Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 1868, an act to prevent across-the-board direct spending cuts, which was received from the House and is at the desk.

I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

I object.

Mr. President, section 3001 of S. Con. Res. 5, the fiscal year 2021 congressional budget resolution, allows the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to revise the allocations, aggregates, and levels in the budget resolution for legislation considered under the resolution's reconciliation instructions.

I find that Senate Amendment No. 1378 fulfills the conditions found in section 3001 of S. Con. Res. 5. Accordingly, I am revising the allocations for the reconciled committees and other enforceable budgetary levels to account for the budgetary effects of the amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying tables, which provide details about the adjustments, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, section 3001 of S. Con. Res. 5, the fiscal year 2021 congressional budget resolution, allows the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to revise the allocations, aggregates, and levels in the budget resolution for legislation considered under the resolution's reconciliation instructions.

I find that H.R. 1319, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, as passed by the Senate, meets the conditions found in section 3001 of S. Con. Res. 5. Accordingly, I am revising the allocations for the reconciled committees and other enforceable budgetary levels to account for the budgetary effects of the bill. This adjustment reflects the estimate of the bill provided by the Congressional Budget Office on March 10, 2021.

This adjustment supersedes the adjustments I previously made for the processing of S. Amdts. 891 and 1378 to H.R. 1319 on March 5, 2021.

I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying tables, which provide details about the adjustments, be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that for the duration of the Senate's consideration of H.R. 1319, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, the majority and Republican managers of the bill, while seated or standing at the managers' desks, be permitted to deliver floor remarks, retrieve, review, and edit documents, and send email and other data communications from text displayed on wireless personal digital assistant devices and tablet devices.

What do we think about that?

All right. I further ask unanimous consent that the use of calculators be permitted on the floor during consideration of the bill; further, that the staff be permitted to make technical and conforming changes to the bill, if necessary, consistent with the amendments adopted during Senate consideration of the bill.

Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 972.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, I rise to offer an amendment to increase the Federal minimum wage from a starvation wage of $7.25 an hour to $15 an hour over a 5-year period.

As I think you know, Congress has not raised the minimum wage since 2007. The result of that is that half of our people are now living paycheck to paycheck, and many, in fact, are working for wages that are much too low in order to take care of their families. So, to my mind, the American people in poll after poll and State after State understand that we have to raise that minimum wage to a living wage of 15 bucks an hour. I intend to do everything that I can to make that happen, and I will be offering that amendment this morning.

Madam President, before I do that, let me begin my remarks by explaining why this reconciliation bill that we are debating today, the American Rescue Plan, is so enormously important that it must be passed and must be passed as quickly as possible, in my view. This legislation is the most consequential and significant legislation for working families that Congress has debated for many, many decades.

Now, why is that?

The answer is that, as I think all Americans know, the last year that we have gone through has been, in so many ways, the very worst year in our lifetimes. That is what it has been. The working families of our country today are hurting in a way that they have not hurt since the Great Depression, and they want their government to hear their pain and come to their aid, and that is not too much to ask.

There are a lot of folks in this country--there are estimates of maybe 30 to 40 percent of Americans--who have literally given up on democracy. They are moving toward authoritarianism. They are hurting. Their kids are hurting. Their parents are hurting. They look to Washington for help in their democratic society, and they don't see Washington responding. What they see year after year are policies which make the very, very rich richer, which enable large, profitable corporations to not pay a nickel in taxes, but for them, they face eviction; they face hunger; they don't have healthcare; they can't afford to send their kids to college. They are asking: Does anybody-- anybody--in Washington care about their lives?

So what today is about, in a very profound way, is whether or not we stand with the working class of this country and say: Yes, we live in a democratic society. We understand what you are going through, and we are going to move as aggressively as we can to respond to your pain and improve your lives.

This is not just a healthcare bill. It is not just an economic bill. It is not just an educational bill. It is perhaps more than that. This is a bill which will answer a profound question: Are we living in a democratic society, where the U.S. Congress will respond to the needs of working families rather than just the wealthy and large corporations and their lobbyists? That is what today is about. It is dealing with the pandemic. It is dealing with the economy. It is dealing with education and so much more, but most importantly it is dealing with the issue of whether or not we are hearing the pain that is out there and if we are responding to it.

During the last year, as everybody knows, over 500,000 Americans have died of COVID, and millions more have been made ill. Unbelievable. It is unbelievable what we have gone through in terms of this terrible pandemic. COVID has not only caused massive death and illness; it has resulted in a way we have never experienced social isolation. That means, all over this country, we have old people, elderly people, in their homes. They can't interact with their grandchildren, with their own kids, with their friends. You have young people who want to go to school, who want to socialize, who want to date, who want to do things that young people do. They can't do it and have been unable to do it for the last year, and that has resulted in a very sharp increase in mental illness in this country--something, by the way, that this legislation also deals with. Many Americans, young and old and middle- aged, are now dealing with depression, anxiety disorder, addictions. We are seeing the growth of addictions and even suicidal ideation. So this has been just an awful year for people in our country and, in fact, throughout the world.

This last year has not only been a public health crisis, as bad as that has been. The pandemic, as we all know, has led to a terrible economic downturn, which has resulted in millions of Americans losing their jobs and their incomes, and it has led to the shutting down of something like one out of four small businesses in this country. That is just an unbelievable number. Go to any town in America, and you will see its Main Street shuttered down. Thriving businesses no longer exist. Real unemployment in this country today is now over 10 percent.

Further, countless Americans face the threat of eviction. We have a moratorium on evictions, which is the right thing, but there is going to be a day when that ends. People are saying: I am $5,000, $8,000 in debt. What happens to me when the moratorium ends? How am I going to pay my rent? Am I going to be one of the 500,000 people already sleeping out on the streets?

Millions more--and we have seen this in Vermont, and I know the Acting President pro tempore has probably seen it in Minnesota, for it is all over this country--are lining up in their cars for food, and it is something that none of us ever dreamed. It is right in my own community of Burlington, VT--hundreds of people, while in their cars, lining up for food. Many of them, never in a million years, would have dreamed that they would be in that position. Today, the level of hunger in America is at the highest level it has been in decades.

Then, on top of all of that, we are in the midst of a pandemic. People are scared to death about coming down with COVID. Yet, because of our dysfunctional healthcare system, we have over 90 million people who are uninsured or underinsured in the midst of a pandemic.

It is not only the public health crisis we worry about; it is not only the collapse of our economy that we have to worry about; it is what is happening to our young people because the pandemic has created a massive disruption in our educational system, from childcare through graduate school. The majority of our young people have seen education disrupted. Think about all of the implications of what that means. It is likely that hundreds of colleges in America, which were struggling before the pandemic, will cease to exist.

So you have the public health crisis with a half a million people dead, an economic crisis with real unemployment at 10 percent and small businesses going out of business, and an educational crisis.

