[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 135 (Thursday, July 30, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4607-S4612]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Unanimous Consent Request
Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, back in February 2020, before the COVID
recession, there were 158.8 million Americans employed. We have gone
through a lot. COVID is probably the most significant event--certainly
in my lifetime--affecting people's lives, the tragedies we have seen,
affecting our economy, affecting the Federal budget.
At the end of June, there were 142 million Americans employed. That
is a reduction of 16.6 million Americans or 10.5 percent. I want people
to remember that 10.5 percent.
Over the last month or so, there have been a number of respected
economists who made forecasts of how much our economy is going to
shrink. These are folks from the IMF and CBO and the Federal Reserve
Board of Governors, economists at Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. The
range of what they are predicting our economy will shrink to is
somewhere between 4.6 percent and 8 percent. This is causing economic
devastation--a real human toll on real people.
As a result of that, Congress acted. We acted fast. We acted swiftly.
We acted massively. We wanted to provide financial help to individuals
who were unemployed all of a sudden through no fault of their own. We
wanted to help provide financial need to businesses that were viable,
that can hopefully survive and rehire and help us recover from this
COVID recession. We also wanted to make sure we provided enough
liquidity in the market so we wouldn't see any kind of seizing up and
see real financial devastation.
The result of all that was that within a very short period of time,
by the end of April, we had already passed four different financial
relief packages totaling $2.9 trillion. We just held an oversight
hearing in my committee 2 days ago. There is even dispute on that
number. Some witnesses said it is close to $3.6 trillion. I am going to
use $2.9 trillion as a minimum.
To relate that to what I just talked about, that represents about
13.5 percent of our economy. Again, employment is down 10.5 percent.
Economists are predicting our economy will shrink somewhere between 4.6
percent and 8 percent. But we acted swiftly and massively. We knew what
we were going to enact was far from perfect. We all understood that. It
was far from perfect, but it worked, and we had to do it.
We passed an amount equal to 13.5 percent of last year's GDP. Less
than a month later, Speaker Pelosi and her House Democrats passed a
fifth package out of the House worth $3 trillion--$3 trillion. I am
sorry. That is not a serious attempt at financial relief. If we add
that to the $2.9 trillion, that would represent 27.5 percent of last
year's economy.
Again, employment is down 10.5 percent. Our economy will probably
shrink by no more than 8 percent. Yet Speaker Pelosi and House
Democrats wanted to increase the amount of debt burden on our children
by passing a package that would bring the total relief package up to
27.5 percent of our GDP. It is not serious.
It should surprise no one when Leader McConnell and Chief of Staff
Meadows and Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, as they tried to forge a deal
with Speaker of the House Pelosi and Minority Leader Schumer, that they
couldn't reach a deal; that there was probably no goalpost that they
will not move to make sure that doesn't happen.
But the problem with that approach--and I would call it a very
cynical, political approach, really playing with people's lives and
livelihood--is that tomorrow the Federal unemployment extension that we
passed as part of the CARES Act--because we realized we wanted to try
to help everybody who was unemployed because of the COVID recession--
expires.
As I said, the CARES Act was far from perfect. I certainly did not
want one of the provisions. I voted against it. I actually supported
the amendment of the Senator from Florida to reduce the $600 flat
payment. That is a real problem because it represents something like
134 percent of average wages, and we are creating a very perverse
incentive for people to remain unemployed when our economy is calling
for more workers.
I want to quote an economic adviser to both Presidents Clinton and
President Obama, Larry Summers. He once stated:
The second way government assistance programs contribute to
long-term unemployment is by providing an incentive, and the
means, not to work. Each unemployed person has a
``reservation wage''--the minimum wage he or she insists on
getting before accepting a job. Unemployment insurance and
other social assistance programs increase the reservation
wage, causing an unemployed person to remain unemployed
longer.
We want to avoid that situation. We want to help workers, but we want
to avoid the situation where we prolong unemployment or create a sense
for people to stay on unemployment insurance. The fact is that,
according to a University of Chicago study, 68 percent of people
collecting unemployment are making more on unemployment than they made
when they were working. CBO estimates something between five out of six
people currently collecting unemployment are making more not working
than working. The Bureau of Labor statistics at the end of May said
there were 5.4 million jobs open--not being filled.
