[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 57 (Monday, March 23, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1929-S1969]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 MIDDLE CLASS HEALTH BENEFITS TAX REPEAL ACT OF 2019--Motion to Proceed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 748, which the 
clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 157, H.R. 748, a bill to 
     amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise 
     tax on high cost employer-sponsored health coverage.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, for the information of our colleagues 
on both sides, as a result of this procedural obstruction, let me 
explain where we are.
  By refusal to allow us to take this first step, which would have 
still given them plenty of time to negotiate, we have put the Senate in 
the following position: If any 1 of the 100 of us chooses to object, we 
can't deal with this until Friday or Saturday at the earliest. If any 1 
of the 100 of us objects to some of the procedural hurdles we have to 
overcome as a result of this mindless obstruction--absolutely mindless 
obstruction going on on the other side, while the public is waiting for 
us to act, while people are losing their jobs, losing their income, and 
shutting down the economy, which we have had to do to deal with this 
public health crisis, they are fiddling around with Senate procedure 
that could, if 1 Senator objected, take us all the way to the end of 
the week to solve this problem.
  I am beginning to think our Democratic colleagues don't understand 
the procedure in the Senate. I am not sure you understand the position 
your leader has put you in. He loses nothing--nothing--in terms of 
negotiating leverage by letting us get through these procedural hoops 
sooner rather than later--sooner rather than later.
  The American people have had enough of this nonsense. They wonder 
where we are. They are looking to us to solve this problem.
  The Secretary of the Treasury keeps going into the Democratic 
leader's office, and the list keeps getting longer and longer and 
longer. The bazaar is apparently open on the other side. Never let a 
crisis go to waste, one former President's Chief of Staff famously 
said.
  So, look, I hope my colleagues will come out here and express 
themselves in the course of the afternoon. The American people would 
like to hear from us. They would like to know what is going on here. So 
let's tell them.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SASSE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, we are at an odd spot right now not just 
as a Senate but as a nation. We have millions of people who are 
gathered in their own homes, trying to figure out what is going to 
happen next, waiting for a virus to die down. We have people in a 
hospital who are afraid because there is no tested treatment yet. We 
have firefighters; we have law enforcement; we have hospital workers 
all with not enough personal protection equipment because they do not 
know who is a citizen without the virus and who is a citizen with the 
virus.
  The most basic elements of decision making of how you take care of 
your neighbor have become a distraction across the country as Americans 
have become afraid of a stranger and of a friend. This is a huge shift 
in where we are as a country. What this demands is immediate action. 
Three weeks ago, the Senate and the House passed $8.3 billion, and we 
did it with an overwhelming bipartisan support, to add additional 
funding for diagnostics, for testing, and for rapid work on a vaccine. 
All of that work is advancing quickly. We have human trials on a 
vaccine happening right now because we came together, and there weren't 
extra things added to it. We focused in on the problem, which is the 
virus.
  This body has a lot of things we disagree on, there is no question. 
There are lots of moments to debate the things we disagree on, but this 
is a time we need to focus in on what is the problem, and the problem 
is dealing with COVID-19. There was a bipartisan bill that was put 
together in the Senate.
  A week ago today, Senator Schumer released a 10-page list of--here 
are the things the Democrats would like from the Senate. It was a 10-
page, very detailed list. Twenty-eight of those items on that list are 
included in this bipartisan bill--28 items from it, of that 10-page 
list of items. So much of that list that was released a week ago is 
included in this bipartisan bill.
  Republican chairmen and Democratic ranking members of the committees 
of jurisdiction met and talked about this. The chairman and the ranking 
member of Appropriations worked together on an appropriations package 
for a quarter of a trillion dollars on just that one section that they 
worked on together to get resolution. Put all of those items together, 
and let me tell you what I mean by that: $250 billion dealing with 
things as distant to believe as things like getting Peace Corps 
volunteers back home, away from where they are now. We have to get them 
back home and away from harm's way. There is funding in there for that 
as well as $88 billion for hospitals, trying to help them through this; 
help for nursing homes; help for individual firefighters and their 
departments; $10 billion for community development block grants to help 
cities as they are rapidly trying to work through this process--$250 
billion allocated just to things like that to help people get testing, 
personal equipment, travel and additional expenses, teleworking 
capabilities that have to be done for cities and communities and 
Federal entities. All of those things were put together and agreed 
upon.
  There is a lot of work on the medical side, rightfully so. Testing 
makes a world of difference on this. Getting access to a vaccine--there 
are billions of dollars in that particular area. All of that is 
included in this proposal.
  In addition to that, there are direct payments that we had agreed 
upon to send out, literally, to every American. We had set up $1,200 
for every American to receive. That is a stopgap method to help folks 
who are having trouble with their utilities or whatever it may be, or 
extra expenses so they will have something.
  It was not just that for the individuals. It was also unemployment 
insurance. This is something the Republicans and Democrats had worked 
on together, to do a plus-up of unemployment insurance because we have 
millions of people suddenly unemployed with no advanced warning at all.
  There is a significant increase of unemployment insurance that is 
built

[[Page S1930]]

into this, about $250 billion additional that is put into that amount. 
Small businesses--the goal is not to have people on unemployment; the 
goal is to have people employed. A very creative thing was built into 
this that I happen to be a part of in the design, and that was small 
businesses--a business with 500 or fewer employees--could actually 
apply for a rapid loan. That loan would be given to them quickly. If 
they used it for payroll, it would be forgiven entirely. If they used 
it for their lease, it would be forgiven entirely. The goal was to not 
have small business go out of business and to keep employees currently 
connected to their company, not to put them out on unemployment but to 
keep them employed so they have the same system. So when we get through 
this virus, which we hope we do soon--they still have the same job, 
they are not on unemployment and later looking for a job. They are able 
to keep their same job. We thought that was very significant. It is a 
brandnew strategy for how to do this. It is a much better idea than 
just pushing people on unemployment--although, we do have great aid for 
unemployment. That program is $350 billion.
  As I have already laid out: healthcare, hospital, first responders--
that is the first piece of this--working on testing, vaccines. The 
second piece is direct payments to individuals, direct payments for 
unemployment insurance, and then assistance for small businesses to 
stay in business and help their employees stay connected to their 
business, and then, on top of that, loans for the largest businesses in 
America. It is not a bailout--loans for the largest businesses in 
America.
  My Democratic colleagues keep saying over and over again that this is 
a bailout for the biggest companies. It is loans for the largest 
companies because--you know what--they employ a lot of people, and we 
would like those businesses to also stay in business.

  All of that seemed to be going well and negotiating well until the 
last 36 hours when it suddenly blows up. Here is what I heard first: It 
is not enough. It is $2 trillion. It is $2 trillion. It is suddenly: 
Well, it is not enough. We need to plus this up to be even bigger.
  And then suddenly it has become this whole transition into the most 
random of things: Well, if a corporation gets a loan from the Federal 
Government, then someone here in Washington, DC, should determine how 
that corporation is run. We should have a member on their board or a 
union representative on their board. We should have some kind of stake 
in their board to do that. This was my favorite one. We should be able 
to tell the board, if they are considering layoffs, someone here in DC 
should be able to go to the company, evaluate the rest of their 
portfolio and tell them other ways they can do their business besides 
laying people off. Are you kidding me? We are now going to create a 
whole new Federal bureaucracy that goes to every company, and if they 
take out a loan in this program, they are able to tell them how to 
manage the day-to-day operations of their company.
  There was a requirement that every company had to do a $15 minimum 
wage for their company. There was a requirement they couldn't do stock 
buybacks. By the way, I have no problem with prohibiting the use of 
these loan dollars to use for stock buybacks, but that is not the 
concept. The concept was for the next 10 years, you can't ever do stock 
buybacks on anything, regardless if it is with these loan funds.
  It became this bizarre shift into--oh, we have an opportunity to run 
every company in America and tell them how to operate, and that became 
the goal. Then it became--we need to also add solar grants. The latest 
proposal that just came out today was $600 million for the National 
Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for Humanity--$600 
million. It is not connected to anything COVID; it was just that they 
need a plus-up of an additional $600 million for the National Endowment 
for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities.
  The other one was that we need to have a forgiveness of all debt for 
the post office, ever--all post office debt. That was just released 
today.
  The list is going on and on. My frustration is that I have people at 
home who are suffering, with small businesses teetering on the edge, 
about to go out of business, trying to figure out if there is going to 
be a proposal to come out of the Senate while folks are discussing 
whether we need to do more solar grants and if we are going to take 
over corporate boards and require a $15 minimum wage at the end of 
this.
  Can we just deal with COVID-19? Can we just deal with one thing, with 
COVID-19, to say, Let's help businesses and workers and families who 
are struggling? That is what I thought we were trying to do with this 
bill, but now suddenly it seems to be everything but. Let's just do 
that, and then there is plenty of time to argue about the other issues. 
We can do those in the future. We will have the debate on solar panels, 
I promise, but let's deal with COVID-19 and the families and 
individuals who are struggling and stop holding everything up, trying 
to add one more thing in to say: It is a really big bill. I am going to 
try to get my one piece.
  One thing we worked on in a bipartisan way--Senator Coons and I--was 
this one area of not-for-profits. The not-for-profits are part of our 
social safety net. Our communities are put together by our families, 
and the people who walk alongside our families are local nonprofits. 
When those can't meet the needs, then government steps in to meet the 
needs. Our nonprofits are teetering on the edge right now. This bill 
allows the nonprofits to be a part of this whole focus on small 
businesses being able to get a loan and sustain their personnel. It 
also allows individuals who want to donate to local nonprofits to write 
that off as an incentive for folks to be more engaged in that. This is 
a reasonable proposal on how to help. It is a bipartisan solution that 
Senator Coons and I have, but we can't get to it and vote on it because 
we being held up by some bizarre new thing that is thrown in every 
couple of hours that is unrelated to COVID-19 or the perpetual 
statement of: It is only $2 trillion. It is not enough.
  This government is not even set up to distribute $2 trillion. Let's 
get this out the door. Let's get something started, and let's keep the 
battle going for the other things. But for the sake of our nonprofits, 
for the sake of our small businesses, for the sake of people who want 
to stay employed, the people who are small business and restaurant 
owners and coffee shop owners and retailers--for the sake of them, why 
do we not just go ahead and get this vote on and stop delaying it, 
trying to add one more special interest something into it?
  I move that we get going and get this done. I encourage my colleagues 
on the other side to stop trying to renegotiate everything we have 
already negotiated and to stop adding one more thing. Let's make the 
one more thing a vote.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, earlier, I was on the floor and talked 
about how important it is--along with my fellow colleagues--that we 
move this bill and get it done now. I mean, it is very important that 
we get it done now. We talked about a lot of different things, but one 
of the points I wanted to make--I work with it so much, as do some of 
my colleagues who are going to join me here--is making sure we are also 
addressing rural America: our farmers, our ranchers, agriculture, rural 
America. That is the food supply everyone depends on every single day. 
It is so critically important all the time but particularly at a time 
like this when we are faced with a pandemic that we keep that food 
supply working and moving--the whole food chain--all the way from the 
farmer and rancher, all the way up to the consumer.
  As a result of what our farmers and ranchers do, every single 
American benefits from the lowest cost, highest quality food supply in 
the history of the world, and they can count on it. They can count on 
it.
  As we pass this phase 3 bill, which is now, I think, about $1.8 
trillion, we cannot leave the farmers and ranchers of America out of 
the bill. It is that simple. Every single American depends on them 
every single day--and not just Americans but people around the globe. 
It is so important that we include agriculture in this bill. That is 
what we have worked to do. We have worked to make sure there is a 
provision in there so whether it is our cattle producers or whether it 
is our farmers raising crops

[[Page S1931]]

across this great Nation, they can continue to do what they do every 
day on behalf of all Americans.
  I talked about that a little bit earlier, but some of my colleagues 
want to join in, emphasizing how critically important it is that our 
farmers and ranchers and rural America are part of this legislation. 
You see on television the cities every day and what is going on in the 
cities.
  In New York or San Francisco or wherever it may be, we get it. There 
are a lot of people there, and they are close together. It is a huge 
challenge.
  Yet the food, the sustenance--the food, fuel, and fiber--they get 
every day comes from the heartland. It comes from the rural areas. It 
doesn't just come from the grocery store. It comes from rural America, 
and we have to be there for them and keep them going so that they can 
supply people across this Nation in communities large and small.
  I would like to turn to my good friend, the Senator from the State of 
Kansas. Clearly, it is a State known as part of the breadbasket of this 
Nation. I would ask that the good Senator from Kansas be allowed to 
make some comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the leadership of my 
colleagues and, particularly today, Senator Hoeven, on his efforts. He 
chairs the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture and Rural 
Development.
  We are joined here by the Senator from Nebraska, Senator Fischer, and 
the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, my colleague from Kansas, to 
highlight something that is particularly going to be absent from this 
legislation.
  Earlier this month, I asked Secretary Perdue in a letter in which I 
was joined by many of my colleagues--both Republicans and Democrats--to 
look for a way to be helpful, particularly to livestock producers. The 
men and women who raise cattle and who feed cattle are the backbone of 
the ag economy and are certainly a huge and critical component of how 
we earn a living in Kansas.
  Both Republicans and Democrats signed the letter asking that 
Secretary Perdue take steps. The reason this is necessary, at least 
according to Kansas State University research, is that since the 
arrival of corona, since January, $8 to $9 billion in lost income has 
occurred for livestock producers in this country. That is a huge and 
significant amount of money and one that is hard to recover from.
  The chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Hoeven, 
indicated about the importance of rural America. This is absolutely 
about feeding not only the rest of our country but the globe in its 
entirety.
  Before I return to this conversation about agriculture, I would 
highlight how difficult it is in rural America to recover from an 
economic challenge. Certainly, our cattlemen and our livestock 
producers, our farmers and ranchers, recognize that we have seen 
instance after instance in which farmers are going out of business. I 
would put on top of this that, since 2013, the farm income in Kansas is 
down 50 percent.
  You add this crisis to the challenge, and many of my farmers and 
ranchers may not--probably will not--survive this crisis.
  We are asking the Secretary of Agriculture to come to our aid. What 
we discovered is that the Commodity Credit Corporation, or the CCC, 
needed to be replenished. Money had been spent from the CCC. We 
proposed in this bill that is being debated now that the CCC be 
replenished--that $20 billion be restored to the Commodity Credit 
Corporation.
  We were told by our Democrat colleagues that they wanted to make 
certain the money couldn't just be spent on the livestock side. So the 
provision in this bill, which is a bipartisan agreement, shows there is 
certainly agreement on the side of all of us that we care about farmers 
as well as ranchers. We changed the language to make certain the 
Secretary of Agriculture used CCC funds not only for livestock 
producers but also for the cultivation side, or the crop side, of 
agriculture.
  Incidentally, my colleagues on the Democrat side asked that their 
names be removed from the letter. I don't understand what happened in a 
manner of just a day or two, in which they decided they were not 
interested in agriculture producers--livestock producers, in 
particular. Then, within the last couple of days, we now learned that 
the Democrats--I am not in the room. So I can't verify this. But I am 
told by those who presumably know that Democrats are opposed to this 
provision being included in the bill at all.
  We cannot forget livestock producers and agriculture as we try to 
deal with the economic consequences of COVID-19. It is a huge 
challenge. I would say to my Democrat colleagues--those who signed the 
letter and others who visited with me and my colleagues about trying to 
solve this problem--that I don't know what is going on in the room that 
I am not a part of, but we need to make certain that the end result is 
where we started, which is taking care of those who produce the food 
and fiber of our Nation.
  While I have the floor, let me point out the challenges of rural 
America and why it is so important to get this done today, now.
  Community hospitals. There are significant resources in this bill to 
try to keep the doors of our hospitals open, to keep our physicians 
practicing medicine, and to keep the pharmacy on Main Street. They are 
in this bill.
  The dentist is a pretty important person in a small town in Kansas--
and the optometrist. They are all a huge component in how we deliver 
healthcare. These are very small businesses. Many are sole 
practitioners, and they employ just a handful of people.
  This bill will help them. Yet it is stymied. I would say that even if 
you are not a healthcare provider, this bill is important to every 
small business in Kansas. It is important to the business, not for the 
business's sake but for the people who work for that business. We want 
that sole proprietor. We want that business that employs 5, 10, 50 
people.
  A lot of small manufacturers in Kansas produce agriculture equipment. 
They are on the cusp of being put out of business, and what is so 
dramatic in rural America is, if we lose a business, the chances of 
reviving it in the future disappears.
  Almost all of our businesses in small towns across Kansas and around 
the Nation are hanging on already by a thread. This is the factor now 
that may put them out of business--is likely to put them out of 
business--and the chances of them coming back into business when this 
is over are virtually none.
  Our businesses are run by small families. They are run by families, 
by individuals, by people who often run a business for the sole purpose 
of making certain their community has a business. We can linger no 
longer and expect that it will get better if we don't take action to 
help them preserve their business and the people who work for them. We 
need to do it now, not later.
  I yield to the Senator from North Dakota
  Mr. HOEVEN. I would like to thank the Senator from Kansas for his 
remarks and his strong work on behalf of, not just the livestock 
industry and, of course, Kansas, which, obviously, has a huge role in 
the cattle industry, but for all of agriculture. You are always there, 
and I deeply appreciate it.
  Before I recognize our next colleague, I do want to make a little 
change in the order here. If I could, I would like to recognize our 
colleague from Michigan who is the ranking member on the Ag Committee. 
She had some thoughts she wanted to interject. I would be willing to 
defer to her.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I wanted to share some thoughts, and I 
appreciate this discussion, obviously.
  As you know, Senator Roberts and I have basically coauthored the last 
two farm bills, and we all care deeply about rural America. I grew up 
in rural America. We have to get things done that are going to help 
small towns in rural America. The distinguished Senator from North 
Dakota and I have been talking about what we need to be doing in a 
number of ways.
  I just wanted to indicate that, when we talk about the needs that 
have been addressed through the market facilitation with payments and 
so on, I think we have a joint interest in making sure

[[Page S1932]]

all of agriculture that has been hurt will be benefited by this.
  I understand the concerns about livestock. About half the cash 
receipts of the country are what we broadly call specialty crops. I can 
tell you that as the No. 1 producer of tart cherries in the country--
maybe the world--we have been hit so very hard by unfair practices with 
Turkey that we could lose the industry.
  We have received no help so far from the CCC. If we are going to move 
forward, I have supported and will continue to support doing things we 
need to do for farmers, but we have to recognize all of the needs. I am 
certainly willing to work with you on that because that has to happen.
  I would finally say this. On the one end, we have our farmers. On the 
other end, we have all of us who eat. We have a lot of folks in between 
who think the food comes from the grocery store--a lot of kids. One of 
the reasons I support having school gardens is for children to 
understand that there actually is a lot of hard work involved and food 
comes from our farmers.
  Part of all of this, when we look at this large package, is that I 
know there is concern about not leaving farmers out, but we can't leave 
out people who are at this point struggling to eat, as well.
  We have done a SNAP increase in every other crisis. In every other 
crisis, we had a temporary increase in SNAP funds. We desperately need 
to do that as well. We know that one of the best economic stimuli is to 
provide people with food assistance, who immediately have to spend that 
at the grocery store. Our grocery store owners, large and small, are 
challenged and are going to be challenged. This all goes right back to 
the farmers.
  I thank you for yielding some time. I want to say that there are many 
of us on both sides of the aisle who certainly care deeply about 
agriculture. We had the largest vote, Mr. Chairman, and 87 of 100 
Senators voted for the last farm bill. I think every Democrat did. We 
want to make sure we are supporting our farmers.
  We want to make sure that families are lifted up who are struggling. 
I am getting calls from churches and food banks and those who are 
desperately concerned about families right now. We can't leave our 
families behind either.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. I would like to thank the Senator from Michigan. There is 
no question that she has been a strong advocate for agriculture. I 
appreciate that and her willingness to work on this. It is imperative 
that we include our farmers and ranchers in this package. I look 
forward to working with you. We do need to get to something we can 
approve and include in the package.
  Thank you for your comments.
  I turn to my colleague from Nebraska. By way of turning to her, I 
want to say that the cattle industry has lost between $7 and $9 billion 
over the last 2 months. I know the cattle industry is important in the 
Presiding Officer's State. The cattle industry lost between $7 and $9 
billion the last 2 months. That is why this is very urgent, and we need 
to act.
  I turn to the Senator from Nebraska for her comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleague from North 
Dakota for really being a leader and recognizing the needs that we have 
across rural America, the needs that we are facing in the heartland for 
farmers, ranchers, rural communities, and rural hospitals.
  When we are looking at this pandemic and the effects it has all 
across this country, we need to be cognizant of the fact that we are a 
very diverse nation. We are a nation of condensed urban areas, and we 
are a nation with extreme vastness.
  I happen to live in a county that is in the middle of cattle country 
here in the United States, where we have less than one person per 
square mile and there are over 6,000 square miles in my county. We 
understand what being rural means. We understand the differences that 
exist, not just within the State of Nebraska but that exist here in 
this country. We believe that diversity needs to be recognized when we 
are talking about providing relief to families, relief to small 
businesses, and recovery.
  First, we have to get to the relief. We can't get on this bill right 
now. What I hear from my constituents, and I know all of you do--it 
doesn't matter if you are a Republican or a Democrat. I know all of you 
are hearing from your constituents about how ridiculous we look because 
we can't get on a bill for political reasons.
  I hope that, as we move forward, we are able to provide relief to 
families. People are in need. People are hurting. People are scared. 
And we are here talking--which is a good thing, if we come to a 
positive outcome--but we don't have much time. We have small businesses 
across this country that are hurting.
  I have heard from my dentist. I have heard from my neighbors who are 
very concerned about what is going on and whether they are going to be 
able to provide for their employees, their families and have a business 
to come back to.
  Yet, when you talk about livestock, I think Nebraskans have a good 
understanding of that because livestock is the economic engine in the 
State of Nebraska. It is the biggest revenue provider in agriculture in 
the State of Nebraska. It is a part of that ag economy that drives our 
State's economy, which is why working on provisions that are going to 
help producers will help every single person in my State.
  My office reached out to numbers of my friends and neighbors who are 
family ranchers and family farmers, and we asked them what is going on. 
The Senator from North Dakota talked about the losses--the extreme 
losses--that we are looking at. When I talk about farmers and ranchers, 
I am talking about family farmers and family ranchers and how people 
are looking at their families, their neighbors, and their communities. 
The coronavirus is adding another dimension to an already battered 
agriculture economy. This disease has been driving down crop and 
livestock prices. Therefore, I am adamant that, in this bill, we have 
to provide relief to address that.
  As for my colleague from North Dakota, who has led on this and come 
up with a solution that will help families, neighborhoods, communities, 
and my State, I thank him, for we have seen ag futures that have been 
dropping since February. Prices that have been offered for ranchers' 
cattle have been dropping. Ethanol plants are starting to idle, and 
they are starting to close down across the country. There is a lot of 
unsold grain that is sitting out in the countryside or that is in farm 
storage right now.
  As for the cattle--and I can speak to this--we have seen large 
volumes of negotiated cattle being procured at lower prices. We have 
seen a sharply rising boxed beef market both in volume and in price. As 
of last Thursday, cattle volume at live auctions declined by 75 
percent, which is due to the folks who are practicing social 
distancing. That, in turn, has caused a $10 to $15 drop in the market 
price.
  Feeder cattle sales have slowed down. If you drive around counties in 
my State, where we see a lot of fed cattle, you will see empty pens. 
Feeders are getting hit twice and, arguably, the hardest. Suppliers, 
which include ethanol plants, are telling feeders that they have, 
maybe, 1 to 2 weeks max in which they can provide feed to them, and 
then those family farms are going to be in trouble because those 
ethanol plants are going to idle or they are going to shut down, which 
is going to cause feeders to worry about supply.
  The panic buying that we are seeing in the news can be correlated 
back to that high volume of beef that is being sold. We can see packers 
that are selling large volumes of beef with outstanding consumer 
demand. As a cattle rancher, you want to see that consumer demand but 
not in these times that are so uncertain. We have had packers 
communicate that they are going to continue to ramp up production. We 
are grateful for that, and it is needed to meet that high demand.
  Beef sales are increasing, as are boxed beef prices, and producers 
need to be able to share in the price gains of this unexpected surge in 
demand. In reality, the opposite has been happening. I have been 
working with my colleagues on measures that are in the CARES Act that 
will provide some relief to people in my State and across the heartland 
who are working to keep the world fed during this pandemic.

[[Page S1933]]

  The provision that we have in this current version of the bill will 
help to provide relief to cow-calf producers and feeders through the 
Commodity Credit Corporation, the CCC, which we have talked about, so 
we can have that increase so that livestock--beef, pork, poultry--can 
be included, which can also assist other commodities. This provision is 
needed. These dollars are the vehicle that we can use to help our 
producers get the relief they need during these tough times.
  There are so many times I hear from my neighbors that we leave 
agriculture out all the time; that we don't think about rural America. 
We do. We always do. Yet to listen to colleagues on the other side put 
off a vote is appalling. People are suffering, and people must be 
helped. We need to be here to provide relief and to have a plan for 
recovery. We have that. We worked in a bipartisan way to have it. 
Agriculture must be a part of that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nebraska for her 
very powerful and heartfelt comments. I have to say she knows of what 
she speaks. In her coming from Nebraska and being in agriculture, 
nobody sees it out there more directly or understands more what our 
farmers and ranchers are going through than she does. I really do 
appreciate her comments. I think she brings home very clearly how we 
need to make sure that our farmers and ranchers are part of this 
important effort as we seek to battle this pandemic. Again, I can't 
thank her enough for her heartfelt comments.
  I turn now to our colleague from the State of Mississippi for her 
comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mrs. HYDE-SMITH. Mr. President, as we continue to navigate this 
unprecedented position we find ourselves in because of this extremely 
contagious virus, I want to bring one issue to the attention of all of 
my colleagues.
  Anyone who has been on social media has seen the empty shelves in the 
grocery stores throughout the country. The last shortage we need right 
now is with our American farmers. We are going to be able to feed this 
country but only if we keep the farmers in business. With virtually 
every restaurant in this country now being on shutdown, we have never 
found ourselves here. They are not ordering the food they normally 
order because they are on shutdown. We are here, in the city of 
Washington, DC, and have every restaurant closed except for a few for 
takeout, which is one market our farmers have just lost with our being 
in the position that we are in. We don't need to be. We have to make 
sure our food production continues.
  As the former agriculture commissioner of the wonderful State of 
Mississippi, I can speak to this firsthand. When this market slows 
down, it doesn't move the needle a little bit; it moves the needle a 
lot. The emergency supplemental appropriations portion--division B of 
the phase 3 coronavirus legislation--provides that critical support for 
American farmers and ranchers who are truly being impacted by this 
virus. It is an important provision that the Democrats seem to oppose 
but that is just a no-brainer for me.
  Firstly, it reimburses the USDA's CCC that we have referred to, which 
is the Commodity Credit Corporation, in order to prevent any delays in 
program funding that is vital to U.S. agriculture.
  The second thing it does is to temporarily raise the CCC's borrowing 
authority to ensure that the USDA has the resources it needs to assist 
producers during this COVID-19 emergency. This is just basic economics.
  People come to the floor, and they talk about all of these programs 
that we need to be increasing right now. The Democrats want billions 
for domestic food programs, but what happens when those who are 
supplying our food go out of business? This is a $1 trillion-plus 
package, and as the dear Senator from Nebraska stated, we cannot leave 
our farmers and ranchers out--the backbone of rural America.
  I look at the Democrats' bill, and they are calling for the workers 
first. There is nobody working any harder right now to feed this 
country or to feed those medical workers who are being pushed beyond 
restraints to which they should never have to be pushed but who are 
willing to step up because they are within the medical community that 
is willing to take care of these patients. Every small business has 
employees, and they are going to have to be fed. We have to ensure that 
we continue to have the safest food supply--and cheapest, I might add--
of anywhere in the entire world.
  I appreciate the work of Chairman Hoeven and others of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture for including this in this 
bill--this provision that is very vital. It has to remain in there.
  I just want to stress the importance of making sure the farmers and 
ranchers can continue to do what they were born to do, including those 
wonderful farmers and ranchers in the State of Mississippi and 
throughout this country, and that is to produce our ag products in 
order to make sure this country will continue to sustain itself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi, who 
understands agriculture, is a strong advocate for agriculture, and 
recognizes how critically important it is.
  At this point, I turn to our chairman of the Ag Committee. He is 
somebody who has been around agriculture for a long, long time. He has 
worked on many, many farm bills, and whether it is livestock or crops 
or specialty crops--across the board--he understands.
  I say that for this reason: The provision that we have put in here 
helps all of ag. It is designed for all of agriculture. Certainly, it 
is absolutely vital for our cattle ranchers to help them in their 
working with the USDA, but it is for all of these other crops, too, 
across this great country, and there is incredible diversity in 
agriculture. What we have tried to do here is to make sure we have 
something that enables our Department of Agriculture and this body to 
help all of our producers. Without this, we are not able to do that, 
and that is why it is so vital that it is part of this package.
  With that, I turn to our committee chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding to me.
  As has been aptly pointed out by Senator Hoeven, who, by the way, 
does an outstanding job as our protector on the all-powerful Senate 
Appropriations Committee, we are in a tough place. We really are--
rural, smalltown America--given the rural healthcare delivery system 
with regard to this virus.
  I thank Senator Fischer, who is in the business and always does a 
good job of telling the story of the beef producer and of always trying 
to tell me that Nebraska's beef is more tender or delicious than the 
beef in Kansas, but that is her right.
  As Senator Hyde-Smith has just pointed out and what we have been 
trying to point out--and Senator Stabenow, who just recently spoke on 
the floor--we on the Ag Committee like to say we are the least partisan 
committee in the Congress. I think that was evident by the time we 
passed the farm bill. It took us a year to do it--a little over that--
but we got 87 votes. It was truly bipartisan. I deeply regret that we 
have reached a point here in the Senate where that is not the case with 
regard to the whole Senate.
  If you talk to any agriculture commodity group, any farm 
organization, or just up and down Main Street throughout Kansas--as a 
matter of fact, I talked to the chamber of commerce, Senator Moran, who 
just gave some very pertinent comments to our situation out in Kansas, 
about the second question in: Chairman Pat, what about our rural areas?
  Well, at that time, we were having trouble with regard to the 
testing, and some rural hospitals were having to drive a great deal of 
miles to Topeka. That was the only source. That stopped. In other 
words, it hasn't stopped, it has gotten a heck of a lot better, with 
Quest and LabCorp and other folks who are now making these tests 
available.
  But I want to get back to agriculture, and the Senator from North 
Dakota is exactly right--we have been hit pretty hard. Two thousand 
thirteen was the last time we had our prices above the cost of 
production, and that involves everybody involved in agriculture, along 
with Senator Thune.

[[Page S1934]]

  I am going to try to wind this down here pretty quick so we can get 
to you, Coop, and I thank you for your help, and I thank you for your 
overview of what is in this bill, what isn't in this bill, and why on 
Earth we can't get to it.
  So I think probably the best thing to do for our beef industry is to 
continue to work with our Secretary of Agriculture, Sonny Perdue. If 
there is anybody who is more knowledgeable about what we are facing, I 
don't know who it is. And I think possibly there could be a CCC payment 
that would help us out in the beef industry in particular because that 
is where we are really in trouble. But you could go down every 
commodity, and you would see the same thing. People from all of their 
organizations are coming forward to all of us on the Ag Committee and 
saying: Why can't you help?
  I am going to leave that subject. I think we can work on that. I 
think we can get some more help from CCC, and that would be a direct 
payment that would be immediate and that could be of help to people who 
are really in trouble.
  I want to say something else with regard to Senator Manchin, who is 
sitting over here by his lonesome on the other side of the aisle. I 
really like this guy. We are good friends. We hit it off right from the 
first. Both of us want the same thing. In particular, his comments this 
morning were about the rural healthcare delivery system in West 
Virginia going through the same tribulation that we are going through 
nationwide with regard to our rural areas.
  I want to point out that there is $75 billion in this bill for our 
rural hospitals to pay doctors and nurses who are dealing with the 
virus. Well, we all are doing that.
  It lifts the 2-percent sequester that happens all the time. You have 
to go back to 2013, and under the Budget Control Act that was passed at 
that particular time--not in force but at least was--what is the word 
for it? Referring to President Obama, he would always be under the 
Budget Control Act, finding the necessity that--no matter what we got 
from the CMS, the Centers for Medicare Services, which is lovingly 
called in our rural areas ``It's a Mess''--not under Seema Verma, 
though. I think she is doing a good job. But every time we would 
convince CMS to raise the Medicare reimbursement to critical access 
hospitals, of which we have over 80 in Kansas, there was, again, that 
2-percent cut. So we waived that cut for the first time since 2013.
  In addition, let me say that there is special funding called for by 
all of the community healthcare centers and rural health centers--of 
which I know there are a lot in West Virginia, as there well are in 
Kansas--for telemedicine. That was something back in the day that we 
couldn't even have thought would be feasible, but it is now. There is a 
15-percent reimbursement increase for these folks who are using 
telemedicine.
  So it is not like we haven't put together something we think will be 
approved. We could do more. We could do more, and the Senator from West 
Virginia has certainly indicated a strong interest in doing that. My 
point is, we could do that if we would just vote to get on the bill, 
and we would have 30 hours. I know that Senator Manchin and Senator 
Roberts, working together, could accomplish darn near everything.
  I see the Senator rising. I am not quite through.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, if you have to. You are my distinguished friend.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Well, truly, we are friends, and there is not a person 
over there I don't consider my dear friend. A lot of times, that is 
used in a very colloquial way, but I mean it.
  The Senator from Nebraska, let me--from Kansas--let me just say this. 
Excuse me for pronouncing the wrong State here. You don't have a 
problem on this side with the 30-hour wait. That has never been. We 
very seldom object on anything. That is not where the problem comes 
from. So everyone thinking that we are going to make everybody stay 
here for 30 hours--that is not going to happen from the Democrats 
objecting. We will not. There is not a person I have spoken to who is 
going to stop it. What they want to do is, in good faith, get to the 
bill. Once we get to that bill--and in the meantime, they said: Well, 
let's get on the bill. Can't we at least get on it and work on it? 
Usually we don't move to that unless there is good faith in the 
beginning. Right now, there is very little good faith there from the 
top end of the food chain. That is the sad scenario we are in.

