[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 121 (Wednesday, July 1, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4138-S4144]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Ms. Klobuchar, Ms. Baldwin, Mr.
Casey, Mr. Reed, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Markey, Ms. Harris, Ms.
Hirono, Mr. Carper, Mr. Van Hollen, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr.
Merkley, Ms. Smith, Ms. Warren, and Mr. Cardin):
S. 4132. A bill to establish the Commission on the COVID-19 Pandemic
in the United States; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the
Coronavirus Commission Act. Representative Adam Schiff has introduced
companion legislation in the House.
This bill would establish a commission on the coronavirus pandemic to
better understand the vulnerabilities it has revealed in our national
security and healthcare system and improve our preparedness for future
crises.
It is crucial to improve our understanding of pandemic threats and
health issues that the United States could face in the coming decades
to better protect our population and mitigate the risk of a similar
human and economic catastrophe.
Nearly 130,000 Americans have died from COVID-19. Hospitals have
struggled to secure enough personal protective equipment to keep health
workers safe, testing levels remain inadequate, and a breakthrough
therapeutic, let alone a vaccine, has yet to be developed.
More than 41 million Americans have been laid off, and the
unemployment rate is likely well over 20 percent. Large numbers of
businesses have permanently closed due to the coronavirus pandemic.
The commission that would be created by our bill would conduct a
comprehensive review of the government's coronavirus response and make
recommendations on how we can be better prepared in the future. The
commission would complement other oversight efforts in Congress and
elsewhere.
The coronavirus commission would examine U.S. Government preparedness
in advance of this pandemic, the Federal Government's response to it,
and provide recommendations to improve our ability to respond to and
recover from future outbreaks, epidemics, and pandemics.
This legislation is modeled after and closely mirrors legislation
enacted in 2002 that created the 9/11 Commission.
The Coronavirus Commission would be composed of 10 members, with the
same partisan balance as the 9/11 commissioners and prohibited from
being current Federal officials, with a variety of backgrounds in
relevant fields, including public health, epidemiology, emergency
preparedness, armed services, and intelligence; provide a full
accounting to the President, Congress, and the American people of the
facts and circumstances related to the outbreak in the United States,
including our preparedness, the intelligence and information we had
available before the virus reached the United States, and how Federal,
State, and local governments, as well as the private sector, responded
to the crisis; hold hearings and public events to obtain information
and to educate the public; possess subpoena power to compel cooperation
by relevant witnesses and materials from the Federal Government, as
well as State and local governments; make specific recommendations to
Congress and the executive branch to improve our preparedness for
pandemic disease; have adequate staffing and resources to be able to
complete expeditiously the monumental task at hand so we can be
prepared for the next epidemic or pandemic to hit the nation; and the
commission would be established after February 2021, hopefully when the
pandemic has been overcome and after the presidential election.
The coronavirus showed just how unprepared and slow we were to
respond to a major outbreak, and that lack of readiness has endangered
lives.
We were unable to ramp up testing, we had insufficient safety
equipment for doctors and nurses, and we lacked any kind of consistent
Federal guidelines for States and cities.
[[Page S4139]]
We know this will not be the last outbreak, so a 9/11 Commission-
style panel is necessary to fix these mistakes going forward and apply
the lessons from this pandemic to future crises.
I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill.
Thank you.
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Reed, Mr. Cardin,
and Mr. Merkley):
S. 4139. A bill to encourage support by international financial
institutions for a robust global response to the COVID-19 pandemic; to
the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 4139
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Support for Global Financial
Institution Pandemic Response Act of 2020''.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR A ROBUST GLOBAL RESPONSE TO THE COVID-19
PANDEMIC.
(a) United States Policies at the International Financial
Institutions.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
instruct the United States Executive Director of each
international financial institution (as defined in section
1701(c)(2) of the International Financial Institutions Act
(22 U.S.C. 262r(c)(2)) to use the voice and vote of the
United States at that institution--
(A) to seek to ensure adequate fiscal space for world
economies in response to the global coronavirus disease 2019
(commonly referred to as ``COVID-19'') pandemic through--
(i) the suspension of all debt service payments to the
institution; and
(ii) the relaxation of fiscal targets for any government
operating a program supported by the institution, or seeking
financing from the institution, in response to the pandemic;
(B) to oppose the approval or endorsement of any loan,
grant, document, or strategy that would lead to a decrease in
health care spending or in any other spending that would
impede the ability of any country to prevent or contain the
spread of, or treat persons who are or may be infected with,
the SARS-CoV-2 virus; and
(C) to require approval of all Special Drawing Rights
allocation transfers from wealthier member countries to
countries that are emerging markets or developing countries,
based on confirmation of implementable transparency
mechanisms or protocols to ensure the allocations are used
for the public good and in response the global pandemic.
(2) IMF issuance of special drawing rights.--The Secretary
of the Treasury shall instruct the United States Executive
Director of the International Monetary Fund to use the voice
and vote of the United States to support the issuance of a
special allocation of not less than 2,000,000,000,000 Special
Drawing Rights so that governments are able to access
additional resources to finance their responses to the global
COVID-19 pandemic.
(b) Report Required.--The Chairman of the National Advisory
Council on International Monetary and Financial Policies
shall include in the annual report required by section 1701
of the International Financial Institutions Act (22 U.S.C.
262r) a description of progress made toward advancing the
policies described in subsection (a).