We have a problem. We have two problems. We can't do a deal because I
don't believe our friends on the other side of the aisle are serious
about doing a deal. But we have unemployment expiring, and the current
provision was too generous to create a perverse incentive.
I have introduced a piece of legislation that I have cosponsored with
the Senator from Indiana and the Senator from Florida, who would also
like to speak to this. It is called the Coronavirus Relief Fair
Unemployment Compensation Act. There is no fancy acronym. It describes
what the bill does. It extends Federal plus-up for unemployment to the
end of the year.
The COVID recession is not ending any time soon. Rather than having
to come back and do this over and over again and increase the anxiety
on Americans who are unemployed, let's extend this to the end of
December. Our bill gives States the option of either a $200 flat plus-
up or a plus-up equal to no more than two-thirds of an individual's
average wage, not to exceed $500. The States have the option. If they
can't handle the two-thirds plus-up, they can accept the $200 flat
plus-up.
In case our Democratic colleagues are going to complain about that as
not being generous enough, two-thirds of weekly wages is exactly what
the House passed in phase 2 of the COVID relief package. Two-thirds of
average wages is what they set as the amount of money for paid sick and
family leave.
I also want to point out that $200 a week is eight times the amount
the Democrats, back in 2008 and 2009--I think 2009--passed as part of
the great recession relief package. They passed $25 per week plus-up,
so $200 per week plus-up is eight times that.
Again, we, as Republicans, are trying to meet them already more than
halfway to do a deal on unemployment. Again, those individuals who are
without a job through no fault of their own have the comfort and relief
that they will have assistance from the Federal Government.
[[Page S4608]]
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. BRAUN. Just 5 months ago, we had the hottest economy in 37 years.
Running a business--starting it from Main Street as a little company--
it was lucky enough to grow over those 37 years. Three of my four kids
run it now.
The reason I ran for the Senate was to make sure we had that kind of
atmosphere in place for the productive economy, the enterprising, the
hard-working Americans who work at companies on Main Street.
Since COVID arrived, of course, it shocked us all. We know it is a
tricky foe. It has peculiarities. Yet the one thing that is certain is
that we need to get back to the economy that was raising wages for
those most in need, was doing it in a real way, and not through
government.
Yes, government needs to get involved now and then, and this was the
case. Like the Senator from Wisconsin stated, we moved quickly, and we
did something.
What I see on the other side of the aisle, with this monstrosity of
$3.5 trillion, is an effort beyond just addressing the displacement
from COVID-19. I see it as an effort to try to replace Main Street and
the productive economy. It doesn't work through here, and we should
have never, back in late March, had something that would have
incentivized not working. Of course, we tried to fix it, but friends on
the other side of the aisle did not agree with us. If we want to get
back to some form of a new normal--sooner or later, when we whip this
foe, COVID-19--and back to what it was before, we can't do it through
government.
When you look at not only this bill they have but at the other stuff
that we need to keep in mind in leading up to the election, we cannot
afford it, and it doesn't make sense. It is replacing enterprisers,
Main Street--everything that makes this country great--with a bloated
Federal Government.
When I heard that this bill was out there--coming from a quick-footed
entrepreneur now here in the Senate--I didn't hesitate at all to get on
it. We need to do this because we need to cut to the chase. We have
hard-working Americans who are still unemployed. They have gotten
displaced out of that great economy. This takes care of that without
putting into place something that is so broad, so expansive, and that
does not address the essence of what is at issue here. It makes sure
there is a pathway so that we can get back to that Trump economy--that
economy which was working more for everyone than at any time ever
before. Don't ask people who have been here in the business of
government. Why don't you ask people who have been running businesses,
who have been on Main Street, who have been doing it?
That is why we need to get this across the finish line. It addresses
the key thing that we need to do transitionally so that we may get back
to where Main Street and the real economy are running things and where
there is not an attempt by the other side to replace what has been
making the economy work.
I yield the floor.
Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Indiana for
acting quickly in cosponsoring this piece of legislation.
I now yield to the Senator from Florida.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Madam President, I thank the senior Senator
from Wisconsin and the junior Senator from Indiana for their hard work
in addressing the out-of-control spending of the Federal Government and
for finding ways to assist Americans who need help in the midst of this
pandemic.
