[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 178 (Monday, October 19, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6308-S6315]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Coronavirus
Madam President, in addition to considering Judge Barrett's
nomination this week, the Senate will once again be taking up
coronavirus relief legislation.
We tried this in September, of course, but Senate Democrats
filibustered our relief bill. But we are going to try again because we
believe there are priorities that need to be met--priorities that
everyone should be able to agree on. They are things like helping the
hardest hit small businesses, getting schools the resources they need
to safely reopen and safely operate, and providing additional
healthcare resources to fight the virus.
Democrats, of course, have spent a lot of time talking about how we
need to pass additional coronavirus relief, but despite being given
every opportunity to come forward with a realistic compromise bill,
they have continued to insist on bloated legislation that would not
only spend taxpayer dollars on noncoronavirus-related measures but
would not have a chance of becoming law.
It is very difficult for me to understand Democrats' thinking--that
is, if they really want to get more COVID relief to Americans and don't
just want to use this as a political issue.
I realize that Democrats would like to pass exactly the bill they
want, but their liberal wish list simply wouldn't make it through
Congress. Democrats could, however, get something through Congress.
Republicans have made it clear from the beginning that we are willing
to compromise with Democrats if they will just come to the table with a
reasonable offer, but Democrats have so far decided that they would
rather see Americans get no relief--zero relief--than compromise with
Republicans. That is really difficult to understand, unless, as I said,
Democrats aren't really interested in getting more COVID relief to
Americans.
The Democrats' position makes a lot more sense if they are just
trying to exploit this crisis for political gain.
But Republicans are going to try again this week. The bill that we
are bringing up would address some of the Nation's most important
coronavirus priorities--priorities, I would add, that are bipartisan
priorities. I hope that some Democrats will join us to get additional
relief to the American people.
The Democrat leadership may be holding coronavirus relief hostage,
but rank-and-file Democrats don't have to. They don't have to have
their all-or-nothing wish list. They can come to a reasonable
compromise and give much needed resources to the American people.
Instead, what they are saying is zero relief--no relief--is better than
compromising with Republicans. Unfortunately, that is an unfortunate
position for them to be in and a very unfortunate position for the
American people.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise this afternoon in support of the
amendment that Senator Rubio and I have introduced to extend and
strengthen the Paycheck Protection Program. It would allow our Nation's
hardest hit small businesses to get a second forgivable PPP loan that
they so desperately need. Our amendment would make available $258
billion for new PPP forgivable loans.
Madam President, as I know you are aware from your experience in West
Virginia, the Paycheck Protection Program has been hugely successful.
In the State of Maine, three out of four of our small businesses have
received forgivable loans totaling $2.9 billion. To put that in
context, that is equal to approximately half of the entire State
budget. Most important of all, those loans have helped to sustain the
jobs of more than 250,000 Mainers.
Nationwide, the PPP has been a critical lifeline for more than 5
million small employers, helping to sustain upward of 50 million
American jobs.
As the Washington Post wrote in June following a dramatically better
than expected jobs report: ``Give some credit to the government relief
efforts, especially the Paycheck Protection Program, for bringing back
jobs.''
This program has provided one-time loans sufficient to support 8
weeks of payroll plus a limited amount to help cover certain overhead
expenses, which were completely forgivable as long as borrowers
retained and paid their employees. Our purpose was to help small
businesses save jobs and pay their workers, keeping that all-important
employer-employee relationship intact so that, when businesses could
reopen and Americans could go back to work, it could happen quickly
when the pandemic subsided.
When Chairman Rubio and I, together with Senators Ben Cardin and
Jeanne Shaheen, put the PPP together at the onset of the national
emergency, none of us could have envisioned that the pandemic would be
so persistent, that here in October it would still be forcing shutdowns
and mitigation measures that many months later.
Yet, the cruel fact is that the virus is still spreading, and many of
the steps taken to fight it, while necessary to protect public health,
threaten catastrophic damage to many small businesses and their
employees who have been sustained by the PPP loan funds, but they are
still unable to return to normal operations.
According to the NFIB, our Nation's largest advocacy group for small
business, 84 percent of its small business members exhausted their PPP
loan funds by mid-August. Many fear that they will have to lay off
their employees--the last thing they want to do--or even cease
operations altogether if more support is not forthcoming soon.
In a key letter in support of our amendment circulated today, the
NFIB also said that its most recent survey shows that 49 percent of its
members anticipate needing some sort of additional financial support in
the next 12 months.
Let me give you an example. I recently learned of a T-shirt printing
shop in Maine that received a PPP loan. It provided a lifeline to get
this business through the past several months, but with many youth
sports leagues and school activities still suspended, this business and
its employees need more help to sustain them until springtime, when
they hope to once again be printing T-shirts for little league teams
and other sporting events.
The impact of the pandemic has been critically acute for our hotels,
our restaurants, our B&Bs, and our seasonal businesses that rely on a
strong summer to pay their bills throughout the year. A State like
mine, which is so dependent on tourism, has been particularly hard-hit
since many of our tourism-based businesses lost the first part of the
summer.
A recent survey by the American Hotel and Lodging Association showed
that, if we do not act and act soon to provide additional assistance,
74 percent of our Nation's hotels will be forced to lay off more
workers, and two-thirds could even be forced to close their doors
entirely.
The same is true in my State of Maine. An article published last
month in the Bangor Daily News reports that the State could stand to
lose two-thirds of hotels and direct lodging jobs if Congress doesn't
approve more aid soon.
Our restaurants are also struggling. While tourists finally started
to return to Maine in August, this summer season has understandably
been one of the slowest on record for my State. With the warm weather
gone and outdoor dining no longer feasible, many of our restaurants can
accommodate only about half as many customers as they used to be able
to accommodate and
[[Page S6309]]
still comply with the CDC guidelines. They fear that they may not be
able to make it through the winter without further help.
A few days ago, I received an email from a couple who owns an award-
winning restaurant in Portland, ME. This couple told me that they would
have closed without the PPP loan but that they haven't taken a paycheck
since March and simply cannot make it through the winter without a
second round.
They put it as follows:
[We] love that PPP enabled us to keep in contact with our
staff, even when they were not able to work in the beginning
[due to the State restrictions]. Furthermore, it helped us to
be able to hire them back so that we could reopen
immediately. [But] at this point, we are staying open only to
support our employees. The new PPP would give us the needed
funds to limp through winter, while still keeping our staff
employed and our customers safe.