Meanwhile, in the midst of all of that, it is important to note that not everybody in this country is hurting. What we are seeing, in the midst of massive income and wealth inequality, is a moment when, in fact, that gap between the very, very rich and everybody else is growing wider. Incredibly, during this pandemic, over 650 billionaires in America have increased their wealth by more than $1 trillion. The 50--five zero--richest people in America now own more wealth than the bottom half of American society, some 160 million people.

So the bottom line here is very simple: In this moment of unprecedented crises, the U.S. Senate must respond to the pain of working families all across this country, and we must respond in an unprecedented way, which is what this legislation is about.

Now I want to say a few words about some of what is in this bill. This is a 600-page bill, and I will not read it all again. I think our clerks had enough fun reading it last night, but I do want to summarize some of what is in it.

Most importantly, what the American people want is, they want to get back to a normal life. They want their kids to go to school. They want to go to work. They want their businesses open. And what the American Rescue Plan does is enable us to aggressively crush this pandemic and enable the American people to return to their jobs and their schools.

It will establish a national emergency program to produce the quantity of vaccines that we need and get them into the arms of our people as quickly as possible. Clearly, we are making progress in that area. More and more people are getting vaccinated. But we still have a lot of work to do, and this legislation will enable us to do that.

At a time when so many of our people are hurting, this legislation will allow us to provide $1,400 in direct payment to every working- class person in this country and to their kids, and this is on top of the $600 that we provided last month. So if you are out there and you are a family of four earning less than $150,000 or an individual earning less than $75,000, you are going to get that check for $1,400, and for that family of four, that is $5,600.

Now, I know that to some that isn't a whole lot of money. You know, 5,600 bucks ain't that much. But for a family that is struggling right now and can't pay their rent and can't feed their kids, that $5,600 for a family of four could be the difference between desperation and dignity.

Further, at a time when so many of our people are unemployed, this Budget Reconciliation Act will provide $400 a week in supplemental unemployment benefits to over 10 million Americans until the end of August. If you are unemployed right now, you are worried--if your unemployment check is your only source of income, you are worried that it is going to cease, well, it is not. This legislation will continue that check coming until the end of August.

This legislation understands that we have a childcare crisis in America, and we provide the resources to provide childcare to 875,000 children.

And very importantly--we don't talk about this enough--one of the absolute disgraces of our economy right now is the level of childhood poverty in America, which is one of the highest for any major country on Earth. This legislation will go a long way toward cutting childhood poverty. Some studies suggest we are going to cut it in half by expanding the child tax credit from $2,000 to $3,000 and $3,600 for kids under the age of 6. In other words, we are about to cut childhood poverty in half in this country.

This legislation, obviously, deals with the horror of so many of our people facing hunger. We put in very substantial amounts of money for nutrition assistance for working families, for kids, for the disabled, and the elderly.

This legislation will provide rent relief, utility assistance, and mortgage assistance to millions of tenants and homeowners who are in danger of eviction and foreclosure.

This legislation will protect the pensions of many millions of workers who are in danger of seeing their retirement benefits cut by as much as 65 percent.

Not only is this $1.9 trillion emergency COVID relief package the right thing to do for people from a moral perspective, it is exactly what the overwhelming majority of the American people want us to do.

The American people didn't want us to give tax breaks to billionaires. The American people did not want, as the Republicans fought to do, throw 30 million people off the Affordable Care Act. The American people didn't want that, but that is what the Republicans tried to do under reconciliation.

Well, we have a different idea. Yeah, we are going to use reconciliation, which requires only 51 votes. We are going to use it, not for tax breaks for the rich, not to throw people off of healthcare but to provide the help that working-class people need all across this country.

Madam President, I am introducing, as I mentioned earlier, legislation--an amendment--today to raise the minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour.

Because of an unfortunate and, in my view, misguided decision by the Parliamentarian, this reconciliation bill does not include an increase in the minimum wage to $15 an hour. In my view, it should have, and I think the Parliamentarian was dead wrong.

But more importantly, it is an absurd process that we allow an unelected staffer, somebody who works for the Senate, not elected by anybody, to make a decision as to whether 30 million Americans get a pay raise or not. I don't care how the Parliamentarian rules. No Parliamentarian should have that power.

If people here want to vote against raising the minimum wage, you have that right. You want to vote for it, and I hope you do, you have that right. But we should not shuffle off that responsibility to an unelected staffer. That is wrong.

The amendment I am offering today to raise that minimum wage to $15 an hour is cosponsored by Majority Leader Schumer, and I thank him for his strong support; Senator Patty Murray, who is the chair of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee; Senator Ron Wyden, who is the chair of the Finance Committee; and many others in this Chamber.

In fact, this amendment is similar in many ways to the legislation that I have offered which is cosponsored by 38 Members of the Senate.

And let us not forget, this legislation was passed in the House, and I want to thank my friends and colleagues in the House Progressive Caucus for their extraordinary leadership on this issue.

This amendment is supported by some 300 national organizations, including the AFL-CIO, and virtually all of the major unions in our country. I want to thank in particular the SEIU, one of the great unions in America, who have led this effort for years in terms of the Fight for $15, where people working in McDonald's and Burger King have gone out on strike and said: No, we can't make it on 10 bucks an hour, 11 bucks an hour. I want to thank the SEIU.

And this legislation will help workers all across the board, but it will significantly help women who are unfortunately forced into low- income work more than the general population, more than men, and it will disproportionately help African Americans and Latinos, who disproportionately are forced into low-income work. This legislation is supported not only by 300 organizations but by groups like the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. They understand that if we are going improve the standard of living of the African-American community, we ought to raise that minimum wage.

It is supported by the National Organization for Women because, again, this raising the minimum wage is a women's issue in a very significant way--not totally, believe me. There are a lot of men out there who are working for 9, 10, 11 bucks an hour, but disproportionately it impacts women.

It is supported by Unidos and other Latino organizations. It is supported by the American Association of University Women, supported by Indivisible, Justice for Migrant Women, the National Domestic Workers Alliance, and the National Women's Law Center.

Here is the simple truth, and that is that in the richest country in the history of the world, we can no longer tolerate millions of our workers being unable to feed their families because they are working for starvation wages. And that is not what I say, although I do say it; it is what the President of the United States says. He very, very strongly supports raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, and I thank him for his support.

You know, when we look at the economy, people look at the stock market, and they look at a whole lot of indices out there, but at the end of the day, we have to ask ourselves: What is going on in the lives of ordinary people? It is not acceptable to me that half of our people are living paycheck to paycheck and millions of people are trying to get by on 9, 10, 11 bucks an hour. And do you know what? You can't do that. You can't do that in Vermont, and you can't do it in California, and you can't do it in Minnesota. You can't do that. Our job is to make sure that we have an economy that works for all and not just for the few, and in order to do that, we are going to have to raise that minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour.