The coronavirus is a crisis that has demanded action to protect
Americans, but if we are not careful, Congress is going to create
another devastating crisis down the road, one of our own doing. Our
national debt and deficits--already at unsustainable levels--have
skyrocketed as Congress has spent almost $3 trillion to address this
crisis. Even if you remove the Paycheck Protection Program that has
kept workers on payrolls, the total amount spent by Congress to respond
to the pandemic and help workers amounts to more than $50,000 per
unemployed American. Do you think any unemployed American has received
anything close to $50,000? Of course not. That is because every dollar
spent by Congress seems to be spent in the least efficient way
possible.
Now Congress is negotiating a new spending bill of at least $1
trillion without even understanding if or how the $3 trillion already
allocated has been spent. You would never operate a business like that.
You would never operate your household like that. Government should not
be able to get away with it.
In June, I and Senators Johnson and Cruz asked all 50 States how they
have allocated the trillions of dollars in taxpayer funding they have
received from the Federal Government for the coronavirus response. So
far, the majority of States has refused our request. Instead of telling
us how they are being responsible with American taxpayer dollars, they
want more money from the Federal Government. Where is the oversight and
accountability? It doesn't exist in Washington right now.
I am thankful that my friends Senators Johnson and Braun are focused
on protecting our future and reining in Washington's excess. Instead of
just throwing money at every problem, my colleagues are actually
thinking about the impact this spending will have on the future of our
children and grandchildren and how we are impacting our ability to fund
our military and our safety nets like Social Security, Medicare, and
Medicaid.
Over my 8 years as the Governor of Florida, we completely turned our
economy around by making hard budgetary decisions, by cutting taxes and
regulations, and by making sure we got a return on every taxpayer
dollar. Senators Johnson and Braun and I all come from business
backgrounds, and we understand that you just can't spend without having
accountability. You have to invest wisely.
We have to start doing the exact same thing at the Federal level
because, at some point, someone is going to have to pay for it. If we
don't start acting in a more fiscally responsible manner, our children
and our grandchildren are no longer going to have the same
opportunities we all have had to live the American dream, and that is
actually not fair.
It is time we take this seriously. The best way to help people right
now is to get our economy reopened, to support businesses by cutting
taxes and regulations, and to ensure that we have ample testing and PPE
across the country. That is how we get back on track. That needs to be
our focus in going forward.
I thank my colleagues for their hard work in trying to make sure we
don't waste people's money and to make sure we take care of the people
who actually need help right now
I yield to Senator Johnson.
Mr. JOHNSON. I thank the Senator from Florida for his words of
support.
Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous
consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my
bill at the desk. I further ask 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Democratic leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, in reserving the right to object, let's
talk about how we got here.
For over 3 months, our Republican colleagues have dithered, dallied,
and not taken seriously the most enormous health crisis we have had in
100 years and the most enormous economic crisis we have had in 75
years. Now, all of a sudden, in the last day or two, they see the
cliff. There are many cliffs, but they see the cliff of unemployment
insurance running out.
We have been asking them to negotiate on this for a very long time.
We have had nothing. Speaker Pelosi and I asked Leader McConnell to sit
down with us almost a month ago, and he would not. So we got here
because our Republican colleagues couldn't get their act together. They
still don't have their act together, and now they are worried. Yet,
instead of being serious about negotiating, they have created a stunt,
which shows how unserious the Republicans are at coming to an
agreement.
[[Page S4609]]
I dare say, if this bill were voted on by the floor, a large number
of Republicans--perhaps a majority--would vote against it. It would
fail in the Senate by a large margin and would never pass the House.
Instead of engaging in this stunt of trying to get the heat of
America off their backs, they ought to do something real, which is to
sit down and seriously negotiate with the Democrats about this issue.
This proposal, amazingly enough, is even stingier than the one the
Republicans introduced a few days ago. Instead of giving workers who
lost their jobs through no fault of their own a 30-percent pay cut,
they give them a 33-percent pay cut. It is just so wrong, and if you
look at all of the data, it has been rejected by the American people.
My colleague from Indiana says--and I know he is sincere--you can't
solve this problem through the government. I have news for you. When
you have the greatest economic crisis in 75 years and the greatest
health crisis in 100 years, the private sector cannot solve this
problem. That is one of the reasons you guys are all tied in a knot--
you must have the government get involved, and you don't want to do
that.