I am sure that many other Members of the Senate are seeing the same
in their States, and that is why it is so important that we renew once
again this very successful program.
As you know, we went through the first $359 billion in just 13 days.
That is what the demand was like. Then we passed additional legislation
to replenish the program with $320 billion, but we only extended the
date to August 8 for applicants for the program. We need to reopen it
up to those who didn't apply the first time and now find themselves in
need and to allow the hardest hit businesses to receive a second PPP
loan.
We also need to do this to help our nonprofits that are also
struggling to survive, and that is why we simply must put aside any
partisan politics. This program was the product of bipartisan
negotiations that went on day after day, night after night, and we came
together.
Let me describe the key points in this proposal. First, the amendment
would allow those small employers that have seen their revenues decline
by 35 percent or more in the first, second, or third quarter of this
year compared to the same quarter last year to receive an additional
Paycheck Protection Program loan.
Second, because we want to target this additional assistance to the
businesses that need it most, we generally limit eligibility to
entities that have 300 or fewer employees, rather than 500.
Third, we expand the list of forgivable PPP expenses in some very
commonsense ways. We allow forgiveness for the supplier costs and
investments in facility modifications and personal protective equipment
for the business to operate safely for its employees and its customers.
Examples would be those plexiglass guards--the shields we are seeing
everywhere--masks for employees, of course, and patio insulations and
related outdoor furnishings. This is especially important to
restaurants facing dining restrictions and those struggling to get the
high-quality food supply needed to operate because they have fallen
behind in their bills.
Fourth, we extend PPP to small 501(c)(6) organizations that are not
lobbying organizations and that have 150 or fewer employees, such as
local chambers of commerce, economic development organizations, and
tourism offices. They are doing a great job representing their members
through this crisis.
Fifth, we would allow forgivable loan funds to be spent through
December 31 and clarify that borrowers can apply for loan forgiveness
at the time of their choosing after 8 weeks from the loan origination.
Sixth, we greatly simplify the loan forgiveness process for smaller
borrowers. Those who make a good-faith effort to comply with the
program's requirements would be able to use a one-page, simplified loan
forgiveness form if they borrowed no more than $150,000. We also make
the loan forgiveness process less complex for borrowers of loans
between $150,000 and $2 million.
Seventh, we provide the SBA with $50 million in additional audit
funding to ensure that it has the resources necessary to protect the
program against fraud. Regrettably, there are always going to be those
who attempt to exploit a program, and that is why we want to beef up
the audit capacity.
Finally, our amendment includes a series of set-asides to ensure that
smaller borrowers and underserved communities get the help they need.
These set-asides include money for borrowers with 10 or fewer
employees; $10 billion for community financial institutions, such as
small community banks and credit unions; and $10 million for the
Minority Business Development Agency. In addition, the amendment
directs the SBA to issue guidance addressing barriers to accessing
capital for minority, underserved, veteran, and women-owned businesses.
The Paycheck Protection Program is the result of a bipartisan
commitment to support our small businesses, our nonprofits, and their
employees during this pandemic. It has been a tremendous success, but
many small businesses and nonprofits simply require more help now in
order to survive, given the length and persistence of this pandemic.
This amendment provides that help. It is supported by the National
Federation of Independent Business, the National Restaurant
Association, the American Hotel and Lodging Association, the
International Franchise Association, and HospitalityMaine
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record the letters of support for our amendment at the conclusion of my
remarks.
Madam President, I urge our colleagues to support this amendment, to
do so now, even if you disagree on other issues that may be taken up.
Surely, we can come together and extend this bipartisan, highly
successful program to secure the jobs of small businesses and also to
ensure that these small businesses stay afloat. We want to make sure
that small businesses, which employed the majority of people in this
country, are able to keep their employees employed.
We can continue to work to find common ground--and I am involved in
those efforts--on other policies to help support the health and safety
of Americans and the safe, responsible opening of our communities. We
need more resources for tests and vaccine development; for aid to
municipalities and schools; for assistance to our lobstermen, our
fishermen, our farmers, our loggers, and to our aviation and motor
coach industries. We need more assistance for childcare and for the
U.S. Postal Service.
Now is the time to move forward on this bill, on this proposal, to
extend and strengthen the PPP before we lose more small businesses,
before their employees are forced out of their jobs. So let's act
today. It is past time to put aside partisan bickering to provide this
much needed relief for the American people.
I urge all of our colleagues to join us in support of this important
action to renew and strengthen the PPP program
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Restaurant Association,
October 20, 2020.
Hon. Marco Rubio,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Susan Collins,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Collins and Senator Rubio: The National
Restaurant Association writes to you in support of the
recently-filed amendment, ``Continuing the Paycheck
Protection Program,'' scheduled for a vote today.
As you know all too well, the restaurant industry has been
uniquely hard-hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. Our industry has
lost more jobs and more revenue than any other. Over the past
7 months, nearly one in six restaurants (representing roughly
100,000 establishments) have closed, and more than 2 million
restaurant employees are still without a job today as a
result of furloughs and closures. The restaurant industry is
on track to lose a staggering $240 billion in revenue by the
end of this year.
Since March, the National Restaurant Association has called
for a comprehensive, restaurant-specific response from
Congress to assist the nation's second-largest private-sector
employer. We continue to call for this, but a comprehensive
agreement seems unlikely before the elections, and
restaurants are in danger of being left behind.
If Congress cannot approve comprehensive support this year,
a second round of funding for the Paycheck Protection Program
(PPP) will at least provide transitional support for
restaurants as we approach the winter months. We appreciate
your leadership in developing the PPP, in providing more
flexibility in its use, and for your calls to ensure that
Congress does not leave Washington without providing
something for the short-term survival of restaurants.
[[Page S6310]]
On behalf of our membership, our state restaurant
association partners, and our workforce, we urge the Congress
to at a minimum pass a second round of PPP for implementation
this year.
Sincerely,
Sean Kennedy,
Executive Vice President, Public Affairs.
____
NFIB,
October 20, 2020.