  But I can assure you, as soon as there is an agreement, we are 
moving, unless somebody on your side would object. There are no 
objections on this side. So I would hope that you all you would not use 
that 30-hour obstruction because it is not here.
  I will have a chance to speak about this more, but I just thank you 
because I know rural--your State is rural, my State is rural, and it is 
the same. These people are out there, and they are depending on us, and 
we have to get together here as Americans.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I appreciate your comments. I guess it is OK to call you 
Joe.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Please.
  Mr. ROBERTS. And I appreciate your friendship.
  You did mention something else about, there is no objection on your 
side. Well, about 2 hours ago, when we got this whirlwind or this 
dustup going again, when our distinguished leader pointed out that we 
have a good bill, and it is a bipartisan bill, and now we are talking 
about the footprint that the airlines--the carbon footprint, that we 
have to take a look at that, and on the boards of these corporations, 
we want to investigate whether they are truly diverse, et cetera, et 
cetera, and something about the Green New Deal. That is not pertinent 
to this particular situation, to say the least.
  Then when you said an objection, here is what I am worried about: We 
had the Democratic leader, whom I have known from his House days--we 
used to play basketball together, for goodness' sake, both of us very 
slow. What I was doing on the court at my age, I have no idea. My job 
was to set blind-side picks on Democrats, which I enjoy, one of whom 
was Chuck Schumer.
  But here we have the Democratic leader--Susan Collins, sitting right 
here, stood up to be recognized, and there were three objections to her 
even talking? That is going back to the days we really don't want to go 
back to.
  This is not the Senate I came to 24 years ago or, for that matter, 
the House 16 years ago or as a staff director for 12 before that and 2 
before that in the Senate. I mean, I have been around here for quite a 
while. And these are not the worst of times. I mean, Washington was on 
fire when we had the horrible assassination of MLK. Then we went 
through Watergate, and then we went through the Vietnam war. Actually, 
it was the Vietnam war before Watergate. And that tore the country 
apart. Here in this Senate, we were able to come together to try to 
reach bipartisan agreement.
  I am telling you that this blanket of comity and respect is pretty 
threadbare right now. We are right there--for a lot of reasons. I could 
go back to the Kavanaugh hearings or the impeachment hearings, where 
one of the House Members--I was sitting right here, he was talking 
right here, looking right at me, and said: You are on trial, and if you 
do not vote for this, it is treachery. I said: What? Me? I mean, what 
was that all about?
  At that time, by the way, we could have taken first steps with regard 
to this virus.
  I know that the assistant or the deputy leader there on your side 
said: Everybody take a deep breath. We don't want to take a deep breath 
anywhere now. But I will tell you that I hope we can come together on 
this and see if we can't reach some agreement. Let's get on the bill. 
We have got 30 hours to do it.
  The Senator from West Virginia said that if we could just come to an 
agreement--I suppose he is meaning beyond those two doors. We have been 
meeting along and along and along.
  I would ask the Senator, the distinguished Senator who is sitting 
right down here, who is about ready to do a speech, how many workshops 
have we had? I thought there were three. I guess there are five. But 
each one of them worked with our Democratic counterparts, and they 
got--I mean, they produced a bipartisan agreement.

[[Page S1935]]

  I really don't understand why we can't get to at least vote for 
cloture, and then we have 30 hours to--and maybe we could cut back that 
30 hours. I would hope that is the case if we finally come to an 
agreement. But with some of the things that I have heard that you want 
put in this bill, A, they don't fit, and two, they are 
counterproductive.
  Let me just say this. There is a saying out in Dodge City, KS: There 
is a lot of cactus in the world; you don't have to sit on every one of 
them. And it appears to me that is what we are doing.
  I have a nice square saying that is in an 8-by-10 right next to my 
desk, and it is a quote from Lyndon Baines Johnson: ``Sometimes you 
just have to hunker down like a jackass in a hailstorm and just take 
it.'' Well, I am tired of just taking it. I am tired of the 
partisanship. I am tired of all of this work that we have put together 
to address what everybody understands is a national pandemic--a world 
pandemic--and here we are, messing around, trying to say: Oh, no, we 
can't vote for cloture and address some of these things with the now 
five working groups who have worked together to produce a product. That 
is wrong. That is really wrong.
  So I plead with my colleagues. I don't do this. I don't come down to 
the floor and make partisan speeches. You do that to introduce an 
amendment; half of your folks won't vote for it. The same thing the 
other way around. When they say ``Senator Roberts,'' I hope they 
remember that I am chairman of the Ag Committee, and I work very well 
with Senator Stabenow, and we produced a great farm bill. So I don't 
like doing this. But I have to warn my colleagues, this so-called 
blanket of comity that we always have here in the Senate is pretty 
threadbare. I hope we can get past this, and I hope we can vote to get 
to cloture and then get to a bill as soon as we can
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. I want to thank the senior Senator from Kansas for his 
comments and for his long service on behalf of agriculture, and I want 
to thank all of my colleagues who have spoken here. These are people 
who are working every day on behalf of our farmers and ranchers and on 
ag and on the Agriculture Committee.
  We fashioned something here that works for agriculture. Our message 
is very simple: We need to make sure our farmers and ranchers are 
included in this bill, and we need our colleagues across the aisle to 
work with us to make sure it is in the bill, and we need to get this 
bill passed now.
  With that, I would like to turn to our assistant majority leader--
also from ag country--for concluding remarks. I appreciate the patience 
of our colleague from West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota for 
his great leadership on this issue and all over here.
  Senator Roberts--the longtime chairman of the Senate Ag Committee and 
before that, the House Ag Committee--was very instrumental in our 
getting a farm bill in late 2018--a farm bill which provides a safety 
net and provides a little bit of stability in agriculture, which, as he 
pointed out, has been just in the tank literally since 2013.
  Our producers, farmers, and ranchers across the country and in South 
Dakota have been operating with negative cash flows, eating into their 
equity, and trying to keep their operations viable, and that was before 
COVID-19. Now we have COVID-19, and we saw the bottom fall out of the 
cattle market in this country.
  I don't have to tell the Presiding Officer that agriculture is 
important. It is the lifeblood of our economy in South Dakota. It is 
our No. 1 industry. But that ripple effect is felt all across the 
country. It is our food supply. Senator Hoeven talked earlier today 
about the importance of ensuring that we maintain a safe, quality, 
predictable, and affordable food supply for people in this country, 
particularly when people are concerned in a time of crisis. We need to 
maintain that food supply. So I want to thank him and all of our 
colleagues here from farm country for working together to provide some 
assistance in this particular bill, which would hopefully give some 
relief for those who are out there, day in and day out, grinding it out 
to make sure we have the food and fiber to keep this country going and, 
for that matter, to feed the world.

  Unfortunately, again, Senate Democrats don't seem willing to do that. 
I was encouraged to hear just a little bit ago from my friend from West 
Virginia, who is an advocate for agriculture. We also had the ranking 
member of the Ag Committee down here earlier, saying she is willing to 
work with us. But, unfortunately, we don't have time to waste. We don't 
have time to waste. This isn't something that can be put off to another 
day. We have producers that, if we don't do something, we are going to 
leave them behind, and we need our Democratic colleagues to step up and 
help get this bill passed.
  As Senator Hoeven mentioned, the bill would provide $30 billion to 
replenish the Commodity Credit Corporation, and it has a temporary 
funding increase of an additional $20 billion in CCC funding to address 
the impact of the outbreak of COVID-19. This funding would allow the 
Department of Agriculture to quickly get assistance to farmers and 
ranchers throughout America who are facing market volatility and 
declining pricing in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Farmers and 
ranchers, I might add, as I already mentioned, were already dealing 
with a weak ag economy well before this emergency hit.
  I spoke with the Secretary of Agriculture a couple of days ago and 
conveyed to him the incredible amount of hardship and economic pain 
that is being created across the farm belt these days, particularly 
with our cattle ranchers, and the pain they are feeling as a result of 
these declining prices and what it might mean to their operations.
  So I would simply say, in supporting all of my colleagues in what 
they said today, that we don't know the full impact of this outbreak 
across the agricultural industry, but we do know this: Our producers 
are doing their part to keep the grocery shelves stocked and food on 
our tables, and we need to do our part in providing the resources 
necessary to support them, which is why it is so important for many of 
the reasons we talked about earlier today to get on this legislation 
and get it moving.
  The national economy is melting down, and, of course, as I said, in 
the economy out in farm country, it was happening well before the 
national economy. But if we don't do something to stop the bleeding and 
do it soon, there is going to be a whole world of hurt. Let's get this 
bill across the finish line. We need help from our Democratic 
colleagues to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I want to thank all of my colleagues, who 
truly are all my friends, who are here expressing their concerns. I 
think we are all on the same side. I think that for every one of you 
and me and everybody within the House and Senate, we have this disease 
in our States and we have it in our neighborhoods and backyards. This 
COVID-19 doesn't know whether you are a Democrat, a Republican, or an 
Independent. People are scared right now.
  We have States that are sheltering in place. My State just announced 
that at 12 or 1 p.m. today, they are going to shelter in place, and I 
have a very vulnerable population I am concerned about. I have a very 
vulnerable healthcare system I am very much concerned about, because if 
they are not able to provide the services we are going to need and that 
we need now, then, Good Lord, help us all. We will be in trouble then. 
We are going to protect them, and that is what we are fighting for.
  I know they are talking about this: Why are the Democrats stalling 
just to get on the bill? If we just got on the bill, everything would 
be fine.
  How can we? For people to understand how this process works, we 
usually have an agreement before we get on a vote to pass something. If 
there is not an agreement, then, there is political posturing. That is 
what is happening. The political posturing is going on because they 
know there is a difference. So where can the pressure be put?
  I have been here for 10 years, and I have never seen the place work 
at all.

[[Page S1936]]

So I appreciate those of you who give me some historical values on how 
it used to work. I wish it did. I always thought that when there was 
good faith, whether I agreed or not, you could have a chance to amend 
the bill or change the bill or do something to it. We don't get that 
chance here. So if we start moving before we have an agreement, then 
there is going to be no conciliatory movement toward something to then 
make it happen.
  Where are we at right now? Let me state something with regard to the 
$500 billion in that bill. I don't know whether it is $1.3 trillion or 
$2 trillion, but I know it is moving up rapidly. But in $500 billion of 
it that we can basically identify, this is where I have had some 
problems in what I understand.
  First of all, there is no strong language that prohibits the stock 
buybacks. I know they keep saying corporate bailouts. OK, forget about 
the bailouts, but you tell me if this is not pretty favorably slanted 
to one side. There is no strong language to prohibit stock buybacks. As 
written, the buyback limitation can be waived by Secretary Mnuchin. 
Secretary Mnuchin can direct funds to whom he sees as necessary but 
with very, very little oversight.
  There is no restraint on taking the assistance and firing employees 
at a later time, as employers only have to keep employees ``to the 
extent possible,'' which is in the language. These are the concerns.
  The bill allows for a 6-month delay on releasing the names of 
businesses. Tell me why we would put a 6-month delay on releasing the 
names of businesses that take advantage and get this economic 
opportunity. Why shouldn't we be transparent?
  There is only a 2-year prohibition on increasing executive 
compensation. We have seen what happens when it runs amuck. Those are 
the concerns we have. Those are the concerns I have.
  With that, let's take the measures we agree on. We agree we should be 
protecting the healthcare industry. We have agreed on $100 billion. We 
were way off from that, but, finally, by not agreeing to move on to the 
bill, it is now up to $75 billion. I think when we come out this 
afternoon, there will be $100 billion to take care of our hospitals, 
our rural and other healthcare systems, so they can survive, making 
sure that all of our healthcare providers are protected. These are the 
things that we are talking about and the things we have asked for.
  So they start saying: Oh, just get on the bill. Yes, just get on the 
bill
  And then what happens? Nothing else happens, because then it is out 
of our jurisdiction, if you will, because we have little chance to 
intervene. The rules are that, basically, the majority has the rule. 
They can rule, and that is exactly how it works. So, we are trying to 
get a bill.
  There is no need for us to take a vote today because we are still 
working on it. I know the Secretary of Treasury is in there working on 
it. They are all sitting there working on it. Why would we have a vote 
when we knew we didn't have an agreement? But we are getting close to 
one, and if we get an agreement, I will state that every Democrat will 
vote to suspend the rules, and we will move immediately, unless there 
is an objection from my friends on the Republican side.
  That is what we are talking about. Please, let's quit blaming each 
other. People are depending in my State on our taking care of 
healthcare workers, taking care of people laid off and who don't have a 
paycheck through no fault of their own. Businesses have had to close 
through no fault of their own. Those are the people on the frontlines. 
I have people scared and sheltered in place right now, an elderly 
population.
  So there are things we have agreed on. I heard Senator Lankford from 
Oklahoma, who was speaking on the things that I agree on 1,000 percent 
with him. Why can't we be on that? If we can't get anything else done, 
let's vote today on the things we can agree on. Let's move on the 
healthcare, take care of COVID-19, and take care of the healthcare 
industry and the workers and take care of the people who lost their 
jobs and businesses.
  We are worried about a $500 billion payout with very little oversight 
and transparency. That is truly the problem in a nutshell, and all we 
are asking for, basically, is, Shouldn't the people and the taxpayers 
of this country understand where their money is going and the people 
who are going to be able to use it? Add some transparency and oversight 
to it. That is all we ask for, and that is all I ask for.
  About all those other things that have been thrown in, I am not for 
that, and I think you all know that. I am not for the green deal, and I 
think you all know that. I think there has to be an all-in energy 
policy approach. I think we all have to have common sense, and we have 
to produce affordable, dependable energy and use everything we can--
renewables and using fossil fuels in the cleanest possible way. So who 
is throwing that stuff in? I have no idea, but I can guarantee I 
wouldn't vote for it. But what I will vote for is exactly what we 
should agree on and what I think we do agree on.
  Let's come together as Americans and forget about Republicans and 
Democrats and get this place working again. If we had the amendment 
process--I was totally opposed when Senator Reid basically kind of shut 
things down and we weren't able to have amendments. You all were, too. 
We were promised that no matter who takes over leadership, by golly, 
the system is going to open up, and we are going to have amendments and 
debates on the floor. And guess what. It got worse. It didn't get 
better. It got worse.
  If you want to know why people are throwing everything but the 
kitchen sink into a piece of legislation, it is because they have very 
little opportunity to do anything here. There is too much power in the 
two basic leaderships. This much power should not be in so few people. 
All of us should be involved.
  I believe--and I have said this--that we all have that better angel 
inside of us. I hope you let her fly. I hope you let her fly today. She 
needs to get out and go a little bit. We need her. We need the better 
angels in all of us to start looking out and taking care of each other. 
There are a lot of people hurting and a lot of people with uncertainty 
right now, and I want to make sure that we fix it. I will stay here all 
day and all night to make sure it gets fixed--whatever it takes.
  With that, I ask all of my good friends--and I mean that, all my good 
friends--let's work together for the sake of this great country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I just heard my friend and colleague 
from West Virginia say there is no reason to vote today. There are a 
lot of reasons to vote today. There is a country affected by disease. 
People are waking up anxious, scared, afraid of the disease and the 
economic consequences that are there. There are a lot of reasons to 
vote today.
  Every Member of this Senate needs to stand up and be counted, and for 
the Senator from West Virginia to say: I wouldn't be for this, and I 
don't know where that is coming from--well, just read the papers that 
are coming out of the Democratic House. Just read the papers of the 
demands by the Democrats to muck up the bill that is designed as a 
rescue operation for the American people. That is where the problem is. 
We need to vote today, again and again and again, until we provide the 
relief, the rescue that the American people need.
  That is why we have a dozen Republicans on this side ready to speak, 
standing at podiums ready to speak, and there hasn't been a single 
Democrat on the floor to defend their position because it is 
indefensible. That is where we are.
  We have Nancy Pelosi flying back from California because she sent the 
House home a week ago--they are not here--to defeat the work that we 
have done in a bipartisan way, and to say: Well, all of you have done 
nice work. Now look at our laundry list of things we are demanding: tax 
credits for solar panels, wind turbines, a bailout of the Postal 
Service. And when you go through this list, there are portions of the 
Green New Deal.
  I am a doctor. I have been on the phone with doctors around the 
country, with my colleagues at the Wyoming Medical Center. They are 
working double time, through the weekend, day and night--the nurses, 
the doctors, the healthcare providers--and they need help. They are 
looking to us for help.

[[Page S1937]]

They need tests, they need masks, they need respirators, and they need 
hope--hope that there will be a vaccine, hope that there will be a 
treatment. Those are the things that are in this bill that the 
Democrats voted to block last night and the Democrats voted to block 
again today, and that is only the healthcare component of it.
  Our economy cannot be unleashed again until after we get the 
healthcare component behind us. But our colleagues, our friends, our 
neighbors, people we know in our home States woke up today not being 
able to go to work, not being able to know if they are going to have a 
paycheck, not being able to pay their bills, not being able to know if 
they are going to feed their families, not being able to know that they 
are going to get food, if it is available, if they could have the money 
to pay for it. Yet we are not ready to provide relief.
  They need it immediately. They don't need it after the Democrats 
block it again and again and again. The Senator from West Virginia 
said: I don't know why we voted today.
  That is why we voted today, and that is why we need to keep voting, 
because the American people need relief and they need it now.
  This is our duty station, and I am prepared to stay here until we get 
this done--but to go through this.
  I talked to a small business owner who has a restaurant and has been 
there for 37 years. She doesn't know how she is going to make payroll. 
She never closed the doors except for snowstorms in Wyoming. It is a 
successful restaurant. She doesn't know how she is going to pay for the 
food that was delivered last week. She doesn't know how she is going to 
pay for healthcare. This bill takes care of so much of that. It was 
blocked by the Democrats today.
  We have a good program for small businesses. It is really good. It 
was worked on in a bipartisan way, but yet it is being blocked by the 
Democrats. They blocked even the motion to proceed to the bill.
  Businesses all across the country employ people, regardless of the 
size. It is the people who need the jobs, the people. A job is part of 
somebody's identity. It is who they are. The people who work realize 
how important it is to who they are. They feel a sense of productivity. 
People I know aren't looking for a check. They just want a job. They 
want to work. They are ready to produce, and they can't. Why? Because a 
disease has struck America, and the government--not the economy--the 
government has said ``We are going to shut down this economy,'' and the 
government has the responsibility to provide relief--to rescue those 
people and to provide immediate relief. Every Democrat came to the 
floor and voted against doing that last night and again this morning. 
We need to continue to vote.

  This bill is about our healthcare system. It is about our economy. It 
is about money in the pockets of people who, through no fault of their 
own, are finding themselves in a position they have never been in 
before--ever--where they can't go out and knock on the door and say: 
Will you hire me? I am ready to go to work.
  Whether it is a farmer or a rancher--anyone--they can't do that today 
because the government says: You may not. You stay home. You might have 
had a good job, a job you love, and you can't go to it today. Monday--
we want everyone to work on a Monday but not in America on this Monday.
  So there is a role and responsibility for us to step in and do what 
the role of government ought to be in this case of crisis, a crisis 
caused by both a disease and the economy, the government's action to 
shut down the economy. Yet Democrats, one after another, continue to 
block it.
  They are not blocking it for things that have to do with actually 
helping the American people. It is a wish list--a liberal wish list. It 
is astonishing that they are delaying direct assistance so they can 
play to their liberal left--the extremists, the environmental 
extremists, the labor special interests. We are here trying to fight 
for the men and women in the street and our hometowns, yet they are 
fighting for the Green New Deal. Bernie Sanders may have lost to Joe 
Biden, but the Green New Deal of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren 
and that entire crew is alive and well in the Democratic cloakroom and 
is controlling the actions today on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
  They want to put up an entire cap-and-trade system for the airline 
industry. That is a worthy debate to have, but not on this bill. They 
want to expand tax credits for wind and for solar power. That is a 
debate that is worthy of being held, but not on this bill today. That 
is not going to help one person who is having problems breathing to get 
a respirator that they need. That is what is holding this up.
  We know Nancy Pelosi has been pushing this extreme environmental 
agenda from the moment she cut the deal to remain as Speaker and said 
to the liberals: I will do what you want if you just allow me to be 
Speaker again. And, now, through a letter that she has written to the 
Democrats, she is bragging that she is carrying the flag for the 
Democratic agenda. The Speaker is pushing for diversity on corporate 
boards, for collective bargaining, and for election reform. There are 
proposals here in her proposal--she said: I am going to go write the 
bill requiring early voting and requiring same-day voter registration. 
Where does that fit into a bill to rescue the American people who, 
right now, find themselves in the throes of a disease that may kill 
them and in an economy that has been shut down? That is why the 
Democrats aren't on this floor, because what they are doing cannot be 
defended.
  So, I would just say and I would appeal to my colleagues: Let us do 
the work of the Senate. It is time for everyone to stand up and be 
responsible. Let us get this done. Let us get this passed. The days for 
political games are now behind us.
  Everyone who is watching should understand the House of 
Representatives is not in town. They have been gone for a week. Only 
Nancy Pelosi just flew back from California to throw a monkey wrench 
into the works, and we need to get this done.
  We failed the cloture vote last night, blocked by the Democrats, and 
at that time, we found that one of our colleagues had tested positive 
for coronavirus. We failed a cloture vote today, blocked by the 
Democrats again, when we learned that the spouse of one of our 
colleagues is hospitalized, on oxygen, with this same disease that is 
hitting the entire country.
  We can litigate the Green New Deal another day. Americans' lives and 
livelihoods are at stake. That is the situation we are in today for the 
Nation. We can litigate election reform another day. We can debate 
diversity on corporate boards and airline fuel standards; we can do all 
of that another day. We can talk about cap and trade another day.
  America needs now to know how we, as a nation, will survive from the 
standpoint of our health and our economy. We need immediate relief. The 
bill on the floor accomplishes that. We need to make sure that, when 
Americans wake up tomorrow, they don't have that same fear and 
trepidation about the disease, as well as their families' well-being. 
We need to take that decisive action today. The time for politics is 
beyond us. We need to vote today, and we need to pass this today.
  I know my colleagues are on the floor. I know Senator Portman is here 
after me and Senator Cotton after him. We have a dozen who are ready to 
speak, but I thank you for your indulgence.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Wyoming, and I 
think he has made it very clear what is at stake here. We are in a 
crisis. Our economy is in a free fall. The people we represent and 
families are suffering. The healthcare system is under tremendous 
stress.
  I spent the morning on the phone, talking to Ohioans and small 
business owners, people who are out of a job and worried and nervous. 
We all know somebody who has lost a job. We all know somebody who has 
tested positive for this virus. Some of us, including me, know somebody 
who has died from the coronavirus.
  We need to pull together as Republicans and Democrats, as Americans, 
and address this crisis. I got to listen this afternoon to colleagues 
of mine on the other side of the aisle talk about the legislation that 
is before us, and I have to tell you, it was like they were

[[Page S1938]]

talking about another bill, not the one that we actually are asking 
Democrats to allow us to vote on.
  The one we are asking them to allow us to vote on is the product of a 
bipartisan process. The majority leader set up five different task 
forces. Each task force is represented by Republicans and Democrats. I 
was in one of them--two Republicans and two Democrats. We sat down, and 
we hammered out details. We took Democratic ideas, and they are 
represented in the legislation.
  This process we have gone through--very different, by the way, from 
what happened in the House with regard to the first bill. We got an 
$8.3 billion healthcare bill. We also had a phase 2 bill, which is 
about $200 billion, that provided free testing and health insurance and 
healthcare and paid leave.
  Now we have this bill that is $1.8 trillion--$1.8 trillion. That is 
about as big as our entire domestic discretionary spending, which we 
approve here every year. Yet Democrats are saying that it is not enough 
money.
  So the most charitable way to describe what the Democrats are asking 
for now--although Senator Barrasso did a good job of laying out some of 
the outrageous demands that have come up that have nothing to do with 
coronavirus--but the most charitable way to say it is that they want 
more money. They want more money for States. They want more money for 
hospitals. They want more money for so many things.
  Guess what. There is $1.8 trillion in this bill, including billions 
of dollars--hundreds of billions of dollars--for those purposes. If we 
find out in 3 weeks, in 6 weeks, or in 2 months we need to do more, we 
will. But that is not an excuse for stopping the progress of this 
legislation now when it is so badly needed.
  One of the calls I got this morning was from a small business owner. 
Do you know what he said to me? He said the same thing I am sure all of 
my colleagues are hearing, which is this: I am watching; I am waiting; 
I don't want to pull the trigger and let my employees go. I started 
this business. I started it from scratch, and now I have to see the 
prospect of these people, whom I know and love, losing their jobs. I am 
waiting. I am waiting to see what you do today.
  The country is waiting. The markets are waiting. People are hurting. 
They are suffering, but they are waiting to see if we can get our act 
together and actually come up with something that helps them. And do 
you know what? This legislation does exactly what all of us, I thought, 
wanted to do.
  There are three things it does. One, it helps keep people at work. We 
want people to stay with their employer, have a job, have their 
healthcare, and have their retirement. Two, it helps workers who, 
through no fault of their own, lose their jobs. This legislation does 
that. And, three, let's get this healthcare crisis under control. Let's 
slow the spread of the coronavirus. All three of those things are 
precisely what is in this legislation.
  Last night, I went through in detail and described every detail of 
how it addresses that and where the bipartisan ideas came from. I won't 
do that now because I see the majority leader on the floor, and I want 
him to have an opportunity to speak. But I will tell you, those three 
objectives are in this legislation--specifically laid out in this 
legislation.
  On the healthcare side, which is so important, we need more masks; we 
need more gowns; we need more ventilators; we need more respirators; 
and we need to have more testing and a system to track that. That is in 
this legislation. There is over $4 billion to CDC to do exactly that. 
We need to have some data, some metrics, some measurements to know how 
we are doing and to be able to get out of this crisis because, until we 
deal with the healthcare crisis, we will continue to have this failure 
of our economic system because we are letting people down right now.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. PORTMAN. I will yield.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, beyond what the Senator is accurately 
pointing out, they put us in the following procedural position. By 
refusing to jump over some of these procedural steps along the way--it 
would not disadvantage their negotiating one bit--they have put us in a 
position where one Senator 1 of 100--1--could keep us here until Friday 
or Saturday.
  Our constituents are saying to act now--as the Senator from Ohio was 
pointing out--minus procedural roadblocks in a time of national 
emergency.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, reclaiming my time, that is added to the 
absolutely inaccurate descriptions I have heard from the other side as 
to what is in this legislation.
  In other words, they are blocking us from moving forward, creating 
the procedural hurdles that the majority leader just talked about, but 
also doing so by telling the American people, for instance, there is 
not enough in here for small businesses. My gosh, this is an 
unprecedented program for small businesses, something we have never 
done before. We are telling businesses: If you are paying your 
employees to stay there, you not only get a loan, you get a grant
  They say there was not enough in here to help people who are falling 
between the cracks. It is an unprecedented unemployment insurance 
system that we are setting up here.
  By the way, if you look at the unemployment insurance side, look at 
it this way. What we are saying is that we want to increase by eight 
times the cost of the national unemployment insurance system. That is 
how I look at it. It is an additional $600 per week, per person. It is 
a broader employment system because we are going to bring in people who 
are self-employed, people who run the gig economy--something that we 
should be doing as a matter of reform, perhaps, but in this case we 
have to do it. These people are hurting too. This is unprecedented to 
provide people who are low- and moderate-income Americans the ability 
to have wage replacement through unemployment insurance. That has never 
been done before. That is in this legislation.
  This is a rescue package. It is to help people weather the storm. It 
is to ensure that we have the ability to say to the people who are 
calling us and saying ``Please help us'' that help is on the way.
  Are we going to solve every problem in this one bill? No, although 
$1.8 trillion goes a long way toward solving the problem. But we will 
be back here again. We will be back here to ensure that we can fine-
tune this legislation. And if we need to react to other challenges, we 
have to do that because our constituents need it. This is a crisis.
  But in the meantime, let's pass this legislation. It does help small 
businesses and keep people at work. It does protect those workers who 
lose their job through no fault of their own. It does take our 
healthcare system, which is under such tremendous stress, and improve 
it in every respect to deal with this coronavirus, to slow the spread 
and ensure that we can tell the American people: Not only are you going 
to be safer and healthier if this legislation passes, but guess what, 
you have a fair chance of keeping your job and being able to take care 
of your family.
  With that, I yield to my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, let me just make clear what happened over 
the course of the last couple of days, because I heard many of my 
colleagues come down to the floor today and claim that this is a 
bipartisan bill that is on the floor of the U.S. Senate today, which 
would strike a lot of Americans as curious because the votes are not 
bipartisan, so how could that be? How could it be a bipartisan process, 
as has been claimed by my Republican colleagues, yet there is not 
bipartisan agreement?
  Well, let's start from the beginning. Instead of deciding to write 
this legislation from the beginning, with Republicans and Democrats in 
the room, the leader decided to write the bill initially, bringing 
together a consensus of Republican Senators and then bringing Democrats 
to the table. And there was a period of time--for about 24 hours--in 
which Democrats were in the room, and we were making progress, and that 
was a great 24 hours. And then, on Saturday night, all of a sudden, 
Democrats were let out of the room. And on Sunday morning, lobbyists on 
K Street sent a draft of legislation to chiefs of staff here that 
Democrats had no part in writing. So you can't call it a bipartisan 
piece of legislation if Democrats

[[Page S1939]]

weren't involved in the beginning, and then they were let out of the 
room at the end.

