

have the approval of big tech, if you're somebody who doesn't have an inside track to the good graces to the tech giants, the message to you is really simple, do what tech tells you to do or they'll silence you. no corporation should run america and definitely not big tech. we've squandered precious time already. the tech giants have been allowed to grow too powerful, too big. now we must act while we still have time remaining and stand up and be counted before it is too late. and now, as if in legislative session, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on commerce be discharged from further consideration of s. 3983, and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection?

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. schatz: reserving the right to object. i just want to be clear about what's going on right here. i worked really hard on tech issues. i've introduced bipartisan legislation actually to reform section 230. we've had hearings in this area. senator thune and i have worked in good faith in this space. and so i want to separate out the kind of legitimate questions regarding the tech industry's influence on american society as it relates to privacy, which i have legislation for, as it relates to its impact on journalism and as it relates to whether or not there can be an appropriate balance struck in terms of preventing these platforms from being hijacked for the purpose of carrying foreign misinformation for the purpose of influencing an

election and their legitimate rights under statutory law and their free speech rights. and so these are complicated issues and senator hawley and i briefly had a conversation about these issues. i listened to him talk on these issues and i basically said, look, i divide what you are talking about into two categories. i think some of your critique around big tech is smart and i agree with and some of it i consider to be not in good faith and an effort to influence the platforms in order to carry the water for people like rudy giuliani. if there is a sincere effort to work on a bipartisan basis on something as foundational and section 230 or whether or not to establish a privacy right in statutory law which has never happened at the federal level, then i'm all in for that.

but it is quite unusual for us to take on something so fundamental -- and you remember the majority here and if you couldn't get a hearing, that's actually your problem. i can get a hearing for my bills because i have bipartisan cosponsors and so all of the legislation that you're talking about you have failed to reach across the aisle and to work with a democrat or two or three and to try to reform some of these institutions through the levers of power that we're in possession of. and fast forward to next wednesday, i think it is, and the senate commerce committee, through its twitter feed, is running a campaign ad -- literally a campaign ad that says hunter biden's e-mails. this is the commerce committee of the united states senate and they are tweeting out things like hunter biden's e-mails. what a sad moment for the institution of the united states senate and the punitive

bipartisan history of the united states senate committee on commerce. it's just terribly sad. so if there's an effort to work on these issues in good faith, i will be the first in line. i have been the first in line. but if we're going to try to do a unanimous consent, which means for the public watching, we're going to pass this bill unanimously without any debate, we're going to pass this bill without it going to a hearing, we're going to pass this bill without any democratic input, that's nonsense. i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. hawley: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. hawley: i would agree, madam president, that it is a problem that we can't get hearings or votes on serious tech legislation. it is a problem. the senator makes my point. that's exactly the problem and that's exactly what you get from big tech investment in the united states capitol.

they are getting what they paid for. i would also say to my democratic friends that you can't separate big tech's control of information and of the news and love it when they agree with you and condemn it when they don't. i don't want to influence the platforms, i want to break them up. i don't want to influence how they use their power. i don't want them to this have the power. i don't want them to agree with me. i don't want to influence and shape their viewsism want them to stop trying to manipulate the american people. that should be the goal here. the goal is not to compromise their power. the goal is not to have big government and big tech get together. we've had too much of that already. the goal should be to put a stop to their power and control because the american people are supposed to be the sovereigns of this democracy, not big tech. and i say again to my liberal friends and those on the conservative side of the ledger as well, for your r you're -- if you're not willing to challenge

tech's over messaging and journalism, then i don't think you have yet reckoned with the truly dangerous threat that these companies pose to the functioning of american democracy. i don't think you've yet reckoned with the threat we are facing to the basic control of we the people. for my part, madam president, i will not stop. i will continue to come to floor as is often as necessary. i will continue to raise my voice and make a nuisance of myself as often and as firmly as necessary until this body acts. and it's how -- and until the american people are given back their control of their democracy and their information and their lives. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota.

a senator: i rise to tell the people of minnesota why i will oppose the nomination of judge amy coney barrett. our constitution's most fundamental charge is to render equal justice under the law. this promise is so central to our justice system that those words are inscribed to the entrance of the united states supreme court. the late justice ruth bader ginsburg, devoted her right to the principle of all rights under the law. i believe we must share that dedication. ms. -- -- ms. smith: two things which i believe are antithetical to providing equal justice under the law. dismantling the affordable care act and overturning roe v. wade.

so let's be clear about what's happening here. we know judge barrett was nominated because president trump and republicans believe that she will help them overturn the affordable care act. and take us back to the days when millions more americans do not have health insurance and insurance companies can deny coverage or charge exorbitant rates to people with preexisting conditions like cancer or heart disease and they could charge women more and seniors more and they would be able to charge more to people with covid as a preexisting condition. and, as we know, judge barrett was nominated because donald trump believes that she will uphold laws that treat women as less capable of making independent disightses about their -- decisions about their health, their personal beliefs and birth control than state ledgessures.

a -- legislatures, a person can pass these litmus tests does not sound to me like someone who is committed to equal justice under the law. now, many of my democratic colleagues have talked about the terrible impact of striking down the affordable care act on american families, and i share this commitment that they have that we all have to protecting health care as a human right. but as the only senator to have worked at planned parenthood, i want to take my time today to talk about what is at stake if the supreme court overturns or weakens rowe. when i worked at planned parenthood, i saw how comprehensive reproductive health care is essential for women to have the freedom and opportunities to live the lives that they choose. i also saw efforts -- i saw how efforts to strip away these protections are an affront to the equal rights and dignity of women and their families. for all people, health care decisions are the most personal.

it's your body, it's your life, and decisions about reproductive health and sexual health are even more personal an intensely -- and intensely private. there is still stigma and discrimination around preproducter health, especially abortion, and that makes it even more important that people have privacy and space and extra care without judgment which is what planned parenthood provides. i became aware during my time at planned parenthood how personal these decisions are for women and how the political debate around abortion is disconnected from the facts and the realities of women's lives. here's an example. the battle over restricting access to abortion has nothing to do with the public health work to prevent unintended pregnancies and reduce the abortion rate. the goodmocker institute found that restrictive state abortion laws are not associated with the

decline of the abortion rate. in fact, fewer unintended pregnancies and lower teen pregnancy rights are correlated not with restrictive abortion laws, but with access to sexuality education and birth control and also to a healthy economy. here's another example. most restrictive abortion laws seem to be aimed at a stereo type of an irresponsible woman who hasn't been careful and somehow got herself into a mess. now, first of all, this is a sexist and disrespectful trope, and research those that women from all walks of life seek abortion care. over half are already mothers. over 80% report using contraception and over half report a religious affiliation. these women all have their own unique circumstances and needs and beliefs but they -- what they have in common is they

deserve the dignity and respect to make their own judgments about what is best for them and their families and the course over their own lives. what i saw at planned parenthood were woman, patients, who were working hard to make good decisions about their own health and they wanted to take charge of their health and their lives. but this is really difficult when you can't afford basic -- when you can't afford basic health care like birth control. if you don't have good insurance or any insurance, and it's very hard if you have been shamed or threatened or harassed for seeking the care that you need. and it is be even heard when the -- harder when the government is looking over your shoulder telling you what you can and cannot do with your body and your life. because the truth is most laws restricting abortion are not about good health care, they are about substituting the judgment of government for the intensely

