tom carper, we are introducing the sawfding innovation act which will build on the e.s.i. report and look at the ongoing i.p. theft going on. it will help the d.o.j. go after thousand tall enlts participants by allowing d.o.g. to hold federal recipient to -- this isn't just about more rest. we should all agree that transparency on grant applications is critical to the integrity of research and this distribution will help promote those principles. our bill also makes other changes as well based on the recommendations in the report. it requires the office of management and budget, o.m.b., to streamline and coordinate grant making between the agencies so there's needed accountability and transparency when it comes to tracking the billions of dollars of taxpayer funds and grant money being

distributed. we've worked closely with the department of energy and others on this legislation and they agree this is important. it also allows the state department to deny visas to foreign researchers seeking to access sensitive u.s. research when there is a threat to our economic or national security. this may surprise you, but they can't do that now. career foreign service officers, employees at the state department have begged us for that authority. our bill also requires research institutions to have safeguards in place to prohibit unauthorized access to sensitive research because we've found that to be a serious problem. and our bill ensures transparency by requiring universities to report any foreign government of $50,000 or more and empowering the department of education to fine universities that repeatedly fail to disclose these gifts. right now, our number one priority is and should be solving the coronavirus crisis.

and i get that. and, by the way, the f.b.i. sent a notice around last week to universities, research institutions saying, watch out ... because there are actually chinese hackers trying to get your research on coronavirus. this just happened last week. but i got to tell you, in the context of this crisis, we've also got to reevaluate how we do business with china. china has not been playing by the same set of rules as the rest of the world. we talked about that earlier with regard to trade, with regard to reporting on the coronavirus. i think in a fair and straightforward manage we've got to lead in insisting that there be a level playing field, whether it is the with the h.o., whether it is transparency with the coronavirus or trade policy or how research is acquired. my hope is that our p.s.i. report and now the legislation we are introducing lets us reset the way we conduct our research.

our goal should be to continue to reward those who continue to come to our shores and discover new breakthroughs in science and technology. we're very proud of the fact that we're the most innovative country in the world and known for our research enterprise. we want to do it in a smart way. we want to be sure we are keeping china and other nation-state competitors from stealing that research for its own benefit. we look forward to getting support from both sides of the aisle because this is a problem we should all be concerned about. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor back. mr. kennedy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. kennedy: thank you, mr. president.

i want to talk for a few minutes about the coronavirus relief fund flexibility for state and local government act. but before i get to my motion, i just want to make a couple of points. point one -- as you know, mr. president, we have passed four bills dealing with the pool of misery america and the world find themselves in with respect to the coronavirus. we have spent a breathtaking amount of money. i never imagined that i would

vote for bills of the magnitude that i have voted for. but we all did what we had to do. if you add up the four bills, we've spent $3 trillion so far. that's -- i've expressed it this way before, but i'm going to keep doing it because it's just a breathtaking amount of money. $3 trillion is three 000, 000, 000, 000 taxpayer dollars. we may have to spend another $3 trillion. as you know, we have set up some facilities at the federal reserve.

they're called 133 facilities, through which the federal reserve is loaning money to american businesses to try to keep them afloat after government shut down the american economy. the federal reserve cannot lose money. now, i'm not suggesting that all $3 trillion that the federal reserve ends up loaning out will remain unpaid. i hope not. but if -- but the portion that does go into adult, we're going to have -- into default, we're going to have to appropriate those losses. if the losses go higher, we've got to cover. so we've spent $3 trillion for certain, and potentially we

could have to spend another $3 trillion. staggering amount of money. the entire united states economy, the greatest commit in all of human history, to put things in context, is $21 trillion a year. that's how much we produce a year, if you add up all the goods and services that we as americans produce. as you know, the -- speaker pelosi has produced yet another bill, a fifth bill. the house has passed it. it was on a party-line vote. i think one republican voted for the bill. a number of democrats voted against it. it was a close vote, but the house passed it.

at speaker pelosi's suggestion. it would cost another $3 trillion, and i have to tell you, mr. president, when i first heard about the bill and when i looked at the bill, i was very, very surprised. i was shocked. i mean, i don't mean to overstate my case. i didn't faint or anything. but i was really -- maybe it would be fair to say my emotions were a cross between surprised and shocked. it's not at coronavirus bill. it's a remake american society bill. for one thing, it costs -- would cost another $3 trillion. i am ape not going to recite the zeros again, but $3 trillion is

