the solutions we're working on at the state and federal level when it comes to child care access and affordability. our working patients are anxious and concerned about what lies ahead. do they have to quit their job to stay at home with the kids? how much will child care cost? what happens if child care providers can't open back up? this is the reality for so many. and that's why i've made it a top priority to provide additional resources for our child care programs and our families. included in the heals act is my bill to create back to work child care grants which would give providers the resources they need to make it through this crisis. it would also help them access

p.p.e. and other medical supplies so they can adhere to the safety guidelines and provide a clean and safe environment. but it doesn't stop there. i'm also working to assist our lower-income families, those who rely on the child care development block grants and those who simply need access to clean diapers. just a couple of weeks ago i was in davenport, iowa, where i got to take part in a diaper distribution with the hiney heroes of the qadhafi -- at the quad city. the national diaper bank donated 25,000 diapers to this important diaper bank. we know that during this pandemic the diaper supply has run short and i've teamed up

with democratic senator chris murphy on this effort to include additional assistance for our diaper banks. covid-19 has also created challenges for our farmers. these hardworking folks are facing new challenges while working around the clock to make sure americans have adequate access to food and fuel. i was visiting with some farmers at the bloomfield livestock market in davis county not long ago and they described these hardships first hand and i hear the same from our ethanol and our biodiesel producers. that's why i helped ensure more aid for our farmers and producers, including our ethanol producers and so many other important commodities in iowa. our rural communities, like montgomery county where i live, covid-19 has only amplified

existing financial pressures on our health care centers. most rural hospitals rely on services such as elective surgery, keeping them financially afloat. but because of the pandemic and the response to it, many hospitals have had to cancel these elective surgeries as protective measures due to the pandemic. additionally, the need for p.p.e. and other equipment has significantly increased. lower revenue, combined with higher expenses, has made it incredibly difficult for these rural hospitals to stay afloat. we absolutely can't leave these folks behind. we need our hospitals to keep their doors open so that quality health care is accessible to all iowans, whether they live in the big cities like des moines and pope county or small communities

like red oak, where i live in montgomery county. as i've toured iowa over the last several weeks, i have also visited with many of our essential workers. our nurses, grocery store clerks, truck drivers, child care providers, and so many more, have been working on the front lines of this pandemic rising to the challenge to care for and protect iowans. that's why i'm pushing hard to allow these essential workers to keep more of their hard-earned dollars by suspending federal income and payroll taxes. these folks deserve a reward for their tireless ef forts. -- tireless efforts. mr. president, no amount of financial relief will make this virus go away. but congress has a role to play in helping families get back on their feet. but it's also every single one

of us doing our part, wearing our masks -- wearing our masks, washing our hands, and social distancing as much as possible. and then together, with the help of every individual at all levels of government, we will get through this. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. blunt: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: mr. president, i want to talk about the portion of the bill that we have made available to our colleagues and the country this week after lots of input from our colleagues on the labor, health, and human services and education part of the bill. it's about 25% of the bill, almost $250 billion, and that

money would be used to get us back on the track toward vaccines that work, toward treatments that work to provide additional resources for testing, for treatment, for care, to get us back to school, to get us back to work, to get us back to child care. these are all things that are critical for our economy to return and for families to return in the way they want to. and for those things to work the way that we would want them to work, as our colleague, senator alexander put it very succinctly, all things run through testing. if you're going to go back to school, if you're going to go back to work, if you're going to go back to child care, if you're going to go back to a nursing home between now and the time of vaccine, a test that you can take in 10 or 12 or 15 minutes and have an answer will make all

the difference and we continue to push for that in this bill. in fact, there are about $9 billion in a fund that maybe should have been designated a little bit more specifically but hasn't been spent, it was designed to be a testing fund and that with another $16 billion makes testing available for those priorities for nursing homes in that state-federal partnership. we say in this bill this a priority for the federal government in that partnership is tests that work in nursing homes, tests that work in child care centers, test that --s -- tests that work in colleges and universities that allow people to get back into those situations, in a residential campus to know that you're there and have a way not only to test people quickly but to get an answer quickly. frankly, mr. president,

president trump is right when he says the current testing, the way it has been working, really doesn't do much but measure how many people had the disease. not even how many people necessarily have the disease, but how many people had the disease. if you have a test and you don't get an answer for five or six or seven days, what good did it really do you to take the test? certainly didn't do you much good in terms of not infecting others because you don't know that you've got it, particularly if you're that high percentage of people that don't have symptoms but are still able to spread the disease, that's why, mr. president, a test that would give you an answer in 15 minutes makes all the difference in the world. you're on a college campus, you take that test, in 15 minutes, you've got the answer, and if the answer is you have this, then your next place to go is somewhere where you're by yourself. and i think almost every campus that's returning to residential

