a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. ms. rosen: i rise to let all nevadans know the responses to the pandemic we are facing right now. the coronavirus presents a global challenge to the health and economic security of nevada and the united states. my statutes today are with those in nevada who are ill or suffering with the virus and with the families of the six nevadans who have died because of this disease. ms. cortez masto: i also want to thank the brave men and women on the front lines of this crisis, the first responders and health care workers who are battling to save lives, putting their own health and the health of their families at risk. i know there is a lot of fear and confusion in our communities right now. please know this, though. i am working closely with the

governor of nevada and the nevada delegation to ensure that our state gets the resources it needs to stem the spread of the coronavirus, to treat those who need medical attention, and address the needs of struggling families and businesses. i also know that we are nevada strong. i've seen over and over again that when things get difficult, nevadans come together. when a gunman attacked the route 91 harvest festival in las vegas, i saw how nevadans from all over the state worked heroically to help victims and support families. and nevadans are uniting now, too. i'm proud to say that across the silver state, people are doing their part to reduce the impact of covid-19. our governor has shown tremendous leadership in working to slow the spread of the coronavirus.

as governor sisselack has pointed out, we need everyone to stay home for nevada. our nurses, doctors, and health officials are working tirelessly to care for the sick and to increase our capacity to deal with the cases in the future. first responders, local health authorities, sanitation workers, and retail workers are on the job around the clock to make sure that essential services are available to nevadans. and our gaming, entertainment, and hospitality leaders took steps to stop the spread of up fection including by closing their doors. and so many nevadans are contributing by working from home when they can, caring for school-aged children, volunteering to help make masks or buy groceries for elderly neighbors, and avoiding social interactions that could spread the virus.

everyone -- every single nevadan, each and every american has a role to play in this crisis. we need everyone to do their part by following the advice of the experts and taking practical, commonsense steps like washing hands and practicing social distancing. and my colleagues and i in congress have done our part as well. the senate has come together in a remarkable and bipartisan fashion to act on three bills to address key health care priorities and to protect workers and industry from the economic impacts of the public health crisis. earlier in march, we set aside $8.3 billion to support hospitals, community health centers, public health offices, medical suppliers, and reference across the country. and then -- and researchers across the country. and then next, we passed the bipartisan coronavirus response act to provide free coronavirus

testing, to expand food assistance, and mandate paid sick and family leave for workers. and i am proud to have fought alongside my colleagues in nevada's congressional delegation, including my friend and colleague, senator jacky rosen, to pass today's third relief bill. we must pass this today. it is quite simply the greatest single investment in our economy in health care system in modern american history. and we need it. in 2007, our state was hit hard by the recession. through tremendous effort, we came through it, but our economic recovery was slow. this time we want to make sure our economy springs back quickly after this crisis has passed and that workers have good jobs to return to when it does. that's why we need to pass these far-reaching measures to provide immediate relief to individuals,

families, and businesses suffering from the economic impacts of this pandemic. nevada has an economy that's unique in the nation. our hospitality industry generates nearly $68 billion annually and supports more than 450,000 jobs across the state. so i have been focused on standing up for our gaming, tourism, and hospitality workers. i also wanted to make sure that when we offered relief to big companies, there was oversight, transparency, accountability, and worker protections in place. this bill does that. i am grateful to the many small businesses in my state who have taken the hard but necessary action and closed their doors or reduced their services at this critical time. this bill supports them as well. by providing forgivable loans

and grants so that they can open the doors again as soon as it is safe for them to do so. most of all, i wanted to make sure we supported nevada's workers and their families, the hardworking people our industries employ. that's why i worked with my senate colleagues to ensure that key protections for nevadans and all americans were included in this relief package. we fought to expand unemployment assistance so that it includes part-time, self-employed, and seasonal and gig economy workers that make up a key part of our labor force in the silver state. whether you're a dishwasher at a hotel on the strip or you're a hair stylist in carson city, you'll be eligible for up to four months of unemployment benefits. and, yes, we've locked down direct payments of $1,200 for each adult and $500 for each child, up to a certain income level, so our hardworking

families would have money in their pockets to recover from this pandemic. and we successfully pushed to shore up our hospitals and health care infrastructure to get them more money for protective gear, supplies, and tests so that they can provide patients the best possible care while at the same time protecting themselves. so we made sure that we also included our local, state, and tribal communities. we set aside $150 billion for our governments, who are bearing the brunt for the cost for local health care systems. that's why i support this legislation, and that's why we have to pass this tonight. and i would be amiss if i did not say thank you to the incredible staff that worked so hard over this past few days 24/7 to put this relief package together in a bipartisan way, from leader schumer's staff and leader schumer, the negotiating

team of senators who i get to work with every single day, their hardworking staff and my staff as well who worked late nights to make sure that we were fighting on behalf of nevadans. listen, i know this is a difficult time for everyone, but we are going to get through this, just as we persevered before. and we'll do it by rallying to help one another as nevadans always do. there will be moments of challenge ahead, and each of us has a responsibility to answer these questions. let's listen to the experts. let's take care of one another and let's be kind and understanding of what we are all going through. but let's not lose sight of the beauty of our everyday lives, that familiar rhythm we're all eager to restore. in nevada and across the country, we will be back at our workplaces again solving our everyday problems. our children will be back at school learning for themselves how to make the world a better

place. and, yes, we'll begin the long task of grieving those we've lost. but we'll also be celebrating marriages again and mark being births with a newfound joy. we will get through this together, and i promise everyone in the silver state that i will be fighting in the senate to make sure we rebound from this stronger than before so that nevadans can get back to work. mr. president, i yield the floor and ask that we pass this bill tonight. i know you feel the same way, and i look forward to working with my colleagues to get that done. thank you very much. mr. graham: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: thank you very much. i want to compliment my colleagues, senator tim scott and senator sasse. today when we were getting

briefed about the bill, something hit me like a ton of about. there are a lot of good things in here. there's money for health care providers, hospitals, nurses, and doctors. there's so many good things. the country is under siege, and i was one of the first republicans, mr. president, to join my democratic colleagues -- i think i talked to senator durbin -- we need to do something more on unemployment insurance because the collins-rubio construct i think will help, but some people are going to fall through the cracks. never into my wildest dreams, senator durbin, did i believe that what we have done is to pay people more not to work than to work. under this bill, the $600 payment on top of state benefits actually allows people to have their income almost doubled in certain circumstances. and i want to help people. i want to make sure that if you lose your job, that we cover your wages. but under this bill, you get $23.15 an hour based on a 40-hour work week not to work. and if you're trying to hire

somebody in south carolina the next four months, you got to compete with that wage. and if you're working in a restaurant or probably not now, but if you're working anywhere for $15 an hour, somebody is making $23 an hour and you're working. it's just not fair. it's going to hurt the rubio-collins construct. restaurants that are out of business, we want them to be able to borrow money to pay the payroll to keep people connected to their employer. now what do you do when you make $23 an hour being on unemployment? how do you keep that waitress or bartender at $15 or $17? you've made it a nightmare for small businesses. they're being pitted against their own employees. so to senator durbin and everybody else, the reason we're doing this is because they tell me it takes six to eight months for the unemployment commissions at the state level to figure this out. what are we asking them to do? to get unemployment, you got to

tell us where you work and how much you make and what we want to do is fill in the difference between the state unemployment benefit and your actual wages and stop there. we don't do that under this bill. there are people getting paid more not to work than they were in the workforce. it's going to be hard to not incentivize people to leave their job. you can be unemployed at $23 an hour in south carolina. that's more than a lot of people make. so i'm just urging my colleagues, we need to fix this now, no matter how well-intentioned, you're going to make the next four months impossible for small businesses to hire, and i can promise you this -- if you pay somebody $23 an hour not to work, they're probably going to find a way to get there rather than staying in the workforce where i'm sure they'd rather be. we have created a perverse incentive not to help the

unemployed person but to destroy the ability to stay employed. so with that, i would just say to my colleagues, thank you for trying to bring common sense back to the body. i am very much for this bill. it does help a lot of people. but we've created a pandora's box for our economy, and i wish we could fix it tonight. and if we don't, we need to keep trying and trying and trying. with that, i will yield the floor to my colleagues. the presiding officer: the senator from florida h. mr. scott: under this bill as it's written now, the government will pay many americans more to be on -- you need this, don't you? all right, under this bill, as its written now, the government will pay many americans more to be on government assistance than they would make if they're working at their regular jobs. i support expanding the unemployment insurance program. it's the best and quickest way to get money to people who need it most. but we should not create a system where unemployment

insurance benefits are higher than a salary. we cannot pay people more to not work than to work. this is basic common sense. most people would choose the bigger check, and i don't blame them at all. no person who understands anything about business, economics, or human nature would create such a perverse and ridiculous system. this bill creates an incentive for workers to be unemployed for the next four months, fact. without workers, our economy cannot be open. if our economy remains essentially closed for four more months, we will be in a very deep recession -- fact. you ask how do i know all of this? i grew up poor in public housing. my mom worked three jobs. my parents were constantly struggling to find work. i know what it is like to skip christmas and see the car repo ssessed. on the other end of the spectrum i've run businesses and have had great success. that's exactly how i know these

things. this isn't conjecture. these are facts. there are many good things in this bill, and there are many provisions that i wholeheartedly agree with. but the worst thing we could do right now is create a disincentive to work. we cannot get our economy up and running again, we cannot recover from this -- we can get our economy up and running again, we can recover from this. it will take a lot longer if we don't amend this bill to eliminate the perverse incentives. officer officer the senator from south carolina. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. scott: i plan to support this legislation tonight, but i do want to fix it first. our amendment is the a very simple amendment. -- our amendment is a very simple amendment. but first it is our responsibility to the extent possible to take care of the american people. i want to provide 100% of the salary while an american is laid off because of covid-19.