I hear my friend from Florida talk about the deficit. Well, that
didn't matter when we passed a $1.5 trillion tax break for the
wealthiest people and the biggest corporations in America. The deficit
didn't matter then, but when it is helping working people who have lost
their jobs, when it is helping small businesses get on their feet, when
it is helping to feed children, when it is helping to keep people in
their homes and apartments, then we hear about the deficit.
Let me tell you what is wrong with this proposal. There are two basic
reasons.
One, it doesn't work on its own. As I said, No. 1, it is even
stingier than the original proposal. They are moving backward--our
Republican friends are--and they are giving workers an even greater pay
cut than they had before.
Second, the pandemic unemployment insurance has kept millions out of
poverty. We all work to keep people out of poverty. This has worked. If
we cut it back, it is estimated that millions will fall back into
poverty and that millions will go in it.
The third is one of the few things we hear about to get the economy
going. If you talk to our economists--liberal and conservative--they
will tell you the No. 1 thing preventing the economy from getting worse
is consumer spending. This bill puts money in people's pockets, and
they spend it. Even conservative economists say it is very much needed
to get the economy going.
Fourth, it can't work. We have called a whole bunch of State
governments and State unemployment offices. They cannot implement this
plan immediately, and many say it would take months. I know that the
Senator from Wisconsin has given States an option of cutting the thing
to $200 or getting 67 percent. Many States say they will never be able
to implement the 67-percent part and that people will be stuck with
that big cut.
The main point on that is that many States will not be able to
implement this new plan for weeks or even months, and people will not
have their money.
So the No. 1 thing that is wrong with this proposal is that, just on
the merits itself, it fails by giving a big pay cut, by pushing more
people into poverty, by taking money out of our economy that consumers
can spend, and because it is fundamentally unworkable.
There is another reason. We have a lot of problems.
In a few minutes, I, the Senator from Oregon, and the Senator from
Michigan will ask unanimous consent to pass the Heroes Act.
We have a lot of cliffs. As of Thursday, hundreds of thousands--and
soon millions--could be evicted from their apartments. This bill does
nothing about that cliff.
As of this week--and next week's being a new month--State and local
governments will be running out of money. Already, 1.5 million State
and local workers have been laid off, and more will be laid off. That
is a cliff. What are we doing about that?
Testing. If you go to any place in America, including the three
States we are talking about here, people have to wait days and weeks
for their test results, and some don't even ever get their test results
back.
We are not going to solve this problem until we solve the coronavirus
problem. We all know that President Trump and this administration have
failed on testing. Almost every other Western country that has dealt
with this issue--in Western Europe or East Asia--is way ahead of us. We
should be ashamed. We have a President who has dithered and has not
taken seriously the testing regime. The Heroes Act fixes that problem,
and we are not going to fix our economy until we fix the healthcare
problem, my friends.
The Heroes Act does many, many other things, like getting people back
to school, not like Donald Trump does in pushing people back to school
even if it is not safe. Well, remember what he did in Arizona? in
Texas? in Florida? He pushed the State Governors to get people back.
Now look at what has happened. The same thing will happen in the
schools if we are not careful. We have help there, which my good friend
from Wisconsin's bill doesn't even mention. That is another cliff.
We have a month before school starts, and this bill--skinny or
stingy--is not up to the moment. It is not even close to being up to
the moment.
It is amazing that we have such a crisis in America and that our
Republican friends in the Senate and the White House and the House
cannot even face up to the problem. They are obsessed with saying we
shouldn't spend any money. Well, believe me, if we don't spend any
money, things will get worse, and we will have to spend more later.
This is the dilemma we are in because of COVID. It is no one's fault,
but that is the dilemma we are in, and it is being made so much worse
by this President. We don't hear a peep from the other side about how
the President has messed this up. Instead, we get this stunt to try to
show they want to do something that they know won't pass and know won't
solve the problem.