3,000 billion dollars on top of the amount of money we've already spent. and it really would remake american society. the speaker included provisions about immigration laws, a lot of taxpayer money would be given to people who are in our country illegally. it would let federal prisoners go free. it would expand the affordable care act, which we call -- even president obama calls -- obamacare. i remember when obamacare passed. we were promised -- president obama promised, if you pass this bill, health insurance will be cheaper and it'll be more accessible, and your life will be better. none of those things have any

resemblance to reality. and of course i could go on about speaker pelosi's legislation. it's not going to pass the united states senate. i suspect she noticed that. so what's going to happen next in this opera? well, if past is prologue, the majority leader and the minority leader in the senate and the majority leader in the house and the speaker and secretary mnuchin, all of whom i have respect for, will go off and they'll negotiate a deal. and then they will come back and they will present it to the

senate in the united states and if i could be wrong, of course. i'm in labor, not management. i could be wrong, but the bill won't go through regular order. it will area it will never go th committee. it will be take it or leave it. now, if past is prologue, given the circumstances, people will money and grown, but they'll vote for the bill, whether they know what's in it or not, whether they were included in the discussions or not. that's what happened with the cares act.

i'm not sure that he was what's going to happen this time. i'm not sure that this time the non-negotiating senators and house members are going to move and follow their leaders into the chute like cows. i think this time might be different. i'm not saying that's a good or bad thing. it depends on what the deal is. but i'm raising the possibility. speaker pelosi could eliminate every other word in her bill and cut the price tag in half, and i still don't think that the hence -- that the republican members in the are going to support it. if she takes out all the goodies that remake western civilization

in her bill, i'm not sure that the left wing of her party in the house is going to vote for it. what i'm saying is, mr. president, for better or worse, i'm not sure there's going to be a fifth bill. that's point two. point three -- let me go back to our cares act. in our cares act, we spent an enormous amount of money to help states and to help local governments. we gave $150 billion directly to states and cities to the combat the coronavirus. we appropriated extra money on

top of that for public schools. we appropriated extra money on top of that the $150 billion for universities. we appropriated extra money on top of all of that for our hospitals, many of which are public. we appropriated extra money on top of all that to give states extra medicare money. my state received $1.8 billion for straight and local governments, $300 billion -- did i say billion, i meant billion, for local schools. $200 million for universities, over $600 million and climbing for our hospitals. and extra medicaid money, about $3.5 billion in louisiana. that's a lot of money along the bayou.

so i want to -- i want to just dissuade people who say we haven't done anything for state and local government. we have. we've done a lot. that's point three. point four, i'm not guaranteeing it's my final point but i intend it to be. point four, the $1.8 billion that we gave state and local government has restrictions. it can only be spent combatting the coronavirus. if you don't spend it combatting the coronavirus, you're supposed to give it back. that will happen when donkeys fly. we'll never see that money again.

it's spent for better or worse, and i voted for the bill. i don't think any fair-minded person can deny the fact -- and i think it is a fact -- that as a result of the coronavirus, just as federal government has had and will have revenue shortfalls, so will state governments and so will cities. people haven't been paying sales tax because they haven't been buying stuff. people haven't been paying income tax at the state and local level because they haven't been working. i wish that weren't the case, but it's a fact. now my bill would say to those states and cities, you can use the $1.8 billion to offset revenue shortfalls.

some of my colleagues for whom i have great respect -- one of them is here tonight, senator rick scott. and i mean that, he was a heck of a governor. he's a heck of a senator. have argued that we shouldn't give that flexibility because some states are mismanaged. i agree with him. i do. if i were king for a day and had a magic wand, i will take many of the measures that then-governor scott implemented in florida and say we need to do these in every state. we can debate whether that would violate federalism. i watched him carefully as governor. he was a great governor. when he inherited florida, it was a mess, and he cleaned it

up. so when he and others make the point that we shouldn't bail out mismanaged states, i agree with that. but i can't divorce myself from the fact that every state, mishanged, well managed, medium managed, poorly managed had revenue losses as a result of the coronavirus. that doesn't mean that they shouldn't cut their budgets. that doesn't mean they shouldn't scrub their budgets. frankly, we ought to do it at the federal level. that will happen too when donkeys fly. but we expect our friends at the state level and at the local level to scrub their budgets, but i still think they're going to come up short. and i worry that if they do, and they'll have to start laying off first responders, it's going to hurt the recovery.