campus living is setting aside some of their dorm space -- some campuses, all their dorm space is single-student dorm rooms, but in every campus that i've talked to, some rooms had set aside just so that student has a place to go. if you show up at the -- at the nursing home as a worker and in 15 minutes you find out you have covid, the last place you need to be is that nursing home. but if you don't know for five or seven days whether you had covid or not, really doesn't help out very much. and so what i think what the president has said on testing makes a lot of sense but doesn't mean that tests aren't good, it just means we need better tests. we have put a lot of money and effort behind those testses. think the national institutes of health will announce some tests and doing what i suggested in the next few days. put another $26 billion toward

vaccines. my colleague, senator daines, has been very helpful in looking at this organization called barta that was designed a decade ago to be able to respond to a pandemic and never really has been effectively used in my view in that way but this time we are using it and intend to continue to use it to form those partnerships with the private sector early on to begin to produce a vaccine even when we don't know absolutely for sure that it's going to be f.d.a. approved but do know if it is f.d.a. approved, we want it as soon as it possibly will be available, and if it is -- if it isn't f.d.a. approved, it will never be used but if it is f.d.a. approved the difference between a vaccine available january 15 and a vaccine available may 15 is worth the loss if it doesn't work out if that means -- say you went forward with five of these and

three of them worked and you've got vaccines, maybe 300 million doses on january 15, and you had to destroy a couple 100 million doses because that didn't get through the full safety requirement, all the difference in the world. lives saved, the economy restored, and we're moving forward with that and putting another $27 billion -- $26 billion behind that. we also have language in our bill that requires an effort that was announced yesterday, which is for a group of scientific ethicists to start talking about what the priorities should be for that vaccine when we have it. who should get it first, what our priorities should be, how do we distribute this in a way that seems fair and equitable? how do we distribute this in a way that somebody who can't get in a car and drive 100 miles for

a doctor and can't get the shot as the same person who could do all of those things, our bill requires that. all of our discussions on this bill plus our public discussions in a hearing a month ago says we want the administration to have a plan as to how to distribute this vaccine before you have the vaccine. everyone thinks that we might have a vaccine available by the end of this year, early next year. no reason to wait for that to happen before we have a plan. i want to see a plan before october 1, and i told the chief of staff of the president again yesterday. this bill will be sure that people who go to places like community health center are going to have a community health center that can respond to what they need, $7.6 billion to community health centers,

fore$25 billion to health care providers who lost income, which is almost every provider, during the last several months as our homents and our -- hospitals and our surgery centers and other places were told, here's what we want you to do. we want you to stop all your income. we want you to stop all the electivele things you could -- elective things you could possibly start and be ready for the greatest health care crisis your facility could ever meet. fully spending money to meet a crisis but try to stop income that you would normally have, we're trying to do what we can not to exceed income they normally would have had but to replace some of that income. also money for rural clinics that would step up and do that. senator capito and senator collins, particularly vigorous in being sure we had the money we needed if for people who have mental health challenges, many of my have gotten worse during

this isolation period and this job-loss period and this somebody or you and your family are sick period. and the opioid epidemic deaths -- the opioid deaths, the substance abuse deaths have gone back up for the first time in three years. that's totally logical if you think about it. have this headed in another direction, you've got a support system working that keeps you from returning to that habit, that dependency and then suddenly you're by yourself. and maybe you're not only by yourself, but maybe you're by yourself and you lost your job. maybe you're by yourself and your mother is sick with covid and you can't see your mom or dad or somebody in your family and you're thinking, i wonder, surely i could do that thing that made me feel so good just one time and not be addicted, but we know it doesn't work that way. our nation continues to face challenges and in those challenges we've asked the

national institutes of health to look one more time more closely at people's underlying conditions that might make them more endangered by covid-19, see what's happened with minorities with pregnant women, with children to begin to drill down and figure out what we can do. bipartisan priorities should include school, as i've said before, frankly need to include child care. if you're going to get america back to work, you're going to have to have a child care system that works. and that's not going to happen on its own. about half of our child care facilities have closed since the first of march. the other half that have been open have struggled trying to stay open. many have benefited from the p.p.p. program. but at the same time when they stay open or others reopen,