Frankly, it is disgraceful that Congress has not passed an increase in the minimum wage since 2007. Think of all the things that have transpired since then. But Congress has not raised the minimum wage since 2007.

The reality is that the minimum wage has lost over 30 percent of its purchasing power since 1968. The minimum wage is worth a lot less now than it used to be. When we increase the minimum wage, we will be giving over 32 million Americans a much needed pay raise.

Let's be clear. Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour is an enormously popular idea. More than 60 percent of the American people, in poll after poll, support raising the minimum wage.

Since 1998--this is really amazing. You know, I have some friends here who are nervous: Oh, my goodness, how radical can it be? Should we raise the minimum wage? Oh, my God, I am scared of the American Restaurant Association.

Well, since 1998, every time a State has had an initiative on the ballot to raise the minimum wage, it has won. In conservative States, in progressive States, put it on the ballot, it wins.

Just as one example, in November, just this last November, election time, Joe Biden lost Florida. Donald Trump won Florida by three points. But in that same election, the people of Florida--and I say that to the two Senators from Florida--61 percent of the people in Florida voted to raise the minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour. Florida voted for Donald Trump and voted to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour.

Eight States--over the years, 8 States and over 40 cities have adopted

laws to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. It is not a radical idea.

And, as you know, over just a few days ago, the House of Representatives did the right thing and voted to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. This is not a radical idea. People want it. States have done it. The House of Representatives has done it, and now it is our turn to do what the American people want.

Now, in the last few days, I have heard some concerns from my colleagues about one part of our amendment, and that is the provision to raise the tip wage, which now stands--I want everybody to hear that--the tip wage for waiters and waitresses and all those people who get tips now stands at $2.13 an hour. No, you did not mishear me--$2.13 an hour. That is the Federal minimum wage for waiters and waitresses, for barbers, for hairstylists, for parking attendants, and others. That tip minimum wage has not been raised since 1991, 30 years ago.

You think maybe it is time to raise the tip wage from $2.13 an hour, passed 30 years ago? I think so. The proposal in this legislation would raise that tip wage from $2.13 an hour to $14.95 over a 7-year period.

Now, time and again, our legislation gets misrepresented. People say: Oh, you are raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour tomorrow. No, we are not. The tip wage is going to take 7 years. For better or worse, that is what it is.

Now, the National Restaurant Association, a very powerful lobbying organization, has suggested to Members of Congress that this legislation is opposed by restaurant workers and would be harmful to their interests. This is not true.

One Fair Wage, an organization representing service employees, has just delivered to the White House a petition with 140,000 signatures from service workers who are demanding that they receive the same minimum wage as every other worker in their State.

Polling among service employees and nonservice employees also supports the reality that Americans want our waiters and waitresses and other service employees to get a fair minimum wage.

Now, I heard from some people that those people who are working in the service industry are doing really well, you know, and they don't want an increase in the Federal minimum wage. The tips that they are receiving are covering all of their needs. ``Leave well enough alone,'' they say. Well, today, 70 percent of tipped workers are women who suffer from three times the poverty rate of the rest of the U.S. workforce. They are not doing so well. They use food stamps at double the rate of the general workforce and suffer, by the way, from the highest rates of sexual harassment of any industry because they must tolerate inappropriate customer behavior to get the incomes that they need.

Further--and this is important, and I want all of my colleagues to hear this. The idea of moving tipped wages to the same level as the overall minimum wage is not a radical idea. It has been done in State after State. It already exists in seven States in our country, including California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Montana, Alaska, and Minnesota. I should point out that all of those States experienced a growth in the number of small businesses and restaurants after they abolished the tipped minimum wage. And guess what. Waiters and waitresses in these States received more tips, not less, and let's be clear: This pandemic has made a bad situation worse for waiters and waitresses.

So, right now, it is absolutely imperative that we raise that minimum wage to a living wage for all of our workers and that we raise the tipped wage as well, which is already law in seven States of the country right now.

And I see the Senator from California, Mr. Padilla, and we are delighted that he is joining us. And his State has been one of the leaders in this country in raising the minimum wage, and I would yield the floor to him for his remarks.

Mr. President, my colleague, the ranking member, Senator Graham, says: Why?--$1.9 trillion, a lot of money. We have spent money over the last year. He is right. Why did we spend the money? The answer is because we are facing a series of unprecedented crises and because the American people are reaching out to us, and they are saying: We are hurting. We are in desperate condition, and we need help from the Federal Government. That is why we are responding.

Half a million people have died in this country from COVID, and many millions more have been made ill. And what the long-term impact of those illnesses are nobody at this point knows, but certainly no one will deny that we have a pandemic crisis.

Our job is to make sure that we produce the vaccines that the American people desperately need and that we develop an effective mechanism to get it into the arms of the American people. And the truth is--I want to thank the President and his team--we have made progress in the last month, but we still have a long, long way to go. To produce the vaccines, to hire the people who will make sure that people get those vaccines, inject people with the vaccines, it is going to take money.

Everybody in this Senate and, I assume, in the country wants our kids to get back to school. Well, you just can't open the schools unless they are safe. Parents are not going to send their kids back to those schools. Teachers are not going to teach. Childcare workers are not going to provide the care that the little ones need.

And do you know what? To make those schoolrooms and school buildings safe is going to require resources, but, for the sake of our children, we need to reopen the schools as quickly as possible and do it in a safe way.

There is money in this bill--Senator Graham didn't mention it--to make sure that, this coming summer, school districts all over this country have the resources to provide strong, well-staffed summer programs so kids who have missed significant amounts of school can make up some of what they have lost, in addition to getting some recreation and associating with their fellow young people in a way that is safe.

There was a poll that came out just last week. It was rather shocking at what it said. It said that 63 percent of the American people are living paycheck to paycheck.

Senator Graham says: Why are we spending all of this money? The answer is we don't believe that children in America should go hungry. We don't believe that working people should be evicted from their apartments or lose their homes. We don't believe that, in the midst of a pandemic, people should not be able to afford to go to a doctor.

So making sure that people have those direct payments, yeah, we believe in that. We believe that if a family is struggling today through no fault of their own, having lost their income, yeah, we are going to get them a check for 1,400 bucks and a family of four a check for $5,600.

There are a lot of people in this country who are doing very well, and they are wondering: What is this big deal about $1,400? That is not a lot of money. You go to a corporate lunch, a bunch of people come in, and they can spend $1,400 on a lunch.

But if you are struggling to put food on the table for your kids, that $5,600 for a family of four is life and death; it is dignity or desperation.

People are wondering: How am I going to pay the rent that I owe after the rent moratorium, the eviction moratorium expires? How am I going to feed my kids? How am I going to take care of the basic necessities of life?

So, yes, we are providing $1,400 per working-class family because that is desperately needed.

So when the Senator says: Well, why are we spending all of this money? The answer is because we are living in the most difficult moment in the modern history of this country and, arguably, even a more difficult moment than the Great Depression of the 1930s. People are hurting, and, in a democratic society, government is supposed to respond to the people who sent us here.

