The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“Coronavirus (Executive Session)” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Energy was published in the Senate section on pages S5529-S5532 on Sept. 10, 2020.
The Department oversees energy policies and is involved in how the US handles nuclear programs. Downsizing the Federal Government, a project aimed at lowering taxes and boosting federal efficiency, said the Department's misguided energy regulations have caused large losses to consumers for decades.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
Coronavirus
Mr. DURBIN. I want to thank my colleague from New York for his comments this morning. He is right. We have seen this play before. We know how it ends. Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, comes to the floor and proclaims that his latest creation is bipartisan; the Democrats have a choice to vote yes or no; take it or leave it; we are done.
We have been through this over and over again. That is not how Congress or human activity works. We have a split government between Democrats and Republicans. When we sit down together and compromise, good things can happen. We proved it March 26. The vote was 96 to 0 for the CARES Act, a $3 trillion bill early on to address the coronavirus pandemic and to deal with the serious challenges to our economy.
Thank goodness we did it. It gave $600 a week in additional Federal supplements and unemployment to families who were facing layoffs and closures of their businesses. We helped small businesses injecting billions of dollars back into protecting their payroll and keeping the lights on for the day when they can return.
It worked, and it worked on a bipartisan basis, but where we are today reflects a failure and a repetition on the Republican side.
Explain to me this: Why did the Republican Senate leader refuse to physically present himself at any stage of the negotiation since March 26 for relief from this coronavirus pandemic? That is right. Senator McConnell refuses to enter the room where representatives of the White House and Democratic congressional leaders were meeting to discuss a bipartisan compromise. We can't reach a compromise unless we clearly have all the parties at the table. When the Republican congressional leaders--McConnell, McCarthy of California on the House side--boycott these meetings for negotiations, nothing happens.
I can't tell you how many times back in Illinois during the August recess I was asked, so are you going back to Washington?
I said: Yes, we are planning on going back the first week in September.
What are you going to go?
I said: I don't know.
At this point, there has been no negotiation and compromise. Today we have a vote. We have been through this before. It is a McConnell proposal that was not put to any kind of bipartisan negotiation. It is a one-sided offering. It fails in so many respects.
Think if you are unemployed, trying to make your mortgage payments, car payments, medical bill payments, credit card payments, put food on the table, make sure the kids are ready to go back to school, and Senator McConnell announces, well, we are going to cut that check you have been receiving for unemployment benefits in half. It will not be
$600 a week; it will be $300 a week.
Why? For that family, their needs and their bills are still the same. The economy is still hurting, with 30 million-plus Americans out of work, 800,000 in Illinois receiving unemployment benefits, I am sure thousands in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. And yet the reality is, what is going to be proposed by Senator McConnell today will create a hardship on these families they never envisioned.
Is there any money in there to protect these families from being evicted? No. Wait a minute. How about food stamps and SNAP? Many of these families are struggling to put food on the table. Any help in this bill for them? No. How about money for testing so that we can find out if people have positive results and should quarantine themselves and stay away from others? No, not the kind of investment that is needed at this moment in history.
Time and again, what this Senator from Kentucky has given us is just an effort to say we tried. But he didn't. He didn't present himself at one of the negotiations to make a bipartisan bill.
There is one provision I just want to spend a minute on here that really is troubling. Senator McConnell has announced for months that nothing will move, nothing will help Americans unemployed or small businesses until he gets what he called his redline proposal on liability immunity.
Basically, what they have done is to write a provision in this bill which absolves businesses from their responsibility to the public and to their employees when it comes to safety in the workplace and the marketplace. They have argued they have to do it because of the tsunami of frivolous lawsuits they anticipate because of COVID-19.
It turns out that that so-called tsunami has never materialized. The lawsuits that are being filed are primarily by businesses against insurance companies to decide coverage under insurance policies and by inmates in prisons who are protesting what they consider to be inhumane conditions in the midst of a pandemic. It is only a handful of lawsuits that have been filed against businesses or malpractice suits related to COVID-19 infections
Here is the bottom line: Conscientious businesspeople in Illinois and across America are prepared to make their business place safe for the people who work there in the marketplace.
What they need is a rational, clear statement of public health experts as to what they must do. I heard this over and over again. They said to me: Senator, give me the standards on social distancing and labeling and sanitizers and masks, and we will live up to them.
We can never guarantee that someone will not file a frivolous lawsuit, but we should be able to say to people, if you will follow the public health experts with a real standard of care, then your motion to dismiss is going to prevail in that lawsuit, and that will be the end of it.
But Senator McConnell thinks there is a better way to really absolve them from meeting any standard when it comes to public health. In fact, what he proposes today basically says: If you try to comply with any local ordinance, good enough; enough said; it doesn't have to be any standard of public health that is credible.
This doesn't keep America safe. What it is going to do is encourage the bad actors to do little or nothing. If we are going to deal with this pandemic, everyone has to be serious about it--from wearing these masks to social distancing, to putting up with what has become a tedious responsibility of staying away from friends and family when you want to be with them to get this behind us.