  We appreciate having some input in the middle, but we clearly ended 
up with a product that doesn't have bipartisan buy-in, and much of that 
is because of the process that led us here.
  The decision could have been made to include both parties at the 
table from the very beginning because, guess what. We do have 
differences of opinion. We do have different ways of looking at this 
crisis.
  And our objections, our policy objections--I mean, spare me the 
righteous indignation about Democrats trying to settle outside 
political scores in the context of this legislation. Let me tell you 
what I care about.
  What I care about is making sure that if we are going to spend $2 
trillion, we spend it wisely. And if you spend $2 trillion, and you 
don't stop the virus, then you haven't done anything meaningful in the 
long run because this is, first, a public health crisis that is causing 
an economic crisis.
  So, yes, one of the things that is an open issue in negotiations 
right now is whether we are putting in enough money for healthcare 
providers, nursing homes, hospitals, States, and municipalities to give 
them the resources to stop this virus in its tracks. We don't believe 
that this bill, today, has enough resources in it for States, 
municipalities, hospitals, nursing homes, and healthcare providers to 
stop the virus.
  We don't think that this Congress is serious enough about the crisis 
in the medical supply chain today, in which our States and our 
hospitals and our healthcare providers are engaged in a ``Lord of the 
Flies'' environment, where they are trying to bid against each other 
for scarce medical supplies. We think this bill shortchanges the people 
who are actually going to stop this virus in its tracks.
  So, yes, we don't think it is wise to rush to spend $2 trillion if 
the bill doesn't stop the public health epidemic. That is a policy 
disagreement we have. It is a policy disagreement we have. And had 
Democrats been in the room with Republicans at the beginning, middle, 
and end, we wouldn't be here today.
  As many Republicans who want can come down to the floor and say that 
it is one party who is responsible for this impasse, but had Democrats 
not been ushered out of the negotiations on Saturday night, had 
Democrats been there from the beginning, we likely wouldn't be here.
  Second, yes, we do have policy disagreements over how we spend the 
enormous amount of money that is going to end up in the hands of 
corporations. And for those of us who were here in 2008, for those of 
us who voted for that bailout bill, we have regrets and reservations 
about how that went down because much of that money ended up in the 
pockets of CEOs and shareholders.
  Now, I get it. We want to get the money out fast, and you are not 
going to be able to account for every single dollar, but what we are 
talking about here, which is applying very minimal conditions for job 
retention to literally hundreds of billions of dollars of my taxpayer 
money, is not wise policy.
  If we don't have assurances that the billions of dollars that we are 
going to hand to big companies is used to preserve jobs, then I am 
going to tell you that my constituents don't want to spend that money 
unless they know that it is going to hold on to jobs, and we have 
policy disagreements about that right now.
  I take my Republican friends at their word that they believe that the 
restrictions in the bill are good enough. We don't think they are. We 
don't think they are. And so we think we should work together 
throughout the day to get this right, to make sure that every dollar is 
there that is necessary to stop this virus, to stop looking at it as an 
economic crisis first and a public health crisis second, and that we 
should make sure that there are real requirements on this $2 trillion 
to make sure that it doesn't end up in the hands of people who don't 
need it; that it ends up protecting jobs--not just in the hope of 
protecting jobs but the actual result is protecting jobs.
  These are policy disagreements we have, but they are disagreements 
that we are still fighting over today because of the process--because 
of the process.
  So you are angry, and we are angry. We are angry for being shut out 
at the beginning, and we are angry for being shut out at the end. Our 
Republican colleagues knew they couldn't pass anything without 60 
votes. They knew, as they were developing this legislation, that they 
needed to get bipartisan buy-in. And yet there was a limited 
opportunity for us to have input here, and now we are engaged in a 
series of votes that are forgone conclusions until we get on the same 
page.
  And we can because, from what I understand--and I admit, I am not one 
of the negotiators in the room, but from what I understand, these are 
not unbridgeable differences. These are not unbridgeable differences. 
We can figure out a way to put tighter controls on the funding that is 
going to companies and corporations. Let's just make sure that if we 
are going to spend $2 trillion, we spend it right and make sure we 
aren't shortchanging our States and our hospitals.
  There are provisions in the first draft of this bill that would limit 
which kind of providers get Medicaid dollars and which will not. Our 
belief is that that language actually leaves a whole bunch of 
healthcare providers out in the cold.
  Now, some have said that was intentional. That was because 
Republicans didn't want Medicaid dollars to go to abortion providers. 
That sounds like politics to me, but that is just something I read in 
the paper. I don't know that that is true.
  What I do know is that, whether or not that decision was about 
politics--the politics of reproductive healthcare--it still is just not 
good policy to leave a whole bunch of healthcare providers outside when 
it comes to the additional Medicaid money that is absolutely necessary 
to make sure we have what it takes to stand up defenses against this 
virus. That is a policy difference.
  I could sit here making accusations that Republicans are bringing 
outside political issues into this process, like Senator Barrasso made 
accusations about Democrats, but aside from that question, it just 
still is not good policy to limit the number of healthcare providers 
who can get this additional Medicaid money when everybody is in this 
together, when we know that every single healthcare institution, by the 
end of this week, is going to be dealing with patients who have 
positive tests for COVID-19.
  These are policy differences but policy differences that didn't have 
to be outstanding today had the process, run by the majority party, 
been different and been more inclusive.

  I agree that back home my constituents do not care about who takes 
credit for this and who drafts it. They want a bill done. They want 
assurances that money is on the way.
  I think we have agreement on big pieces of this. I may not love the 
small business provision of this bill. I put a different concept on the 
table that I think is better than the one my Democratic and Republican 
colleagues have come up with. But do you know what? On that front, I 
will not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
  I think we have made tremendous progress on employment compensation 
insurance. There are big titles of this bill that I think are in good 
places. We should be working out the details of those outstanding 
issues right now rather than spending all of our time on the floor 
casting broadsides against each other.
  I understand my Republican colleagues are complimenting themselves on 
how many of them are down here on the floor blaming Democrats. You are 
right. There are not as many Democrats here levying the same charges 
against Republicans, but it would be better if we were all spending 
time trying to work out these final differences because we can get 
there. We can get there.
  I think we can get there by the end of the day if Republicans are 
committed to making sure that we attack the virus first, that we don't 
shortchange the public health response, and that we make sure our 
taxpayers don't end up subsidizing the profits and pocketbooks of 
people who don't need any more help from this government.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, our country is facing a crisis. Maybe I 
don't

[[Page S1940]]

need to whisper that. Our country is facing a crisis.
  I have served many times over--many times over--in crisis: floods, 
hurricanes, and war in a slightly different suit.
  We are facing a crisis. We have three States that have had National 
Guardsmen activated in support of the coronavirus pandemic. We are in a 
crisis. And right now, right here in Congress, we have the ability--the 
duty--to act and to provide additional, much needed relief to the 
American people.
  Last night, and, unfortunately, yet again today, have been very, very 
disappointing displays of putting partisan politics ahead of the 
immediate needs of the American people. Now, some would call this 
righteous indignation. I say, no, it is fighting for the American 
people.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle delayed--no, let's say it 
the way it is. They blocked--they blocked--this package to move to 
cloture to further debate this bill, this bipartisan relief package.
  Let me make this clear. The votes we have been taking haven't even 
been on the final bill. It is simply a way for us to continue 
negotiating and debating on a path forward on a bipartisan relief 
package--a package that, again--I am going to echo what my colleague 
from Ohio said--was written in a bipartisan way, two Republicans and 
two Democrats from those lead committees assigned to these task forces.
  Folks, Iowans deserve better than this. All Americans deserve better 
than this. This is no time for political games and partisan wish 
lists--and, yes, there are partisan wish lists out there--of things 
that have nothing to do with the immediate needs of this pandemic. This 
is a time for action, folks, and it is a time for leadership.
  Look, folks, the Senate took up a House-led phase 2 package that many 
of us considered not perfect. Phase 2, now, let's keep that in mind. 
There are many phases going on during this pandemic. Phase 2, we didn't 
feel that was perfect. Well, what happens when a phase 2 is not 
perfect? You move to a phase 3 because we need relief. We put our 
differences aside here in the Senate, and we supported--we supported 
the phase 2 package and provided the second round of immediate relief 
for our workers, our families, our seniors, and our businesses across 
the country. Why? Folks, gosh, darn it, it is the right thing to do. 
Why can't my Democratic colleagues do the same?
  We need to be working in the most efficient and effective way 
possible to get immediate relief to the men, the women, and the 
children across this country. We need to give them what they need.
  I have spoken directly with Iowans by phone all week: the small 
businessowners, the members of our ag community, many workers at our 
hospitals and in our healthcare industry, these moms and dads, the 
employees and employers, the grandmas and the grandpas, nurses and 
doctors, small businessowners, farmers, and veterans; you name it. They 
are all in crisis at this very moment. I can't tell you how many of 
those Iowans were crying on the phone with me. They keep saying: We 
need it now. We need relief now.
  Maybe you don't think, across the aisle, that phase 3 is perfect, 
but--you know what--the longer we delay this, the more Iowans I am 
going to hear crying on the other end of the phone. Not one of them has 
told me: Don't pass this bill. Not a single one of them. What they have 
said is it needs to be done today.
  Again, I will remind you that there are States where we have 
mobilized National Guard soldiers. The President and those Governors 
don't just mobilize National Guard soldiers because it is a fun thing 
to do. They do it because we are a nation in crisis.
  Just overnight in Iowa, we had 15 more cases, and that is a total of 
105 cases of coronavirus in my home State. That is not a lot compared 
to other States, but--you know what--Iowa is not populated a lot like 
other States. In Iowa, 105 is a lot.
  Just a couple hours ago, I was on a call with Iowa's State leaders 
who were at the State Emergency Operations Center. Let me say that 
again--Emergency Operations Center, an EOC. You don't just set those up 
for fun, folks. You set them up when your State is in crisis.
  They gave us a picture of what is going on with our workers and our 
small businesses on the ground in Iowa. Within 3 hours, the State 
received over 11,000 calls for unemployment insurance, and 2,000 of 
them are self-employed. They will not qualify for unemployment 
insurance. You know what would relieve their hurt? This package, phase 
3.
  Meanwhile, my Democratic colleagues are holding this bill up that 
would actually deliver the relief that is necessary for these workers 
whom I just mentioned for things that have nothing to do with a crisis. 
Senate Democrats are stalling funding for hospitals and small 
businesses until they get to jam through their Green New Deal. You tell 
me: What does placing emissions standards on airlines have to do with 
getting Iowa families and workers the relief they need right now?
  The Green New Deal was brought up on this very floor last year. How 
many of them voted for it? None. None. Big zero. Big zero. They didn't 
believe in it then, so why are they trying to jam it through now?
  Americans from every corner of this Nation are looking to the Senate 
for more help. This is an extraordinary situation, folks, and it 
requires an extraordinary response. This is, arguably, the biggest bill 
ever--nearly $2 trillion of funding. But is that enough? If we were 
offering up $3 trillion, would it be enough? If it were $4 trillion, 
would it be enough?
  I guarantee you that our friends on the other side of the aisle would 
say: Oh, that is not enough. We need the Green New Deal. We need XYZ--
which has nothing to do with the COVID-19 crisis.
  We are better than this. Let's come together in a bipartisan way, as 
we have done through much of this process. We took up phase 2. We 
supported it. I was glad to support it because it was the right thing 
to do. Let's deliver for the American people. It is our duty. We do not 
have time to delay. We must pass this additional relief now.
  Again, it is phase 3. There may be many more phases to go. And if the 
Democrats believe it is the right thing to do, they will get this 
package done today, and we will move on and have discussions for yet 
another phase.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, America is in crisis. Time is of the 
essence, and the Senate needs to work on a bipartisan basis to get the 
job done and get it done today, without delay.
  We see our fellow Americans all across this country uniting at this 
time of crisis--neighbors helping neighbors, people helping throughout 
their communities. We are watching our healthcare workers on the 
frontlines of fighting this virus, true heroes who are putting 
themselves at risk every day in order to help patients coming in the 
door.
  They are facing extreme shortages in personal protective equipment. 
We need to rush that out in much greater volumes to protect them. We 
still have a huge shortage of tests in this country and got caught way 
behind the curve, and we are having to catch up. We are trying to 
manufacture ventilators to help those who are sick and those who may 
get sick.
  In doing that, Americans are coming together. We have seen stories of 
notices going out to dentists' offices and others who have important 
personal protective equipment like masks but aren't needing them right 
now, to try to rush those to local hospitals.
  We have seen nurses and doctors and other healthcare workers on the 
frontline coming together, and that is exactly what this Senate and 
House need to do. We need to do what Americans around the country are 
doing, uniting to help one another and help our country.
  We did that on rounds 1 and 2. We worked very quickly to put together 
an $8.3 billion package for round 1. What did that include? More 
resources for our public health infrastructure, more resources to try 
to accelerate the development of a vaccine and therapeutics. That was 
all good work.
  On round 2, what did we do? We said we want to make sure that tests 
for the coronavirus are free because we don't want Americans not going 
to get tests because they can't afford them. We had to fight for that 
on the Democratic

[[Page S1941]]

side, but it became bipartisan in the end. We worked to provide more 
paid sick leave because we don't think it is a good idea for workers 
who are living paycheck to paycheck to feel like they have got to go to 
work when they are sick even if it means they are going to potentially 
spread the virus. We want to make sure that they can pay the bills at 
home and stay home and not spread the virus.
  The provision in round 2 regarding paid sick leave was good. There 
are still big gaps in it. So how did rounds 1 and 2 come to pass? I 
hear talk over here that this is all a House initiative. Actually, it 
was a bipartisan initiative. The White House sat down with Speaker 
Pelosi, Secretary Mnuchin with Speaker Pelosi, and they hammered out 
rounds 1 and 2 in a bipartisan fashion. They came to the U.S. Senate, 
and they were passed with big bipartisan votes.
  We need that same bipartisan spirit now. I have been listening in to 
some of the conversation on the floor. First of all, I keep hearing 
there aren't Democrats on the floor. Well, we are coming.
  The other thing I keep hearing is let's blame Speaker Pelosi. I mean, 
this is pretty amazing. This bill is in the U.S. Senate. We are having 
discussions right now, Democrats and Republicans. We are having 
discussions right now, Democratic Senators and Republican Senators and 
the White House--again, primarily with Secretary Mnuchin--yet I am 
listening to people on the floor blaming Speaker Pelosi.
  Well, guess how rounds 1 and 2 actually happened? They happened 
because Speaker Pelosi sat down with the Trump administration and they 
hammered it out on a bipartisan basis and came over here. This time--
this time--the majority leader, Senator McConnell, wanted to start the 
process in the Senate. So let's get it done. Don't go pointing fingers 
at Speaker Pelosi. She is not here.
  I keep hearing about the House wanting a Green New Deal as part of 
this emergency package. That is a total red herring. I even looked at 
the list of ideas that the House put out, including Speaker Pelosi's. 
There is no Green New Deal on this thing.
  So let's get real. So why can't we vote today, again, except for by 
unanimous consent? It is not because of the Democrats' vote. It is 
because the leader, the Republican leader, chose to bring up that vote. 
That was a motion to proceed to the cloture vote. It was a cloture 
vote--a motion to proceed to cloture on the motion to proceed. That is 
what it was.
  So what did the leader know? He knew that we are still engaged in 
negotiations. They are going on right now. Hopefully, when all of us on 
the floor leave here, we will continue to engage. But the leader knew 
that the votes were not there for that motion, that cloture motion. Yet 
he burned the one opportunity he would have today on that vote, knowing 
it wouldn't succeed.
  He could have waited 1 hour. He could have waited 2 hours. He could 
have waited 3 hours. He chose to hold that vote knowing it would fail. 
That is a self-inflicted wound on the U.S. Senate and on the American 
people at this moment.
  Because of that decision, we will have the earliest opportunity to 
vote again on Wednesday. That was the decision Leader McConnell made 
when he decided to hold that vote today, knowing he did not have 60 
votes, knowing that the negotiations were going on right now.
  So he is right. If we want to have a vote between now and Wednesday, 
we have to do it by unanimous consent. I hope we get to that point, 
but--make no mistake--the vote that was held earlier could have waited 
until later today. It could have waited until we got closer to an 
agreement.
  And here is the tragedy of it. We are getting pretty close on a lot 
of important issues. We are still far away on some, but we are getting 
close on some very important issues: unemployment insurance. As we 
speak, people are losing their jobs. We know that. Small businesses are 
shutting their doors. They started days ago having to shut their doors 
in the case of restaurants and bars and many other establishments.
  We need to attack that from two angles. One is the unemployment 
insurance system, and we have made great progress in these discussions 
on that. What do we have to do when it comes to unemployment insurance? 
Well, we should work to make sure that somebody who is losing their job 
through no fault of their own because of the coronavirus--because they 
are working for an establishment like a restaurant that has to shut its 
doors--has 100 percent wage replacement for the period of time of this 
emergency. We wanted 6 months. Republicans wanted 3 months. I think we 
have got right now, in the draft, 4 months. OK. That is a compromise.
  We also wanted to make sure UI could cover people who are not part of 
the traditional UI system: part-time workers, the self-employed, 
independent contractors, gig workers. So we have worked together on a 
bipartisan basis to make sure that we try to get those people help 
through UI as well, even though they are not part of the traditional 
system. We are trying to streamline the process by which they can 
demonstrate that they have been making an income so that they can get 
help through UI in this emergency moment.
  We are pretty close on that. We have worked together on small and 
even midsized businesses because they are getting hammered right now 
across the country. We are all hearing from them, and they have had to 
let off their employees, in many cases, under very painful 
circumstances. They don't want to let their employees go, but no 
customers in the door means no sales, means no income. You still have 
to pay your rent, if you are a small business, or your mortgage. You 
have other fixed costs.
  So we have come together to work to try to provide a small business 
plan that would provide funds to those small businesses so that they 
can keep people on their payroll and, if they have already had to let 
them go, rehire them and also meet their fixed costs.
  And if they spend the money the way it is directed--meaning for 
necessary, fixed costs and for employees--then, at the end of the day, 
that loan can be forgiven because we don't want small businesses to 
have to go through 3 months with no money through the door and just 
have a huge pile of bills they can't repay at the end of the day. We 
have also tried to expand that to include midsized businesses.

  We are making progress on important things. Those conversations are 
going on as we speak, but there are some areas where we need to reach 
final agreement. One of them is proper oversight and safeguards on the 
$500 billion fund to help some of the biggest businesses in the 
country.
  We need to make sure we don't allow this economy to go into free 
fall, but I hope we would all agree that we don't want a major 
corporation getting taxpayer dollars and going and doing another stock 
buyback or for big employee compensation. There is some language in 
there, but then there are waiver provisions.
  I hope we would at least put the safeguards in this provision that we 
did in TARP, which was the rescue package in 2008. That was much 
maligned. For many good reasons, there were not adequate protections to 
make sure that moneys were spent in an accountable way.
  Don't we want to make sure the $500 billion is spent in an 
accountable way? I don't know why it is taking us so long to come to an 
agreement on that. I don't think our Republican colleagues would want 
to give any administration a blank check to spend $500 billion however 
they want, without any clear safeguards or some process for 
accountability.
  That is what we are talking about now. Maybe we could resolve that in 
2 hours; maybe we could resolve it in 3. Then we could have had the 
vote. But the majority leader burned that vote. He burned that vote by 
having it when he knew the votes weren't there and when he knew 
conversations were still going on.
  I was in my office listening to this discussion on the floor of the 
Senate with the majority leader all upset. He brought that on this body 
by holding that vote as negotiations were going on.
  What else do we need to work on still? We all got a letter from the 
National Governors Association, bipartisan--Republicans and Democrats--
saying: Hey, we are the States; we are on the frontlines of this; we 
need some help.

[[Page S1942]]

  I don't know if all my colleagues on the floor know it, but just 
about 48 hours ago, the position of the Republican Senate leadership 
was: No, we are not going to deal with those big issues now. We will do 
it another day.
  Those are issues pressing right now. We are hearing that from 
Republican and Democratic Governors. We are hearing it from mayors. We 
heard it from the National League of Cities. Don't you think it is 
worth spending a couple of hours so that we can hash all that out 
before you call a vote where you know the outcome in advance?
  FMAP--these are Republican and Democratic Governors pointing out they 
need more Federal help on the healthcare and medical front as more and 
more people are coming in the doors. Don't you think we can work that 
out in the next couple of hours? Why hold a vote that you know is going 
to fail and means you can't hold the next one until Wednesday without 
unanimous consent? I hope my Republican colleagues will ask the 
majority leader that question.
  We have made a lot of progress on some very important parts of this 
bill, but we also have a fair distance to go. But a fair distance in 
terms of getting to an agreement doesn't mean it has to take all day. 
We should be able to come to an agreement on many of these things.
  The administration took an appropriate action, saying that they don't 
want landlords to be able to foreclosure on certain mortgages. I think 
we should all work together to make sure that people don't get thrown 
out of their homes through foreclosures--or evicted from their homes if 
they are renters--during this period of time if it turns out they don't 
have the income to pay those bills. I hope we can work that out too. I 
hope there will be agreement on that measure.
  Instead of playing political games on the floor of the Senate and 
calling a vote where the outcome was predetermined because we are still 
negotiating on a bipartisan basis--instead of doing that, let's get 
this job done.
  To listen to Members of the U.S. Senate who are negotiating this here 
try to blame the House of Representatives and Speaker Pelosi--come on, 
that is just political rhetoric. The House passed rounds 1 and 2; they 
did it on a bipartisan basis, speaking with the administration and 
Secretary Mnuchin. They did that. It is the Senate right now that can't 
get its job done.
  Let's stop playing games--procedural games. Let's hammer this out, as 
we have been trying to do. We have made progress. We can close the 
distance, and then if we can get all that done, we could actually bring 
it up by unanimous consent anytime.
  Let's do what the American people are doing: Let's unite at this time 
of crisis; let's unite for the good of the country. We did it on rounds 
1 and 2. Let's do it to help save our economy and fight the healthcare 
fight against the coronavirus. I am confident--I am confident--if we 
put our minds to it, we can get the job done for the American people.
  Let's go back to work. Let's complete these negotiations, and maybe 
we can come back in a couple of hours with a proposal that gets the 
consent and support of this entire body.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Ernst). The Senator from Montana
  Mr. DAINES. Madam President, the health and livelihoods of the 
American people are at risk; they are in danger. We cannot afford to 
keep squabbling and arguing in the U.S. Senate. Time is not on our 
side. Each day matters. In fact, every hour matters.
  As we look at the stats coming in terms of those who have been 
infected with COVID-19, it is literally hour by hour. This is a 
logarithmic kind of scale. This is a doubling-every-day kind of scale 
that is going on. Hours matter; minutes matter.
  Like many of my colleagues in the U.S. Senate, I have been talking to 
Montanans around the clock to get their feedback--hospital leaders, ag 
groups, Tribal leaders, small business leaders, construction workers.
  We are in a public health and an economic crisis. I have not sensed 
fear like this from the American people anytime in my life. I remember 
9/11. I remember the crisis of 2008. I remember the 1987 crash. Those 
pale in comparison to what we are seeing today at this very moment in 
our country.
  This is a time that we need to come together. This is a time we must 
get this done for the good of our country. Neither side is going to be 
happy with the final product. That is part of negotiations. It is give, 
and it is get. The Senate bill before us provides relief for workers, 
for families, for small businesses, and for healthcare professionals.
  I have heard some things said today on the U.S. Senate that are 
flatout not true. Let me set some of the facts straight--what this bill 
before us does do. It provides $250 billion of unemployment insurance 
for those who have lost their jobs during the coronavirus outbreak--
$250 billion. What that means in Montana is $600 a week. That is twice 
as big as what is currently paid per week. It is $4 billion for masks, 
for gowns, for gloves, ventilators. It is the PPE discussion I just had 
a couple of hours ago with some of my hospital leaders and doctors and 
medical leaders across Montana. They are scared. There is a shortage of 
PPE. This bill provides $4 billion to CDC to address that. I will tell 
you what: By dinking around here over this today, we lost another day 
when we could be moving forward to get it in the hands of our 
healthcare professionals.
  It provides $350 billion to allow our small businesses survive and 
rebound. We have had some very healthy, prosperous, good small 
businesses employ a lot of people in Montana. These are good jobs. Now 
they are not just worried about liquidity; they are worried about 
insolvency. These are ranchers. These are restaurant owners.
  It provides $10.5 billion for drug development to treat and prevent 
the virus. Listen, we will not stop the panic we see right now in our 
country until we stop the pandemic. We will not stop this pandemic 
until we have drugs available for the American people that will provide 
immunity to them.
  There is great hope on the horizon. There are amazing vaccines. There 
are amazing monoclonal antibodies through incredible ingenuity and 
innovation that we can provide to the American people before the second 
wave hits this fall.
  You talk to the doctors, our best leaders at NIH, at the FDA, at the 
CDC; they are telling us there is probably a second wave pandemic 
coming in the fall of 2020 if we don't act now because, as is true with 
most of the world, we don't have the immune systems here to combat this 
virus--this coronavirus--that produces COVID-19. You either get the 
immunity from catching the disease or getting a vaccine or these other 
drugs that can provide the antibodies.
  There is good news on the horizon. What did we do in this bill? We 
are going to allow the acceleration of manufacturing so we can get this 
into a widespread distribution for the American people to protect them 
in the next flu season when most scientists believe we will probably 
get hit with this again.
  We just lost another day here in the U.S. Senate. Every day matters. 
We have vaccine trials going on, as we speak, in Seattle. They started 
on Monday. There are 45 individuals who received a vaccine that we 
believe can protect you from the coronavirus. Can you imagine the good 
news for the American people if we found out we have a vaccine that 
will protect us; we have a drug that will protect us; we have 
therapeutics that will help us if we contract the coronavirus. We just 
lost another day that could be a day we could have been closer to 
getting that into the hands of the American people.
  We are in a race for time. We are now into the end of March. We have 
to get this available by September to the American people. This is 
literally an all-of-government, Manhattan Project kind of approach. And 
we just lost another day here because we couldn't get this passed in 
the U.S. Senate.
  This also provides $75 billion for our hospitals and our healthcare 
providers. Those are the men and women on the frontlines right now, 
saving lives. God bless them--$75 billion for them.
  If you heard the Democrats talk about this bill, you would think 
there is nothing here for the average, hard-working person in this 
country. That is absolutely false, and we can lay it all out.
  There are parts of the bill that I don't like. There are parts of 
this bill

[[Page S1943]]

that I would change. But we have to be satisfied now with a good 80 for 
20 because speed matters. It matters to get something done. The 
American people are looking here. The dysfunction in Washington they 
don't understand. Frankly, I don't either.
  This bill before us was written by Republicans and Democrats. I will 
tell you why I know that--because I was part of helping negotiate to 
get $10 billion for this acceleration of vaccines and drug program. I 
went in this weekend. We were sitting, looking at spreadsheets that 
said here is the Republican ask; here is the Democrat ask. There are 
spreadsheets. We can show them to you. We were going back and forth in 
a bipartisan way to try to craft a bill that we could pass in the 
Senate last night.
  In fact, the American people are watching, both sides, in this ping 
pong match where one side says one thing, and the other side says the 
other.
  Sometimes I look to people like Susan Collins and Lamar Alexander at 
moments like this. I think few Americans, few Senators, would claim 
that either Lamar or Susan are hyperpartisan Senators. They have a 
pretty good temperature of the Senate. They have a good sense of 
finding ways to make things work. When you hear Senator Susan Collins 
outraged at what happened when Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi 
basically put the brakes on the discussions, we lost another day--maybe 
two--by demanding that this bill include an ideological wish list. 
Susan Collins is outraged. Lamar Alexander was shocked.
  Let me tell you something: When Susan Collins is outraged and Lamar 
Alexander is shocked about what is going on around here, that tells you 
something. You can discount what I am saying here--and many Republican 
Senators and Democratic Senators--but those two Senators are viewed as 
some of the most bipartisan Senators here, and when they are outraged 
and shocked, that tells you what is going on in terms of one of the low 
levels of partisanship we have achieved in the U.S. Senate over the 
course of the last couple of days. This obstruction will create a 
devastating impact on American workers, on families, and small 
businesses. They are pushing for things that have nothing to do with 
the public health and economic crisis we are facing today. The issues 
they are pushing have nothing to do with overcoming this pandemic.

  In a global pandemic, some have tossed aside bipartisanship to push 
for airline emissions standards.
  I was told there is no such thing as a House bill. That is false. 
Here is Nancy Pelosi's House bill. She is part of the discussions. Why? 
Because we need something that can pass the Senate quickly now and then 
go to the House even more quickly.
  Let me tell the American people something else. The House is not here 
this week. I was just speaking with a Montanan on the phone off the 
floor of the Senate a few minutes ago. I was describing what is going 
on. He was despondent, by the way, fearing both the pandemic and also 
the economic panic because he is losing his business.
  I said: Do you realize the U.S. House is not even in town right now?
  He said: I didn't know that.
  They are not. They left town last week. They are not here. At a 
moment when the country needs us, the House left town. They are not 
here as we speak. I think that has been lost in the discussion.
  We can debate some of their ideological requests another time down 
the road. I mean, here is one from Pelosi's bill: the full offset of 
domestic airline emissions by 2025 for airlines that need assistance. 
This is section 1 of the Pelosi bill. It is right here. We can have a 
debate another time whether they should have part of this New Green 
Deal to offset emissions. Now is not the time for that debate. Now is 
the time to save the American people both economically and with their 
health.
  We need to get our priorities straight. That means putting the 
American people first. This is not a stimulus package. That is the 
wrong name for it. This is not a recovery package. That is the wrong 
name for it. This is a rescue package. What we are debating right now 
is a rescue package. We must come together on both sides.
  The coronavirus is not partisan. It crosses party lines. It crosses 
country boundaries. This is a global challenge on the shores of our 
country. It was time for both sides to come together and vote this bill 
out of the Senate yesterday, but that didn't happen. The next best time 
is today.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides to set aside the perfect and move 
forward with this to restore the confidence of the American people for 
their health and their economic well-being.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. COTTON. Madam President, the United States is in the middle of a 
global pandemic, probably the worst public health crisis in over 100 
years this country has faced. Every minute matters, every hour, every 
day. I have been saying this for 2 months now. Yet where are the 
Democrats? There is not a single one of them down here right now. Where 
have they been all afternoon? There was maybe one, two, or three. 
Probably every Republican over here has spoken because twice in less 
than 24 hours, the Democrats have refused to even start debate on 
legislation that would help the American people and our economy survive 
this crisis; that would provide over $3,000 to your average working 
family in just the coming weeks; that would provide extra unemployment 
benefits to the millions of Americans who already lost their jobs and 
regrettably are going to lose their jobs; that would provide loans to 
our small- and medium-size businesses so they won't have to lay off 
those Americans as they struggle to pay the bills; that would help 
industries that have been devastated, like the hotel industry. 
Thousands and thousands of hard-working Americans clean the rooms, make 
the beds, cook the food--all of whom desperately need help. The 
Democrats won't even start debate on that legislation. That is what 
they have done twice. They have not voted to defeat any legislation; 
they have voted to not even start debate.
  In fact, earlier today, Susan Collins--probably the kindest, most 
decent, most bipartisan Senator--took the floor to speak, and Chuck 
Schumer blocked her. He refused to allow her to speak, probably because 
he was scared of what she had to say and probably, just like there are 
no Democrats here right now, because they know they don't have anything 
to say. They have no case to make.
  Earlier today, Sherrod Brown was accusing us of not acting quickly 
enough on Nancy Pelosi's legislation that the House passed, popped 
smoke, and left town for more than a week. I asked a simple 
question: When did the House bill arrived in the Senate? He refused to 
answer. I asked him again that simple question. He refused to answer 
and rather engaged in ad hominem attacks, which is his weak and sad way 
of saying he has no answer, which is so often the case with the Senator 
from Ohio.

