[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 29, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4557-S4561]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Coronavirus

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, to date, America has lost nearly 150,000 
people who have died with diseases related to coronavirus. We are 
quickly approaching 5 million cases of infections in the United States 
of America.
  Consider this for a moment. The United States has 5 percent of the 
world's population. Yet we have almost 25 percent of all the COVID 
infections in the world. How did we reach this point that we have such 
a rampant rate of infection in what is considered one of the most 
developed nations on Earth?
  Part of the problem is the President, who peddles worthless medical 
advice, and part of the problem is that the Republican Senate has been 
unwilling to face the economic hardships which have been created by 
this pandemic on our economy.
  It was 10\1/2\ weeks ago that the House of Representatives, under 
Democratic control of Speaker Pelosi, passed the Heroes Act. That was 
10\1/2\ weeks ago. They knew this day was coming--when the unemployment 
benefits that we put in the original legislation would expire, as they 
will this week, and the help for those who are renting to meet their 
obligations would expire, as it did last week. So 10\1/2\ weeks ago, 
Speaker Pelosi put on the table her proposal to deal with America after 
these things occurred.
  Today, on the floor of the Senate, Senator McConnell, the Republican 
leader, called her efforts ``a looney ideological fantasy''--``a looney 
ideological fantasy.'' The obvious question to Senator McConnell, who 
is the leader of the majority here in the U.S. Senate, is, Where have 
you been for the last 10\1/2\ weeks? Where is the Republican 
alternative, the Republican substitute? Why have we not seen that come 
forward and a real negotiation take place between the House and the 
Senate?
  For the longest time, Senator McConnell told us that he just did not 
feel ``a sense of urgency'' to take up this matter. He did not feel a 
sense of urgency. Well, history was made in the Senate Chamber this 
last Monday, because Senator McConnell came to the floor and used the 
word ``urgent.'' Finally, urgency is stirring in his loins, and he 
announced this week a Republican alternative--but not quite. What he 
announced was a series of bills to be introduced by the Republican 
side--a series of bills. We are just days away from the situation where 
these issues are expiring, such as unemployment assistance, and yet, in 
this circumstance, we are dealing with the problem where we do not have 
alternatives from the Republican side. Well, we have some. One was 
addressed this morning, when it came to unemployment assistance.
  Understand what happened last March 26 when we passed the CARES Act. 
This bill passed 96 to nothing in the Senate Chamber--unanimous, 
bipartisan. But when we sat down to establish the amount of money to be

[[Page S4558]]