When it comes to the business and marketplace, the same thing applies. They are going to have to pitch in, if they want to reopen--
and I wish they could today or tomorrow--but if I, they went to reopen, they have to pitch in with a good-faith effort to meet a good public standard. I will stand by them, and everyone else will too.
Senator McConnell's approach absolves them from responsibility. It is liability immunity and an invitation for bad actors to do little or nothing in protecting innocent people, including their own employees.
I am going to yield the floor at this point and say that we can do better than what Senator McConnell is offering the Senate today. We can gather on a bipartisan basis and reach a compromise if he will attend the negotiations.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have listened to the minority whip here. I would say that I agree with him. This bill that we will have an opportunity to vote on later this afternoon does not have everything in it. I think almost--I think every one of us would agree, it doesn't have everything that we would like. It certainly doesn't have everything that I would like. In fact, it has a few things in there that I would have just as soon be jettisoned.
What we will have an opportunity to vote on today is a targeted relief measure. It is targeted toward our small business men and women who have been feeling the kick to the gut on a daily basis in my State and certainly in a State like Florida that relies on tourism. It is targeted relief that is designed to help our kids get back into school and teachers to be able to be in a safe environment. It is targeted relief that is designed to help provide additional childcare resources. It is targeted relief to help us advance to a vaccine that is readable and traceable and affordable to all Americans. It is targeted relief that will help us with additional testing.
I think we recognize that more testing is going to be better than less testing. There is assistance for the U.S. Postal Service. It is not enough, in my view. I would like to see it increased significantly, but that is not in there. But there is some targeted relief for our Postal Service as well.
The minority whip mentions the liability protection that is included within this measure. It has been no secret that that has been a priority not only of the majority leader but of a majority of so many of us who have looked at and heard from those in our communities, our school districts that are concerned about their liability, our small businesses that are concerned about reopening with no liability. This is not a ``get out of jail free'' card. This is designed that if you have followed the protocols, if you have followed the requirements that have been set out there, that you are not going to lose that business. Your school district is not going to be, really in terms of their funding, eroded because of litigation. Again, it does not absolve if you have been negligent in any way here.
What I want to reinforce is, we will have an opportunity here to vote on a measure today that is not everything to everybody. We couldn't get there. Negotiations--I think it is fair to say we all wish that there had been greater success with broader bipartisan negotiation. We haven't gotten to this place.
We are at a place where we do have an opportunity to put a measure out there that is more directed in its targeted relief; that does leave out certain areas; that, in my view, does include some things that should not be in here, but it is where we are today.
We either have an opportunity to do some incremental steps to build on what we put in place with the CARES Act several months ago or to do nothing for an indeterminate period of time.
I can tell you that in my State, I have small businesses for whom the PPP was a lifesaver. But I come from a State where we are pretty seasonally focused with our economy, and the relief they were able to get for those few months in the summertime, that allowed them to stay open.
When you don't have your tourists come to town and when you really don't have your economy kick into gear during the summer--believe it or not, folks--it doesn't happen in the wintertime in Alaska. We don't have those people coming to visit us. We don't have the cruise ships. We don't have the airplanes that are filled with people willing to come and spend their money. So we have to wait until at least next May. Alaskans, right now, are hoping and praying that they can hold on until May.
There are some things in this targeted relief package that directly helps them. There is an opportunity for a second round, an opportunity that is focused on our smaller businesses, an opportunity for an extension of time within which to pay down those CARES Act monies. The thing I have heard more often than anything else is this: Give us more time to spend this because we don't want to spend it on things that we don't need right now because we know that the winter is going to be long and dark and tough. Give us that ability. We didn't get the flexibility that we had asked for. That would have been important.
The time extension will be important. The loan forgiveness piece for the smaller loans will be important. The extension of the additional UI will be important. No, it is not a full $600, but it does allow for additional support for those who are suffering most.
Again, what we are trying to do is to target the relief and not put it all out there in areas where some didn't need it, some did, and hope we get it right. Again, this is a measure that many will say is a half measure, but I am talking to folks back home who are saying: Give us something. We need to have something now because otherwise we don't know how long we can hold on.
This is something that I am going to be supporting later this afternoon, despite what I point to as the flaws in it. I am not going to spend my time here today to talk about why I disagree with some of the school choice provisions that are in here. I think my position on that is relatively well known. But I am going to vote for this regardless of the fact that those provisions are in there because there are provisions that are going to help our fishermen, that are going to help our small businesses, that are going to help our schools, and that are going to help us help those who need this additional unemployment insurance.