Dear Senator: On behalf of NFIB, the nation's leading small
business advocacy organization. I write in strong support of
the Continuing the Paycheck Protection Program Act offered by
Senators Marco Rubio and Susan Collins. This amendment would
provide necessary and targeted financial assistance to small
businesses for the purposes of keeping workers employed and
keeping their doors open during the ongoing public health
crisis. A vote to advance the Continuing the Paycheck
Protection Program Act amendment will be considered an NFIB
Key Vote for the 116th Congress.
The Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) has been a vital
financial assistance tool to over 5 million small businesses,
helping these businesses maintain employees and assisting
with expenses such as rent, utilities, and mortgage interest.
Unfortunately. the negative economic consequences of COVID-19
on small businesses have lasted longer than Congress
anticipated when the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security (CARES) Act was enacted in late March.
The amendment provides more than $250 billion in funds to
allow for second PPP loans for small businesses if they
demonstrate 35% quarterly revenue loss this year: NFIB
supports allowing a small business to receive a second PPP
loan. The opportunity for second PPP loans would
significantly help small businesses who continue to be
negatively impacted by economic disruptions of COVID-19.
Additionally. the amendment expands the definition of PPP
expenses to include certain operational expenditures,
property damage costs, certain supplier costs, and worker
protection expenditures, as well as allows small business
borrowers to select a flexible covered period to utilize
their PPP loan funds. NFIB supports expanding eligible
expenses to help small businesses cover essential reopening
and operational expenses and providing flexibility regarding
timing of PPP expenditures.
The amendment also simplifies the PPP loan forgiveness
process, allowing small businesses who received a loan of
$150,000 or less to attest to a good faith effort to comply
with PPP loan requirements and obtain forgiveness. NFIB
supports providing a more efficient way to demonstrate
compliance and receive forgiveness as the vast majority of
small business owners have exhausted their PPP funds and are
preparing to apply for forgiveness.
Economic conditions are putting significant stress on the
financial health of many small business owners struggling to
balance lower sales with fixed expenses, and longer-term
sustainability. More than one-in-five (21%) small business
owners report that they will have to close their doors if
current economic conditions do not improve over the next six
months. With the realization that lower than average sales
are likely for months to come, many small business owners
urgently need additional financial assistance. According to
NFIB's most recent survey, 49% of small business owners who
received PPP loan and/or an Economic Injury Disaster Loan
(EIDL) anticipate needing additional financial support in the
next 12 months.
There is bipartisan agreement to provide a targeted second
round of PPP loans to small businesses. NFIB urges Congress
to set aside disagreements on other policies and pass
legislation to help small business owners immediately.
NFIB strongly supports the Continuing the Paycheck
Protection Program Act amendment and a vote to advance the
legislation will be considered an NFIB Key Vote for the 116th
Congress.
Sincerely,
Kevin Kuhlman,
Vice President, Federal Government
Relations, NFIB.
____
Hospitality Maine.
Senator Susan Collins,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Collins: I am writing this letter in support
of another round of PPP. My understanding is that there are
those that feel funding restaurants through the RESTAURANTS
Act should be the only hospitality funding provided in a
Federal stimulus bill. As an association that represents both
small lodging and restaurant businesses in the State of
Maine, I can assure you that both have been hit equally as
hard. In the State of Maine, one could argue that with the
very stringent reopening guidelines and embargoes on certain
states to come here, that our small lodging properties may
have been hit harder. In a state where the average size
lodging business is 14 rooms, we are not talking big
business. We are speaking of mom and pop inns and bed and
breakfasts that will have a difficult time surviving the
winter.
We are not opposed to the RESTAURANTS Act, quite the
contrary, we support it wholeheartedly, along with a
reasonable form of assistance to the many other business
sectors both inside and outside of the hospitality space. In
Maine there are windjammers, attractions, museums, music
venues and yes small inns and hotels that could also use some
help. Let's make sure we don't leave them behind.
Sincerely,
Greg Dugal,
Director of Government Affairs.
____
American Hotel & Lodging
Association,
October 20, 2020.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Chuck Schumer,
Democratic Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Leader McConnell and Leader Schumer: On behalf of the
American Hotel & Lodging Association (AHLA), the sole
national association representing all segments of the U.S.
lodging industry, including iconic global brands, hotel
owners and franchisees, lodging real estate investment trusts
(REITs), hotel management companies, independent properties,
bed and breakfasts, state hotel associations, and industry
suppliers, I write in strong support of the Continuing the
Paycheck Protection Program Act (S. 4773) introduced by
Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Marco Rubio (R-FL). This
important legislation would enable hotels and other small
businesses access to a second draw of the historic and
bipartisan Paycheck Protection Program, giving them a
financial lifeline to keep their employees on the payroll and
doors open.
The hotel industry continues to be decimated by the COVID-
19 pandemic. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS), the leisure and hospitality space has lost 4.1 million
jobs since February and the accommodations sector has an
unemployment rate of 34.5% compared to the national average
of 8.4%. The human toll on our employees and our workforce is
devastating. The economic impact to our industry is equally
as dramatic, estimated to be nine times greater than the
September 11th terrorist attacks. According to Oxford
Economics. the industry is expected to lose more than fifty
percent of its total revenue in 2020.
In a recent survey of hotel employers. AHLA found that 74%
of hoteliers reported they would be forced into further
layoffs without additional government support, such a second
PPP draw. Nearly half of hotel owners reported that they are
in danger of foreclosure due to the pandemic. The hotel
industry desperately needs additional relief to survive this
crisis.
On behalf of the more than 33,000 small business hotels and
the millions of associates they employ, I urge you to support
this legislation and to allow the many thousands of hotel
owners across the country access to this program. Without
immediate relief from Congress, hotel businesses and the jobs
they provide will be lost permanently. Thank you for your
consideration of this critical matter.
Sincerely,
Brian Crawford,
Executive Vice President, Government Affairs.
Ms. COLLINS. I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, first, I would like to commend my
colleague, the Senator from Maine, for her absolute, unquestioned
leadership in this issue of paycheck protection. She knows, in Maine,
as I do in Wyoming, the importance of small businesses to our
communities, to our Main Streets, to the vitality of our economies, and
she has led the fight from the beginning of coronavirus to make sure
our businesses would remain viable; that they would have opportunities
to keep people on the payroll; that they can continue to contribute to
their communities.
She was the one who brought up this idea in the first place,
shepherded it all the way through Congress as part of the CARES Act,
and continues in that leadership role today.
