[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 135 (Thursday, July 30, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4607-S4614]
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.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 4019

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I thank the assistant Democratic leader.
  We come back to the floor today, the Senator from Minnesota and I, to 
reoffer a unanimous consent request that Senator Markey, the Senator 
from Massachusetts, and I offered previously.
  After the death of George Floyd and, unfortunately, similar 
incidents, it has become increasingly obvious that our country is in 
need of reconciliation--racial reconciliation and personal 
reconciliation.
  One of the things we could do to honor the memory of George Floyd and 
to attempt to take one small step toward that reconciliation is to make 
Juneteenth a Federal holiday. We previously had offered this unanimous 
consent request, and my friend from Wisconsin has his reasons for 
objecting, but one of the major newspapers in my State said to me: Try 
again. So I am coming here to the floor to reoffer.
  Juneteenth has been a holiday in Texas for 40 years because of the 
distinct Texas connection. Just to remind my colleagues, Juneteenth was 
the day when the Union Army Major General Gordon Ganger showed up in 
Galveston and told people who had previously been slaves that they were 
no longer slaves 2\1/2\ years after the Emancipation Proclamation.
  I believe, in all sincerity, we need to remember our history because, 
you know what, we learn from our mistakes, and if we don't remember our 
history, we will not learn from our mistakes, and we will commit those 
mistakes over and over and over again.
  The tragic and brutal killing of George Floyd earlier this year has 
shown a light on the injustices that still exist in our society. Now, 
for somebody who looks like me, my experiences have been much different 
from those of our friend Tim Scott, the Senator from South Carolina, or 
the experiences of a pastor whom I encountered in Houston the other day 
at a roundtable that Sylvester Turner, the mayor of Houston, convened 
so that they could share with me their experiences.
  This pastor, who was head of the local NAACP chapter, told me: I 
honor the police. I respect the police. I support the police. But my 
son, he is afraid of the police.
  So, we clearly have a long way to go in treating all people the same, 
regardless of the color of their skin. And when the perception among 
some in the minority community is that they are being treated 
differently, that is a problem that we should all try to address 
together.
  So one way we could attempt to make this small step toward that 
reconciliation and continue to remind ourselves on an annual basis of 
how far we have come but how far we still have to go would be to take 
up this bill, pass it, and get it to the President's desk without 
further delay.
  At this point, before I ask for unanimous consent, I would yield to 
the Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. SMITH. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Texas. I 
appreciate his leadership on this.
  Juneteenth is among the oldest celebrations of emancipation and is 
certainly worthy of a Federal holiday. I want to read an op-ed from the 
Washington Post, written by the musician Usher, which I think 
eloquently sums up why it is not only important to honor this day as a 
Federal holiday, but it is also important to recognize it as a part of 
American history.
  I ask unanimous consent to introduce the Washington Post op-ed in 
full into the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                            [June 18, 2020]

 Usher: Why It's So Important That Juneteenth Become a National Holiday

                         (By Usher Raymond IV)

       Usher Raymond IV is a musician, actor and entrepreneur.
       At the 2015 Essence Music Festival in New Orleans, I wore a 
     T-shirt that caught a lot of people's attention. The design 
     was simple. The words ``July Fourth'' were crossed out and 
     under them, one word was written: ``Juneteenth.'' I wore the 
     shirt because, for many years, I celebrated the Fourth of 
     July without a true understanding that the date of 
     independence for our people, black people, is actually June 
     19, 1865: the day that the news of the Emancipation 
     Proclamation finally reached some of the last people in 
     America still held in bondage.
       I have no issue with celebrating America's independence on 
     July 4. For me, wearing the shirt was an opportunity to 
     inform others who may not necessarily know the history of 
     black people in America, and who are not aware that 
     Juneteenth is our authentic day of self-determination. It is 
     ours to honor the legacy of our ancestors, ours to celebrate 
     and ours to remember where we once were as a people. And it 
     should be a national holiday, observed by all Americans.
       Growing up in Chattanooga, Tenn., I was taught in school 
     one version of U.S. history