Now, I know that there is controversy, and Senator Graham raised this issue. Democrats have a majority, a bare majority with the Vice President--51 votes. Why are we not working with our Republican colleagues? We have reached out time and time and time again. The President has reached out: Work with us. But you have got to understand the severity of the crisis, and they have not done this.

Using reconciliation, by the way, as the Presiding Officer well knows, is not a new idea. When our Republican colleagues had the majority, they used reconciliation. What did they use it for? They used it for massive tax breaks for the rich. That is what they used reconciliation for. They used reconciliation in order to try to throw 32 million Americans off the Affordable Care Act, something that Trump was fervent about. And by one vote--Senator McCain--we prevented 32 million people from losing their health insurance through the reconciliation process.

So our response is, you want unity? Well, do you know what? We probably have more unity today in America around this package than anything that I can remember. The polls vary: 65, 70 percent of the American people understand the crisis we are facing. They want us to respond. This legislation is enormously popular, not just from progressives, not from moderates, but from Republicans, as well, depending on the poll.

Forty, fifty percent more Republicans support it because they can't afford to pay their rent. They can't afford to go to the doctor. They understand that government has to help.

So the real question here--and President Biden has raised this issue--is, we believe in unity, we believe in bringing people together. How does it happen that when 40, 50 percent of Republicans support this legislation, we can't get one vote from Republicans here? What

is going on? And the answer is, I am afraid, that my Republican colleagues have moved so far to the right that they have lost contact with the needs of working families.

As I said earlier, this legislation is not just about dealing with the pandemic and healthcare. It is not just dealing with the severe economic downturn that we are facing. It is not just dealing with the disruption of education in America and so much more. It is not just dealing with the worst moment in the modern history of this country. This amendment, this legislation, has everything to do with restoring the confidence of the American people in democracy and in their government. And if we can't respond to the pain of working families today, we don't deserve to be here.

Senator Graham said it is going to be a long night. Bring it on. We are ready. But at the end of the day, we are going to do what the American people want, what the American people need. We are going to pass the American Rescue Plan.

I yield back my time as well.

Mr. President, in accordance with section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of all applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of amendment No. 972, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, given the unprecedented series of crises this country now faces, the Republican amendment simply does not accomplish what the American people need or what they want.

Our bill would substantially expand the child tax credit and cut child poverty in this country in half. Our bill provides a full $1,400 direct payment to every working-class adult and their kids. Under the Collins amendment, if you are a single parent earning $50,000, you get zero, nothing at all, while millions of children would receive just $500 instead of the full $1,400 payment.

Our bill provides $130 billion to public schools so our kids can get back to school and get back safely. The Republican alternative does not.

Our plan provides $40 billion to colleges and universities, which have already lost 650,000 jobs, and many are----

--cutting down. The Republican amendment simply does not do what the American people need right now. I ask for a ``no'' vote. Oh, I raise a point of order. I am sorry.

Point of Order

Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment produces budgetary changes that are merely incidental to the nonbudgetary components of the amendment and therefore violates section 313(b)(1)(D) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. President, President Biden is right. He canceled the Keystone Pipeline because he is listening to the scientists, and what the scientists are telling us is that we have a small number of years-- 5, 6, 7 years--before this country and this world face irreparable--I underline the word ``irreparable''--harm because of climate change.

My friends here talk about creating jobs. Well, we all want to create jobs. Do you know where the jobs are? The jobs are in energy efficiency. The jobs are in sustainable energy. That is where the jobs of the future are.

If we love our kids and if we love our grandchildren and if we want to leave them a country and a planet that is healthy and is habitable, yes, this country is going to have to lead the world, work with the world, in transforming our energy system away from fossil fuel.

I urge opposition to this amendment.

Point of Order

Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment is not germane and therefore violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. There are some people here who do not understand the crises facing the American people. Sixty-three percent of our people today are living paycheck to paycheck. Every day that we do not vaccinate somebody, there is somebody unnecessarily dying. Our kids are not in school. We are suffering a mental health epidemic.

This country is demanding that Congress act now and stand up for the working families of this country. People are tired of obstructionism. They are tired of delays. They want action. Let's do it.

I yield.

Vote on Motions to Commit

Mr. President, my colleague from Florida may not know it, but this is a budget, a $1.9 trillion reconciliation budget, which, in fact, will turn out to be the most significant piece of legislation for working people that has been passed in decades. Finally, Congress is doing its job. Unfortunately, my friends on the other side have used delaying tactics, after delaying tactics, and obstruction, obstruction, obstruction.

The American people want action. They want action now. I urge my colleagues to oppose this motion.

Vote on Motion to Commit

Mr. President, I rise in support of the technical amendment and in very strong support of the overall bill, the American Rescue Plan.

Let's be clear. This bill that we are completing now is the most significant piece of legislation that benefits working people in the modern history of this country. Not only are we going to go forward to crush this pandemic, to rebuild our economy, and to get our kids back to school safely, we are going to do something even more important. We are going to help restore faith in the U.S. Government among the people of our country. The people are hurting, and today we responded.

Mr. President, section 3001 of S. Con. Res. 5, the fiscal year 2021 congressional budget resolution, allows the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to revise the allocations, aggregates, and levels in the budget resolution for legislation considered under the resolution's reconciliation instructions.

I find that Amendment 891 fulfills the conditions found in section 3001 of S. Con. Res. 5. Accordingly, I am revising the allocations for the reconciled committees and other enforceable budgetary levels to account for the budgetary effects of the amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying tables, which provide details about the adjustments, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record some of the finalists' essays written by Vermont high school students as part of the 11th annual ``State of the Union'' essay contest conducted by my office. The material follows:

Finalists

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following staff members from my staff and from Senator Graham's staff be given all-access floor passes for the consideration of the bill:

Majority staff: Michael Jones, Joshua Smith, Michael Lawliss, Melissa Kaplan-Pistiner, and Ari Rabin-Havt.

Republican staff: Nick Myers, Matthew Giroux, Joe Keeley, Becky Cole, and Matthew Rimkunas.

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

Mr. President, later today or tomorrow, as part of the American Rescue Plan, which we will be discussing in the next few days, which I happen to believe is the most significant piece of legislation to come to the floor of the Senate in decades in terms of addressing the crises facing working families--as part of that piece of legislation, I will be offering an amendment to raise the Federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour, which I believe is a starvation wage, to $15 an hour over a 5-year period--5 years.

I think there has been some miscommunication around here, and there are people who are saying it is going from 7.25 to 15 bucks an hour in 1 year. Not true. It goes from 7.25 to 9.50, to 11, to 12.50, to 14, to 15 dollars an hour. So anyone who says we are raising the minimum wage in 1 year, in the midst of a pandemic, to $15 an hour is simply not telling the truth.