I come here today on the floor to first commend my colleague from
Maine and also to talk about the ongoing fight against coronavirus and
the plan forward, guided by data and doctors, to put the disease behind
us and let all of these small businesses that the Senator from Maine
has been working to allow to continue to strive and to thrive.
Those in the fight against the virus--and I talk to you as a doctor
now--continue to hold our respect and our admiration. They are doing
remarkable work in community hospitals and clinics all around the
country. And across the country, as a result of the PPP program, our
Main Streets are getting a little busier; our economy is gaining
strength; kids are going back to school; and even some football is
being played.
[[Page S6311]]
Most importantly, we are learning more about this disease and how we
can successfully treat COVID-19. What doctors and clinicians and
researchers and scientists have been able to accomplish in such a
relatively short period of time is nothing short of remarkable. These
men and women are fighting a battle every day in the labs and the
hospitals around the world; they are racing against time; and they are
saving lives. They are our heroes today at work all across our Nation.
An effective vaccine will allow everyone to get back to work and to
school. It will also be the protection our most vulnerable Americans
desperately need: our seniors, patients with preexisting conditions,
anyone confined to a nursing home.
Congress has already directed $10 billion for vaccine development. I,
for one, and other Members of the Republican conference believe that we
should be doing more. A month ago, the Senate tried to begin debate on
our plan to finish the fight against coronavirus. The bill we brought
to the floor of the Senate would get people back to work safely, would
get kids back to school safely, and would put the disease behind us.
Instead, Democrats, on this very floor--on this very floor--blocked the
focused, targeted bill.
Now, this week, Democrats once again are blocking another vote on
relief for coronavirus--relief that is needed all around the country;
relief that I hear about in Wyoming and, Madam President, you do in
West Virginia; relief that our constituents talked to us about as we
travel our States.
So why are the Democrats blocking this legislation? Well, it must be
something significant to make them block giving aid to the American
people when the people need it most urgently. Well, maybe this is why:
Maybe the Republican bill doesn't include millions of dollars in tax
breaks for rich people in New York and California. The Democratic
House-passed bill includes those things. Now, the Republican bill
doesn't give taxpayer money to people who are in the country illegally,
but the Democratic House-passed bill does do that.
The Republican bill doesn't bail out States that were mismanaged way
before anyone had ever heard of the coronavirus. Well, the Democratic
House-passed bill does that as well.
The Republican bill doesn't include money for marijuana banking, but
the House-passed bill does all of these things.
It is hard to believe these are the reasons the Democrats are
preventing coronavirus relief from reaching the President's desk, but
just look at the differences in the priorities.
The Democrats are refusing money for Americans until Congress funds
their laundry list of unrelated liberal items for their favored liberal
special interest groups. Now, I hope the real reason this coronavirus
relief bill is being blocked isn't because of an upcoming election. I
mean, I sincerely hope that Americans aren't being used to score
political points or to damage political opponents. Surely, that can't
be the reason. It would be unthinkable.
The Speaker and Senator Schumer need to set aside all of their
political demands and focus on the people in need. They need to set
aside the wasteful spending that is unrelated to this battle in order
to save lives and set aside their opposition to more money for a
lifesaving vaccine. Now is the time to make an agreement that would
actually benefit Americans today. There is an urgency. We need to act,
and we should act now.
To paraphrase Winston Churchill, this virus can do its worst, but we
will do our best.
We are doing our best. We are doing our best to get through this
together, to get a safe and effective vaccine, and to get our economy
and lives back on track. It is time to pass targeted relief. This is
the path forward for America.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Blackburn). The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, once again, the Republican leadership is
circumventing and abusing the rules of the U.S. Senate. In this
Congress, this has happened over and over and over again--denying
debate on the Senate floor, where we have the opportunity to offer
amendments and have a debate, which the Senate is very famous
historically for engaging in. I can give you numerous examples.
There is Justice in Policing. After all of the problems that we have
seen around our country, there has been no opportunity on the floor of
the Senate to consider legislation, to offer amendments, and have
debate.
As for the environmental challenges that our Nation and world face,
there has been no debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
As for gun safety, we have heard from students and communities of all
of the tragedies that have occurred during this Congress, but there has
been no debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate, where we would have an
opportunity to offer amendments and have a full debate.
As for immigration reform, it is something that has been talked about
a great deal, but there has been no real action taken on the floor of
the U.S. Senate during this Congress.
With election reform, once again, there has been no debate on the
floor of the U.S. Senate and no opportunity to offer amendments.
We are not doing what the American people expect us to do, and I can
name many, many, many more examples. At last count, somewhere around
400 bills have come over to us from the House of Representatives--many
bipartisan--that have not been considered by the U.S. Senate.
Then, of course, the Republican leadership changes the rules when it
suits itself in order to do what it wants to do, particularly with
judicial confirmations. We are seeing that right now in the attempt to
fill Justice Ginsburg's vacancy. They are changing the rules. The rules
that apply to the Democrats don't apply to the Republicans. They do
whatever they want to do. That is not what we should be doing. Now we
see the Republican leadership circumventing and abusing the rules of
the U.S. Senate as it relates to our responsibility with COVID-19.
Everyone knows, including the Republican leader, that we are not
going to enact the bill that is currently before the Senate without the
amendments being offered by the majority leader. Why are we taking up
these issues? There is one simple answer: political cover votes. That
is the only reason for it, but there is a consequence to this. It makes
it more difficult for us to get relief to those who need it. Whether it
be small businesses or whether it be our schools or whether it be our
State and local governments or whether it be those who are unemployed
or whether it be American families, it makes it more difficult because,
as we are taking up these issues, Secretary Mnuchin, on behalf of the
Trump administration, and Speaker Pelosi are negotiating, from which we
hope there will be a comprehensive package to deal with COVID-19.
I must tell you that Secretary Mnuchin has a very difficult
challenge. First, he has to represent the President of the United
States, who changes his mind every few minutes on whether he wants a
package or doesn't want a package, which makes it very difficult for
Secretary Mnuchin to negotiate with Speaker Pelosi. Then he has to deal
with the Republicans in the U.S. Senate. We will be voting tomorrow, I
understand, on a proposal from the Republicans that will be less than
one-third of the amount of money that President Trump has authorized in
negotiations, pulling us further apart and making it more difficult for
us to reach an agreement to help the people of this country.