So I am going to offer a unanimous consent request in a few minutes
to pass the Heroes Act, which has already passed the House, so it would
do some real good. It covers all the areas I mentioned and does a far
better job at dealing with the unemployment situation than my good
friend from Wisconsin's bill.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, a quick response. The Democratic leader
states this is not adequate. Again, I would remind the Senate that in
2009, when they passed a Federal plus-up for unemployment benefits--
total Democratic control--they passed $25 a week. So the $200 a week is
eight times what they passed in 2009. Apparently, they felt that was
adequate back then.
There was also a study out of the University of Chicago that a $200
plus-up on State unemployment benefits coming from the Federal
Government replaces more than 100 percent of wages for 20 percent of
the workers currently unemployed. The other 80 percent get replacement
that ranges up to 100 percent.
Again, this is a very generous proposal. And, of course, the option
of two-thirds is exactly what the House passed in phase 2 of the
coronavirus relief packages--two-thirds of weekly wages for paid sick
and paid family leave. Now, all of a sudden, it is inadequate. And of
course their solution--what they are going to offer--is another $3
trillion, further mortgaging our children's future when we haven't
spent about $1.2 trillion of the $2.9 trillion we have already
authorized.
It is not a serious proposal, which is why Leader McConnell could not
negotiate, because they weren't negotiating in good faith. The
Democrats are being cynical. This is not a serious offer.
This is a very serious and, quite honestly, more than generous offer
to help Americans and alleviate the anxiety they are going to be
feeling if the Democrats just simply decide to reject this. It is very
unfortunate, but that is the state of play in the Senate. It is very
sad.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, first, before I do my UC, I would
remind my good friend--I remind myself
[[Page S4610]]
to take off my mask--I would remind my good friend that it took us 10
years to get out of the crisis of 2008. Unemployment stayed high. Job
numbers stayed high. Looking at 2008 as a model for recovery is not
anything anyone would want to do.
In a few minutes, I am going to offer the Heroes Act as a unanimous
consent alternative, and I mentioned before the many things it does.
But let me just say in the larger sense, we have an enormous crisis in
America. We have higher unemployment than we have ever had since the
Depression. Today, the 150,000th death was recorded. Thus far, the
Trump administration, followed by the Republican Senate, has been an
abject failure at dealing with that crisis.
It would have been much better if the President had done what chiefs
of state in Europe and Asia did--stepped up to the plate, implemented
testing, and put adequate money in people's pockets. We might be more
on the road to recovery, like those other countries are.
Aren't my Republican friends ashamed that Europe and Asia did better
than us, the greatest country in the world? And do you know why?
Because of the very philosophy my colleagues have mentioned--don't
spend any money, and, in President Trump's view, ignore the crisis. It
will go away when the weather gets warm. Everyone has testing, he said,
back in March.
We Democrats feel the pain in America. We feel the pain of people who
have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. We feel the pain of
small business people who have struggled to build their businesses for
decades--my dad was a small business man--and then they lose those
businesses. We feel the pain of parents who can't feed their kids. We
feel the pain of moms and dads who are worried about whether they can
send their kids back to school safely. We feel the pain of people when
they get tested and they have to wait days, weeks to get a result, when
the test means nothing.
Our responsibility as Democrats and Republicans is to get something
done, something real--not a stunt, not something stingy, and not
something that is so narrow, it only deals with one aspect of the
problem, inadequately at that. That is why we are offering the Heroes
Act. It is not perfect. There are a few things some people might add.
But it is a heck of a lot better to meet this crisis than what we have
seen from our Republican friends--a bill that, as I said, moves
backward, is stingy, and probably wouldn't get the support of a
majority of Republicans if it were put on the floor, let alone any of
us.
Of course we have to do something. The Heroes Act is the right thing
to do. But I want to make one prediction for everyone who is worried
about the future here. If the past is prologue, something very close to
the Heroes Act will be enacted. Look at COVID 2, COVID 3, and COVID
3.5. In each case, the initial Republican reaction was similar to the
reaction we have heard this morning: Can't do it. We will dare the
Democrats to block us.
It didn't work. The public was on our side. But more importantly,
once the Republicans showed they couldn't bully anybody and couldn't
put a proposal on the floor, an inadequate bill, and pass it, they came
to the table and negotiated.
We are still waiting for Leader McConnell to go into that room with
Mnuchin and Meadows and Pelosi and me. We are waiting for our
Republican Senate colleagues to come up with a coherent plan that can
get their support. We are still waiting for the President to understand
the gravity of this situation and do something about it, for God's
sake.
