Floor Statements

Mr. President, it is painfully clear that existing Federal policies do not provide a comprehensive approach to address the national epidemic of gun violence. In fact, in 2019, for the third consecutive year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported gun violence as a leading cause of premature death in the United States resulting in the loss of 39,707 American lives--that is 109 American lives lost each day. And unfortunately, 2020 was no different. Even as the Country was enduring an unprecedented global pandemic, communities across the country were left dealing with the ever-present threat of gun violence.

There is single legislative action that can eradicate the complex and deeply rooted issues of gun violence. However, we must undertake the correct approach by focusing on many issues, including improvements to our mental health system, better security protocols, and commonsense rules about gun use and safety, such that keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous individuals.

Virginians know all too well the heartbreaking consequences of gun violence. We have seen it in the tragedies of Virginia Tech and Virginia Beach and the countless drive-by shootings, domestic violence, and suicides by firearms. Yet the Commonwealth has chosen to acknowledge and address its unfortunate history of gun violence, and this past year adopted a series of gun violence prevention measures. These measures include legislation to enact an Extreme Risk Protective Order; an expansion of background checks on all gun sales; a mandate to report lost and stolen firearms; safeguards that prevent children from accessing firearms; and a reinstatement of Virginia's successful one- handgun-a-month policy. The Virginia Plan to Reduce Gun Violence Act of 2021 builds on the newly adopted Virginia framework by creating a comprehensive package of policies at the federal level to reduce gun violence across the nation.

With public support for commonsense rules at the highest it has ever been, we cannot wait until the next senseless tragedy before enacting commonsense gun policies. It is important to remember that gun violence is preventable and requires we take an evidence-based approach to create a more peaceful society, free of gun violence. I believe that the ``Virginia Plan'' will pave the way to advance meaningful gun reform and ultimately save lives.

Now is the time to act.

Mr. President, throughout his time in office, President Donald Trump repeatedly disparaged our NATO allies and reportedly threatened withdrawal from the NATO alliance, the bedrock of European and American security for over seventy years. Although our current President has recommitted the United States to NATO and our transatlantic partnerships, it is still necessary for the Senate to consider legislation that prevents any President from withdrawing the United States from this critical defense treaty. This legislation would not only help address present national security challenges by reaffirming the U.S. commitment to Europe, it would also provide clarity to important constitutional questions regarding the role of Congress in terminating U.S. participation in treaties and alliances. Particularly with a treaty obligation that is as central to U.S. security as NATO, no President should be allowed to unilaterally withdraw without the advice and consent of the Senate.

Over the past several years, NATO allies, many of whom we have fought alongside since World War II and earlier in some cases, have questioned our allegiance for the first time in the history of NATO. In response to the only invocation of Article 5 of the NATO Treaty following the 9/ 11 attacks, more than 1,000 servicemembers from these allied nations gave their lives fighting alongside the United States. While the United States must continue to press every country to increase defense spending to meet the agreed-upon goal of 2 percent of GDP by 2024, and ensure that our European allies contribute to their own defense, U.S. withdrawal from NATO should not be considered without Congressional input. For this reason, we must use our constitutional powers of advice and consent and of the purse to block any unilateral executive withdrawal, and preemptively authorize legal proceedings to challenge any decision to terminate U.S. membership.

The legislation I am introducing today with Senators Rubio, Collins, Blumenthal, Coons, Duckworth, Durbin, Feinstein, Graham, King, Klobuchar, Merkley, Moran, Shaheen, and Warner would provide the necessary tools to prevent a President from unilaterally withdrawing the United States from the NATO treaty without the consent of Congress. The Senate has repeatedly indicated its support for NATO through previous legislation, including the original vote of 82-13 in 1949 to grant the Senate's consent to join NATO, and the Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, which called for the United States to ``remain ironclad in its commitment to uphold its obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty.''

I am proud to have bipartisan support for this bill to ensure that the safety of the American people is prioritized through our continued membership in NATO, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that this legislation is swiftly considered by the Senate.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, The U.S. Infrastructure system is in critical need of an upgrade. In February 2021, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) graded 11 of 17 infrastructure categories a D+ or worse. Systems across the Nation are in dire need of repair, including our bridges, public transit, roads, and schools.

A recent study by the Center of Education and the Workforce at Georgetown University estimated that a $1.5 trillion infrastructure investment would create 15 million new jobs. Nearly half of these would require training past the high school level. Even without a significant investment, though, infrastructure industries are already struggling to meet workforce demands. Though the need to invest in infrastructure goes back decades, there's renewed momentum today, especially as more than 10 million people remain unemployed across the country as a result of COVID-19, exacerbating the already historic inequities that have limited women and people of color from accessing these jobs. Investments in infrastructure skills training must serve people of color, women, and other communities who have historically been excluded from good careers in infrastructure.

