[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 29, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4567-S4572]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HEALS ACT
Ms. ERNST. Madam President, 4 years ago, Jill Larsen opened Crayons 2
Pencils Early Learning Center in Norwalk, IA. This state of the art
childcare center offers full day, before and after school care, and
preschool-only programs for children from 6 weeks old to school age.
They have even expanded to include a learning center and recreation
center. It truly is topnotch. But when COVID-19 hit, Crayons 2 Pencils'
enrollment dropped from 150 children to 32. And it was only through the
Paycheck Protection Program that this childcare center was able to stay
afloat and keep their workers paid.
Jill Larsen's story is not unique. Without the help of the Paycheck
Protection Program, so many of our small businesses and childcare
programs across the country would have gone under. Ninety-nine percent
of Iowa's businesses are small businesses, and the Paycheck Protection
Program has been a critical lifeline for so many of them.
I hear it time and again on my 99-county tour--most recently on a
Main Street tour in Albia with some outstanding female small business
owners. Nearly 60,000 small businesses in Iowa have received PPP loans,
saving hundreds of thousands of jobs. But, folks, there are more funds
left in the program, and many of these folks need additional help. That
is why we should allow our most distressed businesses to receive a
second PPP loan--so they can continue to keep workers paid and their
doors open. The HEALS Act would make that possible.
While the Paycheck Protection Program helped the Crayons 2 Pencils
daycare center keep their employees paid, as folks are getting back to
work, these critical facilities are facing new challenges--making up
for losses from decreased enrollment, trying to expand to accommodate
more kiddos due to school closures, or acquiring critical medical
supplies or PPE to create a safe and clean environment for these
families.
Just recently, I held a telephone townhall, and I was joined by
Iowa's director of health and human services, Kelly Garcia. We heard
the concerns of Iowa parents and talked about the solutions we are
working on at the State and Federal levels when it comes to childcare
access and affordability.
Our working parents are anxious and concerned about what lies ahead.
Do they have to quit their jobs to stay at home with the kids? How much
will childcare cost? What happens if childcare providers can't open
back up?
This is the reality for so many. That is why I made it a top priority
to provide additional resources for our childcare programs and our
families. Included in the HEALS Act is my bill to create back-to-work
childcare grants, which would give providers the resources they need to
make it through this crisis. It would also help them access PPE and
other medical supplies so they can adhere to the safety guidelines and
provide a clean and safe environment.
But it doesn't stop there. I am also working to assist our lower
income families, those who rely on the child care and development block
grants and those who simply need access to clean diapers.
Just a couple of weeks ago, I was in Davenport, IA, where I got to
take part in a diaper distribution with the Hiney Heroes of the Quad
Cities--yes, Hiney Heroes. As a result of this visit, the folks over at
Huggies and the National Diaper Bank donated 25,000 diapers to this
important diaper bank. We know that during this pandemic, the diaper
supply has run short. I have teamed up with Democratic Senator Chris
Murphy on this effort to include additional assistance for our diaper
banks.
COVID-19 has also created challenges for our farmers. These hard-
working folks are facing new challenges while working around the clock
to make sure Americans have adequate access to food and fuel. I was
visiting with some farmers at the Bloomfield Livestock Market in Davis
County not long ago, and they described these hardships firsthand. I
hear the same from our ethanol and biodiesel producers. That is why I
helped ensure more aid for our farmers and producers, including our
ethanol producers and so many other important commodities in Iowa.
In our rural communities--like Montgomery County, where I live--
COVID-19 has only amplified existing financial pressures on our
healthcare centers. Most rural hospitals rely on services such as
elective surgery to keep them financially afloat, but because of the
pandemic and the response to it, many hospitals have had to cancel
these elective surgeries as protective measures due to the pandemic.
Additionally, the need for PPE and other equipment has significantly
increased.
Lower revenue combined with higher expenses has made it incredibly
difficult for these rural hospitals to stay afloat. We absolutely can't
leave these folks behind. We need our hospitals to keep their doors
open so that quality healthcare is accessible to all Iowans, whether
they live in the big cities like Des Moines and Polk County or small
communities like Red Oak, where I live, in Montgomery County.