100% of the salary of someone laid off because of covid-19. my goal is do it the right way. the right way is that you get your income as if you're still working because you've been laid off because of covid-19. not a raise for not working. not 200% of your income while on unemployment. the goal is simply to keep you whole while you're unemployed because of covid-19. i cannot stress enough as a former employer and, frankly, as a former employee the relationship it the employer and the employee is critical. our nation is built on the dignity of work. what this bill does without fixing it is it simply says you

can earn more money by being unemployment -- being on unemployment than you can while working. that is an incentive that is perverse. we cannot have intended to encourage people not to work and make more money than to go back to work and receive your normal pay. with that, i yield. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. sasse: thank you, mr. president. as senator scott just said, this amendment is really simple. all we're trying to say is we should help everyone who needs to be help without us accidentally creating a disincentive to work that's not good for anybody in the country or the country as a whole. we're in the middle of two unprecedented crises right now. we have a public health crisis

and we have an economic crisis into which we're just entering and we don't know how long the valley of this recession is going to be. but i want to be sure that every american who's watching tonight understands exactly what this debate has been about this afternoon. this debate is how you can be both pro worker and pro pro-recovery. to be kind and charitable and also simultaneously affirming the ongoing dignity of work and the necessity of work as our country battles through this virus and ultimately rebuilds our economy. nobody here is arguing about whether or not we should help workers. everybody on both sides of the aisle tonight wants to help workers. this is a debate about whether or not we're going to let a poorly drafted bill knock this nation still harder in the coming months by unintentionally increasing unemployment. that's what this debate is about. right now as the coronavirus is threatening our economy, we know who the real heroes are. the real heroes are not

politicians. there are a lot of people have been working all night, five or six nights in a row, but the heroes that are going to beat this virus and rebuild america are not politicians. the heroes are the men and women who are stocking shelves. the men and women who are picking up trash, the men and women who are driving trucks and delivering takeout. many of them converting restaurants which used to be sit-down into takeout restaurants. putting food on the table for a lot of their americans. the -- their neighbors. the americans and day care workers doing stuff to watch other e.r. doctors' kids. those are the heroes of the heroes are the americans across all 50 states, across every town and village and suburb and city that are doing the work, the ordinary jobs that now under extraordinarily painful and difficult circumstances. they're the heroes, the scrappers, and the doers, and we should be celebrating them, affirming them, and helping them once we get through this crisis to get back to work. this bill has lots and lots of

good stuff in it. i intend to support it as well, but there are pieces of this bill that are broken and that we can fix tonight. and if we don't fix them tonight, it's going to exacerbate our problems and we're going to be back here in a month and to months trying to fix these problems. these are the americans who are going to get us through. they're the people who are going to keep our supply chains alive and those supply chains are the lifeline for lots of americans right now. here's what's wrong with the bill. as it's currently drafted, it threatens to cripple the supply chain for many -- from many different categories of workers. some in health sector, food prep and delivery. this bill as drafted creates a perverse incentive for men and women who are sidelined to then not leave the sidelines and come back to work. this bill creates a perverse incentive for many employers who should be wanting to try to maintain the employer-employee relationship. it creates a perverse incentive for them to server that employer-employee relationship. many other pieces of this bill try to tackle this problem in a really constructive way. the $350 billion for the small

business administration, it is trying to build bridge load programs that help employers and employees be connected and remain connected through this downturn. the unemployment insurance piece of this should not work it cross purposes to what the bill is about in the overall argument. nobody has a problem with the generous unemployment benefits that are in this bill. nobody has a problem with the generous unemployment insurance benefits that are in this bill. they should be generous amid the national crisis that we're in. but we don't want this piece of the bill to create an incrints ef for -- incentive for folks to stop working, have their employers push them away when the employer and employee should be trying to rally around and together to help us build through this crisis. we want to do something really simple. we want to fix what's broken here by saying unemployment insurance benefits should be capped at 100% of the pay you had before you were unemployed. this isn't just about people who

already have been made unemployed. this is about people who are going to be made unemployed in the coming weeks. all this amendment says that we're voting on in a few minutes is that we should cap the unemployment benefits at 100% of the wages you were just receiving while working. it should not be something the u.s. congress does to create an incentive where you'll get paid more by not working than you get by working. that's pro recovery legislation that tries to keep our supply chains humming and tries to help us together, 325 million americans come together to beat this thing. we should vote for workers. we should vote for recovery, and we should vote to beat this thing and come out stronger on the other side. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, i would like to address this issue because i think it's important we explain where we are today and why we've reached this point. i can recall when senator graham crossed the aisle a week or so ago perhaps and started talking about unemployment insurance and

his goals with unemployment insurance. it sounded consistent with the language in conversation i heard in our own side of the aisle, our own caucus. to use the unemployment insurance system as a way to make sure that people were able to really weather the storm when it come to the public health crisis we face. there are a number of people who are filing for unemployment has gone up dramatically. two million new unemployment claims filed last week compared to 218,000 nationwide in previous weeks. so we know that the number of people who have lost their jobs, laid off, furloughed, fired is growing just in a fashion we've never seen before. i've seen it reported in my state, i'm sure each of you have seen the same. but let's get down to the bottom line. and i ask my colleagues to just bear with me for a minute. what you are describing is what we initially set out to do, and then we met with the

representatives of the united states department of labor. i was in one of the task forces for the senate finance committee, and i sat there as a representative from the u.s. department of labor came in and said senators, you don't understand 50 different states' computer systems when it comes to unemployment benefits. we can tell you point blank that only six or eight states out of the 50 could possibly do what you want to achieve. they tell us it will take them months to reprogram their computers to make the simple calculation, what appears to be a simple calculation, that says you never get paid more in unemployment than you were making on the job. that was the reality. we didn't make that up. this wasn't a democratic dreamed up idea. this was the trump administration, department of labor telling us that when they looked at the state departments of labor, they couldn't achieve what you want to achieve with your amendment. in other words, if you go forward and you're successful -- i don't believe you will be -- but if you were successful, what we would end up with is, frank

frankly, a deadlock, no increases in unemployment insurance benefits. now, let me tell you beyond this administrative problem which was not our creation, was identified by the trump administration, beyond this administrative problem there are two or three things i want to say as a bottom line. first, we are determined to make sure that the workers come out at least whole if not better through this terrible experience they're going through. now, this notion that the workers would come out better is not unique to the democratic side of the aisle. the cash payment proposed by the trump administration, $1,200 per adult, $500 per child, for some will be a benefit. may even be a small but important windfall that comes their way. so be it. that working families across america would end up with this cash payment from the trump administration, i don't object to it at all. but the democrats have said that's one and done. that's an air drop of cash to people.

what about the next week and the next month? that's why we brought up the unemployment insurance. now, the $600 figure we came up with was an attempt to make sure that everyone was whole at the end of the day. i will concede your point. some workers, some may end up coming out ahead because of this calculation, $600 a week. they may come out ahead. i'm not going to stand here and say i feel badly about that. i don't feel badly about that at all. when less than half of the people in america have $400 in their savings, the notion that we might end up giving people another $1,000 or $2,000 at the end of four months, to me that is not something we ought to be ashamed of or run away from. that is a real possibility and it may happen. i will support that just as i supported the trump administration's cash payment to that same family. they're going through some tough times and they have for a long, long time. how many of us have given speeches on this floor about income inequality in america and some of the hardest working

people still unable to make it paycheck to paycheck, week to week. so let's give them that helping hand and not apologize for it for a minute. we're standing with these worker and their -- workers and their families and i think you want to as well. the way you want to calculate it we're told it cannot be done. if cannot be done in a fashion that brings relief to these families when they need it right now. a senator: would the gentleman yield? mr. durbin: i'm happy to yield as soon as i finish but i want to make this point as clearly as i can. i believe this is not a windfall. let's assume instead of $600 a week your calculation makes it $450 a week. so $150 times 16 weeks. that's four months. how much is that going to come out to? $2,400. is that going to mean that someone now becomes lazy and won't go back to work? i don't think so. i think a lot of people will use that money and need that money and are given a helping hand and will put it right back in the economy. that's what this is about, that

these families can keep their homes, pay their utility bills, put food on the table, and put the money back into the economy. that's part of what we're trying to achieve here. if we err on the side of giving a hardworking family an extra $1,000 or $2,000 because of our approach, so be it. no apologies. we didn't design the system. we were told we had to work within the design of the system. we've tried to do it. we think the $600 a week is a reasonable way to do it. i'll yield for a question. mr. scott: thank you, senator. the $600 a week i think if i do the math quickly times 16 is about $9,600 add on top of the additional $1,200 for a person, $2,400 per family. you have hit on the point we should all be willing to agree on that the systems of unemployment throughout our country, perhaps are working on antiquated equipment that may need to be updated so that we can in fact keep people whole during their unemployment.

i would love for us to work in a bipartisan fashion to try to figure out through the department of labor how to fix the problem so that those folks who deserve the benefits get all that they deserve but that we actually have a system that's nimble enough for us to meet the needs state by state without exceeding the need so that when we're in this position again, as we're looking at phase four, phase five, we're not again having a conversation about systems that are so antiquated or perhaps even obsolete that we're doing something that was not -- that was not intended. i'm not suggesting that we can get that done tonight. i'm not even suggesting that we can get that done over the next few months. i am, however, concluding that we should work to get it done. mr. durbin: i don't disagree with my friend from south carolina at all. i agree with you completely. we're in the midst of a national emergency. that's not my announcement. that's the announcement of president trump. i believe it. when you look at all the people now filing for unemployment, when you look at the hardships

they're facing, the lifestyles which they had to live to try to comply with shelter in place and all the rules that are going on here, the number of people filing these unemployment insurance claims, they tell us the reality of the situation, the notion as you said, jdz 9,6 -- $9,600 times four months, it basically comes out to $30,000 a year roughly. that's what the $600 is calculated to mean on an annual basis. so on a four-month basis if we end up giving people an extra thousand or $2,000, it is not inconsistent with what the trump administration says they want to do with their cash payment. in the meantime, if we are going to move forward and i hope this crisis comes to an end quickly, if we're going to move forward into a new phase, phase four, phase five, whatever it is, let's work together to try to upgrade these systems, to make them work the way we want them to work. but in the meantime, wouldn't we want to err on the side of standing with working families and their employees?

wouldn't we want to do that in this first effort? i think it's reasonable and thoughtful way to do it. mr. scott: happy to answer that question if the gentleman would yield. mr. durbin: i would be happy to yield for a question from the gentleman from south carolina. mr. scott: i would say on both sides of the aisle that we are trying to get to a point where we are in fact keeping the average person, especially the working class people whole as we ponder and discuss this amendment. would you agree? mr. durbin: of course. mr. scott: my final thought is that my goal isn't to come down here and have a disagreement as much as it is to illuminate a very important part of the process that if we can get it fixed throughout our country, that as we tackle these issues in the future, more folks on both sides of the aisle will have greater confidence in giving these resources to the states so that our people can be helped. that's all i wanted to say. mr. durbin: no disagreement, i

would say to my friend from south carolina no disagreement, but the u.s. department of labor says we cannot do that at this moment, and at this moment when people are hurting so badly, when they have lost their jobs, furloughed, they are worried about paying their bills. the trump administration says they are going to send them a cash payment. we say and i hope it's a bipartisan statement, we're with you, too. it isn't going to end with that one cash payment. we're going to stick with you and make sure your unemployment insurance benefits are going to keep you and your family together. if by chance you come out a little bit ahead in this process with the cash payment or with this calculation in this formula, so be it. so be it. at this moment in history facing this national emergency, we would rather err on the side of you being able to pay your bills and keeping your families together. future needs we can discuss, we can debate, we can see what we can do with the state systems. but for the time being no apologies. $600 a week from where i am standing is exactly what democrats are committed to.