Industry and sector partnerships are a proven strategy for helping workers prepare for jobs that lead to strong career pathways and helping businesses find skilled workers. Congress requires states and local areas to support the development of these partnerships under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), but no dedicated funding has been provided for these activities.

For workers, especially those underrepresented in infrastructure industries, support services like career counseling, child care, and transportation can often be the key to succeed in work-based learning programs. Providing these services may be outside the capacity of a business. Industry partnerships bring business together with community and human service organizations that can make these connections for workers and drastically improve their ability to succeed in training and meet business demand for skilled workers.

This is why I am pleased to introduce with my colleague, Senator Portman, the Building U.S. Infrastructure by Leveraging Demands for Skills Act, or BUILDS Act. The BUILDS Act creates a grant program that would support industry and sector partnerships working with local businesses, industry associations and organizations, labor organizations, state and local workforce boards, economic development agencies and other partners engaged in their communities to encourage industry growth, competitiveness and collaboration to improve worker training, retention and advancement in targeted infrastructure clusters. Additionally, businesses and education providers would be connected to develop classroom curriculum to complement on-the-job learning and workers would receive support services such as mentoring and career counseling to ensure that they are successful from the pre- employment to placement in a full-time position.

As we prepare to tackle critical infrastructure needs nationwide, it's vital we also support a skilled workforce that can take on this task. This bill will help foster strong industry partnerships and career pathways in infrastructure fields to ensure we can train and upskill workers for millions of good-paying jobs and also strengthen our economy as we begin to recover from COVID-19. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle consider the BUILDS Act as a necessary component to any investment in our nation's infrastructure.

Mr. President, The U.S. Infrastructure system is in critical need of an upgrade. In February 2021, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) graded 11 of 17 infrastructure categories a D+ or worse. Systems across the Nation are in dire need of repair, including our bridges, public transit, roads, and schools.

A recent study by the Center of Education and the Workforce at Georgetown University estimated that a $1.5 trillion infrastructure investment would create 15 million new jobs. Nearly half of these would require training past the high school level. Even without a significant investment, though, infrastructure industries are already struggling to meet workforce demands. Though the need to invest in infrastructure goes back decades, there's renewed momentum today, especially as more than 10 million people remain unemployed across the country as a result of COVID-19, exacerbating the already historic inequities that have limited women and people of color from accessing these jobs. Investments in infrastructure skills training must serve people of color, women, and other communities who have historically been excluded from good careers in infrastructure.

Industry and sector partnerships are a proven strategy for helping workers prepare for jobs that lead to strong career pathways and helping businesses find skilled workers. Congress requires states and local areas to support the development of these partnerships under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), but no dedicated funding has been provided for these activities.

For workers, especially those underrepresented in infrastructure industries, support services like career counseling, child care, and transportation can often be the key to succeed in work-based learning programs. Providing these services may be outside the capacity of a business. Industry partnerships bring business together with community and human service organizations that can make these connections for workers and drastically improve their ability to succeed in training and meet business demand for skilled workers.

This is why I am pleased to introduce with my colleague, Senator Portman, the Building U.S. Infrastructure by Leveraging Demands for Skills Act, or BUILDS Act. The BUILDS Act creates a grant program that would support industry and sector partnerships working with local businesses, industry associations and organizations, labor organizations, state and local workforce boards, economic development agencies and other partners engaged in their communities to encourage industry growth, competitiveness and collaboration to improve worker training, retention and advancement in targeted infrastructure clusters. Additionally, businesses and education providers would be connected to develop classroom curriculum to complement on-the-job learning and workers would receive support services such as mentoring and career counseling to ensure that they are successful from the pre- employment to placement in a full-time position.

As we prepare to tackle critical infrastructure needs nationwide, it's vital we also support a skilled workforce that can take on this task. This bill will help foster strong industry partnerships and career pathways in infrastructure fields to ensure we can train and upskill workers for millions of good-paying jobs and also strengthen our economy as we begin to recover from COVID-19. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle consider the BUILDS Act as a necessary component to any investment in our nation's infrastructure.

Mr. President, this bill authorizes additions to two existing wilderness areas within the George Washington National Forest in Bath County, VA. This text represents years of negotiation and compromise among Virginia stakeholders who rely in different ways on the GW Forest.

In many parts of America, Federal land management is controversial. Some may view these lands as repositories for timber, energy, or minerals. Others may enjoy using recreational trails through them. Others may believe that they should be left to nature and not disturbed. The truth, of course, is that all of these uses are important; the conflict lies in agreeing on which lands are best suited to which purposes.