As I have toured Iowa over the last several weeks, I have also
visited with many of our essential workers. Our nurses, grocery store
clerks, truckdrivers, childcare providers, and so many more have been
working on the frontlines of this pandemic, rising to the challenge to
care for and protect Iowans. That is why I am pushing hard to allow
these essential workers to keep more of their hard-earned dollars by
suspending Federal income and payroll taxes. These folks deserve a
reward for their tireless efforts.
No amount of financial relief will make this virus go away, but
Congress has a role to play in helping families get back on their feet,
but it is also every single one of us doing our part--wearing our
masks, washing our hands, and social distancing as much as possible.
Together, with the help of every individual and all levels of
government, we will get through this.
I yield the floor
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I want to talk about the portion of the
bill that we have made available to our colleagues and the country this
week after lots of input from our colleagues on the Labor, Health and
Human Services, and Education part of the bill. It is about 25 percent
of the bill, almost $250 billion. That money would be used to get us
back on track toward vaccines that work, toward treatments that work,
to provide additional resources for testing, for treatment, for care,
to get us back to school, to get us back to work, and to get us back to
childcare. These are all things that are critical for our economy and
families to return in the way they want to.
For those things to work the way we would want them to work, our
colleague Senator Alexander put it very succinctly: All things run
through testing. If you are going to go back to school, if you are
going to go back to work, if you are going to go back to childcare, if
you are going to be in a nursing home between now and the time we have
a vaccine, we need tests that are easy to take and quick to respond. A
test that you can take and have the answer in 10, 12, or 15 minutes
[[Page S4568]]
will make all the difference, and we continue to push for that in this
bill.
In fact, there is about $9 billion in a fund that maybe should have
been designated a little more specifically, but it hasn't been spent.
It was designed to be a testing fund. We should combine that with
another $16 billion and make testing available for those priorities--
for nursing homes or in that State-Federal partnership.
In this bill, we say that a priority for the Federal Government in
that partnership is tests that work in nursing homes, tests that work
in childcare centers, tests that work in elementary and secondary
education, and tests that work in colleges and universities, that allow
people to get back into those situations, including a residential
campus, to know that when you are there, you have a way to not only
test people quickly but get an answer quickly.
Frankly, President Trump is right when he says that the way current
testing has been working really doesn't do much but measure how many
people had the disease. It doesn't even say how many people necessarily
have the disease but how many people had the disease. If you have a
test and you don't get an answer for 5 or 6 or 7 days, what good did it
really do you to take the test? It certainly didn't do you much good in
terms of not infecting others because you didn't know that you had it--
particularly if you are in that high percentage of people who don't
have symptoms but are still able to spread the disease.
That is why a test that gives you an answer in 15 minutes makes all
the difference in the world. If you are on a college campus and take
that test and in 15 minutes you have the answer, and if the answer is
that you have this, your next place to go is somewhere by yourself.
I think almost every campus returning to residential campus living is
setting aside some of their dorm space--on some campuses, all their
dorm space is single-student dorm rooms--but for every campus I talked
to, some rooms are set aside just so the student has a place to go.
If you show up at the nursing home as a worker and in 15 minutes you
find out you have COVID, the last place you need to be is that nursing
home. But if you don't know for 5 or 7 days whether you have COVID, it
doesn't help out very much.
I think what the President has said on testing makes a lot of sense.
But it doesn't mean the tests aren't good; it means better tests. We
have put a lot of money and effort behind those tests. Sometime in the
next few days, I think the National Institutes of Health will be
announcing tests that are moving forward that will do just what I
suggested.
We put another $26 billion toward a vaccine. Our colleague Senator
Daines has been very helpful in looking at this organization called
BARDA, which was designed a decade ago to be able to respond to a
pandemic and never has been effectively used in that way, in my view.
