[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 155 (Wednesday, September 9, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5482-S5486]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Coronavirus

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I want to thank my colleague from New 
York. Many of the things he has said on the floor this morning reflect 
what I have seen back in Illinois in the last 5 or 6 weeks that we have 
been home, people I have spoken to who are genuinely suffering because 
of the coronavirus pandemic and the state of the American economy.
  There was a moment here on the floor of the Senate earlier this year 
when the gravity of the situation brought us together. It was March 
26--almost 6 months ago--when we voted 96 to 0 to pass the CARES Act, 
the $3 trillion effort to try to keep America's economy alive and 
breathing during this pandemic and the impact it has had on all of our 
lives. That is $3 trillion--money for the unemployed, substantial sums 
for those who are about to see their lives transformed overnight. Laid 
off and fired from jobs that may never return, they tried to keep their 
families together with mortgage payments, rent payments, automobile 
loans, the credit responsibilities they faced, and just putting food on 
the table.
  It was a wrenching, disquieting situation for so many of those 
families, and we said that we should give them $600 a week--$600 a 
week--in Federal assistance to get through this period. What we did not 
only helped those families, but it helped the economy. The money those 
families received was spent almost instantaneously. That is 
understandable. They are struggling to survive.
  But we knew that the program we enacted on March 26 had a termination 
date of July 31. We hoped that by then the pandemic would be behind us, 
our economy would be recovering, and we wouldn't need any further 
relief. We were wrong--terribly wrong. We still face this coronavirus 
in a way that we never expected 6 months ago. It is still a challenge--
a terrible challenge that has claimed over 180,000 American lives to 
date.
  I could speak for a few minutes here about our response as a nation 
to this pandemic and talk about the lack of leadership from the very 
top in Washington when it came to dealing with this public health 
crisis, but suffice it to say for the moment that two numbers tell the 
story. The United States has 4 percent of the world's population. 
Sadly, we have 20 percent of the COVID-19 deaths in the world.
  The United States has not responded as expected. Innocent people have 
died. The situation was chaotic in the White House. The leadership we 
needed wasn't there.
  Where are we today? Here we are in the second week of September. 
Where are we now as we reflect on the situation? Many of us believe we 
still face a grievous, serious challenge and need to respond 
accordingly, but others see it differently.
  Senator McConnell, the leader on the Republican side, is going to 
offer a proposal tomorrow that is a fraction--a fraction--of what was 
offered on March 26 to deal with this crisis. Many people, obviously on 
the Republican side, feel that America is headed in the right direction 
and therefore we don't need to make a substantial investment in people, 
in businesses, and in the health and resources of this country.
  For those who come to the floor and argue that America is headed in 
the right direction, three-fourths of the American people disagree with 
them. You see, in a survey taken just 2 weeks ago, 75 percent of the 
American people said America is headed in the wrong direction. So when 
the Republicans come up with a modest--almost immodest--proposal that 
they are going to bring to the floor tomorrow, they disagree with 
three-fourths of the American people.
  Many of them obviously believe that we don't have to make a massive 
investment in helping families who are fighting unemployment, helping 
businesses to survive. They must believe that the worst is behind us. 
Well, it turns out that two out of three of the American people 
disagree with them. That is right--two out of three in a recent survey 
in America said the worst is still ahead. Wrong direction, 75 percent; 
the worst is still ahead, two-thirds.
  What is the response on the Republican side? First, it was silence. 
You see, it has been almost 4 months now since the House of 
Representatives, under the Democratic leadership of Speaker Pelosi, 
passed the Heroes Act--a $3 trillion investment to make sure that we 
stood by the families who were unemployed, to make sure that we put 
money into the hands of businesses that needed to survive, to make 
certain that we had adequate testing across the United States, to give 
money to schools so that they could weather this crisis as they 
readjust to the challenges they face, and to put money in the hands of 
hospitals and providers that in some cases are just hanging by a thread 
because of the state of the economy and this medical challenge. That is 
what Speaker Pelosi did almost 4 months ago.
  In the meantime, in that 4-month period, the Republican leader of the 
Senate has done nothing--nothing. He didn't bring a bill to the floor. 
He didn't pass a bill and call for a conference committee. In fact, 
during this entire period of time, the Republican leader in the Senate 
has refused to personally attend the negotiations between the White 
House and congressional leaders. Both he and House Republican Leader 
McCarthy have boycotted any negotiation sessions. Any persuasion they 
want to bring to the issue, they bring to the floor of the Senate in 
speeches, not behind closed doors, where compromise is reached and 
where, in fact, we were successful last March, passing the CARES Act.
  So now we face a challenge as a nation. Which party will stand up for 
America to weather this crisis and come out strong? The Democrats have 
a proposal. We have had it for 4 months.
  The Republicans, tomorrow, will offer a skinny--some say emaciated--
version of that proposal. They want to take the assistance to 
unemployed Americans--800,000 of them in my home State, millions across 
the Nation--and cut it in half. Did Senator McConnell get a news flash 
that I missed that mortgage payments will be cut in half as of 
tomorrow, that rental payments will be cut in half as of tomorrow, that 
car payments will be cut in half, that the cost of food will be cut in 
half? Not at all.
  We know these families will face the same obligations and, under the 
Republican proposal, receive a fraction of what they were given and 
have received between March and the end of July. That is unfair to 
these families.
  I know what is happening in food banks across Illinois, and I am sure 
it is the same case in Kentucky, perhaps in Georgia, perhaps in New 
York. People are flooding these food banks asking for help. Some of 
them are embarrassed by their situation. They shouldn't be, but they 
are. Many people who used to volunteer at these same food banks are now 
standing in line, looking at their shoes, hoping to take enough food 
home to make it through a week.
  That is the reality, but it is not the reality that is reflected in 
the Senate action this week. What we have from Senator McConnell is a 
small effort at a time when America needs a substantial effort to deal 
with not only the situation facing our economy but also the 
coronavirus.
  I am troubled, too, because I represent a State that is so diverse, 
with the great city of Chicago but all the way downstate--my roots--
smalltown America, rural America. Many of the