i hope republicans as well. because our belief is that this is the moment when we need to stand with these workers. i might say i support rubio and cardin and their efforts to help small businesses. i think that's the right thing to do. bipartisan from the start and really without much controversy. have we asked any of those businesses to produce net worth statements before they receive those benefits? no. we're not doing that. we understand this is an extraordinary moment, and we may do something different if we're thinking about long-term policy, but for the immediate policy, let us do the right thing. let's err on the side of helping working families who are out of work. and that's why i would oppose this amendment if it's going to be offered by the senator from nebraska, and i came to the floor to explain how we reached this point, and i hope that others will consider my point of view. i yield the floor. mr. sasse: i would just say they briefly that i appreciate the comments from the senator from illinois explaining his position. it seems to me that from where

he started, he should actually be supporting the amendment, and then we should figure out what we would need to do to push on the department of labor to actually modernize their systems. but i just want to say in public something that has been negotiated for the last eight or nine hours, and we haven't been able to get conversation partners really on that side of the aisle, which are you are absolutely right that the department of labor says there are massive system problems in the states. so given that we are entering a recession at this moment and we're going to have lots and lots of needy americans, the calls on these state departments of uninsurance benefits are substantial right now, and so i would just say, taking you at good faith, that you'd like to upgrade these systems so that we could do this thing which doesn't accidentally stimulate unemployment by disincentivizing work, i have been trying all afternoon to get people on that side of the aisle to say hey maybe we can't get this solved by day one of the new

unemployment insurance benefits or by week eight or nine maybe we should have been able to get to a place where the department of labor had the resources to help these state department of unemployment insurance deal with this. so i will follow up with you offline because i would like to work with you on trying to upgrade these systems. i have one more thing to say, but if you want to get in a word, go ahead. mr. durbin: i would, and the nature of the question through the chair, which is the appropriate procedural. mr. sasse: the presiding officer is actually very liberal on this. mr. durbin: this is a debate on the floor of the senate. it's historic. we disagree on one premise. i don't believe in giving people $1,200 as the president suggested for each adult or if they ended up with a net gain out of our approach of $2,000, that we have now turned them into lazy people who will not go back to work, they will just wait for the next government check. these aren't the people i know, and they aren't the people you know. by and large, these are hardworking people who with an additional $1,000 may finally be able to buy that refrigerator, may finally be able to get that

car fixed, may finally be able to get some dental work done. i don't think paying them a little extra here is going to change their lifestyle and attitude toward hard work. mr. sasse: we were agreeing for a while, but i think it is pretty important here to underscore that your math isn't real. the reality is in lots and lots and lots of states in the country where people are earninn hour right now, the unemployment option they are going to be offered is going to be more like $24 or $25 an hour. we're not talking about $1,000 over the course of these four months. we're talking about cases where people might have an annualized wage right now of $30,000 and be looking at an unemployment benefit of $1,000 a week, which is $50,000 annualized. so your math isn't real. the reality is it isn't $600 total. it's $600 on top of what the unemployment benefits already were in that state. and so there are lots of people who are struggling to work hard, to love their neighbor. we have got a lot of health aides in nebraska who make $16

an hour. that's a $32,000 a year job. their work is important. that's a vocation. people need them. there are sick people from covid-19 and other diseases right now in nebraska that need the benefit of those health aides. and you have just told them in this bill, we have just told them in this bill, your work is a little bit important, but look at this. you could make substantially more money if you didn't do the hard thing of trying to figure out what do we do with our kids today when school is closed and i don't know how to do day care and my sister agreed to help take care of my kids but do i really put the burden on her when i don't have to go to work for the same money? i can get substantially more money by going on the unemployment insurance program. that's a disincentive to work that i don't think you believe in, i don't believe in and nobody in my state believes in. it's not a republican versus a democratic issue. this is an american issue. we believe in workers and we believe in work. we don't believe government should come in and say it's much better off to be a nonworker than a worker. you can make a lot more money being a nonworker than a worker.

we're not talking about people who suffered layoffs last week. we're talking about creating a system here which will incentivize more unemployment next week. that's a mistake by this congress and we could and we should be doing better than that tonight. i know the senator from texas has been trying to get in, so, mr. president, i will yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: this bill will pass unanimously tonight, but i think this amendment will make it substantially better. i think we will see a party-line vote on this amendment. i think that's unfortunate, because the consequence of the unemployment insurance system in this bill right now is we're going to substantially disincentivize work, and it's going to hurt workers, it's going to hurt small businesses. let me give you a concrete example. in texas right now, the maximum unemployment insurance is $521 a week. after this bill passes, that will rise from $521 a week to

to 1,121 a week. that is just over $58,000 a year. that means in the state of texas, we're going to be paying people, offering them basically basically $28 an hour not to work. now, listen, every one of us recognize people are hurting. the problem is the incentive. we're creating an incentive that will hurt small businesses. if you have got a waiter or a waitress who has lost their job for a few weeks, they are on unemployment and they are makin, suddenly the prospect of going back to that job and seeing the money they are making going down substantially, that doesn't seem too attractive. suddenly the restaurant owner that's trying to make the small business work can't attract those workers back, and that's bad for everyone. incentives matter. we want people to work. and so i would ask the senator from illinois, you said the problem with implementing this

principle, that we shouldn't pay people more not to work than they make working, you said the problem was administrative, that the department of labor and the states couldn't do it. would the senator agree with this amendment and would the democratic party agree with this amendment if it simply had language inserted to the best extent practicable? so acknowledging that it may not be practicable, but would you agree with the principle that in implementing this, the states and the department of labor should try to make sure we're not paying people more not to work than they would make if they were working? mr. durbin: is that a question directed to me through the chair? mr. cruz: i will yield to the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: let me say at the outset, we are talking about people who did not voluntarily leave their jobs. these people did not voluntarily leave their jobs. they were terminated. they were laid off. they were furloughed. these are not people who are gaming a system. these are people who are victims of the system that is hurt by

this national emergency. and secondly, if we are erring on the side of giving struggling, hardworking families an additional $1,000 a month, $1,000 a month, for goodness sakes, i'm not going to apologize for a moment. these people are living paycheck to paycheck in many respects if they are making $15 an hour, that's $30,000 a year. and for us to say well, they are going to end up with a thousand bucks now, they will never go back to work, those people, i don't believe that. and we have been contacted in this world of social media and such by nurses who say so you think we're going to quit our jobs so that we can take on -- take advantage of the unemployment benefits? no. we go to our jobs and do what we have to do an the amount of money is secondary. i would just say this. yes, in this respect, i agree with you. take a look at the state systems of paying unemployment benefits. we are told by the u.s. department of labor many of them

are way behind the modern technology and cannot meet what you have stated as your goal here. if we want to work toward that goal of improving those state systems, as senator scott said earlier, i will join you in that effort, but let's not apologize for perhaps sending an extra $1,000. one last point. we're asking these people to stay home. we're asking them to help us defeat this virus by not working. stay with your family. so one of the incentives here, if there is a good unemployment benefit coming in, is that they can keep their families together while they obey this directive at least from government state to federal. mr. cruz: so these quarantines are going to end. the period of staying at home is going to end, but under the policy favored by the democratic senators, there is going to be an incentive that's going to end up with more people being unemployed. let's say you are a restaurant owner and if you keep your employees on, maybe through a small business loan, you can pay them, say, $10 or $11 or $15 an

hour, whatever you are paying. but if you let them go, they can go on unemployment and make a whole lot more money. you don't think there will be a lot of small business owners that have their employees say wait a second, i can make more money? that's a bad incentive. we want to create incentives. i agree people want to work, but government can mess that up. if we make it more profitable, i would much rather -- look, the checks we're sending, the $1,200 a person, that doesn't create an incentive. it's not $1,200 if you do x conduct. we want incentives that bring people back to work so that these small businesses that are closing their doors every day don't stay closed. they open up again. they have opportunity again, and it is a perverse incentive to pay people more not to work than to work. yes, we should help them, but we shouldn't track them, and that's what this policy -- mr. durbin: will the senator yield for a question? i am sure the senator is acutely

aware of this, this is a four-month program. we are not offering people this benefit indefinitely. i hope we don't have to renew it. but to say i'm going to give up my lifestyle and returning to the place where i work forever where i was just laid off because they closed the restaurant, because of a four-month program, i don't think so. i think people are more loyal to the workplace if they are treated fairly, and if we end up giving them an additional $1,000 month at the end of the day, i think it's the right thing to do. mr. cruz: the incentives matter. and we don't want to delay a recovery from this crisis by four months. hopefully we stop this global pandemic and we stop it soon. you don't know how soon that will be. i don't know. and one of the benefits of this bill is we're flooding more resources, and we should be, into testing and to preventative gear, into ventilators. there is a lot we need to do to stop this pandemic. but when it ends -- and it will end -- we will get through this. we want people to go back to work. not four months from now. we want them to go back to work

as soon as they are able to go back to work. and that's what our economy needs to be strong. i would note again that i posed a question to the senator of illinois, would he take a modification that acknowledged the administrative problems but said this is the principle we should follow, that you shouldn't be paid more not to work than you are paid to work, and the senator from illinois didn't answer that. mr. durbin: will the senator yield for a question? does the senator support the trump administration's cash payment to these families which comes to them whether they work or not? mr. cruz: i do, i'm going to vote for it, but it doesn't create an incentive, because it's not -- this is where too many in the democratic party don't understand the incentives of trapping people out of work. incentives are future looking. sending these checks right now, if you are making -- if you make $75,000 or less, you are going to get a check in the mail in the next couple of weeks. that's help and relief, but it doesn't create an incentive for conduct tomorrow. what i don't want is people to be sitting there making a

choice. make a very rational choice. look, if you're sitting there and saying, gosh, i can make a lot more money staying at home with my kids and not working than if i go back to the job, that's not an irrational decision if you are making 28 bucks an hour to stay at home. we're causing that problem if we're incentivizing people not to work, and that's not ultimately in their interests or in the economy's interest. this is hurting workers, to pay them more not to work than they would make if they were working. i don't think president trump's cash payment ar an additional $1,000 anoints or whatever it is under the unemployment benefit is going to to make a worker lays did i and government-dependent. these are not the people i know. niece are people who get up and work hard every darn day. if they get an extra helping hand out of this, so be it. we're trying to deal with a health crisis and help these families get through it. that's where we started on this side.

aisle. we may talk about something in the future and approach it a little differently, but i don't think it makes them lays did i to receive the president's cash payment or to receive an extra payment from this unemployment benefit. mr. cruz: so, with respect, the senator from illinois is suggesting this is somehow some negative moral judgment, that it makes them lays did i. exactly the contrary. i say people behave borg to national incentives r look, our girls are 11 and 8 at home. we have incentives all the time. positive incentives, negative incentives. incentives work. we do want to create a system where someone being perfectly rational and reasonable can say, gosh, i can make a lot more money for my family staying home than i can go to work. if i go to work, my family makes less money. that's a question of the government is putting me in a position where if i want to care for my kids, i can do a better job of that by staying home. that is really foolish, and

that, unfortunately, is the position right now of what i expect to be the democratic senators who will vote no on this. that is a bad policy for workers. it's a bad policy for small businesses. it's a bad policy forhe economy. we should support jobs, not paying people not to work. give them a safety net, yes. give them relief, yes. but don't create incentives that make the problem worse, and that's what this democratic policy will do. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware spoke first. mr. carper: thank you. the presiding officer: and he is recognized. mr. carper: thank you very much. to my colleagues, i think the senator from south carolina knows that is i have great respect for him. i used to be state treasurer. i was elected at tender age of

29. we had the worst credit rating in the country. we couldn't balance our budgets to save our souls. we had pretty much no money in the uninsurance fund. over time we straightened out our finances. elected a guy named pete dupont as our governor. we lettered how to work together, something we called the delaware way. and later on i got to be governor, succeeded mike castle, but i was very active in the national governors association. even let me be chairman for a while. i was the lead democratic governor on welfare reform when i was a member of the national governors association. i was raised in a coal mining town in west virginia. we -- parents, not much money,

deep faith, hard work. and my dad used to say to my sister and me, i don't care if you have to work three jobs to pay your bills. work three jobs. that's really the way i was raised. and i suspect most of us here were raised that way. strong worth ethic. when i was involved as the lead democratic senator on welfare reform, i used to say people ought to be better off working than they are on welfare. bill clinton said that often. i really believe that. the thing that was wrong with our welfare system is people were actually better 0 of staying home than they were working. kind of same principle we're talking about here. every state has its own unemployment insurance fund. we have one in delaware. we have one in nebraska, one in texas, one in illinois. they're different, and different benefits are calculated in different states. and in delaware, the -- i just got off the phone, colleagues, with a fellow named sirhan cobb.