This amendment is similar to a bill which I have brought forth, the Raise the Wage Act, which I am proud to say has been cosponsored by some 38 Members of the Senate, and this is also similar to legislation which has already passed the U.S. House of Representatives. And I thank them, and I thank my friends in the Progressive Caucus in the House for doing a great job in pushing this legislation.

I should also add, for my Senate colleagues, that this legislation raising the minimum wage is supported by some 300 national organizations, including the 12 million members of the AFL-CIO and virtually every major union in this country. This is something that unions like the SEIU, one of the largest unions in this country, have been fighting for, for a very long time.

I should also add here that while raising the minimum wage is going to impact every low-wage worker in this country--because African- American and Latino workers often are earning poverty wages--it significantly impacts the lives of the minority communities as well. That is why, among so many other organizations supporting this amendment, it is supported by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; it is supported by the National Organization for Women because, again, when we talk about low-wage workers, we are talking about the minority community, we are talking about women; and that is why it is supported by groups like Unidos, the American Association of University Women, Indivisible, Justice for Migrant Women, the National Domestic Workers Alliance, and the National Women's Law Center.

So, once again, this is legislation that will increase wages for 30 million American workers. And if you ask me what the great economic crisis in our country is today, it is not just high unemployment; it is not just income and wealth inequality; it is that half of our people today, and before the pandemic, were living paycheck to paycheck. Their wages were so low that if they had a problem with their car or their kid got sick, suddenly they were in financial crisis

And in the richest country in the history of the world, half of our people should not be facing economic desperation when their car breaks down. The reason for that is, significantly, that many millions of workers are earning starvation wages--and I underline that, starvation wages--in this country.

I would love to hear anybody get up here and tell me that they could live on seven and a quarter an hour, they could live on 8 bucks an hour, they could live on 9 bucks an hour. You can't. And I have been all over this country, and I have talked to workers who are making 10, 11 bucks an hour, with tears streaming down their cheeks, telling me what it is like to work for starvation wages and try to raise your kids.

So the time is long overdue. The last time this Congress passed an increase in the minimum wage was in the year 2007--2007. It is time to raise the minimum wage. It is time to raise the minimum wage to a living wage of 15 bucks an hour.

Now, later on today or this evening, as part of my support for this enormously important piece of legislation--and, as chairman of the Budget Committee, I will be speaking more about why we need to raise the minimum wage, but I want to focus on one part of the minimum wage bill that I have been hearing a little bit about in the last couple of days from some of my colleagues, and that is the provision to raise the tipped wage.

Now, the tipped wage, so everybody understands it, is the Federal minimum wage that applies to waiters and waitresses, barbers, hair stylists, parking attendants, and others. Fellow Americans, do you know what that Federal minimum wage today is for that person who waits on your table at a restaurant? It is $2.12 an hour. Yeah, you heard me correctly: $2.12 an hour.

And the proposal, as part of the minimum wage bill, the amendment that I will be offering, is that tipped minimum wage would go up from $2.12 an hour to $14.95 over a 7-year period, longer than the overall national minimum wage would go up. And this is something that clearly is desperately needed.

Now, I know that, here in Washington, anytime we bring forth serious and important legislation for working people, the Big Money interests get to work, and all of their lobbyists, who make their six figures or seven figures a year, they get to work on Congress and tell you why you can't do anything to protect the most vulnerable and hard-hit people in this country.

So the National Restaurant Association, they are a very powerful lobbying organization. I guess they have been enormously successful because we have not raised the Federal minimum wage since 2007. So the powerful lobbying organizations are going around, and they are telling Members of the House and the Senate that raising the tipped wage is opposed by restaurant workers and it would be harmful to the interest of waiters and waitresses and other people.

That is not true. That is what lobbyists say, representing Big Money interests. That is what they are paid to say, but that is not what workers who wait on tables are telling us.

One Fair Wage, a grassroots organization representing service employees--waiters, waitresses, and others--has just delivered to the White House a petition with 140,000 signatures on it from service workers who are demanding that they receive the same minimum wage as every other worker in this country. And polling among service employees and nonservice employees also supports the reality that Americans want our waiters and our waitresses and other service employees to get a fair and equal minimum wage, similar to what other low-wage workers are receiving.

Now, I have heard from some who tell me that people who are waiting on tables--and, by the way, I was one of the worst waiters in the history of the country, but I was a waiter a long time ago. I know a little bit about it. I am hearing from some that waiters and waitresses, they are doing really well, making a whole lot of money, and they don't need an increase in the minimum wage.

Let's be clear. When you talk about the restaurant and the hotel industry, you are talking about mass discrepancies in the kind of incomes that people receive. I will not deny it for a second. My daughter worked in a fancy restaurant. She did quite well.

So if you are working in a hotel in a fancy restaurant where you have a menu that is quite expensive--you have got a $100 meal and your 20 percent is 20 bucks, you are waiting on three or four tables--you are doing OK. I don't deny that for a second, and I wish those waiters and waitresses who work so hard continued success.

But let us be clear. Not everybody works in a fancy restaurant or a big hotel which has a high-priced menu. You have got a whole lot of people working in diners, working in working-class restaurants where the menu is not that fancy, and maybe it is $10 for

lunch or $8 for lunch. Twenty percent of that is $1.60, on an $8 meal.

Let us be very clear that, when we talk about waiters and waitresses, some 70 percent of tipped workers in this country are women, who suffer from three times the poverty rate of the rest of the U.S. workforce. In other words, women who are waitressing have a three times higher poverty rate than the rest of the U.S. workforce. Their tips are not keeping up with their needs. These women waitresses use food stamps at double the rate of other workers in this country.

And, importantly, and increasingly so--amazingly, during this pandemic--waitresses suffer from the highest rates of sexual harassment of workers in any industry because they are forced to tolerate inappropriate customer behavior to feed their families through the tips that they get.

We are hearing stories where people in a restaurant, guys in a restaurant say: Well, take your mask off. You want a tip; let me see how you look.

And, clearly, this is unacceptable behavior.

I also want to point out that the idea of moving tip wages to the same level over a period--in this case, 7 years--moving it to the same level as the overall minimum wage is not a radical idea. It ain't a Bernie Sanders idea. It already exists. I don't know if people know this. It already exists in seven States. So in seven States, right now, people who work in the service industry--waiters, waitresses, and others--are getting the same minimum wage as all the workers in those States. And those States are California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Montana, Alaska, and Minnesota. Seven States already pay their service industry workers the same wages as they pay other minimum-wage workers.

And I should point out that all of these States experienced a growth in the number of small businesses and restaurants after they abolished the tip minimum wage. So they abolished the tip minimum wage; it did not drive restaurants out of business. In fact, in those States where the tip minimum wage equaled the general minimum wage, we saw a growth in the number of restaurants.