now not everybody agrees with what i just said and not everybody agrees with senator scott's position. reasonable people disagree sometimes. but this much i also know, whether you agree or disagree, over the next six months senator scott's not going to convince, for example, governor cuomo in new york to adopt his position. i'm pretty confident of that. and over the next six months governor cuomo is not going to -- i know this -- is not going to convince senator scott to adopt his position. in the meantime we've got a problem to deal with. i'll make one final point. some of my colleagues have said kennedy, we don't need your bill because the treasury

department, the secretary of treasury has issued directives saying that the money can be used for first responders. now look, i'm a big secretary mnuchin fan. i think he's been a rock star through this process. but i don't understand this concept of a directive. i know what a rule is. i know what a regulation is. i know what due process is. i know what the administrative procedure act is. and i don't think a directive fits in to those categories. i also know that a secretary of a department, no matter how bright and capable and talented he may be, cannot change an act of congress, and the cares act doesn't say a thing about using this money for first responders. and if i'm a governor, i'm

going to worry that if i do spend the money without an act of congress, that someday knock, knock, knock on my door. hello, i'm from the government. in fact, i'm an inspector general, and i want to see your books. and i've looked at your books, and i want you to give that money back. it's happened before. the only way to give our friends in state and local government security is for us to pass a law , not for the bureaucracy to tell us what we did. we know what we did. look, i know that some on my side of the aisle disagree with me, and i've learned a little bit in three and a half years. i've learned two things mostly, mr. president, on this first week. everybody up here who smiles at you is not your friend. and, number two, i've learned up here you've got to watch what

people do, not what they say. this bill's not coming to the floor of the united states senate any time soon. i know that. i get it. i'm just saying it should. i am saying if it does, if it does, it will get 90 votes. i'm saying finally that these revenue losses are real. managed, mismanaged, we can debate that forever. they're real, and we've got to get this economy up and going again. and if states are laying off teachers and first responders and policemen and firemen and people at public hospitals or raising taxes, it's going to be that much harder. that's why we ought to pass my bill.

it doesn't spend a single solitary new penny. no new money. it just gives governors and mayors a little more flexibility. and for that reason, mr. president, i'm going to have read this long script. i ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the democratic leader, the committee on appropriations be discharged from further consideration of s. 3608 -- that's my bill -- and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. i further ask, mr. president, that there be two hours of debate equally divided between the proponents and the opponents of the bill and that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the kennedy substitute amendment number 1581 be considered and agreed to, the

bill as amended be considered and read a third time, and the senate vote on passage of the bill as amended with a 60 affirmative vote threshold for passage with no intervening action or debate. finally, if passed, mr. president, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. scott: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. scott: mr. president, reserving the right to object. the first thing i want to do is i want to thank my colleague from louisiana for the kind words about my tenure as governor and tell him i respect and admire his passion for being a u.s. senator and his passion

for the wonderful state of louisiana, which is a wonderful state. as we all know, this is a challenging time for every level of government. this crisis was unprecedented, and congress absolutely took bold action to stem the spread of the virus and work to save our economy. but if we're not careful, congress will create another equally devastating crisis down the road, a crisis of our own making. our national debt and deficits already at unsustainable levels have skyrocketed as congress has spent, as my colleague said, almost $3 trillion to address this crisis. to put that in perspective, congress has spent $9,000 for every american. $9,000 for every american. at some point we need to start thinking about the impact this spending will have on the future

of our children and our grandchildren and how we are impacting our ability to fund our military and our safety nets like social security, medicare, and medicaid. again, i know everyone here, including my colleague from louisiana, wants to help their state. i want to help states too, which is why i support continuing the existing restrictions tied to the coronavirus relief fund that were included in the cares act to make sure this spending is for coronavirus relief and response. regardless to whether we are removing existing guardrails or talking about completely new funding, both actions would result in a blank check bailout for our states. let's remember, we're talking about $150 billion. to put that in perspective, the median income for a worker in florida is approximately

$30,000. $150 billion will pay the total annual income for more than five million floridians. let's talk about who we're bailing out here. not those on unemployment. we took care of them in the cares act. not our teachers. we took care of them in the cares act. not our health care workers. we took care of them in the cares act. we are bailing out liberal politicians who cannot live within their means, and now are asking floridians to pay for the incompetency of governors like andrew cuomo. california has no problem to use liberal dollars to fund liberal priorities and to solve long-standing fiscal problems. that's not fair to the citizens of states like florida where we made the hard choices to put our

state on a financially secure path. "the wall street journal" laid it out clearly for us this week when they said democrats in albany are claiming to be victims of events that are out of their control, but they have increased annual spending by $43 billion since 2010, about $570,000 for each additional person. $570,000. florida's annual budget has increased by $28 billion while it's population has grown by 2.7 million, a $10,400 increase per new resident. new york already has a top state and local tax rate of 12.7% while florida has no income tax. new york has a growing budget deficit while mr. scott as governor of florida inherited a large deficit but built a surplus and paid downstate debt.