he is now secretary of labor. i said, sirhan -- mr. secretary, what do we pay people in delaware on unemployment insurance? what's the replacement rate? he says it's somewhere between 25% and 50% of what people were earning. but he said, there is a $400 cap per month -- or per week. a $400 cap per week on the benefits that we will pay anybody, regardless of what they were making. $400 a week. and if you think about it, $400 a week for four weeks is like $1,600 a month. add to that the $600 benefit and we're talking about $2,200 per mons. if somebody is working full-time -- excuse me, but if you add the

numbers, if you add the numbers, i'm not sure we end up with $24 per hour in delaware. it might be the case, but i would have to see those numbers. my secretary of labor said he thought that the number that we're looking at here was something like $13 an hour in delaware when you add it all in as opposed to $24. so we'll go back -- i'll go back and do our math. mr. sasse: will the gentleman yield? mr. carper: happy to yield. mr. sasse: i don't think any of us believe that a math debate is the most productive way to spend our time in the senate. but $400, add $600, is $1,000 a week. that's $25 an hour in a 40-hour

week. i don't know how i explain that, that you're now going to the pay them $25 if they become uninsured. the senator from illinois said this is a program only for people who are involuntarily separated. if that's the way the program worked, it would be great. but everybody knows that's not how it works. how it actually works is once you create a disincentive to work, employers regularly work with employees to say, i kind of would like to drive you off the system. i think you should realize this would be better for you if you casualize it. that's exactly what happens. mr. carper: i'll go back and reengage in our secretary of labor and make sure we have our mathreavement the other point he made. i asked him how hard would it be to administer? is it something we could stand up in a couple of weeks or months? he said this was would not be an easy thing administratively to

do. and at a time when we're anxious to get the benefit out the door nuclear a hurry, this would not be easy. one of the people i talked to last week when we were trying to figure out really what kind of big package -- legislative package number three should be, leon panetta is one of the people i talked to. he told me about the three "t's" -- timely, targeted, and temporary. those are the three that he talked about. and timely means like making sure we figure, calculate the defined benefit but be able to turn appeared and may it in a timely way. and what i gathered from my secretary of labor is we're not going to be able to incorporate what they're doing at the state level. feed into that the federal benefit into a timely way. i think if we could do that, you'd have probably a fair amount of bipartisan support. but it's that delay and we just

don't know how long that delay would be. this is -- ted kennedy used to sit behind me when i first came to the senate. and i knew some senators -- dick durbin, he and i served in the house together. other people had been governors together. i didn't know ted kennedy. i said i'm new here in the senate. i don't know you very well. what i was doing was going to meet with -- have a cup of coffee with the senators i didn't know well. and i asked if i could maybe have a cup of coffee with him. he said, we'll do better than that. come to my hideaway and we'll have lunch together. i said, that's great. two weeks later we had lunch together. and his hideaway was like a kennedy museum. an amazing place. i asked him, how is it that so many republicans here want you, ted kennedy, the most liberal democrat maybe we had at the time, how many -- they want you to be their lead cosponsor on

their bills? why is that? he said i'm always willing to compromise on policy, never willing to compromise on principle. i think that the policy here is that when people are unemployed and they need help, we want to help them, we help them in a timely way. mr. cruz: would the senator yield for a question? mr. carper: let me finish my thought and i'd be had a especially to. but, in a timely way. and i'm just concerned -- second concern along with my first concern. aim just concerned that the idea to deal with this in a timely way is going to be diminished, maybe significantly. we just honestly don't know. i am happy to yield. mr. cruz: a question for the senator. you said that you were concerned about implementation, that is it may not be timely at the state level to implement this. i think just prior to when you came to the floor i suggested a possible amendment to the senator from nebraska's

amendment that would add a qualifier or something like to the best extent practical, so it doesn't slow the program down, but it acknowledges that both the department of labor and the states should endeavor to implement this in a way that ensures people don't get paid more not to work than to work, and so it puts a qualifier. now, you just suggested there might be bipartisan agreement. would the senator from delaware be amenable to such a change? mr. carper: i would be happy to discuss that with you online and be better able to understand it. i wasn't here what you spoke. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. peters: thank you, mr. president. for over 200 years the american people have shown resilience in the face of great challenges, from civil wars, to international conflicts and, yes, pandemics. we have faced these challenges united and with resolve. like the challenges of the past,

the novel coronavirus pandemic is a crisis that together we can and we will overcome. as the cases of covid-19 increase each day, my top priority is protecting the health and the safety of michiganders and people all across this nation. there's no doubt we're facing an unprecedented public health emergency and an economic crisis at the same time. families in my state of michigan and americans all across this country are worried about their health and their safety and whether or not they're going to be able to make ends meet during this emergency. we must act quickly to provide relief for struggling families and small businesses and health care providers. and even as we move with the urgency that this difficult time demands, we must ensure that this bill is done right and that we're getting the right help to the people who need it the most. we must act aggressively and now we must do everything to provide

relief to workers and families in michigan and across the country. americans are facing an unprecedented personal health and financial challenge. workers in my home state of michigan, who are forced to stay home from work due to the coronavirus, shouldn't need to worry about whether or not they can pay their bills or put food on their table. that's why i authored legislation that's included in this package before the senate to expand unemployment assistance. we've never had unemployment benefits in response to a public health crisis, but we have never seen an emergency on the scale of what we are seeing right now. we must support workers who are not receiving a paycheck or have been laid off due to coronavirus. that's why i fought to create an unemployment compensation program to provide federally funded benefits to people who are unable to work during this pandemic. it would expand unemployment benefits to workers who have exhausted their state

unemployment benefits, and it would make unemployment benefits available to people who don't usually qualify, including small business owners, freelance writers and workers, independent contractors, seasonal workers, and people who have recently started or were about to start a new job. and it provides workers with extended unemployment insurance so that hardworking families can have some certainty that they can stay afloat financially during this crisis that is likely to last a while. our small businesses have been hit especially hard, and some are at risk of having to close their doors or lay off their employees. our small businesses are the backbone of our economy and they need support now more than ever. that's why i worked with my colleagues on the small business committee to craft legislation to expand funding available for small business loans, and as a result of those efforts, this package now increases the funding for the popular and

successful 7-a small business loans to $350 billion. i also pressed for additional funding, $240 million, for small business development centers and women's business centers that increase the funding for minority business centers as well. these funds will go a long way toward helping small businesses pay their rent and keep their lights on. this legislation also includes significantly more funding that will go to our hospitals and health care system. this funding will ensure that our overstretched hospitals can make up for lost revenue, keep their doors open, and make payroll for the dedicated nurses, doctors, and health care professionals who are on the front lines fighting day in and day out to stop this pandemic. i've been working closely with the hospitals and health care providers in michigan, and they cannot stress how critical this funding is to their ability to continue providing the care and comfort during this pandemic. i will keep fighting to ensure that they have the resources,

the supplies, the gloves, the masks, and the medical equipment that they need to protect themselves and their patients from coronavirus. finally, as the ranking member of the homeland security and government affairs committee, i work closely with chairman ron johnson to ensure that this legislation has strong oversight provisions in place. we must ensure that the funds we are authorizing or going to the people -- are going to the people, the small businesses, and the health care providers who need them the most. our oversight provision creates a pandemic response accountability committee, a board that is made up of agency watchdogs would will be charged with auditing and investigating the administration's coronavirus response efforts and how americans' hard earned tax dollars are being used to address this serious crisis. we are also requiring the government accountable office to audit where these funds are going and keep congress and the american people up to date through real time publicly

available reports. this model was used to successfully track spending from the 2009 recovery act during the great recession. and i was proud to work with my republican chairman to get this important accountability measure included in this bill. this bill is an important step forward to addressing this crisis head-on and ensure our nation can get back on track once we have addressed the serious public health threat and the resulting economic crisis as well. it's an important step but it's not the last action we'll need to take before this pandemic is over. i'm going to do everything possible to continue working with my colleagues in a bipartisan manner to ensure michigan communities and families have the resources and the support that they desperately need. i will also continue working closely with michigan governor gretchen whitmer. it whether continue to take each and every one of us doing our part and working together to

prevent the spread of this pandemic, protect public health and continue to address this economic crisis. together, mr. president, i know that we will get through this and we will come out stronger on the other side. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: thank you. mr. president, let me be very honest and tell you that there is much in this bill and we have not yet seen the printout yet, but i am concerned about, i'm especially concerned that the administration will be able to expend $500 billion in virtually any way they want, any corporation they want with virtually no strings attached. the american people at a time of massive income and wealth

inequality do not want more corporate welfare and they do not want policies which will allow corporations in some cases to receive loans or grants and then do stock buybacks to enrich their stockholders, provide dividends or maybe raise the compensation benefits of their already wealthy c.e.o.'s. what the american people want right now is for us to use our taxpayer dollars in every way that we can to protect the working families of this country, protect the middle class, to protect the 50% of our people who are living paycheck to paycheck. and as we speak tonight, half of our people in this country, the richest country in the history of the world, are living paycheck to paycheck. and they wake up in the morning and they're saying, you know what? i can barely make it on the paycheck that i got because i'm

making $12, 13, 14 bucks an hor and now that has stopped. how am i going to pay my rent, how am i going to put food on the table, make sure the lights remain on. how am i going to pay my student debt? how am i going to pay my credit card debt? somebody in the family gets sick, how am i going to pay that? now, this bill has been worked on citizensively in the last -- extensively in the last few days. there are elements in it that in my view are positive, don't go far enough by any means. but one of the things this bill does do sl provide the -- do is provide the largest expansion of unemployment benefits in history, expending about $250 billion of federal funds. and what it does importantly, the bill understands that for all kinds of absurd reasons

having to do republican attacks on workers for many years, fewer than 50% of american workers today are eligible for unemployment benefits. what this bill does is it says rightly so that in the midst of this terrible economic crisis where some people, nobody knows -- where some economists are estimating by june, unemployment could be 20%, 30%. what this bill does say is whether or not you are eligible for unemployment today, you're going to get until employment compensation. and that means many of the gig workers, people that drive uber cars, many of the waitresses and waiters who make starvatio starvation-minimum wages, many so-called independent contractors, they will be eligible for the extended unemployment benefit. that is exactly the right thing. and the other thing that this bill does which is right is it says okay, we are in the midst of a horrific crisis, unpress

defntsed in modern -- unprecedented in modern american history. not only are you going to get your regular unemployment benefit, we're going to at another -- to add another $600 a week to it. and now i find that some of my republican colleagues are very distressed. they're very upset that somebody who is making 10, 12 bucks an hour might end up with a paycheck for four months more than they received last week. oh, my god, the universe is collapsing. imagine that. somebody is making 12 bucks an hour, now like the rest of us faces an unprecedented economic crisis with the600 bucks on -- the 600 bucks on top of their normal unemployment check might be making a few bucks more for four months. oh, my word. will the universe survive?