And, furthermore, to respond to another piece of misinformation, waiters and waitresses in these States received more in tips, not less. So the mythology that is going around here is that if we raise the minimum wage for waiters and waitresses, when somebody walks into a restaurant, they are going to be thinking, ``Oh, my goodness, this person is making 10, 12 bucks an hour; I am going to leave less of a tip,'' ain't the way the world works.

Let me also say a word about how the pandemic, which has impacted workers in every sector--but how it has impacted tip workers. In many States where the tip minimum wage still exists, tip workers--and this is rather unbelievable--tip workers did not even qualify for unemployment. So we are talking now, in this bill, of substantially increasing unemployment--a $400 supplement--and we are talking about extending it to late August. But tip workers, whose minimum wage is so low, do not even qualify for unemployment.

In an industry where more than 6 million workers have lost their jobs--and, obviously, we all know the restaurant and hotel industry have been terribly hard-hit by the pandemic--more than 60 percent of subminimum wage earners could not get unemployment benefits because the State and Federal Government denied them benefits for not making enough earned income. You all got that?

So we are talking about the need--and I certainly agree with that--to expand and extend unemployment benefits, but you have a whole lot of workers who are earning starvation wages who are not going to be eligible for unemployment.

At the same time, as restaurants reopen, the CDC has declared restaurants as the most dangerous place to work. We all know that. It is obvious. You are coming face-to-face with your customers. And now servers, in the midst of that, are responsible--you are a waiter, you are a waitress, and you are now responsible--for telling somebody who walks into your restaurant that they must socially distance themselves or wear a mask. It is not necessarily a comfortable position for a worker dealing with a hostile customer.

I would also add, as all of us are increasingly aware of sexual harassment in general in this country, that the restaurant industry has some of the highest rates of sexual harassment. In a workplace where 70 percent of the workers are women and where they rely on their customers to determine their wages because of tips, women are often expected to withstand sexual harassment in order to get those tips.

In States where the subminimum wage has been eliminated, sexual harassment has been cut substantially because women no longer have to take that. It is not an all-or-nothing proposition.

If you ask me again what the major economic crisis facing this country is, we know unemployment is sky-high, we know income inequality is unacceptable, and so many other factors are out there about the economy, but at the top of my list is the fact that tens of millions of workers in the richest country on Earth are barely making it. They are having a hard time feeding their kids. They are having a hard time paying their rent. Many of them get inadequate or no health insurance at all.

Now, year after year, the American people--I think, correctly-- perceive that this Congress bows to the wishes of the rich and the powerful, gives tax breaks to people who don't need it. We deregulate companies that should be regulated, et cetera, et cetera.

In this moment of economic and health crisis, now is the time for us to stand with working families, and the most important thing that we can do is to raise the minimum wage to a living wage. This is what Joe Biden believes. This is what the Democratic platform stands for, and this is what at least 38 cosponsors of the Raise the Wage Act also believe.

So here we are at a pivotal moment. The working class is being decimated. People are struggling to feed their kids. We have to raise wages in this country, and we have to raise the wages of tip workers.

I will be back later for more on this.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter dated February 22, 2021, about tip wages, signed by hundreds of organizations

Madam President, I ask to have printed in the Record some of the finalists' essays written by Vermont High School students as part of the 11th annual ``State of the Union'' essay contest conducted by my office.

The material follows:

Finalists

Madam President, I ask to have printed in the Record some of the finalists' essays written by Vermont High School students as part of the 11th annual ``State of the Union'' essay contest conducted by my office.

The material follows:

Finalists

Emily Borrazzo, South Burlington High School, Sophomore

Supporting Our Veterans

Every day, men and women in the military risk their lives

for the protection of their fellow citizens. The ideology of

our nation depends on their service. Yet every day, veterans

across the country face issues regarding claim approvals,

mental health, and post-service employment.

The lengthy claim approval process and 36% claim granting

rate is something that many veterans encounter. The issue is

not the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs' generous budget,

but how the money is spent, and the efficiency/availability

of the benefits being offered. The VA should hire more people

to process claims in order to shorten the processing time,

which is currently four months or longer on average. Hiring

veterans in these positions would also address unemployment

issues. Additionally, more guidance should be given on how to

file a claim. This includes identifying the quickest claim

type and specifying what medical information should be given.

Lastly, the VA only approves claims for illnesses and

injuries which they deem to be a direct cause of service.

Extending this to all serious illnesses and injuries

throughout life, or at least partial financial and medical

support, would be extremely beneficial to veterans and could

even improve their mental health.

Studies have shown that veterans have a higher risk for

alcohol/drug abuse, and suicide. One in five veterans suffer

from mental health problems like PTSD, depression, and severe

anxiety. Veterans account for 13.8% of the suicides in

America, and for over a decade 17-18 veterans have died daily

from suicide. We cannot take away their experiences, but

offering more support in their recovery is the least we can

do. Many veterans with mental health problems are not aware

of their condition, or are too embarrassed to ask for help.

Educating veterans (especially while serving) about signs and

effects of mental health problems, and the care and treatment

available to them, could save lives. Additionally,

implementing a mental health scan for veterans every few

years could be very effective in identifying these issues

early on, and opening thousands of veterans' eyes to the care

available to them. Enforcing quality-of-care standards for

treatment in all mental health care facilities would also

benefit the nation.

American veterans receive very effective military training

and preparation, but are rarely prepared for post-service

employment. Studies suggest the unemployment rate for

veterans is considerably higher than their civilian

counterparts. This can be attributed to the rarity of higher

education and the numerous mental health issues among

veterans. Increasing accessibility and lowering costs for

college education would broaden the post-service career

opportunities for countless veterans. Lower tuition rates for

veterans could be paid for by the VA, with the extra money

resulting from having to offer less veterans unemployment

benefits.

Our nation cannot forget the selfless sacrifices our

soldiers and military families make. Brave women and men have

been taking care of this nation for almost 250 years. It's

time we start taking care of them.

Mr. President, S. Con. Res. 5, the fiscal year 2021 congressional budget resolution, included an instruction to the chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget to file enforceable levels in the Senate in the event the budget was agreed to without the need to appoint a committee of conference on the measure. On Friday, February 5, 2021, the Senate passed the budget resolution, and the

House of Representatives passed it without changes later that day. As such, today, I submit the required filing.

Specifically, section 4001 of the fiscal year 2021 congressional budget resolution allows the chairman to file an allocation for fiscal year 2021 for the Committee on Appropriations and an allocation for fiscal years 2021, 2021 through 2025, and 2021 through 2030 for committees other than the Committee on Appropriations.

In addition, section 4005 of S. Con. Res. 5 provides authority for the chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget to adjust the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate budgetary levels to reflect changes resulting from the Congressional Budget Office's updates to its baseline for fiscal years 2021 through 2030. On February 11, 2021, CBO released ``The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2021 to 2031.''

