[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 5, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2232-S2235]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                       Unanimous Consent Request

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, over the past few months, both parties 
have worked together to provide historic levels of funding to help 
small businesses retain employees, meet payroll, and stay afloat during 
the COVID-19 pandemic. The Paycheck Protection Program--the main 
instrument to help small businesses--received $349 billion under the 
CARES Act and another $310 billion in supplemental legislation.
  The public has a right to know how this money is being spent. 
Oversight, transparency, and accountability are crucial because from 
the moment the administration began implementing these funds, it became 
clear that much of it wasn't going to those who needed it most.
  Today, we are not taking any other action on the floor dealing with 
COVID. We thought we would take this opportunity to ask unanimous 
consent to get something real done that should have bipartisan support 
on both sides of the aisle. Who can be against transparency? Who can be 
against accountability? Who cannot want to know where close to $700 
billion of the taxpayers' money is going? Is it going to the right 
places?
  Unfortunately, today at least 200 publicly traded companies have 
managed to secure PPP loans, and most of those are not very small, 
including some companies whose owners are large contributors to 
President Trump. Truly small businesses, however--the

[[Page S2233]]

hundreds of thousands of mom-and-pop shops with less than 20 employees, 
the proverbial restaurant owner or the butcher, the baker, and the 
candlestick maker--have been mostly shut out because they didn't have a 
standing relationship with a big bank.
  There have been great disparities when it comes to minority-owned 
businesses. According to the Center for Responsible Lending, over 90 
percent of African-American-owned and Latino-owned businesses were 
likely shut out of PPP funding. Women-owned businesses have also been 
neglected. We have tried to fix some of these problems in COVID 3.5, 
working closely with the Senators from Maryland and New Hampshire and 
the Senator from Florida, but much more needs to be done. We need data 
to help further inform who is being left out so we can continue to make 
the necessary fixes to see that all small businesses are helped.
  My friends Senators Cardin and Shaheen have a bill they worked on to 
do just that. I want to thank them. They will talk more about this bill 
in a moment, but I want to make one point here. This is a very simple 
piece of legislation. It requires the kind of transparency expected 
from any Federal program of this size and importance: regular public 
reporting of how and where taxpayer dollars are spent.
  This is something my Republican colleagues have always believed in. I 
hope that my Republican colleagues will not object to this legislation 
when I ask unanimous consent in a few minutes, after Senators Cardin 
and Shaheen have spoken. I hope they will not object just because it 
comes from this side of the aisle. It is a good idea. There is no 
reason to object to this very unobjectionable idea and get this body 
focused on COVID, not on extraneous matters, which we seem to be doing 
now, when COVID is the most important issue we face.
  We are doing quite literally nothing else on the floor of the Senate 
today. There is no other business before us, no votes whatsoever. We 
are here to force some action, force some progress, and force some 
focus on COVID-related legislation. I prefer to do this in a completely 
bipartisan way. But from the get-go, Democrats have had to force the 
issue on many COVID response programs. The leader lays down a bill, it 
has no Democratic input, and then, of course, we have to work toward 
that goal, and we have. The fact that the first bill passed 96 to 0 is 
a tribute to this body that we can come together when there is real 
need.
  We should be doing it the same way today. We should be working 
together in support of our healthcare system, for testing so 
desperately needed, unemployment insurance, and crucial improvements to 
small business lending, all of which Democrats said we needed--our 
Republican friends first resisted and then came along, led by the 
Republican leader--and all of which passed with unanimous support.
  The same thing should happen today. We should pass this. We should UC 
it and get the oversight this program so desperately needs
  I yield the floor to Senator Cardin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, let me thank Leader Schumer for 
initiating this discussion. I am very pleased Senator Shaheen is also 
on the floor. The two of us worked on the Democratic side, with Senator 
Rubio and Senator Collins on the Republican side. We are very proud of 