This time, we are using it and intend to continue to use it to form
those partnerships with the private sector early on to begin to produce
a vaccine, even when we don't know absolutely for sure that it is going
to be FDA-approved. But we do know that if it is FDA-approved, we want
it as soon as it can possibly be available. If it is not FDA-approved,
it never gets used, but if it is FDA-approved, the difference between a
vaccine that is available January 15 and a vaccine that is available
May 15--it is worth the loss if it doesn't work out. Let's say you went
forward with five of these vaccines, and three of them worked. Then you
have vaccines--maybe 300 million doses on January 15, and you have to
destroy a couple of hundred million doses because that didn't get
through the full safety requirement. That makes all the difference in
the world. Lives are saved, and the economy is restored. And we are
moving forward with that. We are putting another $26 billion behind
that.
We also have language in our bill that requires an effort that was
announced yesterday, which is for a group of scientific ethicists to
start talking about what the priorities should be for that vaccine when
we have it. Who should get it first? What should our priorities be? How
do we distribute this in a way that seems fair and equitable? How do we
distribute this in a way that somebody who can't get in a car and drive
100 miles to a doctor and pay for the shot has the same chance to get
the vaccine as somebody who could do all of those things? Our bill
requires that.
All of our discussions on this bill, plus our public discussions in a
hearing we had a month ago, have said we want the administration to
have a plan as to how to distribute the vaccine before we have the
vaccine. Everybody thinks we might have a vaccine available by the end
of this year or early next year. There is no reason to wait for that to
happen to have a plan. I would like to see a plan on October 1. I told
the Chief of Staff of the President that again yesterday.
This bill provides money to be sure that people who go to places like
community health centers are going to have a community health center
that can respond to what they need. There is $7.6 billion for community
health centers.
There is another $25 billion for providers that lost income--which is
almost every provider--during the last several months as our hospitals
and our doctors and our surgical centers and other places were told:
Here is what we want you to do. We want you to stop your income. We
want you to stop all the elective things you can possibly stop. At the
same time, we want you to be ready for the greatest healthcare crisis
your facility will ever meet.
So fully engaged in spending money and being ready to meet a crisis,
but because you stopped income that you would normally have, we are
trying to do what we can--not to exceed the income they would have
normally had but to replace some of that income. There is also money
for rural clinics that would step up and do that.
Senator Capito and Senator Collins were particularly vigorous in
making sure we had the money needed for people who have mental health
challenges, many of whom have gotten worse during this isolation period
and this job-loss period, or if you or somebody in your family is sick.
The opioid deaths, the substance abuse deaths have gone back up for
the first time in about 3 years. That is totally logical when you think
about it. Had this headed in another direction, you would have a
support system working that keeps you from returning to that habit,
that dependency. Then you are suddenly by yourself. Maybe you are not
only by yourself, but you are by yourself and you lost your job. Maybe
you are by yourself, and your mother is sick with COVID, and you can't
see your mom or dad or somebody in your family, and you are thinking: I
wonder--surely I can do that thing that made me feel so good just one
time and not be addicted. We know it doesn't work that way.
Our Nation continues to face challenges, and with those challenges,
we have asked the National Institutes of Health to look one more time
and more closely at people's underlying conditions that might put them
more at risk for COVID-19, see what has happened with minorities, with
pregnant women, with children, and begin to drill down and figure out
what we can do.
As I have said before, bipartisan priorities should include school.
Frankly, they also need to include childcare. If you are going to get
America back to work, you are going to have to have a childcare system
that works, and that is not going to happen on its own. About half of
our childcare facilities have been closed since the 1st of March. The
other half that has been open has struggled to stay open. Many have
benefited from the PPP program, but at the same time, when they stay
open or when others reopen with social distancing and the reluctance of
people to send their kids back to a place where there are lots of other
kids, there is probably no more than 50-percent occupancy. You are not
going to make up for that by doubling the amount that families pay for
childcare. You need to make up for that with the kinds of grants and
assistance that are in this bill. It is about getting students back to
school, getting people back to work, and getting childcare facilities
working.
Senator Ernst, who was just on the floor, and Senator Loeffler have
both been big advocates of what we need to do to make childcare a
priority.
[[Page S4569]]
Schools need to reopen safely based on State and local criteria. This
bill includes money for schools to do that. There is about $70 billion
for elementary and secondary schools. Frankly, we are a little bit
ahead of where the House was with the Heroes Act. If you get into a
bidding war with the House, you are never going to win. You need a
realistic discussion. Only 90 days ago or so or 60 days ago, the House
felt it needed $100 billion to reopen schools. We suggested $105
billion. In some report, I read that the House then decided, well,
maybe it should be $400 billion if the Senate were willing to spend
$105 billion.