The figures included in this filing are consistent with the spending limits set forth in the Budget Control Act of 2011, as amended by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019, P.L. 116-137, as well as with the levels included in S. Con. Res. 5, as adjusted pursuant to section 4005 of that budget resolution.

For purposes of enforcing the Senate's pay-as-you-go rule, which is found in section 4106 of the fiscal year 2018 congressional budget resolution, I am resetting the Senate's scorecard to zero for all fiscal years.

All years in the accompanying tables are fiscal years.

Finally, this enforcement filing supersedes the filings made pursuant to section 205 the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019.

I ask unanimous consent that the tables detailing enforcement in the Senate be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, since 2010, I have sponsored a State of the Union essay contest for Vermont high school students. This contest gives students in my State the opportunity to

articulate what issues they would prioritize if they were President of the United States.

This is the contest's 11th year, and I would like to congratulate the 319 students who participated. It is truly heartening to see so many young people engaged in finding solutions for the problems that face our country. To my mind, this is what democracy is all about.

A volunteer panel of Vermont teachers reviewed the essays and chose William Taggard as this year's winner. William, a junior at Brattleboro Union High School, wrote about the State of our Nation's democracy. Emilia De Jounge, a sophomore at Burr and Burton Academy, was the second place winner. Emilia wrote about gun control. Simon Rosenbaum, a junior at Vermont Commons School, was the third place winner, with an essay on democracy.

I am very proud to enter into the Congressional Record the essays submitted by William, Emilia and Simon.

The material follows:

Winner, William Taggard, Brattleboro Union High School, Junior

In the wake of the Watergate scandal of 1972, author and

journalist Frank Herbert remarked that ``good governance

never depends upon laws, but upon the personal qualities of

those who govern. The machinery of government is always

subordinate to those who administer that machinery.'' The

current administration has overseen an unprecedented

undermining of trust in our government, the scale of which is

scarcely rivaled in our nation's history. The subsequent

damage leads us to Herbert's inevitable conclusion: ``The

most important element of government, therefore, is the

method of choosing leaders.''

Our democracy has been under unprecedented pressure in

recent months, culminating in the insurrection in our

nation's capital. Fortunately, democracy and the truth have

prevailed. However, our current system leaves ample room for

improvement: namely the electoral college. We face a

fundamental problem that puts at risk one of the most

essential assets of our great nation. We need to review the

merits of the electoral college and determine how best to

protect our democratic process. Two of the last three

Presidents elected have failed to secure a majority of the

popular vote, suggesting that while the Declaration of

Independence states we are all created equal, our current

democratic system makes some votes more impactful than

others. A select number of ``swing states'' hold a

disproportionate amount of power in determining the outcome

of a race.

A short term solution to the flaws of the electoral college

system is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

(NPVIC). This is an agreement between states to award all of

their electoral votes to the candidate that wins the national

popular vote. To become effective, its signatories must

control at least 270 electoral votes. Currently, they hold a

total of 196 votes, with another 67 pending. By eliminating

``swing states,'' the NPVIC would spread voting power

equally, regardless of which state you live in. This change

would force politicians to campaign not only to ``swing

state'' voters, but to everyone.

Long term, it is in the country's best interest to consider

alternate methods of voting. Our current system forces voters

to pick between two popular candidates rather than support

their true favorite, but this dynamic only arises from our

pick one voting system. Methods such as approval or instant

runoff voting can combat polarization, legitimize third

parties, and eliminate spoiler candidates; forms of

proportional representation can transcend gerrymandering and

incentivize cooperation through coalition building. These

practices allow voters to voice their conscience without

worry of ``wasting'' their vote and fix many of the problems

our current system has.

The importance of choosing good leaders has perhaps never

been more apparent--divisive rhetoric dominates the political

sphere, suffocating any chance at productive discourse. As

President-elect Joe Biden cautioned, ``the words of a

president matter.'' We would be wise to ensure that those

words come from a leader whose authority derives not from the

exploitation of the electoral system, but rather from broad

consensus and a commitment to the growth and prosperity of

our nation.

Second Place, Emilia deJounge, Burr and Burton Academy, Sophomore

Columbine, Sandy Hook, Parkland . . . every parent's worst

nightmare, yet what has America done to prevent another? A

study by the American Journal of Medicine in 2016 found that

Americans are 25 times more likely to die from gun homicide

than people in other wealthy countries. Our futile attempts

at gun control have seen little success, as gun violence

rates are still steadily rising, increasing almost 25% from

2019 to 2020. The right to bear arms is in our Constitution,

yet that does not negate the need for sound and rational

policies around the sales of firearms. Currently, nearly 400

million guns are privately owned in the US, more than the

country's population, with sharp increases in recent years.

Gun violence needs to be recognized and addressed as a top

priority public health issue.

``It is much easier to be a legal gun owner in the US than

it is to be a legal driver,'' says David Hemenway, director

of Injury Control Research at Harvard. A first step to

prevent gun violence is to make it more difficult to purchase

a gun through safe gun-owning training programs and requiring

registration of all gun purchases. According to the State

Firearms Law project, just seven states require a permit to

possess a gun of any kind. A 2014 study in the Journal of

Urban Health found that Missouri's 2007 repeal of its permit-

to-purchase handgun law was associated with a 25% increase in

firearms homicide rates.

Another important step to combating gun violence is

investing in research. According to a 2017 study published in

the Journal of the American Medical Association, gun violence

research should have received $1.4 billion from 2004 to 2015,

based on mortality rates and funding levels for other leading

causes of death, but only received 1.6% of the projected

amount. According to Dr. Elinore Kaufman, chief resident in

surgery at New York-Presbyterian, ``we know far less about

gun violence as a cause of injury and death than we do about

almost every medical problem.'' In 1996, the NRA pressured

Congress to pass the Dickey Amendment mandating that no CDC

funds could be spent on research that promotes gun control,

which has impaired our ability to make informed legislation.

We can look to other nations to see that gun control works.

Germany has been successful in upholding the rights of its

citizens, yet preventing unnecessary deaths. With one of the

highest weapons-per-head rates in the world, Germany

maintains one of the lowest gun homicide rates in Europe: a

death rate of 0.05 per 1,000 people, compared with 3.34 in

the US, and the rate in Germany is decreasing. This

accomplishment is due to strict gun laws which include

psychiatric evaluations, random spot checks, and limits to

numbers of guns per person. The US can enact its own version

of these laws while upholding the rights of citizens. Gun

violence is a widespread disease plaguing our country which

can be prevented through more effective control policies.

Third Place, Simon Rosenbaum, Vermont Commons School, Junior

This past year terrified me. It was not just the carnage

and isolation of the pandemic. I wasn't afraid of war in

Iran. I was afraid because a United States Senator said it

was okay to assault peaceful protestors in front of the White

House for a photo op and negate the constitutional right to

assembly. I was afraid because the President of the United

States is fighting to subvert the cornerstone of our

democracy: our election process. I was afraid because the

America I love and believe in felt like it was on the brink

of collapse. The most pressing issue that we as Americans

face today is the preservation of our democracy.