  They come down here and they attack the Republicans for wanting 
corporate bailouts. They say we want to bail out corporations. Nothing 
could be further from the truth. Any large company that borrows money 
from the Treasury or takes advantage of Federal Reserve programs will 
have onerous terms attached to it and will have lots of strings as 
well. We insisted that only loans be available, not grants, not cash 
handouts.
  Do you know what the Democrats are advocating for behind closed 
doors? Behind closed doors, the Democrats are demanding free cash 
handouts for the airlines. Right through that door right there is Chuck 
Schumer's office. They are demanding free cash giveaways for major 
corporations, and they have the nerve to come down here and accuse us 
of bailouts? Go right through that door and ask Chuck Schumer what he 
is demanding in secret behind closed doors.
  Don't forget about all of their cities and all their States. Dick 
Durbin represents one of the most bankrupt States in America and the 
most bankrupt city in America--Chicago. Behind those closed doors, they 
are demanding straight cash bailouts for States and cities that have 
been fiscally irresponsible for years. Yet they come down here and 
accuse us of bailouts. We are willing to help these cities and States. 
They are overwhelmed by this pandemic. Yet we simply say they have to 
repay the money on the back end. That is not what the Democrats are 
asking

[[Page S1944]]

for behind those closed doors over there. They want straight cash 
payments.
  You ask yourself, why would they not even start debate? Remember, 
that is all we have been talking about here over these last 18 hours. 
Why would they risk your life and your loved ones' lives and your job 
and your lifetime of retirement savings? Now we know.
  Nancy Pelosi is circulating a 1,400-page bill that she wants Congress 
to pass that she claims will help save this Nation from this terrible 
crisis. It is 1,400 pages. It is almost three times longer than our 
legislation, by the way.
  To give you a sense of what might be in that bill, because, let me 
tell you, she is not hiding the good stuff in her bill--I don't have 
1,400 pages here, but I have a few pages. Let's just go through what is 
a priority for Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats as they dither while 
Americans die.
  Corporate board diversity. The Democrats want to impose quotas for 
race and sex on corporate boards. I know they have wanted to do that 
for a long time. Is that going to stop anyone from getting sick from 
the coronavirus?
  Here is another one: bailing out the Postal Service, wiping all the 
debts that the post office has towards the Treasury. That is another 
issue we have been debating for a long time. The Postal Service needs 
relief. I greatly respect and praise the hard work of the men and women 
who are still delivering the mail, but is a survival package for the 
coronavirus the right time to be talking about Postal Service debt to 
the Treasury?
  Here is another one: a $10,000 minimum of student loan forgiveness 
across the board. That is another ideological wish-list item for the 
Democrats. What does it have to do with stopping a pandemic, especially 
when Donald Trump has already waived student loan payments for 
Americans who are affected by this terrible pandemic?
  Early voting mandated in every single State. That is the same kind of 
early voting that almost doomed the Democrats' favorite Presidential 
candidate, Joe Biden, for whom Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer worked 
tirelessly to beat their colleague Bernie Sanders.
  Combine that with same-day registration. Every single State has to 
register voters on the same day. Now they want to pile election rules 
on a bill that is designed to stop a pandemic. Let me remind you, these 
election rules were written by the same partisan geniuses who couldn't 
even count their own votes in the Iowa Democratic caucuses.
  Here is a good one too: airline carbon emission offsets. Every 
airline that benefits from these programs--which is probably going to 
be all of them--has to go carbon neutral by 2025. Gee, it is going to 
be a pretty amazing feat of engineering to get jet engines you can plug 
into the wall and fly across the continent. Democrats have a lot of 
faith in American ingenuity. I wonder if that will apply, by the way, 
to the private planes that Nancy Pelosi and her family fly in or all 
their buddies in Hollywood.
  What about this one: Every airline has to tell you on every single 
flight what the greenhouse gas emissions of that flight are. You get 
your departure time and your seat number and your gate number and, oh, 
by the way, how many greenhouse gas emissions your plane will have. 
What will that do to help a vitally important and devastated industry 
get back on its feet?
  Subsidizing retirement plans for community newspaper employees. Look, 
this has been a longstanding debate in Congress. It almost sank the 
retirement reform bill last year, and here it is again in a bill 
designed to stop a pandemic. Are you kidding me?
  There is a $15-an-hour minimum wage. Unfortunately, millions of 
Americans are learning that the true minimum wage is zero when you lose 
your job because of a global pandemic that is killing your fellow 
citizens and our elected leaders won't even have a debate on the bill.
  Here is a beauty too: mandating that Federal public employee unions 
get paid for the union work they do. That means you, as a taxpayer, 
will pay Federal bureaucrats when they are doing work not for you, the 
taxpayer, but for their unions. Again, is that going to stop the 
pandemic?
  I could go on and on and on. The Democrats' bill is 1,400 pages, 
after all. But the point is this: There is a good bill that was 
negotiated in good faith over the weekend with many Democrats--no 
matter what they say--that they are now blocking, that they will not 
even start debate on because of ideological wish-list items like those. 
It is disgraceful and it is dangerous to the lives of our people and to 
their economic well-being. It is time for the Democrats to get serious 
and to do their job.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, may I just add to what Mr. Cotton from 
Arkansas just said. It is dangerous. I think it is disgraceful. It is 
irresponsible, and it is not going to work. We are not going to do 
this.
  I think people on our side are willing to go big. For Republicans, it 
is not so easy in 1 day to spend all we are going to spend in a single 
year. We are going to spend in 1 day about $1.8 trillion--probably 
closer to $2 trillion when it is over with. That is as much as we would 
spend in an entire year for discretionary spending. That is big. I 
would like to go smart. If you are going to go big, you need to be 
smart, right? You don't need to go crazy.
  The only reason we are not voting on this bill is because the House 
hijacked this process. Nancy Pelosi tried to control impeachment. She 
tried to set the terms of the debate for the U.S. Senate in the 
impeachment trial before she would send over the impeachment articles. 
Do you remember that whole debacle? And as we were dealing with this 
impeachment garbage, China was on fire. You will hear more about that 
later in the year.
  I guess what I would say is that we need to get on with it. You are 
not going to be successful. We are not going to let this happen to the 
American people.
  Rahm Emanuel, whom I actually like, said: For every crisis is an 
opportunity. This is not your opportunity to impose same-day voting. In 
the House bill, they are requiring every State in the Union, whether 
you like it or not, to allow same-day registration and voting. I 
personally would like to do that in South Carolina but not to combat 
the coronavirus. That is a dream they have. This is not the time to 
enact that dream.
  If you are on a ventilator or if you are a nurse at a hospital and 
are waiting on medical supplies, please tell them you can't get your 
stuff until the Republicans agree to same-day voting. They are 
literally holding hostage the relief for doctors and nurses, for towns 
and cities, and for businesses that have had to lay off their workers 
for same-day voting, for corporate diversity, for $15-an-hour minimum 
wage. If you get a dime of money in your business under the House bill, 
you will have to pay your employees $15 an hour.
  Literally, they are using this sad day in America to enact policies 
that wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting through the 
U.S. Senate. They see this as a moment for them. We see this as a 
moment for you. They see this as an opportunity to do things they 
couldn't do without the country's being on fire.
  To my Democratic colleagues, I will work with you to make sure that 
the money going to American corporations goes to the right people. All 
of us don't want stock buybacks. All of us want to make sure that the 
money is lent and not given as a grant to the big companies in this 
country. All of us are willing to do more to help the States. We are 
willing to work on the problem. We are willing to take your legislative 
wish list and allow you to use this moment of crisis to turn the 
country upside down.
  I don't know why you want to do this, but I know this: If we were 
doing this, the media would be eating us alive. If there were a House 
bill that the Republicans were writing that did away with the right to 
unionization, every major paper and TV station in this country would be 
talking about how the Republican Party is going nuts in its trying to 
take an ideological agenda and attach it to a national crisis that we 
haven't seen since World War II.
  So two things are going to happen. We are not going to give in, 
because it is wrong. It corrupts everything about

[[Page S1945]]

why we are here. We worked with the House-passed bill that we didn't 
like because we needed to get something done that was relevant to the 
problem.
  To the Speaker of the House, you see this as an opportunity to do 
things you couldn't do otherwise. The Republicans see this as an 
opportunity to do things that have to be done now in order to save 
lives.
  I have never been more disgusted since Kavanaugh. You tried to 
destroy a good man's life just to keep the seat open. Close friends of 
mine in the House have publicly said that this is an opportunity to 
reshape the country in ``our image.'' It is not going to happen. We 
didn't let you destroy Brett Kavanaugh's life to keep the seat open, 
and we are not going to let you turn the country upside down to shape 
it in your image. We will work with you, in a very generous fashion, to 
help people who have lost their jobs and to help doctors and nurses who 
have run out of supplies.
  Shame on you. Shame on you for coming in at the eleventh hour and 
taking good faith negotiations and throwing them in an ideological 
ditch.
  To the American people, they are going to give in because what they 
are wanting to do should make you as mad as hell. If you have a family 
member who is suffering, do you really think now is the time to impose 
same-day voting?
  With regard to student loans, a $10,000 loan forgiveness for every 
student loan in the country is a debate we will have but not on this 
bill. Let me tell you what it would cost to forgive $10,000 on every 
student loan in this country--about $500 billion. Here is the question: 
If you are going to spend $500 billion, wouldn't you want to spend it 
on the virus? Wouldn't you want to spend it on hospitals that are under 
siege? Wouldn't you want to spend it on businesses that are shut down 
and have no hope of opening up anytime soon?
  So we are going to hold our ground to focus on the people who need 
the help the most. We are going to say no to an ideological agenda. I 
can't believe that we are having to do this. What the hell has 
happened? How could we get here as a nation? We have come a long way 
from ``we are all in it together'' to this.
  To my colleagues on the other side, I am more than willing to work 
with you on unemployment insurance and on all of the things that are in 
this bill. I am not going to give in to the hijacking of the 
legislative process by the most partisan people in the country at a 
time when people are dying.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know there are a number of Senators here 
who wish to speak. So I will not be long.
  It makes me angry that we are here, talking about a bill that will 
not only help to defeat this virus but that will also put money in the 
hands of people who are wondering: How am I going to pay the rent? How 
am I going to buy groceries? How am I going to buy food for my 
children?
  We have our Democratic colleagues, who, on a party-line vote, blocked 
the very help for the people I am talking about. They are not worried 
about from where their next rent checks are coming or how they are 
going to pay their mortgages. They are getting paid. They are not 
worried about ending up like hourly workers or people who are working 
for tips, who are scared to death about how they are going to make ends 
meet.
  First of all, they are worried about getting sick. Secondly, if you 
work for a restaurant or a hotel or are in some other service 
industry--heck, if you work for an airline and have been furloughed and 
are wondering how you are going to make ends meet--it should make all 
of us angry that our Democratic colleagues are using this national 
emergency in order to leverage their ideological wish list.
  You have heard it talked about here many times, but let me just make 
a couple of points.
  In addition to having the money go to individuals, there is enhanced 
unemployment compensation because people don't know how long this is 
going to last, and they will need to be able to sustain themselves. 
There is the assistance to small businesses so they can maintain their 
payrolls, perhaps, and keep their businesses alive for the duration of 
this crisis. People want to know how they are going to make ends meet 
today. They want to make sure there will be jobs waiting for them after 
we get on the other side of this coronavirus. That is what our help for 
the small businesses is designed to do
  The third part, which really makes me angry, is to hear them talk 
about this bill as containing a slush fund for Big Business. In my 
State and in Senator Cruz's State, some of these businesses employ 
hundreds of thousands of people. I have never understood how you can 
claim to love the workers but hate the very person or the business that 
provides them with jobs. You can't separate those two. You need to have 
workers and those who have invested, who have created something, so 
they provide jobs.
  This ideological division is designed for no other purpose than to 
mislead people into thinking this is some sort of bailout. This isn't a 
bailout. What we are talking about are businesses that, through no 
fault of their own, are going to have to lay off workers and try to 
make sure that, when we get on the other side of this virus--when we 
beat this virus--there will be jobs still available so our economy can 
come roaring back, as it will do, unless we mishandle our work here. So 
I am angry, and I am frustrated. I am not the only one.
  I think about the mom and dad who are thinking: Hey, I work at a 
restaurant. The government shut the restaurant down. I don't have a 
paycheck. How am I going to provide for my family?
  It is our Democratic colleagues, by their complete and unequivocal 
devotion to their ideological agenda, who are basically turning their 
backs on them, our fellow citizens. This is not a time for us to engage 
in partisan division. This is a time for us to give help where help is 
needed as soon as we possibly can.
  As I said, I know the other Senators wish to speak. So I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. BRAUN. Madam President, I have been here a little over a year and 
have dealt with several issues that tell me how this place works. I 
never thought we would come to the point at which we have actually 
choked down the real economy with the valid effort of trying to get rid 
of a disease, and the American public--caught in the crossfire--is 
already suffering. The ones who had to shutter their businesses early 
were hoping that, when they woke up today, they were going to see 
something. You can see that it is not going to happen.
  Many others here have kind of gone after the other side, and I think 
that it is a valid argument. Yet what I am going to talk about here 
this evening are two things. If we do not get something done through 
unanimous consent and have to wait until Wednesday, we will all be held 
accountable, and we will have done what this place normally does--it 
doesn't work for the people who sent us here to do the business.
  A hotel owner in Indianapolis called me earlier in the week. Last 
week, he had 2-percent occupancy. A number of small businesses across 
the country, not only in Indiana, have had employees leave, and they 
have had to shutter their businesses by government edict. The toll and 
the carnage is going to be great.
  I want to stress what we might get done. I had four or five 
Democratic Senators tell me this, and I want to throw the gauntlet out 
and do it publicly. Obviously, a list like this does not make sense, 
and how you would even bring that up at a time like this boggles my 
mind. Four or five different Democratic Senators said that, if we would 
come together on three areas, they would have enough people to get it 
across the finish line even through unanimous consent.
  No. 1--and I think most of the folks on my side of the aisle would 
agree--is shoring up what State and local governments need to 
effectively handle this crisis. That is Main Street. That sounds OK 
with me.
  Next is helping the frontline industry that is responsible for 
fighting the disease--hospitals and providers. We are really close. We 
are not far away.
  The one that we hear the most about would be the transparency 
associated

[[Page S1946]]

with what could be the most important part of the package. It is the 
Emergency Stabilization Fund, which would help all of those businesses 
that need liquidity in order to keep employees on their payrolls. I am 
going to be for full transparency. As for the airlines and their 
practices and what they did at the time that ate up all of their cash, 
I think there needs to be accountability.
  Senator Manchin said earlier that it needs stronger language to 
prohibit stock buybacks--check. Most of us would be for that. Secretary 
Mnuchin could not have full latitude on where to direct the funds. I am 
a Main Street guy. I would go for that too.
  We don't have enough restraints on the assistance in firing employees 
at a later time, as employers might do. Any of us who care about our 
employees would be for that as well. There are a couple other things.
  So I throw the gauntlet out to the leadership, who I think trotted 
out a lot of this other stuff, confused the process, and now we are 
here to where we have to do it with unanimous consent.
  I feel good that our side comes along on three key areas: helping 
State and local governments, helping the frontline of defense, 
hospitals, and holding the big companies accountable that are going to 
get the benefit of government assistance. And we need to keep in mind: 
This isn't 2008, where you are looking at bailing out and helping some 
of the people who caused the problem.
  Even these larger businesses have been impacted by government edict 
to flatten the curve, and what we have to make sure is that we get this 
out the door so that, in the process of flattening the curve, we do not 
flatten the economy. We owe it to every wage earner, to every small 
business, and to Americans in general.
  Let's take those three areas that many Democrats told me today if we 
just get them freed up, we will get it across the finish line. That is 
the gauntlet I throw at the leadership on the other side. Let's get it 
done. The American public expects us to.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Boozman). The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, this is a time of extraordinary crisis for 
our Nation.
  In this time of crisis, I call upon each of our colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to rise above--rise above paid partisanship, rise 
above the bickering that so often consumes Washington, rise above and 
put first the priorities of the millions of Americans who are hurt.
  Look, there is a time for political disagreements. There is a time 
for policy disagreements. I am no stranger to robust political and 
policy disagreements. But we are in this midst of a global pandemic. 
People are dying. People are suffering.
  Last night, when this Senate voted on whether to move forward with 
emergency relief legislation for the millions of people being 
devastated by the economic disaster we are seeing as a result of the 
coronavirus epidemic, every single Democrat in this body voted to block 
consideration of this bill
  Now, for those of you at home who are not poring over a Senate 
procedural matter, what does it mean to vote to block consideration? It 
doesn't mean they voted against the bill. It means they voted against 
even starting to take it up.
  The New York Times headline, moments afterward, said: Democrats block 
$1.7 trillion stimulus bill. Of course, that headline had the fault of 
being accurate, and so within minutes, the New York Times changed it 
to: Democrats block $1.7 trillion stimulus bill citing worker concerns. 
That was headline No. 2.
  But then apparently the partisan leanings of the New York Times were 
too strong for that, and so they revised it a third time to say: 
Partisan division halts discussion of the bill.
  No, it wasn't partisan division. It was one party--the Democratic 
Party--saying to this Chamber and the American people: Hell, no. We 
will not even take this up and discuss it.
  At a time of crisis, at a time when people are dying, that is wrong. 
That is shameful.
  When we awakened this morning, following the Democrats' obstruction, 
worldwide there were 372,563 reported cases of the coronavirus. In the 
hours since then, just today, there have been an additional 23,352 
cases reported today. While the Democrats are blocking the bill, 23,000 
new cases today.
  In the United States, when we started this morning, there were 35,224 
cases--this morning. Right now, as of the latest numbers, there are 
41,708 cases in the United States today. That means we have had an 
additional 6,484 cases today while the Democrats are blockading--and by 
the way, where are the Democrats?
  C-SPAN doesn't show this whole Chamber often, but it would be nice if 
they did because that entire side of the Chamber is empty. They are not 
showing up for work. They are not doing their job.
  In Texas this morning, there had been 668 cases. As of right now, 
there are 722--54 more cases today while the Democrats are blocking 
consideration of this bill.
  How about deaths? Look, as we look at this crisis, there are people 
right now gasping for breath. You and I, we have friends who have been 
diagnosed with this disease. We have read stories. We have talked to 
people who have struggled under it.
  I heard from one individual who is hospitalized right now that 
breathing felt like a belt strapped across his chest; that he could 
barely breathe.
  As of this morning, worldwide, there had been 16,381 deaths. I am 
sorry--that is the number now. This morning it was only 15,308. That 
means today, while the Democrats have been blocking this bill, 1,073 
additional people died.
  In the United States, as of this morning, there were 471 deaths 
reported due to coronavirus. As of right now, it is 573. That means 
today 102 Americans died while the Democrats were blocking 
consideration of this bill.
  In Texas as of this morning, there had been eight deaths. Now there 
are nine. One Texan died while half this Chamber refused to show up and 
do their job.
  Now, this morning when we voted again, we saw the first signs of 
cracks. There was one Democrat, a Senator from Alabama, who had voted 
no yesterday, decided this morning, well, maybe we should take up the 
bill. One. One Democrat. Where are the rest?
  There are a lot of Democrats who like to hold themselves out as 
moderate Democrats. Where are they?
  Right now, what the Democratic leadership is doing is they are 
playing games. They are playing games in a way that is irresponsible.
  Listen, this bill has a lot of important elements for a lot of people 
who are hurting. You have not only the people who are hospitalized, the 
people who are suffering, but you also have economic devastation, as 
much of this country has ground to a halt.
  We have people who work in restaurants, waiters, waitresses, bellboys 
who haven't gone to work in over a week. We have people in hotels. I 
have spoken to business owner after business owner after business owner 
for the last week.
  One hotel owner described how he currently had 6 percent occupancy 
rates. You can't keep a hotel running with 6 percent occupancy rates.
  I talked to one hotel owner who described how he had made 5,000 
layoffs in the last week. Another hotel owner had made 6,000 layoffs in 
the past week.
  I talked to an oil and gas business owner who had laid off 5,000 
workers in the past week. I talked to another oil and gas business 
owner who had laid off 5,000 workers in the last week.
  You know, today I am thinking about people like my friends, the 
Republic Country Club. Now, Republic Country Club is a bit of a 
misnomer. It is a barbecue joint outside of Houston. It is owned by my 
friend Michael Berry. It is often the venue of country-western 
concerts. The venue is sometimes for comedy shows.
  I went and took my dad to Larry the Cable Guy at Republic Country 
Club. I have had multiple election night parties at Republic Country 
Club. It is a big old honky-tonk. You have never seen so many confused 
national reporters as they walked in and looked around and didn't know 
what to make of the place.

  Father's Day a year ago, I did a Father's Day party at Republic 
Country Club. My dad--we roasted up two whole pigs. The cook staff at 
the barbecue place, they made them up and had a big

[[Page S1947]]

party. We invited people there. It is a Cuban tradition to roast a 
whole pig.
  Now, why am I telling you about Republic Country Club? Because 
yesterday, which happened to be my father's 81st birthday--yesterday 
Republic Country Club announced they are closing their doors.
  Yesterday Michael Berry sent out a tweet telling first responders, 
telling police officers and firefighters and everyone on the frontline, 
he said: Drive by Republic Country Club today--March 23--drive by 
during the day, and we will give you free barbecue. We are going to 
cook everything we have, and we are just going to give it away and to 
go. You can't come in, but we are going to give you to-go boxes.
  And he went on to say they are emptying out all of the liquor from 
the storeroom and from behind the bar, and they are giving it to the 
employees because the employees are all being laid off. And he said he 
doesn't know if he will open again.
  Now, I will tell you, those employees--the bartenders, the bouncers--
many of them are veterans. Many of them are big guys, covered with 
tats. They are salt of the earth, and right now they don't know where 
the rent check is coming from next week.
  That is happening all across this country. That is happening not just 
at one barbecue place in Houston. That is happening at bars. That is 
happening at nail salons. It is happening at movie theaters.
  You know, I love Sunday night to go with a buddy of mine and go watch 
a movie. Movie theaters are shut down all over this country.
  Retail stores--people laid off. Nobody is going to the mall right 
now, and for the people who are hurting, they are scared. They don't 
know, No. 1, if they are going to get sick, but No. 2, they don't know 
how they are going to make ends meet.
  This is a time of crisis, and we ought to be coming together.
  Now, listen, this bill that we were moving to, I don't necessarily 
agree with every word of it, but there are a number of elements in this 
bill that are designed to provide real help to people who are hurting.
  One element of this bill is to give cash--an immediate check for 
$1,200--to every person in this country, every adult in this country 
earning under $75,000 a year, $2,400 for every couple earning under 
$150,000 a year, plus $500 for every child they have.
  Now, you want to talk about real relief for people who are scared and 
they say: What do I do next? Those are checks that are coming in the 
mail. And what have the Democrats said? No. Halt the checks.
  Right now, those checks aren't coming, and they aren't coming for one 
reason: because the Senate Democrats are blocking taking up that bill.
  In many circumstances, that would not be the right policy outcome, to 
just send checks to people, but at a time of crisis, where you need 
people just to be able to make it to tomorrow, putting some resources 
in their hands makes a big difference.
  Another element of this bill that is being blocked by Senate 
Democrats is $350 billion in emergency loans to small businesses--to 
small businesses like Republic Country Club, to small businesses like 
restaurants and bars, and small businesses like nail salons and barber 
shops and movie theaters and dress shops and hardware stores, small 
businesses that are right now putting up the signs saying: ``Closed for 
coronavirus.''
  Those emergency loans are designed to be given with the condition 
that they keep their employees on payroll. A lot of these small 
business owners want to keep their employees on payroll, but they don't 
have the cash. Under the terms of this bill, those loans are forgiven 
if--if--if they keep their employees on payroll.
  By the way, the Democratic talking point is, oh, this is just cash to 
businesses. Tell that to the owner of the barber shop who takes an 
emergency loan to not fire all of her employees. That loan, under the 
terms, is forgiven if the employees stay on the payroll. The Democrats 
are blocking that right now.
  What about unemployment insurance? The job numbers coming out shortly 
I expect to be massive in terms of the job losses. I think we will see 
north of 2 or 3 million people who lost their jobs, and the numbers are 
getting worse. Every phone call I have is with more people who are 
losing their jobs. It is bad. It will come back, but it is bad right 
now. We need emergency support to get people through this dark time.
  This bill has $250 billion for additional unemployment insurance. 
What does that mean? That is an additional $600 per week for an 
additional 13 weeks. If you are one of the waitresses right now who 
have just been told their jobs have gone away and you applied for 
unemployment insurance, if this bill passes, you get an extra $600 
immediately. But you know what--you don't right now because Senate 
Democrats are blocking this. If they have reasonable concerns, they are 
welcome to raise them.
  By the way, this bill was drafted with the participation of nearly a 
dozen Senate Democrats who were actively part of the task force's 
submitting suggestions. One of the suggestions the Democrats submitted 
during the drafting was to plus-up those unemployment insurance 
numbers, and they got agreement. This was drafted in a bipartisan 
manner.
  What happened? I will tell you. Yesterday, Sunday, most of us thought 
we were going to move with this, but then Nancy Pelosi decided it is 
time to play politics, decided to throw a grenade into this whole 
process. She had a list of demands--an over 1,000-page bill she drops 
out of nowhere--and the demands she is pushing, I ask you, do these 
have anything to do with the coronavirus epidemic?
  A number of people have cited the famed quote of Rahm Emanuel: 
``Never let a good crisis go to waste.'' Sadly, we are seeing the 
embodiment of that cynical approach right now because all of the people 
out of jobs, the Democrats are using to push--what are they pushing 
for? Changing the emissions standards for airplanes. What the hell do 
the emissions standards for airplanes have to do with millions of 
people out of work during the coronavirus epidemic? Don't treat this 
bill like a partisan Christmas.
  Republicans have things we would like to advance, too, things I 
believe in deeply. You want to talk about what I would like to do? I 
would like to abolish the IRS. I campaigned all over the country for 
that. I will continue fighting for that, but I am not standing here 
with an amendment, saying: As part of this emergency relief, let's 
abolish the IRS. There is a place for that political and policy 
discussion.
  The Democrats are pushing wind and solar tax credits. What in the 
hell does a windmill have to do with this crisis, other than some 
Democratic lobbyists getting fat and rich, and they are willing to 
extort a crisis to try to advance their political agenda?
  There are mandates on corporate board diversity. So these are 
Democrats who want to social-engineer. Listen, I actually have a lot of 
problems with corporate boards. We have far too many corporate boards 
that are docile and do what management wants. That is a serious 
problem. There is a lot of discussion about stock buybacks. I tell you, 
what I am concerned about with stock buybacks is when you have 
compensation agreements in place that the executives get rich if they 
get a short-term boost in share price, and it ends up hurting the 
shareholders. I would love to see more vigorous boards of directors 
that make sure you are not creating incentives to gain a stock price. 
That is a reasonable question. But they want to mandate, effectively, 
quotas on boards of directors. What in the hell does that have to do 
with this crisis?
  The Pelosi wish list wants to restructure the debt of the post 
office. Last time I checked, our postal workers go through wind and 
rain and snow, but they haven't been laid off.
  I call upon both sides--don't play games with this. This crisis isn't 
going to end tomorrow. It is not going to end the next day. It is going 
to last for a considerable time. It is going to require adults to step 
up and lead.
  On the pandemic, we need to follow the science. We need to listen to 
the doctors. We need to listen to the physicians. We need to take the 
steps we are taking to keep people safe.
  On the economy, we need to give people who are hurting immediate 
relief, and we need to make sure a liquidity crisis doesn't become a 
solvency crisis.
  It is interesting--many Democrats are saying they don't want 
corporate

[[Page S1948]]

bailouts. I agree. I am passionately opposed to corporate bailouts. One 
of the things I was gratefully relieved about as far as how this bill 
was structured is that it is structured as loans and not condition-free 
grants. It is structured primarily so that it is not picking favored 
companies that happen to have a big lobbying presence in Washington.
  What does it mean to not have a liquidity crisis become a solvency 
crisis? Let's take, for example, the airlines. I have spoken with every 
major airline CEO in the past 2 weeks. The airlines are losing billions 
of dollars every month. They didn't cause this problem. Unlike the 
financial crisis in 2008, this crisis was not caused by misconduct of 
one industry or another. It is not the airlines' fault that the Federal 
Government has shut down flights to Asia and to Europe. That is not 
their fault. It is not the fault of the owner of a restaurant in 
downtown Houston that the city of Houston has shut down the restaurant. 
It is not the small business owner's fault.
  What we don't want is, when the bills come due for all of those 
businesses, for them to have to sell their assets in a fire sale. We 
don't want the restaurant owner who has a pizzeria, who has saved to 
buy this fantastic pizza oven, to have to sell the pizza oven for 
pennies on the dollar because a liquidity crisis has become a solvency 
crisis. We don't want our U.S. airlines to put up a garage sale 
effectively to sell all their airplanes because they are going bankrupt 
in the midst of a crisis. We want to come out of this with a strong, 
robust commercial airlines sector. We want to come out of this with 
small businesses thriving. We want to come out of this with a thriving 
energy sector. We want to come out of this with jobs.
  I will close this the way I started--by calling on Democrats and 
calling on Republicans to rise above petty partisan games. The 
Democratic leaders are playing these games to every one of you 
Democrats. Listen to the men and women in your States. Don't give in to 
the games. Most of the Democratic Senators say they don't even know 
what their side wants. But it is just their leadership that is willing 
to hold the American people hostage for unrelated, political, partisan 
objectives.
  By the way, one of the reasons I think Senate Democrats are so 
willing to engage in this is they expect the media to be utterly 
complicit in their cynical gamesmanship. So we stand here this 
afternoon--and it is not only the Democratic side of the Chamber that 
is empty, but as I look up to the press, nobody is there. There is not 
a single reporter sitting in the Chamber. I have seen the New York 
Times--actually, nobody is sitting in the Chamber, so they may have 
closed the Chamber, in which case that may have been an unfair assault. 
But it is not an unfair assault to say that the New York Times is 
changing its headline to give political cover to Senate Democrats
  This is a time of crisis, not a time to play games. It is time to 
rise above. It is a time to stand for the American men and women. It is 
a time to stand for jobs. It is a time to help protect people's lives.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we have heard a lot of passion here on 
the Senate floor this afternoon, a lot of anger, a lot of frustration. 
It stems from the anxiety, the anger, and the frustration that are 
being felt across the country right now as Americans from Alaska to 
Arkansas are faced with the reality of this new day--a Monday that they 
thought they could just never imagine. Last week, they had a healthy 
business and going concern, and now that business has been ordered shut 
down. It is a Monday where we thought the kids were going back to 
school after spring break, and now it has been announced that not only 
are they not going back after a longer spring break, but right now in 
my State, it has been extended until May 1, the kids go back to school. 
I understand today from my assistant that in Virginia, schools are not 
going to be going back in. They will not go back in before the end of 
this school year. That is pretty shocking. Here we are on a Monday that 
nobody could have imagined.
  About 4 hours ago, we were here on this floor to conduct a vote on a 
motion to proceed to cloture--a motion to get on to a bill that had 
been worked through by good men and women on both sides for days now. 
It hit bumps. We do that around here. That is the nature of 
legislating. But this is not a time for the bumps to derail us. This is 
not time that we have that is unlimited to extend debate, to extend a 
process when we have folks back home whom we answer to who are angry, 
frustrated, and anxious. At the end of that vote, you heard anger from 
colleagues saying this was a type of political gamesmanship, 
brinksmanship--call it whatever you will. This is not what the American 
people deserve, and this is not what we should be doing as a Senate.
  Our leader asked us: So where are we? Where are we right now? I think 
he was speaking more of where are we in the process. We can ask that 
question in this body and say: Are we mere hours away from being able 
to reach agreement here? Where we are in the views of so many who are 
watching this right now, where the Republicans are saying ``We must 
move on this now. We don't have time to wait. Daylight is a-wasting'' 
to a response that ``We are still working. We are still working. We are 
going to try to get this done''--no, we can't just try to get this 
done.
  I was asked about what I thought about the failure to come together 
on a vote last evening, and I said failure is not an option. Plain and 
simple, failure is not an option. So we are continuing to work, but as 
we work, let's think about where the people we work for are right now.
  We may say that we are stuck on some matters. We have people who are 
stuck in places that they never could have imagined on this Monday. We 
have about 19 Alaskans who are stuck in Peru, trying to get out of a 
country that has literally gone on lockdown. We were in a long 
conversation yesterday with the folks at the State Department, trying 
to figure out how to help them and how to help their families who are 
back home in Alaska, who are calling my office every day--sometimes 
multiple times a day--saying: What are you doing to help? What are you 
doing to help not only those 19 Alaskans get out of a place like Peru 
but the pregnant woman with several children, the minor exchange 
student, and the families who are over there.
  Many of my colleagues were part of that call who were not only 
interested in those who were stuck in Peru but those who were in 
Guatemala and Honduras and El Salvador and other parts. We got a good 
group out of Morocco. We are getting calls from Alaskans who were 
seeking to leave the State for other services. They get on the Alcan 
Highway, and they are dealing with the reality of a Canadian border 
closure to all nonessential traffic. So we get the calls: What happens 
if we are going down to Seattle for medical? Is the veteran who is in 
the car, who is going down for medical purposes--is this an essential 
trip for him? They are saying: What about the spouse in the car? Maybe. 
We don't know. The uncertainty then comes to those individuals about 
being stuck.
  We are not stuck here. Those are the people you think about. What are 
we doing to help them? This talk doesn't help them. It is not giving 
them any degree of certainty or any degree of relief or any belief that 
we can get anything done. They are looking to us to help them.
  Right now, my hometown, Anchorage, is under a hunker-down order. Our 
mayor decided he didn't want to call it a stay-at-home order or just a 
stand-down order. It is a hunker-down order, and that hunker-down order 
went in place last night. It will go through the end of the month here.
  Last week--last Monday--I got a call from the mayor, who said: I am 
going to be closing down all the bars, all the restaurants, and the 
entertainment facilities. We have to work on containment because, here 
in Alaska, we are kind of at the end of the supply chain, and it is a 
pretty scary place to be right now. So what defense do we have? We are 
going to be really aggressive on this shelter in place.
  My son is a small businessman who provides to the restaurants in 
town, so when the order comes out that the restaurants are shut down, 
what does a small businessman, like my 26-year-old son--where does he 
go? How does he move forward from that Monday to this Monday? It is 
pretty scary.

[[Page S1949]]

  We went from a situation on Monday of last week, when it was just one 
municipality that ordered the closure of restaurants and bars, to the 
following day--the entire State has a full-on closure. We are a State 
that is isolated from everybody else in the continental United States. 
We fly to get home. It is a fact of our lives.
  We had a letter signed by multiple emergency room doctors just last 
week, urging the Governor to ban nonessential air travel. Think about 
what that means. It is pretty debilitating for a State like mine. You 
might say: Well, that is not going to happen.
  Well, let me tell you what is happening. Right now, nonessential 
travel is--there is a strict advisory against nonessential travel to 
the State and within the State. We have villages in the interior part 
of the State, predominantly, that are banning outsiders from coming 
into the village by airplane. So that might mean visitors coming in; 
this time of year, it is pretty tough to have a big tourism industry in 
the interior part of the Alaska, but the reality is, that also means 
those planes that would be bringing your supplies--now, if there is a 
medical emergency, they would ask for relief.
  This is how extreme the actions are because, in Alaska, we fully felt 
the impact of the Spanish influenza that took out whole villages a 
century ago. Our Native communities, as remote and isolated as they 
are, are absolutely fearful that we will see a repeat of that Spanish 
influenza. So if we have to shut off all economic activity, we are 
doing that.
  This weekend, a huge effort was made to move our homeless populations 
out of the crowded shelters into the shut-down sports arena and hockey 
arena so that we can put them in an area and a place where there is, 
hopefully, sufficient 6-foot distancing.
  The hotels around the State--I have listened to our colleagues. We 
are all in the same situation with the impact that is happening to our 
businesses as we are shutting down, and these business owners are 
making the difficult decisions that they are.
  This morning, the faxes that I got--the Quality Inn in Kodiak, AK, is 
laying off 13 jobs. This is from the Baranof hotel in Juneau--most of 
us who have ever spent any time talking to our legislators know this 
is our most significant hotel in our capital city--laying off 45 hotel 
positions.