personal medical and moral decisions that women, their doctors, and their families want and need to make for themselves. the truth is these laws treat women as fundamentally unequal in their decision-making capacity and they are an insult to women's individual dignity and freedom and bodily autonomy. i think this is why most americans disagree with the republicans' rush to roll back rowe. this antichoice agenda is radically out of step with the american people. in 2019, pew research, which is a respected, nonpartisan polling organization, found that 61% of americans say that abortion should be legal in all or most instances. now, some of my republican colleagues must know that they are out of step with the american people, which must be why some have suggested that it is, quote, fearmongering to say

that rowe might be overturned if judge barrett joins the supreme court. so after promising over and over to only confirm antichoice judges, judges that would overturn rowe, they now try to claim that we can't possibly predict how judge barrett would vote on this issue. of well, this is completely illogical and completely unbelievable. and i think the american people know better. make no mistake, many conservative state legislatures have already passed laws specifically intended to create the opportunity for the supreme court to revisit and overturn roe. and if justice barrett goes on the court and becomes the defensive medicinive vote to over-it unor weaken row, 22 states are poised to immediately ban all or nearly all abortions. 16 others will immediately enact severe restrictions to

dramatically reduce access. and more states are sure to follow. and if the supreme court overturns roe, who is hurt most? poor women, women living in rural communities, women without the means to travel to places where women's rights are respected. and this is the definition of unequal justice. this supreme court nominee will have a momentous effect on the lives and personal decisions of minnesotans and americans. there is so much at stake. and so i urge all americans to make your voices heard and to hold your elected representatives accountable in congress, in the statehouse and in local governments. your voices are powerful, but only if you use them. i will always stand up for all americans to have equal justice and opportunity to live the lives that you choose, and that is why i oppose this nomination. and i urge my colleagues to join

me in opposing the confirmation of justice barrett. mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. hoeven: mr. president, i rise today to honor mark an during who passed away earlier this month at the age of 94. mark was a good friend, he was a strong leader and a dedicated public servant. and it is promote that we take it -- and it is appropriate that we take this time to remember his life and his accomplishments. he was a lifelong north dakotans, only moving away for two years while attending the u.s. military academy at west point. after completing his education at north dakota state university, home of the bison, mark went to work and operated the family farm in the red river valley, as both his father and his grandfather had before him.

so it shows you how long his family has been on this land. and it is truly, i know the ever ever -- i know the presiding officer has been there. some of the most beautiful farmland in the red river valley. as a farmer, he raised a variety of crops, and contributed to various agricultural organizations, was very involved with those organizations. and in addition he served as the director of the garrison conservancy district from 195 to 19 -- from 1955 to 1964. i remember that, and i -- my father and mark andrews were very good friends. and my dad liked mark very much and respected him very much. and they shared that vision for the garrison conservancy project. the garrison diversion. and really had this vision of

irrigating hundreds of thousands of acres, if not millions of acres, of land in north dakota. and they had -- you know, my dad shared that dream that mark had that that would, you know, just benefit agriculture so much across north dakota in a baying, big way -- in a big, big way. it really was an amazing vision and would have been remarkable, had they been able to complete it. but mark andrews, for the rest of his life, was truly just committed to that project. he always shared that vision of garrison diversion. and i agree, and from the time i was a young boy, i can remember my father describing it and describing mark's leadership and his -- what a wonderful thing it would be -- would have been for the state of north daca. so i'll -- for the state of north dakota. i'll always remember that vividly, as i know the senator

from south dakota does as well. he was also president of the north dakotan improvement association as well. these life and work experiences served as the foundation for his work in congress, where he was represented north dakota for 24 years. in the house and of course in this body. in 1963 he was elected to the u.s. house of representatives during a special election and then he served in the house until 1981. on january 3, 1981, is when he was sworn in as united states senator from north dakota serving until january 3, 1987. during his time in the senate, mark was a tireless advocate for the men and women in uniform and understood the importance of a strong national defense. and again the presiding officer and i follow in that legacy, you on armed services and my service on the defense appropriations.

but mark was always very, very committed to our military and did a great job supporting not only the military of north dakota but, you know, for our nation as well. as a farmer himself, he will be remembered for his hard work on behalf of agriculture, and you couldn't talk to him without, you know, agriculture coming up in some way, shape, or form, even if you weren't talking about agriculture, the analogies that he used, his words, verbiage, always had that agrarian aspect to it. it was viewed really -- it was imbued, really, in his personality. and he always worked very hard on behalf of ag and his effort to help producers through the tough times, the downturns and the challenges that you had in farm country. it was very, very important. he understood very well. avenues lifelong -- he was a lifelong farmer. he knew it and he lived it. so you understood what he needed to do to help our great farmers and ranchers across this country. senator andrews' legacy also included strong support of tribal communities and he served

as the chairman of the senate committee on indian affairs, which many a. now very honored to hold -- which i'm now very honored to hold that same position. he demonstrated dedication to the people of north dakota, an absolute commitment to do all he could for our state and of course for our nation as well. and we are deeply grateful for his work and we remain deeply grateful for all the contributions that he made through his service for our state. at the same time he was joined by his best friend and wife, marie, in building this legacy. she, too, passed away earlier in year. so on behalf of myself and my wife mikeie, we extend our deepest condolences to the andrews' family, to all their loved ones and to their friends. and along with you, the presiding officer, i am introducing a resolution recognizing and honoring senator

andrews' public service, which we expect will soon pass the senate. i know colleagues here remember mark very, very fondly. as a matter of fact, when i was first sworn in, mark came down and joined me and was there with me when i was originally sworn in as a senator. and i note that senator kramer is presiding, as i mentioned in my remarks, and i know how well you knew and liked mark, how much you worked together with him, had a lot of wonderful shared history with him, and so at this time i will yield the floor and exchange poxes with you so that you can speak on behalf of our friend and colleague, senator mark andrews. with that, i yield the floor.

mr. cramer: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. cramer: thank you, mr. president, for the recognition and thank you also for your excellent tribute to senator mark andrews and his amazing life of service to north dakota and to our country. also thank you for switching places with me for a few minutes so i can spend some time remembering my friend and mentor and our predecessor. you know, this covid thing really kind of stinks. all in all there's lots of things about covid-19 that they're awful. but one of the biggest things is that so often many people have been robbed of the opportunity to provide an appropriate send-off to a hero, to the heroes whose lives are worthy of a more noble celebration than social distancing and small crowds offer. as former editor and publisher and sometimes political commentator and observer mike jacobs recently wrote mark

andrews deserves better. and i would seek -- ask unanimous consent to place the jacobs story in the record along with the official obituaries of both mark and maryann drews. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cramer: so we're confined to watching funerals on the internet, leaving us with a sense that our expressions of gratitude and emotions are inadequate to the honor that is deserved. but fortunately for senator hoeven and me, the united states senate does provide an opportunity, a venue, an appropriate way to say goodbye to a friend and a mentor that's commensurate with the incredible quality of the life that we celebrate. senator andrews was a giant to me for lots of reasons, not just because he was 6 foot 4 but from growing up just about 20 miles south of the andrews farm just outside of the city village of maip 8ton at the -- mapleton at

the time to working on his reelection campaign, the first real job i ever had out of college, to seeking his guidance as i followed in his footsteps first in the house of representatives and then into the senate. mark andrews was always a larger than life figure and personality to me. chris and i were grateful for the counsel he and mary gave us in my first year in this chamber just last year and i'm really grateful to mark and mary's daughter sarah for facilitating a visit for chris and me to come and see her parents just last year. and this picture will be important to me forever. it was an emotional time for me. i don't mind telling you. it was emotional for me to be able to see mark at the age of 93, mary at the age of 92 and say thank you for the opportunities, for the grace that he afforded me when i didn't deserve it. and i mean no disrespect to any of my colleagues today, but what

made me the most emotional whether i walked into mark's -- when i walked into mark's apartment and saw him sitting in that recliner, the thing that made me the most emotional is that it hit me for the first time in a new way that the people of north dakota had given me a responsibility that at that time as i looked at my giant, i didn't feel quite up to. and there i was with this job that he had and this giant from my youth who did big things. i suddenly felt by comparison quite small. but as mark often did, he encouraged me. he offered a word of encouragement, many of them. and likewise mary did the same at the age of 92 with chris. she offered chris an encouragement that only another senate spouse really had the credibility to offer. and i was overwhelmed by the blessing of the moment.