given to unemployed workers in America, we ran into a problem--one we 
didn't anticipate. The Secretary of Labor in the Trump administration, 
Secretary Scalia, came to us and sat down at the table and said: You 
have a lot of interesting formulas when it comes to unemployment 
compensation, but just remember the reality. The reality is that 50 
different States have 50 different computer systems, some of which are 
very modern and up to speed and others which are ancient and not up to 
speed. When you start coming up with complex Federal formulas for 
sending money to unemployed workers in these States, you are going to 
run into 50 different reactions. And that is exactly what we faced.
  So the alternative was simple. We either gave a flat-dollar amount in 
the unemployment benefit supplement or we just wondered what the States 
might do with any other formula. So the decision was made--with the 
White House, with the Republicans--for the $600 a week Federal 
supplement to unemployment. There was argument on the floor that some 
workers may come out ahead if that happens. Well, undoubtedly that 
might be the case, because the Federal supplement was in addition to 
whatever a person qualified for in State unemployment, and each State 
has a different formula for State unemployment assistance, and each 
worker has a different work experience and salary experience. But we 
went forward, believing we needed to do something dramatic and 
significant for the economy and the first place to start was with 
unemployed workers. Economists will state that when you are facing a 
recession, when there is a lack of consumer demand, the first dollar 
you want to hand out as a government is to an unemployed worker. You 
know they are going to spend it. They have to spend it to pay the rent 
or the mortgage, to pay the utility bills, to put food on the table, 
clothes on the kids, and to pay for health insurance. So we put money 
into the economy, and it worked. We managed to slow the decline of the 
economy, even though we see more unemployment still coming around. It 
would have been much worse if we hadn't made this commitment and 
invested in unemployment benefits.
  So now, with the expiration of this Federal unemployment benefit 
program on July 31, just a few days away, the question is, What will we 
replace it with?
  Democrats proposed in the Heroes Act in the House that we extend the 
current program to the end of this year. That is certainly a direct way 
to deal with this and one that would provide continuing assistance to 
these families.
  The Republicans have come up with a much different approach. What 
they suggested is that we take the $600-a-week Federal supplement and 
reduce it to $200 a week, and then by October 1, we require the States 
to implement a program that would give the unemployed workers 70 
percent of their last wage. They obviously ignored what Secretary 
Scalia told us just a few months ago, and that is that the States would 
run into a terrible challenge trying to meet this new Republican 
standard of 70 percent of your last paycheck. We were told we couldn't 
do that back in March.
  Has the landscape changed so much when it comes to State computer 
systems? I doubt it. I doubt it very much. In Illinois we have a good 
system, but it has been dramatically overwhelmed by the Federal 
supplemental payment and the new pandemic unemployment insurance and 
other provisions that we passed in Washington. So to think that we 
could move to a new formula in Illinois while meeting our current 
obligations is very difficult in our State, which is more modern than 
some.
  Having said that, though, Republicans have argued that if by October 
1 you can't provide 70 percent by formula to the unemployed workers, I 
suppose they will go back to the $200 a week.
  So what is behind this? What is at the heart of this? Well, there are 
several things that I think need to be noted on the floor. Here is the 
assumption. Listen to this. You have heard it over and over, and we 
heard it again this morning--the assumption that has been made by the 
Republicans in their approach to unemployment insurance.
  They assume that if people are receiving $600 a week in a Federal 
supplement to unemployment, that they are going to refuse to go back to 
work, even when offered a job. They are making more money to stay home 
than they did on the job; at least, that is what has been repeated over 
and over again.
  This morning, I would like to put in the Record an article from the 
Yale News. This Yale study, which was just released this week, says: 
The Yale study finds expanded jobless benefits did not reduce 
employment. This is exactly the opposite of what we have heard over and 
over again from the Republican side.
  This report from Yale economists said as follows:

       [It found] that workers receiving larger increases in 
     unemployment benefits experienced very similar gains in 
     employment by early May relative to workers with less-
     generous benefit increases. People with more generously 
     expanded benefits also resumed working at a similar or 
     slightly quicker rate than others did, according to the 
     report.
       The data do not show a relationship between benefit 
     generosity and employment paths after the CARES Act, which 
     could be due to the collapse of labor demand during the 
     COVID-19 crisis.

  Put in simple terms, there aren't that many jobs out there looking 
for workers, and as it turns out, some unemployed workers have gone 
back to work, even though they might make slightly less than they did 
under unemployment. Why? The reason is obvious. Unemployment is a 
temporary benefit. Unemployment may not be as good and generous as what 
a person has in the workplace when you count the benefits that come 
with some jobs. Ultimately, many workers who are unemployed today want 
to get back to work.
  We should not assume, as some politicians do, that if a person is 
unemployed, they must be lazy. With 30 million unemployed Americans, 
that is hardly the case, and certainly when it comes to whether or not 
people have the incentive to go back to work, I believe most Americans 
do want to work. The notion that we have to change the whole system for 
fear that some might not is definitely unfair.
  Let me just say this, as we move forward with this. I see a colleague 
on the floor seeking recognition in a few minutes. As we move forward 
with this attempt to deal with the economy, we have to face the 
reality, and the reality is, as made clear by the Chairman of the 
Federal Reserve, that if we take our foot off the accelerator right 
now, we are going to plunge it over the cliff in a deeper economic mess 
than we are in today.
  They are trying, by every means in monetary policy and the interest 
rates, to enliven this economy and create an environment where it may 
reopen soon. I hope that happens. But if we take the Republican 
approach, a little bit of this and a little bit of that, it is not 
going to work. We are going to find ourselves with a recession that is 
even worse.
  And for those deficit hawks, how badly do you think our deficit will 
look if we face an even deeper recession? It is going to get worse and 
dramatically so. Shouldn't our first obligation be to the workers 
across America who have lost their jobs so they can keep their families 
together? This notion of cutting the Federal benefit from $600 a week 
to $200 a week, I can guarantee you, will mean much more traffic and 
activity at the food pantries around America as these unemployed 
families try to keep things together.
  Then there is a proposal from the Republican side for a three-martini 
lunch Federal tax break. A three-martini lunch--is that the way out of 
our economic morass? And at the same time they are encouraging the 
three-martini lunch Federal tax break, they will not give any 
additional assistance to those who are receiving SNAP benefits--those 
low-income Americans who are needing some help just to feed their 
families. It seems that things are upside down.
  The last point I will make is this. Senator McConnell has said 
repeatedly for months: Nothing is going to happen in the Senate--
nothing--to help anybody in America, unless he gets his wish to give 
immunity to American corporations from coronavirus lawsuits.
  Finally, we get to see his proposal. It was released this week. I 
want to tell you, it is the most dramatic tort reform proposal I have 
seen since I have served in the U.S. Senate. It basically takes away 
the rights of workers, as