how absurd and wrong is that? what kind of value system is that? meanwhile, these very same folks had no problem a couple of years ago voting for a trillion dollars in tax breaks for billionaires and large profitable corporations. not a problem. but when it comes to low-income workers in the midst of a terrible crisis, maybe some of them earning or having more money than they previously made, oh, my word, we've got to strip that out. got to tell those poor people -- by the way, when the mcconnell bill first came up unbelievably and i know many republicans objected to this, they were saying that well, we want to give -- whatever it was -- a thousand or 1200 bucks but poor people should get less because poor people are down here. they don't deserve -- they don't eat. they don't pay rent. they don't go to the doctor. they're somehow inferior because

they're poor, going to give them less. that was addressed. now everybody is going to get the $1,200. but some of my republican friends still haven't given up on the need to punish the poor and working people. you haven't raised the minimum wage in ten years. minimum wage should be at least 15 bucks an hour. you haven't done that. you've cut program after program after program and now horror of horrors for four months workers might be earning a few bucks more than they otherwise went. needless to say this is an amendment that's coming up. i don't think it's going to go very far and if it does go far, i will introduce an amendment to deal with the corporate welfare, the $500 billion in corporate welfare which is to me a very serious problem. but i do not think they're going to get the 60 votes and take will be the end of it. mr. president, this bill also includes some $250 billion in

one-time checks of $1,200 for adults and did 500 for -- and $500 for kids. i have a couple of concerns. number one, i have belief that in the midst of this unprecedented crisis, that we should make this a monthly benefit, not a one time benefit. and depending on what happens, and i expect very much that this congress will be reconvening because i think this coronavirus three, the bill we're on right now, is going to be superseded by coronavirus four. because my strong guess this does not go far enough. but the bill does include $1,200 check for adult, $500 for kids. that will help in the short term. we've got to do a lot better than that. as many of you know, in countries around the world, u.k., denmark, other countries, the approach that they are taking which makes sense to me is basically say to employers,

if you keep your workers on the job, even if they're not working right now, we will pay. in the u.k.'s case, 80% of their salary. other countries a bit higher. i think that is the direction we should have gone. this is a little bit more convoluted. but what we do do here is give $367 billion in loans to small businesses and those loans could be forgiven if those small businesses don't lay off workers. and i think for a variety of reasons that is exactly the right thing to do. the goal right now is to stabilize the economy by telling workers that they will have their jobs when they come back, when this thing is over, and that in the meantime, they will have all or most of their income. that is my preferred approach. this bill provides $150 billion to states and cities. i can tell you that in vermont, and i'm sure in every other

state in this country, states and cities are hurting because we all know there has been a major decline in tax revenue. and that is an important thing to do because -- by the way, in the midst of this crisis, a lot of the responsibility is going to fall on local and state government. and one of the concerns of many that i have about this bill is that in the best of times, this bill requires an enormous amount of work by the federal, state, and local governments. how do you get all these unemployment checks out? how do you deal with all of these small businesses who may apply for these loans? this is hard stuff. and it becomes even more difficult when so many workers ho work for local and state government are not coming into work because of the coronavirus. one of the issues that we are going to have to focus on big time is the implementation. if anyone thinks just passing this bill tomorrow everything is going to flow smoothly, you are terribly mistaken. this is a complicated, multifast

cetted -- multifaceted bill and it is going to a an enormous amount of work to make sure the money goes where it should go in a cost effective way. this bill does a lot of other things as well that i think will help the american economy. so to conclude, mr. president, this is not the bill that i would have written, frankly. i don't think it's the bill that most americans would have written. i think most americans are very, very apprehensive that one-quarter of this bill is going to go to large corporations with very little accountability. and in a political season, let me make the radical sthawtion we have a president of the united states who may end up targeting some of this money to states that he needs to win. so this bill has some good things. it has some issues of real concern. but one thing we must not do is to punish low-income workers who might get a few bucks more than they revel earned.

thank you very much. mr. sasse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. sasse: i just listened to the senator from vermont's speech. there's obviously a lot we don't agree on in life and policy, politics and economics. he caricatured the entire purpose of this amendment. the purpose of this amendment tonight is to affirm work. under his vision i don't know exactly where he thinks the workers who stock shelves and drive trucks right now would come from because he made an argument about government subsidies that would be on a permanent basis higher than the wages of all those jobs. i don't understand how his economic system would actually ever work. i would like to praise him here. two things, one, he said something politicians don't say. when people will vote for something, they say it's utopian and do everything right. if they vote against something, they say it's the worse thing ever written. bernie sanders just said that this bill has a lot in it. it's big, clunky. we're in the middle of a

national emergency and there's some good and some bad in it and he's going to vote for it. i also believe this bill is big and clunky and stinky. there's a lot that's broken in it. there's some that's good, necessary, important and there's a lot that's bad, poorly thought out and not going to be implemented very effectively. on that i'm also inclined to vote for it. i i appreciate his candor in admitting this is kind of a big crap sandwich. in addition, i want to praise the senator from vermont for his candor in saying something that i totally oppose, but i appreciate his integrity and honesty in admitting it. he said, i believe -- correct me if i'm wrong, sir -- he says he wishes the $1,200 emergency payment would be made monthly and permanent. is that right? mr. sanders: no, not permanent, but during the crisis, yes. mr. sasse: okay. that's helpful clarification. you were saying a lot of different things. i thought you were arguing for a u.b.i. of 14 grand.

i wanted to clarify that point. i appreciate the fact that you believe a lot of things very differently, the senator believes, speaking in the third person, a lot of things very differently, but he argues forcefully for his position. i think that this body would benefit from nor people who spoke as bluntly and directly as the senator from vermont. i hope his positions are voted down again and again and again, but i appreciate the way he argues for his positions. thank you, mr. president.

the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, several senators on the other side have been arguing against the provision in this bill to super charge unemployment insurance right now. some say that senate democrats have negotiated with the trump administration, secretary mnuchin, and chairman grassley.

based on what i'm hearing from senators on the other side, you'd think that this provision was pretty much going to end western civilization. now, super charging unemployment benefits has long been a priority for senate democrats that have been fighting for those improvements in unemployment since the process began. in our view, it's the key to getting help to where. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon, would you please use your microphone? mr. wyden: i thank the president. supercharging unemployment benefits has long been something senate democrats have been fighting for. it's the key to getting help where it's needed most, and believe me, colleagues, when you see the unemployment claim

numbers tomorrow, if the numbers are accurate, this chamber is going to see that the unemployment crisis is exploding in america. i don't believe anybody in our great country should fall into destitution as a result of this pandemic, so i obviously disagree with my colleagues who oppose our amendment so strongly to improve unemployment benefits. i just want to make a few key points in response to their arguments. first, i want to start with an argument i heard that just about knocked the wind out of me when i heard it earlier. it's the idea that nurses are going to quit their jobs as a result of this legislation.

mr. president, nurses are not going to be quitting their jobs to get unemployment benefits because that's not how nurses think when they get up in the morning. by now, everyone is seeing the herculean efforts of our nurses fighting the pandemic. nurses in america are brave, they care, they are the true professionals. from portland, oregon, to portland, maine, they are on the front lines of this fight, putting themselves in harm's way to save the lives of our neighbors, whether it's in south carolina, oregon, or anywhere else. they don't cut and run. contrary to the suggestion of my colleague from nebraska, retired nurses have been coming out of retirement in droves to help treat patients who are suffering because of the coronavirus.

second, it's a head scratcher to me that my colleague from nebraska is raising this objection now. i'm the ranking democrat on the finance committee. i learned about his objection when i watched his press conference, and then i called him about it. the proposal has been out there for days. senators have known about it the whole time. it's not a drafting error. it's not a last-minute surprise. what the senator from nebraska wants to in effect drop now was part of the bill. mr. president, you're a member of our committee, and i enjoy working with you. what the senator from nebraska wants to drop now in fact was part of the bill that republican leader mcconnell introduced on saturday. he introduced it on saturday

because senate democrats insisted on it being part of the package, and as secretary mnuchin said this afternoon on national television -- we all heard it -- republicans agree. i will have a little more to say about secretary mnuchin's remarks in a minute. third, i want to talk about why this is so needed, why my democratic colleagues and i have worked so hard to help the millions hit by this economic wrecking ball get through these horrendous times. for most americans, the old unemployment rules would cover only a third to half of their lost wages. that's it. pretty hard to pay the rent, put food on the table with that. even before this crisis, even before the crisis, mr. president, the federal reserve found nearly half of

americans wouldn't have been able to come up with $400 cash to cover costs in an emergency. so let's face it. millions of americans were walking on an economic tightrope , balancing their representative against their food and the food against the fuel, and that was before the pandemic. thatthat's why we on our side fl so strongly, so appreciative of the work of senator peters, senator menendez who helped in the negotiations, and of course the leader. we all said we need an improved supercharged unemployment benefit to replace people's lost wages. those are people who shouldn't face the choice between homelessness, hunger, or bankruptcy because a virus has shut down our economy and cost them their jobs.

this isn't the fault of any workers in south carolina or oregon or anywhere else. and while the consumer economy is shuttered, the congress has a responsibility to make sure that americans can bounce back in a matter of weeks or months. otherwise, millions are going to struggle slowly to recover from the economic crisis, and many might not make it if the senate doesn't move to help them now, now, now. the panic people feel over the virus is already too much, and the least we can do as lawmakers is to have their backs when it comes to surviving this economic crisis. now, all my colleagues know we're on the third bill in the fight against the virus. mitch mcconnell's first version of this bill did

virtually nothing for those who are losing their jobs. i read it carefully. out of 247 pages in the republican leader's first bill, eight lines of text, -- not eight pages, eight lines. and those eight lines only dealt with filing for unemployment online. now, that bill had an awful lot of corporate goodies, lots of slush funds for big corporations, but just a few measly lines for people hurting, for workers hurting, workers losing their jobs. senate democrats fought for and run changes that make up this robust, expanded, supercharged unemployment insurance program. it's based on a bill that my

colleague, senator peters, and i introduced not long ago. first in these punishing economic times, americans are going to need more weeks of coverage than they would otherwise get from unemployment insurance. the existing links of unemployment benefits will not cover the time this crisis will last. second, the senate needed to modernize the unemployment insurance program because it really hasn't changed much since that was developed in wisconsin in 1932. mr. president, 1932, nobody was talking about gig workers, and that unemployment program that was invented then hadn't changed all that much. certainly hasn't been built to take on the kind of challenge our country faces right now. democratic senators and i looked at that system and said this old system wouldn't be good enough

for independent contractors, the self-employed, gig workers, part-time workers and freelancers. they're a big part of the face of the modern economy. they wouldn't the kind of workers anybody was thinking about in 1932 when the program was invented. senate democrats led the effort to get those people coverage, and i'm glad that at one point in the negotiation, we could get bipartisan support for it. for people who still have their jobs but have their hours slashed, we're going to bat for them. for people in the service economy, the restaurants, salons, gyms, you name it. all those people are suffering because their jobs and their businesses have been put on pause, we're going to bat for them. we're talking about millions and millions of americans. people who are looking at hard times ahead, and they need our

help now. the old unemployment insurance system wasn't working, so senate democrats, senate democrats said we're going to come together and we're going to go to bat for all those independent contractors and the self-employed and the freelancers and the gig workers. and now i think, not only are we going to help them over the next four months, but i think we have developed some ideas that can be part proliferate reforming the -- of reforming the unemployment exception system after those four months. now, i want to turn to why this agreement raises benefits specifically by $600 per month. i've heard my colleagues and their strenuous objections to that amount. the reason it is $600, mr. president, is because labor

