[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 83 (Thursday, May 13, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2504-S2510]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                ENDLESS FRONTIER ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 
58, S. 1260.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 58, S. 1260, a bill to 
     establish a new Directorate for Technology and Innovation in 
     the National Science Foundation, to establish a regional 
     technology hub program, to require a strategy and report on 
     economic security, science, research, innovation, 
     manufacturing, and job creation, to establish a critical 
     supply chain resiliency program, and for other purposes.


                             Cloture Motion

  Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 58, S. 1260, a bill to establish a 
     new Directorate for Technology and Innovation in the National 
     Science Foundation, to establish a regional technology hub 
     program, to require a strategy and report on economic 
     security, science, research, innovation, manufacturing, and 
     job creation, to establish a critical supply chain resiliency 
     program, and for other purposes.
         Charles E. Schumer, Maria Cantwell, Margaret Wood Hassan, 
           Tina Smith, Jeanne Shaheen, John W. Hickenlooper, 
           Michael F. Bennet, Patty Murray, Tammy Baldwin, Raphael 
           G. Warnock, Christopher Murphy, Robert P. Casey, Jr., 
           Jacky Rosen, Ben Ray Lujan, Richard J. Durbin, Tim 
           Kaine, Jeff Merkley, Gary C. Peters, Catherine Cortez 
           Masto

  Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


                                Economy

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am here on the floor to talk about the 
economy, what is going on, on the jobs front, and where we go from 
here.
  Last week, the Department of Labor issued its most recent jobs 
report. It showed that we added 266,000 jobs in April. That was about 
one quarter of what was predicted. It was disappointing. It shows that 
the job growth coming out of the pandemic has now slowed. There is a 
question as to why, since there are so many jobs out there. How is it 
that there can be so many jobs available, and yet we have such a 
disappointing April jobs report? The demand for workers is certainly 
high.
  The other thing going on out there is that we have creeping 
inflation. We learned this past week that the Consumer Price Index rose 
4.2 percent between April 2020 and April 2021. So the year, April to 
April, is the highest 12-month increase going back to the summer of 
2008.
  There is this whole debate going on about whether there is inflation 
or not. Well, I would ask you to talk to your constituents because they 
will tell you there is inflation. There is inflation at the gas pump; 
there is inflation at the grocery store; there is inflation if you are 
trying to build something. There is inflation throughout the economy 
right now, and that should concern every American. It is because of 
policy choices, but it doesn't have to be this way.
  What this argument boils down to with regard to jobs and with regard 
to inflation are really two very different approaches and philosophies 
of government and how to create jobs, how to increase wages, and how to 
help working families.
  The Biden administration believes the government needs to spend more 
to prime the pump. This is despite our being told by every economic 
analysis, including our own nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, 
that without any new stimulus at the beginning of this year, we were 
going to see the economy come back strongly. In fact, all of the 
studies showed that the rate of growth this year was going to be 4 
percent or more without any stimulus, without any new spending, and 
that, by

[[Page S2505]]

midyear, according to the Congressional Budget Office, we would be back 
to the prepandemic economy and economic growth. Yet the Biden 
administration is insisting on priming the pump, putting more money out 
there. The $1.9 trillion spending package was all about that.
  Some of us raised concerns about it and warned people about this. By 
the way, one of us who did this was Larry Summers, who was the 
Secretary of the Treasury under a Democratic administration and who is 
a prominent economist on the other side of the aisle. He said this--and 
he was right--that this risked overheating an economy that was already 
growing and would result in inflation. Unfortunately, the massive 
stimulus seems to have exactly done that.
  Unfortunately, now there is another wave of spending that is being 
projected. Over $4 trillion is being proposed in new spending in 
addition to the $1.9 trillion, two new packages the President talked 
about in his address to Congress last month. It is interesting because, 
even though inflation is going up and even though the jobs market is 
disappointing, it seems like the administration isn't changing course.
  One thing the administration is not changing course on is that it 
wants to continue to pay people a substantial amount not to work. Now, 
in my view, during the COVID-19 crisis--at the heat of it--we needed to 
do something to help people who had lost their jobs through no fault of 
their own, and the States' unemployment systems were the places to do 
that. So we added a Federal supplement on top of the State unemployment 
benefit.
  In Ohio, the State pays about $360 a week, on average, which is about 
half of whatever your salary was or your income was, and we added $300 
on top of that. Think about that. Instead of $360, it is $660 per week, 
on average. That means that, for 42 percent of the people who are on 
unemployment insurance--this is a national figure--they are making more 
on unemployment than they were at work. So a lot of people have made 
the logical decision and say: Why should I be going back to work?
  Unfortunately, when the President has been asked about this, he has 
said:

       I know there's been a lot of discussion . . . that people 
     are being paid to stay home rather than going to work. Well, 
     we don't see much evidence of that.