social distancing, reluctance of people to send their kids back to a place where there are lots of other kids, probably no more than 50% occupancy. not going to make up for that by doubling the amount that families are paying for child care. so you need to make up with that with the kind of grants and assistance that are in this bill. getting students back to school, getting people back to work, getting child care facilities to work, and senator ernst who was just on the floor an have been g advocates to make child care a priority. school needs to open safely based on state and local criteria. this bill includes money for schools to do that. elementary and secondary schools, about $70 billion. where exactly, frankly, we're a little bit ahead of where the house was in the heroes act. if you get into a bidding war

with the house, you're never going to within a bidding war. but if you get into a realist ition discussion, only 90 days or so, the house thought they needed $100 billion to reopen schools. we suggest $105 billion. i read in some report they then decided well, maybe it was $400 billion if it the senate was willing to spend $105 billion. we should be able to figure this out and figure this out quickly. with some of that money being available only if you go back to school in person and some of it available if you go back to school as others will do virtually, depending on again their situations locally. we're ready to move forward. answers to these important questions are in this bill. i look forward to talking about it not only our democrat colleagues in the senate but our colleagues in the house. and, mr. president, with that i'd yield the floor.

a senator: flpt? the presiding officer: the senator -- mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. a senator: thank you. i rise today on the relief that the heals act will provide to those in farm country and rural america as they weather the challenges of covid-19. it's so important. they're out there for us every day producing that food supply. mr. hoeven: they had incredible challenges before this covid-19 started. the president is from an ag state. you know the kind of challenges they were facing. so obviously we need to be there for them as we go through this coronavirus fight. and i want to start by thanking them. they provide us with the lowest cost, highest quality food supply in the world. think about it. every single american benefits every single day from what our farmers and ranchers do with food, fuel, and fiber. just the food piece alone means that americans have the highest quality, lowest cost food supply

in the world in the history of the word, thanks to our farmers and ranchers. so rarely if ever has there been a more appropriate time to say thank you to the men and women who provide us with that food supply. and the resilience of our ag producers in the face of tremendous hardship caused by the global health pandemic serves as a real testament to their grit and to their determination. and that's why we've worked to provide additional support for farmers and ranchers and processors in this heals act. and the legislation includes $20 billion in direct appropriation which will be used for our farmers and ranchers along with other funding that we were able to secure in the cares act. so we're trying to also do it in a cost effective way recognizing that we've got a debt and deficit we have to be mindful of. what we're trying to do is actually utilize funding that we put together in the cares act

for the c.c.c., taking $14 billion of that and combining it in this legislation to make sure that we have adequate funding which would total about $44 billion to address the needs in farm country. prior to the coronavirus, farmers entered 2020 after seven years of rural recession caused by low commodity prices, trade disruptions and some really tough weather. ?al disasters. our farmers and ranchers are the eternal optimists. they have to be. so they go in every year with that grit and determination and continue to provide that food supply that we all rely on. but now, of course, you add the covid-19 into the mix, store fronts have closed. restaurants have shuttered their doors. processing plants have limited and in some cases shut down operations and of course ag prices are down.

so they -- farmers and ranchers came into a tough situation and now they're facing further challenges with the pricing and the other challenges created by covid-19, as i said. though it will take some time to quantify those losses, the reports we have right now indicate losses in the ag sector could be near $42 billion. and just, for example, in the cattle industry alone could total as much as $13 billion. so, you know, we need to be there for them. again, they're not only out there producing the food, they're doing other things to help out as well. for example, just a couple of stories about our farmer groups making an effort to help others. in -- one of our nation's premier potato growers in north dakota donated 30,000 pounds of frozen potato products to the great plains food bank. north dakota stockmen's

association and their foundation donated $20,000 to the same food bank to purchase beef from north dakota ranchers. north dakota farmers union and farmer unit enterprises teamed up to donate 30,000 pounds of pork ribs to the great plains food bank as well and those type of stories go on. while the farmers and ranchers of america are out there fighting their own challenges, they're helping others at the same time. and i think that that is truly, truly remarkable. in the cares act we took the first important step by providing $9.5 billion to the usda department of ag along with the 14 i just referenced to replenish the c.c.c. so as i mentioned earlier we're going to now take -- we've utilized some of that funding to.assistance but now we're going to take that additional $14 billion, combine it with the funding here, $20 billion to make sure that we can get that assistance out to the farmers. so again working to do this in a