the tools we made available to small business. These are important 
tools to keep small businesses alive during COVID-19.
  The Paycheck Protection Program got money out quickly and helped 
small businesses stay afloat. We have provided $660 billion under the 
Paycheck Protection Program. The economic disaster loan program, the 
loan and grant program--we have now provided $70 billion for that 
program. But here is the issue. We had to adjust both of those programs 
without even knowing all the specifics on how the first amount of money 
was distributed. We are hearing that we are going to be running out of 
money again soon and that Congress is going to be asked to make 
additional changes in these programs, and we still don't know the 
specifics on how this money was distributed.
  We are all frustrated here. I really appreciate the leadership. I 
know my chairman is on the floor. He has been demanding this 
information and has been unable to get it. We are going to be asked to 
act again without having the specific information.
  Senator Schumer is absolutely right. We know in the first round that 
those who had preferred relationships with banking institutions got 
priority. That we know. But we don't know how much. We don't know how 
many loans the big banks have issued and what size they have issued, 
what their compensation has been, and how those loan decisions were 
made. We need to know that because we are relying on the private 
banking institutions to make the 7(a) loans in all communities.
  We expanded this program to nonprofits. That was a good thing. But we 
don't know how many of the nonprofits have received help under this 
program--the specific dollar amounts, the specific loans, the specific 
locations.
  Here is the challenge. I got a call yesterday where they wanted to 
expand eligibility under this program. We know there are some 
difficulties in the programs themselves that need attention. There is 
now a desire to expand eligibility. They are also being asked what 
comes next.
  Restaurants are still ordered to be closed in my State. They are 
going to need additional help. How do we go about crafting what we need 
to do if we don't know what has been done already?
  We have been asking for this information over and over again. We 
haven't been able to get it. It is our responsibility to oversight 
these programs.
  Now I am quoting from my chairman. He said--and I agree with him--it 
is our responsibility to oversight. But if we don't have the 
information, how can we oversight? I am concerned about underbanked and 
underserved communities getting their fair share of this help, and yet 
we don't have the specifics on the number of minority small businesses, 
the number of women-owned small businesses, the number of veteran-owned 
small businesses. We don't know about rural small businesses and how 
well they have done.
  We need to have that information in order to make the next judgments 
in this Congress. And yes, we do need transparency because we have even 
heard from this administration that there may very well have been small 
businesses that didn't qualify for this loan that have gotten help or 
had their own ability to handle this crisis but yet still asked the 
government for these funds or may have violated the size standards that 
are in this legislation.
  We need to have that transparency for oversight. It is our 
responsibility. That is why we do need to act as a Senate. The 
legislation that we are going to bring forward is very common sense. It 
just tells the Small Business Administration to make available the 
information on the PPP loans, on the EIDL loans and grants, so that we 
can analyze this, know how these loans have been made and make the 
proper oversight and adjustment that we may need to make in these 
programs in order to make sure small businesses get through COVID-19.
  I urge my colleagues, let's get this done and continue to work in a 
bipartisan way to make sure small businesses in this country are 
protected.
  I see Senator Shaheen is on the floor. I will yield the floor so 
Senator Shaheen can be recognized
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I am pleased to be able to join my 
colleague Senator Cardin, who is the ranking member on the Small 
Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, as well as Minority Leader 
Schumer. I am pleased that the chairman of the Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship Committee, Senator Rubio, is also here because Senator 
Cardin, Senator Rubio, Senator Collins, and I all worked on the 
Paycheck Protection Program and the small business provisions that are 
in the CARES package that we passed over 5 weeks ago. I am proud of our 
efforts to negotiate in a bipartisan way to help small businesses get 
through this crisis.
  Not only did we pass, in that first CARES package, $350 billion to 
help small business, but just a couple of weeks ago, Congress also came 
together to pass an additional $370 billion