  With all due respect, I hope the President will talk to some of the 
business owners who I am talking to, particularly small businesses. The 
numbers tell a different story.
  According to the most recent Labor Department data released just this 
week, at the end of March, we had 8.1 million job openings in America. 
That was 8.1 million jobs open. We all know that because we are back in 
our States, as we will be later today or tomorrow, and we will see the 
``help wanted'' signs. By the way, that is the highest number in 
history. We have never had 8 million jobs open in America.

  Based on this Labor Department study, the job increases were broadly 
distributed, 185,000 new job openings in restaurants and hospitality--
as they are getting going, many of these restaurants are saying: This 
is great. We have the people coming back, but we can't find workers. 
There are 155,000 in State and local education and 81,000 in 
entertainment.
  With that demand for workers and the coronavirus pandemic 
substantially improving, the employment numbers should be skyrocketing. 
We should be seeing so many people going back to work. This is an 
opportunity for people to go back, to get into their careers, and get 
back to the dignity and self-respect that comes from work and the 
fulfillment that comes from work, but it is not happening. If you ask 
business owners in my home State of Ohio and across the country, they 
will all tell you the same story: Business is booming, but we can't 
find workers.
  One Ohio restaurant manager said in an interview, ``It's crazy. 
Honestly, we are busier than we were before COVID,'' but they can't 
find staff to keep up with the demand. The Dayton, OH, area chamber of 
commerce did a study very recently, and 78 percent of its members said 
they can't find the workers they need to fill the job openings they 
have--78 percent.
  So why is this happening? I think there are a few reasons.
  One is that it is true that we still have a skills gap in our 
country, and that is something I have been working on, along with my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle. It is the reason I authored what 
is called the JOBS Act. It was to make sure that we have this 
connection--not have a skills gap but, instead, have the right skills 
being taught to match the work needs that we have.
  Honestly, with regard to those numbers that I just talked about with 
regard to entertainment jobs and restaurant jobs and State and local 
education jobs, most of those jobs do not require a specialized skill. 
So the skills gap needs to be addressed, particularly in manufacturing, 
where I was told today, by the National Association of Manufacturers, 
that there are 700,000 manufacturing jobs open right now. Again, many 
of the jobs that are open do not require advanced skills. They just 
require you to show up and to be willing to do the work.
  It is also understandable to me that some people may be hesitant to 
go back to work because of COVID, but we now have these three effective 
vaccines that are doing the hard work to try to get us back to a more 
normal lifestyle, where we can get back to school and back to church 
and back to synagogue and back to work. Our Nation's researchers and 
scientists have helped us to get to this point, and as we saw from the 
CDC recommendation today regarding masks, we are turning the corner.
  I also realize, for some people, childcare is an issue--there is no 
question about that--the cost of childcare. If you look at the numbers 
in terms of people going back to work, it is true that it is 
disproportionately women. I agree that this is an issue, but I will 
tell you that one of the issues we hear about, as you dig deeper into 
this, is that it is because, in many places, the kids are not back to 
school. So that is a solvable problem. It is time for our children to 
go back to school again. Follow the CDC. Follow the science. There were 
54 percent of K-8 public schools that were offering full-time classroom 
teaching in March. The rest were not.
  I have to tell you that none of these are the main causes of the 
current problem from everything I am hearing. There are jobs, and there 
are folks qualified to do them. They just aren't looking for work, and 
it is because of the way the government has chosen to pay people not to 
work.
  Wages are up, by the way. So, for those who say, ``Well, employers 
need to raise wages,'' they are up. By the way, that is one reason we 
have inflation. It is because wages are going up. Wages going up, I 
think, is not a bad thing even though it will count for some of this 
inflation that we have, but the wages going up is not going to make the 
difference here. Even though wages have gone up on an average of 4, 5 
percent, people are still not coming to work the way you would expect.
  Jimmy John's is offering hiring bonuses. The McDonald's locally, 
where I live in Cincinnati, is offering a $500 signing bonus. Chipotle 
is offering free college tuition after 4 months on the job. One 
wholesale distributor in Ohio is offering a $9,000 sign-on bonus for 
certified truck drivers.
  By the way, with regard to truck drivers, you know about the Colonial 
Pipeline and cutting off the gas supply to the east coast of the United 
States and people who are concerned about going to the gas station and 
getting gas in many gas stations and not having any fuel available, 
including in States all over the East and the Southeast.
  The answer that some people came up with--and it makes sense--is to 
have trucks actually deliver that fuel to those gas stations. The 
trucks could go to the places where the fuel is and where the pipeline 
would normally take it and move that fuel to the gas stations. The 
problem? No truck drivers. They literally cannot find truck drivers to 
move this fuel from the depots to the gas stations. This is a real 
problem.
  I have a constituent back home who contacted me yesterday. She is 
offering a $1,000 signing bonus, and she can get nobody to step 
forward. She has 60 jobs in Ohio, and she has 30 jobs in New York--a 
small business with only about 250 jobs total. She can't find anybody. 
When she talks to her people, they tell her: Well, as soon as the UI