way where we're being prudent with our taxpayers' dollars, recognizing the challenges we have with debt and deficit and we have to be mindful of that but at the same time making sure that we're getting adequate assistance out to those great farmers and ranchers across america who are getting it done for all americans every single day. thank you, mr. president. with that i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. a senator: mr. president, i rise today to discuss the heals act. mr. young: as we continue to confront this coronavirus pandemic, we have to ensure that our schools and our employers can safely reopen. and our health care providers must also have the resources they need to continue to provide the essential care to all americans to fight this virus and to help this nation return

to some semblance of normalcy as quickly as possible. now, we have to also provide liability protection for those schools, businesses, and health care providers while they do their very best to operate safely during this unusual once-in-a-generation, once in multiple generations pandemic. the heals act will help provide these protections. the heals act also includes several provisions that i've been championing, including legislation to address unemployment insurance system reform. we know there have been a lot of challenges associated with legacy computer systems and we should never ever have to endure this again. financial assistance to help child care providers reopen has also been another priority of mine, recognizing that our child care providers play an essential role not just caring for our children and ensuring that they

remain educated and in a safe environment when their parents aren't around but also they're critical to our broader economy. if your kids aren't taken care of, you can't go to work. and hoosiers want to go to work. and then finally we have telehealth legislation that's been included in this heals act that will lead to greater affordability and access, especially as many of these authorities are made permanent in the future. this is a way to bend the cost curve down and provide a higher value for each of those health care dollars moving forward. it also includes the trust act, something that i helped introduce to establish a bipartisan national plan to finally begin tackling the long-term drivers of our national debt once we get through this coronavirus pandemic. i've been talking about this, sometimes criticized for talking

about fiscal responsibility and the largest drivers of our long-term national debt. i'm unapologetic every time i talk about that. this trust act would establish a bipartisan national plan to finally begin tackling this and i hope it remains in the package as negotiations continue. most importantly, i'm glad that the heals act includes some really important features of my restart act. a bipartisan piece of legislation that i introduced with senator bennet, we now have somewhere north 42, 44 bipartisan cosponsors. we have 50 national groups and growing that are supportive of this legislation. and it's very important that these features remain in the heals act. now, like my restart act, the heals act recognizes the need for long-term working capital

loans. and targeting that relief towards businesses that have suffered significant revenue decline. we don't want more examples of businesses that are doing just fine in the wake of the pandemic getting access to moneys that frankly they don't need. instead, we want to target our resources towards the hardest hit businesses that won't survive this pandemic. that's what the restart act does. and i'm proud of those features that were included. however, i have to say in order to truly assist the hardest-hit small and medium size enterprises that have fallen through the grabs of previous programs, more of the restart act is going to have to be included throughout this negotiation process. last night i received a text from a long-time friend of mine. her name is sheila. sheila is a dress dent -- is a

resident of dearborn county, indiana. and sheila -- gosh, she's an incredibly hardworking person and she texted me the following. she said, todd, i saw you on c-span today. i really appreciate how you bring up the hoosiers. when you're writing this next bill, please consider small businesses like my husband and i have. pat is the lone owner of our catering business. we've invested all the revenue made over the few years into our business, buying equipment, et cetera. because of this investment we had an impressive schedule of events this past spring, summer, and fall lined up. this time of year gives our barbecue business our greatest exposure and opportunity for financial gain. we were ineligible for a p.p.p.

loan because we did not show a profit. when composing the next p.p.p., please consider single-person business owners like our barbecue and catering business. god b god bless you. well, god bless you, sheilah. you know, it's hardworking people and couples and partnering americans that help build this country. it's innovators and entrepreneurs and doers and dreamers and workers like sheilah gramalia. if we don't provide this much-needed relief now, i'm really concerned that we're going to be in a far worse position in the weeks and months to come, as more businesses close permanently, they go bankrupt, they're no longer paying payroll taxes, and then there's greater damage done to the economy and to our nation's

balance sheet. i'm also concerned this aabout our ability as a country to -- i'm also concerned about our ability as a country to fully recover once there is a vaccine available. it is our small- and medium-sized industries that you find in the heartland of the country where so much innovation occurs. it's not always in these large businesses. it's the smaller enterprises where the innovation occurs and then ultimately i.t. the big -- it's the big businesses thatcquire these innovatorrive businesses. so we want these incubators of innovation, these small businesses, medium-sized businesses that are indiana novative and entrepreneurial to survive this difficult time. there's also pillars, frankly, of main street america. we take pride in our small businesses, many of which have

been so hard hit. we don't want to hollow out main street america. the most fiscally responsible thing we can do is to fail the sneads of these enterprises. the additional assistance that i'm calling for is critical to, for example, the more than 500,000 manufacturing employees in the state of indiana, the most manufacturing-intensive state in the countryment. it's also critical to 2900,000 hoosier restaurant employees laid off or furloughed since march. you know, we've been able to provide them some short-term assistance, but this virus and the challenges associated with it have lingered on much longer than all of us had hoped, and we're going to have to help out these employers so they have a place to go back to work to.