[[Page S4613]]

     that frequently excluded the history of my family and my 
     community. The black history I learned came from the ``Eyes 
     On the Prize'' documentary that aired during Black History 
     Month. That was where I learned about Emmett Till, Rosa Parks 
     and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. When I moved to Atlanta 
     at age 13, I went deeper and discovered more about the 
     movement, the horrors of slavery and the resilience of our 
     people. I came to understand Juneteenth's history a decade 
     ago during a period of reflection and in pursuit of any 
     ancestral history that would tell me who I am.
       The liberation Juneteenth commemorates is cause for 
     celebration, but it also reminds us how equality can be 
     delayed. On June 19, 1865, on the shores of Galveston, Tex., 
     Union Gen. Gordon Granger arrived by boat to announce to 
     enslaved African Americans that the Civil War had ended and 
     they were now free. While President Lincoln's Emancipation 
     Proclamation was issued two and a half years prior, and the 
     Civil War had ended in April of that year, it wasn't until 
     June 19, 1865, that almost all of our ancestors were free. We 
     should honor their lives and celebrate that day of freedom 
     forever.
       I cherish the words of Nina Simone. I respect the legacy of 
     Harry Belafonte and the unapologetic blackness of James 
     Brown. I admire the entrepreneurship of Madam C.J. Walker. I 
     have learned from my elders. Their wisdom has taught me to 
     use my voice to support my people, so many of whom are 
     hurting right now. Making sure that our history is told is 
     critical to supporting and sustaining our growth as a people. 
     The least we deserve is to have this essential moment 
     included in the broader American story.
       I am humbled by the platform that has been given to me 
     because of my musical talents, but I know I must do more with 
     it. As an artist, it is my duty to reflect the trying times 
     in which we live. My heart is shattered by the ongoing 
     injustices in this country, incited by its long history of 
     racism that has led to deadly outcomes for too many of our 
     people. This country must change.
       And it must change quickly.
       Recognizing Juneteenth as a national holiday would be a 
     small gesture compared with the greater social needs of black 
     people in America. But it can remind us of our journey toward 
     freedom, and the work America still has to do.
       We could observe it, as many black Americans already do, by 
     celebrating both our first step toward freedom as black 
     people in America and also the many contributions to this 
     land: the construction of Black Wall Street; the invention of 
     jazz, rock n' roll, hip-hop and R&B and all the 
     entrepreneurship and business brilliance, extraordinary 
     cuisine, sports excellence, political power and global 
     cultural influence black Americans have given the world.
       And rather than observing Juneteenth as we do other 
     holidays, by taking it off, we can make it a day when black 
     culture, black entrepreneurship and black business get our 
     support. A national Juneteenth observance can affirm that 
     Black Lives Matter!
       What changes do you hope will come out of protests and 
     debates about police and race? Write to us.
       I proudly join the incredible people and organizations who 
     have been working on this for years, among them the inspiring 
     Opal Lee, a 93-year-old from Fort Worth, Tex., who has 
     campaigned for the recognition of Juneteenth at the state and 
     local level. There has never been a more urgent time than now 
     to get this done. On Thursday, Sens. Tina Smith (D-Minn.), 
     Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) 
     and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) announced that they are introducing 
     legislation to make Juneteenth a federal holiday. Congress 
     must pass this bill immediately.
       As we celebrate today, let's stay open to possibility. 
     Let's support black-owned businesses today and every day. 
     Let's uplift our resilient history. Let's honor our people. 
     Happy Juneteenth, America.

  Ms. SMITH. Usher wrote:

       The liberation Juneteenth commemorates is cause for 
     celebration, but it also reminds us of how equality can be 
     delayed. On June 19, 1865, on the shores of Galveston, Tex., 
     Union Gen. Gordon Granger arrived by boat to announce to 
     enslaved African Americans that the Civil War had ended and 
     they were now free. While President Lincoln's Emancipation 
     Proclamation was issued two and a half years prior, and the 
     Civil War had ended in April of that year, it wasn't until 
     June 19, 1865, that almost all of our ancestors were free. We 
     should honor their lives and celebrate that day of freedom 
     forever.

  Usher continues:

       Recognizing Juneteenth as a national holiday would be a 
     small gesture compared to the greater social needs of black 
     people in America. But it can remind us of our journey toward 
     freedom, and the work America still has to do.
       We could observe it, as many black Americans already do, by 
     celebrating both our first step toward freedom as black 
     people in America and also the many contributions to this 
     land.