i was grateful beyond words for the opportunity to spend even 90 minutes with fargo's most important power couple. it was pretty cool. mark and mary celebrated their 71st wedding anniversary just prior to her death earlier this year as senator hoeven mentioned. they met while attending agassi junior high in fargo in 1939. and then they became best friends for life. pretty cool. pretty cool. and i love that maryann drews was her husband's not so secret weapon in all of his successful campaigns. as you said, mr. president, mark served a total of 23 years in congress, 17 in the house of representatives and six here in the senate. his hallmark, his hallmark was his fierce independence. now, that fierce independence sometimes was to the chagrin of the reagan administration. he served during a very, very difficult time in farm country.

but he fought tirelessly with the government on behalf of the people. he always put the people ahead of the government. and anyone, as you mentioned, anyone who spent any time with mark, and you and i did a lot in these last several years, mr. president, you know that no computer hard drive in the world contains as much knowledge or information about water policy than mark andrews had in his brain, even to the end. i mean, of the 90 minutes we talked last year, i'm sure 60 of it was spent talking about water policy and water politics. he was passionate about the accomplishments, as you said, and the shortcomings of the government's promise to distribute missouri river water to the farms and communities of eastern north dakota. he fought and advocated for water justice for our farmers and i think of him often as we engage in the very same fights today. he was also a strong, strong

critic of government waste. and while you're right he supported our military fiercely, i mean there was one famous story about when he -- he opposed the sale of the awax to saudi arabia on behalf of our ally israel and it took a lot of shall we say gentle persuasion to convince him otherwise. but he always looked out for the taxpayer. he cared more about the taxpayer than the tax spender. he demonstrated his commit bhnts to fiscal constraint when he took on the department of defense in 1983 sponsoring bill requiring defense contractors to guarantee their hardware. the bill passed and became law. he was also critical of what he called the incestuous relationship it the officers who made the weapons purchase decisions and the contractors who employed the officers after they retired.

but as you pointed out in your remarks, mr. president, mark andrews was first and foremost a farmer. but don't take our word for it. it's not just a couple from north dakota that would make that claim. just look at the headlines surrounding his recent death. "the new york times" in an obituary written by robert mcfadden carries the headline, quote, mark andrews, north dakota farmer-politician dies at 94. did you catch that? farmer first, the dash of life, politician last. mcfadden writes in this -- writes this in his story, quote, as his 23-year congressional career drew to a close, "the new york times" said mr. andrews had kept, quote, three items at the top of his priority list. a lot like you i might say, mr. president. farmers, farmers, and farmers. the headline for a story written by mickle pates, a friend of

ours. he described senator andrews' legacy perfectly in the headline. quote, andrews was a political laser beam for farm interests. and i would seek unanimous consent to place both the ag week and "the new york times" stories in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cramer: so farmer, fiercely independent fiscal hawk, all of the good things you described about him, mr. president. they describe a part of senator mark andrews but to me he's still a giant. at his funeral the gospel text that was read was from an agrarian parable in matthew 13, very familiar to most people where jesus talks about the teeny, teeny mustard seed, right. in verse 32, he's recorded as saying thou it is the smallest of all seeds yet when it grows it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree so that birds can come and perch in

its branches. mark andrews was a really big tree with really deep roots into the soil of the red river valley of north dakota. i felt as though i had found a perch on his branches and stand on his shoulders. mark and mary died with the gospel promise that christ has prepared a match for them in heaven. i'm pretty sure it's a farm house. thank you, senator andrews. you served north dakota well and will be missed. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: i come to the floor 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 missed their rent or mortgage payments in september. the lines at food pantries in my state of new hampshire and across the country are growing longer and longer and 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's 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 health care providers, especially nursing homes and long-term care facilities which account for 81% of covid-19 deaths in new hampshire. and that's the highest

percentage in the country. we should also provide additional support for child care 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, our firefighters, police, and teachers and under no circumstances should our communities have to cut essential services and frontline workers. now, after months of inaction, leader mcconnell has forced the senate to vote twice on a bipartisan package that was written in his office without any -- on a partisan package -- i'm sorry -- 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 health care providers who are struggling on the front lines of our fight against this pandemic. senator mcconnell's skinny bill does not provide any money for grants to health care providers. that's zero dollars for our nation's hospitals, even though hospitals like the lakes region general health care 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 cancellation 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% of our covid-19 deaths. and nursing homes, while they have seen 40% of the fatalities from this pandemic nationwide, they have gotten only 4% of the funding. the bill provides zero dollars for community health centers across the country, community health centers who 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 health care providers, as well as $7.6 billion to support our community health centers. i 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 p.p.e. 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's 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 health care providers in a financial hole. these investments are key to getting life back at 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're 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% 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 six months of relief for existing s.b.a. borrowers to make use of this 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. today -- to date, 501 million small business borrowers have received more than $525 billion in assistance through p.p.p.

that includes over 24,000 small businesses and nonprofits in new hampshire and $2.5 billion that has come into our state alone. and 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 who have bounced back and are doing well. they have returned to their pre-covid revenues. but unfortunately, too many of them still need help to get through the rest of this pandemic. and authorization for p.p.e. has expired with more than $130 billion still unspent. and the funds appropriated for the eidl grant program has been exhausted. i hear frequently from new

hampshire's small businesses that have used p.p.p. effectively to keep workers on 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 p.p.p. application and let businesses that have already received a p.p.p. loan that 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 p.p.p. 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'm 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, end the partisan jockeying and do what's right for the nation. that's what our states sent us here to do. we did it before, and we can do it again. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and note the absence -- oh, i yield the floor.

mr. udall: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: thank you, mr. president. i join my democratic colleagues today to voice my frustration with the senate republicans' drive to manufacture votes on anemic half measures. instead of focusing on enacting robust and comprehensive covid-19 relief for the american people. with over 220,000 deaths, positive cases surging throughout the country, and flu season right around the corner, it is unconscionable that we are not taking up legislation to address the health and economic needs facing this nation. simply put, this week's votes have been engineered as political theater. they were designed to feign action while failing and to

further divide this body along party lines while making no progress on another bipartisan corona relief package. earlier this summer, i took to the senate floor to address the ongoing impacts of covid-19 on our nation's health and economy. the majority of the $8 billion in cares act relief funding had barely gotten out to tribes by then, thanks to the administration's delay and fumbled distribution. now the administration wants indian country to believe it championed that funding for tribal governments, but the truth is the administration and senate republican leaders offered nothing for tribes and coronavirus relief. tribes didn't see progress until senate democrats fought back, demanding targeted relief for tribal governments.