-- once we figure this thing out. this assistance is critical to the small music venues that enrich our local communities throughout the state of indiana and across our country. they're facing permanent closure, too. and the countless restaurants, gyms, salons, boutiques, hotels, retailers and other small businesses that are essential pillars of our communities. i grew up in a small business family. we had our up years, we had our down years, we had some rough christmases. you know, my mom, my gad, they took great pride in that family business. they made it. they worked hard. but they saw nothing like this virus. we need to help these businesses. these businesses are in dire straits not because any bad

business decisions were made but, instead, because this virus came from overseas, disrupted our lives, and in the interest of public health our please had to stay home. people stopped buying the same things they were buying. our shopping patterns changed. at some point we will resume some semblance of normalcy. we're getting there. but in the meantime, we need a bridge to the other side of this virus. we need to make sure that all of the provisions of the restart act make it into the heals act. so since senator bennet and i introduced the restart act in may, our legislation has received support from more than 40 bipartisan senators. i am proud of that. there is a lot of hard work going on in the u.s. house of representatives to get members of the house to sign up as well.

it's also been endorsed by roughly 50 national organizations and more than 50 indiana businesses. these are prominent national organizations, including, for example, the national association of manufacturers. given the widespread support for the restart act, i will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure that more of it's included in the final coronavirus package. i hope we get all of it included. we have to ensure that we are caring for those who have suffered the most. and to sheilah and to pat, you have my word. you have my word, as he did the first day weigh met, that i will do everything i could to fight for the people of indiana, to fight for what is right, to fight tirelessly on behalf of my customers, which is you and the

millions of hoosiers i represent, answering only to my ultimate boss, god and the constitution. i will fulfill that pledge and continue fighting for all of you during this difficult time. thank you so much, mr. president. mr. cramer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. cramer: thank you, mr. president. first of all, i want to the associate myself with the -- i want to associate myself with the message delivered by my senior senator from north dakota, senator hoeven, appeared echo his words about the importance of farmers and farmers and ranchers, all of those who produce the food and the fiber and the fuel for our country. they need assistance, and i'm real will i grateful that senator hoeven has played such a

lead role in getting them assistance in this heals act. it's critical. mr. president, i want to join the rest of my colleagues today in discussing the heals act and demonstrating our support for the merit of this important bill. the ultimate answer to the problems that we face as a result of this virus, of course, lies in the health care industry and in our health care in fighting against this enemy of the virus. that's why we're calling for more funding forbe testing and treatment -- for testing and treatments and the ultimately a sack seen, hopefully -- and hopefully soon. and as we do so, we also have to make sure, mr. president, that our economy is healthy, that our economy survives, and that our education system remains availability and accessible to our students in the classroom. jobs, kids, and health care, students, parents, and patients -- this is who senate republicans are fighting for. and i've introduced bipartisan legislation to further this goal

, i believe we should include in the heals act in its entirety. and many pieces of it are in, but i think we can do more. the paycheck protection small business act would offer streamlined forgiveness of any borrower of a paycheck protection program p.p.p. loan of $150,000 for less who fills one a simple one-page attesting that they spent the loan dollars the way they're supposed to. with the expected forgiveness guidance, businesses will have to spend billions of dollars to receive the forgiveness promised them. we estimate that each borrower would have to spend $2,000 and each lender $500 per loan just to comply with what the bureaucracy comes up with. that doesn't even include the dollars we have to spend on the bureaucracy itself. we created the p.p.p. to help small businesses and their

employees survive, not to create a bureaucracy that will bury them in paperwork. so who are these borrowers of paycheck protection p.p.p. program loans? they make up 85% or $4.2 million of the loans, but only 25% -- i'm sorry, 4.2 million of the loans but only 25% offer $132 million of the loan amount. imagine that. 85% of the loans are in this category, 4.2 million of roughly 5 million loans. so that means 15% of the authorized p.p.p. loans make up 75% of the borrowed money. in north dakota, the average loan was only $91,000. under current lurks the bureaucracy would, regardless of loan side, seek to indiscriminately verify and approve forgiveness applications