secretary scalia, after meeting with the senate negotiators -- myself, senator grassley, secretary mnuchin, senator menendez, senator portman, a big group of us -- secretary scalia, after meeting with senate negotiators, left us with no other way to get benefits to workers quickly. secretary scalia said that the states had no other way to get the benefits to workers in time. we needed a simple solution, and i know my colleague, the distinguished president of the senate, and others who are sponsoring this proposal to unravel what senate democrats did with secretary mnuchin, the

trump administration, and chairman grassley, may not believe me, but i want to share the words of secretary mnuchin himself and specifically on this question of why we were focused on making sure that workers could get that extra $600 a week. just today, secretary mnuchin said, and i'm going to quote here, most of these state systems have technology that's 30 years old or older. if we had the ability to customize this with much more specifics, we would have. this was the only way we could ensure states could get the money out quickly and in a fair way, so we used $600 across the

board. i don't think it will create incentives. most americans want what they want. they want to keep their jobs. that is what secretary mnuchin said today in defending the language that is in the bill as, in effect, the fastest, simplest way for workers to get their benefits and why we disagree so strongly with the amendment from the senator from nebraska to unravel that approach. the math shows that the standard payment of $600 is the simplest way to get to full wage replacement without causing, as of now, an administrative train wreck. so i'm going to close on this. i'm sure that everybody here read that unemployment claims are expected to go up by $2.5

million in one week when the statistics are released tomorrow. let me say that again t -- again. $2.5 million. almost as many jobs that were hit when the great recession lost our country so hard in 2008. it is the single largest rise in unemployment since that figure began to be tracked. 12 entire months worth of great recession job losses, that's how many claims economists expect to see in a single week. this country has never faced anything like it. it is not a normal recession. this isn't a normal bill to try to stimulate the economy in which the government tries to give the economy a shot of fiscal adrenaline. this is a time when we face a shutdown of entire sectors of

our economy. what the congress needs to do is keep our economy alive and act now. we're not are going to do that by shortchanging workers who are losing jobs, losing hours, or losing gigs. i feel so strongly, americans want to work. businesses want to keep their employees on the job. americans want the economy to spring back to life once the pandemic is under control, and that's what supercharge ago unemployment benefits is all -- and that's what supercharging unemployment benefits is all about. senate democrats agreed with the trump administration, secretary mnuchin and chairman grassley on this. our proposal was not a drafting error. it didn't pop out at the last minute.

it's not going to bring about the end of western civilization. i hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will review what secretary mnuchin had to say this afternoon on national television supporting what democrats -- senate democrats negotiated with him and the administration and join us in making sure millions and millions of americans don't fall into destitution. i yield the floor. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: thank you, mr. president. i don't wish to delay things. i just want to make a couple comments. i did speak earlier this afternoon about this. it's almost an understatement to say that america is at an

inflection point. we're facing a public health crisis unlike anything we've seen in a generation. the states and local counties are racing to respond to mitigate the crises. the package here is a good one. does it do everything? no. is it perfect? no. it's a lot better than where we were? yes. i think of the senate has a body should be the conscience of the nation. and there's time for us to have reality trump rhetoric. we've had enough rhetoric. as i said in the past, it speaks to reality.

i think of our own governor, republican governor, who has worked so hard to help our state. this will give him some tools, as it will to our speaker of the house and our president pro tempore of our legislature. with this bill, we support the victims of this terrible virus, the health care providers and first responders on the front lines tending to take care of the essential workers who have keeping our store shelves stocked and the necessities available, the families hit by the fallout from this pandemic. i have been fortunate.

i've been married now for almost 58 years to one of the best medical surgical nurses i've ever known. i hear her tell what it is. marcelle tells me what the doctors and nurses face in a situation like this. mr. president, i pray that neither you nor i, nor any other member of this body will have to face what they face on the front lines. we should go forward and pass this bill. i'd ask that my full statement be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. collins: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that proceedings under the call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: mr. president, i see that the senator from maryland is on the floor, and i think he arrived a minute or two before me, so if he'd like to go first, i would want to give him that opportunity. mr. van hollen: i'm grateful. thank you, senator from maine. but i'm happy to have you go first. ms. collins: thank you. mr. president, all across the country americans are stepping up in response to the coronavirus pandemic sweeping our nation. doctors and nurses are working endless hours and putting

themselves at risk to care for the surge in patients. manufacturers, including many companies in my state, are working overtime and retooling their product lines to produce medical testing swabs, ventilators, and personal protective equipment. all of which are vitally needed. truckers are going above and beyond, missing time with their families so that they can deliver goods needed to restock depleted grocery shelves. people are looking out for their neighbors in a safe way. they're checking on them. they're making personal sacrifices to help prevent the virus from spreading to the most vulnerable members of our society. help is on the horizon for small

businesses and their employees who are facing economic devastation through no fault of their own. mr. president, i have talked to small business owners all across our state, including small mom and pop operations like a third generation diner operated and owned by the is -- by the samos family in lewiston, maine. for the first time ever in three generations, they have had to close their doors. they've had no choice. as linda simones told me in tears earlier this week, we've never been unemployed. our son is unemployed. our friends who have worked with us at this diner for years are

unemployed. mr. president, the agreement finally reached today includes a $377 billion small business economic relief plan that senator rubio, senator cardin, senator shaheen, and i authored as members of the small business task force. it is intended to help workers and small businesses just like the one owned by the simones family in lewiston. and our group worked day and night to get this bipartisan package included in the broader legislation, and i want to do a shout out to our staff because i don't think they've been to bed before 4:00 a.m. in the morning

in any day in the last week. that's how hard they've worked, too. under our bipartisan approach, small businesses would be eligible for a 100% federally guarantee emergency loan to cover eight weeks of payroll as well as certain expenses like rent or mortgage payments and utilities. if these businesses keep their employees on the payroll, in other words if they keep issuing those paychecks, their loans would be completely forgiven. here's how it would work. small employers with 500 employees or fewer would be eligible to apply for these federally guaranteed loans. the loans would be available immediately through existing small business administration certified lenders, including certain banks, credit unions,

and other financial institutions. in a streamline -- and a streamline process would be created to bring other additional lenders into the program. the size of the loans would be tied to a formula based on the small business' average monthly payroll and that would go back to february 15 since that's when the coronavirus really started to come to our country and have an impact. the maximum loan amount would be $10 million. so as long as these small businesses retain their employees and issue those paychecks which keep in mind also means in many cases that those employees will get their health insurance as well. the portion of the loan used to cover payroll and mortgage

interest, rent, and utility would also be forgiven. furthermore, and this is important to states like those of the presiding officer and mine which have large numbers of tourists coming each year, employers and tipped employees would receive forgiveness for the additional wages paid to such employees. in addition i want to point out that workers who have already lost their jobs due to this crisis can be rehired and paid under our program, and that should be our goal. mr. president, this vital assistance cannot come a moment too soon. there is so many small businesses that have already shut down or are on the verge of doing so. they are trying to hang on just

a little longer to avoid laying off their employees who are like members of their own family. in fact, in many cases they are members of their own family. without this package we face an unemployment tsunami that could reach as high as 20% according to the secretary of the treasury. not only would this cause tremendous harm to millions of families, but it would also take a massive toll on the federal budget far exceeding the $377 billion that we're using for this small business assistance program toe -- program to keep workers paid and employed. what we want is to make sure those small businesses survive, that they're here when we've transcended this crisis, and

that their employees are still able to come back to work for them. we don't want to break that link, that connection. we don't want those small businesses to give up and shutter their doors forever decimating our downtowns and causing permanent job loss for the workers that are so much a part of their business. now, larger businesses that are facing cash flow issues would be eligible for certain loans so that they can avoid laying off their workers. however, unlike the small business assistance programs which would have their loans forgiven as long as they keep their workers employed, the larger businesses would be required to repay these loans in full. and i want to make clear that these large businesses would be

barred from stock buybacks and increasing executive pay for the duration of the loan. and i fully support those restrictions. of course, many of those small businesses don't have shareholders so the idea of a stock buyback doesn't exist. now, some of them, subchapter s may but many of them do not. i'm also pleased to say that we would cover the sole proprietor, the independent contractor, those many individuals who we rely upon to make our economy work. mr. president, following my advocacy along with members from other coastal state, i'm also pleased that the bill includes $300 million to assist workers

and businesses in our nation's fisheries which support thousands of jobs in the great state of maine. with this legislation harvesters, fishing communities, agriculture -- agricultural operations and other fishery-related businesses will be eligible for this $300 million in assistance which may include some direct relief payments. this helps protect our food supply chains. and this targeted relief will help ensure that the families and the coastal communities that depend on our fisheries can emerge from this crisis. similar assistance is provided to our farmers as well. mr. president, this bill also provides more than $30 billion for states, schools district, colleges, and universities to

help them meet the unexpected expenses that have flowed from the coronavirus crisis. our schools, our k-12 schools will have access to $13.5 billion which will help them support remote learning and meeting the needs of their students. and i want to take a moment to recognize the dedication of those teachers, administrators, school food service workers and bus drivers who are not only making sure that students have access to remote learning but are making sure that students have access to meals off site. this bill provides funding to help them provide those meals anbut unfortunately -- in create but unfortunately more costly ways such as delivering

prepackaged meals along bus routes or directly to students in their homes so that they won't be hungry. we all know how important the school breakfast and school lunch programs are to our low low-income families. when colleges and universities made the very tough decision to send students home for the semester, i spoke with several presidents in maine and they told me about the steps they were taking to make sure that their students could still receive a quality education albeit online or remotely. they were also taking steps as well they should to reimburse students and their families for room and board, and they've shortened travel study programs. they're investing in the software and hardware infrastructures to bring classes online quickly.

they're doing even more than that, mr. president. the university of maine, for example, has partnered with the state to prepare its dorms and its facilities for emergency uses if necessary. so the direct aid to colleges and universities is needed to help these institutions offset these sudden revenue losses and unexpected costs. there's also temporary flexibility applied to student aid, to student loans that also will be very helpful. this agreement, mr. president, is not only a lifeline for workers, small businesses, and schools, it builds on the previous two packages that congress has passed to promote the health and safety of americans. it makes substantial investment

in our nation's health system, biomedical research and education, including a $130 billion infusion for our hospitals and health care providers that are struggling to cope with this influx of patients and it provides $20 billion for additional resources for veterans health care. it authorizes an $11 billion catalyst toward the development of an effective vaccine and therapeutics, effective treatments for those struck by this virus. it provides a billion dollars for community services block grants to support critical social service programs for millions of low-income individuals. it gives the centers for disease control additional funding to enhance its vital work. it is communities responding to

greater services with an increase of $5 billion for community development block grants. that comes from the subcommittee that i chair. it helps with transit systems. there's widespread help for those who are homeless or among some of the most vulnerable in our population. it strengthens the low-income home heating assistance program. that's something that senator jack reed and i have long worked together on. we don't want families and seniors making impossible choices between heating their homes and buying food or medicine. this package also contains two additional pieces of legislation that i've introduced and championed. first it contains provisions from the mitigating emergency drug shortages or meds,

legislation i author thad will help prevent a shortage of vital medications. i was shocked, mr. president, to learn that 72% of the facilities that make vital, active pharmaceutical ingredients for our market here in america are located overseas. 13% of these facilities in china. we just can't have that and we need far greater visibility into that supply system. it also contains a bill that i have long advocated for, the home health care planning improvement act. it will allow nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and others to certify patients as needing home health services. now it's just a physician that can do it, even though a physician might not be the

primary care provider particularly in rural areas. so that will remove needless delays in getting medicare patients the home health care that they need. that's a critical improvement at a time when our health care system is being put to the test and when people are being told they need to stay in their own homes to avoid spreading the virus. the list of benefits that will be felt in communities across the country goes on and on. mr. president, it's imperative that we pass this bill tonight. every day, more small businesses are forced to close their doors. every day, americans are losing their jobs and their income. every day, medical professionals are increasingly overwhelmed by the exponential rise in cases.