I believe, if this is objected to, within a little while, our
Republican friends will feel the pressure from their constituents and
from national media to realize that they have to come and negotiate in
good faith on a bold, strong, comprehensive bill that will pass.
Before I ask consent for the Heroes Act, I will yield first to my
colleague from Oregon and then to my colleague from Michigan
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, this morning showed why we need the
Democratic approach to dealing with unemployment insurance and why the
pain that was reported this morning would get even worse under the
proposal offered by Senator Johnson.
This morning, Americans learned that our economy cratered in the
second quarter--essentially, GDP dropped by 9.5 percent from April
through June. That translates to a 33-percent annual contraction of the
American economy. So what you have with today's analysis is a gross
domestic product in free fall. If Republicans slash unemployment
benefits with this proposal, the gross domestic product is going to
fall faster, and the economy will collapse.
Folks, the economists, people who aren't political figures, told us
this morning--this is a five-alarm fire. It is the biggest and fastest
drop ever recorded, colleagues, wiping out years of economic gains in a
matter of weeks.
The fact is, when you take the kind of economic hammering that we
learned about this morning, and you have the Democratic approach with
respect to supercharged unemployment--what we wrote in the Finance
Committee, that Secretary Mnuchin signed off on, the $600 per week,
which finally included those people who nobody even talked about in the
1920s, gig workers and part-timers and independent contractors--they
got a fair shake.
The reason we thought it was so important to supercharge those
benefits and why we feel so strongly about doing it now, with an
additional $600 per week, is so that people can make rent and pay
groceries, while all these folks are out of work. And we learned again
about thousands and thousands of more workers in every part of the
country getting hit again with layoffs. When jobless Americans receive
unemployment benefits, it becomes one of the biggest booster shots for
the American economy. When jobless Americans receive unemployment
benefits, and they spend it on food, they spend it on car payments,
they spend it on rent, and they spend it on medical bills. It is part
of the gross domestic product. It makes no sense--it makes no sense,
colleagues--to take that support away, as the Senator from Wisconsin
seeks to do.
One point four million people have filed for unemployment benefits
this past week. Before the pandemic, unemployment claims had never
crossed 700,000 in a single week, not even during the great recession.
They have now been at 1.3 million or higher for 19 straight weeks.
So here the Senate is, a few hours after seeing the worst domestic
product report ever recorded, and what is the response of the Senate
Republicans? To slash unemployment even more than they originally
proposed, yanking an economic lifeline from 30 million Americans and
delivering an economic wrecking ball directly into our fragile economy.
The last point I want to make--and we have Senator Stabenow, my
seatmate on the Finance Committee, here--is to highlight the fact that
from the beginning, Senate Republicans were hostile to the idea of
trying to give a fair shake to these workers and these families who
were hit so hard.
Eugene Scalia--the first thing he said after we did that work in the
Finance Committee--the first thing he said was not ``Oh, we have to do
our job administering the benefits.'' The first thing he said was that
his big concern is that unemployed people are going to be dependent on
government. How preposterous.
I see my friend Senator Brown here, who spends a big chunk of his
waking hours talking about the dignity of work. So much for the dignity
of work when you hear about what Eugene Scalia said.
I hosted a nationwide townhall meeting just a couple of nights ago,
and there were workers from the Midwest, and they said: People are
saying we don't want to work. If I get a job offer at night, I will be
there the first thing in the morning, ready to go.
This is not about workers being unable to work; it is about scarcity
of jobs, just the way those figures this morning pointed out.
So I think that we are going to have further discussion on other
issues, but I just want to mention one last point before yielding.
Today we heard some remarkable comments about how Donald Trump--and I
guess this was his musing, but whenever he muses, it actually sometimes
is part of a strategy--he talked about putting off the election and
that
[[Page S4611]]
the problem being that people would be voting by mail. Now, there is
not a shred of evidence--not a shred of evidence--that this is a
problem.
The reason it is not a problem--and I don't say it just because I am
the Nation's first mail-in U.S. Senator; take the word of far-right
conservatives--the late Dennis Richardson in our State, about as
conservative as you get. One of the last things he did before he passed
was he pointed out that there is no voter fraud in our vote-by-mail
elections. He said it doesn't happen. A conservative. A rock-ribbed
conservative.