we ended up securing over $10 billion to fight the virus, stabilize tribal economies, and support native health systems. yes, it was obvious even then more would need to be done. i sounded the alarm that native communities, like every american community, needed more help and were bearing the brunt of the virus' continued spread. as vice-chairman of the senate committee on indian affairs, i'm compelled to speak out again and urge immediate bipartisan action to provide more targeted relief for native communities and to urge my republican colleagues who represent a number of native communities to join me in this effort. our shared trust and treaty obligations demand nothing less.

thought this pandemic, i have heard directly from tribes, pueblos, native hawaiian communities about their urgent and ongoing needs for health care and economic resources to combat the virus. i have heard how existing federal policies, practices, and program structures have left these communities particularly exposed to severe and long-lasting impacts from the coronavirus pandemic. in a recent oversight hearing on implementation of federal programs to support covid-19 response efforts, tribal panelists testified about how their communities have been hurt by congressional inaction, funding shortfalls, and a lack of coordination between the federal agencies. among other things, we learned that existing federal policy and failures have exacerbateed

health disparities, economic barriers, and institutional inhe can -- inequities among native health communities. native american indian health clinics have faced challenges securing personal protective equipment and testing supplies, and that they were excluded from most federal public health emergency preparedness planning, and that indian country continues to struggle to navigate the bureaucratic maze of covid-19 programs because many agencies had little to no meaningful engagement with tribes prior to this pandemic. this testimony is key to putting into context what little data exists on covid-19 impacts in native communities. even though data was slow to come in, it confirms our worst

fears -- that the pandemic will extract a heavier toll on native communities if decisive federal actions aren't taken immediately. 34% of american indian and alaska native adults, the highest percentage of any race, are at high risk of serious health complications due to covid-19. and there are -- and they are four and a half times more likely to be hospitalized due to covid-19 implications. these -- complications. these statistics are staggering and apple appear to be worsening in parts of indian country. just this week, indian health officials told congress that covid-19 trends in the bimidgi area were very concerning.

each region has had a seven-day rolling positivity test rate in double digits. several i.h.s. service units are reporting that their network for transferring patients in need of i.c.u. care are nearly full. there is so much we still don't know about covid-19, but what we do know is this -- throughout this crisis, native communities have fought back. they are resilient. for example, in my home state of new mexico and in arizona and in utah, the navajo nation has instituted strict curfews to prevent the spread. they've ramped up testing despite the complete lack of testing supplies in the beginning. but the u.s.' trust and treaty responsibilities remain. our obligation to provide quality, accessible health care to all native americans doesn't

end with this once-in-a-century pandemic. and it cannot be fulfilled by partisan half measures meant to score political points rather than provide meaningful help. congress must do better. we must do much more. each day we fail to act to advance policies to address the disparities faced by indian country is a day we fail to uphold our oath of office. it is a day we fail to meet the single most defining moment of this congress, perhaps of our entire careers. american families are struggling, our country is struggling. we in congress have the tools to help end that. instead, we are wasting time with sham votes. history will not forget this inaction. that's why it's imperative that we pass comprehensive covid-19

relief legislation with targeted resources for native american communities. we must infuse the i.h.s. with additional funding for tribal health care and ensure indian country has parity in accessing federal public health programs. we must provide tribal governments with the resources they need to keep their communities up and running safely by providing additional funding within the treasury's coronavirus relief fund. and the senate should pass bills i've introduced that have already been adopted by the house of representatives in its heroes act, passed over three months ago. we must make the strategic national stockpile available to tribes. tribes should be able to access p.p.e., ventilators, and other necessary medical i want requests, just as state -- equipments, just as states can. we must make sure that tribes

have equal access to the centers for disease control resources to prepare for public health emergencies like this pandemic. we must equalize the medicaid reimbursement rate for urban indian health facilities and help the 41 urban indian health facilities across the nation expand their services. and as so much of our lives move to the internet, we must make sure that native schools, health care facilities, and government services are not left on the wrong side of the digital divide. all tribes must have access to high-speed broadband. mr. president, this public health and economic crisis has impacted every community in every state in the union, but it has hit native communities particularly hard. we must take real action. we need to lock arms, negotiate in good faith, and get immediate

relief out the door -- not engage in insincere sham votes on skinny relief bills going no march marked by continued partisan bickering. mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. schumer: are we in a quorum, mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: could we have order, mr. president? the presiding officer: the chamber will be in order. mr. schumer: mr. president, by now the american people know the rank hypocrisy of the republican majority, who so many -- who when mayor rick garland was proposed as a -- when merrick gallled was proposed as a nominee said we must wait, even though it was eight months -- can we have order, please? the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. when merrick garland was nominated, eight months before an example, we have to wait for an election. now that an election is ongoing, we are rushing through this

nomination. it is one of the worst moments the senate has ever seen. leader mcconnell and the republican majority have defiled the senate and one can wonder if it will ever recover from this kind of rank hypocrisy. and so, because this has been the most rushed, most partisan, and least legitimate process in the history of supreme court nominations, judiciary members will boycott the markup tomorrow and not provide the quorum that is required, because it is a bipartisan quorum. the bottom line is very simple -- we should not be moving forward on this nomination. she is so out of character with american views. her views are way, way, way to the right. she has stated she wants to

repeal the a.c.a. and take away health care. she has said she would oppose roe v. wade and remove american women's right to control their own bodies. she has opposed labor rights. she is to the right of justice scalia on gun safety. on issue after issue, this nominee is so far out of the mainstream that her views, if she had to get them to pass in a legislature, would never pass, even with all republicans. but, of course, now they're rushing through the process. trump has said he wants someone who repeals a.c.a. trump has said he wants someone who would real estate peel roe. trump has said someone who would be on his side if there is an election dispute. these are all such violations of american norms, values, decency and honor. and that is why the judiciary

committee will not provide the quorum tomorrow when the markup goes forward. we should also adjourn. we should not do this nomination. we can come back after the election and do just what republicans have said they wanted to do when merrick garland was on the floor -- wait for the election to decide. and this sophistry that now because it is a republican president and a republican majority, that makes a difference? no, everyone sees through that. this was never mentioned when merrick garland came up. it only came now as a cover-up, to cover up the hypocrisy, and it just doesn't work. we can see through it. the bottom line -- we have never moved a nominee so close to an election. abraham lincoln, when he had the opportunity to fill a supreme court seat, said it would be unfair to do it so close to an election. but this republican party has forgotten the principles and the honor and the decency of abraham

lincoln, as this move forward in their rush -- in their rush -- to push a nominee through whose views are decidedly at odds with the vast majority of americans on issue after issue. and that is why the judiciary committee members will boycott tomorrow. so now -- and that is also why i'm going to move to adjourn until november 9, after the election is decided, and do what is fair and right for the american people. so, mr. president, i move to adjourn and to then convene for pro forma sessions only with no business being conducted at 12:00 noon on the following dates, and that following each pro forma session, the senate adjourn until the next pro forma session, friday october 23, tuesday, october 27, friday, october 30, tuesday, november 3,