(c) Termination.--Subsections (a) and (b) shall have no
force or effect after the earlier of--
(1) the date that is one year after the date of the
enactment of this Act; or
(2) the date that is 30 days after the date on which the
Secretary of the Treasury submits to the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Financial
Services of the House of Representatives a report stating
that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is no longer a serious threat to
public health in any part of the world.
______
By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mr. Wyden):
S. 4143. A bill to extend the unemployment insurance provisions of
the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act for the
duration of the economic recovery, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now on the main topic this morning, I am
proud to support Senator Wyden and Senator Bennet. As the number of
COVID-19 cases accelerates across much of the country, the economic
toll of this pandemic continues to fall hard on American families and
American workers. Over 33 million Americans--at least one-fifth of the
entire workforce--have now applied for unemployment assistance since
the pandemic began.
Democrats secured a crucial enhancement of that unemployment
assistance in the CARES Act--an extra $600 a week, which, according to
a study by Columbia University, prevented as many as 12 million
Americans from slipping into poverty. By the end of this month, those
emergency unemployment benefits will expire, but unfortunately the high
levels of unemployment will not. Without an extension of enhanced
benefits, Americans struggling without work will have their legs cut
out from under them at the worst possible time, in the middle of a
raging pandemic.
I am joining with my colleague, Ranking Member Wyden of the Senate
Finance Committee, to introduce a bill that will serve as both a short-
term solution and a bold long-term strategy to keep American workers
and the American economy afloat. I thank Senator Wyden for his help and
Senator Bennet for his help. Together, we put together a very strong
piece of legislation.
Our bill, the Schumer-Wyden American Workforce Rescue Act, would do
something very simple: It would tie the extension of enhanced
unemployment benefits to economic data, not arbitrary political
deadlines. As long as unemployment remains very high--over 11 percent--
the enhanced benefits will stay in place. When unemployment goes down,
the benefits will phase out appropriately.
This automatic stabilization for unemployment benefits would be one
of the first programs of its kind, but at its core, this policy is
basic common sense. When Americans truly need the benefits, the
benefits will be there. When the economy gets better, those enhanced
benefits will be reduced. The impetus for this legislation is common
sense. We should not allow the economic security of the American people
to depend on the political whims of the legislatures--Federal or State.
When we passed the CARES Act over 2 months ago, Democrats knew the
extra $600 in weekly unemployment assistance was only a temporary salve
for struggling Americans. We had hoped the economy would be able to
bounce back and unemployment would quickly go down. Clearly, that is
not the case today.
Experts are warning us that the economic drag from this crisis will
take years, if not a full decade, to fully abate. Further action is
very much needed and very, very necessary. But for months, Republicans
have doubled and tripled down on their strategy of delaying action on
COVID-19 relief legislation. They have kept the American people
needlessly wondering if the help they rely on will remain in place much
longer.
We need to take the next step and tie unemployment benefits to
economic triggers that will ensure that so long as Americans are
hurting, a safety net will remain in place--whether it is COVID-19 or
any other economic disaster in the future that causes unemployment to
rise. That is how you give the American people the kind of peace of
mind they need that they will not needlessly fall into poverty this
year or next year or the year after.
No doubt, this is a new idea. It would be one of the first programs
of its kind. But we need to take this bold step forward to guarantee
that the Federal Government effectively serves the American people in
times of crisis.
There is a long road ahead before the U.S. economy gets back on its
feet. In many parts of the country, States are reimposing restrictions
on businesses, restaurants, and other places of employment to halt a
renewed spread of the disease. Americans will continue to wonder, when
can I get back to work?
I am proud to join my colleagues and champion this legislation to
provide unemployment benefits for as long as Americans need them--
provide unemployment benefits for as long as Americans need them.
Before I yield, I want to thank my colleague Senator Wyden for
championing this legislation as well. He has been a leading and fierce
advocate for this policy in our caucus, and I am both grateful and
proud to stand with him this morning. I also thank Senator Bennet, who
is always thoughtful and thinking on to the future--one of the first
Members to alert this Chamber and the country of the disparities in
income and wealth distribution--and has had vital input as well. We
thank him.
[[Page S4140]]
This policy is smart, it is timely, and it is forward-thinking. So it
is no surprise that my colleagues, Senator Wyden--one of the authors--
and Senator Bennet have had great input.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Wyden and then
Senator Bennet be allowed to speak immediately after me for as much
time as they may consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to be with Senator Schumer
to advance the Schumer-Wyden legislative proposal today, and I am very
pleased that we are joined by Senator Bennet, a particularly valuable
member of the Senate Finance Committee, who has worked on these issues
for many, many years.
As Senator Schumer outlined, we are talking about a fresh approach as
we look to extending supercharged unemployment benefits for as long as
our economy suffers under the COVID-19 pandemic. As the ranking
Democrat on the Finance Committee that produced the $600 extra benefit
each week until July 31 and the breakthrough to cover for the first
time gig workers and the self-employed and part-timers and others, I am
going to take a few minutes to explain why this next step to create a
dependable safety net in America is a no-brainer.
We know that tens of millions of Americans are out of work due to
COVID-19. The pandemic is, in fact, getting worse. Dr. Tony Fauci
yesterday talked about the prospect of having 100,000 new confirmed
cases per day nationwide. We don't even want to imagine what the
unemployment situation is going to look like with 100,000 new
coronavirus cases every day. You cannot have a healthy economy in a
country suffering from mass death.
I know the President got up in the Rose Garden and celebrated the
last jobs report like it was the greatest news since the end of World
War II, but you have to be living in a country club fantasy land to
believe this economic crisis is anywhere close to ending.
Tens of millions of Americans today are out of work in States with
COVID hotspots. There are reports that people who went back to work in
the spring are getting laid off for a second time. The numbers show
that it disproportionately harms Black and Hispanic people suffering in
this crisis, and the layoffs are hitting those Americans especially
hard in industries that pay modest wages. This is a recipe for
injustice and for long-term economic hardship. Our proposal is
desperately needed because the country is not on a straight line to
recovery.
Democrats demanded the supercharged unemployment benefits because
workers are not to blame for the crisis. Doctors don't yet have a cure
for COVID-19, but the Congress does have a way to address the financial
strain of joblessness. That is why Democrats demanded full wage
replacement during the negotiations on unemployment benefits in the
CARES Act.
Secretary Scalia told those of us negotiating this issue that State
UI systems--unemployment systems--were too outdated to make it work
anytime soon. These are Federal benefits, but under employment law, the
States administer the program and get the benefits out.
We knew that there would be some challenges, and we proposed a simple
solution: $600 extra per week across the board, adding up to full wage
replacement for the typical worker. It was clear that was the only
possibility of getting the supercharged benefits out to millions of
workers quickly.
It hadn't been easy. In a number of States, the unemployment systems
run on Bronze Age technology. In some other cases--and Leader Schumer
and I are inquiring into these right now--it is a case of Republican
sabotage. That is why, for the long term, it is certainly worth looking
at a Federal approach for administering unemployment benefits as a
better strategy.
But in today's economic conditions, dealing with the suffering we are
seeing right now--the suffering that Tony Fauci talked about yesterday
that could hammer this country from sea to shining sea--if you are
dealing with today's conditions and you want to get full-wage benefits
out on time, there is no alternative to $600 per week across the board.
Furthermore, there is no good argument for cutting or eliminating
benefits as long as the pandemic is raging and getting worse.
On the one hand, we heard Secretary Scalia and other Republicans
repeat the old line. They have been talking against unemployment for
ages, and they always say the problem is lazy workers dependent on
government are going to drag the economy down by collecting
unemployment instead of going back to their jobs.
On the other hand, Republicans have repeatedly said the economy is
roaring back to full employment so there is no need for extending
benefits any longer. You can't have it both ways. You can't have it
both ways, that these workers are dragging the economy down and then
talk about how everything is booming.
Regardless of how these arguments conflict, neither one holds any
water to begin with. I believe it is an insult to American workers to
say they would rather sit at home than work hard and earn their pay.
Our workers have a strong working ethic, and how could anybody believe
in the greatness of America, as the President is always talking about,
and think so little of its workers?
Second, it is time to quit pretending to know whether the crisis is
anywhere near over. The number of people filing new unemployment claims
every week, even now, is two and three times higher than the worst
single week of the Great Recession.
Senators have a right to stake out whatever ground they want on this
issue. I will tell you, the American people overwhelmingly support
extending supercharged unemployment benefits. You see it in polls--
polls done by centrist organizations. But more importantly, you hear
about it when you are home.
Americans don't buy Secretary Scalia's line about lazy workers or
dependence on the government. I can tell you, based on the
conversations I had with Oregonians, they don't want any handouts. They
understand the country is facing a severe historic crisis of
joblessness, and they want the Congress to act. You cannot have a
healthy economy in a country suffering from mass debt, particularly in
the middle of a pandemic.
It would be an act of sabotage and, I think, unthinkable cruelty to
slash these benefits and send all these jobless families into
destitution. That is why Senator Schumer and I have outlined this
proposal to extend these supercharged unemployment benefits in a manner
that is tethered to economic conditions on the ground.
We always hear our colleagues talk about policies and the need for
policies that really mirror what is going on in the real-world economy,
in the private sector. That is what this proposal does. This proposal
says we are going to tie the economic benefits; we are going to tether
them to economic conditions on the ground.
I saw our colleague from South Dakota, a Member of the Republican
leadership, Senator Thune, say that maybe the benefits ought to taper
down when unemployment goes down. I looked at that, and I said that
Democrats share that view. That is what our trigger proposal is all
about. You have to have them in a way that is going to make sure people
can pay rent and groceries, which is what the $600 benefit made
possible and will in the future.
But when unemployment tapers down, then, under our proposal, we make
an accommodation for that. What we are going to do is common sense. It
provides certainty and predictability for American workers, but it will
also send a message across the country that there is a policy that will
make a more dependable safety net. Yet it will also do what the head of
the Federal Reserve just said, which is to make sure that family
budgets, which are the ones that drive the American economy, are ones
where people can pay the rent and buy groceries.
The bottom line is we have a moral obligation to not turn our back on
those who are suffering. I am telling you, the Senate is going to go
home here in a day or so for several weeks, and Senators are going to
hear loud and clear that workers are concerned about whether, after
July 31, they are going to be able to pay the rent and be able to buy
groceries. I think they are worried, and I hear it from all parts of my
community--about a tsunami of evictions and people simply not being
able to feed their families. I think
[[Page S4141]]
those who disagree with the Schumer-Wyden proposal ought to come out
here and say what they going to offer those people who are hurting.
Influential objective thinkers about the economy, like Jerome Powell,
are saying that these kinds of benefits are absolutely key to making
sure that the family budget, which drives the American economy, is
going to be positioned to pay the rent and buy groceries.
I gather from Leader Schumer's remarks that I can yield to our
Senator from Colorado, a particularly valuable member of the Finance
Committee, who has been working on safety net issues for many, many
years.
Mr. BENNET. I would like to thank Leader Schumer and the ranking
member of the Finance Committee, Senator Wyden, for bringing this
commonsense proposal to the floor.
I have long advocated for the idea that we should tie benefits to the
conditions of the economy rather than simply politically convenient
dates or inconvenient dates that don't matter, don't make any sense to
working people in our country, and create idiotic fights here that
don't help the people we all have been sent here, in theory at least,
to serve.
Right now, we are facing an unprecedented set of conditions in our
country. We are being racked by an economic downturn. It is different
from any that we have ever seen before and at the same time, we are
facing this incredible health crisis. One in six workers in this
country is unemployed. One in six workers is unemployed today.
But for once, thankfully, we were able to come together in a
bipartisan way in March and pass the CARES Act, which is benefitting
these workers in two ways.
First, we expanded unemployment benefits to cover almost 10 million
self-employed workers, gig workers, and others who are usually left
behind in circumstances like this. That is something we should have
changed a long time ago, but we finally got it done, and we did it in a
bipartisan way.
Second, as Leader Schumer and Senator Wyden said, we added $600 per
week to normal unemployment benefits for all 30 million workers
claiming benefits. That $600 weekly benefit has prevented a level of
severe hardship that is almost impossible to describe. It has paid rent
and prevented evictions. It has kept food on the table so families
don't go hungry. It has kept the lights on and paid for the internet so
our kids can learn. The bottom line is that the $600 weekly payment has
been an essential lifeline to families in the middle of the worst
economic crisis since the Great Depression.
In Colorado alone, over 450,000 workers are receiving the expanded
benefit, and it has put a total of nearly $2.5 billion into our
economy. Nationwide, the numbers are staggering. One analysis showed
that these additional payments help keep 12 million Americans out of
poverty and keep poverty rates from rising. Without these payments,
wages across the entire economy would have declined by 10 percent from
February to May. We completely offset that decline.
You know what that means is that working people actually were able to
continue to buy things in this economy. The leader might be interested
to know that I was talking to an economist recently, Raj Chetty, from
Harvard, who has done a study, including other places, of New York.
That study shows that the biggest loss in terms of consumer spending
has come from the wealthiest areas in New York. That resulted in the
biggest unemployment.
In other words, if you have a small business in a wealthy area in New
York, your small business is cratering because wealthy people aren't
spending money on services because they are scared of getting COVID.
In other parts of New York, there has been much less destabilization,
and that is because of these unemployment benefits--directly because of
these unemployment benefits--because where the unemployment rate has
gone up, people's incomes have been able to be stable.
I am the first to say that not everything we have done with the CARES
Act has been perfect. As we know, the CARES Act left out too many
families, and too many States have been too slow to get these benefits
out. That is the result of delivering benefits through 50 different
systems that have been underfunded and undermined for 50 years. But
once they have gotten out, these benefits have made a transformational
difference. Everyone in the Senate should be proud of that.
I come out here all the time and complain how terrible this place is.
I was amazed to hear the majority leader this morning talk about the
``incompetence'' of local officials. There is no body in the world more
incompetent than this Senate. But here is a moment when we can actually
be proud of something that we did here. Even President Trump has been
running campaign ads touting these benefits. Even as he is running
these ads--which, as Senator Wyden said, he is running because this
unemployment benefit is popular--he is threatening the take away the
benefit by allowing the $600 to sunset at the end of July. That would
be a profound mistake.
Right now, even with these enhanced benefits in place, 17 percent of
American families can't cover 3 months of basic expenses. Without the
extra benefits, that number wouldn't be 17 percent. It would be 43
percent, almost half of the families in our country. Today, nearly 10
percent of Americans can't make the rent. Without the extra benefits,
that number would double or triple.
If we let these benefits expire, we are going to throw tens of
millions of Americans who rely on them into a profound financial
crisis. We will be cutting their monthly income by $2,400. If we go
over that cliff and completely cut off benefits, not only
will it cut incomes by 50 percent or 60 percent or 70
percent for literally millions of Americans who can't go
back to work, but it will cause extreme damage to the
economy.
Nothing has kept our economy afloat more than this investment in
unemployment. Allowing these benefits to expire would remove $50
billion a month from the economy, reducing the GDP by 2.5 percent in
the second half of this year. That would lead to 2 million jobs lost
and a significant increase in the unemployment rate. So we would be
right back here again. We shouldn't be doing that, at this point, with
this very fragile economy and when COVID-19 is spreading in far too
many places.
Some of the industries are facing extreme crises in my State as well
as across the country. Hotels are projected to suffer revenue losses of
almost 60 percent in 2020. Between March and May 2020, total restaurant
sales were down more than $94 billion from expected levels, and 90
percent of independent concert venues are at risk of permanently
closing down in a few months without receiving additional relief. We
can't tell people who are working in all of these industries--when
there is no way these businesses will even be close to being 100
percent in the near future--that they are just on their own.
That is why we need to pass an expanded unemployment benefit that
continues after July. We should tie that expanded benefit to the
unemployment rate, as Senator Schumer and Senator Wyden have designed,
so that it steps the benefit down as the economy heals. That makes
sense. Nobody here wants to be in a place at which the unemployment
benefit disincentivizes people from working, which is why they step it
down, but it needs to stay in place until this economy heals.
It is the wrong approach for the country and for the working people
in this country to send them over the cliff right now, and it will be
the wrong approach to send them over the cliff in 6 months or even in 2
years if the unemployment rate is still elevated. We need to extend
expanded unemployment benefits, and we need to do it until the economy
recovers. It is the right thing for the workers and families who are
wondering how they are going to get through one of the most difficult
challenges of their lives. It is the right thing to do for the broader
economy in order for it to come back as strongly as it can as we work
toward a vaccine.
I thank my colleagues again for their tremendous leadership. I hope
that we will be able to work on this in a bipartisan way, as we did
before, and that we will be able to pass these extensions for the
American people.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
[[Page S4142]]
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 4143
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Tile.--This Act may be cited as the ``American
Workforce Rescue Act of 2020''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Extension of Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation.
Sec. 3. Extension and expansion of the pandemic emergency unemployment
compensation program.
Sec. 4. Extension of pandemic unemployment assistance.
Sec. 5. Extension of additional unemployment compensation provisions.
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF FEDERAL PANDEMIC UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION.
(a) Extension.--Section 2104(e) of the Relief for Workers
Affected by Coronavirus Act (contained in subtitle A of title
II of division A of the CARES Act (Public Law 116-136)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(e) Applicability.--
``(1) In general.--An agreement entered into under this
section shall apply to weeks of unemployment--
``(A) beginning after the date on which such agreement is
entered into; and
``(B) ending on or before the applicable end date described
in paragraph (2).
``(2) Applicable end date.--
``(A) In general.--The applicable end date described in
this paragraph with respect to a State is the date that is 13
weeks after the first date (after the date the State entered
into an agreement under this section) that the State is not
in an extended benefit period described in subparagraph (B).
``(B) Extended benefit period.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A), a State shall be considered to be in an
extended benefit period, as of any given day, if such a
period would then be in effect for such State under the
Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970
(26 U.S.C. 3304 note) if--
``(i) section 203(f) of such Act were applied to such State
(regardless of whether the State by law had provided for such
application); and
``(ii) such section 203(f)--
``(I) were applied by substituting `6.0' for `6.5' in
paragraph (1)(A)(i) thereof; and
``(II) did not include the requirement under paragraph
(1)(A)(ii) thereof.''.
(b) Revision of Amount.--Section 2104(b) of the Relief for
Workers Affected by Coronavirus Act (contained in subtitle A
of title II of division A of the CARES Act (Public Law 116-
136)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B), by inserting ``(or, for weeks of
unemployment beginning after July 31, 2020, and ending on or
before the applicable end date described in subsection (e)(2)
the amount described in paragraph (3))'' after ``$600''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Amount of federal pandemic unemployment
compensation.--
``(A) Tiers.--The amount described in this paragraph is,
with respect to a State, the following amount:
``(i) First tier amount.--In the case of weeks beginning in
a first tier high unemployment period described in
subparagraph (B)(i), $100.
``(ii) Second tier amount.--In the case of weeks beginning
in a second tier high unemployment period described in
subparagraph (B)(ii), $200.
``(iii) Third tier amount.--In the case of weeks beginning
in a third tier high unemployment period described in
subparagraph (B)(iii), $300.
``(iv) Fourth tier amount.--In the case of weeks beginning
in a fourth tier high unemployment period described in
subparagraph (B)(iv), $400.
``(v) Fifth tier amount.--In the case of weeks beginning in
a third tier high unemployment period described in
subparagraph (B)(v), $500.
``(vi) Sixth tier amount.--In the case of weeks beginning
in a fourth tier high unemployment period described in
subparagraph (B)(vi), $600.
``(B) High unemployment periods.--
``(i) First tier.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)(i), a
first tier high unemployment period described in this clause
is, with respect to a State, any period during which an
extended benefit period would be in effect for the State
under the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation
Act of 1970 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note) if--
``(I) section 203(f) of such Act were applied to such State
(regardless of whether the State by law had provided for such
application); and
``(II) such section 203(f)--
``(aa) were applied by substituting `6.0 percent but less
than 7.0 percent' for `6.5' in paragraph (1)(A)(i) thereof;
and
``(bb) did not include the requirement under paragraph
(1)(A)(ii) thereof.
``(ii) Second tier.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)(ii),
a second tier high unemployment period described in this
clause is, with respect to a State, any period during which
an extended benefit period would be in effect for the State
under the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation
Act of 1970 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note) if--
``(I) section 203(f) of such Act were applied to such State
(regardless of whether the State by law had provided for such
application); and
``(II) such section 203(f)--
``(aa) were applied by substituting `7.0 percent but less
than 8.0 percent' for `6.5' in paragraph (1)(A)(i) thereof;
and
``(bb) did not include the requirement under paragraph
(1)(A)(ii) thereof.
``(iii) Third tier.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)(iii),
a third tier high unemployment period described in this
clause is, with respect to a State, any period during which
an extended benefit period would be in effect for the State
under the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation
Act of 1970 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note) if--
``(I) section 203(f) of such Act were applied to such State
(regardless of whether the State by law had provided for such
application); and
``(II) such section 203(f)--
``(aa) were applied by substituting `8.0 percent but less
than 9.0 percent' for `6.5' in paragraph (1)(A)(i) thereof;
and
``(bb) did not include the requirement under paragraph
(1)(A)(ii) thereof.
``(iv) Fourth tier.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)(iv),
a fourth tier high unemployment period described in this
clause is, with respect to a State, any period during which
an extended benefit period would be in effect for the State
under the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation
Act of 1970 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note) if--
``(I) section 203(f) of such Act were applied to such State
(regardless of whether the State by law had provided for such
application); and
``(II) such section 203(f)--
``(aa) were applied by substituting `9.0 percent but less
than 10.0 percent' for `6.5' in paragraph (1)(A)(i) thereof;
and
``(bb) did not include the requirement under paragraph
(1)(A)(ii) thereof.
``(v) Fifth tier.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)(v), a
fifth tier high unemployment period described in this clause
is, with respect to a State, any period during which an
extended benefit period would be in effect for the State
under the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation
Act of 1970 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note) if--
``(I) section 203(f) of such Act were applied to such State
(regardless of whether the State by law had provided for such
application); and
``(II) such section 203(f)--
``(aa) were applied by substituting `10.0 percent but less
than 11.0 percent' for `6.5' in paragraph (1)(A)(i) thereof;
and
``(bb) did not include the requirement under paragraph
(1)(A)(ii) thereof.
``(vi) Sixth tier.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)(vi), a
sixth tier high unemployment period described in this clause
is, with respect to a State, any period during which an
extended benefit period would be in effect for the State
under the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation
Act of 1970 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note) if--
``(I) section 203(f) of such Act were applied to such State
(regardless of whether the State by law had provided for such
application); and
``(II) such section 203(f)--
``(aa) were applied by substituting `11.0 percent' for
`6.5' in paragraph (1)(A)(i) thereof; and
``(bb) did not include the requirement under paragraph
(1)(A)(ii) thereof.
``(C) Special rules.--
``(i) Minimum period on a tier before moving to a lower
tier.--Once a State is in a high unemployment period tier
described in clause (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), or (vi) of
subparagraph (B), the State may not move to a lower high
unemployment period tier (resulting in a lower dollar amount
under subparagraph (A)) before the State has been in the
existing high unemployment period tier for a period of at
least 13 consecutive weeks.
``(ii) Deemed first tier.--For purposes of determining the
amount of Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation during
the 13-week period described in subsection (e)(2)(A) with
respect to a State, the State shall be deemed to be in a
first tier high unemployment period described in subparagraph
(B)(i) during such period.''.
SEC. 3. EXTENSION AND EXPANSION OF THE PANDEMIC EMERGENCY
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PROGRAM.
(a) Extension.--Section 2107(g) of the Relief for Workers
Affected by Coronavirus Act (contained in subtitle A of title
II of division A of the CARES Act (Public Law 116-136)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(g) Applicability.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), an
agreement entered into under this section shall apply, with
respect to a State, to weeks of unemployment--
``(A) beginning after the date on which such agreement is
entered into; and
``(B) ending on or before the applicable end date described
in paragraph (2).
``(2) Applicable end date.--
``(A) In general.--The applicable end date described in
this paragraph with respect to a State is the later of--
``(i) March 27, 2021; or
``(ii) if, as of the date under clause (i), the State is in
an extended benefit period described in subparagraph (B), the
first date after the date under clause (i) that the State is
not in an extended benefit period described in subparagraph
(B).
[[Page S4143]]
``(B) Extended benefit period.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A), a State shall be considered to be in an
extended benefit period, as of any given day, if such a
period would then be in effect for such State under the
Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970
(26 U.S.C. 3304 note) if--
``(i) section 203(f) of such Act were applied to such State
(regardless of whether the State by law had provided for such
application); and
``(ii) such section 203(f)--
``(I) were applied by substituting `5.5' for `6.5' in
paragraph (1)(A)(i) thereof; and
``(II) did not include the requirement under paragraph
(1)(A)(ii) thereof.
``(3) Transition for amount remaining in account.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), in the case
of an individual who has amounts remaining in an account
established under subsection (b) as of the last day of the
last week (as determined in accordance with the applicable
State law) ending on or before the date described in
paragraph (1)(B), pandemic emergency unemployment
compensation shall continue to be payable to such individual
from such amounts for any week beginning after such date for
which the individual meets the eligibility requirements of
this section.
``(B) Limitation.--No compensation shall be payable by
reason of paragraph (1) for any week beginning after the date
that is 4 months after the date described in paragraph
(1)(B).''.
(b) Expansion.--Section 2107(b) of the Relief for Workers
Affected by Coronavirus Act (contained in subtitle A of title
II of division A of the CARES Act (Public Law 116-136)) is
amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (2) and redesignating paragraph
(3) as paragraph (2); and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(3) First-tier pandemic emergency unemployment
compensation.--The amount established in an account under
paragraph (1) shall be equal to 13 times the individual's
average weekly benefit amount, which includes the amount of
Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation under section
2104, for the benefit year.
``(4) Second-tier pandemic emergency unemployment
compensation.--
``(A) In general.--If, at the time that the amount added to
an individual's account under paragraph (3) (in this section
referred to as `first-tier pandemic emergency unemployment
compensation') is exhausted, or at any time thereafter, such
individual's State is in an extended benefit period (as
determined under subparagraph (B)), such account shall be
augmented by an amount (in this section referred to as
`second-tier pandemic emergency unemployment compensation')
equal to 13 times the individual's average weekly benefit
amount, which includes the amount of Federal Pandemic
Unemployment Compensation under section 2104, for the benefit
year.
``(B) Extended benefit period.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A), a State shall be considered to be in an
extended benefit period, as of any given time, if such a
period would then be in effect for such State under the
Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970
(26 U.S.C. 3304 note) if--
``(i) section 203(f) of such Act were applied to such State
(regardless of whether the State by law had provided for such
application); and
``(ii) such section 203(f) did not include the requirement
under paragraph (1)(A)(ii) thereof.
``(C) Limitation.--The account of an individual may be
augmented not more than once under this subsection.