In the lead-up to the latest multiyear GW Forest Management Plan, various forest users came together to see if they could find reasonable compromises that would avoid years of unproductive disagreement and litigation. This group, known as the George Washington National Forest Stakeholder Collaborative, succeeded. Through hard work and consensus, the collaborative made joint recommendations to the U.S. Forest Service for forest management and protection. Preservation advocates consented to timber harvest and other active forest restoration and management in certain areas, while forest products interests consented to wilderness and light management in other areas. Following this fruitful collaboration, the Forest Service convened the Lower Cowpasture Restoration and Management Project, bringing together the collaborative and other stakeholders to help develop management activities on this particular part of the forest in Bath County. Again, this collaborative succeeded, with everyone getting some of what they want and giving some ground.

The collaborative has now come together to support the wilderness additions in this bill, which designates 4,500 acres to be added to the Rich Hole Wilderness Area and 1,000 acres to be added to the Rough Mountain Wilderness Area. I am proud to partner on this with my colleague Senator Mark Warner, and we are following in the path blazed by Senator John Warner and Representative Rick Boucher, who led the original Virginia Wilderness Act in 1984. I am further proud that this bill passed unanimously in the Senate last Congress and as part of a package passed the House this Congress. I hope it will cross the finish line soon.

Taking care of our Nation's public lands is good for the economy and good for the environment. Land disputes may often be contentious, but this example proves they don't have to be. When everyone comes to the table and invests the necessary time, we can find common ground. I hope this will be a lesson for us in other tough policy challenges, and I encourage the Senate to support this bill.

Mr. President, this bill authorizes additions to two existing wilderness areas within the George Washington National Forest in Bath County, VA. This text represents years of negotiation and compromise among Virginia stakeholders who rely in different ways on the GW Forest.

In many parts of America, Federal land management is controversial. Some may view these lands as repositories for timber, energy, or minerals. Others may enjoy using recreational trails through them. Others may believe that they should be left to nature and not disturbed. The truth, of course, is that all of these uses are important; the conflict lies in agreeing on which lands are best suited to which purposes.

In the lead-up to the latest multiyear GW Forest Management Plan, various forest users came together to see if they could find reasonable compromises that would avoid years of unproductive disagreement and litigation. This group, known as the George Washington National Forest Stakeholder Collaborative, succeeded. Through hard work and consensus, the collaborative made joint recommendations to the U.S. Forest Service for forest management and protection. Preservation advocates consented to timber harvest and other active forest restoration and management in certain areas, while forest products interests consented to wilderness and light management in other areas. Following this fruitful collaboration, the Forest Service convened the Lower Cowpasture Restoration and Management Project, bringing together the collaborative and other stakeholders to help develop management activities on this particular part of the forest in Bath County. Again, this collaborative succeeded, with everyone getting some of what they want and giving some ground.

The collaborative has now come together to support the wilderness additions in this bill, which designates 4,500 acres to be added to the Rich Hole Wilderness Area and 1,000 acres to be added to the Rough Mountain Wilderness Area. I am proud to partner on this with my colleague Senator Mark Warner, and we are following in the path blazed by Senator John Warner and Representative Rick Boucher, who led the original Virginia Wilderness Act in 1984. I am further proud that this bill passed unanimously in the Senate last Congress and as part of a package passed the House this Congress. I hope it will cross the finish line soon.

Taking care of our Nation's public lands is good for the economy and good for the environment. Land disputes may often be contentious, but this example proves they don't have to be. When everyone comes to the table and invests the necessary time, we can find common ground. I hope this will be a lesson for us in other tough policy challenges, and I encourage the Senate to support this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the Osher Lifelong Learning Institute at George Mason University, OLLI Mason, its 30th anniversary and on its continuing success in offering educational programming for older Americans in Northern Virginia. Programs like OLLI Mason provide lifelong learning opportunities for seniors interested in maintaining an active intellectual life.

The Learning in Retirement Institute was founded in 1991 to establish educational and social opportunities for a growing base of seniors in Northern Virginia. The Institute soon became affiliated with George Mason University as part of Mason's vision to extend its learning mission in the community. The institute was generously endowed by the Bernard Osher Foundation, a nonprofit that is dedicated to enhancing quality of life in the United States through education and the arts.

What started two decades ago as a member-run Learning in Retirement Center with 100 members operating and teaching out of one room in Mason's Commerce II Building has burgeoned today into a robust, first- rate educational and social institute with 1,100 members.

OLLI Mason's mission is ``to offer its members learning opportunities in a stimulating environment in which adults can share their talents, experiences and skills, explore new interests, discover and develop latent abilities, engage in intellectual and cultural pursuits, and socialize with others of similar interests.'' OLLI Mason has fulfilled this mission by offering retirees in Northern Virginia over 600 courses from arts to zoology, religion to science, as well as excursions and special events.