So we just heard that comment this morning, Leader Schumer. Of
course, the law says that he can't change the election, but it shows
again why it is so important to have the elections provision from the
Heroes Act--which I was honored to work with Speaker Pelosi on--be part
of the way in which people vote this fall because they shouldn't have
to choose between voting or their health. Most of the poll workers in
America are over the age of 60, they shouldn't be put at risk, which is
obviously what Donald Trump would be willing to do.
So the Heroes bill--we are now going to talk about, I believe, the
nutrition part, which Senator Stabenow has championed so eloquently.
But I wanted to take a moment to focus on the economic numbers that
came out this morning and how the Republican proposal would make our
ability to fight what was described a few hours ago worse and also talk
about the fiasco of Donald Trump's efforts every single day to chip
away at people's opportunities to vote-by-mail and in other ways.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I am really proud to stand with a
group of colleagues and leaders who understand what is happening to the
American people and the hardship they are facing and the fact that they
just want some help and they want people to understand that. We are in
the middle of a pandemic. It is not done yet. We know we have to wrap
our arms around what is happening with the healthcare pandemic before
we can do anything else, but in the meantime we have an economic
crisis, and we have a hunger crisis in this country.
It is very hard for me to listen to folks--all of us, none of us are
worried about going hungry tonight, not one. My guess is, we are not
worried about our grandkids or others whom we know going hungry tonight
or our moms and dads, but there are 14 million kids right now who
aren't getting what they need to eat and could very likely go hungry
tonight. They need a safety net.
You know, when I look at what is the priority here with Senate
Republicans, you know who gets a safety net? Wall Street gets a safety
net. The stock market gets a safety net. The Secretary of Treasury will
say: Hey, what do you guys need? We are backing you up. We got your
back. But for the families of our country who, through no fault of
their own, have been put into a situation where they have to worry
about a roof over their head and food on the table and dollars to be
able to pay the bills through help with unemployment, our colleagues
say we have the audacity to think that they ought to have a safety net,
too; that the majority of Americans ought to know that somebody's got
their back.
We are here to say that we are the ones who have their back, and we
hope that before this is done, the Senate and the House will come
together to do that.
Right now, there are senior citizens--a lot of them--who get a
minimum amount of monthly help for their food. It is $16 a month, not a
week--a month. We have the audacity to stand here and want to pass a
Heroes Act that would raise that to $30 a month, and our colleagues
will object to a $14-a-month raise for our poorest senior citizens.
Now, for everyone else, I mean we are looking at about $1.40 per
meal--$1.40 per meal. I would challenge any of us to try and get a meal
for $1.40. What the United States provides for someone who is in need
of help right now is $1.40 per meal, and we have the audacity to be
asking for that to be raised by a little less than $1 a day. That is
what a 15-percent increase in SNAP is. It is a little less than $1 a
day for somebody.
Our colleagues act like this is unbelievable--unbelievable that we
would think people should get 90 cents more a day to help with food.
That is what we are talking about in this package. It is about getting
people help. It is about understanding the hardships that they face and
knowing it is not over and not going to be over for too long.
Let me just stress, in closing, that one of the most efficient ways
we can address stimulating the economy right now is by putting money in
the pockets of people who have to spend it. One of the best ways--in
fact, economists tell us the best way is giving somebody $1 that they
have to go to the grocery store and spend it on food. If you give them
$1, it translates into $1.70 in the economy to the grocery store, the
processor, and the farmer. We need to get this done.
We are also deeply concerned about the proposals they put forward on
education that I will leave for another day, but it is time--it is time
to recognize what people are going through and let them know that
somebody cares and somebody is going to help them and somebody is going
to have their back.
I would yield to my friend and colleague from Ohio who has been such
a leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. I want to thank Senator Stabenow and Senator Wyden.
I will speak for just 2 or 3 minutes. I know that Senator Schumer
will make another unanimous consent request.
Think about what Senator McConnell wants to do. Senator McConnell is
going to cut $400 in unemployment insurance to tens of millions of
unemployed workers, hundreds of thousands in my State alone--in Oregon,
Michigan, Illinois, New York, Minnesota, Texas, Florida, and Wisconsin.
Thousands of workers are going to lose $400 a week.