[[Page S4559]]

well as those who are customers of businesses, from recovering under a 
coronavirus lawsuit. It lowers the standard of care that is required of 
businesses to a level which basically will not protect Americans who 
face this pandemic across the country. At the same time, it is 
providing assistance and relief, it is, unfortunately, creating an 
environment where some businesses--some, unfortunately--will not be as 
careful as they should be in the way they conduct their businesses with 
customers and their employees. We know that we face a challenge here 
with this pandemic, but giving this kind of corporate break when it 
comes to immunity and liability only will make things more dangerous 
for customers and employees across the United States of America.
  Let me say a word about what has been said on the floor over and over 
again by Senator Cornyn and Senator McConnell--the so-called tsunami of 
lawsuits, the epidemic of frivolous lawsuits, the trial lawyers on 
parade to the courthouse because of this pandemic. Well, we have 
checked every lawsuit filed in the United States this year that 
mentions the word ``coronavirus'' or ``COVID-19.'' Do you know how many 
COVID medical malpractice cases have been filed so far this calendar 
year with this so-called tsunami of lawsuits? Six. Six. And how many 
consumer personal injury cases have been filed this year mentioning 
``COVID-19'' or ``coronavirus,'' this epidemic, this flood of lawsuits? 
There are 15 across the entire United States of America. It is an 
imaginary problem that they are creating at this point. We can deal 
with it, and 28 States have already by changing their State laws, but 
giving immunity to corporations from coronavirus lawsuits will not make 
us safer, will not make the workplace safer for workers, or the 
business safer for customers.
  If we are going to restore consumer confidence, everybody has to pull 
together. We ought to have standards established by the CDC based on 
public health and not politics. And businesses--conscientious 
businesses, I am sure, will follow those standards because they do 
care. Currently, we don't have these standards, and this effort will 
make it even less likely that we will.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Yale News article 
dated July 27, 2020 be printed in the Record
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   [From the YaleNews, July 27, 2020]

  Yale Study Finds Expanded Jobless Benefits Did Not Reduce Employment

                           (By Mike Cummings)