[[Page S5483]]

hospitals and healthcare providers in those areas are literally 
struggling to survive. They are looking to Washington for a helping 
hand. Do you know what it means to smalltown America to lose a 
hospital? It is devastating, not only from the viewpoint of healthcare 
and emergency care, which is unavailable on a timely basis in many 
places, but also because it is hard to keep a business or attract a 
business if you don't have quality healthcare nearby. Many of those 
hospitals are struggling to keep the lights on and survive, and they 
will not make it unless we step up.
  So what is included in the Republican proposal when it comes to these 
healthcare providers, to increasing Medicaid assistance to them, for 
example? Virtually nothing. I can't understand this. I have to believe 
that the Republican leadership representing States with small towns and 
rural populations are hearing exactly what I am hearing in downstate 
Illinois. Yet, when it comes to a proposal on the floor, they are doing 
nothing--nothing.
  Let me just add, in closing here, if we don't take testing seriously 
in America, we cannot be serious about reopening the economy, reopening 
schools, from colleges to kindergartens. That is the reality, to be 
able to test in an effective, cost-effective way people who are 
positive for this virus so that they are notified and stop from 
circulating among those who are, at that point, healthy.
  The testing investment by this bill on the Republican side doesn't 
meet the challenge at all. They can't call for opening the economy on 
one hand and ignore the responsibility for testing on another.
  So where do we go from here? Well, tomorrow is a symbolic, partisan 
vote on the Republican side when it should be much more. After it is 
finished and we know the outcome, perhaps then the Republican leader in 
the Senate will be willing to sit down and negotiate. Will he be 
willing to occupy that empty chair in that negotiating room with the 
White House and Democratic congressional leaders? Will he be willing to 
sit down and actually work on a compromise comparable to the CARES Act 
that passed here in March, earlier this year?
  That is what it takes--not a speech on the floor, not a press 
release, not a symbolic vote but something much more significant: the 
willingness to sit down and acknowledge the obvious; that America is 
heading in the wrong direction, and we should be heading in the right 
direction.
  Many people worry that the worst is yet to come. We want them to be 
more hopeful and optimistic because we care, and if both parties do 
care to help the unemployed, to help businesses, to make sure that our 
healthcare providers have the resources that they need, then we can 
start to address this coronavirus, this pandemic, with the leadership 
that has been so lacking in the months that we have faced it this year.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip is recognized
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, starting this week and tomorrow, there 
will be a vote on a coronavirus relief bill, and it is a bill that is 
targeted to the areas that really need it, it is fiscally responsible, 
and it is rooted in reality. In other words, it is a realistic approach 
to dealing with the coronavirus challenges that we, as a nation, are 
facing.
  The Democratic leader and the Democratic assistant leader have been 
down here just now talking about the Democratic bill, a bill which 
passed the House of Representatives and a bill that was $3\1/2\ 
trillion in terms of its pricetag and a bill that was filled with 
goodies for special-interest groups and lots of leftwing priorities, 
many of which have nothing to do at all with the coronavirus.
  In fact, $3\1/2\ trillion is a number that I think was pulled out of 
thin air. I have no idea how they came up with it. I don't think it was 
based on any feedback or input that they got from States or 
businesses around the country. I think it was let's just make up as 
many things as we can and let's just throw a lot of money out there and 
see what it does.