Think about what is going to happen. Around the country, the
moratorium on evictions is expiring. Around the country, in community
after community, a moratorium on electric and water cutoffs is about to
happen. So workers are going to lose $400 a week. They are going to
face eviction.
What is going to happen?
We know what is going to happen. What is going to happen is more
people will lose their homes, more people will be in homeless shelters,
more people will spend the night in their cousin's basement in the
middle of a pandemic.
It is cruel, and it is really stupid policy to cut their income for
unemployment for the millions of unemployed workers and then provide no
dollars for rental assistance, no dollars for paying their mortgage,
and no help for those workers. How can we? We are the United States of
America. How can we do such a thing
I yield to Senator Schumer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, just two quick things on what President
Trump said today. I know my colleague from Oregon brought it up--the
idea that, once again, all he wants to do is divert from his abject
failure on the coronavirus crisis. He says: Oh, well, maybe we will not
have an election.
That is up to the Senate and the House, Mr. President. President
Trump, the election will be in November, on November 3, and you will
not change it. Stop diverting attention, President Trump. That is what
you have done for 3 months as more people get sick, as more people get
unemployed, as we see the numbers we saw today.
Instead of focusing on all these crazy, egotistical, and wrong-headed
ideas, focus on COVID-19, focus on testing, focus on unemployment,
focus on getting the kids back to school, focus on the many problems we
face and understand the moment and largeness of this crisis. I say that
to President Trump, and I say that to my Republican colleagues.
We are waiting. We are waiting for you to get your act together and
understand the depth of this crisis, the breadth of this crisis, and do
something real--not a stunt.
Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous
consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of
Calendar No. 455, H.R.
[[Page S4612]]
6800, the Heroes Act; that the bill be considered read a third time and
passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon
the table with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I would
like to first respond to the Senator from Oregon about the economic
news: yes, on an annualized rate from the downturn in the second
quarter, 9.5 percent. But again, I pointed out, respectfully, that
economists are predicting a shrinkage of GDP 4.6 and 8 percent because
we are in recovery.
The employment has dropped by 10.5 percent. We have already passed
$2.9 trillion. We haven't spent $1.2 trillion of that at least. So we
haven't spent $1.2 trillion. Yet our Democratic colleagues want to pass
a bill that costs $3 trillion.
We are already $26.5 trillion in debt by the end of this fiscal year.
That would be approaching $28 trillion. They want to pass a bill by
unanimous consent for $3 trillion when we haven't spent $1.2 trillion
of the $2.9 trillion we have already passed. That massive amount would
represent 27.5 percent of our economy, when economists are saying it
will shrink by probably no more than 7 percent or 8 percent.
We don't need to authorize more money. What we need to do is help the
American people who are unemployed. I know the minority leader called
that stingy. The offer we are making--the $200 flat payment--does not
provide an incentive to stay unemployed. It replaces more than 100
percent of people's wages for 20 percent of the people currently
unemployed--a 100-percent wage replacement for 20 percent. That is
according to a study by the University of Chicago.
For the other 80 percent, it replaces up to 100 percent. What is
stingy about that? Why do our Democratic colleagues want to propose
continuing the $600 per-week plus-up that is preventing people--
incentivizing people not to reengage in the economy so that our economy
can recover. It makes no sense.
Again, I will point out that the two-thirds option is the exact same
amount that the House passed--the Democratic-controlled House passed in
phase 2 of the COVID-19 relief packages for paid sick and family leave.
So, again, we tried to tailor this to protect those American workers.
We tried to tailor this based on what Democrats themselves have
proposed and passed. Yet they would rather play politics. They would
rather be cynical and object to my unanimous consent request because
time is running out--I acknowledge that.
So we are responding, but as in so many other debates--whether it is
gun control or immigration--it is their way or the highway. They simply
will not take yes for an answer. It is very unfortunate they are taking
this position that they want to indebt our children for another $3
trillion, and they will not say yes to a very reasonable proposal
structured on things they proposed and passed in the past.
Madam President, It is very unfortunate, but I have to object to $3
trillion of additional debt on our children.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The assistant Democratic leader.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader has been
recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I believe there are pending requests by
several Members, and I don't want to try to preempt it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senator yield the floor?
Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.