There is a measure in this bill, though, that has evoked an interesting bit of controversy. It is in an area that I offered. This comes from the text of my American Mineral Security Act. This is a bill that we reported from the Energy Committee last year. The portion of the bill that is in controversy right now, according to my friends on the other side of the aisle, is actually text from a bipartisan bill that my friend and the ranking member on the Energy Committee inserted himself. I cosponsored it. It would effectively authorize the Department of Energy to conduct research to develop advanced processes to help recover rare earth elements from coal and coal byproducts. It authorizes. It doesn't appropriate. It authorizes $23 million a year for 7 fiscal years.
We saw that this was a particularly worthy provision to advance. We know that we import almost all of our rare earths from abroad, primarily from China. We know the supply is precarious. China has already demonstrated its willingness to cut off another country when it feels like it. And we know we need this, whether it is for iPhones, flat screens, jet engines, satellites. It is all about supply chain.
I was a little bit bemused, I guess, when I saw that this particular provision was the object of partisan scorn. It was actually the Obama administration that helped fund the research to examine the potential of these technologies. NETL, the National Energy Technology Lab, has been working on this, as have a number of universities. When you think about what we are doing here, we are seeking to recover rare earths from coal waste. It is a little bit like turning your trash into treasure. It is the ultimate in recycling. You have already disturbed the earth. That has already happened. What we are doing now is we are going through that and trying to determine if we can't utilize some of that waste for something of great value--rare earths. It could ironically add to our domestic supplies without necessitating new mines. You would think that those on the other side of the aisle who don't like mining would agree that recycling that waste is a strong and a positive thing to do.
Some have said: Why is this American Mineral Security Act or any of the provisions in this bill at all? I think one of the things we learned from this pandemic is that supply chains really matter, whether it is supply chains in the pharmaceutical end or supply chains when it comes to these minerals. They are so essential to everything that we do.
There have been some interesting attacks on this bipartisan provision. One of my Democratic colleagues declared that it could
``fast-track coal mines.'' One said it is ``targeted to corporate donors.'' Another said on Twitter that this amounts to ``corporate welfare to the coal industry during a climate emergency.'' It is so wrong on so many levels that you don't know where to begin to rebut that.
Let me just cite a couple. For a starting point, the Department of Energy has a research mission. DOE does not permit coal mines. So there is no fast-tracking under the provision because there is no authority within the DOE to do so. It doesn't exist. We are not putting labs in charge of the review process. You are not going to see one of your National Labs now become a permitting office.
I have also been surprised to hear that research grants from the Department of Energy are somehow or another corporate welfare now. I have a great deal of respect for the work that goes on within DOE. I think that they are the ultimate engine for innovation, leading to good jobs, economic growth, cleaner air, cleaner water. These grants are not just directed to industry. Many of our universities will be among the likely recipients.
It is important, I think, to recognize that what we are establishing within this measure is something that would benefit our economy, benefit jobs, and benefit the environment. I mentioned that this provision is an authorization of appropriations. It doesn't allocate any taxpayer dollars. It simply creates a new option for those of us who serve as appropriators to choose as part of our normal budgeting process. We have seen a lot of accusations--misleading attacks over different things that are in this bill or perhaps some things that are not in the measure.
I think, again, what we have in front of us is an opportunity to provide targeted relief to Americans at a time when they are in need. What we do today, how we do it today, I think, is important. I think it is unfortunate that we will likely see this as a wholly partisan exercise. I would like to think that we would have a different outcome. I would like to think that each of us can look at these provisions and say: Well, it might not be as much as I would like for my constituents in Florida or Alaska, but it does allow us to advance one step further.
My hope is that we will continue aggressive negotiations because I continue to hear from people in my State who are still reeling from the impacts of this pandemic. They do not see the upcoming months giving them notable relief from an economic perspective. They want to know that their Federal Government will be a partner with them in aiding them in the recovery.
We will have an opportunity to vote on this later. I would certainly hope all Members look at where we are today with the offering that is in front of us.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote scheduled for 11:30 begin now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Jarbou nomination?
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 83, nays 15, as follows:
YEAS--83
AlexanderBaldwinBarrassoBennetBlackburnBluntBoozmanBraunBurrCapitoCardinCarperCaseyCassidyCollinsCoonsCornynCortez MastoCottonCramerCrapoCruzDainesDuckworthDurbinEnziErnstFeinsteinFischerGardnerGrahamGrassleyHassanHawleyHeinrichHironoHoevenHyde-SmithInhofeJohnsonJonesKaineKennedyKingLankfordLeahyLeeLoefflerManchinMcConnellMcSallyMoranMurkowskiMurphyPaulPerduePetersPortmanReedRischRobertsRomneyRosenRoundsRubioSasseScott (FL)Scott (SC)ShaheenShelbySinemaSmithStabenowSullivanTesterThuneTillisToomeyUdallWarnerWhitehouseWickerYoung
NAYS--15
BlumenthalBookerBrownCantwellGillibrandKlobucharMarkeyMenendezMerkleyMurraySandersSchatzSchumerVan HollenWyden
NOT VOTING--2
HarrisWarren
The nomination was confirmed.
____________________