[[Page S2506]]

ends, I will be back. As soon as the unemployment insurance ends--the 
Federal supplement, the $300 supplement--I will be back. Businesses 
simply can't compete in an environment where more than 40 percent of 
the workers are making more on the unemployment supplement than they 
would be at their jobs.
  It is a problem, by the way, that States themselves are now starting 
to deal with because they realize this is a huge problem for their 
economies, for their small businesses, and for their workforces. As of 
this afternoon, just in the last week, 15 States have said: Do you know 
what? I am not going to accept the $300 supplement because I want to 
get people back to work.
  It is already making a difference. Someone just told me from the 
State of Montana--one of our colleagues from there--and Montana was the 
first State to do this--that, about a week ago, a hotel owner told him 
that he was in desperate need of people, and when he would put the 
``help wanted'' sign out and ask people to come, he could get one 
person to show up per week. This week, 60 people showed up. Why? 
Because the unemployment insurance is running out, and people are now 
looking for work. So these States I think are going to continue to do 
this. I think it will be more than 15 by the time we are finished 
speaking here this afternoon. It is because the States realize, well, 
this is a competitive advantage. If New York doesn't do it and Ohio 
does--and by the way, Ohio is one of the States that just made the 
decision to do it this afternoon. If New York doesn't do it, that 
businessperson I talked about is going to do more manufacturing in Ohio 
because that is where she has the workforce. That will help Ohio 
relative to States that wouldn't choose to move on beyond the $300 
supplement.

  Unemployment insurance is important, and it is still going to be 
there, but it will be the State benefit that it has always been.
  The other thing is the work requirement. In unemployment insurance, 
again, in Ohio, it is about 50 percent of whatever your wages are. And 
then there is a requirement that you look for work, and if you get an 
offer, you can't stay on unemployment insurance. That has always been 
the tradition.
  Under COVID, States accepted waivers not to have to require people to 
look for work. About 30 States now just in the last few weeks have 
decided to get rid of that waiver, including Ohio. Why? Because again, 
it is not helping anybody. It is not helping the workers; it is not 
helping the small businesses, certainly; and it is really not helping 
the taxpayers who are paying tens of billions of dollars for these 
supplements.
  I will say, when I debated this on the Senate floor, when we had an 
amendment that actually passed during the COVID-19 legislation--later, 
that amendment was amended, but we tried to end the unemployment 
insurance sooner given the economic numbers that were out there.
  One of the Democratic colleagues on the other side said that--do I 
think the Ohio workers somehow don't have a work ethic, that they are 
lazy? That is not what I think at all. I don't think they are lazy at 
all. I think they are logical. Common sense dictates that when you are 
offering to pay somebody more not to work than to work, you are likely 
to get a bad result. Again, it was needed when people were losing their 
jobs through no fault of their own. COVID-19 devastated--ravaged--so 
many sectors of our economy.
  A lot of those sectors are coming back and are coming back strong, 
but they need workers, and they need them desperately. The stakes 
couldn't be higher.
  Let me illustrate why. If workers don't go back to work, some 
businesses will actually close, and these jobs will go away 
permanently. That, to me, is a reality.
  Take Geordie's Restaurant in Columbus, OH. Geordie's shut down a 
couple of weeks ago because they couldn't find enough job applicants to 
keep the lights on, period. They shut down. This is a restaurant that 
made it through the worst of the pandemic, when our restaurant and 
hospitality industry was in really tough shape. But as owner Geordie 
Hull-Jones said himself, ``We fought hard to get through COVID, but 
COVID didn't kill us, the stimulus did.''
  ``[B]ut COVID didn't kill us, the stimulus did.'' That is a quote 
from a business owner.
  That is the difference, again, between the philosophy that the Biden 
administration seems to be taking and, frankly, the reality and the 
philosophy that we are encouraging, which is let's get people back to 
work; let's get this economy moving again.
  The President is committed to spending an unprecedented amount of tax 
dollars to try and get what it takes to get the economy back on track. 
But spending more tax dollars isn't a prescription for what ails our 
economy today. Getting people back to work certainly is. If we don't, 
again, businesses will close; careers cannot be continued. People won't 
get the fulfillment that they get from going to work, and many of these 
jobs will not return.
  Instead of following this path, let's change course. Let's follow 
common sense and get our country back to work so we can all enjoy the 
goods and services we work to provide for each other. Let's help our 
Nation's small businesses, which are the lifeblood of so many in our 
economy. Let's help people currently on unemployment get started 
building lasting careers that they enjoy, make a living, find long-term 
stability, so they can realize their American dream. That is what this 
country is all about.
  So, today, I am urging the Biden administration to take two simple 
steps to encourage people to move past the pandemic and to get back to 
work. First, we need to reimplement the Federal requirement that people 
must be actively searching for work if they are going to receive 
unemployment. Again, Ohio has made that decision, as have about 30 
other States, but let's make this the national standard that it was 
prior to the pandemic. Long-term unemployment doesn't benefit anyone, 
and it will ensure that people are able to get off unemployment 
insurance more quickly. Second, we need to draw down the Federal 
unemployment supplement funded by COVID-19 that passed in March. It is 
time to look at ending this not on September 6, as it is currently 
slated to end, but now, while the economy is strong and growing and we 
are trying to get people back to work. As I said, it is a rational 
economic decision for many people right now who collect an unemployment 
check that effectively pays upward of $15 an hour to stay at home and 
not work, but it makes no sense to keep the supplement in place as we 
are reopening, and the focus is on shifting toward getting the economy 
back up and running.
  My own preference is that some of this might be used to pay people a 
bonus to go back to work. I know that is controversial on my side of 
the aisle, but, I tell you, I think it works. Montana is doing it, and 
it is working for them. How about 100 bucks a week? Instead of the $300 
supplement, 100 bucks a week for 6 weeks as a return-to-work bonus? To 
me, that makes a lot of sense. That would be something I think we could 
get some bipartisan support for around here, and that would help the 
workers, the small businesses, and our economy.
  Through these two steps, we can create the disincentive to work that 
was a byproduct of our response to an unprecedented pandemic--we can 
stop that disincentive to work. Now that we are beating COVID-19, we 
should focus on getting back to normal. I urge the Biden administration 
to focus on getting the economy back up and running and getting folks 
off the sidelines and back to work
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.