Since mid-May and again several months ago, the House did its work.
It sent over to us a comprehensive bill to deal with the next phase of
COVID-19. There have been no efforts--none whatsoever--by the
Republican leader to bring that legislation to the floor of the U.S.
Senate so that we can have an open and full debate with amendments as
to what to do. That bill has been here since mid-May, and we can't find
the time to have that type of debate. So what is Leader McConnell
suggesting? You will have to follow this
[[Page S6312]]
because I know, if it were not so serious, the public would find it
somewhat amusing.
First, he wants to withdraw the amendment that was championed by the
Republicans that deals with preexisting conditions. I must tell you
that we all on our side of the aisle said that this was just another
political cover vote. Now Leader McConnell is making that prediction
very clear by withdrawing it and offering it again later as an effort
to block the Democrats from being able to offer a clean vote on an
amendment. We are going to make it a clean vote anyway, but that is his
motivation. He is withdrawing the amendment that deals with preexisting
conditions so that it will no longer be a part of the bill.
Then he is going to offer an amendment to the underlying message, S.
178, which is legislation that deals with sanctions against China. You
heard me right. This is a message on legislation that deals with
sanctions against China. It already includes the underlying amendment
that Leader McConnell is offering--the amendment that we are voting on
in a few minutes. Then he is going to file a motion to table, which
means he will want to kill the amendment. Then he is going to vote
against his own motion. I hope you all can follow that.
Here is the irony or hypocrisy of all of this: If the motion to table
carries, the provisions that are in the amendment are still in the
underlying bill. In other words, it has no effect whatsoever because it
is already in the bill. So this is a vote for one purpose only--to give
political cover. The American people understand that, and they
understand that this is strictly about dealing with a partisan,
political type of trickery, and we should have no part of that.
Let's talk about the process that we have used. There will be no
chance in this legislation of helping businesses with the passage of a
comprehensive bill under the approach taken by the Republican leader.
Now, there is a model we could follow. It has worked before, and it can
work again. Look at the CARES Act. We had partisan differences, and we
bridged those partisan differences. We worked together and put the
American people's interests first. As a result, we passed the CARES Act
with a proud 97-to-0 vote in the U.S. Senate and provided desperately
needed help in dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic itself, in dealing
with the health professionals and the public health people, and for
testing and for vaccine development. We provided money for State and
local governments, and we provided money for businesses and taxpayers.
We also dealt with unemployment insurance. We did all of that.
When we passed that bill in March, we thought this pandemic would be
behind us by now and that we wouldn't still be in the first wave and be
increasing the numbers of people infected with COVID-19. We need more
help, not less help, so we need a second round.
I am frustrated in regard to the provisions affecting small business.
I say that because Senator Rubio, the Republican chair of the Committee
on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, and I, as ranking Democrat of
that committee, were proud to work together and put the interest of our
country first and develop the tools that were included in the CARES
Act, which included, yes, the Paycheck Protection Program, the PPP. It
also included EIDL loans and grants.
It also included loan forgiveness in an effort to help small
businesses. It was truly a bipartisan working effort. We were, I think,
the first of the different provisions that were included in the CARES
Act that were basically worked out in a bipartisan manner. But that is
not the process the majority leader is following today. The proposal he
is making is not a bipartisan proposal that has been worked on by
Senator Rubio and me. We haven't come together. We could easily resolve
our differences; I have no doubt about it. If we get the parameters on
how much money we have, and give us a few minutes to negotiate, we will
come to an agreement, as we have done in the past. I have every
confidence in the world that we will do it. But this process doesn't
further that aim--a process that cannot lead to help for our small
businesses.
Let's talk about what our small businesses need.
First, they need comprehensive help. Similar to what we did in the
CARES Act, they need a second major influx of help. They need help for
State and local government. Why? Because the stability of the services
provided by State and local government is critically important for the
climate in which small businesses need to operate to get back to some
degree of normalcy.
They need help for our schools because our schools need to reopen as
fully as they can safely, whether it is virtual or in classroom or
hybrid, and they don't have the resources to do it. Our economy will
not get back on track unless parents are confident about the
educational opportunities of their children and can fully participate
in our economy knowing their children are safe. Small businesses need
that type of support.
They need help for the people who are unemployed. That $600 a week
went directly to helping small businesses by providing customers that
use small businesses.
We have 12 million Americans who are uninsured today. We didn't
anticipate that in March when we passed the CARES Act, that we would
still have those numbers.
We need a comprehensive approach, and, yes, we need to get COVID-19
under control. We need confidence among Americans that it is OK to go
out and shop and use services and participate fully in our economy. But
until they are confident they can do that safely, the economy will not
rebound the way it needs to. So small businesses need a comprehensive
approach.
Food services are still doing very poorly, and now we are entering
into the cold months, when it is more difficult to eat outdoors. It
means restaurants are going to need more help, not less.
The hospitality industry is still very much impacted by COVID-19. We
know that there are no large gatherings or events. The travel and
tourism industry has taken a hit. I saw that during COVID-19, during
the summer months, down on the beaches when the normal crowds were not
there. We will see it again this winter in the western part of our
State, as we see fewer people are traveling to Deep Creek Lake.
We all recognize that we need to give attention to these types of
conditions to get consumers back, that this economy is OK, to help
small business.
Now, the House has acted not once but twice, and Senator McConnell
instead brings up a bill one-third the offer the President--less than
one-third of the offer the President has already put on the table and
probably about a quarter--less than a quarter of what the Democrats
have passed in their most recent bill.
So Senator McConnell is going to first file an amendment that would
provide a second round of the Paycheck Protection Program. I agree we
should have a second round of the Paycheck Protection Program. We need
a second round--that is nothing new. We have had hearings in our
committee where Secretary Mnuchin acknowledged that, the Democrats
acknowledged it, and the Republicans acknowledged it.
I filed legislation in June with Senator Shaheen on a second round of
PPP--in June. It is now October, and we haven't brought that bill to
the floor so we could reconcile differences if we were going to bring
it up on its own, if it is not going to be part of a comprehensive
package. But what Leader McConnell is saying is we are going to bring
it up on our own, but it doesn't take into consideration the lessons we
learned from the Paycheck Protection Program, the first round.