the difference is spending. "the wall street journal" concluded the policy question is why taxpayers in florida and other well-managed states should pay higher taxes to rescue an albany political class that refuses to restrain its tax and spend governments. mr. scott is the right. "the wall street journal" is right. so is the vik tribune -- the "chicago tribune which called out its own state leaders this week for mismanaging illinois taxpayer dollars. the "chicago tribune said, preparing for the next recession and the next unanticipated crisis, thil pandemic, is a huge component of leadership. so when our politicians whimper that they're helpless in the face of disaster, remember they and their forebearers had decades in which to prepare for whatever would surprise them. instead they chose to borrow more money, spend on new programs, and watch their

pension indebtedness soar. american families make responsible budgetary decisions every day. successful companies make responsible budget decisions every day. it's time for new york, illinois, and california to do the same. let's look at -- and my colleague said some of this. we've given the states $150 billion -- billion for their covid expenses. put that in perspective. with hurricanes we don't give 100%. we had four major hurricanes while i was governor. the government didn't cover all of the expenses, didn't cover any budget shortfalls, which i had when tourists couldn't come. $500 billion in short-loan

opportunity, $30 billion for education, and we have no earthly idea whether education costs have gone down or up. i would assume education costs have gone down. $34 billion for mass transit community grants, $270 billion for emergency appropriations, and $270 million for medicaid and through the small business relief, individual checks, unemployment. we've given our states another $1.3 trillion. put that in perspective, their annual revenue, not including federal dollars, is a little over a trillion dollars a year. look at what we've already spent. as you can see from this chart, congress has directed billion dollars. the total exceeds $$1 trillion.

and even this doesn't begin to count another $1.3 trillion in indirect assistance to small businesses, individuals to families in all of our states. these numbers, as my colleague has said, are staggering, what we've already spent. we have to get serious about how we're spending taxpayer money and the fact that this year's federal budget deficit will be the largest in the history of our nation. let me be -- it may be tempting and easy to believe that removing the restrictions on the coronavirus relief fund would satisfy states looking for a bailout, i'm afraid we're all mistaken. it will never be enough. these funds are needed, one, for coronavirus relief, and, unfortunately, many states have not been shy about their desire for hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer bailouts for their liberal agendas. i'm not going to let this happen. i think about this in the

context of my seven grandchildren. we cannot saddle them and children like them all across our great country with mountains of debt. right now the debt stands at over $77,000 per american. think about that for a second. the median income for americans is about $33,000, and we already have put them on the hook for $77,000. $9,000 with just what we've done this year. now to put that in perspective, after the first 200 years of this country's existence, national debt per person was around $3 after 200 years and now it's $70,000. i think about that in the context of a social security recipient like my mom. how are we helping people like my mom when we are running deficits and growing our

national debt to an excess of $26 trillion? what happens to those living on fixed incomes when our debts cause high inflation. i grew up in a poor family in public housing. my mom worked three jobs and my parents, adopted mom and dad, were constantly struggling for work. even though my mom and dad had no money, she said you are the luckiest kid. she told us we are blessed because god and our founders created the greatest country ever where anything is possible. to take away the same opportunities i had to live the american dream would not only be a political failure it would be an abdication and moral irresponsibility. we need to recover from this virus, from the economic devastations it brought with it and the fiscal calamity that decades of politicians have

ignored. i hope my colleagues will join me in this fight to keep our country's future bright. to do that we have to make hard choices. we have to be fiscally responsible. mr. president, i therefore respectfully object.

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: mr. president, i'm here on the floor to talk about how congress can do a better job in responding to the coronavirus pandemic that's gripped our country. i just thought debate was interesting we just heard a moment ago about what we should do going forward. this crisis is unlike anything we've ever seen. it has devastated so many families. it has turned our lives upside down. put an enormous strain on our health care system, our front line health care workers, our researchers an first responders working around the clock to help patients and look for treatments. for the past couple of months every american has been asked to do his or her part through social distancing, through doing smart things like wearing masks, like being sure we're doing all we can within our home, within

our workplace, out in public to stop the -- to stop it from spreading. i think these have helped. i think these measures have made a difference and i think we're in a better place by most metrics on the public health danger. i saw the numbers from ohio, we have fewer new positive cases today than we've had over the past week or few weeks on average. so we're beginning to make progress. but it's come at an enormous cost to our economy. and i would say at an enormous cost to our culture and our society. since the crisis began a couple of months ago, more than 36 million americans have lost their jobs or filed for unemployment. some estimates show that we could potentially hit a 25% unemployment rate before this is over. i think we probably will. by the way, that would match the worst of our country unemployment that we've ever seen. that would be during the great depression.