                          Biden Administration

  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I want to be able to comment on my 
colleague, Senator Portman, and some of the comments he has made about 
unemployment.
  My State is not one of those States yet that has made the decision to 
be able to end the additional unemployment benefits that are coming 
from the Federal Government, and it is harming workers and it is 
harming jobs and it is harming businesses in my State. And I hope in 
the days ahead, my State will be one of those States to be able to step 
up and will say--and I believe my Governor will--to be able to step up 
and say: Let's actually make sure we are benefiting families long-term.

[[Page S2507]]

  There is a whole group of folks who believe that if you only give 
people enough money, that is going to help them rise out of poverty. 
People need a job. People need a purpose. People need a plan to be able 
to do that. Folks don't need long-term Government benefits to be able 
to help sustain that. They need a way to be able to help earn a living 
to be able to pass it on to their family to set a job record for them 
and to set a path for their kids and grandkids after them. That helps 
people rise--every study we have seen on how to help people rise out of 
poverty, graduate high school, wait till after marriage to have kids, 
and have a job of any type. Let's help people rise. Let's help people 
be employed and engaged. That is a helpful thing.
  I think about some of the things that are happening even today. 
Secretary Mayorkas was in front of our committee today, and it was 
shocking to me to hear the Secretary of Homeland Security talk about 
how much more efficient they have become at processing people at the 
border and getting them into the country.
  It used to be our evaluation for how we were managing Border Patrol 
and Customs and Border Protection was how many people we were stopping 
at the border and returning to their home country. He, literally, over 
and over again, articulated how much faster they are now at processing 
people at the border and releasing them into the country. Even at one 
point when I challenged him and said: I understand people are being 
released into the country without even a notice to appear; that they 
are just being released into the country and told to go to a place 
somewhere in the country, self-report themselves to an ICE office and 
say: I would like to get a court order to be able to have a notice to 
appear.
  At that point, I said: How many people have been treated that way?
  He said: I am not sure.
  Well, I have already looked up the record on it. It is 19,000 just in 
the past couple of months who have been brought across the border, 
released into the country, and told just self-report yourself to 
whatever ICE agent you see somewhere in the country.
  I asked the simple question: How many people have already done that?
  Not only could he not answer the number 19,000, which we have 
confirmed, but he didn't know how many people had actually turned 
themselves in and actually done it. But we continue to do this. It was 
all about speed of moving people who are crossing the border into the 
country rather than actually managing our border. And even something as 
simple as just the gaps in the fence, they are still, as he said to me, 
``studying'' whether they are going to close the gaps in the fence.
  We have a gas pipeline that has gone down due to a ransomware attack. 
It reminded me, again, of how important gas pipelines are all over our 
Nation, and it is interesting to me that on day one, one of the first 
things that President Biden did was he stepped in and ended the 
Keystone Pipeline moving through here and is now actively working to be 
able to shut down all pipeline construction around the country.
  Can I remind Americans, especially Americans on the East Coast, what 
it means to lose a pipeline
  When the President says we are not going to do more pipelines, that 
means we have no redundancy; that if a pipeline goes down, there is not 
an additional backup one in construction to be able to get there. It is 
better to have multiple pipelines in the area so that if one goes down, 
you still have other fuel supplies.
  What if this pipeline had actually been a larger scale issue even 
than a ransomware attack, as bad as that is? This whole fight that we 
are having about pipelines suddenly makes sense to a whole lot of folks 
on the East Coast who can't get gasoline. Pipelines are not evil. 
Pipelines are moving energy across the country, and it is the least 
expensive, safest way to be able to move that energy across the 