and friday, november 6. furthermore, that if there is an agreement on legislation in relation to the covid pandemic, the senate may convene under the authority of s. res. 296 of the 108th congress. and that finally, that when the senate adjourns on friday, november 6, it next convene at 4:30 monday, november 9, and that the following -- and that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. the presiding officer: that motion would require spent and is not in order. mr. schumer: i appeal the ruling of the chair and i move to table the appeal. the presiding officer: are there yeas and nays? mr. schumer: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas a 53, the nays are 41. the motion to table is agreed to. the ruling of the chair stands. mrs. loeffler: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mrs. loeffler: mr. president, as the first u.s. senator to call for the nomination and confirmation to fill justice ginsburg's seat before the november 3 election, i'm proud to support judge amy coney barrett has president trump's

nominee for associate justice of the united states supreme court. but i'm not the only one who is proud. two weeks ago i joined concerned women for america in marietta, georgia, to pick off their nationwide bus tour in support of judge barrett's confirmation. dozens attended, including men and women from every walk of life, families, business orientationpologies makers, faith leaders, and -- business owners, policymakers, faith leaders and students. judge barrett has inspired millions of us across the country. she has reached the pinnacle of her profession while upholding her christian faith and values. she is a wife and mother of seven children. she will become the first woman to serve on the supreme court with school-aged children. now the majority of americans in the most recent gallup polled agreed that we should vote to confirm her. the admiration i hear from

georgians is very clear. president trump established a group of highly qualified candidates for the bench. he was transparent and well-prepared for the moment. it is clear that he could not have made a better nomination. judge barrett is a woman of remarkable intellect and character, with a judicial philosophy of originalism and as a textualist, she understands and respects the court's role to interpret the law as written. as such, i believe judge barrett will uphold the constitution and protect our god-given rights, including the right to life, the second amendment, free speech, and religious liberty. the need for judges who will uphold the intent of the framers is especially clear when the left is showing their disregard for our constitution. democrats are attempting to change article 1 and trying to federalize the election system through the creation of a national universal ballot system. and nancy pelosi has attempted to politicize and weaponize the

25th amendment in another desperate move to form a committee to remove an elected president. that's why i introduced a resolution condemning the speaker for her political games in the middle of an election while refusing to support relief for hardworking families impacted by this pandemic. now big tech is aggressively limiting the right to free speech and free press. created before the existence of the very companies that are silencing conservatives, the 1996 communications decency act, the section 230 provision no longer suits our country's needs. last week justice clarence thomas called on congress to update these laws to, quote, make them more appropriate for an internet-driven society. in the senate i'm leading the charge to modernize the law to suit the reality of the digital marketplace of ideas by introducing the stopping big tech censorship act in june, to give all americans a process to

bring claims against companies when they remove or limit constitutionally protected free speech. and today i introduced a bill to eliminate ambiguous language in section 230 and to codify the more concrete terms recommended by the department of justice. in congress, we must act to hold big tech accountable, but we also must have strong judges in our courts who will uphold the constitutional rights of all americans. that's why it's concerning that democrats are fighting so hard to oppose an imminently qualified nominee. as retaliation, they've threatened to pack the court if we follow clear precedent in filling the seat, attempting to constrain our well-designed system of checks and balances. unable to criticize judge barrett's sterling credentials, they have resorted to scare tactics claiming she will take

away health care coverage. at her confirmation hearing, judge barrett put those left-wing talking points to rest saying, and i quote, it is never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge's personal convictions whether they derive from faith or anywhere else on the law, end quote. these accusations make clear that there's little democrats fear more than strong conservative women. i know firsthand what it is like to step into public service and then be attacked by the left and the fake news. there's a playbook for trying to stop conservative women and their place in public service. nonetheless, judge barrett has been the definition of grace under pressure. at her confirmation hearing, senator graham asked why she decided to put her family in the spotlight and accept the president's request to serve. she said -- abridged -- we knew that our lives would be combed over for i had negative detail, our faith would be caricatured, the benefit is that i'm committed to the rule of law and

dispensing equal justice for all. judge barrett's commitment to the rule of law and equal justice are clear from her writings, decisions, and testimony. in fact, on the seventh circuit 95% of he had adjudicated cases were unanimously decided. i'm so grateful that judge barrett has accepted the call to serve our country. president trump could not have chosen a more qualified, impressive jurist than judge barrett. and i will be honored to vote to confirm her as the next united states supreme court justice. thank you. a senator: would my colleague yield for a question? mrs. loeffler: yes. mrs. loeffler: thank -- mr. merkley: thank you. you noted that the process we're in right now is based on clear

precedent. i have scoured american history to find the precedent of conducting a debate and vote on a supreme court nominee during an election, and i haven't found it. so i just wanted to check in on essentially what am i missing? where is there a precedent for conducting this debate and this vote during an election? mrs. ■loeffler: well, thank yo for the question. there have been 29 such cases when in fact the executive branch and the senate are controlled by the same party, the nomination proceeds. and that's the case that we're now in. and we will proceed with the vote and the nomination. mr. merkley: so thank you to my colleague. i think what you're confirming is that never in american history have we conducted such a debate and vote during an election. you have a different precedent argument, but not a precedent

that shows that conducting this debate during an election is appropriate. mrs. loeffler: the president is the president for four years, for a full four-year term. and we will carry out our constitutional duty. mr. merkley: i thank my colleague, because four years ago i was on this floor, and i know you weren't here in the chamber, and i listened to so many members of the senate say they were establishing a new precedent, a precedent they felt was a precedent born of deep conviction, passionate conviction, that there should never be a debate and a vote during an election year, not just during the election. i mean, we're already in the process of casting bottoms. but never in an election year. so that was a precedent set four years ago that this is overturning. is that not correct? mrs. loeffler: no, that's not correct. the precedent -- mr. barrasso: could i respond?

the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming actually -- the senator from georgia has the floor. if you -- mrs. loeffler: i yield the floor to my colleague. mr. barrasso: thank you. i want to associate myself with every remark by the senator from georgia. she sasse shown a strong voice and leadership. she knows that 29 times, as she was trying to explain before being interrupted, that there have been vacancies in an election year of the supreme court. it happens. what we know historically, we talk about historical precedence, is if the president as asked by the constitution and told by the constitution to nominate, and if the senate is the same party of the president, generally that person gets confirmed. but on the other hand if the president who nominates is of a different party than the senate, which is what happened in 2016 when merrick garland after the

republicans had won the senate, that nominee historically is not confirmed. that's the history going through the united states senate, confirmations. the constitution is clear. the president nominates. then advice and consent by the senate. we know what happens there generally. same party, consent is granted. if different parties, divided government -- that's what happened in 2016. president obama was reelected in 2014. but come 2016 the american people voted to put the republican party in the majority. so -- i actually have my dates -- it was 2012 that president obama was reelected. 2014 the majority went to the republican party so when a vacancy occurred in 2016, we had, as i stated, president of one party, a senate majority of

the other and the nominee through advice and consent was not confirmed. i think that's what -- what i'm talking about when i see this ongoing abuse of the nominee who i had a chance to meet with today who believes in the constitution, follows the constitution, is true on the constitution and that's why the people of wyoming are so delighted with her nomination, why i'm so happy to support her. but i appreciate the senator from georgia for letting me come in a little bit on her time. but i'm just grateful for your leadership and the strong statement that you're making on behalf of this -- as you said, very impressive, well qualified judge whom i'm really looking forward to voting to confirm to put on the united states supreme court. i apologize to the senator from georgia if she has additional remarks to be made. thank you, mr. president. mr. merkley: to my colleague from georgia, do you have additional comments to make? mrs. loeffler: no further comments. mr. merkley: thank you very muscle. my colleague from wyoming, would