  So thank you to my colleague from Texas. I am glad to stand with him 
in making Juneteenth a Federal holiday.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Young). The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous 
consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further 
consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. 4019; further, 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 Senator from Wisconsin
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me 
first state and make perfectly clear that I think the emancipation of 
slaves is a day worth celebrating. I have no argument whatsoever with 
the fact that we should probably celebrate it better than we have in 
the past. But there are other ways of celebrating it--a resolution in 
the Senate creating a national day of celebration without declaring it 
a national holiday.
  The effect of declaring it a national holiday is primarily one thing: 
It gives Federal workers a paid day off. Now, Federal workers are 
compensated quite well, and I want to quickly go through this again, as 
we did last week. I have some charts up here.
  If you take a look at just their wage, Federal workers, on average, 
make about a little over $94,000 per year. In the private sector, the 
average wage is $63,000, which is 67 percent of what Federal workers 
make. If you also include benefits--total compensation--Federal workers 
make, on average, about $135,000, almost $136,000 per year. In the 
private sector, it is about $75,000, which is 55 percent of what 
Federal workers make.
  So if you strip out only the benefits, which is what we are talking 
about with holiday pay and paid family leave and other things, Federal 
workers, on average, get compensated about $41,000 annually, versus the 
private sector's $12,000, which is only 29 percent of what Federal 
workers make.
  What we are talking about is a paid day off. Now, take a look at what 
Federal workers get in terms of the number of days off with pay. It is 
quite generous, particularly after last year's National Defense 
Authorization Act, in which we added paid parental leave.
  I have two charts here. Here is one: If a Federal worker gets paid 
parental leave--and I realize that only happens a few times during 
somebody's lifetime--but Federal workers get 10 paid holidays. That is 
probably the max anybody gets in the private sector. In terms of paid 
leave, minimum, they get 13 days off; maximum, they get 26; and by the 
way, 26 is more than 5 weeks off with pay--basically paid vacation. 
They get 4 weeks after only 3 years. That is virtually unheard of in 
the private sector--very generous paid vacation in the Federal 
workforce. Then, with paid parental leave, they get 60 days off 
maximum.
  So, a Federal worker taking advantage of paid parental leave will get 
96 to 109 days off or, put a different way, for every 1.4 days a 
Federal worker works, they get a day off.
  Now, let's strip out paid parental leave. Let's look at people who 
aren't having a child or adopting a child--again, same basic numbers: 
10 paid holidays, 13 to 26 paid leave days, 13 sick days, for a total 
of anywhere from 36 to 49 days of leave that is paid. For a more senior 
worker, for every 4.3 days they work, they get a day off, which is 
basically a 4-day workweek. By the way, if they don't take the paid 
leave days, they can carry them over.
  So, again, the private sector benefits aren't even close to this 
generous. I am not objecting to celebrating Juneteenth. What I am 
objecting to is the rest of America paying for another paid day off for 
Federal workers. By the way, it costs about $600 million per year. The 
CBO score is over 10 years; that is $6 billion. The sponsors of this 
bill want to just go ahead and incur that additional cost on the 
American economy and American taxpayers without a vote. They can't do 
it just by unanimous consent, which is really what I am objecting to in 
this process here.
  So, again, I have a different proposal. We could either declare it a 
national day of celebration. That would be fine. Or we can go ahead and 
declare it and make it a national holiday, but if we are going to do 
that, let's just take one of their paid days away. They come out whole.
  Last week, I was accused of taking something away from Federal 
workers. Not really--I am still leaving them

[[Page S4614]]

with the same 36 to 49 or 96 to 109 days off. I am just saying that it 
strikes me as kind of strange that the only way we can properly 
celebrate Juneteenth is by giving Federal workers a paid day off, paid 
by every other American taxpayer, to the tune of $600 million a year.
  So, again, what I would recommend is that modification: Declare 
Juneteenth a national paid holiday but remove one of their paid sick 
leaves. So I ask the Senator to modify his request to include my 
amendment at the desk; that the amendment be considered and agreed to; 
that the bill, as amended, be considered and read a third time and 
passed; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid 
upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator so modify his proposal?
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it is 
notable to me that we are gathered here today, while in Atlanta we are 
celebrating the life of  John Lewis. In this moment, I think it is 
worth remembering that when Congress was debating whether to make a 
Federal holiday honoring Martin Luther King, Jr.--Dr. King, in the 
1980s--people made this same kind of argument about its potential cost. 
Ronald Reagan made this argument. But President Reagan came around, and 
he signed into law this bill, and now that holiday is celebrated 
nationwide as a day of reflection and rededication to progress toward 
racial justice. Just as the civil rights movement is honored as an 
important milestone in the history of this country, so should be 
emancipation.
  Just as the argument that it is too expensive to give Federal 
employees a day off was wrong regarding Martin Luther King Day, it is 
wrong for Juneteenth. And just as Ronald Reagan got on the right side 
of history, I think that we will get on the right side of history, and 
we will finally have a full holiday to commemorate Juneteenth, not as a 
holiday with an asterisk, not as a half holiday, but as a full holiday; 
therefore, I object to this modification
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Is there objection to the original request?
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. JOHNSON. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.