[[Page S2234]]

for the Paycheck Protection Program and the Economic Injury Disaster 
Loan Program.
  Our intent in passing that legislation was to deliver relief to small 
businesses that are truly hurting. Small businesses are the lifeblood 
of this economy nationally, really, and certainly in New Hampshire, 
where 99 percent of our businesses are considered small businesses. 
They employ over 50 percent of the New Hampshire workforce.
  In New Hampshire, 20,000 small businesses and nonprofits have 
received over $2.5 billion in low-interest, forgivable loans under the 
Paycheck Protection Program. There have been challenges. We have heard 
some of those stories from small businesses that weren't able to access 
this assistance because some larger businesses got into the queue ahead 
of them--some of those large, publicly traded companies that had a 
relationship with their lender, and so they were able to get in early. 
We need information if we are going to correct the things that haven't 
been working about this program. That is why the legislation that 
Senator Cardin, Senator Schumer, and I are introducing, I think, would 
be so helpful.
  The Trump administration and Congress need to be held accountable for 
implementation of these programs. In order to do that, we have to have 
oversight, as Senator Cardin said. Transparency is fundamental. We need 
to ensure that assistance is going to the small businesses and 
nonprofits that need it most.
  Senator Cardin listed off a number of those companies: the women-
owned companies, minority-owned companies. We also need to think about 
those businesses that have fewer than 10 employees--those mom-and-pop 
shops that really need help, that may not have as long a relationship 
with their lender or may not have any relationship with a lender.
  All we are asking for today is a measure that would provide the bare 
minimum that this administration should provide to ensure that these 
programs are functioning as Congress intended.
  This is commonsense legislation. All it would do is require the Small 
Business Administration to provide daily reporting on PPP and EIDL 
loans, to provide more detailed weekly reports on these programs, and 
to make this information publicly available, while at the same time 
protecting borrower and participant privacy.
  We have heard the horror stories about problems with this program. 
There have also been a lot of success stories. But the public isn't 
going to know both sides of that unless there is reporting and 
transparency so that people know what is working and what is not 
working.
  The bill would also ensure that PPP and EIDL funds are reaching 
underserved and underbanked borrowers. It would establish an early 
warning system for the SBA and for Congress so we can figure out how to 
respond to things that aren't working and when we are expecting an 
additional funding shortfall.
  These proposals shouldn't be controversial. These are all things that 
I have heard people on both sides of the aisle talking about 
supporting. What they will do is allow Congress to perform our basic 
oversight responsibilities and foster public confidence in the 
integrity of these programs. And perhaps, most important, these 
improvements will help make sure that the limited resources that are 
available are getting to the small businesses that need them the most.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I want to thank my colleagues not only for their 
eloquent remarks but their hard work. We know that Senator Rubio has a 
2:30 appointment so Senator Blumenthal has graciously agreed to speak 
after we ask our unanimous consent request.
  As if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of a bill that is at the desk 
that would require the Administrator of the Small Business 
Administration to report on COVID-19 recovery small business programs; 
I further ask that the bill be considered read three times and passed 
and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
table, with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. RUBIO. Reserving the right to object, let me first begin by 
saying that this is the first time I had a chance to speak on the floor 
about the Paycheck Protection Program since it passed. I want to say 
this unequivocally. Despite everything you read out there, in my mind, 
I don't think there is any question that by far this has been the most 
successful part of the CARES Act.
  To put it in perspective, this was something we worked on in a 
bipartisan way. In less than a week, it was crafted, and then the 
agencies had less than 6 days to put together the rules.
  Until Friday, April 4, no bank in America had ever made a PPP loan; 
no one had ever applied for one; and the SBA had never approved one. It 
was a massive program. We looked at the results. They are stunning--the 
results that we have seen.
  Does the program have problems? Sure. I think any time that you 
create something that spends $500 billion, $600 billion that reaches 
over 50 percent of the U.S. economy and put it together so quickly, 
there are going to be unintended consequences. I will come back to that 
point in a moment. I think the biggest problem this program has had 
from the very beginning, which created some of these tensions that we 
read about in the press, is that it was underfunded from the very 
beginning. I mean, the demand was greater than the supply, even 
potentially right now after the second round.
  We have heard the reports about publicly traded companies. We all 
know how we feel about that, and I am glad that is being addressed now. 
I also want to put it in perspective. They have taken 0.35 percent of 
the funds that were approved--not 35 percent, not 3.5 percent, 0.35 
percent of the money that has been lent.
  It is not like they took half the money, which is what the perception 
is that has been created in the coverage. Meanwhile, that means the 
rest of it went to somebody who is not publicly traded. That is an 
extraordinary achievement, nonetheless, and I am glad that is being 
looked at.
  On transparency, they are all valid points. Myself--Friday, 
Saturday--I was really upset that we weren't getting those numbers. The 
reason why I want the numbers is, A, we want to make sure this program 
that we put our names on and worked hard on--all of us have--is 
reaching its intended audience and, B, the points that were made here 
as well, to the extent that changes have to be in any future funding, 
we want to make sure that future funding is targeted in the right way. 
The problem is--I was as upset as anybody.
  I hope that the agencies are watching these proceedings now and 
understanding why it is so important that our Members have accurate 
details and regular information about how this program is rolling out.
  What we do know, when they finally released numbers on Saturday, is 
that in round 2, the average loan went from $206,000 in round 1 to 
$76,000 or so in round 2. That is a stunning drop. It tells you it is 
reaching smaller business.
  We know that 72 percent of loans made in round 2 were under $50,000, 
and 85 percent were under $100,000. We do know that 4,400 of the 5,200 
lenders in the program--or 5,400 lenders in the program have less than 
$1 billion in assets. We know it is reaching the regional banks, the 
smaller banks, the credit unions.
  The reason why doing what is being proposed now will be problematic 
is twofold. The first is, some of the demographic data that is being 
asked is not on the application. It is not even clear that they would 
be able to produce that for us unless they stopped the process, created 
a new application, and then began the process as well.
  We will know the answer to that question in the forgiveness phase. I 
do believe in the forgiveness phase it is very valid to ask that 
information on demographics be included in the forgiveness application 
that people are going to have to file.
  I think the best path forward is, in my view, not to pass something 
like this today, although something like this may be necessary if we 
can't get these numbers. But let's find out, first and foremost, what 
data points do they