you yield for a question barbarism' here to present. i'm -- it's my time to speak. i would like to complete that. i know you're scheduled to speak after that. we'll just go in regular order. mr. merkley: let the record know my colleague rejects. mr. barrasso: i appreciate the senator from georgia. i come to the floor today also in support of the nomination of judge amy coney barrett to serve on the united states supreme court. i'll tell you, she's terrific. so impressive, so exceptionally well qualified to take on this new responsibility. but the partisanship she has faced from democrats, well, it's predictably backfired on them, certainly the american people who a majority -- all parties, a majority of americans say get her confirmed, put her on the supreme court. because that's what they saw when they watched the hearings last week, somebody who is ready to serve our nation and apply

the law, not legislate from the bench. this is an important moment, mr. president, in our history. judge barrett, the senate, the american people served a hearing that matched the moment and that highlighted her qualifications and capabilities. regrettably, americans got a week-long lecture by democrats which turned out to be often a partisan infomercial on obamacare. this is a law that ten years on democrats are still trying to explain to the american people, still trying to explain how many -- all these millions and millions of people who lost their health insurance, trying to explain millions of millions of people whose costs went up, more than doubled. judge barrett is very clear, has been clear. she has no agenda for any case. and as a judge, she considers each case on the merits. there's only one real explanation for democrats'

fixation on obamacare during a supreme court hearing and they're trying to score political points, appeal to their far-left base before an election. it's shameful. it's a scare tactic, mr. president. i hear scare tactics, false attacks on health care that frighten people. that's not the way we ought to be doing things, mr. president. there's never -- they never mentioned that senate republicans have voted now five times to protect people with preexisting conditions, including today on the bill that every one of those democrats voted against with a targeted relief plan. there was a component of that to make sure that people were -- with preexisting conditions were protected and that coronavirus is now listed as a preexisting condition. every democrat voted against adding coronavirus as a preexisting condition. every republican today voted in favor.

so democrats seem to be trying to make a standard confirmation process about anything other than the qualifications of an exceptionally qualified nominee. you know, mr. president, and you've seen this, we've talked about this. these attacks began before her nomination was even announced. criticized for being a mom. criticized for having seven children. criticized for going to church. criticized for going to church. there are democrat candidates now running for the united states senate criticizing her religion, her faith in god. astonishing. and the delay tactics and the defamation has continued. we have seen this before. the american people saw through the democrats' disturbing attacks on brent kavanaugh two years ago. americans rejected the cheap character assassination. they rejected the low road. now democrats are leaving open the possibility -- and i hear this from the members of this body, members of this body as well as candidates for the --

leaving open the possibility if they win the election, if they take the white house, if they take the senate, of expanding the size of the united states supreme court, expanding the size. nine to 11 or 13. haven't decided yet. presidential candidate won't even announce what his thoughts are on it. won't say. won't tell the american people. oh, wait until the election is over just like it was with obamacare. first you have to pass it before you get to find out what's in it. the size of the supreme court has been at nine for 150 years, 1869. ruth bader ginsburg said nine is the right number. said going beyond that would be politicizing it. but that's what we see happening today with the sorts of threats we see coming from the other side of the aisle. what do the american people think about that? "the new york times" poll this week, 58% of voters said they're against adding additional members to the supreme court. how many favor? just 31%. but they are the liberal activist base of the democrat

party. that's who they are. those are the ones that want to call the tune if they have nancy pelosi as speaker of the house and chuck schumer as majority leader and joe biden in the white house. that's why joe biden won't tell the american people what he plans to do. so, mr. president, let me just -- americans can rest assured republicans in this senate are committed to this nominee just as the senator from georgia has just said, as i have said, as others have said. republicans in this body are committed to this nominee. we will confirm this exceptional justice regardless of the delay tactics, regardless of the seek and destroy mission the democrats have lost. we're going to confirm this exceptional justice to uphold the law as written. the senate will vote. the senate will confirm judge amy coney barrett to the united states supreme court and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon.

mr. merkley: i thank my colleague from georgia for yielding for the question. it's not that long ago that we actually had conversations and debate on the floor of the senate. and now when we're even in debate on bills, we don't have dialogue back and forth. so i appreciated you attempting to answer my question about precedent. let's be clear. this is a precedent-shattering event. this is not consistent with the history of the united states. in fact, we have seen a situation where never in our history has any president asked for a debate and a vote during an election. so that shatters precedent. never before in our history have we had a majority leader agree to hold a debate, a vote during an election. so that shatters a precedent. then there's the president lincoln precedent in which he deliberately said we're not going to violate the sanctity of

vote. i don't want you to debate and vote during an election. lincoln happened to be a republican president, but he cared about the institution. he cared about the constitution. he cared about the voice of the american people. and so he said the two shouldn't exist together. and then of course there is the mcconnell precedent from four years ago in which mcconnell came here to the floor and was supported by his caucus and said there should never ever be a debate or a vote of a nominee during an election year. my colleague from wyoming just noted well, he's got a new theory about split government, unified government. well, that theory wasn't here on the floor four years ago. that wasn't part of the mcconnell precedent. that's called aftereffect justification of inconsistent position. in fact, so many colleagues across the aisle came to the floor and said, i have this deep and passionate conviction that i want to defend the constitution.

there's never -- there should never be a debate on a supreme court justice during an election year. and now every single one of them coming to the floor and saying, well, you know that deep passionate conviction i had four years ago? it was a convenience of political power to make that argument. because what i was really saying is we as republicans don't want to debate a nominee from a democratic president. we only want to debate a nominee from a republican president. well, i'm shocked really by the complete lack of integrity. i'm shocked that arguments are being put forward that were never raised on the floor four years ago about split government as some justification. i guess i'm not so shocked about the power grab involved because

it began some 40 years ago when a group of very wealthy, very white people got together and said, we don't like this vision of government of, by, and for the people because, you know, the people, they kind of like things we don't want. we want to rig the tax system so we pay very little. we want to get those tax deductions and those tax subsidies. we want to make sure that people of communities of color don't vote. we want to be able to suppress the vote. how do we do that? well, you know, the problem is that people who are elected get elected by the people. and we might be able to influence those campaigns some of the time, but you know what? there's one institution not subject to the vote of the people. the court. if we can corrupt the court, we,

this very small group of white wealthy power brokers in america can control this country and install government by and for the powerful rather than our constitutional vision of government by and for the people. so this is a norm-shattering, precedent shattering situation. there's only been two real objectives by the leadership of this body over the last four years. one was a $2 trillion tax cut, 2 trillion with a t with virt yawl all -- virtually all the benefits going to the richest americans. a thief grabs an orange off the stand and they might go to prison for six months or a loaf of bread, maybe they get a couple of years. but through this bill, $2 trillion from the american treasury given to the richest, most powerful americans. well, that's certainly not

government by and for the people. that was one objective. the other objective was to dismantle health care for ordinary americans who aren't rich and powerful. let's tear down the a.c.a. well, my state, 400,000 oregonians proceed to gain health care through the expansion of medicaid and the a.c.a. and since march add another 120,000 to that list. 120,000 more. why? because they're losing their jobs. they're losing their jobs in this economic implosion by cause, by the failure to address the pandemic. people in oregon -- i go to every county every year. i have a town hall in every county. and most of my counties are deep red, as red as you'll find anywhere in the country. you no he what? people -- and you know what? people say health care bill of rights. thank god for that. what are they talking about?