As the over 50 population across the Commonwealth continues to live longer and healthier lives, I am pleased to recognize OLLI, George Mason University, and the County of Fairfax for their initiative in foreseeing decades ago the critical need to offer programs that meet the needs, expand opportunities, and enhance the quality of life for older Americans across Northern Virginia. I look forward to many more years of their programming success.

Mr. President. In today's economy, ensuring access to a variety of postsecondary programs has become even more critical in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. As of the end of 2020, more than 10 million Americans were unemployed, and 3. 7 million of those individuals have suffered permanent job loss. These workers will need access to postsecondary education and training to reskill and reenter the workforce. Notably, according to a poll conducted by Strada in June of 2020, Americans strongly prefer nondegree and skills training programs over degree programs as a way to access postsecondary credentials during and post-pandemic.

However, when it comes to higher education, Federal policies are not doing enough to support the demands of the changing labor market. Many of the individuals who enter into skills and job training programs are at the lowest end of the socioeconomic level, yet simply because their goal is to enter the workforce rather than obtain a degree, they are denied access Federal financial aid. The Federal Pell Grant Program-- needs-based grants for low-income and king students--can only be used to offset the cost of programs that are over 600 clock hours or

at least 15 weeks in length. While many short-term programs provide high-quality skills training that employers need and recognize, they are not Pell-eligible.

Since the creation of the Pell grant, the profile of today's students has evolved along with the types of postsecondary education and training programs students look to enroll in. Today, 3 7 percent of all postsecondary students are 25 years of age or older, 68 percent work full-or-part-time while attending school and 26 percent have children or dependents. While many of these students enroll in longer-term degree programs, a significant number seek out shorter-term, workforce- oriented training programs that lead to in-demand jobs or stack to longer-term education pathways. These short-term programs allow them to advance their education and skills in a manner that works with their life-situation of working and caring for children and other dependents. Without such programs, many of these students cannot devote the four plus years that many part-time students must spend to get an associates degree, or six plus years to earn a four year degree. Our federal higher education policy must be modernized to meet the needs of students and employers. According to the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, shorter-term educational investments pay off--the average postsecondary certificate holder has 30 percent higher lifetime earnings than individuals with only a high school diploma.

Today, I am pleased to introduce with my colleague, Senator Portman, the Jumpstart Our Businesses by Supporting Students or JOBS Act. The JOBS Act would close extend Pell Grant eligibility to high-quality, short-term job training programs offered at community colleges and other public institutions, so workers can afford the instruction they need to be successful in today's job market. Under the legislation, Pell-eligible job training programs are defined as those providing at least 150 clock hours of instruction time over a minimum of 8 weeks. Eligible job training programs must also provide students with licenses, certifications, or credentials that meet the hiring requirements of multiple employers in the field for which the job training is offered.

The JOBS Act also ensures that students enrolling in Pell-eligible short-term programs are earning high-quality postsecondary credentials by requiring that the credentials meet the standards of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, are recognized by industry or sector partnerships, and align with the skill needs of industries in States or local economies. Job training programs under this Act must also be evaluated by an accreditor and the State workforce board for quality and outcomes. The Virginia Community College System has identified approximately 50 programs that would benefit from the JOBS Act including in the fields of manufacturing, maritime, architecture/ construction, energy, health care, information technology, transportation, and business management and administration.

The JOBS Act is a commonsense, bipartisan bill that would help workers and employers succeed in today's economy. As Congress works to help Americans recover from pandemic job losses, I am hopeful that my colleagues will join me in advocating for Pell Grants to be made available to individuals enrolling in high-quality, short-term training programs that lead to industry-recognized credentials and good paying jobs.

Madam President, good afternoon. I rise today to talk about

the American Rescue Plan and its effect on my economy.

It has been a tough year. It was a year ago tomorrow that I sent my Senate staff home for a trial-run, 2-day telework in case we ever were to need it, and they never came back. Until now, as people are starting to get vaccinated, they are coming back personally to the office after having worked, in a pretty amazing way, virtually for the year.

It was just about a year ago that I got coronavirus. It was just about a year ago that I gave my wife coronavirus. It has been a long, long year: more than 500,000 Americans dead, more than 10 million still out of work. After sizable work by Congress in five bills in 2020 to inject resources into the economy, we are still down 10 million jobs.

But today is a bright day. Just within the last few hours, the House of Representatives passed the Senate bill that we sent to them Saturday afternoon on the American Rescue Plan, building off the original House proposal, and that bill is filled with things that will make a tangible difference nearly immediately in the lives of so many Americans: payment to everyday families, individuals, children; acceleration of the vaccine deployment; resources so that we can open our schools and our colleges and our childcare centers, which are all preconditions to seeing the economy reopen.