We should be able to figure this out and figure this out quickly,
with some of that money being available only if you go back to school
in person and some of it being available if you go back to school
virtually, as others will do, depending, again, on their situations
locally.
We are ready to move forward. Answers to these important questions
are in this bill. I look forward to talking about it not only with our
Democratic colleagues in the Senate but with our colleagues in the
House.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the relief that the
HEALS Act will provide to those in farm country and rural America as
they weather the challenges of COVID-19.
It is so important, for they are out there for us every day,
producing that food supply. They had incredible challenges before this
COVID-19 started. The Presiding Officer is from an ag State. He knows
the kind of challenges we are facing. Obviously, we need to be there
for them as we go through this coronavirus fight.
I want to start by thanking them. They provide us with the lowest
cost, highest quality food supply in the world. Think about it. Every
single American benefits every single day from what our farmers and
ranchers do with food, fuel, and fiber. Just the food piece alone means
that Americans have the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the
history of the world. This is thanks to our farmers and ranchers.
Rarely, if ever, has there been a more appropriate time to say thank
you to the men and women who provide us with that food supply, and the
resilience of our ag producers, in the face of tremendous hardship that
has been caused by the global health pandemic, serves as a real
testament to their grit and to their determination.
That is why we have worked to provide additional support for farmers,
ranchers, and processors in this HEALS Act. The legislation includes
$20 billion in direct appropriation, which will be used for our farmers
and ranchers, along with other funding that we were able to secure in
the CARES Act. We are trying to also do it in a cost-effective way. In
recognizing that we have a debt and deficit we have to be mindful of,
what we are trying to do is to actually utilize funding that we put
together in the CARES Act for the CCC, or the Commodity Credit
Corporation. We are taking $14 billion of that and combining it with
the $20 billion from this legislation to make sure that we have
adequate funding--a total of about $34 billion--to address the needs in
farm country.
Prior to the coronavirus, farmers entered 2020 after 7 years of rural
recession caused by low commodity prices, trade disruptions, and some
really tough weather and natural disasters. Yet our farmers and
ranchers are the eternal optimists--they have to be--so they go into
every year with that grit and determination and continue to provide
that food supply that we all rely on.
Now, of course, you add COVID-19 into the mix. Storefronts have
closed. Restaurants have shuttered their doors. Processing plants have
limited and, in some cases, shut down operations. Of course, ag prices
are also down. Farmers and ranchers came into a tough situation and now
face further challenges with the pricing and the other challenges
created by COVID-19, as I said. Though it will take some time to really
quantify those losses, the reports we have right now indicate that
losses in the ag sector could be near $42 billion. For example, losses
in the cattle industry alone could total as much as $13 billion.
We need to be there for them because, again, they are not only out
there producing the food; they are doing other things to help out as
well. For example, there are a couple of stories about our farmer
groups that are making an effort to help others.
In May, R.D. Offutt Farms, which is one of our Nation's premier
potato growers that is based in Fargo, ND, donated 37,000 pounds of
frozen potato products to the Great Plains Food Bank. The North Dakota
Stockmen's Association and its foundation donated $20,000 to the same
food bank to purchase beef from North Dakota ranchers. The North Dakota
Farmers Union and Farmers Union Enterprises teamed up to donate 30,000
pounds of pork ribs to the Great Plains Food Bank as well. Those types
of stories go on.
So while the farmers and ranchers of America are out there, fighting
their own challenges, they are helping others at the same time, and I
think that it is truly, truly remarkable
In the CARES Act, we took the first important step by providing $9.5
billion to the USDA, the Department of Ag, along with the $14 billion,
which I just referenced, to replenish the CCC. As I mentioned earlier,
we have utilized some of that funding to provide assistance, but now we
are going to take that additional $14 billion and combine it with the
funding here of $20 billion to make sure we can get that assistance off
to the farmers.