  Well, unfortunately, I think people have come to the realization--
people around the country, at least--that every dollar that we spend 
now is a borrowed dollar. So the $3\1/2\ trillion that was allocated by 
the House Democrats and which has been supported just in the last few 
minutes here by the Democratic leader and the Democratic whip is 
borrowed money. It should come as no surprise to anybody in this 
country that our country already is deeply in debt. We added about $3 
trillion earlier this year when we passed the CARES package--at the 
time, something that was needed. We needed to be big and bold and move 
quickly, which we did.
  We have a much better sense now, I think, about this disease, what 
the needs are, and we ought to be targeting our assistance to those 
areas of greatest need, whether it is small businesses that need 
assistance, that haven't been able to reopen; whether it is in the area 
of healthcare, our hospitals and nursing homes, the provider community; 
or whether it is supporting the efforts that are being made to come up 
with vaccines and therapeutics, the money that is going into testing. 
Those are all things I think that there was pretty broad agreement on 
at the time. We still believe those are things that are essential, in 
addition to supporting our schools as they try to safely reopen.
  There are a number of priorities out there that I do think we have 
learned, gotten more information about, and determined where the 
dollars made the most difference, what could be changed and modified in 
these programs to make them more workable, and that is what has led to 
the discussion we are having now and the bill that we will vote on 
tomorrow.
  What the Democrats, in their bill--the $3\1/2\ trillion bill--did was 
they just decided that money is no object and evidently without, again, 
much consideration about how those dollars are spent or in any way 
making sure that they are targeted to the right area, to those areas of 
greatest need, just basically decided to kind of throw caution to the 
wind and throw $3\1/2\ trillion out there at the economy.
  The ironic thing about it, in many respects, is that, without having 
feedback or input, for example, from State and local governments about 
how much they needed, they put another $1 trillion into that bill--$1 
trillion for State and local governments--at a time when very little of 
the $150 billion that we had already done in direct assistance, not to 
mention the additional assistance to States, to education, to colleges 
and universities, elementary and secondary education, healthcare 
providers--a lot of additional dollars have gone through the States, to 
the tune of about a half a trillion dollars already, much of which 
hasn't been spent. In fact, of the $150 billion in direct assistance 
that went out to State and local governments--the latest numbers I had 
as recently as about a week ago--only about a quarter of that, about 25 
percent of that money had been spent. Yet they were asking for another 
trillion dollars, every single dollar of which is borrowed.
  It was just reported recently that, in 2021, the United States will 
exceed 100 percent debt to GDP. That puts us in the elite and rare 
company of Italy, Greece, Japan, countries around the world that have 
gotten dramatically overextended when it comes to their sovereign debt. 
When you get to the debt to GDP which is in excess of 100 percent, that 
is pretty dangerous territory.
  Everybody says we are the best economy in the world, we are the 
world's reserve currency, and people are going to continue to want to 
invest here in the United States. Well, at some point there are 
consequences. The chickens do come home to roost. You cannot continue 
to borrow without eventual consequence. At some point, interest rates 
will start to normalize, at which time these countries that invest in 
the United States are going to demand a higher return. Interest rates--
when they go up, it means the amount we have to pay to borrow money 
goes up, and when our interest gets north of $1 trillion, it will 
exceed every other item in our budget, including the amount that we 
spend for national security.
  So that is the other part of the debate which the other side never 
references; that is, what are we doing to the long-term future of this 
country, to our children and grandchildren, all of whom are going to be 
responsible for this debt? We are essentially doing everything we do 
right now--putting it