  This is a reality that for them, as they are watching what is 
happening here in the Senate--or perhaps the inaction that is happening 
here before the cameras--they are saying: Do I have alternatives to 
these layoffs? Will there be the level of support for me to keep my 
employees retained and to keep our community moving forward?
  I received a text from a friend who owns Chena Hot Springs Resort. He 
has owned that resort now for 22 years. It has never closed since he 
has had it in operation, but he is in a position now where he has told 
all 90 of his employees: You can stay here; we are not open; we will 
feed you.
  My hope is that Bernie is going to be able to keep those 90 employees 
and that he is going to be able to pay them through the proposal that 
we have built into this legislation that we have an opportunity to 
move, if we can only do so.
  His ask to me in that text was not ``Make sure that it is a $150 
billion'' or ``It has to be at $1.5 trillion.'' Do you know what he 
ended his text to me with? He said: We need to make America kind again. 
He wants to take care of his family, his work family, and he wants to 
know we are going to be responsive to that and that we will show that 
kindness that we would all hope would come.
  I am so discouraged as I listen to the nature of the partisan words 
that are on this floor today because that is the last thing this body 
needs. That is the last thing this country needs. They need assurance 
from us. They need to have confidence that we get the urgency, that we 
hear their cries, and that we are not just sitting back here bickering 
because I haven't got my No. 1 project or if we are going to make this 
even-steven--if there needs to be one Republican priority, then there 
needs to be another Democratic priority over there.
  Do you know what? We all represent people of different political 
persuasions. My job as a Senator from the State of Alaska is to 
represent all those Alaskans, and I would like to think that all 
Alaskans think protective equipment for our medical providers is a 
priority for all of us. I would like to think that it is a priority for 
all of us, for all Alaskans, that we say it is best to keep those 
employees as part of your business, to keep that held in place until we 
can get on the other side of the immediacy of the health crisis so that 
we can work together to avoid a further economic crisis.
  But, instead, this Monday, the American public and Alaskans who are 
counting on me back home--instead of being able to see this hope from 
their elected leaders that we have it and that we understand the 
urgency, what they see are the partisan words. What they see is an 
empty Chamber. What they hear is as much a measure of dysfunction as 
everything they see in their world around them right now.
  One of the things our Governor has done--and, man, he has made some 
hard choices in the past week to 10 days. He has made some decisions 
that will have significant and serious economic impact on a State that 
is already on its knees.
  One of the things he did was put together what he is calling the 
Alaska economic stabilization task force. This conservative Republican 
Governor has appointed two cochairs. One cochair is a former Republican 
Governor, Sean Parnell, and the other one is one many of my colleagues 
here in the Senate know, former Senator Mark Begich.
  Politically, you couldn't have two more different guys who are at the 
head of this task force, but it sent a signal to Alaskans: Look, we are 
all in this together. There are no Republican solutions; there are no 
Democrat solutions. They are just solutions, and we better figure them 
out. The State of Alaska is working really hard to do that.
  I was just visiting with some of our Alaska labor leaders, and in 
addition to the issues we are talking about, they are telling me their 
members are out making personal protective equipment. They are getting 
the sewing machines out; they are getting the fabrics at JOANN Fabric, 
and they are just making things. They are doing what needs to be done.
  We are reminded that so much good can come together if we just kind 
of lay down our partisan arms and say: What do we need to do for this 
country? What do you want for Arkansas? What do we need for Alaska? 
What do we need for one another? Right now, we don't need the words 
that just further separate us as Americans.
  I haven't talked about the contents of the bill that we have in front 
of us because so many before me this afternoon have. I think we all 
share the desire--I hope we all share the desire to get this done 
readily and to get it done quickly because right now--right now--
Americans are losing hope.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, growing up, my dad used to tell me on a 
regular basis: ``You should never speak up unless you can improve upon 
the silence.'' I tried to take that to heart in my personal life and in 
my professional life.
  Today I feel like I can improve upon the silence. I have a deep 
conviction that the U.S. Senate is not living up to the expectations of 
the American people. The American people deserve a U.S. Senate as good 
as the American people. They deserve a U.S. Senate that is responsive 
when they need government most.
  I suppose it is fashionable these days to use so many of our 
institutions in society to elevate ourselves. Well, folks, this 
institution--this institution--its credibility is at stake. The 
American people need this institution to function.
  I was a U.S. marine after graduating from college, and I never saw a 
war. I never saw a national emergency or a major crisis. I am very 
straightforward about that, but I have to say, I was ready for a war. I 
was prepared for that big day when the United States of America really, 
really needed me, and I made sure all of my marines were prepared. We 
were prepared to do our duty when it mattered most.
  As it relates to this pandemic, I have to say that the American 
people are ready. Look around. It makes you proud.

[[Page S1950]]

  Are we not a unified people? Are we a Tribal people? There is a lot 
of conversation about that among political circles. Spend some time in 
my neighborhood. Spend some time back home in Indiana right now. Maybe 
it took some separation, some social distancing. Maybe it took some 
time away from work, some time away from social gatherings. Maybe it 
took cancellation, unfortunately, of March Madness, the NCAA 
tournament, to remind us all that we are deeply connected with one 
another. And we long for those connections, regardless of political 
philosophy and regardless of the fact that we have an election going 
on. That is not what is real important to regular people.
  Americans are coming together. They are ready for this emergency, and 
this is, indeed, an emergency. Make no mistake, look across the country 
at all the National Guards who are being mobilized.
  This is an emergency that people in my home State have been 
responding to favorably. The Senate needs to as well. Folks in my 
neighborhood are putting bags of groceries on people's doorsteps who 
are unable to go out and get groceries themselves. I know this from my 
own family. They are calling senior citizens they know who they think 
are probably lonely at this time. They are coming together.
  Back in Evansville, one of my friends, J.P., who is a business owner 
and very active in the community, and I were on the phone the other 
day. I think, like other Members, I have had countless phone calls in 
the last week or so with businessowners, not-for-profit leaders, 
healthcare providers, and rank-and-file citizens. This active citizen, 
this community leader, J.P. in Evansville, says that he was on the 
phone with the mayor, local business leaders, local healthcare leaders, 
and a bunch of others from Southern Indiana, and they were all on the 
same page. They have figured out how to come together, how to solve 
local problems together. They were all ready to tackle this because 
they sensed what we should all sense: The sooner you can tackle these 
challenges, the sooner the pain will end, and the sooner we will reduce 
anxiety among our neighbors. They are all determined to work together. 
In fact, he said he had not seen such unity within the community of 
Evansville, IN, since 9/11. It says a lot.
  Well, the Senate must be ready. This package, the CARES Act, was 
negotiated in a bipartisan way--two Democrats, two Republicans, in 
consultation with each of the varying working groups. They put together 
a package. It all came together, and it was introduced. It was all 
bipartisan until it came time to vote on a procedural vote yesterday
  You know, this virus may seem to many small because it has impacted a 
small percentage of our population directly, but I have to say that its 
impact is growing rapidly. The longer it takes us to come together, the 
more damage that is going to be done. This is an emergency.
  It is time, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, to take yes 
for an answer and not play games.
  So what does this bill do? It is nothing controversial. It provides 
additional assistance for healthcare needs. This is a pandemic. We need 
more masks. We need more PPEs. Our hospitals are swamped. They can't 
conduct elective surgeries anymore. Their finances are out of whack. We 
need to help them out.
  What else does it do? It helps individual Americans. Folks are 
resource-constrained right now. They can't go to work. So 1,200 bucks, 
at least for starters, per American; $2,400 per married couple; and an 
additional $500 if you have dependents--that is really going to make a 
difference in Hoosiers' lives.
  We need to make sure that people have lives to go back to once we get 
through this, as well, and that is why this legislation is designed to 
provide much needed liquidity for these businesses. They still have 
debts to pay. They still have debts. They want to make payroll.
  I can't tell you--I mean, I have talked to so many small businessmen 
in tears. I have talked to leaders of our largest corporations as well. 
I will tell you, I talked to a lady who didn't think things looked real 
good. We didn't really have a whole lot of time to respond to this. 
Meeting payroll, paying for rent, paying your leases, paying for 
mortgages, these are the essentials, folks.
  And this is not 2008. That was a horrible crisis. But we are coming 
off of the best economy, arguably, in five decades. And because the 
economy was so good, people were optimistic about the future. And 
through no fault of their own, businessmen did sort of the rational 
thing. They invested in the future, the property, the plant, and the 
equipment that is required to grow. They were working on taking market 
share. All of those who believe in the free enterprise system can 
associate ourselves with what they were trying to accomplish.
  But 2008 was a little different. The economy was lethargic. The 
bottom fell out of the economy. In sort of an ironic twist, when the 
economy is down, people are paying down their debts. They are 
bolstering that balance sheet. They are maintaining some liquid assets 
in anticipation of further tough times. We don't have that benefit 
right now. We can measure the prospects of our employers in days. For 
many of them, it is too late.
  The U.S. Senate needs to treat this like an emergency because it is 
an emergency.
  So what else does this legislation do? Well, there is a category--let 
me just group it together. Let me call it, incontrovertibly, emergency 
funding. There is $20 billion for veterans' healthcare; $11 billion for 
vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics, and other preparedness needs, 
masks, gloves, and ventilators; $75 billion for hospitals; $4.5 billion 
for the Centers for Disease Control; $12 billion for America's military 
as it helps respond to this pandemic, and so on. That is what the bill 
is all about. That is what we are fighting about.
  So what happened? How did things go off track? Well, it may surprise 
some folks, but I have a very positive relationship with the Democratic 
leader. We just happen to have a lot of principled disagreements. And 
at the very end of a bipartisan process, when he and other Members of 
his caucus try and insert provisions pertaining to the Green New Deal 
and other far-left priorities into this package, then, that, of course, 
disrupts our emergency response.
  So now we have Speaker Pelosi, seemingly, hijacking the process. That 
is right. She is over in the House of Representatives. She is not even 
part of this body, and her folks are all home. The House isn't in 
session, but Speaker Pelosi wanted to remain relevant. She decided she 
wanted to get some TV time, I suppose, and so her proposal involves 
federalizing voting. We can have an honest debate about whether it is 
appropriate to federalize the voting system, to mandate early voting, 
or same-day voter registration. That is something that should be 
debated in the U.S. Senate because I know it is a priority for so many 
of my colleagues.
  Again, there are elements of the Green New Deal. We can debate 
whether or not there has to be a full offset of airline emissions by 
2025 some other time. We can debate whether or not greenhouse gas 
statistics for individual flights should be widely available. Let's 
work on that separately after we help the American people. Let's not 
work on pet priorities. We can debate permanent paid leave--permanent 
paid leave granted by the Federal Government some other time. This is a 
pandemic. It is an economic emergency, a public health emergency. The 
American people want a response. They don't want us to focus on this 
right now.
  I made a lot of phone calls in recent days back home. None of this is 
possible without the wherewithal, without the hard work of sturdy 
Americans, and without great American innovation, none of the resources 
that are required to actually sustain our government, to feed our 
families. People need places to work.
  Here is what is happening in Indiana, a little snapshot. The RV 
industry, the global headquarters of the recreational vehicle industry, 
is in Elkhart, IN. We are seeing RV companies temporarily shutting down 
in Indiana, and I know we are seeing it across the country.
  The hotel industry, today, the two largest hotels in Indianapolis had 
to shut their doors. I am not just talking about buildings shutting 
their doors;

[[Page S1951]]

this closure is going to mean the loss of employment for about 780 
full-time workers. Think of all of the family members who depend on 
those workers. This is an emergency.
  The auto industry--Hoosiers proudly manufacture the components for 
the auto industry. They assemble those components into finished 
automobiles. That industry has been brought to a halt on account of 
this unique crisis, and the worst, we hear, is yet to come.
  Airlines, they are feeling the most immediate impact. I flew the 
other day from my home in the Indianapolis area. I flew out of the 
airport to Washington, DC. It wasn't a chartered flight. I was the only 
passenger. I was the only passenger on the aircraft. We know that is 
not a sustainable business model when you are paying for the fuel, you 
have a pilot, a copilot, a flight attendant, and me. This is an 
emergency. St. Elmo Steak House is one restaurant of the restaurants 
across Indiana that have had to close their doors. St. Elmo just had to 
do it. It is the first time it has had to do it since 1902. They were 
even able to keep their doors open in the midst of the 1918 flu 
pandemic.

  This is bad. This is an emergency. The Senate needs to act.
  We have Sanjay Patel. He is the president of an Indianapolis-based 
company, and he and my team spoke recently. He said that he had to lay 
off at least 100 workers just last week, with another 150 layoffs 
likely this week. These are families. These are individuals who take 
pride in their work. They want to go back to work.
  Here is what Sanjay said:

       We're thinking of closing a few of them here--it's just 
     deteriorating every day. It was worse last night than the 
     night before, and it was worse the night before than 2 days 
     ago. It's just deteriorating and I think it's just a matter 
     of time [until] we close down.

  It is an emergency. It is not time for Nancy Pelosi's priorities. It 
is time for the American people's priorities.
  We have a baking shop with locations in Carmel and Indianapolis that 
had to lay some workers off. Their owner said:

       My heart goes out to my Cake Bake family, whom I was forced 
     to lay off during this horrible virus. I am working with my 
     banks, my insurance company, my accountant and the government 
     to try and create some sort of relief support for my team. I 
     am doing everything in my power to help all 170 of them. All 
     tips received at both of our bakery counters will be divided 
     and shared with our servers. Hoping to get through this 
     difficult time together, coming out on the other end with the 
     safety and health for our families.

  I heard from a small optometry practice in North Vernon. They have 12 
employees. The owner says:

       We simply don't have the cash to fund their wages while 
     they are off work. I am saving what cash I have to pay them, 
     their vacation and personal day time. We are in trouble and 
     need help.

  This isn't somebody who is used to asking for help. This is the time 
to give them help. Let's not allow this legislation to be hijacked. 
Let's live up to the high standards of the American people. At this 
difficult moment, let's come together like we did in 9/11, like our 
country has so consistently when the chips are really down.
  Let's all take part in this effort. I encourage all of my 
constituents and anyone else around the country to encourage your 
Senators--Republicans and Democrats alike. Stand up. Speak out. Send 
emails. Tell your neighbors.
  It is time for this body to move. It is time for us to deal with this 
crisis once and for all. We will make America great again from the 
bottom up. It doesn't have to take that long. We can bounce back, but 
the longer we wait, the harder it will be. Let's do our jobs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we are getting a lot of redundancy around 
here, but it is worth it. I have been sitting here for several hours 
now listening to my colleagues. I don't recall, in the 25 years I have 
been here, seeing this happening, over and over. And everything that is 
said is so significant.
  The Senator from Alaska talked about the fact that we are all in this 
together. We are, and things were going well for a while. I am actually 
going to, I think, end with a little bit of optimism right now. I may 
be the only one doing that, because I think something is going to 
happen tonight. I think it has to happen tonight. We don't have the 
luxury of waiting.
  Now, I have never seen a crisis like this. We are not used to dealing 
with crises. Gosh, we have been through wars. We have been through 
things that we have considered to be crises. This is a different 
dimension. We are talking about people who are dying
  As for the coronavirus, we all know where it came from: Wuhan in 
China. It has caused global panic. By the way, they call it a pandemic. 
There is a reason for that, because this isn't just something happening 
in the United States of America. This is happening all over the world--
everywhere. No one is immune. This is something that we don't have a 
cure for right now.
  The Senator from Indiana kept using the word ``emergency.'' This is 
an emergency. It is an emergency unlike any that we have seen so far. 
It is something that is highly contagious, something that we can't do 
anything about. No one is immune.
  As of Sunday, according to the World Health Organization, there were 
292,000 cases globally and almost 13,000 deaths. Let me put that in a 
different perspective because I have had the honor, in the last several 
days--and I am talking about including the weekend--of talking to 
people in Oklahoma.
  I think, this morning, we talked to every single radio, television, 
and newspaper in the State. I always start my speeches, to make sure 
everyone understands, with why this is not anything we have done 
before, why it is so significant. I explain to people: Today is the 
23rd. Let's take the 22nd and the 21st. If you go back to the 21st--or 
let's say March 20, which was last Friday--we had, at that time, 
210,000 cases that were known. They have been infected. Two days later, 
it was 322,000.
  Now look at the ones who have died. On March 20, it was 8,800 people 
died. But 2 days after that, it was 13,714. Now, that is globally.
  Look at here in the United States of America. On March 20, there were 
10,500 people who contracted it, and then, just 2 days later, it was 
31,000. It tripled in 2 days. That is what we are facing right now. On 
the deaths, they tripled--the same thing: 150 deaths on March 20, and 
390 deaths on the 22nd, 2 days later.
  Now, that puts it in a different category. We have never had anything 
like that to talk about. The reason I do that, when I am talking to 
people in Oklahoma, is that, like a lot of people, I have been in this 
position before, when it looks like we are overreacting and we look 
like we are creating a crisis--something that hasn't happened before. 
But, in this case, this is a crisis. So it is important. There are a 
lot of people around who are thinking: Well, you know, this is kind of 
manufactured. It is not that big of a deal.
  In this case, it is. So, at the same time, we have thousands of 
Americans who are losing their jobs. We have been listening to this on 
the floor for a long period of time, and sometimes it is important to 
be redundant, to talk about these things, about people who are being 
forced to shut down without any sense when they might reopen.
  You are spared probably 15 minutes or so of the examples that I had 
in my State of Oklahoma--bakeries and others. The Senator from Indiana 
did a good job, and I think it would be unnecessary to go over all of 
that. We all have those stories. There is not a Member--Democrat or 
Republican--in this body who has not had these experiences and who 
could talk about the experiences.
  So we started working. This is going to sound pretty phony when I say 
this, but I was so proud, and I talked about how proud I was of the 
Democrats because, until just yesterday, we were all working together. 
We were having our meetings. I was with Mitch McConnell, and he was 
showing the progress we were having. The Democrats were cooperating. We 
really thought really good things were going to happen. We really 
believed that.
  So we have been working around the clock in bipartisan negotiations, 
and we believed that this weekend substantial progress was being made 
on a comprehensive phase 3.
  Now, let's keep in mind that this is phase 3 that we are talking 
about now. This is the one that I anticipate tonight we will vote 
successfully on. We have to do that. If we don't do it, people are 
going to die. This is not like it is going to cost so much money or 
some people are going to be inconvenienced. People are dying.
  So we had these bipartisan negotiations, and I thought we were doing

[[Page S1952]]

great work. While the Senate has been working here on solutions to this 
crisis, the Democrat House has been on recess. I am not really 
concerned. If they feel they can do that, that is fine.
  But that didn't stop the Speaker of the House, and this is where the 
problem came in. See, everything was great until last night, up until 
the vote time. We were going to vote at 6 last night, and we thought we 
were going to be successful in that vote at 6 last night.
  What we didn't know is that the Speaker came back, even though they 
are on recess, and she threw a wrench into everything that we are 
doing, all the bipartisan talks. She came to town and decided to make 
this a partisan exercise. House Democrats are now demanding that the 
far-left wish of radical policies be included in what is otherwise a 
bipartisan agreement.
  I think their feeling was this: We are going to spend all this money. 
We have to get everything in there. If it has nothing to do with the 
crisis, if it has nothing to do with the virus, then, this is the time 
to do it. So the idea was that they wanted to spend more.
  I think the Senator from Indiana did a good job of talking about some 
of the provisions that we are talking about, but I want to ask: Is 
there anybody out there right now who is a conservative? Is there 
anyone out there who has really kept track of what kind of spending we 
are talking about here?
  We have never seen anything like it. Remember phase 1. That was the 
$8.3 billion emergency supplemental. That was for State and local 
response and testing kits, and that is fine. People understood that. 
That was $8.3 billion in phase 1.
  Phase 2 came along. By the way, I have to admit that this was the one 
phase I voted against for this reason: Oklahoma is a little different 
than a lot of other States. We have a larger number of small businesses 
in Oklahoma than most other States have, and they are the ones we have 
been talking to. We have been talking to them because they are going to 
be recognizing that, after all the efforts they have made in their 
careers and what they have done, they are going to go out of business.
  So one of the things they said that had to be corrected was found in 
phase 2. In phase 2, it says there that, when they mandate small 
business do things like paid leave and other expenses, it is fine for 
them to go ahead and do that if the Federal Government is going to 
refund the expenses for that. And they were going to do it, but not for 
several weeks. So our position was--those of us who had a lot of small 
businesses--that we want to make sure that, when phase 3 comes, we have 
a provision in there that will change that, in the event that you end 
up having to pay for mandated things--paid leave and other things for 
your employees. That is great. It is great that you are doing it 
because there is no other way in this crisis we are in the middle of 
that they can do it. But they are going to change it. So, in this thing 
that we are going to be voting on, hopefully, tonight--and I think we 
are--it is going to change it so that they will be reimbursed when that 
time comes.
  Now, those who are conservatives out there, I want you to keep track 
of what we are talking about here. Get a pencil and paper out. Write 
these things down. I want you to know what we are talking about.
  The total amount of this phase 3 is going to be somewhere around $1.6 
trillion. That is a ``t'' we are talking about--not billion. This is a 
trillion.
  If you look at the things that are in there, like the major problems 
and the corrections that were made in phase 2, that is a part of this 
that is going on.
  For small businesses it is $350 billion. Write it down and add it up 
as we go along here--$350 billion. That is to take care of some of the 
problems that came out that weren't addressed in phase 2. We are 
talking about loans up to $10 million to individuals through 2020. All 
employers with up to 500 employees are eligible for this. The repayment 
of that--these are loans, but that is going to be delayed for 1 year. 
They don't have to pay back a portion of the loan, but most of that 
would have to be paid back. That is $350 billion.

  Healthcare provisions. We have $75 billion that goes to hospitals and 
healthcare providers throughout the country. These are mostly for the 
larger hospitals. You have a smaller amount--$275 million--that would 
expand services to rural hospitals.
  In the State of Oklahoma, we have a lot of rural hospitals. A lot of 
our rural hospitals have gone under.
  I can remember one time, back when Bill Clinton was the President, we 
had this great thing, and all my conservative friends were voting to 
support this. This was a budget balance amendment that would bring down 
the deficit, but it was doing it on the backs of rural hospitals. At 
that time, I was ranked as the most conservative Member in the U.S. 
Senate, and I voted against it. All of my conservative friends said: 
Wait a minute; how can you do that? We can do that because in the State 
of Oklahoma, we have to take care of our rural hospitals.
  That is in there--$275 million. Add it up. Write it down.
  There is $3.5 billion for vaccine development. That has to be done. 
We have to find a cure for this. Every day, you hear new ideas coming 
along. Is it the same thing that can be done for malaria? Is it the 
same thing that can be done for other problems? Again, the cost is 
there. We are going to have to do that. That is $3.5 billion.
  There is a $2 billion item for a national security stockpile. How 
many people know that there is such a thing as a national security 
stockpile? They don't know. I am a Member of the U.S. Senate, and I 
can't even tell you where it is. The reason I can't is because it is 
classified. People are not supposed to know where it is. Nonetheless, 
there are things like masks, gowns, ventilators, and that type of 
thing. It is a smaller amount--only $2 billion--but write it down, and 
put it in there.
  There is $500 billion for support of individuals. This is the one I 
hear mostly about from conservatives. Conservatives, listen carefully. 
There is going to be a cash payment to individuals of $1,200--$1,200. 
Here is a check for $1,200. That would be for people in categories 
where they--they are not wealthy people. If they are married, it 
wouldn't be $1,200; it would be $2,400. That is per individual. If they 
have kids, for each kid, it would be $500 additional.
  That is out there, and that is a part of this thing that a lot of 
people and particularly conservatives look at and don't like. This is 
different. This is different from anything else we have done before. We 
are trying to survive right now. People are dying every day. I hope I 
don't have to go out and repeat what we started out with on how many 
people are dying every day.
  Unemployment benefits. Think of the cost of that--39 weeks of 
unemployment benefits for the coronavirus job losses. In addition to 
that, they have benefits that increase by $600 a week. Usually, it is 
the States that pay for it. The States can't do it.
  My State of Oklahoma--we have a great Governor in Oklahoma, Kevin 
Stitt. Yet he is not able to do that. We never anticipated the expenses 
we are going to have. We never anticipated what has happened to our 
income--the revenues that come into the State that we have always 
expected since statehood in Oklahoma, which was not that long ago 
compared to other States. That is something we know the cost of, and we 
have never had to have the loss of revenue in the State of Oklahoma 
like we are having today.
  Unemployment benefits. There is 39 weeks of unemployment benefits for 
the job losses on coronavirus. We are talking about, on unemployment 
benefits, $600 a week. As I said, normally that is paid for by the 
State but not in this case.
  Emergency loans for distressed industries in States: $500 billion in 
total. People are talking about it. The speaker before me talked about 
coming here in an empty airplane. I came in on Monday, a week ago 
today, and there were only 14 people on a 737 airplane. Obviously, that 
is something that can't continue. We also have to take care of the 
cargo people. It is $50 billion for passenger air and $8 billion for 
cargo air.
  I say this because I want you to keep adding this stuff up.
  Then you have another figure: $17 billion for national security 
firms.
  That leaves about $425 billion for the Treasury if they determine 
something has been overlooked, so they can take care of that.
  I started out with saying that I want the conservatives in America to 
be listening because as of now, GovTrack

[[Page S1953]]

had me down as the most conservative Member of the U.S. Senate. So I 
want people who have been adding this up to realize that even I, with 
that background, am saying we are dealing with something we have never 
dealt with before.
  As we look and we see the tax credits for solar and some of these 
things that were a part of the liberal agenda, this is something that 
is going on, and that is what we are dealing with right now.
  Everything was great until last night, and we were making great 
headway. I was complimenting the Democrats on the cooperation we had, 
and we can get that back again. But this temporary thing came in where 
all of a sudden you have the Speaker of the House looking at her 
liberal agenda and saying: Hey, there is a lot of money out there. I 
have to get mine. Let's get in line and do that.
  They want money for emissions standards. What has that got to do with 
the virus? It means nothing. It has nothing to do with it. It is not 
what Americans want, and these things have nothing to do with the 
crisis.
  I have to say that Pelosi is going to have to wake up and take this 
seriously and stop playing political games. It has to happen now. It 
has to happen tonight. Stop and calculate, every day we take, how many 
people are dying during that time. We have never been faced with this 
before. It is time for the political games to quit. They want us to 
work together on this package. I think this is what we are going to be 
doing.
  For the last few weeks, I have been complimenting the Senate 
Democrats for the efforts they are making, and all of that came to a 
halt last night. I have been saying that this is a crisis where 
Democrats and Republicans need to put politics aside. That is what is 
going to have to happen. It has to happen--not, if we are lucky, next 
week; it has to happen tonight. It was until 6 o'clock last night that 
Senate Democrats were fully cooperating. That came across pretty quick.
  Let me make one comment. I know there are a lot of ``hate Trump'' 
people out there. I see them all the time. I love the guy. He has done 
a great job. When you stop and think about what he has done in this 
country--and a lot of people are trying to build a case to some of the 
``hate Trump'' people that he didn't move on this quickly enough. Well, 
he did. This thing happened in January. The first thing he did was stop 
the traffic coming into this country from China. He didn't sit around 
and wait; he did it immediately. And then he declared an emergency. All 
of these things he did immediately. He had the daily press conferences. 
I hope people are watching those. He is sitting back and having the top 
medical people in America talking about the problems we are having.
  This is kind of good news because we started this thing with the best 
economy we have had in my lifetime. Even those individuals who are the 
``hate Trump'' people have to realize that the economy is the best 
economy we have had. There are a couple of ways that he did it. First 
of all, there was the big tax cut. There are two things that caused 
this. One was the tax cut
  I have a reason for bringing this up right now, at the conclusion of 
my remarks; that is, when we had the tax cut, it wasn't a Republican 
idea, it was a Democratic idea. That was John Kennedy. He was President 
in 1964. What did he say? He said: You know, with the Great Society 
coming on, we have to get more revenue. We have to get more revenue, 
and the best way to increase your revenue is to decrease the marginal 
tax rates. He did it, and it worked. Unfortunately, he died and could 
not reap the benefits of that success. The revenues came in rapidly at 
that time.
  Other efforts for reducing taxes have been successful too. President 
Trump coupled that with doing away with overregulation. I can remember 
mine. I was very happy that mine was the first bill he signed. It was a 
regulation. It was put together back during the previous 
administration. It said: If you are a domestic oil or gas company and 
you are competing for business with China or somebody else, you have to 
give them your whole playbook on how you calculated your--well, that 
was giving a distinct advantage. It was part of the war on fossil fuels 
that the President had at that time. When this new President was 
elected, we went ahead and passed a bill to repeal that regulation. So 
the overregulation--that is what made it very successful.
  He has appointed, right now, 190 new conservative judges. People who 
are not conservatives, people who don't really feel that strongly about 
the Constitution, are not excited about that--190 new conservative 
judges. We haven't had that many judges in the first term of a 
President in the history of this country--including, of course, two 
Justices to the U.S. Supreme Court.
  Pro-Israel. A lot of people don't like Israel. They are sympathetic 
with others. But how many Presidents have said: We want to move the 
capital of Israel to Jerusalem. He is the one who has done it.
  We have rebuilt the military. How many people know this? I chair the 
committee. It is called the Senate Armed Services Committee. I had the 
responsibility of trying to get it rebuilt because we lost during the 
Obama years. The last 5 years of Obama, he actually reduced the amount 
of money for our defense by 25 percent. It had never happened before.
  I say this because we now have a great advantage. We are going to 
correct this. I think it is going to happen tonight. I am really 
optimistic it will because if it doesn't, people are going to die. 
People are dying right now. When that happens, when we get this rebuilt 
and get beyond the crisis that we have all talked about today that we 
are in the middle of right now, we are going to go back, and we will be 
thanking God we started this whole thing with one of the best economies 
we have ever had.
  When we are looking at what is happening every day--and I am not 
going to go back and repeat it, but we know it is happening--the number 
of people who are dying on a daily basis, every day we put this off, 
people are dying. For that reason, I really think that right now, 
somewhere in the Capitol, in a room, we have Democrats and Republicans 
who are going to come to some sort of an agreement. I don't care when 
it is--it can be midnight; it can be anytime--it has to happen. We are 
out of time. This is a crisis. We don't have the luxury of time. It is 
going to have to be done. It is going to have to be done tonight.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, it is so interesting to sit here and 
listen to our colleagues because the thing that touches me the most is 
that we are all talking to, talking with, and listening to our 
constituents, and certainly Tennesseans are talking with us and 
expressing some of their fears.
  Earlier today, I had a call from a small business owner who is in 
Tennessee, and she said: I am going to throw one of your lines back at 
you.
  I said: Well, what is that?
  She said: I have heard you say before that sometimes so-and-so was on 
your last nerve.
  I said: Yes, you have heard me say that.
  She said: Well, you people in Washington now are on my last nerve.
  I said: Really?
  She said: Oh, yes. Oh, yes. You know, I don't want my children to 
know that I am afraid. I don't want them to hear me be fearful. But 
inside, I am screaming in silence because I need you all to get 
something done.
  See, this is a typical small business owner. She and her husband 
started a business. They struggled until the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act came 
along. What happened? They saw growth. This Main Street business became 
their embodiment of the American dream. They were excited. Things were 
good. Today she is saying: I don't know if we should hang on to our 
employees. I don't know if we should close the doors. I don't know what 
we should do, and you all can't make a decision.

  I told her I fully understood where she was because it makes me 
anxious too. It disappoints me tremendously. I think there is a lot to 
be said about negotiating in good faith and exercising good faith and 
honesty with the people whom you want to work with. And certainly, the 
majority leader and the task forces felt that they were working in good 
faith. What they had structured sounded really good to a lot of 
Tennesseans.

[[Page S1954]]

  You had a bill that basically was healthcare assistance, food 
assistance, and financial assistance--different pockets. But most 
importantly, they were components that would meet the needs. We 
discussed some of these. For small businesses and independent 
contractors and sole proprietors and the self-employed--and I do thank 
Marco Rubio and Susan Collins for working with me on making certain 
that we included those entities. You are talking about $250 billion 
that would be there through unemployment insurance. These sole 
proprietors and small businesses would be able to go into that and 
stand themselves up by drawing that money down, keeping people 
employed, and then having it serve as a grant.
  Also for our rural communities, for telehealth and for our hospitals, 
there is $75 billion. It was a good thing. Let's take healthcare to the 
person instead of the person having to move to the healthcare. Great. 
That is the common sense in this bill that our friends across the aisle 
walked away from. They walked away from it. They said no to the 
unemployment benefits, no to small business, no to telehealth.
  There were also additional funds that would be there for employers to 
keep people working so that these jobs would be there.
  I will tell you this. Most folks, like the small business owner whom 
I talked about today, are offended when they hear about backroom 
negotiations and private negotiations. What they want to see is action. 
They want to see us on this floor. They are probably a little bit 
amused that there is not one single Democrat coming down here to defend 
their vote--not one. They are not down here. They are not speaking up 
as to why they do not want to help.
  What are they willing to do? The House is gone. They have been gone 
now for 10 days. They are not here. They are not working. Speaker 
Pelosi came back. Nancy came right back into town and threw a grenade 
into the negotiations. She wants to write her own bill.
  That bill is something. I have to tell you, I looked through it 
before I came down here because I thought, surely, they are not as far 
off the reservation as I was beginning to hear. Yes, they are. They 
want tax credits for solar energy and wind energy, which has no place 
in negotiating a package to address the issues from COVID-19. It has 
zero connection to that. Tax credits for solar energy is one of their 
big wishes in the Green New Deal. They have been all about it. This is 
where they are going to put their emphasis.
  They had one of their Members of leadership say the global 
coronavirus pandemic is a ``tremendous opportunity to restrict things 
to fit a progressive vision.'' There they go. There they go again. 
Don't let this crisis go to waste. Let's load this up. This is the 
vehicle that is moving. Here we go. This is a way we can get the Green 
New Deal. This is how we can realize our socialist dreams. This is how 
we go for government control. You got it, baby. This bill is moving. 
Let's load this up.
  Also, they have provisions in here to force employers to give special 
treatment to Big Labor. That has nothing to do with solving this crisis 
that we face right now. It has nothing to do with the small business 
owner figuring out if they are going to lay people off or they are 
going to be able to meet payroll.
  Since I have been down here on this floor, I have had two phone 
calls. One was from somebody in the hotel business and another from 
somebody with a real estate firm saying: Help me. Help me with this. 
Should we lay them off? Are you all going to get something done? Is 
this going to be something that will help us?
  Another of her dreams is early voting. She wants to have early voting 
and day-of voting. Yes. Let's pack the ballot box. Here we go.
  And all these States, by the way--California, Illinois, New York--
States that cannot manage their affairs; States that are running up 
their State income tax; States that have more debt than revenue--come 
on, let's bail them out. This is the vehicle. We can go ahead and help 
these blue States. Send them the money because they have been reckless 
with the taxpayers' dollar. Bail them out.
  New emission standards for the airlines. Let me tell you something. 
Wanting to make the airline industry carbon neutral by 2025 is a debate 
to have another day. I want to tell you something right now. You have 
heard people talk about being the only person on the plane or 1 of 14 
on the plane, 1 of 5 on the plane. Right now, keeping the planes flying 
is the issue because until we have answers for this health crisis, 
people are not going to go back to work and planes are not going to 
fly. Common sense would go a long way in these discussions.
  They also want to micromanage corporate boards. They want total and 
complete student loan forgiveness. They wanted $20 billion to bail out 
the Postal Service. I could go on and on.
  It is the socialist progressive wish list. Throw it all out there and 
then blame it on us when they don't get it. Try to force some of it 
onto the bill. There were Democratic Senators that helped to negotiate 
this bill. They got many provisions in this bill that they wanted.