Again, we are working to do this in a way that is prudent with our
taxpayers' dollars in recognizing the challenges we have with debt and
deficit. We have to be mindful of it, but at the same time, we have to
make sure we are getting adequate assistance out to those great farmers
and ranchers across America who are getting it done for all Americans
every single day.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the HEALS Act.
As we continue to confront this coronavirus pandemic, we have to
ensure that our schools and our employers can safely reopen. Our
healthcare providers must also have the resources they need to continue
to provide essential care to all Americans to fight this virus and to
help this Nation return to some semblance of normalcy as quickly as
possible. We have to also provide liability protection for those
schools, businesses, and healthcare providers while they do their very
best to operate safely during this unusual, once-in-a-generation, once-
in-multiple-generations pandemic. The HEALS Act will help to provide
these protections.
The HEALS Act also includes several provisions that I have been
championing, including legislation to address unemployment insurance
system reform.
We note that there have been a lot of challenges associated with the
legacy computer systems, and we should never ever have to endure this
again.
Financial assistance to help childcare providers reopen has also been
another priority of mine. I recognize that our childcare providers play
an essential role in not just caring for our children and ensuring they
remain educated and in a safe environment when their parents aren't
around but in also being critical to our broader economy. If your kids
aren't taken care of, you can't go to work, and Hoosiers want to go to
work.
Finally, we have telehealth legislation that has been included in
this HEALS Act that will lead to greater affordability and access,
especially as many of these authorities are made permanent in the
future. This is a way to bend the cost curve down and provide a higher
value for each of those healthcare dollars in our moving forward.
It also includes the TRUST Act, which is something that I helped to
introduce in order to establish a bipartisan national plan to finally
begin tackling the long-term drivers of our national debt once we get
through this coronavirus pandemic. I have been talking about this and
have sometimes been criticized for talking about fiscal responsibility
and the largest drivers of our long-term national debt. I am
unapologetic every time I talk about it. This TRUST Act would establish
a bipartisan national plan to finally begin tackling this, and I hope
it will remain in the package as negotiations continue.
[[Page S4570]]
Most importantly, I am glad the HEALS Act includes some really
important features of my RESTART Act, which is a bipartisan piece of
legislation that I introduced with Senator Bennet. We now have
somewhere north of 42, 44 bipartisan cosponsors. We have 50 national
groups--and growing--that are supportive of this legislation. It is
very important that these features remain in the HEALS Act.
Like my RESTART Act, the HEALS Act recognizes the need for having
long-term working capital loans and targeting that relief toward
businesses that have suffered significant revenue decline. We don't
want more examples of businesses that are doing just fine in the wake
of the pandemic getting access to moneys that, frankly, they don't
need. Instead, we want to target our resources toward the hardest hit
businesses that will not survive this pandemic. That is what the
RESTART Act does, and I am proud of those features that were included.
However, I have to say, in order to truly assist the hardest hit small-
and medium-sized enterprises that have fallen through the gaps of
previous programs, more of the RESTART Act is going to have to be
included throughout this negotiation process.
Last night, I received a text from a longtime friend of mine. Her
name is Sheila. Sheila is a resident of Dearborn County, IN. Gosh,
Sheila is an incredibly hard-working person, and she texted me the
following:
Todd, I saw you on C-SPAN today. I really appreciate how
you bring up the Hoosiers. When you are writing this next
bill, please consider small businesses like my husband and I
have. Pat is the lone legal owner of our catering business.
We invested all of the revenue made over the few years into
our business, buying equipment, et cetera. Because of this
investment, we had an impressive schedule of events this past
spring, summer, and fall lined up. This time of year gives
our barbecue business our greatest exposure and opportunity
for financial gain. We were ineligible for a PPP loan because
we did not show a profit. When composing the next PPP, please
consider single-person business owners like our barbecue and
catering business. God bless you.
Well, God bless you, Sheila. It is hard-working people and couples
and partnering Americans who help build this country. It is innovators
and entrepreneurs and doers and dreamers and workers like Sheila.
If we don't provide this much needed relief now, I am really
concerned that we are going to be in a far worse position in the weeks
and months to come.
As more businesses close permanently, they go bankrupt; they are no
longer paying payroll taxes. Then there is greater damage done to the
economy and to our Nation's balance sheet.