and they haven't come up with the form to do it yet. this would require a significant growth in the government and in the bureaucracy that we cannot afford. only to make small businesses and lenders spend time and money they can't afford to spend to comply with this bureaucracy. it makes no sense. and lest we forget, when we passed the act, we made our intent clear -- p.p.p. loans would become grants for the businesses who spent the money properly. and the banks were there to help guide them. there was no caveat that the loans would come with unnecessary bureaucracy. quite the opposite was true. the implication was that it would not come with additional bureaucracy. the bipartisan bill that i introduced with senators menendez, tillis, and sinema and now has 25 senate sponsors would fulfill our original intent and the promise we made to lenders and applicants by creating a

simple, accountable process for loan forgiveness. our bill also includes a provision which makes sure that lenders will not be held responsible for improper actions of the borrowers while still ensuring proper enforcement action can be taken, if necessary. in fact, the accountability structure is intact. when we passed the cares act, we deliberately encouraged businesses to apply for p.p.p. and urged the bureaucracy and the lenders to get the money out the door fast. we were in a crisis, mr. president. we were trying to keep people from being laid off and let go. and largely we were successful. but that success could be undone if we do not take the next steps properly. we shouldn't backtrack on the guidance we gave lenders by holding them accountable for the decisions the borrowers made. fraud is a concern, for sure, which is why my proposal keeps all audit intact.

if a borrower atastes to using the funds correctly, the federal government is able to investigate and hold them accountable. if this sounds like a commonsense approach, that's because it is. this measure was popular from the start and it is gaining support still. a quarter of the senate, a sizable number in the house and now close to 200 business associations and groups supporting it, from the entire political spectrum. and why wouldn't it be popular? it alliance with the very -- it aligns with the very same principles we're fighting for today -- jobs, kids, and health care. no small business owner figuring out how to safely send their kid to school should have to worry about unnecessary red tape. no employee of a shop on main street should have to live in fear of being laid off because their employer might not perfectly comply with the arbitrary requirements put forth for them bay bureaucrat in washington. no brother, sister, son or daughter should have to sit down and crunch the numbers to make

sure they have enough money to aplay for loan forgiveness while supporting their family at home. the fear they face is real. the small business is not just an arbitrary designation. they are the backbone of america, the employers of the vast majority of people in our country, and they are h. their anxiety is -- and their anxiety is our anxiety. earlier this month, treasury secretary told the house committee this is an idea we should consider, and i agree. we should consider it in bipartisan negotiations and tad to the heals act, in its entirety. it'll give our small businesses the peace of mind that they need, like the rest of us, while they fight for their livelihoods during this pandemic. i yield the floor. mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to be allowed to complete my remarks before the roll call vote. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you you mr. president.

mr. president, first let me say i concur with the comments by the senator from north dakota. i think he makes wonderful points about what's being done in terms of pandemic relief and the issues that we as a nation are facing, as his state and mine are similar with so many small businesses and we see the impact and the success related to the paycheck protection program. i just want to associate myself with those beliefs that we just heard expressed from the senator from north dakota. i do many to the floor today to talk about another epidemic. that's the epidemic of violence that is sweeping our country. monday's "washington post" headline warns, quote, protests explode across the country, police declare riots in seattle and portland. tuesday's "wall street journal" editorial is headlined, a weekend of urban anarchy.

a weekend of urban anarchy. mr. president, in seattle on saturday, rioters blew a hole in a police precinct. they hurled explosives and they injured 53 police officers. 53. in portland, rioters threw monthly to cocktails friday night. several officers were hit with heavy explosives. the rioters returned sunday and attacked the courthouse. mr. president, in spite of what the democrats say when they call these peaceful protests, these are nothing peaceful, and they are not protests. this is active violence. this is organized violence and it is meant to destroy and to intimidate. portland has now endured 60 days of senseless destruction. these violent protests are a

powder keg for our entire nation. the rioters threaten entire communities. they're ruining lives and they're ruining neighborhoods. they're wrecking public and they're wrecking private property. they burn, they loot, and they kill. across the country a number of police officers have been killed. according to a "new york times" report, murder rates in our big cities are now up 16% compared to last year. in new york alone, murders are up 24%. atlanta, murders up 31%. chicago, murders up 5 1%. in chicago last week, 15 people were shot while attending the funeral of a victim of gang violence. children are being hurt and killed. a seven-year-old girl, a 14-year-old boy were among those shot and killed in chicago over