  I didn't get everything I wanted. I thought, my goodness, I prefer to 
see that we would refund all of the income tax you paid this year for 
individuals and businesses. The system is set up, and money could be 
backed out.
  I like the payroll tax holiday. That is something that, as a 
conservative, I have supported for quite a while. Why should anybody 
have to pay the Federal Government for the privilege of hiring somebody 
and why should an employee have to pay the Federal Government for the 
privilege of working? It is common sense.
  I also would have liked to have seen us use the employment security 
system for getting money to employees. It is set up. It is coordinated 
with the States.
  These are all things I would have liked to have seen. I knew I wasn't 
going to get everything I wanted.
  But I will tell you this. When I read that there is a letter, a 
``Dear Colleague'' letter that has gone out in the House from Speaker 
Pelosi, and she has boasted that the majority leader had to postpone 
the vote on the motion to proceed and thanks to the minority leader, 
they didn't get the 60 votes required--I look at that, and I think, 
what kind of joy do you take in that? Here was a measure that had 
bipartisan support in the Senate. It was a measure that would bring 
relief to small businesses and to families and to friends who are 
receiving a diagnosis--a positive test for COVID-19--and people who are 
worried about how they are going to be payrolled this week, workers who 
are worried if they are going to have a job, small business owners who 
are crying inside because they do not know what we are going to do. Yet 
our colleagues across the aisle are absent from the floor and the 
colleagues on the other side of the Dome have been away for 10 days, 
and they are not offering a rational solution.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President: ``This is a tremendous opportunity to 
restructure things to fit our vision.''
  This is an opportunity to fit our vision.
  That is a quote--not from some Communist activist leader somewhere in 
the United States, not from some Third World general. No, that is from 
the third ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives. Let that 
sink in for a minute.
  Read it again: ``This is a tremendous opportunity to restructure 
things to fit our vision.''
  I thought a bogus impeachment was shameful enough but clearly not. 
People in this country are dying. They are dying, literally. People are 
losing their jobs every day, literally. More and more people are 
getting sick every day. And that is why Senators rushed back here. We 
rushed back here to pass the House bipartisan legislation that was 
negotiated between the President and Speaker Pelosi.
  Then we let both sides work on the next steps. We passed that bill 
within less than 24 hours of receiving it from the House. As imperfect 
as it was, we passed it with 90 Senators voting for it. That is how 
bipartisanship works. We worked around the clock to craft a plan, and 
we succeeded.
  Here we sit, listening to our Democratic colleagues pretend this is a 
partisan plan, as if they weren't sitting in the room as it was being 
negotiated, and many of their ideas are in this bill.

[[Page S1955]]

  Why are they doing that? I will tell you why they are doing it. When 
we see a rising body count, they see a political opportunity. Shame on 
them. The Trump derangement syndrome is accelerating the coronavirus. 
They should be ashamed of themselves. They see a chance to impose their 
vision--their leftwing, radical vision on our country because they 
think they can force it past us during this crisis. Their extreme 
partisan obstruction has blinded them.
  What has happened to this place? Why are they even here?
  Attempts to work across the aisle--honest attempts, attempts by rank-
and-file Republicans and rank-and-file Democrats--have resulted in our 
Democratic colleagues having created a revisionist view of what we have 
been doing, and it has resulted in blind, political opportunism just to 
advance their extreme leftwing agenda--an agenda that includes things 
like the Green New Deal, which is something that actually had a vote on 
the floor of the U.S. Senate. Guess how many of them voted for it--
none. It was that nutty--none. Yet, now, that is the agenda. That is 
their vision. That is the opportunity they see.
  How about socialism for the entire economy? It was not enough just 
for the energy sector. It was not enough just for the healthcare 
sector. It was not enough just for the manufacturing sector. Let's just 
have socialism. Let's debate which Democratic Presidential candidate is 
the best Socialist. How about hurting our farmers, our ranchers, our 
oil workers, our truckdrivers, our restaurant owners, our 
manufacturers, or our welders--everybody?
  We are not even asking them to vote on this plan. The vote last night 
was not on the bill, and the vote this afternoon was not on the bill. 
It was simply a procedural vote to begin the debate, to continue the 
negotiations on the bill. Not one moment would have been lost. Guess 
what. Now over a day has been lost while we have dithered. We are 
asking--when we do finally agree to help the American people--that 
instead of killing the economy and the jobs, as they have been doing, 
that we be ready to act on the bill. No, that is not good enough for 
them.
  Many of my colleagues have talked about what is in the bill. There is 
$4 billion for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Do you 
think it could use it?
  How about $9 billion for child nutrition? Do you care, Democrats, 
about child nutrition? We have often heard you talk about it. Where is 
it now?
  How about $20 billion for veterans? Do they not care about that?
  How about $50 billion for our farmers? I spoke about it. How about 
$75 billion for our healthcare providers? Do you think your healthcare 
providers could use a little more assistance, Democrats? I think they 
could, and they need it now. They needed it yesterday.
  How about $350 billion for the small businesses that employ all of 
those people who are now getting fired because they can't keep their 
doors open? Yet that is not even worth a debate to our Democratic 
colleagues. Oh, no.
  Apparently, it is now all back open for debate. The reports today are 
that the minority leader is holding the $50 billion for farmers hostage 
so they can get more of the opportunity to restructure things to fit 
their vision.
  Apparently, the majority leader either forgot or he never knew that 
food doesn't come from the deli.
  Mr. Minority Leader, food comes from the farmer. There is no sandwich 
in the New York deli without the farmers' growing the grain. There is 
no meat in that sandwich without the ranchers' raising the livestock. 
No, they don't make that food in the deli, Mr. Minority Leader.
  Who started all of this? It was not he. He tried to be helpful for a 
while or at least it appeared so. No, it was not he. It was not even an 
uprising of the rank-and-file Democrats who have been filing in, 
occasionally, into this Chamber. It wasn't even the breakdown in 
negotiations between the Republicans and the Democrats. It was the 
House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, who flew in here on an airplane that was 
powered by fossil fuels. Maybe those fossil fuels were even made by 
some oil from Alaska or North Dakota or Texas. She demanded an 
expansion of--what?--the renewable energy tax credits and other parts 
of her extreme leftwing, radical, partisan agenda.
  What in the hell does that have to do with the coronavirus?
  The absurdity of it speaks for itself. That is what we have learned 
to expect from the majority of our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle and in the other Chamber of Congress--ever since the freshman 
Democrat from New York became the de facto Speaker of the House. That 
is the House. We are not the House. We are the Senate. We are supposed 
to be the adults in the room. Some of our colleagues are here, acting 
like petulant children when there are people who are suffering and who 
don't know what to do or where to turn for help. They are turning to 
us. We are it. We are the help. We are driving the ambulance. All the 
while, the Speaker of the House tries to steer us into the ditch while 
the minority leader of the Senate hangs on for dear life in the 
passenger's seat.
  Why would those people come to us for help anymore? The House Speaker 
doesn't care about them. For crying out loud, she cares about renewable 
fuel tax credits. Where is rural America supposed to go? The Democratic 
leader sees them as, simply, political pawns. Being held hostage is $50 
billion for farmers. Let's hold that one up. Maybe we could get more of 
what fits our vision, our radical agenda.
  Apparently, helping these people doesn't matter to them. Well, I have 
news for him. I have news for the minority leader. While the Democrats 
dither, Americans are dying. That is a real fact. Let's get back in 
here tonight, and let's pass this legislation. Let's get it done and 
get the money to the people who need it the most
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The Senator from Georgia.
  Mrs. LOEFFLER. Mr. President, once again, I stood at this podium 
yesterday and called on the Senate to put politics aside and deliver 
critical relief to the American people, many of whom are on the 
frontlines of this war. Yet Chuck Schumer and the Senate Democrats have 
turned their backs on them, having been encouraged by Nancy Pelosi.
  People are getting sick. They are worried about their families. They 
are losing their jobs. Schools are closed. Small businesses are days 
away from shutting their doors, and hospitals are running out of 
equipment, cash, and room. Doctors and nurses are working around the 
clock, and they are our first line of defense. People are suffering.
  A hospital in Tifton, GA, faces such severe equipment shortages that 
it is forced to wear trash bags as protection. Many rural hospitals in 
Georgia only have days of operating cash left. Also, in rural Georgia, 
children go to the bus stops to pick up their local papers. That is 
their education for the day while their schools are closed.
  In Cartersville, GA, Table 20 was forced to lay off nearly all of its 
staff just to remain open, like too many others.
  In Athens, GA, the virus has turned a college town into a ghost town, 
and the virus is devastating its economy, like too many others.
  All over the State, waiters, waitresses, car salesmen, mechanics, 
farmers, and shopkeepers wonder: How will I possibly care for my 
family?
  For the last 2 weeks, I have been continuously talking with the 
people of Georgia: with cancer patients whose procedures have been 
canceled; with families whose entire livelihoods have been wiped out; 
with people in businesses who can't pay the rent, the mortgage, the car 
payment, get groceries, or get lifesaving tests and procedures; and 
with families who have been forced to cancel weddings and funerals.
  While the effects of this disease tear through our country, thousands 
of Americans are infected, and millions face layoffs. They are fighting 
with all they have. Yet what are Schumer and Pelosi doing? Nothing. The 
Democrats continue to politicize this rescue. How many people must be 
hurt for them to leave their selfish partisanship behind and get relief 
to our fellow Americans?
  While the rest of America comes together, like the Savannah Salvation 
Army that holds church services outside or like Meals on Wheels that 
delivers meals to seniors, the Democrats are playing games and holding 
hostage desperately needed relief. America does not deserve this. Nancy 
Pelosi and

[[Page S1956]]

Chuck Schumer are putting solar panels ahead of people. Meanwhile, 
President Trump and his administration are working around the clock to 
address this crisis while the Democrats are continuing the resistance.
  I know the folks at home see it for what it is--politicians who will 
not miss their own paychecks or their own benefits or who will not miss 
their home payments or their car payments. They are safely tucked away 
behind their coffee carts in their offices and are taking advantage of 
the moment--pushing ideas that could never pass in Congress.
  A bipartisan bill was ready to go this weekend. This delay is 
entirely on their backs. It is the worst of Washington, and it is 
disgusting. The American people must hold the Democrats to account. I 
will keep fighting for Georgians and all Americans with my colleagues, 
and I will not leave here until our work is done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, 24 hours ago, we thought we would have 
this legislation passed and that it would be on its way to the House of 
Representatives and, soon this week, on its way to the President for 
his signature so we could respond to the crisis we are in. This 
legislation about which you have heard several speeches tonight is the 
answer to the crisis--the economic crisis--just like two other pieces 
of legislation we passed in the last 2 weeks that were signed by the 
President and that responded to the public health crisis.
  America is suffering. I don't have to tell you the stories of 
personal hardship and the loss--particularly economic but now real life 
loss--because of this virus. This serious health crisis is quickly 
becoming a serious economic crisis. Through no fault of their own, 
Americans have been sidelined to fight the virus, and the economy is 
unraveling as a result of the public health crisis. Every hour, more 
people are being laid off. Every hour, more businesses are closing 
their doors. Every hour, families are being forced to figure out how 
they are going to pay their bills.
  Without a doubt, this is a crisis. Hundreds of thousands of people 
this week are going to the unemployment office, but you wouldn't know 
it by watching the Senate Democrats as they drag their feet on much 
needed relief for Americans. It is not just for Americans; it is to get 
the entire economy moving.
  So how has this evolved to the point that it has now?
  No. 1, last night and not once today but twice today--so three 
times--we tried to get this bill up on the U.S. Senate floor just for 
debate. We have been filibustered on procedural votes just to allow us 
to debate this relief package. It is a package that we have been 
working on in a bipartisan way for several days now.
  This sort of activity by the Democratic Senators is outrageous. They 
are blocking a bill that includes relief that we all agree is needed 
for the American people. They say this wasn't a bipartisan effort. That 
is what we have heard all day. Really? Well, I have had very good 
working relationships, very good dialogue, and some disagreement but a 
coming together with several of my Democratic colleague on the 
Committee on Finance in meetings on Friday and Saturday to work out a 
bipartisan bill that we could be voting on now. So they say it was not 
a bipartisan effort. Really? Then who were all of those people who were 
sitting in the same room I was, negotiating around the clock for 
multiple days?
  The fact is, we have worked with the Democrats on this bill, and we 
have worked in good faith together--both sides. We have included many 
provisions the Democrats want because we started with what the 
Republicans thought was a good bill in order to solve these economic 
problems. We had to change some Republican issues, and we had to add 
some Democratic issues. In fact, they don't want to admit it of the 
legislation, but many of my colleagues on the other side, on just this 
very day, have come to the Senate floor to brag about the areas on 
which we agree. These are provisions in this bill. But in the same 
breath, they call this a partisan bill. That makes no sense. Why would 
they want to say that a bill that we worked on for several days, 
working out differences between Democrats and Republicans, is a 
partisan bill?

  They also claim that this bill contains so-called corporate bailouts 
and not enough funding for workers and healthcare providers.
  Well, let me say that loaning money to small business and big 
business that has to be paid back--in the case of small business under 
this bill, I have to admit that if they have fewer than 500 employees 
and they get benefit from it and they don't lay anybody off, it will be 
a forgiven loan. But for really large corporations--let's say like 
getting the airlines flying again because the public depends on them 
and because there are millions of jobs connected with the airlines--
giving them loans is a bailout? No, it is not. It is a jobs bill so 
those millions of people working for the airlines can continue to work 
and the flying public can fly when they want to fly.
  That is my response to the fact that this is not a corporate bailout 
like they want you to believe.
  And no help for individuals? Let's look at the facts for helping 
individuals.
  This bill would send $1,200 to almost every American immediately; 
couples, $2,400; and families would get $500 for each child. It is 
meant that this money would be out to these families who need this help 
just as fast as the IRS can get it out. And it is no different from 
what we did in 2008 with the great recession that we were going into at 
that particular time.
  This bill also responds to what Democrats asked us to do: Beef up the 
unemployment insurance program, benefiting those people laid off.
  Now, all 50 States have a different figure for what unemployment pays 
unemployed people in that particular State. But whatever that figure 
is, our bill would add $600 per week for a period of 3 months. And if 
somebody says ``Well, that is not long enough,'' well, if we don't get 
this economy turned around in 3 months, we are going to be here doing 
it all again anyway.
  But it beefs up the unemployment by $600 in each of those States on 
top of what those States are already paying out. The unemployment part 
of this bill makes unemployment benefits available to more Americans 
than ever before.
  Now, I am chairman of the Finance Committee. These are just the 
provisions in the Finance Committee bill. There were three other 
bipartisan groups of people working on other parts of the economy to 
get this bill put together to help unemployed people.
  Our bill, though, in the Finance Committee also includes assistance 
for businesses of all sizes. It keeps them afloat so that folks have a 
job to go back to when they come out of this pandemic. So don't try to 
say that this bill doesn't help workers.
  The bill also includes about $100 billion for healthcare workers and 
helps to speed up delivery of treatments and helps to get potential 
vaccines developed a lot faster. This bill also helps health 
professionals.
  But it helps nobody--nobody gets any help--as long as the Congress 
sits on its thumb, and that is what we have been doing all day, when 
this bill could have been passed and sent to the House.
  My colleagues complain that this unprecedented aid package is not 
sufficient. I don't know what the exact figure is at this point because 
there are still some negotiations going on, but the last I heard it was 
fast approaching $2 trillion. Somehow, that is not enough.
  They are saying it is not enough help. So while they are saying it is 
not enough help, nobody is getting any help. I don't understand it.
  As I have already alluded to, we passed phase 1 legislation to help 2 
weeks ago; we passed phase 2 last week; we are working on phase 3. So 
if we need more help down the road, we will have that opportunity when 
we know for sure what the situation is. We don't have to address the 
next 10 years in what they are trying to negotiate now. We can address 
these problems if we don't get the pandemic under control by then.
  So there is no excuse for not delivering what we can do this very 
day. Instead, the Democrats are playing politics while the rest of the 
country suffers, while there is great anxiety out

[[Page S1957]]

there, while they are looking to their leaders for help and not getting 
it.
  If you don't think this is political, just look at the political wish 
list that Pelosi has put out. The scholar of the U.S. Senate, Senator 
Sasse, is going to speak about that, I think, coming up here, and you 
will see a picture of this great big bill that she put forward. But 
just let me name two or three things that I know about because I 
haven't read an 1,100-page bill like he probably has.
  They want to erase the Postal Service debt. What does that have to do 
with hundreds of thousands of people going to the unemployment office 
today?
  They want to require same-day voter registration. What does voter 
registration have to do with the crisis of unemployment and the 
pandemic that we are facing today?
  They want to saddle the airlines with crippling new emission 
standards. What does that have to do with the unemployed today, the 
people who are suffering, the anxiety that is out there that people 
have because they don't know how bad this situation is and they know 
they are losing their job?
  This legislation also wants to resurrect the Green New Deal at the 
same time families are losing their income.
  My colleagues, now is just not the time for this sort of horseplay. 
There will be plenty of opportunities to debate these policies later, 
not when we have a crisis on our hands--in other words, not now.
  Just a few days ago, our bipartisan talks were going very well. We 
made incredible progress over the course of the few days that we put 
this together, so we have a bipartisan bill.
  So to my Democratic colleagues, please put your swords away. Please 
focus on the task at hand. Please stop the delaying tactics and the 
politicking. America needs us to deliver. Now is not the time for more 
foot-dragging and procedural delays
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, my chairman on the Finance Committee, 
Chairman Grassley, who just left the floor, called me a scholar, and I 
think he meant it as a compliment, but it doesn't feel like that today.
  It actually feels like the fact that I have been reading this this 
afternoon is a sign of the fact that this institution is broken in 
significant ways, and there are not a lot of productive things 
happening outside a group of four people who are renegotiating a car 
deal again and again and again and again.
  I did spend a good chunk of my afternoon reading these 1,119 pages. 
You might wonder what this is. This is Nancy Pelosi's last-minute 
additional Christmas wish list of progressive items that she wants 
added to the coronavirus relief bill that has been being negotiated 
here over the course of the last 96 or so hours.
  I wanted to read this because I think we owe it to our constituents 
to know what is in bills before people pass them. And I want to say, in 
full disclosure, the wish list keeps growing so rapidly and radically 
that this thing could be like 50 percent obsolete since 3 or 4 hours 
ago when I started digging into it. There may be another bill that is 
another 1,200 pages thick.
  But this is the one that I have been reading today, and the Speaker 
has obviously decided that she doesn't want to waste any crisis.
  The American people face two unprecedented emergencies. We face a 
public health emergency that is genuinely disastrous, and we face a 
consequent resultant economic emergency that puts at risk lots and lots 
of families' livelihoods, lots of dinner tables around the country.
  There are 5,997,000 firms in the United States--so just a hair shy of 
6 million firms in the United States. And lots and lots and lots of 
those--the overwhelming majority of firms--and 47 percent of all 
employment are small businesses in America. These are firms of 500 or 
fewer employees. These are family businesses. These are corner stores. 
Lots and lots and lots of these people live on an average--their 
businesses live on an average--of 16 days of cash.
  So when the country is shut down in the midst of something like the 
coronavirus crisis, there are lots of businesses that have only about 2 
weeks before they may cease to exist and just go poof or go down some 
other pathway that leads them to become dependencies of the State.
  So we have two massive crises in this country--one public health and 
one economic. And this place often lies and pretends that there is some 
piece of legislation that can solve every problem on Earth. That isn't 
true, but in this case, both of these emergencies need lots and lots of 
help and bandaids and salve and lifelines, life preservers from this 
institution, and that is why so many people around here have been 
working all night overnight 3 or 4 days in a row.
  A number of us have been in this Chamber until midnight or 1 a.m. 
multiple nights. I am a 4 a.m. wake-up guy, so I am usually in bed by 9 
p.m. When I am here at midnight or 1 a.m., it is well past a period of 
coherence. So when we are working around the clock, it is because there 
is an emergency.
  Lots and lots and lots of stuff in this 1,119-page additional bid 
from Nancy Pelosi have nothing to do with the coronavirus emergency.
  So I want to take us through some of what is in this piece of 
legislation, but I am going to pull up for a minute as I recognize that 
the majority leader, who is at the center of this negotiation, has 
entered the Chamber. So I am going to yield to him and let him make 
whatever updates he wants to give us in this Chamber, and then I will 
return to this piece of legislation after the majority leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Nebraska that I 
will be very brief.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 157, H.R. 748, a bill to amend the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on 
     high cost employer-sponsored health coverage.
         Mitch McConnell, Chuck Grassley, Pat Roberts, Ben Sasse, 
           Deb Fischer, Cindy Hyde-Smith, John Hoeven, Tom Cotton, 
           James E. Risch, Lamar Alexander, Bill Cassidy, David 
           Perdue, Marco Rubio, John Cornyn, Thom Tillis, Steve 
           Daines, Michael B. Enzi.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call 
for the cloture motion be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, just one further observation, we will 
not be having any votes tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, I want to be clear. This negotiation has 
been messy. There is lots and lots in this bill that I don't like. 
There is lots in this bill that is also critically important and urgent 
for the American people.
  There are a bunch of things in here that I think stink. I don't like 
firm-specific money in legislation. So I don't like much of the 
airlines section of this bill. The airlines didn't do anything wrong at 
this moment when all their travelers fall off because of the pandemic 
before them, but there are pieces of the way any legislation like this 
is written, when it has specific firms in it, that I dislike and I 
think should be done more effectively over time. But this is following 
a model of how these portions of legislation have been written around 
here in the past.
  I don't like the direct payments that Washington is going to try to 
renew long after the American people have defeated the coronavirus. 
There is a lot in this legislation that I don't like.
  But there are things we should all be applauding. This legislation 
tries to turbocharge vaccine development. We need what our friend, the 
Senator from Montana, called the Manhattan Project for the vaccine 
accelerator. We need to go lots faster figuring out how to remove 
barriers to enable companies at this time that seek to be effective 
over efficient in ways that pluralize lots and lots of pharmaceutical 
firms competing all at once and taking three or four steps of the 
vaccine development process and trying to run them in parallel

[[Page S1958]]

instead of in sequence, because the American people and the world need 
this vaccine. There are things to be proud of in that part of the 
legislation.
  I like the fact that this legislation--not the Pelosi legislation, 
but the composite compromise bill that the Senate has been working on 
over the last four days--tries to help small businesses stay alive 
during this period of zero revenue with well-structured loans. I think 
that Senators Rubio and Collins and their two Democratic colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle have done a really good job. It is a crazy, 
eye-popping pricetag at about $350 billion, this small business loan 
program, but it is a necessity at this moment, and it is legislation 
that people should be proud of.
  I like the fact that this bill works in the appropriations section--
not the whole bill, not the whole draft text, as I wish it would. But 
in the appropriations section, it works hard to get more than 51 
percent of the appropriations section of the money to Governors to 
allow them to make differentiated spending decisions, which they can 
make more effectively than we can make in Washington, DC, where we look 
out across 325 million people in an undifferentiated way. Our Governors 
are better at building public-private partnerships than the Congress 
is.
  In my State, Omaha and Lincoln have different economics than the 
rural parts of the State, but Omaha and Lincoln are different than 
Nashville and Memphis. And National and Memphis are different than L.A. 
and Seattle. So this bill works hard to try to take a big chunk--a 
majority of the appropriations section of the legislation--and drive it 
back to Governors.
  There are things that are good in this bill. There are things that I 
think are weak and clunky in this bill, but it was negotiated in a 
bipartisan way in good faith on topics and issues that were related to 
the coronavirus emergency. It wasn't a Republican bill. It wasn't a 
Democratic bill. It certainly isn't my favorite bill or piece of 
legislation around here, but it was a good-faith, bipartisan attempt 
that people were negotiating on all weekend.
  But, instead of taking that legislation--urgent, necessary 
legislation--and passing it quickly, Democrats have now decided to 
allow Speaker Pelosi to block it through proxies here in the Senate so 
she can rewrite the bill with a ton of crap that has absolutely nothing 
to do with the public health emergency that we face at this moment.
  So I have been reading the legislation this afternoon. We have 
families suffering and small businesses that are closing literally by 
the hour. We have doctors fighting to prevent their hospitals from 
being oversurged and overwhelmed, and what is Speaker Pelosi trying to 
do? She is trying to take hostages about her dream legislation--all 
sorts of dream legislative provisions that have nothing to do with this 
moment--and say: The American public can't get access to the public 
health piece of legislation or the economic relief pieces of 
legislation unless she gets hostages that are entirely unrelated to 
this moment.
  We are better than that. Democrats in the Senate are better than 
that. Many of them are privately embarrassed about this. I don't 
understand how they voted today to filibuster this bill for a second 
time when in private many of them tell us: Well, this is just part of 
the negotiation and our leaders want us to vote this way, but I am 
really uncomfortable with it because I don't think we should be dealing 
with unrelated issues.

  I had multiple Democrats today tell me they don't think they should 
be dealing with unrelated issues, things that are not about the health 
and economic emergencies before the Nation.
  Here is why we stopped. Here is why the bill that is before us, 
again, is not my favorite piece of legislation--not Republicans, not 
Democrats--but a bipartisan, good-faith piece of legislation. The 
reason we are not voting on it is because 1,119 pages of new Nancy 
Pelosi demands that we should consider.
  I promise you that every Washington, DC, lobbyist right now has been 
combing over these 1,200 pages this afternoon because they wonder what 
goodies they can claim credit for or what goodies that are against 
their sector they should go against.
  We shouldn't be debating anything in an emergency moment like this 
with another 1,119 pages being dropped in at the last minute with other 
demands. So I decided to start digging through it.
  Let me give you a few highlights--or low lights. Here is page 421, 
line 22:

       (1) MINIMUM STUDENT LOAN RELIEF AS A RESULT OF THE COVID-19 
     NATIONAL EMERGENCY.--Not later than 270 days after the last 
     day of the COVID-19 emergency period. . . .

  Think about what this means. Not later than 270 days--that is 9 
months after the emergency is over. Then the Secretary of Education has 
to do all this new stuff.
  Nobody who wants student debt loan forgiveness should pretend this is 
about getting emergency cash into the economy for liquidity or 
solvency, because the Nancy Pelosi demand about loan forgiveness says 
here that this is for something 9 months after the emergency.
  This is something that many Democrats want. As a former college 
president, I actually think this is a bad idea, but there are 
intellectually defensible reasons to argue for it. There are reasonable 
cases to be made, but they have tried to make them in the past and not 
been able to pass the legislation, and it has nothing to do with the 
coronavirus.

       Not later than 270 days after the last day of the COVID-19 
     emergency period, the Secretaries concerned shall jointly 
     carry out a program under which a qualified borrower, with 
     respect to the covered loans and private education of loans 
     of such qualified borrower, shall receive in accordance with 
     paragraph (3) an amount equal to the lesser of the following:
       (A) The total amount of each covered loan and each private 
     education loan of the borrower; or
       (B) $10,000.

  So what this says is you can feel the Bern with a $10,000 public and 
private loan cancellation project a year in the future, or depending on 
how long this emergency goes, this emergency could be with us through a 
trough in the late summer and another peak in the fall and winter. We 
may be in the emergency for more than a year. So Speaker Pelosi says: 
Well, the Cabinet officials in the executive branch shouldn't probably 
be burdened with this now because it obviously has nothing to do with 
the coronavirus, but in the future we want to bake into law a $10,000 
loan forgiveness program that has nothing to do with coronavirus.
  That is wrong. This institution has been bleeding public trust for a 
long time. When we pass a $2 trillion piece of legislation in the 
middle of an emergency, there are going to be lots of things wrong with 
it. There are going to be lots of reasons why the public looks back and 
says: Why aren't you all more competent? Why couldn't you have done 
this better? Why wouldn't you have done that better? Boy, this feels 
clunky. Why would these people be included in the direct payments, but 
those people wouldn't? You have to earn $2,500, but we are using the 
2018 tax returns to be able to determine whether or not you earned your 
$2,500 to be able to qualify for the $1,200 per family, and it phases 
out from 75 to $95,000? There are a lot of hard-policy, mechanical, 
technical issues that need to be navigated, and some of them will be 
imperfect.
  And later, the public will say: Why did you do it this way instead of 
this way? And those will be fair questions. We will have to defend the 
members of the task forces who wrote that part of the legislation--a 
bipartisan task force that worked on that piece of legislation all 
weekend.
  But what will be completely impossible is to tell the public: Well, 
the reason we did the loan forgiveness program, which had nothing to do 
with coronavirus, this way rather than that way was because--why?--
because it was a northbound train and people could load it with a whole 
bunch of swampy stuff.
  You may believe in loan forgiveness. Make the case and win an 
argument for loan forgiveness. Don't do it on the backs of a national 
emergency, when in Nebraska I have families calling me from Omaha where 
spouses have just been put in new institutions in the last 2 or 3 weeks 
because of declining dementia, because of Alzheimer's. And as soon as 
they got put in an institution, that institution got put on a 
quarantine lockdown, and a husband is only in his late sixties, but he 
is losing his entire mind and memory. He doesn't

[[Page S1959]]

understand why he is there, and his wife and kids can't visit him 
anymore, and he doesn't know what the heck is going on.

  That is a genuine tragedy. That is not an occasion for Nancy Pelosi 
to try to get a loan forgiveness program done that she couldn't get 
done by regular legislation. It is wrong, and the Democrats in this 
body, most of them, know it is wrong. None of them are going to come 
down here and make an argument. None of the 47 Democrats in the Senate 
are going to come to the floor of the Senate and say: You know what we 
ought to do during this national emergency? We ought to do a student 
loan forgiveness program right now.
  Someone might mention it in a long list, implying that the program 
may have to do with liquidity. But if you actually read what happens in 
the legislation, there is no loan forgiveness until 270 days after the 
coronavirus national emergency is over.
  Page 570. Not even a coronavirus can put a pause on our culture wars. 
Line 14:

       The Congressional COVID-19 Aid Oversight Panel in 
     conjunction with SIGTARP--

  I don't know what that acronym means--

     shall collect diversity data from any corporation that 
     receives Federal aid related to COVID-19, and issue a report 
     that will be made publicly available no later than one year 
     after the disbursement of funds. In addition to any other 
     data, the report shall include the following:
       (1) EMPLOYEE DEMOGRAPHICS.--The gender, race, and ethnic 
     identity (and to the extent possible, results disaggregated 
     by ethnic group) of [all] the corporation's employees, as 
     otherwise known or provided voluntarily for the total number 
     of employees (full- and part-time). . . .

  I am just going to skip ahead a couple of paragraphs.

       (3) PAY EQUITY.--A comparison of pay amongst racial and 
     ethnic minorities (and to the extent possible, results 
     disaggregated by ethnic group) as compared to their white 
     counterparts and a comparison of pay between men and women 
     for similar roles and assignments.
       (4) CORPORATE BOARD DIVERSITY.--Corporate board demographic 
     data, including total number of board members, gender, race 
     and ethnic identity of board members. . . .

  Et cetera, et cetera--I am skipping ahead here.
  Page 572, the next page:

       (e) DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION OFFICES.--Any corporation that 
     receives Federal aid related to COVID-19 must maintain 
     officials and budget dedicated to diversity and inclusion 
     initiatives for no less than 5 years after. . . .