I am also concerned about our ability as a country to fully recover
once there is a vaccine available. It is our small and medium-sized
enterprises, which you disproportionately find in States like Indiana,
the heartland of the country, where so much innovation occurs. It is
not always in these large businesses; it is the smaller enterprises
where the innovation occurs. Then, ultimately, it is the big businesses
that acquire these innovative businesses.
So we want these engines--these incubators of innovation, these small
businesses, medium-sized businesses that are innovative and
entrepreneurial--to survive this difficult time.
They are also pillars, frankly, of Main Street, America. We take
pride in our small businesses, many of which have been so hard hit. We
don't want to hollow out Main Street America on the back end of this.
The most fiscally irresponsible thing we could do here at the Federal
level of government is to fail to respond to the needs of these small
and medium-sized enterprises.
So the additional assistance that I am calling for is critical to,
for example, the more than 500,000 manufacturing employees in the State
of Indiana, the most manufacturing-intensive State in the country.
It is also critical to the 200,000 Hoosier restaurant employees laid
off or furloughed since March. We have been able to provide them some
short-term assistance, but this virus and the challenges associated
with it have lingered on much longer than all of us had hoped, and we
are going to have to help out these employers so that they have a place
to go back to work once we figure this thing out.
This assistance is critical to the small music venues that enrich our
local communities throughout the State of Indiana and across our
country, which are facing permanent closure, too, and the countless
restaurants, gyms, salons, boutiques, hotels, retailers, and other
small businesses that are essential pillars of our community.
I grew up in a small business family. We had our up years; we had our
down years. We had some rough Christmases. My dad, my mom--they took
great pride in that family business. They made it. They worked hard.
But they saw nothing like this virus. We need to help these businesses.
These businesses are in dire straits not because any bad business
decisions were made, but, instead, because this virus came from
overseas, disrupted our lives, and in the interest of public health,
our employees had to stay home. People stopped buying the same things
they were buying. Our shopping patterns changed.
At some point we will resume some semblance of normalcy. We are
getting there. But in the meantime, we need a bridge to the other side
of this virus. We need to make sure that all of the provisions of the
RESTART Act make it into the HEALS Act.
Since Senator Bennet and I introduced the RESTART Act in May, our
legislation has received support from more than 40 bipartisan Senators.
I am proud of that. There is a lot of hard work going on in the U.S.
House of Representatives to get Members of the House to sign up as
well. It has also been endorsed by roughly 50 national organizations
and more than 50 Indiana businesses, and these are prominent national
organizations, including, for example, the National Association of
Manufacturers.
Given the widespread support for the RESTART Act, I will continue to
work with my colleagues to ensure that more of it is included in the
final coronavirus package. I hope we get all of it included. We have to
ensure that we are caring for those who have suffered the most.
To Sheila and to Pat, you have my word--you have my word, as you did
the first day we met, that I would do everything I could to fight for
the people of Indiana, to fight for what is right, to fight tirelessly
on behalf of my customers--you and the millions of Hoosiers I
represent--answering only to my ultimate bosses: God and the
Constitution.
I will fulfill that pledge and continue fighting for all of you
during this difficult time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, first of all, I want to associate myself
with the message delivered just a little bit ago by my senior Senator
from North Dakota, Senator Hoeven, and echo his words about the
importance of farmers and ranchers, all of our agricultural producers--
those who produce the food and the fiber and the fuel for our country.
They need assistance, and I am really grateful that Senator Hoeven
has played such a lead role in getting them assistance in the HEALS
Act. It is critical
I want to join the rest of my colleagues today in discussing the
HEALS Act and demonstrating our support for the merit of this important
bill. The ultimate answer to the problems that we face as a result of
this virus, of course, lies in the healthcare industry and in our
healthcare in fighting against this enemy, the virus. That is why we
are calling for more funding for testing and treatments and,
ultimately, a vaccine, hopefully, and hopefully soon.
As we do so, we also have to make sure that our economy is healthy,
that our economy survives, and that our education system remains
available and accessible to our students in the classroom.
Jobs, kids, and healthcare, students, parents, and patients--these
are what Senate Republicans are fighting for.