[[Page S2235]]

have. What data points does the SBA have at their disposal and see if 
we can get them to do what they should be doing already, which is 
producing it on a regular--maybe not on a daily basis. What I don't 
want to see is an already overburdened agency that is small to begin 
with and struggling to get all these programs running having to pull 
people off getting people money to fill out this information.
  We have to understand that in the end, it is not the Administrator or 
the Treasury Secretary who will have to write these things up and 
collect it. It is going to be people who, in many cases, are working 
from home, living in this region under all the restrictions that are 
there.
  I think this agency is already struggling to manage this massive 
program, and to add an additional requirement without thinking it 
through would have an unintended consequence of potentially slowing the 
program down.
  It is my view that we are going to find out all of this information, 
and we are going to know it in a timely fashion so we can do something 
about it. I do not believe that passing this today is the right 
approach, given the fact that we first need to know what data they have 
at their disposal before we can ask them to produce it. Otherwise, I 
fear they are going to stop or they are going to slow down, and real 
businesses, small businesses, and not-for-profits will be delayed. I 
will object to this request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I want to thank my colleague from Florida. I believe he 
is sincere and has the best of intentions to want to make this program 
work.
  I want to make two quick points. The first point is, the more data we 
have and the sooner we have it, the better we can make the program. It 
will not slow it down. It will improve it and make it better--the 
sooner the better.
  Second, about demographic information, I understand the problem, but 
there are a lot of ways to skin that cat. If we looked at ZIP Codes, we 
might very easily be able to tell demographic information.
  I thank my colleague. I regret that we cannot move this legislation--
the only COVID legislation that will be talked about on the floor thus 
far, even though we were asked by the majority leader to come back 
during the crisis, and I hope we can move forward quickly in the future 
to get the kind of information we need.
  With that I yield the floor. I yield to the Senator from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I thank my colleagues Senator 
Cardin, Senator Shaheen, and Senator Schumer for their leadership on 
this issue of seeking better transparency and oversight with regard to 
a program that involves now almost a trillion taxpayer dollars. I also 
join Senator Schumer in the sentiment that our colleague from Florida 
has been both sincere and bipartisan in his efforts on this program.
  The fact is that this program, the Paycheck Protection Program, cries 
out for stronger oversight as does the entire CARES package. We will 
now be spending an authorized $3 trillion--the Federal budget and then 
half again--with little or no oversight. Yet we know that this program 
meets a need among small businesses that is absolutely critical. I have 
traveled my State via video conference and have had telephone calls and 
communications of all kinds with small businesses around Connecticut, 
and I have seen and heard firsthand how they are hanging by a thread--
struggling to keep their doors open and stay alive. This program gives 
them a lifeline.
  It has, in fact, provided many powerful success stories, as my 
colleague Senator Shaheen said, but it has also produced some horror 
stories about big customers of big banks who have received favored 
treatment to the detriment of the smaller businesses that were supposed 
to have been the beneficiaries of this program. We need to make sure 
that these funds go to the small businesses, which really need it, and 
we should make sure that this program is adequately and effectively 
administered. We need to make sure there is transparency and disclosure 
about who is receiving these loans that can be converted and forgiven 
so that they can become grants and so that the real needs of those 
businesses can be met and their employees can continue to be employed. 
Those kinds of imperatives we must assure.
  We know that the ripple effect of the closures of these businesses is 
tragic and traumatic. That is why we need to continue this program, but 
we need to do so with the oversight that assures that its purposes are 
met. For the businesses that have told me, for example, that they need 
more flexibility, those needs need to be met. Numbers of them have 
indicated they would like to extend the time provided to them to hire 
back their employees past the time in which the State is likely to 
allow them to open. They also need more funding for fixed costs. 
Basically, they need some flexibility because every business is 
different, and the oversight in this bill will help to alert the SBA 
and Congress to those needs.
  Finally, the oversight needed here is simply one example of the 
accountability that should be imposed on the entire CARES Act. Real 
accountability demands a watchdog, not a lap dog, in order to stop the 
waste, fraud, and favoritism that seems all too common in this 
administration. That is why I have been working with my colleagues--
most prominently, Senator Warren--in the strengthening of the oversight 
of programs created by the CARES Act during this pandemic. We need to 
make sure there is effective enforcement and a hammer, which will be 
essential to deter wrongdoing, preserve resources, and conserve 
credibility.
  Strong scrutiny is required to make sure that aid reaches the right 
hands. I know that all of us believe, for example, that conflicts of 
interest should be barred; that retaliation against whistleblowers 
should be prevented; and that the firing of the inspector general 
without just cause should be stopped, which means keeping an eye on 
these programs--not just a wandering eye but one of focused, strict 
scrutiny that will assure transparency and make sure this program 
serves the needs it was intended to.
  The only people who feel threatened by that kind of oversight are the 
ones who are trying to game the system or hide something. The rest of 
us, which means the workers, their families, and small businesses, 
demand oversight. This bill is a good way to begin. It is a start, not 
a finish, to the task of the oversight ahead of us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa