[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 130 (Thursday, July 23, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4449-S4455]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read nomination of William 
Scott Hardy, of Pennsylvania, to be United States District Judge for 
the Western District of Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                   Modification to Amendment--S. 4049

  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask 
unanimous consent that notwithstanding the passage of S. 4049, the 
clerk be authorized to correct the instruction line on amendment No. 
2417.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (S. 2417), as modified, is as follows:

   (Purpose: To modify the requirements for the Department of Energy 
response to the review by the Nuclear Weapons Council of the budget of 
             the National Nuclear Security Administration)

       Beginning on page 1036, strike line 7 and all that follows 
     through page 1037, line 8, and insert the following:
       ``(3) Department of energy response.--
       ``(A) In general.--If the Council submits to the Secretary 
     of Energy a written description under paragraph (2)(B)(i) 
     with respect to the budget request of the Administration for 
     a fiscal year, the Secretary shall include as an appendix to 
     the budget request submitted to the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget--
       ``(i) the funding levels and initiatives identified in the 
     description under paragraph (2)(B)(i); and
       ``(ii) any additional comments the Secretary considers 
     appropriate.
       ``(B) Transmission to congress.--The Secretary of Energy 
     shall transmit to Congress, with the budget justification 
     materials submitted in support of the Department of Energy 
     budget for a fiscal year (as submitted with the budget of the 
     President under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States 
     Code), a copy of the appendix described in subparagraph 
     (A).''.

  Strike Sections 3112, 3113, 3114, 3115, 3116.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On page S4449, July 23, 2020, second column, the following 
appears: (Purpose: To modify the requirements for the Department 
of Energy response to the review by the Nuclear Weapons Council of 
the budget of the National Nuclear Security Administration) 
Beginning on page 1036, strike line 7 and all that follows through 
page 1037, line 8, and insert the following: ``(3) DEPARTMENT OF 
ENERGY RESPONSE.--``(A) IN GENERAL.--If the Council submits to the 
Secretary of Energy a written description under paragraph 
(2)(B)(i) with respect to the budget request of the Administration 
for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall include as an appendix to 
the budget request submitted to the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget--``(i) the funding levels and initiatives 
identified in the description under paragraph (2)(B)(i); and 
``(ii) any additional comments the Secretary considers 
appropriate. ``(B) TRANSMISSION TO CONGRESS.--The Secretary of 
Energy shall transmit to Congress, with the budget justification 
materials submitted in support of the Department of Energy budget 
for a fiscal year (as submitted with the budget of the President 
under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code), a copy of 
the appendix described in subparagraph (A).''. The PRESIDING 
OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: (Purpose: To 
modify the requirements for the Department of Energy response to 
the review by the Nuclear Weapons Council of the budget of the 
National Nuclear Security Administration) Beginning on page 1036, 
strike line 7 and all that follows through page 1037, line 8, and 
insert the following: ``(3) DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY RESPONSE.--``(A) 
IN GENERAL.--If the Council submits to the Secretary of Energy a 
written description under paragraph (2)(B)(i) with respect to the 
budget request of the Administration for a fiscal year, the 
Secretary shall include as an appendix to the budget request 
submitted to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget--
``(i) the funding levels and initiatives identified in the 
description under paragraph (2)(B)(i); and ``(ii) any additional 
comments the Secretary considers appropriate. ``(B) TRANSMISSION 
TO CONGRESS.The Secretary of Energy shall transmit to 
Congress, with the budget justification materials submitted in 
support of the Department of Energy budget for a fiscal year (as 
submitted with the budget of the President under section 1105(a) 
of title 31, United States Code), a copy of the appendix described 
in subparagraph (A).''. Strike Sections 3112, 3113, 3114, 3115, 
3116. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 



            Unanimous Consent Requests--S. 3685 and S. 4097

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate en bloc 
consideration of the following bills: S. 3685, the Emergency Rental 
Assistance and Rental Market Stabilization Act, which I am a prime 
sponsor of, and S. 4097, Senator Warren's bill, the Protecting Renters 
from Evictions and Fees Act. I further ask that the bills be considered 
read a third time and passed en bloc and the motions to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we have 
discussed this before on the floor, and I will not go through that 
entirely in my part of the discussion here.
  Four months ago with the CARES Act, we came together and unanimously 
passed a package that provided historic support, significant support, 
in the rental markets, as this request focuses on. I believe that in 
the coming days, we can come to that same kind of consensus and deal 
with this important issue. Because of that, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. I am disappointed. I knew it was coming from Senator 
Crapo. He is my friend, and I appreciate the cooperation, but this is 
so much more serious than what we did a few months ago.
  We have been asking just down the hall--Senator McConnell was just 
in. We have asked him week after week after week--April, May, June, 
half of July--to do something about this impending problem we have.
  This is why we have to do this now. Tomorrow, millions of families 
face a massive cliff, and they face another one in a week. Right now, 
millions of Americans are in danger of losing their homes. In the CARES 
Act, we put a temporary moratorium on evictions and foreclosures for 
renters and homeowners and properties with federally backed loans, as 
well as for renters receiving Federal assistance. It is a good thing 
entirely, just not enough. This rental eviction moratorium expires 
tomorrow.
  The last thing we need--imagine this: In the middle of a public 
health crisis, people who get evicted roam the streets, or they go to 
an overcrowded shelter, or they go live in their cousin's basement--all 
potentially spreading the virus.
  We know the moratorium didn't go far enough. It only covered 28 
percent of renters. We should be extending and expanding the 
moratorium. We should be passing my emergency rental assistance bill to 
get people through this pandemic, not kicking them out on the streets.
  We already had a housing crisis in this country before the 
coronavirus hit. Many of the professions we are now recognizing as 
essential--one essential worker, a grocery store worker, said:

       I don't feel essential. They call me essential. I feel 
     expendable because I don't make much money, and they don't 
     protect you at work.

  Many of those people recognized as essential aren't paid enough to 
afford housing.
  Think about this: One-quarter of all renters--one out of four 
renters--before the pandemic were paying half or more of their income 
in rent. One thing happens in their lives, and they are on the streets. 
Now we are seeing millions of people all at once have those same 
emergencies. They are facing impossible choices between rent and 
grocery or prescriptions or draining their savings or going to a payday 
lender. More than 40 percent--40 percent--of Black and Latinx renters 
report they are unlikely to be able to make their next payment--40 
percent.
  Some people don't have any choice at all. Their only option is 
eviction. Those evictions are already happening in Columbus, the 
capital city in Ohio, the largest city in Ohio. In Columbus, they have 
turned the convention center into an eviction court--an eviction court 
at the convention center. More eviction filings will be coming if we do 
nothing.
  For all those renters who have been protected from eviction by the 
CARES Act, back rent will suddenly be due. They will owe for March and 
April and May and June. The same goes for the millions who aren't 
protected under

[[Page S4450]]

the CARES Act but got relief from a temporary State or local moratorium 
or court closure.
  On top of that, at the end of next week, the additional $600 a week 
in UI benefits expires. Senator Wyden has done yeoman's work. It is 
incredible what he was able to do for this unemployment that kept 
millions and millions and millions--tens of thousands of Oregonians and 
hundreds of thousands of Ohioans were kept in their homes because of 
this $600 unemployment check that they got weekly. Now, because Senator 
McConnell doesn't care, President Trump doesn't care, those people are 
going to lose that $600. What do they do then? We know that UI didn't 
cover everyone, but for many people, that $600 was the difference 
between being able to pay their bills and skipping meals or draining 
their savings or having to turn to a payday lender.
  We need to extend the assistance to help families afford their food 
and prescriptions. We need to provide emergency rental assistance to 
keep a roof over their heads.
  This problem isn't some distant cliff. We are all about to go home 
for the week. This doesn't happen a month from now or 3 months from 
now; this happens starting this week. It happens when unemployment 
expires. It happens when these moratoria around the country expire.
  What is President Trump doing? What is Majority Leader McConnell 
doing? Nothing. Maybe going to Mar-a-Lago, maybe going back to 
Kentucky. I don't know. What are they doing about this impending cliff? 
Nothing.
  We asked them in March. We asked them in April, in May, and in June. 
Two-thirds of the way into July, they still refuse to help.
  Because of this President's failures, this crisis isn't getting any 
better, the virus continues to spread, people continue to die, small 
businesses continue to suffer.
  Why would we let up on the relief people need now? The work we do in 
this body to get help to people simply can't make up for the lack of 
leadership from the White House, but it can mitigate some of the 
damages.
  The House passed the Heroes Act nearly 2 months ago. That would have 
eliminated these cliffs. It would have provided $100 billion in 
emergency relief. But do you know what? That bill has been on the 
majority leader's desk collecting dust since May.
  For millions of families about to lose their unemployment, about to 
lose their homes, and not able to feed their kids, the bills keep 
coming, the clock keeps ticking, the stress keeps mounting. People are 
tired of this lack of action and lack of accountability.
  They are tired of being betrayed--``betrayed'' is the right word--
betrayed by this President, who is supposed to look out for them. They 
are tired of feeling like no one is on their side. That is why we need 
to do this.
  We are supposed to be the greatest country on Earth. The American 
people should not have to fend for themselves in the middle of a once-
in-a-generation crisis. It is time to lead where the President has 
failed. It is time for Leader McConnell to let us do our job. It is 
time to keep families from losing their homes. That is really clear.
  I yield the floor to the sponsor of this other bill that is so very 
important, Senator Warren.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Brown for the leadership 
on this.
  I am very sorry that the Republicans will not agree to moving forward 
on this bill today. The urgency of the moment cannot be overstated.
  President Trump's utterly failed response to the coronavirus pandemic 
has allowed a dangerous virus to spread, uncontrolled, throughout our 
Nation. More than 4 million Americans have contracted coronavirus, and 
more than 140,000 people are dead.
  While the death toll mounts, the President's failure to control the 
spread of COVID-19 has caused a second crisis, following closely on the 
heels of the virus. Our economy is in shambles, and now we are forced 
to fight on two fronts: to keep families safe from the coronavirus and 
safe from the economic fallout.
  So I am here on the Senate floor today to talk about one piece of the 
economic emergency unfolding in our country. Right now, we are just 
days away from a completely preventable housing crisis. The CARES Act 
eviction moratorium is currently protecting more than 12 million 
renters from losing their homes while the virus rages across our 
country. On Friday at midnight, those protections will disappear, 
allowing a tsunami of evictions that will hit communities of color and 
low-income families the hardest unless we act now.
  Let us be clear. Eviction is not a new problem in this country. Too 
many families were already on the financial brink before the virus 
crashed our economy. Close to 40 percent of adults don't have enough 
cash to cover an unexpected $400 expense. More than half of households 
didn't have enough savings to cover 3 months without income. More than 
one in four renters were paying more than half of their income to 
housing.
  Now families are facing the worst economic crisis of their lifetime. 
About 30 million Americans are officially unemployed or out of work. 
One-half of all Americans have lost employment income since the start 
of this pandemic, and communities of color have been hit the hardest. 
It is not possible to fix this economy without containing the virus, 
but we can make sure that millions of Americans don't lose their homes 
because President Trump closed his eyes and hoped that the pandemic 
would just go away.
  This is really a commonsense solution. My bill, the Protecting 
Renters from Evictions and Fees Act, would extend the Federal eviction 
moratorium through March of 2021, and it would expand the moratorium to 
protect every single renter.
  Congress should pass this bill immediately, and we should pair it 
with Senator Brown's bill to create a $100 billion emergency rental 
assistance fund to help struggling renters make their payments. 
Families would get the help they need to stay in their homes and stay 
current on their rent, and landlords would get their payments. This 
would help families. It would cover landlords, and it would help 
protect renters and communities from the spread of coronavirus.
  So the answer is really simple. The Senate can--and must--pass these 
two bills today because the consequences of inaction would be 
devastating.
  More than one out of every three renters have already missed a 
housing payment. More than one-third of renters have little or no 
confidence that they can make the next payment.
  And let's be clear about who is most at risk. Closer to half of Black 
and Latinx renters aren't sure they will be able to make the next 
housing payment. Black Americans are already more likely to be renters 
because of decades of racist Federal policies that denied Black 
families Federally insured mortgages, and our government failed to 
protect Black homeowners from predatory mortgages leading up to the 
great recession. So when the economy crashed, millions of Black 
Americans lost their homes, wiping out nearly all of the gains in Black 
homeownership since the 1968 Fair Housing Act.
  Failing to institute an eviction moratorium would further deepen 
existing racial injustices. Letting eviction protections evaporate at 
midnight on Friday will also result in widespread housing disruption 
and needlessly cause long-term harm to millions of families' future 
housing, financial stability, and their health. It will put more 
families at risk of homelessness at a time when providers are already 
stretching every dollar to connect unhoused Americans with sheltering 
resources, and it will take away one of the most critical protections 
from furthering the spread of coronavirus: safe, stable housing.
  President Trump's shameful inaction has allowed this virus to spread 
throughout every community in our country. He has denied the scope and 
seriousness of this pandemic. He has dismissed calls to take lifesaving 
action, and he has refused to use the powers of the Federal Government 
to implement even the most basic mitigation measures.
  But crisis does not stop growing just because those in power refuse 
to acknowledge it. That is true for the spread of the coronavirus, and 
it is also true for the looming eviction crisis.
  This is about our values. The Senate has the opportunity--right now--
to

[[Page S4451]]

stop a massive wave of evictions that will displace families right in 
the middle of a global pandemic. My colleagues understood the stakes in 
March when Congress passed the existing eviction moratorium into law. I 
urge them to join me now in continuing this lifesaving protection while 
providing emergency rental assistance to keep renters housed, landlords 
paid, and most of all, to keep families safe
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 4143

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from 
further consideration of S. 4143; that the bill be considered read a 
third time and passed; and that 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 Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the CARES 
Act provides an additional $600 per week to those who are receiving, 
through their States, unemployment insurance. In Wyoming we have a 
generous unemployment insurance program to help people who are out of 
work, and the CARES Act adds to that, essentially, a bonus payment of 
$600 additional per week. For a 40-hour workweek, that comes down to an 
average of about a $15-an-hour bonus for not being able to go back to 
work, and that is on top of their regular unemployment benefits.
  Well, since the CARES Act has passed, what we have seen is that this 
additional $600 per week means that most recipients are paid more for 
not working than they would make if they actually were on the job 
working. This fact has been confirmed by news reports, by academic 
researchers, and by the Congressional Budget Office.
  Even former Obama administration Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, 
along with President Obama's Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, 
agrees that $600 per week on top of unemployment insurance through the 
States is too much.
  We have ``help wanted'' signs all around my State. I talked to the 
people at unemployment insurance, who run the program. They tell me 
that they are having many people who are getting paid much more than if 
they would work, if they would take the jobs where you have employers 
out there hoping, looking for employees to come and work.
  You can't continue to pay people more to not work than to work. Yet 
instead of trying to address this identifiable and correctible problem, 
today my colleagues are asking that we vote to extend the $600-per-week 
bonus payments and continue these untargeted payments for many months 
into the future.
  As a matter of fact, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, living on 
Fantasy Island, wants to extend these for 6 more months, all the way 
until the end of January. The CBO and other researchers and economists 
have looked at this and said this would be a heavy wet blanket on the 
economy. It would prevent 10 million people from going back to work--
going all the way until the end of January.
  It is likely that such a proposal would cost $1 trillion--$1 
trillion--and much of that is we are talking about paying people to not 
work instead of helping people work.
  So I hope my colleagues will join me in better targeting help to the 
unemployed in a way that doesn't pay people more when they are sitting 
at home not working than they would make at work.
  We are working on a plan now to provide additional help for the 
unemployed if they can't go back to work because their job isn't there, 
isn't available; if, for health purposes, they can't go back to work; 
but do it in a way that the Democrats have claimed that they want to do 
but haven't even proposed. We need to make it much more closely aligned 
with lost wages.
  So we are going to be introducing this plan shortly, and I hope my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle will engage with us in that 
effort.
  For these reasons, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am going to get into the substance of my 
colleague's arguments in a moment, but I just want to be clear to all 
the people in America, the 30-plus million who are having problems 
making rent, having problems buying groceries, who in just 2 days--2 
days--come Saturday, are going to be in a position where, based on what 
they tell me, they are telling their kids: Hey, you probably have to 
eat a little bit less because the unemployment is ending.
  The fact is, the other body passed a bill so that folks would be able 
to make rent and buy groceries. On this side of the aisle, the 
Democratic leader and I introduced legislation to tie the benefits to 
economic conditions on the ground. One of the reasons we did is my 
colleagues on the other side said that benefits ought to taper off if 
unemployment goes down. That is what our bill does.
  But here is the message that I think folks who are walking on an 
economic tightrope this weekend need to hear. On this side of the 
aisle, we have been ready to go for weeks--essentially, months--to have 
bipartisan negotiations to work this issue out. As of this afternoon, 
with benefits expiring in 2 days, the other side of the aisle has no 
piece of legislation on offer. Let me repeat that: no piece of 
legislation on offer.
  Let me repeat that--no piece of legislation on offer. On this side of 
the aisle, they write lots of bills to help multinational 
corporations--lots of bills to help the powerful and the special 
interests, but as of this afternoon, there is not a bill to help those 
folks who this weekend are going to be saying: We are not going to be 
able to make rent in a few days. We are not going to be able to feed 
our families, not going to be able to pay for the car insurance. People 
aren't spending this money on luxuries. They are spending it on 
essentials. To a great extent, they kept the economy afloat for the 
last few months.
  The other point I want to make is that this did not have to happen. 
Not only do we have legislation ready to discuss with our colleagues 
that incorporates some of their ideas, we have been reaching out again 
and again. Yet Mitch McConnell, who took all of July off when he could 
have been getting this piece of legislation together--those big 2 
weeks, and he could have been getting the legislation together--
basically, actively--didn't happen by osmosis--actively gave short 
shrift to the needs of the unemployed and made no effort, none 
whatever, even though we reached out continually to Republicans, saying 
that this weekend--and the pain that working families have this weekend 
didn't have to happen. We wanted to do everything we can, working with 
our colleagues, to prevent it.
  Now, for purposes of this discussion, I want to make sure people 
understand what this discussion really means to working families in 
this country. I was at home, at food banks and the like--lines for 
blocks--people who had never needed to go to a pantry or a food program 
were waiting in line because they had been hit by this economic 
wrecking ball.
  There are people who are worried about losing their homes and losing 
their cars, being unable to fill their prescriptions. As I mentioned, 
think about what it means when you have to tell your kid you ought to 
eat less because they don't know whether they will have enough cash to 
stock the pantry next month.
  As I said, Republicans' response to this over the last few days--last 
few weeks--I went to school on a basketball scholarship, and I remember 
when you could basically play stall ball, go into four corners offense, 
basically run down the clock. And then at the end, as my distinguished 
colleague from Wyoming tried to do, say: Well, it is the fault of the 
poor people. It is the fault of those poor people. I am going to touch 
on what this really is all about.
  When we began the negotiations--and I was the point person for the 
Democrats--in the Finance room--I offered basic wage replacement as our 
position for dealing with this issue. Secretary of Labor Scalia said: 
It can't be done. The States can't administer it. Western civilization 
is pretty much going to end if we try to do this. And then he folded 
his arms, and, for days, basically refused to negotiate about 
alternatives.

[[Page S4452]]

  Understand that we started with the approach of basic wage 
replacement. Secretary Scalia said it can't be done. States are stuck 
with old technology. I didn't disagree with that. Gave a billion 
dollars to the States to help them update technology too. I said: We 
are not going to tell those workers, Mr. Scalia, to pound sand.
  I basically said we are going to average the benefit--$600. Some 
people will get a bit more than they would; some people are going to 
get a bit less, but families are going to have a chance, based on what 
the State employment offices told us, to actually get benefits.
  I know that it hasn't worked out too well in the State of Florida--
the President of the Senate, and I am sure he will want to talk about 
this in the debate--but at least millions of people in this country got 
a chance to make rent, buy groceries, pay medicine because we said we 
are going to take a sum of money that the States told us they can 
actually, for the most part, administer.
  The Finance Committee held a hearing on unemployment insurance this 
summer. I particularly wanted to know how we might look at 
administering these benefits in the future because I knew that we would 
all want to hear if there had been reforms and what the case might be 
for changes. During that hearing just a few weeks ago, the National 
Association of State Workforce Agencies--the experts on this issue on 
how the benefits are to be administered--said that--their words--any 
reduction or change in benefits will absolutely lead to a lapse in 
benefits.
  You would think colleagues on the other side would say: My goodness. 
We don't want that to happen. These State workforce agencies said there 
would be a lapse in benefits no matter what you cut, $100, whatever the 
amount was, there would be a lapse in benefits. The gap in benefits 
could last a week or two, potentially, up to a month. I have been 
pointing out to Senators you can't eat retroactivity. And yet, 
everything I have heard that colleagues want to do now--remember, they 
don't have a bill. They do not have a bill. They are taking the weekend 
off. We have a bill on this side. The Democratic leader, myself--
supported by our caucus--we have a bill. We are ready to talk. They 
don't have a bill to do anything for those people who are going to be 
hurting this weekend.
  After that hearing, you would have thought people--Republican 
Senators on the other side--would say, you know, we have to figure out 
what to do. We have to make sure that people aren't going to fall 
between the cracks, through no fault of their own. Remember, so many of 
them are at home because of government policies, the quarantine, and 
the--of course, the pattern is particularly ominous now because folks 
who were furloughed at the beginning, then got brought back, and now 
with the spike, they are getting laid off again. There you have it--
National Association of State Workforce Agencies says that any change 
can lead to a lapse in benefits.
  I guess my colleagues on the other side walked out there and said: No 
big deal. It is just a few weeks. Tell that to the people who aren't 
going to have enough money to make rent and buy groceries next week. 
Tell that to their face rather than just leave town and say: We will 
talk about it another time, and we will see about 2, 3, 4 weeks and 
what people are going to have to do without this lifeline, which I 
believe is going to be a disaster.

  The lapse that is being forced on this country right now is because 
Senate Republicans would not step up. They would not step up along the 
way--after the hearing, during the July break. They did not step up. 
The lapse is going to lead to eviction; it is going to lead to hunger; 
it is going to lead to desperation for millions of Americans. And the 
only way to avoid it is by acting now, by passing the American 
Workforce Rescue Act that Senator Schumer and I introduced. We just 
tried to pass it.
  If our bill had passed, the people who are going to be hurting this 
weekend, who aren't going to be able to make rent, who aren't going to 
be able to buy groceries--would have some sense of security. They would 
be able to go to bed at night this weekend, had our bill passed, 
knowing that there would be an opportunity to work with the other body 
and get this resolved and get it resolved quickly.
  Now those people know one thing, and that is that they better plan 
for yet more uncertainty and more pain. As my colleagues say, maybe it 
will get worked out in a few weeks--even though what they are talking 
about working out--and remember, there is no bill. We have never seen a 
piece of paper, but they are talking about cutting the lifeline over 50 
percent. That is their proposal--cutting it more than 50 percent.
  At a minimum--at a minimum, I believe, that what the Republicans are 
now looking at is some kind of approach that after Secretary Scalia has 
told the Senate that the States can't do full wage replacement for 
individual workers; that they are not capable of doing it; the 
technology is too old; it can't get the math; it can't get individually 
tailored benefits out in a timely way--apparently, my colleagues are 
using that model for their so-called idea that they want to talk about.
  I have already mentioned the fact that they believe the argument for 
this is that it could be done in a few weeks. People are going to be 
hurting for those few weeks. Nobody has an answer to that. Everybody 
ought to understand that I was the first one to offer full wage 
replacement--I would say to the President of the Senate--and it was 
Secretary Scalia who said it couldn't be administered and has never 
changed his mind on that point.
  My view is, the proposal that adds a whole lot of complexity to the 
unemployment system is a proposal designed to fail. That, apparently, 
is what Senate Republicans are talking about.
  At a minimum, this delay in the Senate is going to cause a lapse in 
benefits. On top of that, it has been reported the Republicans could 
attempt to cut the benefit by well over 50 percent.
  I just ask, how can anybody look at the State of the country and how 
powerful people and special interests can be doing so well and then 
decide to cut the economic lifeline for working families by well over 
50 percent when the country is in the middle of a pandemic, when there 
are 60- or 70,000 new COVID cases every day and climbing, when there 
are 800, 900, 1,000 COVID cases every day and climbing, when the number 
of new unemployment claims, which before this year had never crossed 
700,000, has been 1.3 million or higher for 18 straight weeks, and, in 
fact, the number of new claims went up this week for the first time 
since April--a sign that the recovery is going in reverse.
  As I mentioned, what I am hearing about at home are businesses that 
reopened in May and June and are laying off their workers for a second 
time.
  One-third of Americans couldn't make their last rent payment. Parents 
who lost their jobs are wondering how they are going to feed their 
children. I just say to my colleagues who may be who may be following 
this, this is an unthinkable level of pain and suffering and 
uncertainty to needlessly inflict on 30 million Americans.
  It is not just about those who have already lost work. It is about 
the millions of others who are worried that their pink slip might come 
in August or September or October. They need support too. In fact, the 
papers are full of stories of small businesses closing and closing 
permanently. I expect that all those people are worried that they 
haven't been laid off yet, but a pink slip may be coming their way in 
August or September or October. They may have a word or two for their 
Senators who are able to find plenty of time to write bills to help 
multinational corporations but can't find the time to stand up for 
unemployed folks who are hurting.
  Before I wrap up this afternoon, I want to touch on this argument 
that Republicans have been flogging away on for months now that these 
unemployment benefits are way too generous, and, somehow, they are 
convinced that it makes sense to insult the American worker and say 
that all these workers are sitting around lazily at home instead of 
going back to work. That argument does not pass the smell test.
  I am going to be very specific about why that argument trotted out 
again by my friend from Wyoming is way off base.
  First of all, the same Republicans who celebrated the May and June 
job reports are now talking about how lazy

[[Page S4453]]

workers are by refusing to go back to their jobs. You simply cannot 
have it both ways.
  Second, not one of my Republican colleagues brought forward real 
evidence to suggest that workers across the country are turning down 
work. These anecdotes just don't hold water. According to one recent 
analysis, more than two-thirds of workers who were hired in June went 
back to jobs that paid less than supercharged unemployment benefits.
  Third, it is an insult to American workers to say that they would 
rather sit at home than to earn their pay at work.
  If any one of my Republican colleagues were to go out and meet the 
Oregonians I have spoken to and who have been furloughed or laid off 
during the pandemic, they will hear from people who desperately want to 
go back to their jobs when it is safe. These are people who believe in 
the dignity of work and people who want to provide for their families. 
It is an insult to call them lazy.
  I want to inject a note of reality into this because my Republican 
colleagues have been so fixated on this argument. I have talked to a 
lot of unemployed workers. I said: Back east, the Senate Republicans 
say all unemployed folks are lazy, and they don't want to work and all 
the rest.
  So many of the unemployed look at me incredulous, and they say: Ron, 
ask them how in the world have they came up with that completely wrong 
idea.
  They usually say: If I am given a choice between unemployment or the 
chance to have a job in the private economy, where I have a future and 
where I can build upward economic mobility--they usually say: Ron, tell 
those Republicans in Washington, DC, it is a no-brainer; of course, I 
am going to take the job that gives me an opportunity for a future, the 
chance to work in the private sector and climb the ladder of economic 
mobility. I am going to take that every time, rather than unemployment, 
which has been uncertain.
  That is my response to the off-base kind of argument presented by 
Senator Barrasso. If Republicans want to go home this weekend and 
insult the work ethic of millions of Americans who believe in the 
dignity of work, that is their constitutional right.
  The country, obviously, is nowhere near the end of this pandemic. 
Businesses are going to keep closing--some temporarily, others 
permanently. We are looking at the worst unemployment crisis since the 
Great Depression.
  The benefits we put together initially, the supercharged unemployment 
benefits--and I am especially proud that we said that as for the law, 
which really hadn't been updated since the 1930s, that we would 
modernize the law and allow gig workers and the self-employed and 
independent contractors and part-timers to be brought into the system. 
Those supercharged benefits that we negotiated in the Finance Committee 
room--which, by the way, were signed off by Secretary Mnuchin. This was 
not done in the dead of night with only one side going along with the 
effort. These were negotiated with Secretary Mnuchin, who actually 
endorsed it at a press conference. These supercharged unemployment 
benefits have been the one thing that has kept millions of families--
millions of families--from being in a position where they couldn't feed 
their families, couldn't make rent, and, literally, facing the kind of 
despair, the kind of fear that has made the number of requests for 
mental health services go through the stratosphere because people are 
so worried. And this question of their economic future is just one 
reason.
  Supercharged unemployment benefits have helped keep the economy 
afloat and have helped prevent true economic meltdowns. And even with 
the lifeline, so many are barely hanging on. They fall behind on their 
bills. I mentioned the threat of hunger. Senator Brown just talked 
about how important it is to act on housing assistance.
  It would be a historic failure, morally and economically, to slash 
this lifeline that is so important to getting workers through a 
pandemic. The Democratic leader, Senator Schumer, and I listened 
carefully to all sides. We thought about the need, given the fact that 
there are predictions of high unemployment for some time to come. We 
said: Let's come up with a dependable safety net that provides some 
measure of predictability with respect to how the government is going 
to approach these issues in the future.
  My colleagues have said that they want a system that has the benefits 
taper off as unemployment goes down. Well, what the Democratic leader 
and I have proposed does exactly that.
  I believe that yesterday there was a story in the Washington Post 
where, I think, they were talking about unemployment at 15 percent. 
When unemployment reaches those kinds of levels--and we saw that story 
of people waiting and waiting for hours. In fact, I don't have the 
exact percentage.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the story about the 
unemployment calamity in Oklahoma be printed in the Record at this 
point
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                            [July 20, 2020]

`A Very Dark Feeling': Hundreds Camp Out in Oklahoma Unemployment Lines

                            (By Annie Gowen)

       Tulsa.--John Jolley never thought he'd be sleeping in his 
     car awaiting unemployment benefits. But there he was, the 
     owner of a once-successful advertising agency, taking a 
     sweaty nap in a Subaru wagon in a convention center parking 
     lot at 1:45 a.m. on a Wednesday.
       The pandemic sent his business into a free fall, and now 
     Jolley wanted to be first in line for an unemployment claims 
     event beginning in five hours. He barely dozed, afraid that 
     if he fell into a deep sleep, he would miss the early-morning 
     handout of tickets for appointments with state agents.
       There would be just 400 tickets handed out for that day's 
     event. When those ran out, there would be 400 more for 
     appointments the following day.
       ``I just didn't want to be number 803,'' Jolley said.
       In the four months since the pandemic began, nearly 50 
     million workers have filed unemployment claims nationwide, a 
     flood that's overwhelmed some states, freezing antiquated 
     computer systems and jamming websites and phone lines for 
     days. State benefit agencies in some parts of the country 
     have evoked memories of Great Depression bread lines.
       Many have been struggling to get their regular unemployment 
     benefits as well as the $600-a-week federal pandemic 
     unemployment assistance passed in March that begins running 
     out for millions of Americans later this week. Congress 
     returned Monday to begin hammering out the details of another 
     massive coronavirus bill, with Republicans assembling a $1 
     trillion package that probably will extend but reduce the 
     size of that benefit. Democrats are backing a more wide-
     ranging $3 trillion relief bill passed by the House in May.
       In Oklahoma, one of the poorest states, unemployment--which 
     reached a record 14.7 percent in April--has pushed many to 
     the point of desperation, with savings depleted, cars 
     repossessed and homes sold for cash.
       Even though the unemployment rate dropped to 6.6 percent in 
     June, the backlog has created unprecedented delays. Oklahoma 
     had approved 235,000 of about 590,000 filed claims by June 
     21--a total $2-4 billion payout, far more than in previous 
     years. About 6,000 state claims are pending.
       The Oklahoma Employment Security Commission staff has tried 
     to combat the delays by holding mega-processing events at 
     large arenas in Oklahoma City and Tulsa this month, with 
     masks and social distancing required. So far, they've managed 
     to help 6,200 people. Jolley's unemployment claim was 
     approved in March but had been stalled, a problem that hadn't 
     been fixed after nine phone calls and hours on hold with the 
     OESC.
       The 58-year-old single father arrived in the parking lot of 
     the River Spirit Expo center in Tulsa around 9 p.m. on a 
     sultry night with a heat index approaching 100 degrees. The 
     landmark 75-foot statue of the Golden Driller--a nod to 
     Tulsa's oil and gas hub--towered over one side of the dark 
     parking lot, his face painted over with a surgical mask.
       Dozens more sat in the parking lot overnight with Jolley, 
     unable to get their questions answered through the 
     unemployment agency's overloaded phone system. Some said they 
     had been notified that their claim was denied as fraudulent. 
     Jolley quickly bonded with the woman in the next car over, a 
     manicurist named Cindy La, 60, the two swapping tips on how 
     they thought the event would unfold.
       That afternoon, as Jolley gathered up the paperwork he'd 
     need for his claim, he felt a sense of sadness as profound as 
     anything he'd felt since the pandemic began.
       ``It's a very dark feeling,'' he said. ``You just kind of 
     feel like you're in a boat without a rudder and you're riding 
     the waves. After all these years you worked hard at your 
     company, tried to be a good guy and be fair to your clients, 
     you just feel like you're losing control of your future.''


                       Old computers, new careers

       At 4:30 a.m., several OESC staffers emerged from the 
     convention center to hand out the appointment numbers. The 
     process quickly

[[Page S4454]]

     degenerated into a free-for-all, the crowd growing restive, 
     pushing and shoving to get the limited supply of appointment 
     tickets. Jolley moved to the front of the line, trying to 
     protect his new friend, La, by reaching down and plucking two 
     tickets--No. 69 for her and No. 64 for him.
       Others were not so lucky. The numbers quickly ran out, and 
     people were told they had to return the following day. 
     Eventually, staffers referred people to the three new events 
     added for the coming week because of the demand.
       Ashley Love, 31, a former customer advocate for Enterprise 
     Rent-A-Car, had risen at 4 a.m. to take her 2-year-old 
     daughter to her mother's home before heading to the 
     convention center, only to be told she had to come back the 
     next day. She was laid off in March, when the pandemic nearly 
     obliterated the travel industry. Her benefits inexplicably 
     stopped four weeks ago, the agency website saying only she 
     was on a ``verification hold.''
       ``It's appalling, I don't understand how they can do this 
     to people,'' Love said. ``One day, I called 15 times in two 
     hours, and they either don't answer or take your calls and 
     hang up on you.''
       Love was getting down to the last she has, having run 
     through $4,000 in savings. Even before her benefits froze, 
     she was getting only about $137 a week, plus $600 a week from 
     the federal government's pandemic emergency assistance 
     program, due to expire around the end of the month. Her 
     regular monthly bills--rent, car payment, insurance--are 
     $2,091.
       She has continued her search for a job, even contemplating 
     whether she should ``Find Something New''--as the White 
     House's new ad campaign suggests--researching how she could 
     get certification to start a career in teaching.
       Shelley Zumwalt, the interim director of Oklahoma's 
     unemployment agency, said the state's system uses a mainframe 
     computer from 1978 that was quickly overwhelmed by the volume 
     of claims. ``My first day, I sat down with one of the claims 
     agents and said, `Show me what you do,' and a green screen 
     popped up and she pushed F9,'' Zumwalt said. ``That was the 
     clearest thing to me that I was dealing with a technology 
     that was older than I am.''
       She launched the series of more than a dozen mega-events 
     July 1 after several days in June when desperate people began 
     showing up to the OESC office in Oklahoma City and waiting in 
     line with coolers, camp chairs and tents.
       ``I'm not okay with people having to camp out to get their 
     claims processed,'' Zumwalt said.
       Some who showed up at the event had received notes from the 
     OESC that they had been approved for unemployment benefits 
     when they hadn't yet applied, convinced they had been victims 
     of fraud. Zumwalt said that about 90,000 claims have been 
     flagged as fraudulent.
       Last month, the U.S. Labor Department's Office of Inspector 
     General, working with the OESC, said it had stopped payment 
     on 3,800 unemployment insurance claims, including 1,300 filed 
     from IP addresses in London, saving the state nearly $16 
     million.
       Many real Oklahomans in need of assistance are suffering 
     through the complicated unemployment process, too. The state 
     has rejected more than half of the unemployment claims filed 
     through June 21, some for gig or self-employed workers who 
     must be denied regular unemployment insurance before they can 
     qualify for the federal government's Pandemic Unemployment 
     Assistance, Zumwalt said.
       Many who showed up at the Tulsa convention center were 
     navigating government assistance for the first time, such as 
     Sarah Miller, 29, a single mother of three who was told not 
     to come back to her job as a nursing home aide after she 
     experienced symptoms consistent with covid-19 in March. Her 
     unemployment claim has been pending since April 12.
       ``I need this. I need it,'' she said. ``I've never been one 
     to do unemployment, but with all that's going on, I don't 
     really have any other option. I have to be home with my kids; 
     I can't afford to pay a babysitter or do day care. Got to do 
     what I got to do.''