       A new report by Yale economists finds no evidence that the 
     enhanced jobless benefits Congress authorized in March in 
     response to the COVID-19 pandemic reduced employment.
       The report (PDF) (https://tobin.yale.edu/sites/default/
files/files/C-19% 20Articles/CARES-UI identification 
     vF(1).pdf) addresses concerns that the more generous 
     unemployment benefits, which provide $600 per week above 
     state unemployment insurance payments, would disincentivize 
     work.
       The researchers assessed this claim using weekly data from 
     Homebase (https://joinhomebase.com/), a company that provides 
     scheduling and timesheet software to small businesses 
     throughout the United States. The findings suggest that, in 
     the aggregate, the expanded benefits neither encouraged 
     layoffs during the pandemic's onset nor deterred people from 
     returning to work once businesses began reopening.
       The enhanced unemployment benefits were initiated under the 
     CARES Act, a $2.2 trillion economic stimulus package enacted 
     on March 27 that attempted to ease the pandemic's severe 
     economic consequences. The expanded benefits, which are set 
     to expire July 31, provide a $600 weekly payment in addition 
     to any state unemployment insurance. The supplemental payment 
     was designed to cover 100% of the average U.S. wage when 
     combined with existing unemployment benefits. The generosity 
     of an individual's unemployment benefits depends on several 
     factors, including their earnings history and their state's 
     schedule of benefits.
       The report found that workers receiving larger increases in 
     unemployment benefits experienced very similar gains in 
     employment by early May relative to workers with less-
     generous benefit increases. People with more generously 
     expanded benefits also resumed working at a similar or 
     slightly quicker rate than others did, according to the 
     report.
       ``The data do not show a relationship between benefit 
     generosity and employment paths after the CARES Act, which 
     could be due to the collapse of labor demand during the 
     COVID-19 crisis,'' said Joseph Altonji (https://
economics.yale.edu/people/faculty/joseph-altonji), the Thomas 
     DeWitt Cuyler Professor of Economics in the Faculty of Arts 
     and Sciences, and a co-author of the report.
       Critics argued that the expanded benefits, which exceeded 
     many people's normal weekly wages, would incentivize 
     businesses to lay off workers to cut costs and disincentivize 
     recipients from returning to work. If the enhanced benefits 
     had these effects, the researchers said, the data should show 
     a significant drop in employment in the week after the CARES 
     Act took effect; it should also show subsequent decreases in 
     relative employment as workers with more generous 
     unemployment benefits put off returning to work. The data did 
     not yield results that support these predictions.
       The researchers found no evidence that recipients of more 
     generous benefits were less likely to return to work. They 
     also found that workers who received larger increases in 
     their unemployment benefits relative to their wages did not 
     experience greater declines in employment after the CARES Act 
     was enacted.
       The Homebase data primarily covers small businesses that 
     require time clocks for day-to-day operations. The majority 
     are restaurants, bars, or retail operations. The workers 
     represented in the dataset are hourly employees who earn 
     relatively low wages. While the data does not represent the 
     entire U.S. labor market, it captures a segment of it that 
     has been disproportionately affected by the pandemic, the 
     researchers noted.
       The analysis controlled for the severity of the COVID-19 
     pandemic and for the various restrictions that states imposed 
     on businesses during the public health crisis. The 
     researchers tested their results against employment outcomes 
     in the federal government's Current Population Survey, a more 
     representative sample of the labor market than the Homebase 
     data, and obtained similar findings. But they stress that 
     their results pertain to the current pandemic period of slack 
     labor demand and do not speak directly to the effects of 
     unemployment benefits on employment during normal times.
       The report's other authors are Zara Contractor, Lucas 
     Finamor, and Dana Scott (primary author), Ph.D. candidates in 
     the Department of Economics; Ryan Haygood, a rising senior in 
     Yale College and research assistant at the Tobin Center; Ilse 
     Lindenlaub, assistant professor of economics; Costas Meghir 
     (https://economics.yale.edu/people/faculty/costas-meghir). 
     the Douglas A Warner Ill Professor of Economics; Cormac O'Dea 
     (https://economics.yale.edu/people/faculty/cormac-odea), 
     assistant professor of economics; Liana Wang '20 B.A., an 
     undergraduate research assistant; and Ebonya Washington 
     (https://economics.yale.edu/people/faculty/ebonyawashington), 
     the Samuel C. Park Jr. Professor of Economics.
       The analysis, supported by Yale's Tobin Center for Economic 
     Policy, comes as Congress debates whether to extend the 
     expanded unemployment benefits. The full report is available 
     on the Tobin Center's website (https://tobin.yale.edu/sites/
default/files/files/C-19%20Articles/CARES-UI identification--
     vF(1).pdf).
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this morning to cover a couple of 
topics. One is on some comments on the legislation that I hope we are 
going to complete to provide relief to the Nation with regard to both 
the public health crisis and the jobs crisis, and then I will have two 
other sets of remarks in different parts of the Record, but let me 
start with what we are facing right now.
  We know that it has been 4 months since the CARES Act, way back at 
the end of March, and we all expected, I think at that time, that that 
piece of legislation and the legislation prior thereto and subsequently 
would have an impact on Americans, we hoped, in a positive way. I think 
there is some evidence to indicate that the CARES Act had a positive 
impact. Obviously, it was not perfect legislation, but I don't think 
any of us thought that was the end of the road.
  And then we saw, just 10 weeks ago, the Heroes Act pass the House of 
Representatives. So you have the CARES Act enacted into law and 
operative--and thank goodness for that--as well as several other pieces 
of legislation. But the Heroes Act only passed by the House and no 
action by the Senate in those intervening 10 weeks.
  If you were on the majority side of the aisle, the Republican side, 
as Leader McConnell has outlined, and you wanted to delay--wait to see 
the full impact of the CARES Act--there is an argument that some would 
make in that direction. I don't agree with it. But what I don't 
understand is why, even if you believe that you should wait, why would 
you not be preparing for the worst? Why would you not be preparing for 
the kind of outbreaks we have seen across the country when the