``(5) Third-tier pandemic emergency unemployment
compensation.--
``(A) In general.--If, at the time that the amount added to
an individual's account under paragraph (4) is exhausted, or
at any time thereafter, such individual's State is in an
extended benefit period (as determined under subparagraph
(B)), such account shall be augmented by an amount (in this
section referred to as `third-tier pandemic emergency
unemployment compensation') equal to 13 times the
individual's average weekly benefit amount, which includes
the amount of Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation
under section 2104, for the benefit year.
``(B) Extended benefit period.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A), a State shall be considered to be in an
extended benefit period, as of any given time, if such a
period would then be in effect for such State under the
Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970
(26 U.S.C. 3304 note) if--
``(i) section 203(f) of such Act were applied to such State
(regardless of whether the State by law had provided for such
application); and
``(ii) such section 203(f)--
``(I) were applied by substituting `7.5' for `6.5' in
paragraph (1)(A)(i) thereof; and
``(II) did not include the requirement under paragraph
(1)(A)(ii) thereof.
``(C) Limitation.--The account of an individual may be
augmented not more than once under this subsection.
``(6) Fourth-tier pandemic emergency unemployment
compensation.--
``(A) In general.--If, at the time that the amount added to
an individual's account under paragraph (5) is exhausted, or
at any time thereafter, such individual's State is in an
extended benefit period (as determined under subparagraph
(B)), such account shall be augmented by an amount (in this
section referred to as `fourth-tier pandemic emergency
unemployment compensation') equal to 13 times the
individual's average weekly benefit amount, which includes
the amount of Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation
under section 2104, for the benefit year.
``(B) Extended benefit period.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A), a State shall be considered to be in an
extended benefit period, as of any given time, if such a
period would then be in effect for such State under the
Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970
(26 U.S.C. 3304 note) if--
``(i) section 203(f) of such Act were applied to such State
(regardless of whether the State by law had provided for such
application); and
``(ii) such section 203(f)--
``(I) were applied by substituting `8.5' for `6.5' in
paragraph (1)(A)(i) thereof; and
``(II) did not include the requirement under paragraph
(1)(A)(ii) thereof.
``(C) Limitation.--The account of an individual may be
augmented not more than once under this subsection.
``(7) Coordination of pandemic emergency unemployment
compensation with regular compensation.--
``(A) In general.--If--
``(i) an individual has been determined to be entitled to
pandemic emergency unemployment compensation with respect to
a benefit year;
``(ii) that benefit year has expired;
``(iii) that individual has remaining entitlement to
pandemic emergency unemployment compensation with respect to
that benefit year; and
``(iv) that individual would qualify for a new benefit year
in which the weekly benefit amount of regular compensation is
at least either $100 or 25 percent less than the individual's
weekly benefit amount in the benefit year referred to in
clause (i),
then the State shall determine eligibility for compensation
as provided in subparagraph (B).
``(B) Determination of eligibility.--For individuals
described in subparagraph (A), the State shall determine
whether the individual is to be paid pandemic emergency
unemployment compensation or regular compensation for a week
of unemployment using one of the following methods:
``(i) The State shall, if permitted by State law, establish
a new benefit year, but defer the payment of regular
compensation with respect to that new benefit year until
exhaustion of all pandemic emergency unemployment
compensation payable with respect to the benefit year
referred to in subparagraph (A)(i).
``(ii) The State shall, if permitted by State law, defer
the establishment of a new benefit year (which uses all the
wages and employment which would have been used to establish
a benefit year but for the application of this subparagraph),
until exhaustion of all pandemic emergency unemployment
compensation payable with respect to the benefit year
referred to in subparagraph (A)(i).
``(iii) The State shall pay, if permitted by State law--
``(I) regular compensation equal to the weekly benefit
amount established under the new benefit year; and
``(II) pandemic emergency unemployment compensation equal
to the difference between that weekly benefit amount and the
weekly benefit amount for the expired benefit year.
``(iv) The State shall determine rights to pandemic
emergency unemployment compensation without regard to any
rights to regular compensation if the individual elects to
not file a claim for regular compensation under the new
benefit year.''.
SEC. 4. EXTENSION OF PANDEMIC UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE.
Section 2102 of the Relief for Workers Affected by
Coronavirus Act (contained in subtitle A of title II of
division A of the CARES Act (Public Law 116-136)) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1)(A)(ii), by striking ``December 31,
2020'' and inserting ``the applicable end date described in
section 2107(g)(2)''; and
(B) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
``(2) Limitation on duration of assistance.--
``(A) In general.--The total number of weeks for which a
covered individual may receive assistance under this section
shall not exceed 39 weeks and such total shall include any
week for which the covered individual received regular
compensation or extended benefits under any Federal or State
law, or pandemic emergency unemployment compensation under
section 2107, except that if after March 27, 2020, the
duration of extended benefits, or pandemic emergency
unemployment compensation under section 2107 is extended, the
39-week period described in this paragraph shall be extended
by--
``(i) the number of weeks that is equal to the number of
weeks by which the extended benefits were extended; and
``(ii) in the case of an extension of pandemic emergency
unemployment compensation under section 2107, by the number
of weeks that is equal to the additional number of weeks
(through augmentation) available
[[Page S4144]]
with respect to the State in which the individual resides
under paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) of section 2107(b).
``(B) Extension of assistance.--For the purpose of an
extension of the 39-week period under subparagraph (A), the
following rules shall apply:
``(i) Transition period.-- Section 2107(g)(3) shall apply
to any extension of assistance under subparagraph (A).