  Blah, blah, blah--none of this has anything to do with the 
coronavirus. There are all sorts of real racial issues in America that 
need to be addressed, but none of this has anything to do with the 
coronavirus. If you want to argue for this legislation, argue for this 
legislation once people in nursing homes in Nebraska aren't being 
locked out of being able to visit their family members with Alzheimer's 
and dementia.
  Page 681, line 16:

       ``SEC. 325. SAME DAY REGISTRATION.
       ``(a) IN GENERAL.--
       ``(1) REGISTRATION.--Each State shall permit any eligible 
     individual on the day of a Federal election and on any day 
     when voting, including early voting, is permitted for a 
     Federal election . . . to register to vote in such election 
     at the polling place using a form that meets the requirements 
     under section 9(b) of the National Voter Registration Act of 
     1993 (or, if the individual is already registered to vote, to 
     revise any of the individual's registration information); and
       ``(B) to cast a vote in such election.
       ``(2) EXCEPTION.--The requirements under paragraph (1) 
     shall not apply to a State in which, under a State law in 
     effect continuously on or after the date of the enactment of 
     this section. . . .

  You see, what this is about is same-day voter registration, because 
November 3 is just 225 days away, and if there is anything the American 
people are worried right now about, it is that they would like 
Washington, DC, to take away the authority of 50 secretaries of State 
and determine how you conduct local elections in America.
  This has absolutely nothing to do with coronavirus--absolutely 
nothing to do with coronavirus. This isn't a Republican v. Democratic 
scream. This is nonsense. This is where 99 percent of the American 
public, if they were in this Gallery, would be shaking their head and 
rolling their eyes and saying: What? You guys are trying to decide that 
the Federal Government should, for the first time in U.S. history, 
change the way local elections are conducted by Secretaries of State in 
America? By the way, there is no one in the Gallery for a reason--
because the Gallery is shut down because we are in the middle of a 
pandemic.
  So this probably isn't the time to be having a debate about whether 
the Federal Government should micromanage the way our 50 States conduct 
their elections. I think this is a bad idea. But if you want to argue 
for this idea, let's do it as soon as the pandemic is over. Come and 
actually make an argument. Quit trying to exploit the crisis.
  Page 725--there is almost no section of American life for government 
that can't be touched in an emergency if you want to play exploited 
politics.
  Line 12:

       DIVISION N--U.S. POSTAL SERVICE PROVISIONS

  Because, of course, in the middle of a pandemic, do you know what the 
American people want? They want to have a labor fight about the Postal 
Service.

       SEC. 140001. ELIMINATION OF USPS DEBT; ADDITIONAL BORROWING 
     AUTHORITY.
       (a) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law--
       (1) any outstanding debt of the United States Postal 
     Service owed to the Treasury pursuant to sections 2005 and 
     2011 of title 5, United States Code, on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act is hereby canceled; and
       (2) after the date of the enactment of this Act, the United 
     States Postal Service is authorized to borrow money from the 
     Treasury in an amount not to exceed--

  I have got to count all these numbers--

       $15,000,000,000 to carry out the duties and 
     responsibilities of the Postal Service, including those under 
     title 39, United States Code, and the Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall lend up to such amount at the request of the 
     Postal Service.
       (b) REPEAL OF FISCAL YEAR BORROWING LIMIT.--Section 
     2005(a)(1) of title 39, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``In any one fiscal year,'' and all that follows 
     through the period.

  Please, Senate Democrats, you don't believe that this is good 
governance. Somebody please come to the floor and defend why we are 
doing a Postal Service bailout in the middle of an emergency.
  I know that Bernie Sanders believes in Postal Service reform. I don't 
agree with Senator Sanders on this, but he is actually pretty 
thoughtful about it. He spent a lot of time thinking about how you 
might bail out the Postal Service. So if Bernie Sanders wants to argue 
for a Postal Service bailout, he should make that case. I haven't been 
here all day, but I have presided a couple of hours. I haven't heard a 
single Democrat come to the floor and argue for a Postal Service 
bailout.
  Somebody please come back to the floor and at least stand in the 
light of day before the American people and say the stuff Nancy Pelosi 
is voting for you think is a good idea to do in the middle of this 
national health emergency.
  Page 768, line 7:

       (1) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, subject to the requirements of this subsection, the wage 
     rate in effect under section (a)(1) with respect to an 
     employee of an employer described in paragraph (2), or any 
     individual who provides labor or services for remuneration 
     for such employer, regardless of whether the individual is 
     classified as an independent contractor or otherwise by such 
     employer, shall be not less than $15.00 per hour.

  So while businesses are struggling to make ends meet--and we are 
seeing lots and lots of small businesses go bankrupt in all 50 States 
in America today. Businesses are going bankrupt in America today in all 
50 of the States that we represent. Speaker Pelosi wants to raise the 
minimum wage to $15 an hour.
  I used to be a professor. I am a business guy by background, but I 
was a history professor for a long time, and when I would teach, I 
taught the Socratic method when I taught a seminar. In a lecture class, 
it is different, but in a seminar, if I had 12 students or I had 15 
students in a class, I would regularly try to frame up a given weekly 
seminar, and I would try to figure out how to map a debate where you 
could get about half the people in the class on each side of a debate.
  If it ended up that the debate was off-weighted and there was a 
minority group and a majority group, I would tend to join the minority 
group, regardless of what was the issue, and I would try to fight for 
the minority position just to help spice up the debate and make it more 
interesting.

[[Page S1960]]

  I think a $15 minimum wage is really bad economics, but I have argued 
for it many, many times in class because there are intellectually 
coherent reasons to argue for it. I don't think it works. And if we 
weren't dealing with the pandemic in King County, WA, one of the things 
we might talk about in this body is how the $15 minimum wage has worked 
out in Seattle. Their public was overwhelmingly in favor of it a couple 
of years ago, and now there is a huge move against it because people 
realized what a $15 minimum wage actually does. It accelerates the 
marginalization and the capitalization and the layoffs of people making 
between $9 and $14 an hour. That is what it actually does. It speeds 
automation.
  So I would love it if anybody who was a primary breadwinner in the 
house was earning way more than $15 an hour. I would love that to be 
reality in American life. But here are two facts you need to know.
  Fact No. 1, last time I checked the data, 89 percent of everybody who 
made the minimum wage in America wasn't a primary wage earner. They 
were a high school kid; they were a college student getting their first 
job; they were working part time while they were in school; or they 
just graduated high school, and they hadn't figured out their long-term 
path. Maybe they were in trade school, but they were working a minimum-
wage job and still lived at mom and dad's house or maybe they were a 
65-year-old aunt who lived with a family that the rest of the house was 
self-sufficient, but her wages augmented the family's income. Eighty-
nine percent of the people who make the minimum wage in America are not 
the primary wage earner or breadwinner in their family, but of the 11 
percent who are, the idea that you can just raise the minimum wage to 
any amount--I mean, if you just think good intentions are sufficient, 
then why $15?
  For heaven's sake, $15 an hour on a 2,000-hour work year, 40 hours a 
week times 50 weeks, that makes $30,000 year. It is really hard to get 
by on $30,000 a year. If you think good intentions are enough, $15 
isn't enough. Why not have a minimum wage of $25? Why not $30 an hour? 
The reason is because it doesn't actually work. If you just raise the 
minimum wage to a different level than the marginal contribution value 
of that job, what happens is the firms either cease to exist or people 
automate more rapidly.

  There are reasonable arguments to be made--certainly there are 
emotional and humanitarian arguments to be made--for wanting a $15 
minimum wage. But wanting a $15 minimum wage is an argument you should 
make. It is not something you do in the midst of a public health 
emergency, and it is certainly not something you do in the midst of a 
public health emergency where lots and lots of small businesses are 
ceasing to exist because the $15 minimum wage will just drive more 
people out of business.
  So it would be better to have a 15-dollar-an-hour job than an 11-
dollar-an-hour job, but it would be better to have an 11-dollar-an-hour 
job than no job. So if you are going to debate a $15 minimum wage, 
please do it in the light of day. What Speaker Pelosi is doing here is 
wrong.
  Page 803. This one goes on for a bunch of pages, so I will jump 
across. Line 10:

       SEC. 704. AIRLINE CARBON EMISSIONS OFFSETS AND GOALS.
       (a) CARBON OFFSETTING PROGRAM--
       (1) IN GENERAL--Not later than 90 days after the enactment 
     of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration shall require each air carrier receiving 
     assistance under section 101, to fully offset the annual 
     carbon emissions of such air carriers for domestic flights 
     beginning in 2025 . . .
       (1) IN GENERAL.--The Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration shall require each air carrier receiving 
     assistance under section 101 to--
       (A) make and achieve a binding commitment to reduce the 
     greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the domestic flights 
     of such air carrier in every calendar year, beginning with 
     2021, on a path consistent with a 25 percent reduction in the 
     aviation sector's emissions from 2005 levels by 2035, and a 
     50 percent reduction in the sector's emissions from 2005 
     level to apply by the year 2050.

  This is like something out of the Green New Deal for the age of 
COVID-19, but it is just the technocratic piece for airline emissions--
and here we are dealing with the part about airline emissions from the 
year 2035 to the year 2050.
  If you have been looking at the data this afternoon, one of things 
that Scott Gottlieb has been talking a lot about today is we see that 
the hospitalization rates and the case fatality rate for the 45- to 54-
year-old hospital admissions, COVID-19 patients in the United States, 
look a lot worse than we thought they were a week ago. There are some 
things on the Italy curve that are scary and ugly. There are some 
pieces of it where we might think there are a little bits of hopeful 
signs that as we have a lot more positive tests--but we know we 
simultaneously have community transmission problems but we also have a 
lot more testing. If you get more positive tests, some of that is 
because you have more positive confirmation of the disease, but some is 
because you are doing more testing. There are some things that might be 
mildly good news, but Gottlieb, who has been talking today--former FDA 
Commissioner--has been talking about some really bad news, which as we 
talked about, this disease is particularly bad for people over 60, but 
there have been a lot of hopeful signs, besides our love of neighbor 
obligations not to be transmitting the disease to our grandmas and to 
our parents and to the elderly, among others, but it looks like among 
45- to 54-year-olds, the death rate does look to be--we don't know, but 
on some preliminary data, it looks to be between five-tenths and seven-
tenths of 1 percent compared to flu at one-tenth of 1 percent across 
the whole population. That would be a stunningly high case death rate 
among the 45- to 54-year-olds.
  Do you know what none of those people care about right now? They care 
about it, but they don't think that we should be legislating on it 
without any long debate. None of them are talking about airline 
emissions between the years 2035 and 2050. Nancy Pelosi shouldn't be 
talking about it either.
  Page 911. I will stop soon. I see one of my colleagues waiting to 
talk. Page 911, line 3:

       SEC. 404. MODIFICATION OF SPECIAL RULES FOR MINIMUM FUNDING 
     STANDARDS FOR COMMUNITY NEWSPAPER PLANS.

  Do you want to know what is going to stop the public health crisis? 
We should talk about the business model of local newspapers right now 
rather than get the American people the relief they need.

       (a) AMENDMENT TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986.--
     Subsection (m) of section 430 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986, as added by the Setting Every Community Up for 
     Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019, is amended to read as 
     follows:
       (m) SPECIAL RULES FOR COMMUNITY NEWSPAPER PLANS.--
       (1) IN GENERAL.--An eligible newspaper plan sponsor of a 
     plan under which no participant has had the participant's 
     accrued benefit increased (whether because of service or 
     compensation) after April 2, 2019, may elect to have the 
     alternative standards described in paragraph (4) apply to 
     such plan.
       (2) ELIGIBLE NEWSPAPER PLAN SPONSOR.--The term `eligible 
     newspaper plan sponsor' here means--

  And then there are like four or five different definitions of what an 
eligible newspaper plan sponsor would mean.
  If the American people wonder why Congress hasn't passed a 
coronavirus emergency health and emergency economics relief plan, I 
think it would be great if Speaker Pelosi went out and stood before a 
gaggle of reporters before the cameras and started talking about the 
newspaper sponsor alternative plan definition provisions of her bid in 
this negotiation on page 911, subsection (b).
  One more for now. On page 931:

       TITLE V--REHABILITATION FOR MULTIEMPLOYER PENSIONS

  Line 16:

       (a) ESTABLISHMENT.--There is established in the Department 
     of Treasury an agency to be known as the ``Pension 
     Rehabilitation Administration''.

  By the way, there is no such thing. This doesn't exist. It is being 
created of whole cloth here. So in the middle of a national health 
pandemic emergency, we are creating now bureaucracies to deal with 
insolvent pensions.

       (1) ESTABLISHMENT OF POSITION.--There shall be a head of 
     the Pension Rehabilitation Administration a Director, who 
     shall be appointed by the President.
       (2) TERM.--In General, the term of Director shall last 5 
     years.

  I am going to stop. This is wrong. This ought not to be happening. It 
is not being done in good faith. Basically,

[[Page S1961]]

none of this stuff is really going to be considered in any negotiation. 
It is a guise and a rouse to try to move the goalpost.
  When people play nine innings of a baseball game in a negotiation and 
somebody decided to use a whole bunch of their pitchers, then the 
decision was made, hey, let's add five more innings to the baseball 
game--the American people are waiting for this relief act, and it has 
gone on for another 36 hours here for no reason that is honorable and 
sincere. There are a whole bunch of big and real debates that could be 
had inside the four corners of the four, kind of five task forces that 
helped write this piece of legislation. There are lots of reasonable 
debates to be had inside that. Throwing in a laundry list of Christmas 
list lighting is why this place bleeds public trust.
  The Democratic whip in the House said it explicitly: ``A tremendous 
opportunity exists [in this crisis] to restructure things here to fit 
our vision.'' None of these things--none of these 1,119 pages are about 
solving the crisis, none of the nine paragraphs that I decided to read, 
beat the virus, none of these things keeps small business alive.
  I get it. Expenses. Speaker Pelosi is a liberal progressive from San 
Francisco. I am a conservative from Nebraska. We have a different 
political philosophy. That is fine. It is completely reasonable for us 
to debate politics and policy and ideology when we are not in the 
middle of a crisis.
  Speaker Pelosi could bring her liberal wish list to the House floor 
for a vote any time she wants. Unlike most of us, she controls an 
agenda, but she ought to have the decency to vote on her ideologically 
driven wish list after this emergency legislation has been passed.
  We are better than this. This is not the way to restore the public 
trust. We should do better.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I know we are talking about the 
unprecedented times that we are facing in our Nation, but I want to 
talk about something that we have in common, something that is pretty 
remarkable and that I think we all need to remember that we have in 
common. We represent incredible people, the American people, who are 
doing so much right now--in Alaska, in Colorado, in Nebraska, in 
Montana, and in Connecticut--to help each other so much.
  I frequently tell my constituents, as we are talking about getting 
through this crisis, that everyone has a role to play--young, old, 
business leaders, elected leaders, union members--and everybody is 
playing a role. So I am very proud of my constituents in Alaska, and I 
know that everybody in this body is proud of what their constituents 
are doing right now, the best of our Nation is doing right now.
  We talk a lot about how we are teleworking. I would like to remind 
folks that there are some Americans, a lot of Alaskans--thousands, 
millions--who can't telework. Our healthcare professionals who are on 
the frontlines, our first responders, our truckdrivers, port workers, 
Alaskans who are stocking the grocery store shelves, picking up our 
refuse, parents who are teaching their children at home, local 
restaurants who are working day and night to continue to provide 
takeout food--so many people are doing such good work.
  There is an incredible outpouring of generosity from all of our 
citizens, all Americans, and we are hearing about it, from our small 
businesses donating their time and services to help people in their 
communities, to volunteers, and to our nonprofits. That is what 
Alaskans are doing, and that is what Americans are doing around the 
country at this very moment, despite this enormous adversity and the 
challenges we are facing--one of the most unprecedented challenges in 
our history.
  These are extraordinary and precarious times right now. People are 
obviously concerned about their health. People are obviously concerned 
about their economic health, their jobs, losing jobs, retirement 
accounts, life savings. People are being told to stay at home. They are 
hard-working Americans, Alaskans who have worked their whole lives, who 
don't even know how they are going to pay for their groceries or rent. 
And they are taking these actions at a difficult time because local and 
State governments all across the country are making tough decisions, 
working with their communities to help make sure that the collective 
whole of our societies, whether in Anchorage or Fairbanks or other 
places in America, are going to get through this health crisis. The 
bottom line is that they are coming together in a shared sacrifice.
  I am so proud of the people I represent, and I know my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle are as well. It is something we have in common.
  There was an article in the Washington Post just the other day, like 
2 days ago. It said something like, you know, America has gotten 
through a lot of challenges before: World War II, the Civil War. But 
this article went on to say: But perhaps the American people don't 
really have the mettle or the resiliency to get through this one.
  That was kind of the gist of this article--classic, clueless, inside-
the-beltway reporting--that we are not the same America that got 
through other challenges; that we don't have the mettle. Well, I would 
suggest that these Washington Post reporters need to get out of DC. 
Maybe they should go to Alaska. Maybe they should go somewhere else in 
America. Come to my State. I guarantee you, we have the mettle--
Alaskans and other great Americans--to get through this crisis.
  I always say that my constituents are some of the most resilient 
people in the world. Let me just give you a couple of examples. Our 
Alaskan Native communities have been thriving for thousands of years in 
some of the harshest conditions anywhere on the planet. We are a State 
full of the ancestors of rugged pioneers who came to Alaska looking for 
promise and stayed to build a great State.
  Throughout our history in my State, we have had extreme challenges 
before. Earthquakes have flattened our buildings. Tsunamis have wiped 
out cities. Floods have swept away our homes and entire communities. 
Wildfires have singed our cities. Volcanic eruptions have dimmed the 
Sun. The price of oil and the market have dropped before, as we are 
seeing now. And now we have another unprecedented challenge, a pandemic 
facing my beloved State and my beloved country.
  As I mentioned, we have a lot in common here, and I think a lot of 
us--all of us--take pride in what our constituents, our fellow 
Americans, are doing to come together to fight this. And we will fight 
it. We will emerge stronger and more resilient, and those Washington 
Post reporters who doubted the will of Americans, maybe in a couple of 
years, will be writing a story about how wrong they were.
  Until about a day ago, I was actually proud of the work of this body 
in responding to this crisis. For the past 3 weeks, we have come 
together, putting together bold, bipartisan pieces of legislation to 
address this pandemic in a quick amount of time. There is what we are 
calling phase 1 just 2 weeks ago, where Congress passed an $8.3-billion 
package--I will not go into all of the details--to address the 
healthcare needs that we are starting to see with the spread of this 
pandemic. That was phase 1.

  Phase 2--just last week, again, Members of this body came together. 
It wasn't a perfect bill, that is for sure, that came over from the 
House that provided Federal funds so that individuals exposed to the 
virus could get healthy and so that our hospitals have more resources 
to combat this health crisis. The President passed it the day we passed 
it here in the Senate. That was just last week.
  It was bold, bipartisan work. For example, this legislation expanded 
emergency food assistance, including for children who rely on free and 
reduced lunch, lunches from school cafeterias where they could no 
longer access those meals because schools are closing, new paid sick 
leave--100-percent dollar for dollar--that would be paid and reimbursed 
by the Federal Government. So we acted. We acted.
  These weren't perfect pieces of legislation. I didn't like every 
provision in them, but we got together--Democrats and Republicans--and 
we acted quickly and boldly. And that is what our constituents want us 
to do.
  But we knew we had to do much, much more--much, much more--because 
every day, there is a new development we are seeing, not just on the 
health side but on the economic side.

[[Page S1962]]

  So what did we do? Last week, everybody here rolled up their sleeves 
and worked around the clock. Again, I was proud of the work that we 
started on. By the way, this was bipartisan work.
  I was talking to Democratic Senators all weekend. When you listen to 
the chairman of the Finance Committee, he talked about the task force 
that we had--Democrats and Republicans--putting together legislation--
big, bold legislation--coming together like we had on phase 1 and phase 
2 to really focus in on four key areas: putting cash directly in the 
hands of hurting families in Alaska and throughout the country, 
delivering rapid relief to the small businesses that are being crushed 
by this pandemic and laying off their workers, stabilizing key 
industries to avoid massive layoffs that are now very quickly coming on 
the horizon and starting to happen in America, and sending new 
resources to medical professionals who are on the frontlines. Those 
were our goals, and we needed to do it in a big way.
  We completed this, the Senate--Republicans and Democrats--in less 
than a week. Why? Because all of us knew the people we represent were 
hurting and are hurting. They need hope, and they are looking to us for 
that hope.
  Again, it wasn't perfect. This bill isn't perfect, but it is pretty 
remarkable work to do in less than a week. This bill represents a huge 
and massive effort to help the people we represent.
  Now, a lot of my colleagues have been coming down on the floor 
talking about what this bill will do for the people we represent. I am 
not going to go into all of the details, but let me just name a few 
because some of them were ideas from our Democratic colleagues. Where 
we had certain amounts in the bill, they came and said: No, we want 
more.
  We said: OK, all right, we will work with you, just like we did on 
phase 1 and phase 2.
  I will just mention a few. I have been talking to a lot of the 
elected leaders throughout my State, making a lot of calls and asking: 
What do you need? What is happening? How can we help? I had a phone 
conversation just a few days ago with the mayor of Anchorage. That is 
my hometown. Everybody is working hard. The mayor is. The Governor is 
doing a good job, a really good job, and his team. We are all working 
together. The mayor is a Democrat. The Governor is a Republican. I am 
reaching out to everybody. It doesn't matter the party at this moment, 
that is for darn sure.
  What did the mayor say to me? He said: The priority has to be that 
people need cash, Senator, to pay the rent, to buy food, and to make 
their car payment. There is so much uncertainty.
  Can we do that? Yes, we can do that. We did it. It is in the bill. 
There is $2,400 per couple and $500 per additional child. That is going 
to help. That is going to help families who need cash. That is one 
thing.
  Another thing is we had a massive increase to the unemployment 
insurance program, a quarter of $1 trillion--$250 billion. Why? Because 
we are seeing massive layoffs.
  Now, I am going to give credit to my colleagues. A couple of 
Democratic colleagues, friends of mine, are on the floor right now. 
This was a big idea that they wanted to push. It is big number. It is a 
big number--a quarter of a trillion dollars. This is going to 
significantly expand the number of individuals who are eligible to 
receive benefits. This is really important for my State, particularly 
the self-employed--the fishermen, who have never been covered under the 
UI programs in the past.
  And, once more, the bill provides a flat increase in benefits, $600 
per week to all State programs in the next few months. So workers who 
are forced to file unemployment--unfortunately, we are seeing hundreds 
of thousands across the country--have the financial security to pay 
their bills and stay afloat. So this is another big element of this 
bill.
  Let me provide one more that I think is one of the most important. 
And I think there is really strong bipartisan agreement on this one. I 
know it because I talk to my friends who are Democrats. It is a small 
business rescue package and relief package of about $350 billion to 
enable small businesses to access credit and have the liquidity to stay 
afloat and weather this storm, not creating a new bureaucracy but an 
expansion of the Small Business Administration's 7(a) loan program so 
you can do it through local banks in your State. The idea here is to 
make sure the worker and the employers of our small businesses stay 
connected.
  Small businesses can take out a loan of up to $10 million under this 
program, and if they use that loan to pay for payroll and rent and 
other fixed costs, this loan is going to be completely forgiven.
  Whenever I describe this to my fellow Alaskans, they say: This is 
exactly the kind of thing we need, Senator, right now, as businesses 
are closing.
  So that is in. That is in the bill--cash in the hands of small 
businesses so they can keep workers employed and be ready to get back 
up and grow and prosper again when we get through this pandemic. That 
is in the bill. Everybody agrees with that.
  Finally, another element--and I am just describing some of the 
elements, but I wanted to highlight some of these things--is getting 
more resources to the men and women on the frontlines of this pandemic 
who are, every day, out there in the healthcare industry trying to keep 
Americans and Alaskans healthy and alive.
  How much? There is a lot in it, but the number is $100 billion for 
hospitals, for healthcare providers. Let me say that again: $100 
billion.
  The minority leader was on the floor the other day. I was kind of 
stunned when he said something along the lines of this partisan bill--
and, by the way, it is not partisan, OK; this was written by 
Republicans and Democrats, and a lot of these ideas are from both 
sides--doesn't do anything to help hospitals. We need a Marshall Plan 
to help them.
  Well, I think $100 billion is a pretty good start. That is in the 
bill.
  So, as I mentioned, I have been proud of the work of this body. I 
have been proud of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. No one has 
wisdom on how to fix all this. No one knows what is coming in the 
future. But I think all of us know that we need to act, and we need to 
act boldly, and we need to act in a bipartisan way. And we did it. We 
did it, again, in less than a week.
  It is not a perfect bill--that is for sure--but it is going to 
provide help to my fellow Alaskans, to Americans. It is massive. It is 
bold. It is bipartisan. It is timely. And, as of yesterday, I thought 
we were going to get another bill out to the American people quickly. 
Hope--that is what they need. Yes, the Senate is working.
  Then, for whatever reason--and I am not going to point fingers--the 
wheels started to come off on this one, the one that we really need. 
And the bill has been filibustered. That means we can't even get on the 
floor to debate it. We can't start debating it.
  Now, look, I have been listening to my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle. There has been a lot of anger on this floor, a lot of back-
and-forth. My good friend from Nebraska just talked about this idea 
that somehow my colleagues on the other side filibustered this bill 
that the Senate has been working on to make room for Speaker Pelosi's 
bill. I really, really, really hope that is not true. I really hope 
that is not true. I don't think there is one Member of this body, 
Republican or Democratic, who could defend now what Senator Sasse just 
read on the floor.
  Then there started to be talk about, well, the bill that we had, that 
we are focused on, is all about bailouts. That is a charged term. But 
you could talk about the 2008-2009 Tart bill--I wasn't a Member of the 
Senate then, during the financial crisis--as a bailout. I think that is 
a good description.
  Why was that a bailout? Because you had people on Wall Street taking 
risky actions that eventually cratered the financial system--by the 
way, they made a ton of money doing it--and cratered the economy. Then 
they had to be bailed out because the banks were going to go under, and 
it was going to ruin the U.S. economy. That is a bailout. That is a 
classic bailout.
  What we are seeing right now is much more like a natural disaster, 
much more like a war. There is no one to be blamed right now. The 
airlines shouldn't be blamed for what is happening right now. This is a 
pandemic. So this term being thrown around of, oh, it is a bailout--
what we are trying to do is help the American worker, help the American 
family.

[[Page S1963]]

  It is not a perfect bill, but we are dealing with a natural disaster. 
Something came over from overseas onto our shores, and we are now all 
trying to deal with it.
  I am going to conclude by saying: I am on this side of the aisle. I 
am a Republican with principled views on certain issues. I certainly 
have strong views about protecting my State. But I have also tried to 
work, throughout my time in the Senate, with my colleagues on both 
sides. Some of my closest friends are my Democratic friends. I am proud 
of that work. That is how you get things done in this body. Some I have 
been working with all weekend.
  This issue should not be about partisan politics, so my point was not 
to come down here on the floor and make this a partisan speech. We are 
facing one of the most unprecedented challenges in the history of the 
United States of America. We certainly need to move beyond politics. If 
you looked at what was going on in the Senate until yesterday, that is 
exactly what we have been doing for the past 3 weeks.
  Are there areas of compromise in this bill that hopefully can unlock 
things? Sure. Two that I have been working on and supporting, again, 
with my Democratic colleagues, pressing my colleagues on: Could we have 
more transparency on this Federal facility program? Sure. Absolutely, I 
would be very supportive of this. Are there ways to help shore up 
distressed pensions for the great working men and women who build 
things in America? Yes. But we are running out of time. We are running 
out of time. We need to pass this bill now. Why do we need to pass this 
bill now? Because it is going to help the people we represent. It is 
going to help people in Connecticut and Virginia and Colorado and 
Montana and Alaska. And they need hope. They need hope right now.
  Again, this bill isn't perfect. It has got a lot of hope. Once we 
pass it, then all of us are going to need to do the hard work of making 
sure that the implementation of this bill goes as effectively and as 
smoothly as possible. Then, when we see mistakes in it, which there 
will be, we need to come back here and act to correct this. That is 
what we need to do.
  These are exceptional times for our country. We had an influenza 
outbreak in 1918 that ravaged the world, and it particularly ravaged my 
State. As Senator Murkowski said earlier today, one of the things that 
has got a lot of us troubled in Alaska is, 100 years ago when the 
influenza came through, it did finally get to some of our Alaska Native 
villages. I have over 200 communities, not connected by roads, with 
very limited healthcare facilities. During the Spanish influenza, many 
of these communities were completely wiped out.
  It is a scary time--a scary time--but we are going to get through it. 
We are going to get through it stronger, more resilient, and the way we 
are going to do it is if we are all working together, which we had been 
until about 24 hours ago.
  So I think the provisions outlined in this bill, while not perfect, 
are what the American people are looking for. They can help minimize 
the damage done by this pandemic. And I certainly hope we come together 
the way we have been for the last 3 weeks, in a bipartisan way, to get 
this voted on and passed as quickly as possible because every hour of 
delay imperils the incredible American people whom we represent
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am pleased to follow my friend and 
colleague and fellow Marine from Alaska. We are separated by about as 
far a geographical distance as there can be in this Nation: Alaska and 
Connecticut. I am also pleased to be followed by a colleague from 
Colorado who is almost smack in the middle. And we are united despite 
our geographic differences and despite our political differences.
  I want to assure the American people that the contention they have 
seen on this floor in no way reflects the reality of our hope and 
desire to move quickly and to move big to address this unprecedented, 
historic crisis--a healthcare emergency and an economic emergency in 
this country.
  The reality is that right now, less than 25 yards from us, the 
minority leader, the Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer; and perhaps the 
Secretary of the Treasury or his representatives; and also 
representatives of the White House are literally working on a better 
bill, a bill that better protects workers.
  Workers and families should come first, not corporate interests. 
Small businesses should be a priority. They are the economic backbone 
and major employer in our country.
  It will be a better and a bigger bill in addressing the medical surge 
that this country must confront: the imminent soaring of numbers of 
cases; the potentially fatal infections that are about to deluge our 
hospitals and healthcare facilities; and the need for ventilators, 
masks, tests, gowns, all kinds of equipment that will help to save 
lives.
  I think all of us could do well by listening to the American people 
about the need for a bigger, better, bolder bill.
  I have been inspired by how resolute and resilient the people of 
Connecticut have been. Over the last 2 or 3 weeks, I have talked to 
them around the State of Connecticut before we were restricted in our 
meetings, and then by talks on the telephone, by teleconferences, and 
conversations.
  I have spoken within the last few days to the Greater Danbury Chamber 
of Commerce and small businesses that they assembled and large ones, 
the Northwestern Chamber of Commerce, meetings of small businesses from 
the Hartford area, the Federally Qualified Health Centers of 
Connecticut, hospital executives, doctors, and professionals who are 
dealing with this crisis now on the frontlines, and, of course, local 
officials.
  Just today, I spoke with the South Central Council of Governments, 
with mayors and local officials from up and down the coast of 
Connecticut, great nonprofits like Americare and food banks like Food 
Share.
  What they are telling me is do it urgently, do it big, but do it 
right. We need to do it quickly, but we need to get it right. That is 
why this additional time is absolutely the right thing when we are 
talking about almost $2 trillion in taxpayer money and a crisis that 
demands careful and deliberate thought.
  I was a critic of the last bailout because it insufficiently 
protected workers and consumers. We know that we can do better than 
they did then, and we will because we are putting workers first.
  What I have heard, in listening to the people of Connecticut, talking 
to small businesses who are fearful about closing their doors and going 
broke, workers who are scared about losing their jobs, and nonprofits 
who are frightened about failing in their missions for lack of 
resources--they are hurting and are fearful about being crushed by this 
healthcare and economic crisis.
  That is why we need to work together to protect the men and women who 
own those small and medium-sized businesses with a generous loan and 
grant program. We should take care of their workers with an expanded 
unemployment compensation program and guarantee that those small 
businesses will, in fact, maintain their payrolls.
  If we are going to provide money to big industries like the airlines, 
we must include conditions, strings attached, that put workers first--
no layoffs, no salary cuts for workers or salary increases to the 
corporate executives and no stock buybacks, and treat consumers fairly. 
That should be the set of principles.
  Right now, all across America and in Connecticut, working families 
are worried about whether they are going to see another paycheck. They 
are worried about how they are going to pay their rent and utility 
bills, put food on the table, clothe their children. Small businesses 
are watching years of hard work--years of risk-taking and 
entrepreneurial energy--potentially teeter on the brink of absolute 
collapse. We face calamity and catastrophe--not the fault of any of 
them or workers or large or small executives, but we must respond to 
the magnitude of this moment.
  I spoke on a radio program this morning, Chaz and AJ on WPLR, and I 
was asked: Will it be bipartisan? Can you be bipartisan? The answer is, 
clearly, yes. We have been on two relief packages, and we will be on 
this one, as