[[Page S5484]]

on the credit card and handing the bill to our children and 
grandchildren--which is to say that the Republicans believe that we 
ought to do coronavirus relief and help those who need it. I am going 
to talk in just a moment about all the things that this bill does to 
help those who really need the help, but it ought to be targeted. It 
ought to be with some thought toward what is the greatest need? where 
can we make the biggest difference? where can we help the people who 
are really struggling and really hurting as a result of the virus, the 
pandemic? And we ought to do it in a fiscally responsible way. We ought 
to do it in a realistic way. We ought to have a bill that is, frankly, 
rooted in reality.
  The reason I say that the Democratic bill isn't rooted in reality is 
because of many of the things that it contained. In fact, there were 
more mentions of the word ``cannabis'' in the Democratic bill than 
there were mentions of the word ``jobs''--more mentions of the word 
``cannabis,'' a synonym for marijuana, than mentions of the word 
``jobs.''
  So if you think about that, the 58 mentions in the Democratic $3\1/2\ 
trillion bill had to do, for example, with diversity training. This was 
a study that was requested--I shouldn't say ``diversity training'' but 
a diversity study in the access to financing for people who are in the 
marijuana business. That was something that was determined a priority 
and funded in the Democratic-passed bill.
  Now, that is just one of many examples of why that bill wasn't taken 
seriously by anyone. When I say ``anyone,'' I am talking about the New 
York Times. The New York Times called it a messaging document and not a 
viable piece of legislation. The New York Times called it a messaging 
document and not a viable piece of legislation. National Public Radio 
said that it was a wish list--a Democratic wish list--of favored 
policies. POLITICO called it a long wish list of Democratic policies. 
Nobody--nobody took the Democratic bill seriously. When you can't get 
the New York Times to speak favorably about a Democratic coronavirus 
relief bill, it tells me that it was completely out of step and out of 
touch with what is really needed in this country and, certainly, by the 
people in this country who do want to see us respond but respond in a 
way--again, as I said--that is targeted and is fiscally responsible and 
doesn't throw any kind of fiscal caution to the wind, that just throws 
money out there at a lot of favored pet causes and ideological agenda 
items on the Democratic wish list. That is essentially what that bill 
did.
  So as we decided to put together a bill, we listened carefully. We 
listened to small businesses. We listened to healthcare providers. We 
listened to schools, to school administrators. We listened to those 
folks who are impacted on a daily basis by the effects of this pandemic 
and what is really needed, where are those greatest needs, where can we 
make the biggest difference.
  This is, again, the focus of the Republican bill that we will be 
voting on tomorrow, which, contrary to the assertions that were made by 
the Democratic leader, does include a lot of bipartisan policy and 
bipartisan cooperation. Many of the provisions in the bill are 
provisions that share Democratic cosponsorship. In fact, I would point 
out that the changes we made to the PPP program--the PPP program, which 
is an acronym for the Paycheck Protection Program, is one of the most 
successful of all the programs in the CARES Act that passed earlier 
this year. It was a very bipartisan effort shared with people like 
Marco Rubio and Susan Collins on our side and Ben Cardin and Jeanne 
Shaheen on the Democratic side and others involved in shaping that 
program, making it effective. Subsequent to that, changes made it work 
even better, and this will include some changes that we think will make 
it work even better.
  There are some in here that I, frankly, was very supportive of 
because they will help people who, under the last Paycheck Protection 
Program, didn't receive help because, for one reason or another, they 
were excluded from the qualifications to make them eligible for it.
  It makes changes in the Paycheck Protection Program, many of which--