``(ii) Accounts and grandfathering.--In determining the
number of weeks available for a covered individual under an
extension described in subparagraph (A)(ii), the Secretary
shall apply rules that are similar to the rules described in
paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) of section 2107(b), including
with respect to accounts and grandfathering.'';
(2) in subsection (h), by striking ``section 625'' each
place it appears and inserting ``part 625''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Unemployment Rate Calculation for Certain
Territories.--In the case of Guam, American Samoa, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Federated
States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands,
and the Republic of Palau, the following rules shall apply:
``(1) For the purposes of subsection (c)(1)(A)(ii) of this
section, the Secretary shall determine the total unemployment
rate of the territory in a manner similar to the manner under
section 2107(g)(2).
``(2) For the purpose of subsection (c)(2)(B) of this
section, the Secretary shall determine the total unemployment
rate of the territory in a manner similar to the manner under
paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) of section 2107(b).
``(3) For the purpose of subsection (d)(2) of this section,
the Secretary shall determine the total unemployment rate of
the territory in a manner similar to the manner under section
2104(b)(3)(B).''.
SEC. 5. EXTENSION OF ADDITIONAL UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
PROVISIONS.
(a) Emergency Unemployment Relief for Governmental Entities
and Nonprofit Organizations.--Section 903(i)(1)(D) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1103(i)(1)(D)) is amended by
striking ``December 31, 2020'' and inserting ``the applicable
end date described in section 2107(g)(2) of the Relief for
Workers Affected by Coronavirus Act (contained in subtitle A
of title II of division A of the CARES Act)''.
(b) Temporary Full Federal Funding of the First Week of
Compensable Regular Unemployment for States With No Waiting
Week.--Section 2105(e)(2) of the Relief for Workers Affected
by Coronavirus Act (contained in subtitle A of title II of
division A of the CARES Act (Public Law 116-136)) is amended
by striking ``December 31, 2020'' and inserting ``the
applicable end date described in section 2107(g)(2)''.
(c) Temporary Financing of Short-time Compensation Payments
in States With Programs in Law.--Section 2108(b)(2) of the
Relief for Workers Affected by Coronavirus Act (contained in
subtitle A of title II of division A of the CARES Act (Public
Law 116-136)) is amended by striking ``December 31, 2020''
and inserting ``the applicable end date described in section
2107(g)(2)''.
(d) Temporary Financing of Short-time Compensation
Agreements.--Section 2109(d)(2) of the Relief for Workers
Affected by Coronavirus Act (contained in subtitle A of title
II of division A of the CARES Act (Public Law 116-136)) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2020'' and inserting ``the
applicable end date described in section 2107(g)(2)''.
(e) Waiver of the 7-day Waiting Period for Benefits Under
the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act.--Section 2112(a) of
the Relief for Workers Affected by Coronavirus Act (contained
in subtitle A of title II of division A of the CARES Act
(Public Law 116-136)) is amended by striking ``December 31,
2020'' and inserting ``the applicable end date described in
section 2107(g)(2)''.
(f) Temporary Assistance for States With Advances.--Section
1202(b)(10)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1322(b)(10)(A)) is amended by striking ``December 31, 2020''
and inserting ``the applicable end date described in section
2107(g)(2) of the Relief for Workers Affected by Coronavirus
Act (contained in subtitle A of title II of division A of the
CARES Act)''.
(g) Full Federal Funding of Extended Unemployment
Compensation for a Limited Period.--Subsections (a) and (b)
of section 4105 of the Emergency Unemployment Insurance
Stabilization and Access Act of 2020 (contained in division D
of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law
116-127)) are each amended by striking ``December 31, 2020''
and inserting ``the applicable end date described in section
2107(g)(2) of the Relief for Workers Affected by Coronavirus
Act (contained in subtitle A of title II of division A of the
CARES Act)''.
______
By Mr. JOHNSON (for himself, Mr. Peters, Mrs. Capito, Mr.
Lankford, Mr. Inhofe, and Mr. Carper):
S. 4148. A bill to extend the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism
Standards Program of the Department of Homeland Security, and for other
purposes; considered and passed.
S. 4148
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF CHEMICAL FACILITY ANTI-TERRORISM
STANDARDS PROGRAM OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY.
(a) In General.--Section 5 of the Protecting and Securing
Chemical Facilities from Terrorist Attacks Act of 2014
(Public Law 113-254; 6 U.S.C. 621 note) is amended by
striking ``July 23, 2020'' and inserting ``July 27, 2023''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the date that is 1 day after the date of
enactment of this Act.
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 640--TO EXPRESS THE SENSE OF THE SENATE ON UNITED
STATES-ISRAEL COOPERATION ON PRECISION-GUIDED MUNITIONS
Mr. ROUNDS submitted the following resolution; which was referred to
the Committee on Foreign Relations:
S. Res. 640
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) the Department of Defense has cooperated extensively
with Israel to assist in the procurement of precision-guided
munitions, and such cooperation represents an important
example of robust United States support for Israel;
(2) to the extent practicable, the Secretary of Defense
should take further measures to expedite deliveries of
precision-guided munitions to Israel; and
(3) regularized annual purchases of precision-guided
munitions by Israel, in accordance with existing requirements
and practices regarding the export of defense articles and
defense services, coordinated with the United States Air
Force annual purchase of precision-guided munitions, would
enhance the security of both the United States and Israel
by--
(A) promoting a more efficient use of defense resources by
taking advantage of economies of scale;
(B) enabling the United States and Israel to address crisis
requirements for precision-guided munitions in a timely and
flexible manner; and
(C) encouraging the defense industrial base to maintain
routine production lines of precision-guided munitions.
____________________