                          `We're all glitches'

       Jolley had time to go home before his 6:30 a.m. 
     appointment, shower and change into cargo shorts and a shirt 
     printed with tiny steaks and barbecues. He was among the 
     first into the cavernous Expo center, where claims seekers 
     sat down in folding chairs six feet apart.
       Staffers handed out bottles of water, Kind granola bars and 
     a flier that advertised drive-up distribution at the local 
     food pantry, ``Soup's On at the Community Kitchen.'' Jolley 
     tucked the flier along with other documents in a blue folder 
     he labeled ``Unemployment.''
       As he waited for his name and number to be called, Jolley 
     looked around at the others sitting in their socially 
     distanced chairs and was reminded of the animated Disney 
     movie ``Wreck-It Ralph,'' which he watches with his 7-year-
     old, Pearl. In it, Ralph is a lumbering video game villain 
     who hopes to restart his life by helping a video game 
     princess stuck in a computer glitch.
       In a way, everyone in this room is a glitch, he said, just 
     like Princess Vanellope in the movie.
       ``People that are here, we're all glitches,'' he said. ``We 
     fell through the cracks. The computer system didn't work for 
     us.''
       Jolley has a degree in petroleum engineering but started 
     Big Guys Inc. advertising in 1995 as a hedge against the ups 
     and downs of the oil market. For a long time, the company 
     provided a good living, even during the 2008 recession. He 
     sells ad space for mom-and-pop businesses--tree trimmers, DUI 
     lawyers--posted in bathrooms in airports, restaurants and 
     concert venues.
       ``It's a captive audience with disposable income,'' he 
     quipped, that old joke. ``Or it was before this.''
       He had always thought he would do this until he retired, 
     especially after life dealt him the surprise of Pearl and he 
     became a single dad at 50. Now, he was just hoping his 
     misfortune would be temporary, that business would revive as 
     things normalized, with concerts and other events supposed to 
     restart in Oklahoma in August.
       When his name was called, he went behind black curtains 
     where claims agents were working on their ancient computer 
     program. He gave a written summary of his many contacts with 
     the agency to Ashley Testerman, an agent in a black cotton 
     mask.
       ``I brought a cheat sheet,'' he said.
       ``You have no payments; let's see if you are in the 
     system,'' she said.
       In the end, after all that--the numerous phone calls, the 
     hours wasted on hold, the evening spent sleeping in his car--
     all he needed was a working PIN number, and Jolley was able 
     to file claims for all the weeks he had missed since April.
       ``I feel so relieved,'' he said afterward, joking that he 
     might do a Jed Clampett-like jig in the parking lot on his 
     way out the door. But the joy would be temporary. His last 
     sobering exchange with the claims agent stuck in his mind.
       ``We don't know what the future holds,'' he had said. 
     ``What happens if everything shuts down again?''
       What then?

  Mr. WYDEN. I close by way of saying that I came to the floor some 
time ago to ask unanimous consent to make sure that this weekend, when 
millions of people are hurting--remember, the suffering starts in 2 
days. It starts on Saturday--2 days in Florida, in Oregon, in Wyoming, 
and all over the country. Mitch McConnell's response was: Let's take a 
break; we can take off. He didn't seem to see those hurting people in 
Kentucky. Maybe they will have something to say to him this weekend.
  I will tell you, I think it is a big mistake for Senate Republicans 
to have frittered away weeks on end, when we could have had a dialogue 
and we could have talked about ideas.
  The Presiding Officer has talked to me a number of times since he has 
been here about healthcare. I enjoy talking to my colleagues and 
working on ideas to try to find a way to address concerns and solve 
problems. There wasn't one single effort--not one--to pick up on any of 
the ideas that I have been discussing here. In fact, I tried to reach 
out to colleagues on the other side and told them that I heard them say 
repeatedly that benefits should taper down as the unemployment rate 
goes down. Well, that is the heart of our bill on this side.
  The hurt and pain that working families are going to face this 
Saturday and Sunday--2 days from now--did not have to happen. It didn't 
have to happen. Our side has a bill to work on. The other side, I 
gather, has some ideas. We have not seen a single piece of paper, but I 
know that all those people who are hurting can't eat retroactively. 
They can't eat all the Republican theories about delay and haggling.
  I believe these working families deserve a whole lot better. They 
deserve some predictability and certainty that when they are hurting--
through no fault of their own--their government isn't going to turn its 
back on them and say: We don't care if your kids can't eat and you 
don't have a roof over your head. Our country has always been better 
than that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                                CARES 2

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as I said on Tuesday, our Nation stands 
at a critical midway point in our fight against the coronavirus. We 
made it through the springtime lockdowns. Americans' sacrifices saved 
our medical system. The Senate's historic CARES Act helped millions of 
families make it through, but this terrible virus is still with us. It 
kills more Americans every day. Some areas that have reopened have seen 
cases spike. Our hospitals, healthcare providers, and especially our 
vulnerable citizens are nowhere near out of the woods.
  Meanwhile, although the early days of our economic recovery have 
beaten expectations and surprised the experts, we have really only 
begun to repair the