children can be on their policy to age 26. they think that's a step forward. i know because i've been out there every year and i ask them. children on your policy age 26. how many people here like it. these very, very republican, very, very conservative rural areas. we like that. tax credits so lower income families can afford to buy health insurance on a marketplace. oh, no, we like that. having a marketplace where you can compare policies one to the other. oh, no, no, no. we like that. having prevented conditions covered because an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. oh, yeah, we think that's a step forward. that's in these conservative red districts. and the expansion of medicaid, a lifesaver. do you know what happens at these rural town halls? people who are at the local health care clinic stand up and say, you know, we doubled the size of our health care clinic because now our very low-income

constituents can pay the bill so we have been able to hire more people. we have a substance addiction program now we didn't have before. we have a mental health program we didn't have before. don't take that away from us. we really love our rural health care clinics. we love the investment in rural clinics that the a.c.a. made. that list goes on and on. now, my colleague from wyoming said there is this whole scare tactic about health care. yeah, people are scared. not because we're saying they are scared. because they are calling our offices and saying we're worried. and they're saying they are worried because they heard the president of the united states, the president of the united states said i'm only going to nominate a person who will tear down the a.c.a. and will strike down roe v. wade. don't you trust the word of the president of the united states

to do what he said? he said it. repeatedly. he said that was his goal. and he said to the federalist society, go get me nominees that complete my goal. the federalist society has been at work now for four decades. biasing courts for the wealthy and powerful. that's what they are all about. it's about preventing people of color from voting. now it's expanded to college students. now it's expanded to native american reservations. now it's expanded -- extended to poor communities. oh, we see the manipulation being planned on election day because now there is a court that by 5-4 gutted the voting rights act and allows voter intimidation in this country, allows voter suppression. so we see the efforts. you decrease the number of polling places where you don't want people to vote. you move them so people aren't sure where to go.

you understaff them so there is long lines in blue districts, and short lines in red districts. you stick machines in there that don't work so well. maybe that will slow things down. you put out messages and saying thank you for voting last week to confuse people when the vote is actually coming up the next week. you say oh, by the way, you can use any state i.d. to vote but you can't use a college i.d. because they don't want college students to vote. you know, i'm proud of the constitution of the united states. i am proud of the vision of voter empowerment, of citizen engagement and participation as a foundation for what we do in this country. but i have really been stunned by the scope of those in this chamber who believe in voter suppression and intimidation. i am stunned that they don't share the view of government of,

by, and for the people. because that's the oath of office we took, was to our constitution. i'm also stunned that it has been five months since the heroes act has been passed in the house, and this body has sat on its hands for five months, for five months. and now the leader of this body says, mr. president, don't negotiate with madam pelosi, speaker pelosi. we don't want to vote on a bill that will really help america. you have the treasury secretary and the speaker ready to reach a deal, and the leader of this body saying don't do it. for five months, don't do it. i always think of the phrase you hear growing up. rome burned while nero fiddled.

well, america suffers while the senate slumbers under the leadership that says no vote on a comprehensive package to help both the health care pandemic and the economic implosion that's associated with it. 220,000 plus americans lie in the grave because president trump refused to have a national strategy on personal protective equipment, because president trump refused to have a national strategy on testing, because president trump refused to have a national strategy on contact tracing, because president trump decided to try to continue the polarization of america over the use of masks and social

distancing, rather than bringing america together to fight this. now, some say, you know, could an america -- couldn't america do just as well as canada? couldn't we do just as well as our neighbor to the north? don't we have more resources than they have? don't we have more research institutions than they have? can't we do just as well as the canadians? well, if we had done as well as the canadians, 135,000 fewer americans would have died, if we had the same deaths per capita as the canadians. 135,000 deaths lay at the doorstep of the oval office. and this chamber sitting on its hands for the last five months, not investing in testing and tracing, not insisting we have an aggressive strategy from the

very start, working in partnership with the incompetence of the president to make the pandemic so much worse for america, so many more people infected, so many more people dead, so many people damaged for a lifetime by the experience of being sick with coronavirus and then having lasting side effects. and what else? country after country is putting their economy back together because they don't have coronavirus in any significant numbers anymore. taiwan, south korea. but as long as you have this pandemic, you damage the economy. so not only, not only have people died and people suffered in the illness and not only will they carry consequences forward,

but the number of people who have lost their jobs, that is a big deal. just last week, we saw the highest jump in jobless claims since august at about 900,000 americans filing for unemployment. now, i live in a blue-collar community. i grew up in a blue-collar community. my dad was a mechanic. i went to the public schools. my kids went to the same public schools. i can tell you that those lost jobs affect those who have the least resources to tide them over. back in april, it was 40% of the people who earned $40,000 or less who lost their job. that was in april. so there is a lot of suffering going on economically as well as in health care. and we need to do everything in our power to help those families

weather this storm, not sit on our hands for five months. not talk about the emaciated package that was put on the floor, one that is cutting to a fraction the previous republican package which was pretty darn skinny. we have a responsibility to address unemployment insurance that's tied normal americans, hardworking blue-collar americans through. i know that many of my colleges know they want to rebuild the economy from the rich down, from wall street down, but you know what? that just increases the wealth and income inequality. do you know how effective those extra unemployment checks were in keeping people working and buying products because then other companies were employed and they could pay their mortgages, they could pay their

utilities, they could pay their rent, buy their groceries, keep the economy moving. but the extension of that has been blocked by the leadership of this body. the leadership of this body, the majority party has refused to invest in that national strategy of testing and tracing which is essential in every country that's gotten ahead of the coronavirus, and they are restoring their economy, they are supercharging their economy because the disease is out of the way. they invested in testing and tracing, but the leadership of this chamber has ensured the pandemic gets worse and afflicted our economy in the process. and it may not matter to rich folks across this country who have seen their s&p index go through the roof. why? why is it going through the roof? because those companies are replacing the products produced by small business across

america, hundreds of thousands of small businesses ravaged, destroyed by this lost economy. okay, the s&p 500 is doing fine, your stock portfolio is doing fine, but americans, ordinary americans are not doing fine. the majority in this chamber did not want to increase the medicaid matching rate to strengthen health care across this country. why is it so important? because the states have lost so many revenues during this down turn, and in the process, people losing their jobs lose their employer-based health insurance and therefore need to qualify for medicaid. on and on, one issue after another, it's an issue of basic decency, of basic humanity to address the challenges americans are faced because of the incompetence of the president's efforts to address the pandemic

and to produce, therefore, an economy that's just a shambles. one of the things that ordinary families face is having their utilities cut off. we know how essential it is to have water, to have electricity, and to have broadband to get through this. this whole crisis just shined a light on the importance of broadband. that broadband, it's necessary to apply for unemployment. that broadband is necessary for school children to go to class. that broadband is necessary for the college students to go to class. that broadband is necessary for every family to stay in contact with their friends and family. that broadband is necessary to follow the national news. it is at the heart of the communications of america. so cutting it off is unacceptable. turning off the electricity is unacceptable. you can't have a computer or broadband if electricity is turned off. you can't have light and heat as winter approaches if it's turned