that's where we're headed. some small businesses have had to close their doors, others are teetering right on the brink of bankruptcy. hospitals have been closed for needed procedures like mammograms, cancer screenings. more are being missed every day and basic health care is at risk. so that's one consequence we don't always focus on, but our health care system has had to respond to the coronavirus appropriately, but there's a balance here and the result has been we've had other health care needs that have gone unmet. without that revenue, by the way, from surgeries, so-called elective surgeries, some are not elective, like for a back or detainee, many hospitals are in deep financial trouble because that's how they make most of their money. colleges and yufers are -- universities are losing revenue and children are out of school which is not a good thing,

because our kids, many of whom are not able to get the same help at home as at school are falling behind. and we have to address isolation on mental health and substance abuse. i talked to an individual who focuses a lot on human trafficking and he's talking about the increase he's seen in domestic violence and human trafficking, the number of suicides. this is all troubling. this kind of a crisis, therefore, requires swift and decisive action to ensure that we've got the resources and got the help to be able to respond to both the health care crisis, which we have to address on the coronavirus front, but also on the economic and the broader of societal issues we talked about here and how it impacts us and the rest of our lives. it's a tough balance. i think, for the most part, the congress and the trump

administration have done that, have responded swiftly and directly with major new legislation. we came together here in congress on a bipartisan basis to pass legislation already that has addressed the health care crisis that the virus has caused. we also passed legislation that helped on the economic crisis that caused government at all levels effectively pumping the breaks on -- brakes on the economy. the legislation enacted of course isn't perfect. it's thousands of pages and it's now four different bills that have been passed already, but i think it was necessary for us to act quickly and in a unified manner on a bipartisan basis to get stuff done around here. by the way, that bipartisanship has been a welcomed change because that is not typical for this place. so far in each of the four pieces of legislation we for this pandemic we had 435 have

voted in -- 500 of the 535 on average voted yes on these four pieces of legislation. these are not small bills. combined the funds provided by these first four rescue packages total about $2.8 trillion. that's $$2.8 trillion. 2,000 $800 billion. the cares act is about $2.2 trillion in resources. that's an unprecedented amount of meaning. it's never been done before. certainly never in such a short period of time. now congress is talking about a fifth rescue package -- a fifth rescue package is being talked about. it has already passed the house of representatives. it's being talked about even though, and this might surprise you, only about half of the

$2.8 trillion in the first four packages has actually been dissuppressed. think -- dispersed. think about that. only about half of the money in the first four legislative projects that we have undertaken here has actually gone out the door to the intended recipients and yet we're talking about another package. for example, the paycheck protection program to help small businesses stay afloat has 25% of its original capacity, about $160 billion. well below the $175 billion has yet to be sent out under the provider relief fund. of the roughly $450 billion that the cares act gave to treasury to unlock the federal reserve lending facilities, less than $40 billion of that has been operational. that's right. less than 10% of the money to

provide direct lending to businesses so they can stay in business and hire people has been sent out. so even though about half the money from the cares act hasn't even been spent and we still don't have a good handle, of course, on how the money that has been sent out is being spent, democrats in the house have passed a new rescue package. in many respects it is a wish list of democratic priorities that's been talked about on the floor. some related to the coronavirus and some not. it passed by a near party-line vote. i think one republican voted yes and more than a dozen democrats, more moderate democrats voted no. again, this is a 3 trillion-dollar package. that is more than the total spending of all four of the previous coronavirus bills. all four of the previous combined is less than the spending that the house is recommending for the fifth coronavirus bill.

it's actually also a lot more money than congress would normally appropriate in an entire fiscal year. it's about half of what we just appropriated for the fiscal year we're in this one bill -- in one bill. i'm sorry, it's twice as much as congress appropriated for the current 12-month period we're in. so the appropriation for this fiscal year, 2020, is less than half of what the house is now proposing to spend in one bill. so i think, you know, we've got to be very cautious and we've got to be sure it's the right amount of money going out because it's -- it's a huge and unprecedented spending package. our annual deficit here in the congress was already projected to be over $1 trillion. we were already running a large deficit. by the way, it's only been at that level four times in the