In Virginia--just making this about my home Commonwealth--State and local governments in Virginia will receive about $6.8 billion to cover costs of COVID, revenues lost due to COVID, but also projects that can help the economy accelerate so that we can climb out of the economic catastrophe that has been COVID.

Eighty-four percent of Virginians--that is more than 7 million people, 2 million of whom are children--will receive stimulus checks because of the bill the Democrats got passed in the House and Senate.

Just think of that. Seven million Virginians will receive stimulus checks. The average per filer--and many file jointly, so this will be sort of a household average--would be nearly $3,000.

The child tax credit portion of the American Rescue Plan will provide additional resources on top of those checks to 1.6 million Virginia children, lifting 85,000 currently below the poverty level to above the poverty level. Just in my State, 85,000 children below the poverty level will no longer be there.

The expanded earned income tax credit in Virginia will affect nearly 420,000 adults, enabling them to work with more dignity, with less financial stress, as they try to manage the challenges of their life in this tough time.

Also, 250,000 adults whose unemployment benefits were in danger of expiring are now protected through early September because of the bill.

Small businesses, which have suffered so much, will get a significant uplift--just restaurants, with the $28 billion restaurant fund in the American Rescue Plan. There are 15,000 restaurants in Virginia, all of which have suffered because of COVID, because of social distancing requirements, supply chain challenges, workers who have been out sick. That $28 billion fund offers great hope for my restauranteurs.

For Virginia education, our local school systems--134 cities and counties operate K-12 systems--will receive more than $2 billion to deal with the costs of COVID, including expanded broadband so that their students can have better access to online course curriculum, including money that could be used for summer instruction, for example, so that we can tackle learning gaps that occurred during the last year; and $845 million for Virginia higher education institutions

And something that I am particularly excited about--I have a child who is an early childhood worker. That is what he does. Forty percent of Virginia childcare centers were closed for much of the year because of the pandemic. Virginia will receive nearly $800 million in additional childcare support so our childcare centers can be open, which will not only be good for children but will enable their parents to return to work more easily.

In the healthcare space, accelerations of vaccines, lower healthcare premiums because of expanded subsidies for those who are purchasing insurance, mental health expansion to deal with the significant psychological and emotional traumas of the last year, housing, food, transit, broadband, pension reform.

There is so much in this bill for Virginians. There is so much in this bill for the residents of red States, blue States, in-between States. Every ZIP code in the United States, every family in the United States will see some impact that they can see, touch, and feel.

It is not often that you pass a bill where you can say this about it--that the tangible results for virtually every American will be seen so quickly.

I want to focus a little bit, having talked about the tangible benefits in Virginia, just on the analysis of the bill nationally, and I have a couple of charts I want to show.

Coincidentally, or maybe not coincidentally, the size of the American Rescue Plan was pretty close to the size of the Trump tax cuts that were done in December of 2017. The Trump tax cuts were about $1.9 trillion, and the American Rescue Plan ended up being at about $1.75 trillion. So they are pretty close.

And what these two plans demonstrate, if you look at the Trump tax plan and you look at the American Rescue Plan, is that you will see how very, very different the priorities of the two parties are. The recovery plan passed in this body with every Democratic vote and no Republican votes. The Trump tax plan passed in 2017 with every Republican vote and no Democratic vote. I believe these two plans are almost a perfect representation of the priorities of the two parties right now in this body--not just in this body but all around the country.

If you analyze the content of these two bills, which were nearly identical in size, you can definitely understand a lot about the priorities of the two parties. On the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the Trump tax cuts, 54 percent of the $1.9 trillion benefit went to people making more than $75,000 a year, 16 percent went to people making less than $75,000 a year, 31 percent were tax cuts for businesses.

If you look at the American Rescue Plan, you see something very, very different: 44 percent of the aid was aid to individuals, 21 percent was pandemic and other policies that focus on getting us out of the healthcare crisis, 9 percent is to our schools and universities, 18 percent for our State and local governments to try to forestall massive layoffs of governmental employees, and then 8 percent are tax cuts to individuals.

These are very different priority sets between the GOP's key accomplishment with the 2017 tax cuts and now this accomplishment that the Democrats have worked so hard to achieve in the American Rescue Plan.

This tells you about priorities, but the next chart is probably my favorite because I think it makes it even clearer. This is a chart that shows the benefits of both the American Rescue Plan in blue and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in red, and I don't think those colors were coincidentally done by my staff.

It shows how the benefits of these two bills--they are identical in size--were arrayed across the income groupings, income quintiles of the American public. The top 20 percent of the American public in income got 65 percent of the benefit from the Trump tax cuts. They get 11 percent of the benefit from the American Rescue Plan.