Before and after the November election, people on all sides

of the political spectrum have carried on about policy and

rhetoric, conspiracy theories and misinformation. No one

seems to understand the gravity of the situation. What makes

America special is our belief in a functioning democracy and

an uncompromising defense of our constitutional rights. My

ancestors came to America to grant that to me. Our

predecessors built that for all of us. The one inheritance

bestowed upon every American is the dignity of being

American. This year, our democracy was pushed to the brink,

our rights were subverted, and the dignity of America was

cast aside. To me, this felt like the end.

Of course, it was not the end. We Americans kept fighting

for a more equitable, democratic union and it looks like our

democracy will survive. My concern is for next time. What

happens if next time, the system is assaulted by a savvy

politician, someone who understands the systems they hope to

destroy? This year, we saw that people in positions of power

would do anything to keep it.

To preserve the union and our nation, we must eliminate the

possibility for a President to wield unitary executive

authority. Diminishing the power of the Executive Branch will

mitigate the damage that an unfit executive could cause. We

must also depoliticize judicial appointments, and instate a

nonpartisan federal oversight commission independent of the

executive branch to ensure that political leaders are working

for the people.

Additionally, we must rebuild our demoralized, undervalued

federal public service. These patriotic, nonpartisan public

servants have been caught in the crosshairs of this attempted

coup, and we must put them first as we rebuild from this

sabotage of the framework of our country. They are the ones

who put their careers and in some cases their lives on the

line to save America. Now we must repay that priceless debt.

Increasing protections for whistleblowers, creating a federal

public service academy similar to our military academies, and

simply paying public servants more for the invaluable work

they do will make great strides in strengthening the system

against assault next time.

This past year, the great American experiment almost came

to an end. The most pressing issue we face now is how do we

make sure this never happens again?

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Mr. Stephen Bates, who was Vermont's first Black sheriff and chief of police. Mr. Bates was elected sheriff and chief of police of Vergennes, VT, in 1879, where he served as a public official until his death in 1907.

Mr. Bates faced many obstacles on his journey to his elected positions in Vergennes. Born in Shirley, VA, in 1842, historical records show that he and his family members were enslaved on the Shirley plantation. In August of 1862, Mr. Bates successfully escape from the Shirley plantation. Several months prior to the Emancipation Act of 1863, Mr. Bates courageously helped many other enslaved people escape to freedom.

After the Civil War, when Mr. Bates was in the service of officers at Harrison's Landing, Mr. Bates was employed by U.S. Representative Frederick E. Woodbridge, of Vergennes, VT. Mr. Bates worked as Congressman Woodbridge's coachman and moved with him to Vergennes in 1866. In 1871, Mr. Bates married Frances Mason of Elizabethtown, NY, and had two children, Rose and Fredrick. The Bates family lived on North Street in Vergennes until 1880, when their home was destroyed by a fire. The residents of Vergennes showed much support to the family following the fire, rallying to raise money to help them during that difficult time.

During his time as chief of police, Mr. Bates was responsible for some notable arrests, including ``Brooklyn Slim'' and ``Ottawa Red,'' two members of a gang of post office burglars. He also had in his custody Oliver Curtis Perry, an infamous New York train robber of the time. Newspaper articles describe Mr. Bates as the arresting officer in murder, grand larceny, check forgery, and vagrancy cases in Vergennes and the surrounding area. In 1897, Mr. Bates was awarded $100 by the Assistant Attorney General of the Post Office Department for his extraordinary work in arresting two people involved with robbing post offices in Morrisville, Glover, and Windsor, VT, in 1894.

Though Mr. Bates dedicated his life to his community, he still faced many challenges as the first Black sheriff in Vermont. During one incident, a man tried to kill Sheriff Bates while he was responding to a call. And while the man was charged with attempted murder, he was found guilty of obstructing, beating, and wounding an officer. Vergennes community members stated that Mr. Bates ``was almost entirely a self-taught man, and in the discharge of the duties of his office was cool and self-restrained, rarely if ever acting hastily.'' Despite this, Mr. Bates was not well-compensated for his work and was required to work a number of other jobs to provide for his family. As he was skilled at handling and caring for horses, he managed a horse company owned by Congressman Woodbridge's son. He also worked as a trusted night watchman at a local bank, as well as a custodian. Uniquely dedicated to his community despite the hardship he faced, Mr. Bates also served as an appointed agent for the Humane Society, and he and his family were active members of St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Vergennes. Mr. Bates died from cardiac arrest while milking a cow on June 10, 1907.

I am proud to honor the life and work of Mr. Stephen Bates. Though he remains relatively unknown by many Vermonters, it is encouraging to know that Vergennes and its residents came together not long after the end of the Civil War to elect Vermont's first Black sheriff and chief of police, who was an exemplary public servant and community leader. It is a remarkable American story that I am glad to honor and celebrate.

Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Dr. Jack and Lydia Clemmons of Charlotte, VT. The Clemmons family's positive impact on Vermont is powerful every single day, but I am especially pleased to recognize them during Black History Month. The Clemmons family has been instrumental in preserving and promoting African-American farm heritage in my home State of Vermont, and for that, I am extremely grateful.

In 1962, Dr. and Mrs. Clemmons moved to Vermont, where Dr. Clemmons joined the University of Vermont's department of pathology and became the second African-American on the faculty of the College of Medicine. Dr. Clemmons is nationally recognized for his ground-breaking work in perinatal pathology and cytogenetics. He has long advocated for universities to implement recruitment strategies that attract and retain more students and faculty of color. Mrs. Clemmons was the first African-American nurse anesthetist at the University of Vermont Medical Center.

During the same year that they began their careers in Burlington, VT, Dr. and Mrs. Clemmons purchased a historic farm in Charlotte, which was in need of significant repair and improvement. They raised five children on their farm, while working hard to restore its many buildings and working lands. For the Clemmons family, as 1 of only 17 Black-owned farms in Vermont, the work was always about more than one farm; it was about the massive loss of Black-owned farmland in Vermont and across the Nation.

To that end, Dr. and Mrs. Clemmons have worked tirelessly to ensure their farm can continue under African-American ownership for generations to come. They, along with their family, have also dedicated themselves to fighting for racial justice and creating opportunities for Vermonters to learn about Black arts, farming, heritage, and culture. The arts are a particular passion of Mrs. Clemmons, who ran a

shop in their town of Charlotte, which featured sculptures and other artwork imported from Africa. Additionally, the Clemmons farm is now 1 of 22 official landmarks on Vermont's African-American Heritage Trail, also serving as a multicultural arts center, with a gallery and programming for all Vermonters to enjoy.

I am grateful to Dr. and Mrs. Clemmons for their enormously important contribution to Black farming and cultural heritage in our State. I wish the entire Clemmons family all the best today, and for generations to come.