[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 138 (Tuesday, August 4, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4700-S4701]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 4143

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to offer a proposal that 
really is going to help working families and those who are trying to 
make rent, trying to pay for groceries, who every single day walk an 
economic tightrope balancing their food bill against their fuel bill.
  We just heard a little bit about how we really need to solve the 
problem. This does that because, under our bill, S. 4143, the American 
Workforce Rescue Act of 2020, what we wish to do on our side is tie 
these unemployment benefits to the actual conditions of the American 
economy on the ground.
  We have had this proposal for months now because, to some extent--and 
I see my good friend from South Dakota. He made an important point in 
this discussion. He is a member of the Finance Committee, and I saw an 
article in which he stated, you know, it is important for people who 
are really hurting in a tough economy--it is important for them to get 
benefits that let them pay the rent and buy groceries. Then my good 
friend from South Dakota made a point I agree with. He said: You know, 
when the economy gets better and unemployment goes down, then--in the 
words of the Senator from South Dakota--the benefits can taper off to 
reflect that.
  That is essentially what S. 4143, the American Workforce Rescue Act 
that I have authored with the Democratic leader, Senator Schumer, does 
is it ensures that we are not going to have millions of workers every 
month or every few months live in fear that Donald Trump and Mitch 
McConnell are going to pull the rug out from under them.
  We would have a benefit that would reflect economic conditions on the 
ground, and it would deal with this economic challenge for all the 
months until the economy recovers. That is what Senator Schumer and I 
put forward some time ago. The $600 would gradually phase down based on 
the State's average unemployment rate over 3 months. This would provide 
certainty for families and ensure the broader economy continues to 
receive the support it needs.
  And, especially, it doesn't set up artificial timelines. That is what 
the Senate ought to be avoiding, to just set arbitrary dates. What we 
need to do is make sure that politicians--and, certainly, Donald Trump 
and Mitch McConnell have been willing to pull the rug out from under 
the unemployed. We need to make sure that there is a plan going 
forward.
  That is what S. 4143 does, the American Workforce Rescue Act. It will 
provide certainty for families and ensure the broader economic recovery 
will be our focus, and there will be support until we see that kind of 
recovery.
  So I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be 
discharged from further consideration of S. 4143, the American 
Workforce Rescue 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?

[[Page S4701]]

  