the fourth of july weekend. mr. president, this is a crisis of leadership in our liberal cities. where are the democrat mayors? they have surrendered to the mob. where are the democrat governors? they have surrendered to the mob. instead of leading, they are turning their backs on the safety and security of the law-abiding citizens of our communities. in these liberal cities, mob rule has replaced the rule of law. we are seeing in real time, in real time the result of the radical defund the police movement that is embraced by many democrats. we should defend, not defund, the police and law enforcement. americans do not want to defund the police. according to a recent rasmussen poll, two out of three americans oppose cutting police

funding. a majority say that they want the federal government to help fight crime in these cities. one thing is clear, the violent rioting plaguing our cities cannot continue. the police are being targeted for doing their job, and their jobs come at great personal risk. at the same time elected democrat mayors and city council members and governors refuse to condemn the rioting and the cold-blooded murder. it's time for local leaders to restore their law and order. it's time to make sure our communities are safe again. the death and destruction lies at the feet of elected democrat leaders. each must be held accountable for their leadership failure. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke

cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the streels do hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of marvin kaplan of kansas of the national labor relations board. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of marvin kaplan of kansas to be a member of the national labor relations board shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change his vote? if not, the yeas are 52, the nays are 46.

the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: national labor relations board. marvin kaplan of kansas to be a member. the presiding officer: under the previous order, all postcloture time is expired. the question is on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 52, the nays are 46. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion is reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. the senator from alabama. mr. jones: mr. president, i rise today amid what we all know to be a global health and economic crisis that we are in. and i rise to propose a solution that has been in front of us all along from the very beginning, and it's a solution that has existed for 55 years tomorrow -- 55 years. medicaid has brought thousands -- millions of people to better health care. it has brought billions of

dollars into states. that's important, and when we have both a health care crisis and an economic crisis. but medicaid for 55 years has lifted the health outcomes of people all across this country, and especially in so many states that need it like -- states like alabama that are poor states, that are unhealthy states. but we can do better. a solution of medicaid would bring billions of dollars into my home state of alabama, along with about a dozen other states. it would create thousands of new jobs. it would help shore up rural hospitals that are facing financial struggles, a condition made worse by this pandemic. it would provide health care coverage in alabama alone to between 300,000 and 400,000

alabamians that do not have it now. some did not have it before the pandemic. others have lost hear employer-sponsored health care -- others have lost their employer-sponsored health care. extendingmedicaid would -- that's "b" -- $9st $935 million in new tax ref flew for the state of alabama. and it would help local economies across the state by creating good jobs and ensuring workers and their families have good health care. in our rural areas especially, health care is dependent on federal dollars. expanding medicaid was the right thing to do before this pandemic, and some 36 states or

so, 37 states or so did just that. in fact, two states fairly recently -- conservative states of oklahoma and nebraska -- are both in the process of expanding medicaid. it was important before the pandemic, but it is vital that we do it now. it is absolutely vital, especially as so many people have lost their jobs, lost their employer-sponsored health care through no fault of their own. alabama didn't take that step back in 2011 when it should have r alabama held back. there is little doubt that the main reason -- not the sole reason but the main reason that they held back was purely political, purely political. the alabama legislature, the alabama governor refused to legitimize the affordable care

act and put their name on anything having to do -- and the people of alabama, hundreds of thousands, have suffered because of it. that excuse is waning thin today, especially when so much is needed to provide health care to the people of my state. just this morning a new poll came out from auburn university that showed that a majority of the people of alabama, including a majority of republicans and a majority of democrats, favor expanding medicaid. our hospitals and health care professionals have long advocated for this. all across alabama -- we did a program just recently you the hospital association has been begging for this for years to keep our hospitals open. they've advocated for it, understanding understanding that without this, more and more of our hospitals will have to close their doors. they are working on either thin margins or they're under water

already, and the pandemic has made it worse. more than a dozen of our hospitals -- rural and urban -- have shuttered while alabama has refused to expand medicaid. today we have a chance to save the ones we still have and perhaps even revive some outpatient services that have lost their provider. for every pregnant mother who has to driver hours for a roundtrip for prenatal appointments or the worker, those that are employed even that would benefit from this who still do not have good health care and have to take their children to an emergency room for routine health care, it's for those people that i am committed to finding a way to expand medicaid. so today i stand with my colleague, senator warner from virginia, to once again call for

the passage of our proposal to incentivize states to expand medicaid. our bill, the same act, states achieving medicaid expansion act, would restore the financial incentives for states that expanded late and would give them the same fair shot at federal support as the early expanding states a. the legislation would have the federal government cover 100% of the cost for the first three years, then would scale back to eventually cover 90% in perpetuity. now, i want to make sure folks understand about this bill. this bill does not mandate an expansion of medicaid. it still gives states the choice. so if the 13 or 14 states, including alabama, choose not to expand medicaid, even with this second bite of the apple, then they don't have to. shame on them for not doing so, but they don't have to do it.