the package we are voting on to advance tonight will bolster our health care system, infuse funds into biomedical research that will ultimately produce a vaccine and effective treatments, shore up our economy and our businesses, support those who are unemployed, strengthen the length between employers and their employees, save millions of jobs of those employed by small businesses, and help prevent a devastateing recession, perhaps even a depression in this country. let us not squander this momentum when we're so close to getting this done for the american people. i urge my colleagues to join me

in passing this critical legislation. thank you, madam president. mr. van hollen: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, madam president. as other senators have mentioned, we see our fellow

americans uniting around the country to fight the coronavirus, to help those in need. most of all, we're grateful to the men and women in health care , the health care system on the front lines of this fight, the nurses, the doctors, all the other staff and hospitals and community health centers in clinics who are putting themselves and their own health at risk to help their fellow americans. and we in the senate, like our fellow americans, must come together to do the right thing for the country at this moment in time. to provide a surge of help to those on the front lines of the coronavirus fight and to help those who are suffering from the economic fallout. workers and small businesses and mid-sized businesses and others who are absolutely getting

clobbered, as we all try to fight this virus together. and so congress must unite this evening, as we have on two prior occasions during this emergency. when we came together to pass phase one, to provide emergency immediate health care support to public health entities, to provide more funds to do research on a vaccine for the coronavirus, more funds for research on antivirals to address the coronavirus, and then we passed round two, the families first act where we made sure that that testing was free because we don't want any american to say i'm not going to get tested even though i feel like i might have the symptoms, i'm not going to get tested because i can't afford it,

putting both themselves and others in the community at risk. so we said we have got to make sure these tests are free, and we also provided sick leave, sick leave because we don't want anybody going to work when they feel sick and they have the virus if going to work is the only way they can put food on the table by getting a paycheck. so we said look, stay at home and we'll provide for paid leave. now, there was a gap, a big gap in that that still needs to be addressed, but we took some important measures in phase one and phase two, and now here we are this evening on phase three. where we're not only providing additional dollars to fight the coronavirus and the health emergency, but also dealing with the economic fallout which is growing by the day. and i'm not going to go through all the provisions that do that, and i will say that this bill is far from perfect.

this is not a bill that i would have written. i dare say it's probably not the bill that any one senator would have written. but with all its flaws, it does some very important things and things that are absolutely necessary during this national emergency. there has been a lot of talk tonight about the uninsurance compensation provision. those are absolutely essential as a lifeline to workers who each day are losing their jobs around the country in many industries. and it is absolutely essential that in that process, people who are out of work through no fault of their own are still able to pay their bills or rent or mortgage or keep their lights on or for food, and that's why we are working to make sure they have real replacement income during this four-month emergency period. and the provisions regarding small businesses and

middle-sized businesses, those are very important, too. i'm sure we are all hearing from folks who already had to close their doors because when there are no customers coming in the door, there are no sales, no income, and so if you're a small business, you can't make your debt payments and you can't make payroll. so this bill does have a lot of very important provisions in it with respect to small businesses, and i'm really glad that we moved with respect from small businesses to loans only to loans that would be forgiven so long as the small businesses spent those moneys to maintain payroll or hire people if we have already let them go and to pay essential bills. because just adding more loans and debt onto small businesses would only be like an anchor around their next at the end of a four-month or whatever period it may be. they wouldn't be able to dig themselves out of that hole.

so that was very important to have loans that will be forgiven so long as the loans are used for the intended purposes. and we also made important provisions for nonprofits who hire millions of americans and as well for mid-sized businesses. with respect to some of the largest industries in the country that have been hard hit, it's appropriate to also give them help, but it's also important that as we do that, we safeguard the american taxpayer and the public interest, and when the proposal first arrived here in the senate from the white house, we were looking at about a $500 billion slush fund with no strings attached, no real accountability, no real transparency. and so we have tried to tie that down so that we will have an inspector general with subpoena power, so that we will ensure that there will be no stock buybacks with these emergency funds. now, we're going to still look at the fine print, but we have

come a long way from the proposed blank check to the president of the secretary of the treasury which was in the bill as it arrived here as proposed by the administration. there is another thing in the bill before us tonight that was not in the bill proposed by the administration, and that is badly needed help for states and cities and towns who are on the front lines of this battle across the country. we heard about five, six days ago from the majority leader, let's just wait. maybe we can do that sometime down the road. well, we have heard from a bipartisan group of governors to the national governors' association that they need that help now, and i'm sure you have all been fielding calls from your elected officials, your governors and others about how they desperately need additional help to fight this virus. and so i'm glad that this bill

contains $150 billion to help those states. now, madam president, i want to raise tonight something that i discovered about this bill just a few hours ago that gives me real heartburn and actually i believe reflects badly on this united states senate. here's how we distributed the funds to the states. each state, regardless of population, gets $1.2 billion, and then the remainder of the money up to $150 billion is distributed to states based on population. now, you can question whether that's the best and most effective way to -- to essentially allocate resources when you're fighting a coronavirus like this, which is more intense in some places than others, but that's not my

overall point right now. here is what we discovered. that the people of the district of columbia, people of the nation's capital, were left out of that formula. they are fighting the coronavirus just like americans in every other state and city. they are part of other federal formulas. for example, title 1 for education. highway funds. and other federal formula dollars go to the people of the district of columbia. they have a population that is higher than two of the 50 states there are more residents of the district of columbia, the nation's capital, than the state of wyoming and the state of

vermont. but they were left out of that category that they are usually put in, and instead they were put into a formula with puerto rico, the virgin islands, american samoa, and some of the territories. and the net effect of that, the net effect of putting people in the nation's capital in that formula versus the formula with the states will cost the district of columbia about $700 million. that's because that other formula is based entirely on population, and puerto rico has about three million people in it, and so when you put the district of columbia into that funding kettle, into that funding pot, they get shortchanged $700 million.

and that's the case even though the people of the district of columbia -- the people of the district of columbia send the federal treasury more tax dollars than the people of 22 other states. let me say that again. the people of the district of columbia send the i.r.s. more tax revenues than the people of 22 other states. and yet when it came time to write the formula for distributing emergency funds under the coronavirus, they weren't part of the kind of funding formulas they normally are. now, i asked about this because i thought maybe this would be a simple fix. i mean, surely in a bill of $2 trillion in emergency relief, we can do right by the people of

the district of columbia and not shortchange them $700 million. and the answer i got back was no. no, no, this was not a mistake. this was not an oversight. that republican negotiators insisted on shortchanging the people of the district of columbia. and if i'm wrong about that, it would be a very easy fix in an amendment that could be offered by the majority leader, and i'm sure accepted unanimously, accepted unanimously, except for the fact that this actually was a point that was negotiated. now, madam president, i'm not going to hold up a $2 trillion emergency rescue package that is urgently needed by the country for this, but i think it's shameful, i think it's shameful that in a $2 trillion emergency rescue package, we would shortchange the people right here in the nation's capital. people who we see coming into work every day.

many of the federal employees who workday in and day out for the federal government. many of them live here, many of them live in surrounding states, many of them live all over the country, but for the people who live here, to shortchange them and to do it intentionally. it is really outrageous. and so here we are coming together, and that's the right thing to do. as i said, this bill has many, many flaws and many, many problems. i certainly wouldn't have writton in this way -- writton this way, and i would never have done wrong to the people of the district of columbia the way it was intentionally done in this bill. but overall, we need this boil for the country. we need it because we have a national emergency both on the health care front and economic front. so i hope going away from here,

as we come together -- and i hope we'll do the right thing with a large vote -- i hope there will be some senators whoever were part of negotiating that deal who said, no, we're going to shortchange of people of our nation's capital. i hope they will feel a little bit of shame, and i think all those people who didn't with aens to change in provision, which is easy to change, just like that, should feel ashamed. this is our nation's capital, the people who live and work here deserve to be treated with respect. there's no united states senator who represents the people of the district of columbia. some simplify us who live in the surrounding areas work hard to do so. i just wish senators from the rest of the country and especially in this case apparently our republican colleagues would show a little respect for the people who live in the capital of this great country. and i yield the floor.

mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the cloture motion with respect to the motion to proceed to h.r. 748 be withdrawn. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 748. further, that the only amendments in order be amendments to be offered by senator mcconnell, 1578, and senator sasse 1577 or their

designees. further, that the senate vote on the sasse amendment with a 60-vote affirmative threshold for adoption. further, following disposition of the sasse amendment, the mcconnell amendment as amended if amended be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and the senate vote on the passage of the bill as amended with a 60-affirmative vote threshold for passage. finally, if passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and that all roll call votes in this series be 30 minutes in length. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report the bill. the clerk: calendar 157, h.r. 748, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 and so forth. mr. mcconnell: madam president, i ask consent that i proceed under my leader time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so here we are, colleagues, for the information of all of our senators, we will

first vote on the adoption of the sasse amendment at a 60-vote threshold and then our second and final vote will be on passage of the cares act also at a 60-vote threshold. we're going to pass this bipartisan relief package, send it over to the house so they can put it on the president's desk. when the senate adjourns this evening, our next scheduled vote will be afternoon of monday, april 20. of course, during this unprecedented time for our country, the senate is going to stay nimble. as always we will convene regular pro forma sessions and if circumstances require the senate to return for a vote sooner than april 20, we will provide at least 24 hours notice. our nation obviously is going through a kind of crisis that is

totally unprecedented in living memory. let's stay connected and continue to collaborate on the best ways to keep helping our states and our country through this pandemic. let's continue to pray for one another, for all of our families, and for our country. mr. schumer: madam president? the presiding officer: the minority leader is recognized. mr. schumer: now, madam president, and i'll speak for a little bit briefly, the legislation now before us is historic because it is meant to match a historic crisis. our health care system is not prepared to care for the sick. our workers -- could we have order, madam president. mr. schumer: our workers, our health care system is not

prepared to care for the sick. our workers are without work. our businesses cannot do business. our factories lie idle. the gears of the american economy have ground to a halt. our country has faced immense challenges before but rarely so many at the same time. over the past few days, the senate has stepped into the breach. we packed weeks or perhaps months of legislative process into five days. representatives from both sides of the aisle and both ends of pennsylvania avenue have forged the bipartisan agreement and high -- in highly partisan times with very little time to spare. it's been a long, hard road with a remarkable number of twists and turns, but for the sake of millions of americans, it will be worth it. it will be worth it to save millions of small businesses and

tens of millions of jobs. it will be worth it to see that americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own will be able to pay their rent and mortgages and put food on the table because we passed the greatest expansion of insurance to the employed -- to the unemployed in decades. it will be worth it to send gloves and masks to our nurses and to our doctors. it will be worth it to send ventilators and beds to our hospitals and begin rebuilding the public health infrastructure in america, a marshall plan in this new century for our medical system. it will be worth it to save industries from the brink of collapse in order to save the jobs of hundreds of thousands of americans in those industries. it will be worth it to put workers first. it was a long, hard road. neither side can be completely happy with the final product. but it will be worth it. and i'm damn proud of the work

we did over the past few days because we put in the work, because we tested the limits of exhaustion, because we didn't immediately accept a bill drafted by only one party, the legislation before us tonight is better, better for our health care system and the 65,000 americans now afflicted with covid-19, better for our workers, better for our small businesses, better for our indian tribes, better for our economy, and better for the american people. and so i must thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, especially the chairs and ranking members and their staffs. the past few days have been filled with drama. the past few hours were no exception. i know a few of my republican friends still harbor reservati reservations about voting for this legislation, but when there's a crisis of this magnitude, the private sector cannot solve it.