I have introduced bipartisan legislation to further this goal. I
believe we should include it in the HEALS Act in its entirety. Many
pieces of it are in, but I think we can do more.
The Paycheck Protection Small Business Forgiveness Act would offer
streamlined forgiveness for any borrower of a Paycheck Protection
Program loan of $150,000 or less who fills out a simple one-page form
attesting that they spent the loan dollars the way they are supposed
to.
[[Page S4571]]
With the expected forgiveness guidance from the bureaucracy,
businesses and lenders will have to spend billions of dollars to
receive the forgiveness that was promised them. In fact, we estimate
that each borrower would have to spend $2,000--and each lender $500 per
loan--just to comply with what the bureaucracy comes up with. That
doesn't even include the dollars we have to spend on the bureaucracy
itself.
We created the PPP to help small businesses and their employees
survive, not to create a bureaucracy that will bury them in paperwork.
So who are these borrowers of PPP loans of $150,000 or less? Well,
loans of this size make up--listen to this--85 percent or 4.2 million
of the loans but only 25 percent or $132 million of the loaned amount.
Imagine that: 85 percent of the loans are in this category--4.2 million
of roughly 5 million loans. So that means 15 percent of the authorized
PPP loans make up 75 percent of the borrowed money.
In North Dakota, the average loan was only $91,000, but under current
law, the bureaucracy would, regardless of loan size, seek to
indiscriminately verify and approve forgiveness applications, and they
haven't even come up with the form to do it with yet.
This would require a significant growth in the government and in the
bureaucracy that we cannot afford, only to make small businesses and
lenders spend time and money they can't afford to spend to comply with
this bureaucracy. It makes no sense.
Lest we forget, when the Senate unanimously passed the CARES Act, we
made our intent clear: PPP loans would become grants for the businesses
that spent the money properly, and the banks were there to help guide
them. There was no caveat that the loan would come with unnecessary
bureaucracy. In fact, quite the opposite was true. The implication was
that it would not come with additional bureaucracy.
The bipartisan bill that I introduced with Senators Menendez, Tillis,
and Sinema--and now has 25 Senate sponsors--would fulfill our original
intent and the promise we made to lenders and applicants by creating a
simple, accountable process for loan forgiveness.
Our bill also includes a provision which makes sure that the lenders
will not be held responsible for improper actions of the borrowers,
while still ensuring proper enforcement action can be taken if
necessary. In fact, the accountability structure is intact.
When we passed the CARES Act, we literally encouraged businesses to
apply for PPP and urged the bureaucracy and the lenders to get the
money out the door fast. We were in a crisis. We were trying to keep
people from being laid off and let go.
Largely, we were successful, but that success could be undone if we
do not take the next steps properly. We shouldn't backtrack on the
guidance we gave lenders by holding them accountable for the decisions
the borrowers made.
Fraud is a concern, for sure, which is why my proposal keeps all
audit authorities intact. If a borrower falsely attests to using the
funds correctly, the Federal Government is able to investigate and hold
them accountable. If this sounds like a commonsense approach, that is
because it is.
This bipartisan measure was popular from the start, and it is gaining
support still, with a quarter of the Senate, a sizable number in the
House, and now close to 200 business associations and groups from the
entire political spectrum supporting it.
Why wouldn't it be popular? It aligns with the very same principles
we are fighting for right here today--jobs, kids, and healthcare.
No small business owner figuring out how to safely send their kid to
school should have to worry about unnecessary red tape. No employee of
a shop on Main Street should have to live in fear of being laid off
because their employer might not perfectly comply with the arbitrary
requirements put forth for them by a bureaucrat in Washington. No
brother, sister, son, or daughter should have to sit down and crunch
the numbers to make sure they have enough money to apply for loan
forgiveness while supporting their family at home.
The fear they face is real. ``Small business'' is not just an
arbitrary designation. They are the backbone of America. They are the
employers of the vast majority of people in our country, and their
anxiety is our anxiety.
Earlier this month, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin told the House
committee that this is an idea we should consider, and I agree. We
should consider it in bipartisan negotiations and add it to the HEALS
Act in its entirety. It will give our small businesses the peace of
mind they need, like the rest of us, while they fight for their
livelihoods during this pandemic.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to
complete my remarks before the rollcall vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, first, let me say I concur with the
comments by the Senator from North Dakota. I think he makes wonderful
points about what is being done in terms of pandemic relief and the
issues that we as a nation are facing.