country.
  This week, of all weeks, has been interesting to have a dialogue 
about S. 1. It was a long markup in the Rules Committee to be able to 
talk about voting in America.
  Now, I was at the White House several years ago when the FIRST STEP 
Act was signed. It was a remarkable bill dealing with criminal justice 
reform. As I was at the White House signing ceremony and the gathering 
of all these different folks that had been engaged, it was interesting 
to me to stand in that room with President Trump and to have folks from 
the Heritage Foundation and folks from the ACLU in the same room 
shaking hands and smiling and saying that this is a good piece of 
legislation. In fact, it is the only time that I can remember sitting 
at a signing ceremony watching people from two different perspectives 
saying they both support something so strongly. That was the FIRST STEP 
Act.
  I have now seen my second time that that has occurred, when both the 
Heritage Foundation and the ACLU both oppose S. 1 and H.R. 1. They have 
both come out in opposition to it.
  Well, that is an interesting gathering of folks to be able to gather 
together from both political extremes to be able to look at a piece of 
legislation--all 880 pages of it--and to say: That is a bad idea. Why 
would they say that?
  Well, let me count the ways of why they would say that.
  In my State in Oklahoma, we have great voting engagement. Good. We 
want to make it easy to vote. We want to make it hard to cheat. We want 
as many people as possible to be able to vote and as many people as 
possible to be able to engage in the process. It is the nature of a 
Republic like ours. You need people to be able to be engaged. But we 
also want to be able to follow up on that process as well, to be able 
to make sure that if somebody is actually breaking the rules on that, 
we follow up. And in our State, we do.
  Recently, I followed up with our State leadership for voting to be 
able to find out what happened in our last election and what are we 
doing. We found 57 people as a State that voted twice in my State. All 
57 of those names were turned over to local district attorneys, and 
they will start following up with those individuals because that is a 
violation of the law to be able to vote twice in our State. Fifty-seven 
names is not very many, but it is because we continue to enforce the 
law in our State to be able to make sure that we have as many people 
voting as possible but also accountability for people who want to be 
able to cheat in the system.
  The interesting thing about S. 1 and H.R. 1 is that they make it much 
easier to cheat in the process. They set up a different system where 
you can actually have no voter ID. And it is not just no voter ID; it 
is no voter ID and same-day registration combined. So you can literally 
walk into a polling place that you are not registered for, not show an 
ID, and say ``I am not registered. I would like to vote'' and not show 
an ID and also vote that same day in that spot. There is no way to be 
able to verify, then, one way or the other if this person is voting 
twice because no one knows.
  In my State that has great voter ID laws, it would gut them, and it 
would take it away from our State, though no one is complaining about 
voter ID in my State. You can show an ID. You can show a library card. 
You can show a utility bill. You can show anything in my State just to 
be able to verify that is actually you because we want people to be 
able to vote, but we want to make sure it is that person who is 
actually voting. That used to be a common, accepted practice.
  Why would we want to create an environment where we would make it 
easy to be able to cheat?
  This bill, S. 1, also creates ballot harvesting--forces it around the 
entire country. Folks may say: I have no idea what that is. Well, let 
me set up what it is. Ballots are mailed to your house, and if you 
haven't mailed it back in yet, you may have a knock at your door. They 
come to your door.
  And if they come to the door--it would be a political activist from 
one of the campaigns, and they would say: Hey, have you filled out your 
ballot yet? I know they got mailed out yesterday. Have you turned it 
back in yet?
  Oh, you haven't? Grab your ballot inside and bring it out on the 
front porch, and I will help you fill it out right here on your front 
porch. And, I tell you what I will do. I will also turn it in for you. 
You won't even have to mail it. I will deliver it for you.
  That is ballot harvesting. In most States, that is illegal. They want 
to make that legal in every single State. That is an invitation to 
fraud.