off. water is essential to health. you can't have basic sanitation if you don't have access to water. so let's make sure we protect ordinary families. let's make sure they have the electricity, they have the water, they have the broadband. let's not let american families be put at such risk. now, yes, there are states and cities that have taken action and produced such moratoriums, but aren't we all america together? instead of a patchwork of neighborhoods that got some help and protection and ones that don't, why don't we stand together as americans and protect the utilities. that is what we should be doing right now with a robust bill, a robust bill to address the pandemic and to address the economic implosion. and so, mr. president, as if in

legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the help committee be discharged from further consideration of senate bill 4362 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered and read a third time and passed, that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from north dakota. mr. cramer: researching the right to object, mr. president, i served as an economic regulator of utilities for nearly ten years in north dakota before coming to congress. this idea of a moratorium, a national moratorium violates all kinds of things, not the least of which, by the way, seems to me to be at the very least the spirit if not the literal constitution that my colleague from oregon says he is so proud

of. remember, the states created the federal government, not the other way around. as a state regulator of natural gas and electric utilities, i saw from time to time the attempted overreach of the federal government to mandate things. and it violates the principles of the constitution, and it violates really the best practices of states' rights, of communities' rights, of rural electric's rights. because it assumes that somehow we here in these chambers know better than the utility regulators that are appointed by governors, the ones that are elected, like i was, the municipalities that set the rates for water or sewer, that somehow we're better equipped to make the decisions for a local utility and, yes, their consumers. show we're better at doing that. -- somehow we're doing --

somehow we're better at doing that. it could be very harmful to the very consumers that the senator from oregon says he wants to look out for. just take some examples. i mean, utilities are not capitalized to provide services for free. that's what this bill would do. and guess what happens to a regulated utility, an investor-owned utility, when something like this happens, when the federal government throws a wrench into their local rate structure? well, somebody eventually has to pay for that. and guess how the money is raised to pay for the moratorium. the rates go up. they have to. that's how rate structure is designed. now, if you're a utility that, say, a rural electric cooperative or a rural

cooperative providing broadband, that's better yet because it is actually the consumers that are the board of directors. it is the most -- the most direct experiment of self-governance that we have. so let's please leave the regulation to the locals and to the states. they can design, if there is a need for a moratorium or a design for some different structure, they can do it in concert with the consumers and the regulators and of course the utilities in a way that does the least harm. that makes all the sense in the world. but here's the richest, in my mind, the richest irony of this moment. the senator from oregon talked about the high unemployment rate, the large unemployment numbers. and just today -- just today -- we had the opportunity on this floor when republicans brought a bill that would have provided $300 a week of federally funded

supplement to unemployment insurance benefits to those unemployed people, $300 a week. you know how many utility bills that would have helped get paid, without disrupting the utilities' rate structure? just today we had that moment. and the senator from oregon and every one of his democratic colleagues voted against it, not for the first time, by the way; for the second time. and here we are tonight coming up with a piecemeal solution, when the more comprehensive one was rejected? so, mr. president, for those reasons and several others i could think of -- but the hour is getting late -- i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president. and my colleague not only objected but laid out his thinking about the idea that has been adopted at local governments across the country,

and he says it's unconstitutional. well of course he didn't actually bother to check to sue see if it is -- -- to see if it is unconstitutional. because, no, it is n and if it was, it would have been ended in all those other places at the state level and local level. so, so much for that false argument. he brings in his experience as a regulator but a it might be helpful to actually check the law books before making an argument. and then he says, you know, a moratorium would hurt ordinary families. ahhh ... well, try talking to an ordinary family. an ordinary family says, you know what? i lost my job because of the economic collapse -- we had an economic collapse because of the failure to drop the coronavirus, and now you're telling me it's good for me if i lose my electricity and my water while i try to have my kids get through

this year they can't attend class at school. that's hardly helping the families get through this. i must say it represents an awareness that is so distant from the experience of ordinary americans, as to confound the mind and really challenge the heart. and my colleague notes that, my goodness, you know, the utilities have expenses. yes, which is exactly why i've proposed that we compensate those utilities for those competences. -- those expenses. so why don't we have this bill on the floor and then we can actually have the arguments and get the facts out about it? my colleague said, i have these arguments -- arguments i've just noted i disagree with, but at least we're having a debate, which is require in this chamber -- so let's have this bill on the floor.

and let's have everyone bring their experiences to bear. and let's open it to amendment. my colleague noted that there's piecemeal items that the majority leader brought forward because there's an election in a couple weeks. he didn't say because there's an election in a couple weeks, but a that's why they were brought forward. that's my opinion. but i would have been fine bringing those to the floor if they were open to amendment. but, no, they were a political stunt. it's, here is our version. we want to vote on so we can do a campaign commercial. but we're not going to let actually there be a debate, a possible amendment. the senate might actually legislate? why, we haven't done that in years! why would we start now? well, because that is the vision of our constitution. that there actually be debates 0en this floor -- on this floor, that we actually allow relevant amendments to have a majority vote and be considered, so that

the collective interaction of members can produce a better outcome for america, and by voting on those amendments, we can be accountable to the people of the united states of america. so bring back the bill and guarantee that it will be amendments by simple majority, and let's have a real debate, because we owe it to the american people. let's bring the heroes act to the floor, the one that's been trapped for five months, and amend the hell out of it if you want. but at least you're taking votes to be accountable to the people of the united states of america. at least we're having a debate, a debate in front of americans about what works and what doesn't. we need more of that in this chamber. we need a bipartisan consensus that will restore the ability of senators to amend. it's not that long ago that in this chamber amendments were common and blockades were rare.

that was a functioning legislative body. that benefits every single member. i can't tell you how many members on both sides of the aisle say, we need to restore the vision of a functioning legislative body. i want to do amendments. let's restore that vision. let's work together to restore that vision for the betterment of this chamber but certainly for the betterment of america. and one idea that should be considered is protecting americans from having their utilities cut off until we're on the far side of this crisis. thank you, mr. president. mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call with respect to the cloture motion filed on the newman nomination be waived. the presiding officer: is there objection?

without objection. mr. barrasso: mr. president, i move to recess. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor, say aye. those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the senate stands in recess until noon tomorrow. recess: senators blocked a 500 billion-dollar republican covid-19 for moving forward. meanwhile negotiations are passed because policy and the white house on a separate coronavirus relief package continue. more life senate coverage when members return here on cspan2.

statement with the senate confirmation hearings for judge amy coney barrett concluded, watch the next steps in the confirmation process. starting thursday live at 9:00 a.m. eastern that senate judiciary committee votes on judge barrett's nomination. then friday, live on cspan2, the full senate begins debate on amy coney barrett's confirmation. on c-span and cspan2. street or ondemand@c-span.org for it or listen on the c-span radio app. >> i had a choice to make do i let my people run it really well? or badly? if i run it badly they will probably blame him. but they will blame ep more important i want to help people. he in fact is already cost 10 million people their healthcare that they had from their employers because of his recession. with less than two weeks before the 2020 election, watch the second presidential

debate between president donald trump and former vice president joe biden. thursday from belmont university in nashville, tennessee. live coverage begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. listen live on the c-span radio app go to c-span.org/debate. for live or on-demand streaming of c-span debate coverage. >> we are just weeks away from election day. november 3, with control of congress and who occupies the white house next year will be decided. stay with cspan2 here president trump and joe bided make their case to the american public. in watch debates as of the hotly contested house and senate races. camping 2020 coverage, every day on c-span. c-span.org or listen on the c-span radio app. your place for an unfiltered view of politics.