[[Page S4560]]

virus moved away from the Northeast, generally, to the South and 
Southwest, and then to the West even more so? Why would you not prepare 
at least an outline of legislation? Why would you not begin 
negotiations many, many weeks ago, as opposed to waiting until the last 
minute not just to respond to the overall problem--the worst public 
health challenge in a century--but also, in a particular way, why would 
you wait, as the majority did, until the very last minute on the issue 
of unemployment insurance when we know benefits are running out in a 
matter of hours, really, not even a few days now? So if that is your 
perspective that we should have waited, why wouldn't you prepare for 
the worst so that when the worst was hitting, or something comparable 
to that, you would have legislation ready to go?
  The majority chose to delay, and I think, in a real sense, seemed to 
adopt the President's kind of virus denial that if you just don't talk 
about it or if you try to change the subject or, in the case of the 
majority, if you don't legislate about it or prepare--just prepare to 
legislate about it, it will somehow recede into the background, and we 
don't have to worry about it. Well, that delay and that denial has 
proved to be, I think, misguided, and I think that is being charitable.
  So we are faced with a number of challenges at the same time as we 
face a public health and jobs crisis. I will start with nursing homes 
and long-term care and the very related issue of home- and community-
based services.
  We know that in long-term care settings, most of those settings being 
nursing homes, the Nation has endured more than 59,000 deaths. That 
number may have hit 60,000, but we know that it is more than 59,000 
deaths. So more than 40 percent of all the deaths in the United States 
of America, which is now about to reach 151,000, I think, from what we 
saw this morning--more than 40 percent of those are in long-term care 
settings and most of them in nursing homes. This isn't theoretical to 
people out there. This isn't theoretical to families across my home 
State of Pennsylvania or a lot of other States where, in many States, 
60 percent or more of all the deaths were in long-term care settings. 
The deaths are, of course, residents of those nursing homes, in 
addition to workers.
  So when you combine resident deaths and worker deaths, you get more 
than 59,000. We have to ask ourselves as Americans: Is that just going 
to be acceptable? Are we going to stand here 3 months from now or 4 
months or 6 months from now and say: Wow, it is really tragic, all 
these deaths, and another 59,000 people died in long-term care 
settings, mostly nursing homes? Is that the America we want? Is that 
the America we are going to settle for?
  And, oh, I know, I can hear the argument: Oh, you know, it is a 
terrible virus. It is. It is a virus that hits the very old in 
disproportionately higher numbers, and if you happen to be an older 
citizen and you have all kinds of chronic conditions or other health 
issues that might compromise your immune system or otherwise, you are 
especially susceptible.
  So some would argue: Well, this is just going to happen. But we know 
exactly how to get the numbers down--the case numbers down and the 
death numbers. Is it perfect? No. Can we get the 59,000 to zero? Of 
course not. No one would argue that. But the idea that the United 
States of America, in addition to not responding effectively to the 
onset of the virus itself--I am just talking about a subset or a part 
of the tragedy, and that is the tragedy in our nursing homes, both for 
residents and their families and for workers and their families.
  We know exactly what works, and I have a bill that would 
substantially reduce the deaths and the cases. What is it? Well, first 
of all, it is important to know the number--3768. That is the bill. I 
hope that my bill will be included wholly, or in substantial fashion, 
in the next bill. S. 3768, what does it do? It allocates $20 billion.
  Now, we have heard numbers that this next piece of legislation might 
hit $1 trillion or more, and I think that is likely. We should ask 
ourselves: Can't we set aside $20 billion of that, a fraction of that 
trillion dollar-plus or more bill that we will pass, we hope? Can't we 
set aside a fraction of that for older citizens and their families and 
the workers who take care of them? These are Americans who fought our 
wars. They worked in our factories. They built the strongest middle 
class the world has ever seen over the course of the last 75 or so 
years. These are people who were inventors and innovators. These are 
people who made America what it is today. They are our fathers and our 
mothers, our grandmothers and grandfathers. They gave us life and love. 
The least we could do is make an American effort to get the death 
numbers down and the case numbers down. Anyone who says we can't do 
that is defeatist and I think invoking an anti-American spirit. We know 
how to do this.