What did we learn? We learned that underbanked, underserved
communities were not treated fairly; that they didn't have the
relationship with the banks that allow them to get the money in a
timely way, get as large of a loan as the more established small
businesses were able to get; that the lenders were more likely to do
business with those who had existing relations, with the larger loans;
and that we needed to empower the mission lenders who go into
underserved communities and we needed to concentrate on the smaller and
the smallest of the small businesses. If you look at what is being
brought forward today, the legislation does not adequately provide for
the underserved community.
[[Page S6313]]
We also learned from the first round of help in the CARES Act about
the importance of the Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program, the EIDL
Program. Now, you see, the EIDL Program provides loans, and those loans
are critically important because that is working capital. That is not
just payroll; it is working capital. Small businesses need long-term,
low-interest EIDL loans that are able to be paid over a long period of
time and to get a break in the first year or two where they don't even
have to make payments.
They needed the EIDL loans, but we also created an EIDL grant
program. Now, I must tell you something. Many small businesses--
particularly the smaller of the small businesses--are reluctant to take
out any more loans. They don't know how they are going to pay them off.
They need grants. They need grants. We provided originally $10 billion
and then another $10 billion. We provided $20 billion, but that is
gone. We need to replenish that money for the grant program. The
amendment the leader is bringing up doesn't provide any help for that
grant program.
In addition, we need to think more strategically about grants under
the EIDL Program, and there is a way of doing that. I will come back to
that in a minute. It is not in the leader's amendment.
We need to do something about the arbitrary cap that the
administration placed on the EIDL loans. They placed a $150,000 cap.
The law says $2 million. They compromised the effectiveness of this.
Now, here is the good news. We have bipartisan support for these
changes. Senator Rosen and Senator Cornyn have filed legislation that
would allow us to move forward with the EIDL Program, but it is not in
the amendment being offered by the majority leader.
There are so many other programs in the small business field that are
important. There is the loan forgiveness program--Senator Coons worked
on that--that forgives loans for 6 months under the 504 and the 7(a)
programs. We can reduce the cost of small business loans. We can
approve microloans. I could mention so many other areas where we could
provide help.
We know we have specific industries that need special attention, such
as the restaurant industry, such as local newspapers, such as
nonprofits that weren't covered under the first PPP program. Those are
not covered under Leader McConnell's amendment.
Here is the tragedy: There is no opportunity under this process for
us to correct errors in Senator McConnell's amendment. No chance to
amend. Never had a chance to amend. Never went through the committee.
And, by the way, is on a bill unrelated to this relief and has no
chance of passage.
That is not what we should be doing. We have other options. We could
bring the revised House Heroes bill to the floor of the U.S. Senate. It
is a comprehensive approach. It has been compromised. We could open it
to amendment. We could debate it and pass it and provide comprehensive
relief. It includes all of the small business provisions that I
mentioned earlier. They are included in the House-passed bill. They
passed a couple weeks ago.
If Leader McConnell is just determined to bring a small business bill
to the floor, then I have filed such legislation today with many of my
colleagues--a bill that works with issues of concern to small
businesses, which is very much bipartisan. It includes not only the
second round of PPP but also includes important help for the
underbanked communities and mission lenders. It provides real help for
the smaller of the small businesses. It increases the EIDL Program--
similar to the Rosen-Cornyn bill but also adds a new opportunity for
grants under the EIDL Program. It strengthens programs in areas for the
hospitality industry, for our local newspapers, for our nonprofits. It
provides help in many of the small business existing programs, such as
the loan forgiveness program. The cost of small business loans are
reduced. Microloans are improved.
We could bring up that legislation, and then we have a bill that
really deals with small business that can be debated, amended. We can
have amendments and vote on it. But at least we have a comprehensive
bill that has a chance of being enacted. Why do I say it has a chance
of being enacted? Because the House has already acted on this. It is
included in their package. We don't have to try to conference this.
Look, we should have passed this months ago, but we all know
elections are coming up in 2 weeks. We have to act if we are going to
act. Here is a bill we can act on now and get done because we know the
House has already voted on a similar package.
We know small businesses need help. They are in desperate need of
help. Our economy needs help. Americans need the Senate to stop playing
procedural political games and to be serious about taking up
legislation that can deal with their needs.
I am ready at any time to sit down with my Republican colleagues and
work out such legislation, but the way the majority leader is going
about this is just wrong, and it should not be supported by any of us.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, I don't know of any topic that is more
supported around here than the helping of small businesses. I think the
biggest evidence of that is that I would venture to guess almost every
Member of this body has at some point gone back home and bragged about
what we were able to achieve together in a bipartisan way.
And to remind everybody, this program has never existed before. It
was put together in a bipartisan way with the ranking member, the
Senator from Maryland you just heard from. We worked on it--I think it
was 6 or 7 days. And it wasn't a perfect program. Like anything new,
this big, that fast, it had some hiccups, and we worked in a bipartisan
way with the administration to implement it.
I will say this without any reservation: It was by far the single
most effective piece of that CARES package, and there isn't a day that
goes by when I am back in Florida or, frankly, anywhere in the country
that I don't hear about it. I don't know anyone who hasn't. One of the
most common themes when we go places is a small business owner who says
PPP was a lifesaver, and then they ask: Is there more on the way,
because we are still struggling?
That it is a lifesaver is without question. I mean, I look at
Florida. Over 430,000 of these PPP loans--which, really, in most cases
are going to end up being grants--were made. That is $32 billion of
relief into our economy. The ranking member's home State--87,000. I
looked at some other States just quickly on the way over here. Iowa,
61,000. In North Carolina, 129,000 of these were made. Michigan,
128,000. Arizona, 85,000. In Colorado, 109,000 of these were made.
Montana, 23,000. The State of Maine, where Senator Collins was a key
part of all this, 28,000. Georgia, neighboring Florida, 174,000. I
could go on and on.
Another thing we should be really proud about as far as PPP is that
two-thirds of the loans--the grants--were under $50,000, which tells
you about the size of these businesses. In fact, 70 percent--70
percent--of these were made to businesses that had 10 employees or
fewer. By far, it was the most effective thing we did.
You can look at the jobs figures. I have this chart up here just to
show it. PPP and small business employment--you look at the precipitous
dropoff in March, and then once PPP began to get disbursed, you see
those numbers, and as the disbursal goes up, the chart goes up.