again, this is a bipartisan program--will be bipartisan in nature. 
There were a number of things that the leader mentioned over here this 
morning earlier when he was on the floor in which he talked about some 
of the provisions that Senator Alexander had added. There are things in 
that space that, again, share bipartisan support. So if you look at 
this bill, in many respects the Democrats are also saying that we need 
to do more to help our schools open safely, and this legislation does 
that. There is significant funding in here that actually helps out--
makes sure that our schools, our administrators, our school boards, our 
students, our parents are assisted in a way that would see that our 
schools open safely and get our children back to where they can be 
learning again at the fastest rate possible.
  Those are, again, some of the priorities that were in this 
legislation. I would add, because I think it is really worthwhile 
noting, that one of the provisions in this bill does take dollars from 
the CARES Act that have not been spent and, frankly, may not be spent 
and repurposes them so that the cost of this particular piece of 
legislation is reduced--something, again, that I think is important. I 
think it is important to the American people and it is important to our 
kids and grandkids as we look at the pricetags we have been talking 
about--the $3 trillion that was done earlier this year, and what we 
might do here--that we do it in a way that is fiscally responsible, 
with consideration and an eye toward ensuring that the taxpayers are 
getting the best return on their dollars and that we are being good 
stewards of the American tax dollars and spending in a way that makes 
sense and doesn't just throw money out there, which, again, is what I 
would argue the $3.5 trillion bill proposed by the House Democrats 
did--a bill which, again, was roundly denounced not just by Republicans 
or conservatives but by entities like the New York Times.
  I want to speak very briefly about what is happening out there--why I 
think this bill and this vote is important and why I believe it 
addresses the real needs, based on the input that we have received from 
the people out there who have been adversely impacted by this.
  The good news is we are hearing continually improving numbers on the 
economy--as recently as last Friday. The economy added 1.4 million jobs 
in August, and the unemployment rate fell again to 8.4 percent.
  Let me just be clear: 8.4 percent is not where we want to be. But it 
is a tremendous improvement from where we were just 4 months ago, near 
the beginning of the pandemic when the unemployment rate was at 14.7 
percent. It is very encouraging to see the economy rebounding so 
quickly.
  The last time America went through a really tough time economically--
during the first few years of the Obama-Biden administration--
unemployment stayed high for years. In fact, during the Obama-Biden 
administration, America went through 2 solid years of unemployment that 
was above 9 percent.
  It has been great to see the economy rebounding at a rapid pace. 
Again, we are still a long way from where we need to be and where we 
want to be; 8.4 percent is not an acceptable unemployment rate. But we 
are definitely on the right track.
  One of the reasons our economy is rebounding quickly is that the 
economy was thriving before COVID came along. Republican tax reform and 
pro-growth policies had driven unemployment below 4 percent and created 
jobs and opportunities for millions of Americans. Having the economy in 
a healthy position pre-COVID laid the groundwork for a strong recovery. 
The policies we put in place during the early years in the pandemic to 
help businesses--particularly small businesses--survive the pandemic 
and keep workers on the payroll have gone a long way toward helping our 
economy rebound.
  Republicans are committed to building on those policies, but as 
everyone knows, Democrats have so far blocked our efforts. Despite 
weeks of negotiating efforts from Republicans, Democrats refused to 
budge from their demands for a giant bill that would spend an 
irresponsible amount of taxpayer money and include a bunch of measures 
with no relation to the coronavirus crisis.