[[Page S2508]]

  Now, there is a difference between ``I want to help facilitate 
everyone to be able to vote and to be able to protect their right to 
vote'' and actually creating opportunities for fraud where everyone 
doubts every election. That is not the right way to go. I want to make 
sure that we all look at an election at the end of it and say we can 
trust that.
  One of the ways we can trust it is through a Federal Election 
Commission that actually is bipartisan. We have a Federal Election 
Commission with an even number of Republicans and Democrats. They want 
to change that to where it is five members, not six, and the last 
member, who is the tie breaker, is someone selected by the President 
who would be ``independent.'' I am sure that is going to work out just 
fine, but that is not going to end up being a partisan individual.
  In my State, all the ballots are done ahead of time--all of them. If 
you do a mail-in ballot, those ballots are opened up early on. There 
are Republicans and Democrats. There are poll watchers who are watching 
it. All of the evaluations for the quality of the ballots are all 
tested before election night. So that is all finished. So when election 
night is done, by 10:30 in the evening, all the ballots have been 
counted and election results are out.
  Oh, no, that won't work. My Senate Democratic colleagues want to give 
an additional 10 days for ballots to continue to trickle in. So, 
literally, what we had in this last election where it was for days that 
no one even knew how many ballots were coming in, and the uncertainty 
that that creates in the process, they want to make sure that exists in 
every State, not just in a few States.
  Listen, I would rather have every State be like mine, to say that 
everyone has to turn their ballot in early. It is not like election day 
is a shocking day that no one knew about. In fact, the majority of 
States around the country are like my State.
  This is not just a partisan issue. Vermont has the same rule that we 
have in Oklahoma. This is a straightforward way to protect the 
integrity of the ballot, that you can turn in the ballots early, and 
that you can evaluate all of them so the ballots aren't trickling in 
for days.
  If you love all those rules, let me give you one more quick one. 
Remember that campaign speech or that campaign commercial that you 
really, really hate, that you are sick of it by the time the election 
comes? Well, get ready for a whole lot more of them because the S. 1 
bill gives Federal dollars, 6 to 1, to be able to fund more campaigns 
and to make sure campaigns have even more money.
  So if someone raises $100,000, they are going to give--Federal tax 
dollars--$600,000 to that candidate, even a candidate you didn't vote 
for and don't like. They are going to get $600,000 for every $100,000. 
If they raise $1 million for their campaign, they will get $6 million 
of our Federal tax dollars.
  I don't want to pay for campaigns I don't agree with. I don't think 
that is the right way to go. And I don't bump into many people in my 
State that get real excited about paying for someone else's campaign 
whom they disagree with.
  I think this bill was the result of the 2020 election. They pulled it 
out and said: That election was such a shambles. We need to be able to 
put a bill out there to do that.
  But you would be incorrect. Actually, this bill is exactly what they 
pulled out in 2017, saying that Russia took over the election in 2016 
and so we need a big bill to be able to fix it. And for 4 years they 
have been pushing it and, now, after this election, they pulled it out 
again and said: We have to be able to do this.
  It is the same bill. It used to be the bill to fight Russia. Now it 
is the bill to be able to fight whatever now.
  Listen, let each State make those decisions, and when there is a 
challenge for that, take it to Federal court. That is why we have the 
court system. Allow those Federal courts to process through those 
challenges.
  We want every person to be able to be protected, to be able to vote, 
and if some State is suppressing the vote, take that to Federal court, 
and let's solve that and make sure that does not occur. But don't tell 
everyone in my State that Washington, DC knows better.
  We have Republicans and Democrats that have worked very hard on 
election law in my State. In fact, there was just an expansion of 
additional days for early voting in my State. It has been a nonpartisan 
issue in my State. Let's not make it a partisan issue now and tell 
everyone across the entire country that DC knows best. Let's put this 
bill aside and not pass the S. 1 bill.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama


                         Back to Work Bonus Act

  Mr. TUBERVILLE. Mr. President, you know, if there is one thing I have 
been hearing from my constituents lately it is this: We have to get 
people back to work so our economy can thrive and our people can make a 
living.
  This isn't a new sentiment. I have heard this for months as I have 
traveled around the State. But what is new is the fact that we can't 
find people to work, and that is what I am here to talk about today.
  Before the pandemic hit, we had the best economy in decades. The 
unemployment rate in January 2020 was 3.6 percent. Wages were up. Blue-
collar wages were rising faster than white-collar wages for the first 
time on record. Unemployment for African Americans, Hispanic Americans, 
and Asian Americans was at the lowest rate recorded, all thanks to 
President Trump's pro-growth policies and Republicans' tax reform law.
  There is no debating that the coronavirus pandemic hit our economy 
very, very hard. Many companies and businesses in Alabama, including 
family-owned small businesses, have spent the past year hanging on by a 
thread as the pandemic held its tight grip around the country.
  Some States opened with a skeleton crew, making the decision to lay 
off workers in order just to keep operating, and some were forced to 
shut down entirely. Either way, American workers lost out. A few 
industries were spared, and unemployment numbers shot sky high.
  But a year later, as vaccines became widely available and we better 
understood what we needed to do to keep Americans safe, many job 
creators thought: OK, this is when the tight grip loosens, and there is 
the light at the end of the tunnel.
  As more and more people are feeling safe--safe to go places they used 
to go and do things--businesses are eager to open and respond but, 
today, even as vaccinations go up and cases go down, the Biden 
administration is incentivizing people to sit on the sidelines, instead 
of encouraging them to join the workforce.
  It is the opposite of what the Federal Government should be doing: Do 
the right thing now. And it is the opposite of what job creators want 
to do for millions of American workers. There are roughly 8.1 million 
job openings around our country, as we speak, but the Democrats would 
rather discourage folks from seizing the opportunity to go out and earn 
a living. That is exactly what the current unemployment payments do.
  As part of their partisan stimulus bill, Democrats extended the $300 
a week Federal unemployment benefit, a weekly payment, in addition to 
the State benefit that folks already get.
  In Alabama, people could choose to receive, with no strings attached, 
up to $678 per week. That comes out to $16.95 an hour, which is even 
more than our Democrat colleagues' job-killing $15 minimum wage 
proposal just a few weeks ago. The result has been disastrous for small 
businesses across my State and throughout the country that are already 
ready to hire to meet the boom and demand for products and services.
  On the national level, here is what the National Federation of 
Independent Business reported: ``Unfilled job openings continue to 
mount, as April is the third consecutive month setting a record high 
reading of unfilled job openings.''
  On record job openings, April job numbers released last week weren't 
much better. The unemployment rate went up by 0.1 percent. Economists 
thought we would add 1 million jobs, but we only added a quarter of 
that amount.
  Small business owners all across Alabama have been able to reopen, 
and customers are coming back. Now they

[[Page S2509]]

need people to fill the jobs to keep the doors open.
  Across America, businesses are no longer competing against other 
businesses. Now they have to compete against the government--government 
versus the private sector--and the government is stacking the deck 
against our small businesses and manufacturers. Businesses in Alabama 
are no exception to anybody else across the country.
  Case in point, Al Cason is the President of Bud's Best Cookies in 
Hoover, AL. His father Bud owns the company and has been in the 
industry for 65 years. Normally, they have four production lines with 
two shifts, but because so many--so many--of their would-be workers are 
staying home, they can only run two lines, and they are cutting their 
production in half. We can't get enough to come to work, Al wrote me. 
The government is taking away workers from our business, and it has 
been in business for 65 years.
  Wesley Averett from Enterprise Health & Rehabilitation Center in 
Enterprise, AL, wrote that his long-term care facility is ``unable to 
find the help [they] need'' due to the ``severe negative impacts 
stimulus and unemployment payments are [having] on the Alabama 
workforce.''
  And then there is Sandra Walker from Lake Haven Assisted Living in 
Luverne, AL, who said:

       Our salaries are competitive, but we can't compete with 
     stay-at-home . . . no strings attached hand outs. . . . 
     Business is back open but we can't survive without our 
     workers returning to work.