Now, are they perfect? No. Will we want it back up here? Of course.
Are there businesses that didn't make it? Sadly, yes. But there are
people working right now. There are small businesses that were going to
be wiped off the face of this country's economy that are open to this
day because of what we were able to do. But it expired, meaning that
you could only get it once. There was a date where it cut off. The
ranking member wisely moved and we all agreed and we were able to
extend it by another month to help people apply, but now you can't go
back.
So what do you do? You are a business or restaurant, for example, and
you used PPP once and have expended that money over 24 weeks, and now
you are in the same boat or potentially in the same place you were back
in March and April. The money is gone, the customers aren't back yet,
and you are
[[Page S6314]]
about to close and people are about to get laid off. So we need to do a
second round.
There are a lot of other things we can do for small business--I agree
with that wholeheartedly--but this is one that I think we have to do
because there is tremendous agreement. The reason it is not happening
is because, No. 1, some people think of it as leverage. Everyone likes
PPP, so let's hold out on it. Let's not do it until it is part of a
broader package of things unrelated to small business because it is so
popular. It is the carrot that will bring everybody toward supporting
the broader deal.
That may have made sense back in May or June, but not now, not in
October, not since we have long since expended the moneys that these
companies received, and now they are facing the same situation they
were back in March and early April. Now we have to do what we can.
I don't think we can fall--unfortunately, we have, but it is not very
smart to fall into this habit of saying that if we can't do everything,
we shouldn't do anything. That is just across the board. There are a
lot of other areas that we need to provide COVID relief in--I agree
with that--but we are not going to do it in 6 days. We should have done
it a long time ago. It didn't come to that. But this is one piece I
think we can all agree on. Even if they are small businesses--and I
only caught the tail end of what he was saying. The ranking member
points to a lot of other things we could do to help small business. I
agree with that. There are things beyond PPP that would help them. The
fundamental challenge we have here is that we have a limited amount of
time to get this thing done, and I appreciate the idea that the House
already passed it. But the thing is, that is not something that is
going to become law. That is the reality. Just like there are things we
want on this side that are not going to become law, because to pass a
law right now in Washington requires passage in a Senate with a
Republican majority, but there are not 60 Republicans, so we need
Democratic votes. We need this body to pass it, and we need a
Democratically controlled House to pass it and a Republican President
to sign it. That is just basic math in terms of what it takes. That is
just the basic outline of what it takes to turn whatever it is we are
talking about here into a law to actually help people.
If you want to help people, we have to figure out something that at
least 60 people in the Senate and a majority in the House will agree on
and that the President will sign. The one thing I know for sure that
could get that, if we just had a straight up-or-down vote on it, is the
notion of extending a second round of PPP assistance to a targeted
number of small businesses. That is it.
Now, is that everything I want to do? No. I want us to do more. By
the way, if we can figure something more to do in the meantime, that
would be great, but this must happen. There is no way of explaining to
people: Hold on a second. Everybody agrees that we need to do more just
to extend PPP.
Well, why haven't you done it?
Then you have to explain: Well, because there were nine other things
we wanted to do for small business, but because we couldn't agree on
those, we didn't do the one we agreed on; or, there was a bunch of
things non-small-business related that we wanted to get done, and
because those didn't happen, we are holding up the whole thing.
People don't understand it. That doesn't make sense in the real world
to anybody.
The bottom line is this: We have a basic formula here that, if we put
aside those considerations, could get support and could pass pretty
quickly. The other issues are still going to be there, and we should do
them, too, but we shouldn't hold this up in order to do that.
That is what we are going to have a chance to do here in a few
minutes. If we don't, if we don't, then we will have to explain--all of
us--to people why it is that this is being held up. If you tell them it
is because people want leverage for more stuff, they are not going to
understand that. It is very simple.
For anyone watching now or for anyone who watches this later, it is a
simple concept. We have before us right now the ability to help--to the
tune of close to $250 billion--millions of small business workers
across this country and their employers, to keep them on payroll, to
stay open for a few more months while we get through this pandemic. We
have a chance to do it through a model that we know works, a model that
was recently used. We just re-up that for a second round to a targeted
number of small businesses, under a certain number of employees, facing
certain revenue constraints. We even open it up to some additional not-
for-profits. We have a chance to do that. We have all these other
things that we should do as well, and we should do those, too, but we
shouldn't wait for those things to do this thing, to help right now.
This is not theoretical. Right now, at this very moment, there are
thousands upon thousands of small businesses that are holding on, on a
week-by-week basis. Whether or not they can survive isn't up to them.
It is up to whether the local government allows them to open and at
what capacity. It is up to whether their customers have the financial
wherewithal to go back and visit or spend.
The businesses we are talking about are restaurants, absolutely; live
venues, absolutely; and all those other places that have been hurt in
hospitality, without a doubt. But other businesses are being hurt too.
I know a drycleaner in South Florida who is being hurt. You might ask,
why? They are allowed to open. Well, because when people stopped
working and going to certain places, they spent less money on
drycleaning. Now a place that had eight employees now has six, and of
the six, four are only part time. They will have an opportunity, if
they get PPP, to keep that workforce employed full time, and it would
matter to those families.
We can do this. Doing this doesn't mean we don't do anything else.
Those other issues still have to be addressed. But let's at least do
this. It isn't everything, but it is a lot, and it is something, and it
will matter, and there is no reason not to do it. It will in no way
keep us from doing the other things that need to be done.
Again, just because we are not going to do everything in one shot
should not mean that we don't do something. We have a chance to do
something, and it is meaningful, and it is a model that we know works,
and it is a model we have all supported in the past, and it is one that
I hope that in the next few minutes some people will change their minds
on and support now because to not do something is inexplicable. It
would make no sense.
There are real people in the real world who are just trying to hold
on and can't figure out why it is we are here and we can't do something
to help them at their hour of greatest need
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I rise today to speak on behalf of
people and small businesses in Michigan that are being left behind on
this Republican bill. As my friend from Florida has said, we can do
something. The Senate Democratic leader is going to be offering us an
opportunity to vote on something comprehensive that has been passed by
the House that doesn't leave small businesses, families, healthcare
providers, and the need for testing and tracing behind.