[[Page S1964]]

early as tomorrow or the next day because no partisan plan will pass as 
a creation of one party or another.
  Storefronts and inventory lists aren't the backbone of our economy; 
it is the millions of men and women who go to work every day and, even 
tomorrow, will do their job, even in the face of the uncertainty and 
the fear that they confront. Doing right by our economy means doing 
right by them--the working families of America.
  There is much the President could do if he uses, for example, the 
Defense Production Act or similar kinds of power that, so far, he has 
resisted invoking. He could provide the medical tools we will need to 
confront the coming crisis by taking advantage of the offers he has 
received from GM and other major companies to produce the ventilators 
or the private protective gear that will help to save lives.
  There is much that we all must do in continuing to observe the 
restrictions that will help save lives--not only restrictions 
physically in our homes but also the perspective we must have that we 
are in for a long fight against this invisible foe. And it will be much 
longer than 15 days. It will be a matter of months, not weeks, and we 
must have the resilience and resoluteness that I have heard from the 
people of Connecticut in their voices as I have spoken to them.
  We live in no ordinary time, as Eleanor Roosevelt said about her era. 
We must muster the same kind of determination, grit, and courage to 
face it.
  I know there is that transcendent sense of urgency to do it quickly 
and to do it right and a shared sense of purpose that ultimately will 
get us to the other side of this crisis. We will be better and stronger 
and a bigger nation, not only in our economy; we will be a bigger 
nation because we have come together in meeting this crisis.
  Shared sacrifice must mean truly sharing the benefits with workers, 
with families, and with small businesses that will ultimately help us 
to save our Nation and our economy. My hope is that we will do it 
quickly, but we will do it right.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleague from 
Connecticut for his remarks tonight and for the hopefulness that he has 
expressed. I have been here now for 11 years, and I can't predict 
success here, and I can't say it is assured, but I think it is very 
likely that we are going to come together in a deal. I hope we come 
together in that deal today, and I think the American people are going 
to be able to assess the progress that has been made for workers as a 
result of taking a little bit of extra time, for hospitals as a result 
of a little extra time, for State and local governments that are going 
to benefit mightily because of the work we have done.
  I rise tonight not to get into this back-and-forth about this because 
I think we are going to address it, and I think we are going to address 
it in a way that is meaningful and in a way that is bipartisan and in a 
way that can help give the American people a measure of confidence that 
we are doing our job. For those of you who have heard me over the years 
on this floor, I don't always come here with a report that optimistic. 
But tonight, given everything I have heard over the course of the day, 
I want to say that this is a serious problem. It is an unprecedented 
challenge. We have to rise to this challenge together, and I believe 
that when the votes are counted on this bill, it will have been a 
better bill for the work that has been done, and the vote will be a big 
bipartisan vote, which will be a shot in the arm for the country and 
for the American people.
  I want to talk not about this back-and-forth, but I want to talk 
about something that is confronting us; that is, the worst pandemic in 
a century. Just a month ago, just 30 days ago, nobody here would have 
imagined--30 days ago we had 30 confirmed cases in the United States. 
Today, there are over 41,000 cases, the most anywhere outside of China 
and Italy.
  The President is right. He goes out and says that there are 140-some 
countries that have this. That is true. We are in the top three of 
those countries. There are 379 Americans who have died as we are here 
tonight. In the middle of the worst public health crisis in a century, 
our medical community doesn't have the basic supplies and equipment 
they need to respond.
  This matters because if we don't get our doctors and nurses 
protective gear, they are going to get sick. If they get sick, they 
can't help everyone else who is sick. That is a huge problem, and our 
medical professionals in Colorado, as in the Commonwealth of Virginia 
and all across this great country, have been begging for us to pay 
attention to this for months--for months.
  The chief medical officer at Denver Health--which is our fabulous 
public hospital in Denver, one of the leading hospitals in this 
country--says that they do not have enough tests or swabs to keep pace, 
and the turnaround time for tests is taking much too long. ``Our ICU 
right now is full of patients awaiting test results,'' she said. ``We 
need faster testing.'' Hopefully that is coming, but it has been a long 
time getting here. And every single healthcare worker who is tested in 
this country but does not get a result for 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 days--even 
if they don't have the coronavirus--can't go back to work.
  As a result of that, we face a severe shortage of healthcare workers 
in this country. At Denver Health, they say: ``We are burning through 
our personal protective equipment to the point that we are on short 
supply, as is every other health care institution in Denver and likely 
in Colorado.''
  If this continues, she said they are going to have to put two 
patients on a single ventilator. That is not how it is supposed to 
work.
  In Colorado, our nurses are sewing masks because they don't have 
masks. My wife was sewing a mask at our home in Denver yesterday--in 
the United States, in the 21st century.
  We have doctors who are getting just a single mask and being told to 
use it indefinitely. I was on the phone this evening with doctors and 
administrators from our hospitals who are telling me that they are 
having to ration swabs for tests. It is a two-swab test, but they are 
only using one swab because they don't have enough swabs to do it 
properly. There are doctors who are having to use the same mask patient 
after patient when the mask is designed for it to be only one patient; 
that is the way it is supposed to work. They are violating protocols of 
the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control 
because they are rationing equipment. There is no excuse in this 
country--the richest country--that they should be rationing in this 
public healthcare crisis. Gowns, masks, shields, clothes--America's 
healthcare workers don't have any of it. And do you know what they 
spent today doing? They spent today scrolling through ads--not all of 
them, not the ones with patients, but the ones who have to equip our 
medical professionals. They were scrolling through ad after ad after 
ad--from where? China--saying that their masks are for sale in China. 
They have no idea whether these are fly-by-night organizations.
  These companies are requiring Denver Health and other hospitals to 
put the money upfront and say: You will get the masks 3 or 4 weeks from 
now. They don't even know whether those masks will come. They don't 
know what the quality of those masks will be. We were told yesterday by 
the President that China was sending us masks, and now all of those 
seem to be being sent to Italy.
  I saw a quote from a doctor in California who said it is like ``We 
are at war with no ammo.'' That is not their fault. That is not their 
fault. They are on the frontlines of this war. We should be ashamed. We 
should be ashamed. I am.
  The question is, How are we going to make sure our medical community 
has the supplies and equipment they need? Perhaps it would be useful to 
be honest about where we are, to start with.
  The Department of Health and Human Services estimates that we are 
going to need 3.5 billion masks to fight this pandemic this year. When 
you hear me tonight use the word ``mask,'' in your own mind add the 
word ``gown,'' add the word ``glove,'' add the word ``shield'' because 
they need all of that--3.5 billion masks to fight this pandemic this 
year. The administration came with their first supplemental requesting 
$1.8 billion; today we are at

[[Page S1965]]

$2 trillion in just the last month. They came and said 1.8 billion. We 
said we need 350 million masks. We need 3.5 billion masks--billion 
masks--this year. Today in America, we have exactly 35 million masks. 
That is 1 percent of what we need--not 80 percent but 1 percent of what 
we need.

  Nationwide tonight, our hospitals have 160,000 ventilators among all 
the hospitals we have in the greatest country in the world. Johns 
Hopkins estimates that we are going to need another 40,000 ventilators 
by the time this is done.
  In Colorado tonight, I heard--this might be of interest to the other 
Senators who are here tonight because New York represents half of the 
cases in this country right now. The concern from Colorado, and I am 
sure from your States as well, is that all those ventilators are going 
to go to New York, as they should right now because that is where the 
greatest need is. What is going to be left for the rest of us? What is 
going to be left for the rest of us in 7 days or 10 days or 20 days?
  How can we be this foolish? How can we be this blind? The 
administration hasn't taken this crisis seriously enough from the 
beginning.
  When it comes to the equipment that people on the frontline need--the 
``ammunition,'' to use their word, that the people on the frontline 
need--they are being ignored or dismissed with a bunch of happy talk 
about how we are going to solve this problem--if we can even admit that 
there is a problem. The result is something I never thought I would see 
in the United States of America, the country I grew up in. States like 
New York and New Jersey are literally being forced to outbid--States 
like New York are being forced to outbid New Jersey and California to 
secure critical supplies while they are fighting through the worst 
public health crisis in a century.
  Yesterday, during his press conference in the White House, the 
President said: We want them to be on that open market because we might 
lose money if we are not on that open market.
  Exactly the opposite of what he thinks is happening, is happening. 
Governors like Andrew Cuomo are being forced to pay $7 for surgical 
masks that just a week ago cost 85 cents. My doctors in Colorado told 
me tonight that stuff yesterday that was five times the cost of what it 
ordinarily is, today is seven times the cost of what it ordinarily is. 
In Colorado, our children's hospital is paying 70 cents a mask. That is 
10 times what they were spending a month ago. Ventilators that used to 
cost a few thousand dollars now cost up to $40,000 because the 
President won't act. He will not provide the national leadership that 
we need.
  Ten days ago, when talking about the test, he said: ``I don't take 
any responsibility at all.'' That is what he said. He may think that he 
doesn't have the blame for everything that has gone wrong--and I am 
sure he doesn't--but he does have a very profound responsibility now 
that only Presidents of the United States have.
  When Governors from across the country raised the supply shortages 
with him last week, he told them to ``get it yourself.'' He told them 
that the Federal Government is not ``a shipping clerk.''
  He said:

       The governors, locally, are going to be in command. We will 
     be following them, and we hope they can do the job. . . . We 
     are there to back you up should you fail.

  We are failing, Mr. President. We are failing to address the 
seriousness of the public health crisis this country is facing. And we 
are going to rue the day that we said it was the hospitals' problem to 
solve, that it was the Governors' problem to solve, that it was the 
States' problem to solve.
  I want to say this to the American people tonight because it is 
really important that you know what the facts are. It is important for 
you to know that we don't need tens of thousands of masks or millions 
of masks. We need billions of masks and all the other equipment that I 
talked about earlier--gowns, shields, swabs, the elements of tests, the 
reagents that are necessary to take those tests. When I say ``we,'' I 
am talking about the healthcare professionals we are relying on to be 
the frontline in this effort.
  What is the President's response to this? He has touted about the 
shipments coming out of our national stockpile. I am coming to think 
this national stockpile must be more like a really small national 
warehouse.
  Colorado received that shipment yesterday. We are grateful for it. We 
are grateful for the shipment we got from the national stockpile. I 
want my colleagues to hear me. The Department of Public Health in 
Colorado estimates that those supplies will last for a single day of 
statewide operation--1 day.
  Then the President comes out and talks about the tens of thousands of 
masks that are going to New York or California, as if that can make the 
difference. It won't make a difference when you need millions of masks.
  Then, at the press conference yesterday, he suggested that the new 
commitments by private businesses will somehow be enough. He said: The 
numbers are quite large, and we have tremendous numbers of companies 
making equipment. We have respirators. We have ventilators. We have a 
lot of things happening right now. We have millions of masks that are 
coming.
  Millions of masks, not billions.
  They will be here soon, he said. They will be shipped directly to the 
States.
  He failed to mention that soon actually means 18 months from now. 
That is not going to help us. We don't have 18 months. It is literally 
life and death.
  It is for all of these reasons that we ask the President to invoke 
his authorities under the Defense Production Act, which gives him and 
him alone the ability to mobilize private industry so we can ramp up 
production in a coordinated and coherent way, so we can have a national 
approach to fixing this broken supply chain, to fixing the empty 
storerooms, and to putting these critical supplies and equipment on the 
frontline.
  I was so pleased that he invoked those authorities 5 days ago, but 
instead of using them, he has equivocated. He said things like we have 
the act to use ``just in case we need it. But we have so many things 
being made. . . .'' He didn't finish the sentence, but he meant this 
voluntary effort--which I deeply appreciate, by the way. Don't get me 
wrong. Every single mask and every single gown and every single shield 
that can be manufactured and every single respirator that can be 
manufactured and lent to the people on the lines--that is important, 
but it is not going to solve this crisis. It is not going to keep us in 
a position where we can actually flatten the curve.
  He said yesterday: ``We're a country not based on nationalizing our 
businesses. Call a person over in Venezuela, ask them how did 
nationalization for their businesses work out?''
  As every Senator here knows, the Defense Production Act doesn't 
nationalize businesses. It is our tool. It is a mechanism to create a 
coherent strategy for our public sector and our private sector to 
produce goods based on an urgent national need. The government pays 
market value for those goods and has a strategy for how those goods 
will be distributed around the country as the epidemic moves from place 
to place.
  It is unacceptable that we are in a situation where States are having 
to bid against each other, where the hospitals in Colorado are having 
to bid against each other. They said to me tonight: Michael, if you 
could just get us 5 million masks and send them to Colorado, we can 
distribute them. But it makes no sense for us to be looking up the 
yellow pages in China to buy masks.
  I said to them: I wish that were enough. I wish that would be enough. 
But as long as Colorado is going to have to compete with New York, 
which is going to have to compete with New Jersey or compete with 
Florida or compete with Texas, it won't work.
  It is not just the price, although that is shocking. The fact that 
there are people gouging at a moment like this is appalling. It is not 
just the price; it is the availability. The nurses and doctors in 
Denver, CO, or in any city in this country tonight should not be using 
one swab for a test. It takes two. They should not be wearing one mask 
all day long--a mask that is designed to be worn with just one patient.
  The President said yesterday that he looked into this as a 
businessman. He was shocked at all the masks being thrown away. We 
ought to be able to sterilize the masks.
  There are important reasons why we have those rules--to protect our

[[Page S1966]]

healthcare workers and so we don't spread disease.
  By the way, I asked: Does it solve your problem that the President 
has said we can use construction masks now in our healthcare 
facilities?
  They said: We are grateful for the additional masks that we are 
getting, but it is not remotely helping fix the scale of the problem, 
and a lot of these masks actually aren't appropriate in a healthcare 
setting.
  They will do anything. They are not looking down their noses at it. I 
had somebody say to me today--one of the people on the call said that 
they had gotten masks from a finger nail salon and that they had no 
idea what quality the masks were. There was Asian writing on the 
outside of the package. They don't know what it is, but those masks 
will be there when they run out of all the other masks. That is what 
they are going to use. That is what we are using in the United States 
of America tonight? That is what we are telling the people we are 
asking to save our lives, to save our parents' lives? That is what we 
are saying?
  I am sure the other Senators have had the same experience that I have 
had, which is I have been in touch with companies all over my State 
that stand ready to help produce supplies and equipment.
  The President said yesterday that one of the problems he had or one 
of the challenges he had was, you wouldn't have any idea where to 
begin. I don't know who makes ventilators. Maybe they made them a long 
time ago and they have forgotten how to do it. Surely he doesn't 
believe that we couldn't figure that out in a split second, where the 
manufacturing capacity is in this country to do what needs to be 
done. Yet these companies have said to me that nobody in the 
administration has been in touch to tell them what to make, how much to 
make, or where it should go.

  I say thank you to my colleagues for their indulgence, but the truth 
is--and the truth needs to be understood--that I think this is a moment 
in time when we have to get this done, but we are getting it so wrong. 
The truth is, as much as we welcome all of the citizens and businesses 
that are stepping up on their own, it will not be enough.
  Hanes can't produce 3.5 billion masks. It is a great company. As the 
President said yesterday, it is involved in cotton products, but it 
can't make 3.5 billion masks, and it can't do it in the time we need it 
done. GM and Tesla can't manufacture 40,000 ventilators. As for the 2 
million masks the Vice President trumpeted yesterday from Apple, we 
appreciate it, but it is an infinitesimal amount. It sounds like a big 
number. That is why the President actually said yesterday that the 
reason he came out and read those big numbers was so that you would 
know they were sending out lots of stuff. He said that, and I think 
that gives a complete misimpression that, somehow, this is being 
handled or that we have it together.
  We are one nation under God for a reason, and that is to respond to a 
challenge just like this one. It cannot be one hospital at a time, one 
State at a time, or one business at a time. That will not work. It is 
not a strategy. In fact, it is making matters worse because not only 
are we not fixing the supply chain, but the pricing is getting 
completely distorted, and people are competing with an incredibly 
scarce number of goods.
  This is not a substitute for a coherent national strategy to figure 
out how we are going to meet these critical supply and equipment 
shortages across the country, and every single day, it gets worse. You 
can hear the panic in the Governors and in the people who are working 
in our hospitals and in the people who are working with people who are 
having to go into unsafe conditions, who are willing to do it. They are 
on the frontline of this war with no ammunition.
  As much as the President may not want to make these hard decisions, 
for whatever reason--because he hopes for the best; because maybe the 
medical thing will work itself out; because maybe, instead of 18 
months, it will be shorter for a vaccine; because maybe the hot weather 
will make things better--he is literally the only one with the 
authority to call America to this challenge. The President is 
portraying himself as a wartime President, but he is leaving it up to 
Hanes to plan D-day. It will not work. He needs to give the frontline 
of this war the ammunition it needs, and he is the only one who can do 
it. No one else can do it. This Senate can't do it.
  There has been a lot of back-and-forth today about a brief delay in 
passing this economic package. As I said, I hope very much it will 
pass. I hope very much we will have a deal soon. I hope very much it 
will be bipartisan. We should do our work, and we should get that done. 
Yet I beg of you--I beg of you, my colleagues in the U.S. Senate--for 
every Member of this body to call on the White House and ask why, after 
weeks, there is still no plan to make sure our doctors and nurses have 
the gear to protect themselves; why our hospitals still don't have the 
ventilators they need to treat people; why it is not obvious where 
those ventilators are going to come from; and why we still don't have a 
clear strategy from this administration to arm the frontline that is 
waging this war while we are here tonight.
  This is, perhaps, the greatest challenge our country has faced since 
the Second World War. It probably is, and it is scary. We have risen to 
challenges before, and I think we can rise to this one. I may not have 
voted for the President, and I may not agree with much of what he does, 
but I urge him to act. I urge him to use the authority that is granted 
to him uniquely in America. Out of 330 million Americans, only the 
President of the United States has that authority. He won that 
election. He has that authority. We can't do it without him. Lives are 
literally at stake in Colorado and across the country.
  We need him to lead, and I beg of all the Members of this Chamber to 
do whatever they can, if they have influence on him, to get him to 
understand the gravity of the situation we are facing, the scale of the 
situation we are facing--the scope that we are facing--and the lack of 
preparedness that needs to be addressed by his invoking his authority 
under that statute.
  I thank my colleagues for their patience and their indulgence.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his impassioned 
words that were right on the money.
  The Senate is going to adjourn shortly, but that doesn't mean 
negotiations are slowing down one bit. Secretary Mnuchin just left my 
office. We have had some very good discussions, and, in fact, the list 
of outstanding issues has narrowed significantly. We are going to work 
on into the night.
  I yield the floor
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I had not intended to speak today. Yet, in 
my office, as I was alternately talking to Virginians and colleagues 
about our goal to find an economic package that will backstop workers 
and the American economy, I had the TV on. I was watching what was 
happening on the floor, and I decided I would come and just speak for a 
few minutes.
  Frankly, I think that what has been happening on the floor today has 
sort of been artificial and hasn't really shown the American public 
what is truly going on. There were a lot of speeches that were taking 
place wherein it was sort of a blame game, and I don't think that is 
what Americans wanted to see today. Just as there was yesterday, there 
was another vote today that failed, a vote that was destined to fail. I 
don't think that is what Americans deserved to see today. What 
Americans didn't see yesterday and today is the intense dialogue and 
debate and discussion around the third coronavirus response bill--by 
far, the largest.
  It is important to get the details right. We spent time getting the 
details right, in a bipartisan way, to pass an $8 billion supplemental 
appropriation just 2 weeks ago. We spent time getting the details right 
to pass an extension of paid childcare and unemployment insurance that 
had a cost of about $100 billion. We are now talking about an economic 
stimulus package that could be as high as $2 trillion. The American 
public wants us to get the details right.
  As I look at the stimulus discussions, there are sort of five 
pillars, and this is

[[Page S1967]]

the way I describe it to Virginians. It is the workers and their 
families; it is small business; it is the large business and industry 
sectors; it is State and local governments; and it is our healthcare 
network.
  As for the workers, we are all hearing from people in our States who 
are so significantly affected. They are without salaries and wages. How 
are they going to pay their rents or their mortgages? They are in 
danger of eviction and foreclosure. How are they going to pay childcare 
and other expenses? This has to be the heart of this bill. I think the 
White House accepts that and that we should too.
  This package has to be right for working people, and the details 
matter. Only about 26 percent of American workers are covered by the 
unemployment insurance system. We can't just rely on that old system if 
we really want to backstop all of the people who have lost income and 
be able to protect them and their families.
  I saw, over the week, that the Government of the United Kingdom 
decided to just make a guarantee to all working people that they will 
backstop you for 80 percent of your lost earnings during the time 
period of this national emergency. We should hold ourselves to that 
standard and try to provide a package that backstops workers and their 
families, those who are of low and middle income. That is pillar 1.
  Pillar 2 is small businesses, and I think there is huge agreement on 
this. Small businesses are the engine of the American economy, the 
employer of first resort for Americans. Yet those small businesses--
including nonprofits, cultural, and service organizations--have 
significant challenges, and we need to get them through this tough 
time. If we get them through the tough time, primarily with loans and 
then if we come out of this public health challenge into a challenged 
economy and they just have more debt on their books, we are not really 
going to help them. So the small business pillar of this is very 
important in order to get them through this challenging time and to do 
it in a way that does not just saddle these small businesses with more 
debt.
  The third is the large business and industry sectors. Of course, we 
need to provide protection for them. That is not the issue. Frankly, 
the issue is not even, really, the amount of the protection that must 
be provided. It must be significant. However, we learned through the 
stimulus package in 2009 and through the tax bill in 2017 that dollars 
given without conditions to many of the large businesses can be spent 
in very economically unproductive ways, so it is important to get those 
details right. There are limits on using these Federal funds for 
executive compensation. There are limits on using the funds for stock 
buybacks. We can get the details right so that the dollars that are 
provided to our large industry sectors and businesses are used to 
protect their employees.
  As for States and local governments, we are all on the phone with our 
Governors and with our mayors and with county health officials. We have 
all watched them close down school systems, close down universities, 
deal with extra healthcare challenges, and deal with skyrocketing 
unemployment insurance applications in every jurisdiction in the 
country. We should provide them with the resources to deal with those 
challenges.
  My hope as a former Governor--and we have other former Governors in 
the Chamber--is that, when we provide assistance to State and local 
governments, we will do it in a way with maximum flexibility so they 
can use those funds in ways they see fit to meet the local needs they 
have experienced.
  The last pillar is the key, important one--I will close here, and 
this is to continue my colleague from Colorado's passion and plea on 
behalf of our healthcare industry--which is the appropriate level of 
resources to our healthcare infrastructure. There won't be any amount 
of economic stimulus that will work if we don't handle the public 
health crisis in a very smart way going forward. We could make it $3 
trillion, or we could make it $4 trillion, but we would be pouring the 
money away if we were not to get the public health crisis right. If we 
get it right, that will be the single most important thing toward 
restarting the economy.
  So the last pillar of the five pillars that we are spending time on 
is in the support for hospitals, community health centers, other health 
clinics, healthcare professionals, and supporting childcare for them. 
We have to keep our frontline healthcare workers at work, but many of 
them have children in schools that have now been closed. We don't want 
them having to stay home with their kids because there is no childcare 
when we want them at hospitals and clinics. So part of that fifth 
pillar has to be to protect these healthcare workers, not only their 
physical health but their ability to go to work every day.
  I believe we are close on the negotiation. I don't like watching 
stem-winding speeches from the floor, blaming who one thinks is 
responsible for not being able to pass a vote, when I know, 20 yards 
away, the White House is sitting down with the Democrats, and we are 
getting closer and closer and closer to coming up with a package that 
can gain bipartisan acceptance as it should.
  The American public needs action. The American public needs big 
action.
  But if we are going to spend $2 trillion and we spend it the wrong 
way, we will regret it for years. If we spend it the right way, we 
could get through this crisis in a way that will do minimum damage to 
our economy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott of South Carolina). The Senator from 
South Dakota.
  Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, first let me say thank you to my 
colleague, the former Governor of Virginia, the Senator from Virginia 
now. As a former Governor, we have a real interest in making sure that 
there is a good, cooperative spirit between the Federal Government and 
State governments.
  But this evening, as we have gone through an entire day--which is 
rather unusual in the Senate to have one Senator speaking after another 
with others here--at a time in which we should be exercising 
separation, as they say, to have had so many colleagues on the floor 
shows just how seriously the U.S. Senate is taking this issue.
  Perhaps the frustration laid out by Members of my conference is that 
we really want this to move forward as quickly as possible, and we 
understand that it is very difficult to put together the resources in 
order to buy those additional pieces of equipment that our friend from 
Colorado laid out unless we have a long-term plan here in which to also 
pay for it.
  So what I would like to do is to share a little bit of what is in 
this just in terms of a summary of what is in the proposal right now 
and that we believe is an appropriate, major step in taking care of 
funding to respond not just to the medical emergency but also to the 
economic emergency that we have in front of us right now for men and 
women who are worried about where they are going to get the next 
paycheck.
  First of all, under the appropriations section, we have $75 billion 
for hospitals that is included in the proposal; $20 billion additional 
for veterans' health that is included; $11 billion more for vaccines, 
therapeutics, diagnostics and other preparedness needs.
  There is an additional $4.5 billion for the CDC--the Centers for 
Disease Control, or CDC. The reason we have put that in there is we 
want to be ahead of the game when it comes to making sure they have the 
resources to take care of the emergency needs that we know are showing 
up right now
  There is also an additional $1.7 billion to add new medical equipment 
to the strategic national stockpile. As my colleague from Colorado was 
suggesting, this is an area where we need to beef it up, and we need to 
be able to provide that additional equipment. That is included in this 
bill that, right now, has been here for 2 days.
  Also, we understand that at the State level there are other needs as 
well. There is $20 billion in here for public transportation emergency 
relief. There is $10 billion built into the bill right now for block 
grants to the States. That is the broadest type of resources that we 
provide to the States today.
  There is an additional $5 billion to be added to FEMA's Disaster 
Relief Fund. Remember that FEMA is now at a level 1, which is basically 
their highest level. They are coordinating now on a 24-hour basis with 
every single State in the Nation directly, back and forth, to provide 
an avenue of communication and

[[Page S1968]]

logistics so that when parts are found or equipment is found in one 
area, it can be coordinated to get to an area where it is needed--not 
so much because we always have all the supplies that we need available 
right now but because we want the supplies that we do have to get to 
where they are needed as quickly as possible. That is in operation 
today.
  Now, there are other pieces to this that are also really important. 
One of the reasons you have seen the frustration on the Republican side 
of this discussion is that there are men and women right now who don't 
have a paycheck coming in; they have been laid off through no fault of 
their own. They are being laid off because of COVID-19 and because 
their businesses have been asked--or in some cases, directed--to close. 
And when that happens, we feel an obligation to try to at least allow 
them the opportunity to make it through the next few months, to get 
ready for the recovery that we are convinced can happen if we properly 
manage the emergency before us.
  I would like to just go through them briefly so that after an entire 
day of discussion, there is at least an understanding of what is in the 
bill today just for men and women who are hurting today.
  On a per-person basis, we are offering about $250 billion in 
additional resources. For a child, there is $500 for every child in a 
family, but that is on top of $1,200 for a mother and a father. What we 
are suggesting with that is, it doesn't mean that you have to have made 
that much. This is a refundable tax credit, and it is available to 
individuals regardless of if they even made that much or paid taxes on 
that in the last couple of years.
  This is really important because this is an immediate, upfront 
payment from the Internal Revenue Service, the IRS, back to 
individuals. And the sooner we pass this legislation, the sooner those 
dollars can get out to people who, right now, are hurting, and they 
need this additional assistance at this time, not a month and a half or 
2 months from now, but as soon as we can get it to them.
  Additionally, we have an unemployment proposal that increases the 
amount of money that goes into the unemployment funds in the amount of 
about $250 billion as well.
  How does that break out and what does that mean to an individual? If 
an individual is on unemployment today, what we are offering, besides 
what they are getting from the State is, first of all, first dollar 
coverage with no 1-week wait period. Second of all, we are adding an 
additional $600 per week--per week--for the first 9 weeks that they are 
eligible for.
  Now, that doesn't mean that unemployment stops at that point, but 
there is $600 additional during that 9-week period of time. This is 
very important for individuals who have no place else to go and have 
already been laid off of work because we have told those businesses 
that they have to shut down.
  Another piece of this product right now I think is an excellent 
piece, one that not only offers emotional support for men and women who 
are struggling, but it also shares through small businesses an amount--
about $350 billion--that goes to small businesses, businesses that are 
under--that are under--500 employees in size. When we define an 
employee, we are talking about an FTE or full-time equivalent of 40 
hours. So if you have two half-times, you have one FTE.
  But what we have offered to small businesses in this is a very simple 
loan and loan forgiveness program for which they can go down to their 
local lender and apply. The local lender is the person who puts the 
papers together and so forth, but what it allows them to do is to go 
down and say: Look, I have just been told that my business is shut 
down. I don't want to lose my employees. What they can do is borrow the 
money to continue to pay the payroll and benefits for those individuals 
they would be laying off otherwise. And if they keep them on for a 
period of up to 8 weeks, we forgive the loan. It becomes a grant. But 
the reason for that is if we don't do that, those same individuals are 
going to be on the unemployment rolls, so why make them go through that 
emotional distress and why have them in such a position that they may 
not get the benefits back that the small business is offering today.
  We have done something else as well. We have said for that small 
business owner: We know many of you have mortgages; you have ongoing 
payments. So we will also let you include your mortgage payments, as 
well, and your ongoing rent, lights, and so forth. And if you keep 
open, you can also apply to have that part forgiven, as well, up to a 
grand total of $10 million per business. Why? Because we want stability 
in the marketplace, and we think that is what a lot of employees want.
  We would like to have that out this week. That is one of the reasons 
you see the frustrations and the irritation on the Republican side of 
the aisle here--because we really thought we were negotiating on these 
items in good faith with Members of the other side in working groups 
that had both included in such a fashion that we could move through 
this fairly quickly. In fact, I think you have heard Members on the 
other side of the aisle talk about the fact that they are not 
disagreeing with those things.

  There is another part too. There are the larger businesses, over 500 
in size. When we have businesses that are bigger than 500 in size, what 
we have said is: Look, we are not going to give you a grant program. We 
are not going to be in the position of bailing you out. But what we do 
want to do is to make liquidity and loans available to you--loans that 
you can afford.
  We are going to ask for some conditions on that, yes, but the idea 
here is to allow them to survive and to be ready to go back into 
business.
  This seems to be the place where we have the most dissension and 
disagreement between the two parties because, while we are proposing 
that they can't use this to buy stock back, I think some of our 
Democratic colleagues thought we had to strengthen it. Fine. That 
shouldn't take 2 days to work out. They think we should have some more 
guidelines. Fine. But that shouldn't take 2 days to work out.
  The goal here is to keep as many people employed and to keep those 
businesses operational so that as we move through this health 
emergency, those businesses continue to do business in the future.
  There is a larger portion in this that we also talk about, which is 
for the airlines and so forth. We have a frustration, as well, with our 
Democratic colleagues because of some of the suggestions that have been 
made. We don't think they should have to remake their board of 
directors if they are going to get a loan.
  We think the airlines are critical--not just to save the airlines but 
because business relies on airlines and people rely on airlines now to 
get from one place to another throughout the United States.
  We have also included about $17 billion to take care of those 
separate industries on which we have national defense-specific issues. 
We think this has been well thought out.
  It doesn't mean that there isn't room for more negotiations, but time 
is of the essence. As we sit here this evening, more people will die; 
more people will get sick; more men and women will find themselves 
wondering where they are going to get their next paycheck. Every single 
day matters.
  So our request to the Members on the other side of the aisle, who 
have twice now said ``No, we don't want to take the first procedural 
step to get onto the bill,'' what we say is: Look, you have to push 
hard on your leadership to come to a consensus. And, please, this is 
emergency legislation. This should not be a Christmas tree. It should 
not be a piece of legislation that, since it needs to pass, we can now 
put a wish list of other things that one party or the other has been 
trying to get into law but does not have consensus on. This is where 
the areas of contention are this evening.
  So to the men and women who are out there and are concerned, I can 
share with you that I think we have a very good plan, one that will 
come close to $1.9 trillion dollars in terms of what we are offering. 
But at the same time, it needs to get out as quickly as possible, and 
it has to be as simple as possible for those men and women to be able 
to apply for in an unemployment line or the businesses to apply through 
a local bank so that they can keep people employed or for that larger 
business to understand that liquidity is

[[Page S1969]]

available to get them through a very difficult time, but it is not 
going to be a grant; it is going to be a loan.
  Finally, there is an area which is important that perhaps can have 
some additional thought put into it, and that is that not just the 
hospitals at the local level need our support and our assistance right 
now because they can't do this by themselves, but we are going to find 
that State after State is going to be knocking on our door, saying: You 
shut down businesses in our State. You have told us that we need to in 
order to quell this emergency, but in doing so, the revenues that were 
generated because of those business activities we don't have.
  So you are going to find State revenues that are down significantly, 
and they are going to be coming in, and they are going to be visiting. 
I am convinced that between this package and perhaps the next package 
we have to also recognize the impact to State governments that provide 
so many of the services that men and women rely on on a daily basis.
  So I would like to thank you for your time, Mr. President. I think 
this is important, and I think the message that we have to have as 
responsible individuals, Members of this body in which today we truly 
did have debate and discussion on the floor--we have to finish this, 
and we have to do it in such a fashion that it reaches men and women 
who are counting on us as soon as possible.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.

                          ____________________