  These are both health companies, mind you, and they are the ones 
helping some of our most vulnerable citizens.
  And here is what Anita Hilliard in Courtland, AL, told me. The 
company she works for employs people in convenience stores throughout 
northwest Alabama. She wrote: ``We have had to shut down some of our 
shifts'' just because we can't get enough people to work, and sometimes 
we have to shut down completely.
  But here is what really stuck with me in her letter. She said: ``I am 
working and paying taxes to pay others more than I make myself.'' That 
is sad. This must end or we will lose the America that we have grown to 
know and love.
  I couldn't agree with Anita more. America was built by hard workers, 
people like Al, people like Anita, people like Wes, Sandra, and 
millions more across the United States. But we will never jumpstart our 
economy if we keep going with this bad policy of incentivizing people 
to stay at home and sit and not work, rather than take employment 
opportunities when they are offered to them.
  Our businesses need workers to meet customers' demands. This is truly 
a great thing after such a hard year. Our job creators have started to 
hope and see opportunity again. They have hung the ``now hiring'' signs 
on the door. They have posted the job openings. But we need to 
encourage folks to rejoin the workforce and to get back to work. Job 
creators are creating the opportunity. We just need folks to reach out 
and take it.
  It should be easy for us to offer encouragement to folks to fill open 
oppositions. All we have to do is kick the ball through the uprights 
this time around. But Democrats in DC wanted to go it alone. They 
wanted to go it alone a few weeks ago. And with the recent stimulus 
bill that we passed we ended up with a workforce shortage due to the 
inflated unemployment benefits in an economy on the cusp of recovery 
that needs available workers.
  Getting these folks back to work isn't just about the now. It is 
about helping them to see the future again. It has been more than a 
year for many who have been out of work. Taking the leap to get back in 
sometimes is scary, but we have to help the people take that leap. If 
we wait, these businesses and jobs they are now offering right now may 
not be there in September. Companies and small businesses are going out 
of work and going out of business.
  That is why I joined my colleagues, Senator Crapo and Senator Risch, 
to sponsor the Back to Work Bonus Act. This bill would give back-to-
work bonuses to workers who are able to safely return to work. This 
would be a one-time payment of $1,200 for those returning to full-time 
jobs and $600 to those returning to part-time jobs. Employers would 
verify the earnings and hours of those receiving the back-to-work 
bonuses. That sounds much more like an actual stimulus to me.
  The Back to Work Bonus Act is a win-win-win--good for workers, good 
for employers, and great for our society. I am sure each of my 
colleagues has received similar pleas from small business owners across 
their State.
  The Biden-backed unemployment benefits are crushing their hopes of 
getting back to a prepandemic high. We are even seeing some States take 
matters into their own hands. Earlier this week, I was glad to see 
Alabama be one of the first States to announce plans to stop accepting 
enhanced Federal unemployment benefits. As of today, at least 16 States 
have announced they won't accept the benefit to help employers and 
encourage folks to get back to work. This is a commonsense move to 
encourage folks to take the many job opportunities available.
  Well, I, for one, think we should listen to the folks on Main Street. 
We can help them, and we can help millions of the unemployed. One way 
to do it is by passing the Back to Work Bonus Act.
  I urge my colleagues to support this practical bill and get our 
country back to work. We need to remember: Opportunity through work is 
the foundation of our country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.


                Honoring Deputy Wyatt Christopher Maser

  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, every year, the Senate unanimously passes a 
resolution honoring each law enforcement officer who died in the line 
of duty during the previous year. Their names are also added to the 
National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Washington, DC. 
Currently, this memorial contains more than 21,000 names. This year, 
one more Idahoan will be added to this memorial.
  Wyatt Christopher Maser was born April 19, 1997, in Thermopolis, WY, 
to Christopher Michael Maser and Sandra Lorene Reid Arnold. After 
growing up in Casper, WY, Wyatt joined the U.S. Air Force, serving as a 
senior airman from 2015 to 2018.
  After returning to his home and marrying the love of his life, Paige, 
Wyatt began his career in law enforcement, moving to Idaho Falls, ID, 
and joining the Bonneville County Sheriff's Office and graduating from 
the Idaho Law Enforcement Academy in 2019. Shortly before graduating, 
he and Paige welcomed a beautiful baby daughter, Morgan Emily.
  He served as a sheriff's deputy with Bonneville County Sheriff's 
Office for 13 months. At the graveside service honoring his life, his 
career was characterized in two words: ``friendship'' and ``service.''
  It takes a special person to serve in our Nation's Armed Forces and 
an even better one to continue to serve one's community after leaving 
the Air Force. By all accounts, Wyatt was that person, befriending 
everyone he met.
  On May 18, 2020, while attempting to help a woman in mental crisis in 
the middle of Bone Road, he was struck by another deputy's vehicle and 
was pronounced dead at Eastern Idaho Medical Center.
  Wyatt left behind his wife, Paige; his young daughter, Morgan; his 
mother and stepfather, Sandy and Bill Arnold; his father and 
stepmother, Chris and Cheryl Maser; his siblings, Cole, Taylor, Jesse, 
and Alexys; and grandparents, uncles, and pets galore.
  The Law Enforcement Officers Memorial preserves Wyatt's name in 
stone. Yet Deputy Maser was so much more than an Air Force veteran and 
a law enforcement officer. An avid waterfowl hunter, Wyatt and his 
fellow members of the Delta Waterfowl Snake River Chapter were building 
a hunting blind for disabled hunters to help those with limitations 
enjoy the pastime he loved so much. That blind is still being completed 
and will be named the ``Maser Blind'' in his memory.
  Deputy Maser, your memory will not be forgotten.
  To Paige and Morgan, I am so sorry for your loss, and thank you for 
the opportunity to join in honoring Wyatt.
  The Book of Isaiah, chapter 6, verse 8, states:

       And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, ``Whom shall I 
     send, and who will go for us?'' Then I said, ``Here am I! 
     Send me.''


[[Page S2510]]


  Sheriff's Deputy Wyatt Christopher Maser answered that call with the 
ultimate sacrifice, and for that, we say thank you.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The senior Senator from Alaska.

                          ____________________