[[Page S4455]]

damage. More than 17 million Americans are still jobless. Far too many 
families are still hurting. This is not over. America's fight 
continues, so Congress's support for our people must continue as well.
  The Senate majority has assembled a framework for CARES 2. The 
administration has requested additional time to review the fine 
details, but we will be laying down this proposal early next week. We 
have an agreement in principle on the shape of the package. It is the 
framework that will enable Congress to make law and deliver more relief 
to the American people that is tailored precisely to this phase of the 
crisis.
  Chairmen Grassley, Alexander, Collins, Rubio, Shelby, and Blunt, and 
Senators Cornyn and Romney have each spearheaded a part of CARES 2. On 
Monday, these committee chairmen and Republican Members will introduce 
each component. The sum of these efforts will be a strong, targeted 
piece of legislation aimed directly at the challenges we face right 
now.
  Our country is in a middle ground between the strict lockdowns of a 
few months ago and the future day when a vaccine will put all of this, 
finally, behind us. Our project now is to build a middle ground that is 
smart and safe but more sustainable.
  We are still waging a healthcare war against the virus, and we cannot 
let up on that. We need to continue to strengthen the defenses we have 
built--encouraging mask-wearing, supporting testing, and racing toward 
treatments and vaccines.
  At the same time, the greatest country in world history also needs to 
get back on offense. We need to carefully but proactively step back 
toward normalcy. This disease has already stolen the lives of more than 
140,000 Americans. It has stolen a half a year of our national life. We 
cannot let the robbery continue without a fight. We cannot let this 
pandemic rob us indefinitely of our children's educations and the 
livelihoods of 17 million American workers.
  We need to get Americans back to work and school while continuing to 
fight for our Nation's health. That is what CARES 2 is designed to do. 
Our proposal will not waste the American people's time with go-nowhere 
socialist fantasies. We aren't choreographing political stunts or 
teeing up the same old partisan trench warfare. Our proposal will focus 
on three things: kids, jobs, and healthcare.
  No. 1, kids. A functioning society needs to educate its children and 
young adults. Our kids need us to invest in their futures, and working 
parents need some certainty. We need as many K-12 schools, colleges, 
and universities as possible to be safely welcoming students this fall.
  Chairman Alexander, Chairman Shelby, and Chairman Blunt are 
finalizing an ambitious package of funding and policy to help our 
schools reopen. They will lay out a reopening-related funding package 
for schools and universities north of $100 billion. That is more money 
than the House Democrats proposed for a similar fund.
  There will be several important policies to help childcare providers, 
to grant new flexibility to elementary and secondary schools, and more.
  No. 2, jobs and the economy. Two provisions of the CARES Act worked 
especially well to help households stay afloat and help as many workers 
as possible stay employed.
  As Chairman Grassley will explain, Republicans want to send a second 
round of direct payments to American households, and Senator Collins 
and Senator Rubio have crafted a sequel to their historic and 
incredibly successful Paycheck Protection Program. It would give the 
hardest hit small businesses an opportunity to receive second loans if 
they continue to pay their workers.
  We also intend to continue some temporary Federal supplement to 
unemployment insurance while fixing the obvious craziness of paying 
people more to remain out of the workforce. Small business owners 
across the country have explained how this dynamic is slowing rehiring 
and recovery. So we are going to provide help but make sure it is 
suited to reopening the economy.
  But temporary relief cannot be our endgame. Americans do not just 
want to scrape by; they want to thrive again. They want a road back to 
the incredible job market we had just a few months ago. So Chairman 
Grassley will also lay out bold policies to incentivize retention, 
encourage the rehiring of laid-off Americans, and help businesses 
obtain PPE, testing, and supplies to protect their employees and entice 
customers.
  Think of it this way: In the spring, our economy needed life support. 
Today, while continuing to support families, we must also get the 
economy into physical therapy so it can actually regain its strength.
  Finally, in looking to the long term, the COVID-19 crisis has 
weakened the critical Federal trust funds that Americans rely on. As 
Senator Romney will explain, our proposal includes a bipartisan bill, 
cosponsored by Senate Democrats, to help a future Congress evaluate 
bipartisan proposals for protecting and strengthening the programs that 
Americans count on.
  Now, our third pillar is the most important of all--healthcare. Our 
entire reopening and recovery depend on knocking this awful virus onto 
its heels.
  So as Chairmen Alexander, Blunt, Grassley, and Shelby will explain, 
CARES 2 will continue to treat the root causes of this medical crisis: 
more resources for hospitals and healthcare workers; more help to keep 
sprinting toward diagnostics, treatments, and vaccines; new policies to 
shield seniors from a spike in Medicare premiums; and new legislation 
that will leave us with better surge capacity to produce medical 
countermeasures right here at home the next time a crisis strikes.
  There is one more essential element that ties schools, jobs, and 
healthcare all together--legal protections to prevent our historic 
recovery efforts from simply lining the pockets of trial lawyers.
  We will preserve accountability in cases of actual gross negligence 
or intentional misconduct, but we are going to make sure that nurses 
and doctors who fought an unknown enemy are not swamped by a tidal wave 
of malpractice suits. And we will make sure that school districts, 
colleges, churches, nonprofits, and employers that obey official 
guidance do not have to delay reopening because they are afraid they 
will spend 10 years in court.
  So this is where Senate Republicans are focused--more support for 
healthcare, more direct help for American families, and strong policies 
to help our country pivot into a safe reopening. We will propose to 
continue and renew some of the most successful CARES Act policies, 
while adding bold new ideas to help get schools and jobs open for the 
American people. This is the package our country needs. This is what we 
will introduce.
  We are repeating the successful strategy that produced the historic, 
bipartisan CARES Act back in March. First, I asked a number of 
Republicans to spearhead a serious first draft. Then we put those 
elements together and invited our Democratic colleagues to the table. 
And guided by our roadmap, working with the administration, the Senate 
reached a bipartisan outcome.
  Earlier this week, even Speaker Pelosi and Leader Schumer seemed to 
concede that things go better when Republicans lead. They themselves 
said the real work on this next bill would only begin after Republicans 
laid out the framework.
  Well, I am glad my Democratic friends see things the same way I do. I 
just hope they meet our serious, fact-based proposal with the 
productive and bipartisan spirit that got us the CARES Act, rather than 
the cynical partisanship that led them to block police reform just last 
month.
  Doctors and nurses will need Democrats to come to the table. 
Unemployed Americans will need Democrats to come to the table. Working 
parents and school children will need Democrats to come to the table.
  We have known all along the American people would defeat this virus 
by understanding that we are all in this together--every single one of 
us.
  If we want to deliver more historic relief, the Senate will need to 
remember the very same thing.