In the 60-to-80-percent quintile, you will see that the two plans were pretty close to equal. Not exactly--the Democratic plan was a little bit better in terms of the benefits at that level. But as you move into the 40-to-60-percent quintile, that midrange of Americans, the Democratic proposal gave much more of the benefit to people in that income frame, that income quintile, than the Republican proposal.

In the 20-to-40-percent range, it is quadruple the Democratic allocation of benefits to that lower middle-class portion of the American public, quadruple what the Republican tax plan allocated.

But what you really see is, in the lowest quintile income of the American public, the people who struggle the most and during the pandemic were hurt the most, 23 percent of the benefits of the American Rescue Plan went to that lowest 20 percent of the American public while only 1 percent of the

benefit of the Trump tax cuts was allocated to that hard-hit, struggling group of people.

Again, if you want to look at the priorities of the two parties by analyzing these two sizable bills that each side claims is an accomplishment they are proud of, you just need to look at this particular chart and understand who each side, each party, is battling for and who is each side, each party, trying to help.

Finally, one last chart and then a concluding comment. The last chart shows the poverty rate in this country beginning in 2007. Now, we know we had an economic challenge in 2008, 2009, 2010 that was significant, and then the poverty rate started to come down late in the Obama first term and continued to come down into the Trump first term. But you will see what has happened since 2017 with the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. If that had not happened, the poverty rate would have started to tick back up again after having come down for a number of years.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act did have an effect on the poverty rate. It knocked it down a little bit. So there was a positive effect on the poverty rate from the Republican tax proposal, but it was not very significant.

But the projection about the American poverty rate following the passage of the American Rescue Plan is a dramatic reduction--a dramatic reduction of poverty from more than 12 percent down to poverty just above 8 percent--and we would expect to see that by the end of the year.

We are not talking about by the end of the decade or by the end of 5 years or by the end of this Congress. We are talking about by the end of the year.

I think these charts--and, again, particularly this chart that arrays the benefits of both the tax cuts bill of 2017 and the American Rescue Plan and shows to whom the benefits were allocated--speak volumes about two very different philosophies about the economy, two very different philosophies about equity, two very different philosophies about how to truly include everyone in legislation that is big, tough, challenging legislation.

Finally, I will say this as I conclude: The passage and the signing of the American Rescue Plan will also start a realtime economic experiment because the Republican tax plan was done in 2017, and we can measure what that has done and what it hasn't done from 2017 to the beginning of the pandemic. You would not want to include the pandemic necessarily; that wouldn't be a fair way to measure. But if you look at the passage of the tax cut plan in December of 2017, say, to March of 2020, you can get a pretty good view of what that tax bill did or didn't do to the American economy.

Now, in the passage of the American Rescue Plan and the allocation of the benefits of the plan, as demonstrated here, we are going to start the clock on a realtime experiment of a different economic philosophy. If you take government action and you try to direct the focus of it on middle and lower income people, my surmise is, those dollars will likely be spent; they will be spent in community institutions and stores and purchasing properties or maybe buying a car. They will be spent, and they will have a multiplier effect throughout the economy. They are not going to be used to buy back stock. They are not going to be used or socked away because there is nowhere to spend it.

I think you will see that the spending effect of allocating benefits in this way is going to have a significant, positive effect on the American economy at a time when it needs it and at a time when the people who are most helped are most in need.

We need to build an economy coming out of this crisis that is not only robust but that is also sustainable, meaning environmentally sustainable but sustainable and less subject to boom, busts in areas that leave people high and dry. We also need to build an economy that is more equitable, not measured just by GDP increase or stock market increases that can affect some but measure more in statistics like wages, reduction of poverty, startup of new businesses that demonstrate an economic vitality that is spread broadly among the population.

We are starting the realtime clock on that experiment today. We will be able to compare the value of the $1.9 trillion tax cut to the $1.75 trillion American Recovery Plan in years to come. And I am very, very excited to understand that because I think it may point the way forward to additional economic advances that will make us stronger.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce in the Senate, with my colleagues Senators Young, Duckworth, Lee, Coons, Grassley, Durbin and Paul a bipartisan resolution to repeal the 1991 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iraq. This legislation will formally end the authorizations for the Gulf and Iraq wars--30 and 19 years, respectively, after these AUMFs were first passed, reasserting Congress' vital role in not only declaring wars, but in ending them. The repeal of these authorizations also recognizes the strong partnership the United States now has with a sovereign, democratic Iraq.

The United States is no longer at war with Iraq and our legal frameworks should reflect this reality as much as our policy frameworks, to include the Strategic Framework Agreement that Iraq and the United States signed in November 2008, which affirms the establishment of a long-term relationship of cooperation and friendship, based on the principle of equality in sovereignty and the rights and principles that are enshrined in the United Nations Charter.

