Tina Smith: “I rise in opposition to the Paul amendment. As part of the effort to support our economy following the onset of the…”

“I rise in opposition to the Paul amendment. As part of the effort to support our economy following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Federal Reserve established a liquidity facility to help State and local governments better manage their cash flow and those pressures that existed and that they faced as a result of the increase in State and local government expenditures related to the pandemic and the delay and decrease of some tax revenues and other revenues. And all of the funds borrowed by municipalities under this program have been repaid. So tying the Feds' hands to prevent it from helping States and municipalities, as this provision would do, would be dangerous. Congress has given the Fed the flexibility to transact in State and local bonds because we knew that it could be an important and helpful tool in times of an emergency--protecting millions of public workers, including police officers, healthcare workers, and other first responders. So, as we have seen during the pandemic and natural disasters, uncertainty can hurt both big and small States, and the Fed's simple ability to assist States and local governments in this way can provide stability and allow policymakers to address emerging crises. Preventing emergency programs outright would be dangerous and unnecessary. And, finally, adopting this amendment would require the continuing resolution go back to the House and be voted on again. So I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Paul amendment.…”