  What will the $20 billion go for? It is simple but could be profound 
in its impact.
  No. 1, we know that one practice in a nursing home that reduces the 
number of cases of people contracting the virus and the death number is 
cohorting. What does that mean? Separating--separating those with the 
virus in the nursing home from those who don't have it. Nursing homes 
that did that were successful in getting their numbers down. They did 
it early, way back in early March--maybe even earlier in some cases--
and it worked. It has been implemented in a number of States. But that 
has a cost to it. You might have to build out, and you might have to 
retrofit.
  You also need extra dollars for personal protective equipment. There 
should be no question that in the United States of America, every 
nursing home has every piece of personal protective equipment it needs. 
PPE is lifesaving--lifesaving for the resident to be guarded from 
contracting the virus and essential for the workers as well.
  What else do we need the money for? If you have a problem in a 
nursing home with an outbreak, we ought to be able to surge expertise 
from other settings. That nursing home might need more doctors in that 
crisis or that outbreak. It might need more nurses or certified nurses 
assistants or other personnel. We should have the dollars at the State 
level to serve those professions. We also need more money for testing 
in nursing homes--vitally important.
  I think families across the country expect us to directly address 
this. Unfortunately, the Republican bill proposed the other day does 
not do that, does not invest, as my bill would.
  Here is a headline from just this week, July 24, in the New York 
Times. I will not read the story, but the headline is ``FEMA Sends 
Faulty Protective Gear to Nursing Homes Battling Virus''--faulty 
protective gear. We are months into this, and we have FEMA sending 
faulty protective gear. Here are the first lines of the story:

       Expired surgical masks. Isolation gowns that resemble 
     oversize trash bags. Extra-small gloves that are all but 
     useless for the typical health worker's hands.

  It goes on and on. I don't have time to read it all today. But that 
article and so many other documented reports indicate that these 
facilities don't have the protective gear they need
  The second issue is unemployment insurance. We are told that the 
majority, in their proposal, wants to cut the $600 per week down to 
$200. Do the math--cutting it by $400 a week. This is at a time when we 
are told that since February, the United States has lost 15 million 
jobs. My recollection is that in the great recession of around a decade 
ago--between the fall of 2008 and sometime in the spring of 2009, 
roughly--about half a million jobs were lost. We have already lost, 
basically, double that--15 million jobs. We were told: Oh, don't worry. 
April is going to be a bad month, and May and June are going to be a 
lot better. That unemployment rate is just going to roll down from 
there.
  I was hoping that would be the case, but in Pennsylvania, in April, 1 
million were unemployed. What was May? Fortunately, it went down--
849,000. I expected June in our State to be a lot lower than 849,000. 
Maybe it would go down by 100,000 or 150,000; I hoped even more. But, 
unfortunately, it went from 849,000 to about 821,000--821,000 people 
out of work in Pennsylvania in the month of June.
  We still have a jobs crisis that will endure for a good while yet 
and, therefore, an unemployment crisis. The worst time to cut those 
benefits, those extra benefits, would be right now.