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would just 
say that the fact that the Senator from Oregon is down here right now 
instead of the Democratic leader I would characterize as movement in 
the right direction. And the fact that he is making a proposal that is 
based upon legislation that, as he mentioned, he has introduced that 
actually has a trigger, if you will, or a way of phasing down 
unemployment benefits, I think, is a step in the right direction 
because, up until now, every time that the Senator from Arizona has 
come down here to offer up a 1-week extension of unemployment 
benefits--and, by the way, I think it is very reasonable and, to the 
Senator from Oregon's point, I find it hard to believe that any State 
and any computer system which is already paying out the $600 bonus 
wouldn't be able to continue that. It strikes me as just really 
unexplainable that you would have problems adjusting a computer system 
that is already programmed to pay $600 to continue to do that for an 
additional week. That defies logic to me.
  So I think that is a very reasonable request. It would allow us 
additional time to work on proposals like what the Senator from Oregon 
has suggested. And there are others out there. The Senator from Utah, 
Senator Romney, has a proposal that would ramp down the unemployment 
benefits over time. It seems to me, at least, we might be able to find 
some common ground there between what the Senator from Oregon has 
proposed and what the Senator from Utah or other Members on our side 
have proposed.
  I do believe that what the Senator from Oregon is suggesting--that 
is, to lock in the $600 bonus indefinitely--one, puts it on autopilot; 
two, sort of takes Congress out of the equation; and, three, it 
continues to offer a benefit that, for five out of the six people who 
are receiving unemployment benefits, offers them more in terms of a 
benefit than what they were making when they were working.
  That, to me, is something that I think needs to be addressed. And if 
you talk to any small business across this country right now, they will 
tell you one of the big challenges they have is trying to find workers 
and to compete with an unemployment payment that actually pays them 
more than when they were working. Trying to get those employees back, I 
think, has been a real challenge for a lot of the employers across the 
country.
  So I think that is an issue that has to be addressed, and I have 
heard people on this side of the aisle, both House and Senate, say the 
same thing. There have been Democratic Governors who say the same 
thing, that the $600 benefit needs to be modified in a way that more 
reflects what people were actually making when they were working.
  So I think there is some common ground that we can find, but, again, 
the idea that has been advanced by the other side prior to the Senator 
from Oregon coming down here, which has been put forward by the 
Democratic leader, is that the Heroes Act should be taken up and passed 
by unanimous consent. That has been the unanimous consent request now 
on multiple occasions when Senator McSally or others have come down 
here to try and get action on this unemployment issue, which is to come 
over and offer unanimous consent to pick up and pass the Heroes Act, 
which, as we all know, is not a serious piece of legislation.
  In fact, the Democratic leader's paper of record in New York, the New 
York Times, said: ``The bill was more a messaging document than a 
viable piece of legislation.'' That comes from the New York Times. Many 
of the proposals in that legislation had nothing to do with the 
coronavirus and, in fact, addressed a lot of other what I would call 
extraneous items on the policy agenda of the Democratic majority in the 
House of Representatives, to include mentioning ``cannabis'' more times 
than it mentioned the word ``jobs'' in that legislation.
  There are studies authorized in the Heroes Act that look at 
diversity--diversity--in the cannabis industry--more mentions of that 
than mention of the word ``jobs,'' which I think right there tells you 
that it wasn't a serious piece of legislation.
  It, furthermore, included--if you can imagine this--tax cuts, tax 
cuts for Manhattan millionaires. Tax cuts for Manhattan millionaires is 
included in the Heroes Act--again, not something that has anything to 
do with helping the people who are hurting as a result of the pandemic 
or get at the point that the Senator from Oregon is talking about; that 
is, addressing the unemployment issue.
  So I view this as progress. I view this as movement in the right 
direction, the fact that the Senator, not the Democratic leader, is 
down here offering an unemployment proposal, not the Heroes Act. I hope 
we can build on that and find that common ground that would enable us 
to address clearly what are serious needs among lots of Americans who 
are, through no fault of their own, unemployed as a result of this 
pandemic.
  Having said that, I will object to the request of the Senator from 
Oregon right now but suggest to him that he and Democrats other than 
the leader--and I think there are a number of Democrats on this side of 
the aisle, including those who lead committees like the Senator from 
Oregon, who is the ranking member on the Finance Committee, a committee 
on which I serve and with whom I have worked on a lot of issues--can 
sit down and find common ground.
  But as long as rank-and-file members and leaders of relevant 
committees are sort of locked out and the leaders continue to try and 
do this behind closed doors, it is going to be very hard, I think, to 
find those types of practical, real-world, commonsense solutions.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, while my colleague is here, just a brief 
reaction--and I think my colleague knows that you don't go out and 
negotiate from the seat of your pants on the floor.
  First, I want to be clear on this proposal. This is a proposal the 
Democratic leader and I, as the ranking Democrat on the Finance 
Committee, worked very closely together on. It is a proposal that many 
Senate Democrats think could be the basis of reform, and lots of people 
who look at the future of these kinds of economic challenges find this 
idea attractive. That is No. 1.
  No. 2, my friend from South Dakota thinks that somehow the benefits 
can just be turned on with a snap of the finger. The National 
Association of State Workforce Agencies have said that the proposal 
offered by the Senator from Arizona would not get benefits that make 
rent and pay groceries to people anytime soon.
  The question is, Are you going to solve a real economic challenge 
here? The economy has faced, last week, a staggering economic 
contraction. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the last 
numbers, there are four unemployed workers for every job. This idea 
that unemployed folks don't want to work is just insulting.
  What unemployed people tell me at home is that if somebody offers 
them a job on Monday night, they will be there first thing Tuesday 
morning.
  What is really needed are solutions to this question of unemployment 
insurance that ties the benefits to the real world conditions on the 
ground. In fact, when you have unemployment like this--well over 10 
percent--the $600 extra per week coverage is clearly what is necessary 
to make rent and pay groceries. But make no mistake about it--I see my 
colleague from South Dakota leaving the floor--I listened when he said 
that there ought to be a benefit for folks when unemployment is high 
and that when unemployment goes down, the benefits would reflect that. 
That is the American Workforce Rescue Act.
  If my colleagues are saying they want to back S. 4143, I would like 
to get that message in a direct kind of way.
  With that, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________