When I think about who is being left behind in this bill, I think of
the single mom of two boys who is seeing her hours cut, and her
paycheck has shrunk, and she is left behind by what we are being asked
to vote on right now. There is no need for that. She doesn't know how
she is going to keep the lights on. The weather is getting cold.
The 83-year-old retiree who is struggling to afford food and who goes
to bed hungry night after night is being left behind on what we are
being asked to vote on. That doesn't have to happen. We have an
alternative that has passed the House that we can vote on and get this
done today.
The owner of a small restaurant is being left behind. He has been
able to stay open by offering takeout, but he is just barely--just
barely--holding on, wanting specific help that is available through
legislation introduced in the Senate, that is bipartisan, that is not
in this bill. He is being left behind.
We are talking about the families who thought 2020 would be the year
[[Page S6315]]
they would finally get ahead, and then COVID hit, and now they are at
risk of being evicted and losing their homes that brought their
children stability for the first time.
There are the Michigan families who have lost loved ones--more than
7,000 grandmas and grandpas and moms and dads, sons and daughters,
brothers and sisters, cousins, neighbors, and friends.
People in Michigan aren't talking about a stimulus bill; they want a
survival package because it is survival for them right now. Instead,
Republicans have introduced a bill that leaves our urgent health care
needs, our families, and far too many businesses behind.
This Republican proposal leaves behind the most important thing we
need to do right now to get the pandemic under control. President Trump
has said that we will wake up one day and COVID-19 will have
miraculously gone away. Oh, wouldn't that be great. But we are tired of
waiting and getting up every day and being faced with the threat of
COVID-19.
If we want people to send their kids to school, reopen their
businesses, get back to work, be able to go shopping at their small
businesses, to be able to eat at their restaurants, then we need to
make sure things are safe. Right now, it is not safe.
COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations and deaths are spiking all across
the country. The White House is still resisting a national testing
strategy, as if it is some kind of giveaway to Democrats instead of
public health 101.
Meanwhile, millions of people have lost their jobs, which means they
have also lost their health insurance, which he doesn't want to
address, and our healthcare system is under strain. Our hospitals and
our nursing homes are still struggling to get enough personal
protective equipment for their employees, for families who want to
visit, and for patients. Our healthcare professionals are exhausted,
stressed, and at severe risk of burnout. Healthcare needs are left
behind in this bill, and so are the needs of our families.
Right now, the unemployment rate in Michigan is 8.5 percent--higher
than the national average. Since March 15, 2.3 million Michigan
residents have relied on unemployment. The extra $600 a week provided
in the CARES Act was a lifeline for these Michigan families, and it
needs to be extended so they can have a roof over their heads and pay
their bills and survive. A survey last month by the U.S. Census Bureau
found that 25 percent of Michigan residents thought they would be
evicted or lose their home to foreclosure in the next 2 months.
We need to act now--now. We have an opportunity. The Senate
Democratic leader will give us the opportunity to vote on that bill and
act now. Without additional unemployment aid and rental assistance,
where will these families go in January when the CDC eviction
moratorium expires and they are months behind in rent?
This legislation also leaves our children behind. The Republican
bills have not provided adequate funding to reopen our schools safely,
and millions of parents, including my own daughter and her family and
my own son and his family, are juggling, trying to make sure that kids
can work online, trying to make sure they are getting the education
they need. It is hard.
The money that has been provided in the bill, unfortunately, in the
underlying bill--there is some, but it comes with strings attached.
Schools must physically reopen in order to receive their fair share of
funding. So if your school district has decided that COVID cases have
gone up and it is not safe for the children to go back to school--they
are still paying the teachers, they are operating remotely, and they
have all the costs of operating remotely, but if they are not
physically there, as President Trump insists on, physically there
regardless of the health risk, they would not get the help they need
for our children to be educated--quite a change for a political party
that likes to talk about local control.
But there is one exception. If your child is going to a private
school, you get a great big tax credit if you send your child to a
private school rather than a public school, like the vast majority of
children in our country.
Brecken is a 5-year-old kindergarten student in the De Tour area
public schools in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. She has access to high-
speed internet in only one way, and that is if her parents disconnect
every other electronic device in their house while she is doing her
studies. And the connection isn't great. Brecken and other students in
rural areas deserve the same internet connectivity that their city
friends enjoy, but the Republicans leave them behind.
Democrats have proposed a $4 billion E-rate funding increase to
ensure children are able to go to school remotely. We don't want
Brecken or any child left behind in this COVID-19 crisis.
We can't talk about schools without talking about healthy food and
nutrition. They go hand in hand. The average person getting help right
now--food assistance--receives $127 a month, which is $1.40 per meal.
About 40 percent of our families who are getting even that have gotten
absolutely no increased help whatsoever. And we know in the food lines,
people who have donated to the food banks all their lives are now
sitting in their car for hours sometimes, waiting to go through the
food line themselves. Our families need help. Our families are hungry.
We can fix that if we pass the bill that the House sent to us.
Finally, this legislation isn't just about leaving critical
healthcare needs and testing needs behind, leaving our children and
leaving our families behind. It leaves far too many businesses behind.
Over the past few months, I have met with so many Michigan business
owners, mostly over Zoom--restaurants, gyms, entertainment venues,
craft jewelry, theaters that have been revitalizing Michigan downtowns.
One of the things I love is that not just in big cities but in small
towns across Michigan, you will go downtown, and there is now a craft
brewery, and then they have rebuilt and revitalized a historic theater,
and they are rebuilding the downtown. They have been hit so hard by
what has happened with COVID-19. They deserve specific help that they
are not getting in this legislation.
All small businesses are not getting the help--the kind of help--that
they need. We don't want to leave any small business behind, including
our minority-owned small businesses in underserved communities and
nonprofits. We fought successfully, as Democrats, to add $30 billion in
dedicated funding for those who are underbanked or receiving their
financial support in other nontraditional ways. That is not in here
either.
So we need an approach for this pandemic and the economic catastrophe
it has unleashed across the country. We need an approach that is
serious and is bold--neither of which is what we are about to vote on
with this PPP vote--for testing and healthcare, for keeping our
children safe so they can get back to school, for our families and all
of our businesses.
We know that so many have been hit in ways that are different than
others, so we need to address all of our small businesses. This is no
time to leave any of them behind, and the Republican initiative in
front of us does just that. People deserve better.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island