[[Page S5485]]

  This week, Republicans are trying again. We have introduced a 
targeted bill focused on a few key coronavirus priorities--like helping 
the hardest hit small businesses, getting kids and college students 
back to school, and providing additional healthcare resources to fight 
the virus.
  As I mentioned earlier, the Paycheck Protection Program, a program 
Congress passed as part of the CARES Act back in March, has played a 
key role in helping small businesses survive the pandemic
  The legislation we have introduced would authorize a second round of 
forgivable Paycheck Protection Program loans for the hardest hit small 
businesses but would also simplify the loan forgiveness process for 
small businesses with Paycheck Protection Program loans of $150,000 or 
less. Again, I would point out that this program, these changes, share 
bipartisan support.
  The virus has highlighted how much we rely on our Nation's farmers 
and ranchers, and I am pleased our legislation includes an additional 
$20 billion in funding to allow the Department of Agriculture to 
continue to assist ag producers--again, a bipartisan priority.
  Our legislation would also provide for an additional $300 per week--
over and above unemployment benefits--for those who have lost their 
jobs as a result of the pandemic.
  Our bill contains another important measure to help keep our recovery 
going and to protect jobs, and that is liability protection.
  No matter how many precautions schools, hospitals, and businesses 
take, there is no way--no way--for them to completely eliminate all 
risk of employees, students, or customers contracting the virus. But 
that doesn't matter to the army of trial lawyers itching to levy 
lawsuits against even the most careful schools and businesses. I don't 
need to tell anybody that saddling businesses large and small with a 
bunch of frivolous lawsuits could seriously hamstring our economic 
recovery.
  There is no question that schools and businesses should be liable for 
gross negligence or for intentional misconduct. But businesses and 
schools that are taking every reasonable precaution to protect 
employees and students should not have to worry about facing lawsuits 
for virus transmission that they could not have prevented.
  In addition to providing schools with liability protections, our bill 
focuses on providing schools with the resources they need to get kids 
and teachers back in classrooms safely. Our bill would help expand the 
educational options that parents have for their children. And it would 
provide increased funding for childcare during this crisis so that 
parents who are trying to get back to work have a safe place to send 
their kids.
  Finally, our bill would provide more money for coronavirus testing 
and tracing and for the development of the therapies and vaccines we 
need to defeat this virus. And it would focus on building up State and 
national stockpiles of the medical resources needed for public health 
emergencies like the coronavirus.
  I would like to think that Democrats would work with us to get a 
version of our legislation passed this week. While this bill may not 
address every current or future coronavirus need, it would go a long 
way toward helping with our most pressing needs--supporting jobs, 
getting kids and teachers back to school, and ensuring that we have the 
medical resources necessary to fight the virus.
  Unfortunately, it has become very clear that Democrats are more 
interested in keeping the coronavirus as a political issue than in 
actually fighting the virus. If Democrats were serious about 
coronavirus relief, they would be willing to negotiate with Republicans 
to arrive at a bill that both sides could agree to and that could 
actually pass Congress. But they have made it very clear that 
reasonable negotiations are off the table. Instead, they are content to 
see Americans suffer or our economic recovery slow in the hopes that 
they will be able to use the coronavirus as a political issue in the 
November elections.
  It is disappointing, but it is not going to stop Republicans from 
continuing to try to pass coronavirus relief legislation. The American 
people are depending on us, and we are going to do everything we can 
not to let them down.
  I hope that at least some Democrats will decide that they should join 
us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, over the last several months, Texans have 
found new and creative ways to connect with one another while following 
the necessary COVID-19 precautions--things like drive-through birthday 
parties, live-streamed weddings, virtual family reunions, and socially 
distanced barbecues. Life looks a lot different today than it did at 
the start of the year, but despite the challenges we face, we know it 
is unrealistic to hit the pause button until the pandemic subsides.
  While COVID-19 continues to be ever present in our daily lives, folks 
across my State are safely adapting their routines, and that certainly 
has been my objective in the Senate. Over the past few months, I, like 
many of my colleagues--maybe all of my colleagues--have largely 
replaced in-person conversations with virtual ones, through more than 
150 separate calls with groups across the State of Texas. These virtual 
conversations continued over the month of August, along with a number 
of socially distanced events complete with all of the CDC precautions. 
Close communication with my constituents has always been important, and 
the COVID pandemic has made these conversations even more critical.
  During August, I spent time hearing from my constituents, learning 
about their challenges and what they need in the way of additional 
help. I donned my mask--like we all have--to safely meet with city 
leaders, teachers, healthcare heroes, food bank workers, and others 
across the State. I continued to join telephone and video calls with 
Texans whose routines and livelihoods have been disrupted by the 
pandemic.
  It actually was an exhilarating opportunity to get out from behind my 
computer screen and to share information about the coronavirus relief 
bills that we have passed thus far but to learn also, just as 
significantly, where those bills were working and where more needed to 
be done. As the Senate prepares to vote on a targeted relief bill 
tomorrow, these discussions could not have been more timely.
  I also hosted recently four telephone townhalls with constituents 
across Texas. This is amazing technology, as the Presiding Officer 
knows, where you can reach out to a quarter of a million people just in 
an hour-long phone call and give them a chance to express their views 
or ask questions.
  I heard from parents who are concerned about the start of the school 
year; small business owners who are trying to stay afloat, not knowing 
when all of this will end; and a woman in rural Texas who is worried 
that if the U.S. Postal Service goes under, she will not be able to 
receive her medication in the mail.
  This is a difficult time for many of our neighbors, and I was glad to 
share the information about the resources we provided and to answer 
questions about what Texans might be able to expect in the next relief 
bill.
  One of the most commonly asked questions was about unemployment 
insurance. Since March, more than 3.4 million Texans have filed for 
unemployment compensation, and many were able to take advantage of the 
extra $600 a week in Federal benefits provided by the CARES Act. But 
that extra funding expired at the end of July, leaving many Texans who 
were still unable to return to work without the income they need to 
support their families.
  Despite our repeated efforts, Congress has been unable and unwilling 
to come up with an agreement on unemployment benefits before the month 
of August. As a gap-filler, the President issued an Executive order to 
provide an extra $300 a week in benefits, which Texans have received. 
This is good news for those who came to rely on these bolstered 
benefits, but, unfortunately, it doesn't help them with the same level 
of certainty that congressional legislation would provide. The next 
relief bill must provide those who are still without a way to earn a 
paycheck the additional benefits they need to replace their income.
  It is important that we agree to an amount or a formula that doesn't