Since 2014, U.S. troops have been in Iraq, alongside Iraqi forces, at the Government of Iraq's request for assistance in combating the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Current Administration officials, including President Biden, Secretary of State Blinken, Secretary of Defense Austin and Commander of the United States Central Command, General McKenzie, have routinely emphasized that United States military forces remain in Iraq at the invitation of the Government of Iraq and in respect to its sovereignty. Recent presidential administrations have maintained that the 2002 AUMF only serves to ``reinforce'' any legal authority to combat ISIS provided by the 2001 AUMF and is not independently required to authorize any such activities. As such, repealing the 1991 AUMF and the 2002 AUMF would not affect ongoing United States military operations. It would however, prevent the future misuse of the Gulf and Iraq War authorizations and strengthen Congressional oversight over war powers.

It is past time to repeal both AUMFs and formally mark the end of the Iraq War that resulted in a devastating loss of life and wounded tens of thousands of our troops. It makes no sense that two AUMFs remain in place against a country that is now a close partner. They serve no operational purpose, run the risk of future abuse by the President, and help keep our nation at permanent war.

I am proud to join this group of Senators in introducing a bill to repeal these outdated and unnecessary authorizations. I hope we can continue to find bipartisan compromise on these tough war power issues to include revising and replacing the 2001 AUMF.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce in the Senate, with my colleagues Senators Young, Duckworth, Lee, Coons, Grassley, Durbin and Paul a bipartisan resolution to repeal the 1991 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iraq. This legislation will formally end the authorizations for the Gulf and Iraq wars--30 and 19 years, respectively, after these AUMFs were first passed, reasserting Congress' vital role in not only declaring wars, but in ending them. The repeal of these authorizations also recognizes the strong partnership the United States now has with a sovereign, democratic Iraq.

The United States is no longer at war with Iraq and our legal frameworks should reflect this reality as much as our policy frameworks, to include the Strategic Framework Agreement that Iraq and the United States signed in November 2008, which affirms the establishment of a long-term relationship of cooperation and friendship, based on the principle of equality in sovereignty and the rights and principles that are enshrined in the United Nations Charter.

Since 2014, U.S. troops have been in Iraq, alongside Iraqi forces, at the Government of Iraq's request for assistance in combating the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Current Administration officials, including President Biden, Secretary of State Blinken, Secretary of Defense Austin and Commander of the United States Central Command, General McKenzie, have routinely emphasized that United States military forces remain in Iraq at the invitation of the Government of Iraq and in respect to its sovereignty. Recent presidential administrations have maintained that the 2002 AUMF only serves to ``reinforce'' any legal authority to combat ISIS provided by the 2001 AUMF and is not independently required to authorize any such activities. As such, repealing the 1991 AUMF and the 2002 AUMF would not affect ongoing United States military operations. It would however, prevent the future misuse of the Gulf and Iraq War authorizations and strengthen Congressional oversight over war powers.

It is past time to repeal both AUMFs and formally mark the end of the Iraq War that resulted in a devastating loss of life and wounded tens of thousands of our troops. It makes no sense that two AUMFs remain in place against a country that is now a close partner. They serve no operational purpose, run the risk of future abuse by the President, and help keep our nation at permanent war.

I am proud to join this group of Senators in introducing a bill to repeal these outdated and unnecessary authorizations. I hope we can continue to find bipartisan compromise on these tough war power issues to include revising and replacing the 2001 AUMF.

Mr. President, by supporting the development of a workforce trained in in-demand skills, we can accelerate the recovery of our economy. The Nation's continued progress and the socioeconomic mobility of our citizens are contingent on the education and skills of the American workforce and its ability to adjust to and fulfill the needs of the 21st century economy--especially in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. Career and technical education (CTE) programs are vital to every student's education, providing them access to the important knowledge, skills, and credentials needed to obtain careers in rapidly growing, high-demand industries. Today, approximately 12.8 million students across the Nation are enrolled in CTE programs offered by thousands of career academies, comprehensive high schools, CTE high schools, community colleges, and CTE centers. Through applied learning, these students obtain workplace skills and technical training that mirror in-demand positions in the workforce.

In the next decade, millions of skilled workers will be needed to fill infrastructure positions in the United States, including jobs related to designing, building, and operating transportation, housing, telecommunication, and utilities facilities. CTE programs intentionally match skills with workforce demands, lowering the probability of high school drop-out and increasing the likelihood of on time graduation rates. These CTE programs will help fill the estimated 30 million U.S. jobs available with an average annual income of $55,000 that do not require a bachelor's degree yet necessitate some level of postsecondary education.