history of our country so the $1 trillion was already viewed by many of us, including me, an unacceptably high number for our annual deficit. now the estimate is that this year's annual deficit will be between $3.7 trillion and $4.2 trillion. mindboggling. we've never had deficits like this before. of course, that adds to the 23 trillion-dollar national debt which was already at record levels. so we're entering dangerous, unchartered waters here. most economists agree this increases the chance of a fiscal and therefore a financial crisis that would follow. of course we've got to respond to this immediate crisis. again, i voted for the first four bills. i believe it was necessary and necessary to act quickly, but i also believe there are real limits as to how much financial risk we should take beyond the,

again, $2.8 trillion we already spent in the first four bills. we've got to be sure at a minimum that every new dollar is spent as wisely as possible so it's as targeted as possible. even overlooking the massive 3 trillion-dollar price tag, by the way, the house bill focuses on some things that seems unrelated to this crisis. for example, the house spends 136 wldz on re -- $136 billion on repealing the cap on the state and local tax deduction. there is a deduction, but it is it capped. this 136 billion-dollar policies would deliver half of its tax benefits to the top 1% of taxpayers. tell me how that's related to the coronavirus. put that in some context, we could use that same amount of money, $136 billion to provide almost two million more paycheck

protection program for bowling there are also provisions that would force states to adopt broad changes in their election laws, regardless of whether they want to or not. now, election laws have been always been in the province of the states. but that's in this legislation. they also want to raise taxes on employers. bad time to raise taxes. we want employers to stay in business because they're the ones who create the jobs. they also want to help cannabis growers, which i think is interesting. cannabis is mentioned dozens of times in the legislation. they also want $50 million as an example for environmental justice grants. what does that have to do with the coronavirus? once more of the existing funds are delivered, in other words, as i said earlier, of the first four bills, only about half of it has even gone to the intended recipients. but once more of these existing funds are delivered and we know more about what's working,

what's not working, where the funds are needed, i suspect more will be needed. more for the health care side. there will probably more need for flexibility. i believe there does need to be more flexibility. i also believe we need to find out once the money goes to the local communities what their budgets look like. do they need more money to continue to provide police protection, firefighter salaries, e.m.s. services? we don't know that yet. how can we know it when the money hasn't even gone down yet. in ohio, not one penny has gone down. the part that went to the state hasn't gone to the local municipality. that's happening all over the country. so we need more information to be ail to know how much of this spending is necessary. but again, even with all the new

spending, this new $3 trillion house bill does very little to do something else really important in the next bill, which is help get the economy moving. so again it raises taxes on businesses. it does other things that have nothing to do with the coronavirus. what it doesn't do, is it doesn't provide the stimulus. that's what everybody is looking for right now. how do you do something that makes it easier to create jobs, make it easier to invest, make it easier for small businesses to get back on their feet? most of what we did in the other bills was necessary. people lost their jobs for no reason that they could do anything about. it wasn't their fault. 36 million americans. so we had to do something to shore that up. the direct payments, unemployment payments, other things. we'd -- we had to help the small

businesses with the p.p.p. payments. but those were more rescue packages to help us weather the storm. now we have to figure out, how do we do something to get this economy moving again? that ought to be the goal, because there is a limit to how much federal tax dollars can be relied on to subsidize the economy. the better way is to get the economy moving. get revenues flowing again, reopen, therefore, our hospitals and schools. hospitals can get more revenue if they can reopen and do more procedures and keep from either shuttering their doors or relying on the federal taxpayer for more and more subsidies. getting back to work is critical. we have to do it in a safe way. and we can. salve practices, make sure we have the testing. i agree with all of that. but any new legislation that congress considers has to include measures that are going to help get people back into the workforce safely and get this economy moving again. i think that should include some tax incentives for investment in

jobs. i this i it should include some targeted investments to create good jobs. one place to starks i think, is the federal -- one place to start, i think, is the federal highway projects. would end to pace -- we need to n.a.s. bill around here. but there are also a number of state projects that would normally be funded by the state gas tax. in ohio, for instance, there are a number of projects that have gone all through the process, been vetted, gone through a merit-based process. they're ready to go. in other words, that's right a. shovel-ready. yet the state is not are going to have enough money to pay for them. so how about sending some money directly to the infrastructure projects? good jobs, economic benefits, analysis is the right kind of infrastructure investments, you spend a dollar and you get back more than dollar in terms of revenue from the economic

benefit. that's the sort of thing that i think should be in this next package to be able to help get the economy back on its feet. right now i'm told by small businesses that one of the biggest barriers to getting the economy going is the unemployment insurance provisions that were passed as part of the cares act back in march. this is what i'm hearing from small business owners all around ohio. that the additional unemployment insurance benefits in the cares act, which allows individuals at or below the average income to receive more in unemployment than they could get at work, is a disincentive to work. of course, again, we needed to act, to make sure people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own could get by while government at every level effectively pumped the brakes on the economy to better withstand the health crisis. people lost their jobs because the government said you can't go to work.