As his State and mine are similar, with so many small businesses, and
we see the impact and the success related to the Paycheck Protection
Program, I just want to associate my beliefs with those that we have
just heard expressed from the Senator from North Dakota.
Protests
I come to the floor today to talk about another epidemic, and that is
the epidemic of violence that is sweeping our country.
Monday's Washington Post headline warns: ``Protests explode across
the country; police declare riots in Seattle and Portland.''
Tuesday's Wall Street Journal editorial is headlined: ``A Weekend of
Urban Anarchy.'' ``A weekend of Urban Anarchy.'' In Seattle, on
Saturday, rioters blew a hole in a police precinct. They hurled
explosives, and they injured 53 police officers. In Portland, rioters
threw Molotov cocktails Friday night. Several officers were hit with
heavy explosives. The rioters returned Sunday and attacked the
courthouse.
In spite of what the Democrats say when they call these ``peaceful
protests,'' these are not peaceful and they are not protests. This is
active violence. This is organized violence, and it is meant to destroy
and to intimidate.
Portland has now endured 60 days of senseless destruction. These
violent protests are a powder keg for our entire Nation. The rioters
threaten entire communities. They are ruining lives, and they are
ruining neighborhoods. They are wrecking public property, and they are
wrecking private property. They burn, they loot, and they kill.
Across the country, a number of police officers have been killed.
According to the New York Times report, murder rates in our big cities
are now up 16 percent compared to last year. In New York alone, murders
are up 24 percent. In Atlanta, murder is up 31 percent. In Chicago,
murder is up 51 percent. In Chicago, last week, 15 people were shot
while attending the funeral of a victim of gang violence. Children are
being hurt and killed. A 7-year-old girl and a 14-year-old boy were
among those shot and killed in Chicago over the Fourth of July weekend.
This is a crisis of leadership in our liberal cities. Where are the
Democratic mayors? They have surrendered to the mob. Where are the
Democratic Governors? They have surrendered to the mob. Instead of
leading, they are turning their backs on the safety and security of the
law-abiding citizens of our communities. In these liberal cities, mob
rule has replaced the rule of law. We are seeing in realtime--in
realtime--the result of the radical ``defund the police'' movement that
is embraced by many Democrats.
We should defend, not defund, the police and law enforcement.
Americans do not want to defund the police. According to a recent
Rasmussen poll, two out of three Americans oppose cutting police
funding. A majority say that they want the Federal Government to help
fight crime in these cities. One thing is clear: The violent rioting
plaguing our cities cannot continue. The police are being targeted for
doing their job, and their jobs come at great personal risk. At the
same time, elected Democratic mayors and city
[[Page S4572]]
council members and Governors refuse to condemn the rioting and the
coldblooded murder.
It is time for local leaders to restore law and order. It is time to
make sure our communities are safe again. The death and destruction
lies at the feet of elected Democratic leaders. Each must be held
accountable for their leadership failure.
I yield the floor.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination
of Marvin Kaplan, of Kansas, to be a Member of the National
Labor Relations Board for the term of five years expiring
August 27, 2025. (Reappointment)
Mitch McConnell, Joni Ernst, John Thune, Cindy Hyde-
Smith, Roy Blunt, John Cornyn, Marsha Blackburn, Deb
Fischer, John Barrasso, Shelley Moore Capito, Todd
Young, John Boozman, Lamar Alexander, David Perdue,
Kevin Cramer, Tim Scott, Michael B. Enzi.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
nomination of Marvin Kaplan, of Kansas, to be a Member of the National
Labor Relations Board for the term of five years expiring August 27,
2025, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Texas (Mr. Cruz).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
Markey) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote or to change their vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 52, nays 46, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 148 Ex.]
YEAS--52
Alexander
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Loeffler
McConnell
McSally
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Young
NAYS--46
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Harris
Hassan
Heinrich
Hirono
Jones
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Cruz
Markey
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas are 52, the nays are 46.
The motion is agreed to.
____________________