[[Page S4561]]

  I know we have heard the argument that if you continue this, you are 
creating a disincentive to work. That is what we are told. According to 
the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, in a report this month--
just a couple of days ago--they found: ``Lack of opportunities to work, 
not a disincentive to work, are keeping unemployment elevated.'' That 
is what they found. They documented more than that statement would 
entail, but that is what they found in their research. They also found 
23 percent fewer job openings in July of 2020 versus July of 2019. So 
there were fewer job openings.
  The Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Department of Labor said that 
there are almost four unemployed in the United States for every job 
opening.
  The third issue, State and local funding: The Republican proposal has 
nothing to help States and local governments. We know that State and 
local governments have to balance their budgets, so extra dollars can 
come only from one source--the Federal Government. State and local 
governments have had to spend more to protect their citizens with the 
onset of the virus, the COVID-19 disease, and the impact of the virus 
and the pandemic blew a hole in their budgets.
  So what is going to happen? A State, whether it is a red State or 
blue State or whatever the political conditions--they are all the same 
when it comes to revenue loss. Here is what is going to happen, as sure 
as night follows day: They are going to have to cut education. So I 
would say to school districts: Get ready for cuts because if your State 
cannot balance its budget, there are going to be education cuts.
  There will be cuts to healthcare, probably Medicaid in most 
instances, and there will be other cuts. Public transit--we were on a 
call last night with transit advocates from around Pennsylvania, and 
our side is asking for more help for transit. But you can go down a 
long list, whether it is education or healthcare or even public safety 
itself at the local level.
  So we should do a lot more. We should be replicating or at least 
approximating what the House did when they allocated $875 billion for 
State and local governments combined.
  How about the Supplement Nutrition and Assistance Program? The 
majority has refused over and over again--categorically refused--to 
increase SNAP by the percentage that our side has argued for. I know it 
is a little easy in Washington to talk about hunger and food insecurity 
as some kind of distant issue because those of us who serve in this 
Chamber are not food insure. We don't have to suffer the pain of hunger 
that many families are suffering. Many suffered food insecurity long 
before the pandemic, but many others--even middle-class families or 
people trying to get to the middle class--are suffering from food 
insecurity because of the virus and the economic downturn. Families, we 
know, are literally choosing between the food they need for their 
families or paying the mortgage, choosing between the food they need--
groceries--versus paying for their kids' medications.
  The last issue in this part of my remarks is on Medicaid. We know 
that the Senate did the right thing in the Families First legislation 
way back in early March when it increased the matching dollars for 
Medicaid by 6.2 percent. Those matching dollars are vital for States to 
be able to pay for Medicaid and to be able to balance their budgets. 
The House bill, the Heroes Act, passed 10 weeks ago, I believe, set 
forth another increase of a higher amount--14 percent--for those 
matching dollars. I think that makes a lot of sense, especially when 
people are losing their jobs every day.
  We just read a story in the New York Times last week, I think it was. 
More than 5 million people in the country have lost their health 
insurance because they lost their jobs or for other reasons. So a lot 
of those folks who are out of luck when it comes to healthcare itself 
are turning to Medicaid. We should increase the matching rate to 14 
percent.
  The Republican proposal has no additional dollars for Medicaid. I 
guess we should not be surprised because the White House budget 
proposals in the last several years--and I think supported in large 
measure by the Republican majority here in the Senate--have not only 
not wanted to increase dollars for Medicaid, but, in fact, the White 
House has proposed cuts of several hundred billion dollars to Medicaid 
over a 10-year timeframe several years in a row. Republicans in the 
Senate have said very little, if anything, against those kinds of 
proposals.
  Let me just move to a separate set of remarks