at the same time, it was not the best solution to provide a flat $600 increase in benefits to everybody, which is on top of the state unemployment insurance benefits. that's what we did. that was the proposal here that was passed. that continues, by the way, until july 31. wage replacement for people making at or below the arming income level would have been a good and generous approach. if you make up to whatever the wage average is in your state -- $52,000 a year, $4,000 a year, $58,000 a year, you get wage replacement. but that's not what this is. the $600 on top of the state benefit, which is on average $360 probably, puts you up near $1,000 a week. that is more than wage replacement, again for people who make less than the average wage. regardless of how you feel about the $600 per week federal increase, we're in a very different situation now than we were two months ago when we

passed it. back then, remember, we were encouraging people to stay home, not to go to work. because that was the time period when we were shutting things down, we were saying stay-at-home orders. so it made much more sense to have an unemployment system that would actually encourage people to stay home. now we're reopening all around the country. again, small business are telling me, i'd like to get started again, but i can't get the employees. now, some say, well, you can go to the unemployment insurance office and say, i've got a job and then under the state's rules, they've got to tell these people, you're no longer on u.i. you got to go back to work. but, one, the unemployment insurance systems are overwhelmed. so that's not something they can do right now. they've never seen these kind of numbers, ever. second, employees don't want to do it. the employees are making more

money on unemployment insurance than they can in their place of business. they're hesitant to come back and tell them, come back appeared make less money. -- and make less money. so i do think there is a role for us to make that happen and do it in a smart way. now things are different in other respects, too. not only is the economy starting to reopen around the country, but it is being done in a much more safe manner. why? because we have lot more testing. that's good. i think we need more, by the way. ohio has gone from about 3,700 tests per day a few weeks ago to over 10,000 tests a day now, soon to be over 20,000 tests a day in a couple weeks, they say. that's good. we also have more p.p.e., personal protective gear. that's important, because if you reopen -- say you are a he a factory and you want to -- say you're a factory and you want to let people have the gear to say you're safe. also remades virginia -- also,

remdesivir gives people more comfort in being able to go back to work more safely. it's time to start to transition from thinking about helping people get by and helping to encourage them to stay home through unemployment to thinking about how we can get people back in the workforce safely so we can get the economy, our hospitals, colleges, universities back on track. we should also want to help people get back to work because that's good. good for everybody. it is where most people get their health care is from work, from their employer. we want to get them back to that. it is where most people get their retirement, their 401(k). not everybody offers it, but if you're getting one, you're probably getting it from work. it's also good to get people returning to a safeworkplace because that's what most people

-- a safe workplace because that's what most people want to do. they don't want to stay on unemployment insurance. yeah, it pays more for many americans, but they'd rather be at work. the dignity of work is real. it gives meaning to your life. i think we need to take a hard look at this flat $600 increase and does us if it is in the best interest of those workers, of our businesses, and is it really the best system to have in place when we're trying to get people back to work. this additional $600 benefit on top of the average $360 that states have, means unless you're making less than 50,000 or in some states $60,000, it is more advantageous to be on unemployment than to go back to work. a recent study says that between 60% and 70% of individuals on unemployment are making more than they did in their prior job.

60% to 70%. for the bottom 20% of wage earners, they see on average they are making double on unemployment insurance what think made in the workforce. so they say that for the bottom% of wage earner, they're making double on unemployment insurance. now, again, people needed the help. and they needed the direct payments. they needed the d.u.i. help, just to put the food on the table, pay their car payment, pay the rent. some people have used this u.i. even though it is more than they made before, to help with their health care. but isn't the best thing to get people back to work? we need to continue to help people during this time who have lost their job, no question. not every business is ready to reopen, by the way. and the employees who had to be let go by some businesses certainly shouldn't be punished

toker that. but at the same time we have to ask ourselves whether we can combine that need with the need to actually get people back to work. i think there is. specifically, i would propose that instead of keeping in place the additional $600 of the federal benefit for people on unemployment between now and july 31, let's shift some of those federal dollars toss a back-to--- dollars to a back-to-work bonus, a program where you let people take some of that $600 back with them to work. i propose $450 a week. others have different numbers probably. they think that's too much. they think it's too little. i chose $450 per week because that represents the amount that would be needed to make a person making the average minimum wage better off in the workforce than on unemployment. when you take that -- the minimum wages around the country on average, if you take $450 a

week with you to work, that means that you would be making a little bit more than the workforce than you would be on unemployment. what's more this n to work bonus would put additional cash in the hands of individuals who lost their hands due to the health crisis. this incentive for people to get back to the workforce and get our economy running again is exactly the kind of policy we should all want. instead the $3 trillion house bill we talked about earlier, all it does is propose extending the $600 per month from the end of its expiration at the end of july into the beginning of next year. so we talked earlier about how the next package, whatever it is, ought to encourage the economy to get moving again; right? the house bill doesn't do that.

in a lot of respects we talked about this. specifically on unemployment insurance, what it says is let's continue this policy of making it harder for people to get back to work. it will ensure that that 60% or 70% of workforce that that study showed are making more on unemployment insurance would be better off staying on unemployment rolls. by the way, it's also another $300 billion of taxpayer spending in this $3 trillion bill. and i don't think it's going to move our country forward. it's going to make it even harder to get back on track. by the way, our back to work bonus also benefits taxpayers. so instead of $300 billion in additional funding that's going to go into the house bill for unemployment insurance, if we assume that states would have trouble enforcing their u.i. laws we talked about earlier and that individuals would choose unemployment over returning to work, even if 25%, 25% of

those who are on unemployment insurance today chose to take advantage of this $450 bonus -- and i think a lot will, i think a lot more will. let's say 25% take advantage of it, that will result in tens of billions of dollars of savings to the taxpayer. think about it. to the state, they won't have the unemployment insurance benefit that they're providing because the person will be at work. that's good. to the federal government, the $600 is reduced to $450. so that enables savings to the taxpayer. it enables people to get back to work. it allows our small businesses to be able to reopen. it's a solution that i think republicans and democrats alike can get behind. let's continue to help the people who can't return to the workplace through no fault of their own, but let's also remember that the american people right now are looking to us here in congress to come together on a bipartisan basis, to put in place policies that

will actually help move us forward in this crisis, get back to normalcy, get back to work safely, get our economy back on the historically strong footing that was here only a few months ago. back in february we had the 19th straight month of wage increases over 3%, most of which were going to lower and middle-income workers. we had unemployment tied with the 50-year low. unemployment was low then. it's incredibly high now. so to get back to that, we've got to put some more policies in place and i believe the back to work bonus is exactly that. it won't solve everything, but it will get people back into jobs. it will send a clear message that congress is looking forward and providing a positive path forward for workers, for small businesses, and for taxpayers. thank you, mr. president. i yield back.

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to consideration of s. res. 590 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 590 supporting the designation of may 15, 2020, as national senior fraud awareness day, and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the senate now proceed to immediate consideration of s. res. 591 which was submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk

will report. the clerk: s. res. 591 promoting minority health awareness and supporting the goals and ideals of national minority health month in april 2020, and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. portman: i further ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the help committee be discharged from further consideration and that the senate now proceed to s. res. 571. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 571, congratulating the students, parents, teachers, and leaders of charter schools across the united states, and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions

to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration and that the senate now proceed to s. 1380. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: a bill to amend the federal rules of criminal procedure to remind prosecutors of their obligations under supreme court case law. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion be considered, to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the rules committee be discharged from further consideration and that the senate now proceed to s.j. res. 72. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s.j. res. 72 providing for the reappointment of michael linton of the board

of regents of the smithsonian institution. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the joint resolution be read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to immediate consideration of s. 3782 introduced earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 3782, a bill to modify the amount authorized for commitments for 7-a loans and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to immediate consideration of calendar number 284, s. 1130. the presiding officer: the clerk will report.

the clerk: calendar number 284, s. 1130, a bill to amend the public health service act to improve the health of children and help better understand and enhance awareness about unexpected sudden death in early life. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be withdrawn and the alexander substitute amendment be agreed to, that the bill be amended, be considered read a third time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: i know of no further debate on the bill as amended. the presiding officer: if there is no further debate the question is on passage of the bill as amended. all in favor say aye. opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bill as amended is passed. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to immediate consideration of the calendar number 371, s. 2927. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 371, s. 2927, a bill to amend the public health service act, and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the billing considered read a third time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: i know of no further debate on the bill. the presiding officer: if there is no further debate the question is on passage of the bill. all in favor say aye. opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bill is passed. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:00 a.m., thursday, may 21. further, that following the prayer and pledge the morning

hour 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 that morning business be closed. further, following leader remarks, the senate proceed to executive session for consideration of the ratcliffe nomination under previous order. finally, following disposition of the ratcliffe nomination, the senate resume consideration of the badalamenti nomination under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the the presiding officer: the when the senate returns watch live coverage on