[[Page S5486]]

hinder our economic recovery or perversely incentivize people not to go 
back to work safely. Over the last month, I have heard from a number of 
employers who had trouble rehiring workers because in some cases their 
workers were earning more with the additional $600 benefit than they 
would from working. Well, it just doesn't make any sense to incentivize 
people not to go back to work when they can safely do so. We need to 
strike a delicate balance that gives them the resources they need to 
support their family without incentivizing them to stay home.
  As businesses have reopened and employees returned to work, Texas has 
made serious progress in getting more folks back on the payroll. The 
State unemployment rate has steadily declined from a peak of 13.5 
percent to 8 percent in July. Obviously, that is still way too high and 
a far cry from the 3.5 percent we saw pre-COVID. If we are going to 
keep working and moving in the right direction, we need to have our 
workers return to work when that becomes an option. Obviously it goes 
without saying that they would be able to safely return.
  Of course, it is not enough to just give people the resources they 
need to support their families; we also need to ensure they have jobs 
to return to. That is why the Paycheck Protection Program has been so 
vital and has saved countless jobs since it was established in March 
through the CARES Act. So far, Congress has invested $670 billion in 
this job-saving program, and I am glad to say that Texas has received 
more than $41 billion across more than 417,000 individual loans. It has 
literally been a lifesaver for many of these small businesses. I hope 
the next relief bill will provide an opportunity for the hardest hit 
businesses to receive a second PPP loan and save even more jobs and 
small businesses in communities not just across my State but across the 
United States.
  Our State also has a vibrant arts and culture scene, and some of the 
hardest hit businesses are live-event venues. These were actually some 
of the first to close when the pandemic hit, and they will be the last 
to reopen. Unlike restaurants or retailers, which were able to switch 
to curbside or pickup delivery, event venues don't offer a service that 
can be tailored to meet the CDC guidelines.
  The experience of a concert at the Lowbrow Palace in El Paso or a 
trip to hear the symphony at the Meyerson in Dallas isn't the same 
through a computer screen. That leaves no opportunity for live venue 
operators, promoters, producers, and talent representatives to organize 
events and no chance for security guards, ticket takers, bartenders, or 
cleanup crews to earn a paycheck.
  These venues are not only a special part of our culture and our 
communities, they are also major employers and fuel our economic 
engine. Providing relief for these venues is an important way to 
protect our local economies, jobs, and beloved cultural institutions. 
That is why I introduced the Save our Stages Act with Senator 
Klobuchar, our colleague from Minnesota. It would establish a $10 
billion grant program to give independent venues and their employees 
the funding they need to survive this pandemic. We are not talking 
about huge, publicly traded, multinational corporations here. In order 
to be eligible, recipients must have fewer than 500 employees and can't 
be publicly traded. They can use the money to cover payroll and 
benefits, as well as rent, utilities, and other expenses to stay 
afloat. As the Senate continues to work on our next coronavirus relief 
bill, I hope the Save Our Stages provision will be included.
  Our economy in Texas, like the rest of the country, is moving in a 
more positive direction. We want to keep it this way. We need to do 
everything we can to ensure that once the pandemic is contained, our 
cultural institutions, our businesses, and our jobs that we rely on 
will be ready to bounce back. I appreciate the countless Texans who 
shared with me their feedback and ideas on how Congress can do more to 
support our State and our country through this crisis. I am going to do 
my part to keep fighting to enact these ideas into law and give Texans 
the support they deserve.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the Ludwig nomination?
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), 
the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont 
(Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 5, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 159 Ex.]

                                YEAS--91

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Braun
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Loeffler
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--5

     Hirono
     Markey
     Schatz
     Warren
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Harris
     Klobuchar
     Sanders
     Stabenow
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the 
President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________