Across Virginia, I hear about an increase in workforce needs from frontline health services to manufacturing PPE to contract tracing--the list goes on. As we see a surge in unemployment overall from the pandemic, it is essential that we highlight the important role of CTE in the country's ability to meet the challenges we face in economic recovery and development, student achievement, and global competitiveness. In 2018, Congress affirmed the importance of CTE by passing the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act which supports CTE programs in secondary and postsecondary education. We also need to ensure we continue reskilling and upskilling workers by supporting workforce development programs.

Today, with my Senate CTE Caucus co-chairs Senator Portman, Senator Baldwin, and Senator Young and more than half of my colleagues in the Senate, I am pleased to again introduce a bipartisan resolution to designate February as Career and Technical Education (CTE) month. CTE Month encourages students, parents, counselors, educators, and school leaders to learn more about the diverse educational opportunities offered in their communities, and recognize the valuable role of CTE in developing a well-educated and highly skilled workforce in the United States.

By formally recognizing CTE Month through this resolution, we hope to bring greater awareness to improving access to high-quality career and technical education for millions of America's students and our nation's ongoing economic competitiveness.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Cost of Police Misconduct Act. This legislation strives to increase transparency and accountability, saving taxpayer dollars and potentially lives by requiring Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to report police misconduct allegations and related judgments or settlements to the Department of Justice.

Last year, the horrific murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery made it clear that systemic reform in policing is needed now more than ever. On top of having to bear the loss of friends and loved ones, these very communities who suffer from this misconduct have to foot its bill, yet they are often in the dark on the full size of that bill. Citizens deserve to know what they are paying for unjust policing practices.

In the last 10 years, 31 of 50 cities in the Nation with the highest police-to-civilian ratio spent more than $3 billion to settle police misconduct lawsuits. These large judgments and settlements paid by State and local governments are typically paid from liability insurance, from a general or dedicated municipal fund, or from issuing bonds. In particular, municipal bonds have become increasingly more commonplace to cover the cost of large judgments and settlements that exceed insurer liability coverage or the capacity of dedicated municipal funds. This often results in passing costs to taxpayers, who must pay nearly double the cost of the judgment or settlement because the city or county must pay fees to financial institutions and interest to investors. This is unacceptable.

Specifically, the Cost of Police Misconduct Act seeks to remedy this costly and pervasive issue by ensuring the Department of Justice maintains a comprehensive public database of misconduct data and trends that have gone largely unreported by Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies. Furthermore, this legislation makes certain important data--such as the type of alleged misconduct, the total amount of the settlement, and the source of funds used to cover the cost of any one judgment or settlement--is properly preserved in an easily accessible manner. Additionally, this legislation directs the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study of the information reported to determine the leading cause of judgments and settlements related to allegations of misconduct and what interventions are necessary to prevent them.

Police misconduct takes lives, erodes trust, and sparks fear. I am hopeful the Senate will act upon my legislation this year to shine a light on the price of police misconduct, ending the secrecy and hopefully spurring agencies to put a stop to it.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Cost of Police Misconduct Act. This legislation strives to increase transparency and accountability, saving taxpayer dollars and potentially lives by requiring Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to report police misconduct allegations and related judgments or settlements to the Department of Justice.

Last year, the horrific murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery made it clear that systemic reform in policing is needed now more than ever. On top of having to bear the loss of friends and loved ones, these very communities who suffer from this misconduct have to foot its bill, yet they are often in the dark on the full size of that bill. Citizens deserve to know what they are paying for unjust policing practices.

In the last 10 years, 31 of 50 cities in the Nation with the highest police-to-civilian ratio spent more than $3 billion to settle police misconduct lawsuits. These large judgments and settlements paid by State and local governments are typically paid from liability insurance, from a general or dedicated municipal fund, or from issuing bonds. In particular, municipal bonds have become increasingly more commonplace to cover the cost of large judgments and settlements that exceed insurer liability coverage or the capacity of dedicated municipal funds. This often results in passing costs to taxpayers, who must pay nearly double the cost of the judgment or settlement because the city or county must pay fees to financial institutions and interest to investors. This is unacceptable.

Specifically, the Cost of Police Misconduct Act seeks to remedy this costly and pervasive issue by ensuring the Department of Justice maintains a comprehensive public database of misconduct data and trends that have gone largely unreported by Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies. Furthermore, this legislation makes certain important data--such as the type of alleged misconduct, the total amount of the settlement, and the source of funds used to cover the cost of any one judgment or settlement--is properly preserved in an easily accessible manner. Additionally, this legislation directs the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study of the information reported to determine the leading cause of judgments and settlements related to allegations of misconduct and what interventions are necessary to prevent them.

Police misconduct takes lives, erodes trust, and sparks fear. I am hopeful the Senate will act upon my legislation this year to shine a light on the price of police misconduct, ending the secrecy and hopefully spurring agencies to put a stop to it.