individuals even with bravery and valor are not powerful enough to beat it back. government is the only force large enough to staunch the bleeding and begin the healing. this is a time when the american people need their government. this is what we were elected for. the oath we swear to the constitution means we must protect the general welfare of the people. so let us marshal this government into action. there are millions of americans watching out right now at home on their televisions, separated from friends and family, fearful for their children and their livelihood, unsure when the time will come when all of our lives may return to normal. let us tell them tonight that help is on the way, that they

are not truly alone, that this country, that this senate, that this government is here for them in a time of dire need. this is strange -- this is a strange and evil disease. there is much we still don't know about it, and it is keeping us apart. when we pass this bill instead of hugging each other, we'll wave from a distance. none of us can know when this plague will pass. the only thing we know for sure is that we must summon the same spirit that saw previous of generations through america's darkest hours. fellowship, sacrifice, fortitude, resilience, that is what it means to be an american. with that spirit this nation faced down war and depression and fear itself. i have no doubt that once again america will ultimately prevail.

i yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: i call up the substitute amendment 1578 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: without objection. the amendment will be reported by number. the clerk: the senator from kentucky mr. mcconnell proposes an amendment numbered 1578. the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska is recognized. mr. sasse: i call up amendment 1577 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: without objection. the amendment will be reported by number. the clerk: the senator from nebraska mr. sasse proposes an amendment numbered 1577 to amendment numbered 1578. the presiding officer: the question is on the sasse amendment. mr. sasse: i ask for the yays and nays. the presiding officer: is there sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not, the yeas are 48, the nays are 48. the 60-vote threshold having not been achieved, the amendment is

not agreed to. under the previous order, amendment number 1578 is agreed to. the clerk will read the title of the bill for the third time. the clerk: calendar number 157, h.r. 748, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on high-cost employer-sponsored health coverage. the presiding officer: the question is on passage of h.r. 748 as amended. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are the 6, the nays prosecute zero. the 60-vote threshold having been achieved,s bill is passed.

the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate be in a period of morning

business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sullivan: thank you. mr. president, we just finished here on the senate floor some very, very important work for the people we represent and have the privilege to serve, what we're calling phase three of our very important response to this unprecedented pandemic that is hitting our country. the health of the our country, the economic health of our nation, and so we acted. a number of us worked well over the past week around the clock to put this legislation together. and i think it was a strong showing of bipartisan support. i was on the floor a couple days ago saying that what we needed to do were four key things -- put cash directly in the hands of hurting families in alaska

and throughout the country, deliver rapid relief to small businesses being crushed by this pandemic and having to lay off workers, stabilizing key steek terse of the economy to -- key sectors of the economy, and sending a surge of new resources to medical professionals who are on the front lines. and, mr. president, we did that. we did that relatively quickly. it could have been faster. but those were our goals, and that's what we achieved here. but here's the fact -- this was legislation very important. it wasn't perfect, and there's probably a lot of mistakes here. we're going to need to correct them quickly. there's probably americans who weren't covered in some way, shape, or form by this legislation who need help, and we're going to need to cover them quickly. there's likely new challenges in

this pandemic that seems to be changing every day -- new challenges with regard to this crisis that we're going to need to address. and the final thing, mr. president, is when we look at what we just did here, this was focused on the immediate crisis. business interruptions, the health crisis. but what we need to be looking at is when we get through this crisis -- and we will, more resilient, more stronger than ever. as i mentioned in my remarks the other day, some "washington post" reporters a couple days ago questioned the mettle and resiliency of americans. maybe we're not as tough, strong as we used to be to get through these crises. they just need to go to alaska and recognize how wrong they are on that. or see some of the marines that i've had the pretty well of serving with for the last 36

years. they would recognize quickly that they're wrong. of course we have the mettle and tenacity to do this. but we need to be working on phase four -- phase four is going to be the policies that we implement here in the congress to turbocharge this economy so when we're out of this crisis, we can come back fully, more strongly in a way that our economy was just two months a so there's a lot of work that i think we could be doing and we're likely going to have to be doing. a number of us are going to begin working on that phase four approach to this pandemic. the turbo charging of this economy once we get out of it, and i'm glad to start work on that with my colleagues here in the senate. so as i said, mr. president, there's a lot of work to do. but the senate is getting ready for a recess for almost a month. that's what we're getting ready to do. the country is facing one of the

biggest crises in our history, and the senate is leaving town for a month. i happen to think this is a mistake. i think it sends the wrong signal to the people we serve. i think our duty station should be here, to be ready on a moment's notice to help the citizens that we have the privilege of serving. because if there's one thing about this crisis that we've already seen is that new challenges pop up every day. every minute, every hour. and yet we're going to go on recess for almost a month. don't understand this. i don't agree with it. and i certainly hope, mr. president, if and when our country needs us, if we see some big mistakes in this legislation, if we recognize whole groups of americans don't get the relief they need and the congress needs to act, that we're not going to say, well,

we're on recess for 30 days. sorry, we'll get you to when we come back. at the end of the april. i think that would be a real mistake. because, as we're seeing in this crisis, there's a lot of answers that just can't wait until the end of april. there's a lot of challenges that we need to be addressing daily, and there are going to be more, and yet we won't be here to address them. so at a minimum, mr. president, i hope that when our country needs us in the next month -- and it's likely going to need us -- that my colleagues will be ready on a moment's notice wherever they are to come back to this body and get to work to help the people we serve. and i think it's very like lay that that's going to -- and i think it's very likely that that's going to happen in the next week or two or three, and i

hope my colleagues stand ready to do that and not use the excuse that, we'll see you at the end of the april to address your problems, america. that's not what we need to be doing in the midst of this very, very serious, unprecedented crisis where our citizens need our help. we had a good start tonight, a very good start. there's going to be a lot more, and i hope this body is ready to act quickly. i yield the floor.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to executive session and the en

bloc consideration of the following nominations, executive calendar 570 and 631. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the senate vote on the nominations en bloc with no intervening action or debate, that if confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table en bloc, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. the question is on the nominations en bloc. all in favor say aye. those opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nominations are confirmed en bloc. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that following leader remarks on april 20, the senate proceed to executive session and the consideration of executive calendar number 556. i further ask consent that at

5:30 p.m., the senate vote on the nomination, and that if the nomination is confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 3504 which was received from the house. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 3504, an act to amend title 38, united states code and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the moran substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the committee on veterans affairs be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 4771 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 4771, an act to amend title 38 united states code and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the committee is discharged. the senate will proceed. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. 3587 introduced earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 3587, a bill to require the secretary of veterans affairs to conduct a study on the accessibility of websites of the department of

veterans affairs to individuals with disabilities and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the upcoming adjournment of the senate, the president of the senate, the president pro tempore and the majority and minority leaders be authorized to make appointments to commissions, committee, boards, conferences or interparliamentary conferences authorized by law, by concurrent action of the two houses or by order of the senate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the junior senator from west virginia, the senior senator from alaska and the majority leader be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions on wednesday, march 25 through monday, april 20. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn to then convene for pro forma sessions only with no business being conducted on the following dates and times and that following each pro forma session, the senate adjourn until the next pro forma session. monday, march 30, 11:00 a.m. thursday, april 2, 10:00 a.m. monday, april 6, 10:00 a.m. thursday april 9, 10:00 a.m. monday, april 13, 10:00 a.m. thursday, april 16, 3:00 p.m. i further ask when the senate adjourns on thursday, april 16, it next convene at 3:00 p.m. monday, april 20 and that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and morning business be closed. further, upon the closing of morning business, the senate proceed to executive session to

consider the feitel nomination under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate is adjourned until 11:00 a.m. on

the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the cloture motion with respect to the motion to proceed to h.r. 748 be withdrawn. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 748. further, that the only amendments in order be amendments to be offered by senator mcconnell, 1578, and

senator sasse 1577 or their designees. further, that the senate vote on the sasse amendment with a 60-vote affirmative threshold for adoption. further, following disposition of the sasse amendment, the mcconnell amendment as amended if amended be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and the senate vote on the passage of the bill as amended with a 60-affirmative vote threshold for passage. finally, if passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and that all roll call votes in this series be 30 minutes in length. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report the bill. the clerk: calendar 157, h.r. 748, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 and so forth. mr. mcconnell: madam president, i ask consent that i proceed under my leader time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so here we are, colleagues, for the information

of all of our sen >>at they can put on the presidents desk. when the senate adjourns this evening the next scheduled vote will be afternoon april 20 of course during this unprecedented time for our g country the senate will stayed nimble and regularly convey pro forma sessions and then will return for a vote saturday april 20th to provide at least 24 hours notice.

and then going through a crisis that is totally unprecedented bullet stay connected and continue to cooperate from her states and our country through the pandemic. also continue to pray for one another for our families and for our country. >> went - . >> madam president. i will speak for little bit. the legislation before us it is meant to match a historic crisis with the healthcare system is not prepared to care for the sick. our workers.

order. our workers, our healthcare system is not prepared to care for the sick. that the prisoners cannot do business in the factories lie idle. and to face immense challenges before but rarely so many at the same time. over the past few days the senate has stepped into the breach perhaps weeks or months of the legislative process and to five days. representatives from both sides of the aisle and they have forged the bipartisan agreement of highly partisan times with very little time to spare. it's been a long hard road with twists and turns but for the sake of millions of

american americans, it will be worth it. it will be worth it to save millions of small businesses and tens of millions of jobs. and then to pay their rent and mortgages and put food on the table to pass the greatest in church insurance to the unemployed in decades. to send gloves and master nurses and s doctors and to rebuild that public health infrastructure in america the marshall plan for our medical system. saving industries from the brink of collapse to save the hundreds of thousands of americans in those industries to put workers first. a long hard road neither side

can be completely happy with the final product but it will be worth it and i'm damn proud of the work we did over the last two days because we tested the limits of exhaustion and did not accept a bill drafted only by one party but this is better for the healthcare system in the 65000 americans affected with covid-19 better for workers, small businesses, our economy better for the american people thank you to the colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ranking members and their staff the past few days has been filled withra drama past few hours no exception with my republican friends voting for this legislation but when there is

a crisis of this magnitude the private sector cannot solve it. individuals with bravery and valor are not powerful enough to be the back. government is the only force large enough to stop the bleeding and begin the healing. this is a time when american people need their government. this is what we were elected t for and that we must protect the general welfare of the people. so let us marshall this government into action there are millions of americans watching us right now at home on their television separated from friends and family i'm

unsure when allies will return to normal but help is on the way. they are not truly alone. that this country and that the senate and that this government is here for them at a time have dire need. there is much we still don't know and it is keeping us apart. and then we will waive from a distance. the only thing we know for sure is to summon the same spirit that saw previous generations through america's darkest hours. fortitude and resilience is what it means to be an american. with that spirit to face war