and, more importantly, if they were to do that, the thousands and thousands of people would get this health care coverage, including a very important point for the state of alabama, and that is expanded mental health coverage. so many places that i've been to in the state of alabama are begging for mental health coverage that they cannot afford in their communities. expanding medicaid would do just that is. -- expanding medicaid would do just that. so let me be clear. even without this bill, i still believe alabama should take this step. we literally cannot afford not to. we need to be investing in our citizens' health, the same way we invest in trying to bring businesses into alabama. we need to try to invest in our people's health because it will lift all boats. but the if this incentive is what is needed to help us get over the finish line, then let's just do it. again, it is not mandated.

states don't have to do it, but for those states that do, they will see better health outcomes for their citizens and better economic advantages in areas that need it. millions of americans in these remaining states are struggling, and we can no longer allow politics to get in the way of their access to quality health care. so i urge my colleagues, please -- please let my state have the chance, let us have the opportunity to right the wrong that we did in 2011 by refusing to expand. give me that opportunity to go back and try to convince the folks in montgomery, alabama that this is the right thing to do. it's a commonsense solution. and he let's not stand in the -- and let's not stand in the way of more americans getting health care amid a global health crisis. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. warner: madam president, thank you. i want to first of all thank my

friend, the senator from alabama, for his partnership on the same act. and i'm going to repeat some of the arguments he made because i think they're quite compelling. we are talking about health care, and issue that is weighing on too many american families at this point. not just health care but access to health care coverage. i think we would all agree, regardless of what we feel about this issue, we're in the midst of the greatest public health care crisis in generations. and in this unprecedented time, i think it calls for unprecedented action from congress. so today, in a couple moments, i'm going to ask that this senate take and pass unanimously legislation that i introduced along with senator jones from alabama and several of my colleagues, legislation that

could provide access to quality and affordable health care coverage for millions of americans. to be clear, the same act is the bill that i've been pushing for more than three years. this bill was a good idea before the pandemic, but the need for it has become even greater in light of the covid-19 outbreak. the same act would ensure that states like virginia -- and we did pass medicaid expansion, but we passed it later than other states -- states that have expanded medicaid program to serve more americans can get that are share of federal matching dollars. it would also incentivize additional states like my friend from alabama, who haven't yet expanded medicaid to expand this critical program to millions of more americans. i can think of no better time to

pass this legislation than right now. when more than five million americans find themselves having lost their health care coverage in the last three months alone. in fact, some reports actually estimate that nearly 27 million americans have lost their employer-sponsored health insurance and are now in jeopardy of becoming uninsured. our legislation would provide much-needed financial support to states that are seeing an increase in medicaid enrollment as folks face the fallout of this crisis. and for those millions of people, the same act would provide a significant lifeline. estimates show that if every state were to expand its medicaid program, about three million additional americans would have health care coverage. now, i don't believe this is a political argument nor a philosophical exercise.

this legislation has a real-world impact, and it's clear that americans want and need this legislation to pass. as my colleague just mentioned, there are a new mexico of states -- red states -- as there are a number of states, red states and blue states, that have tea advantage of this. a few weeks ago oklahomans voted to expand their medicaid program surges we've seen similar actions from citizens in utah, maine, idaho, and others. beaver across our nation, americans are making clear they want expanded access to health care coverage and i believe congress needs to listen. now, with all due respect to my republican colleagues, you can't say you want to help americans in this devastating time and simultaneously oppose this bill which would actually provide that help. as we stand here in this chamber, we have the privilege

of knowing that we and our families have access to health care coverage we need. that if something were to go wrong, we would be covered. so why shulgd we ensure the same access for more americans. the median cost for hospitalization due to covid-19 is $14,000. for americans without health insurance, the nearly 30 million and growing, that could mean losing their house or their car. for many it will put them into bankruptcy. now i know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to do right by their constituents and millions of other americans that need help, so today i'm going again to ask us to come together to support the same act. no one should go bankrupt because they got sick and sought medical care. but more importantly, no one should go bankrupt when this legislative body has the

opportunity to act. so, madam president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the finance committee be discharged from further consideration of s. res. 585, the states achieve medicaid expansion act, the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. scott: madam president, reserving the right to object. i appreciate we all want to help americans get the health care they need. but what my colleagues are proposing is a federal bailout that helps a handful of states by doing little to directly help patients. that's not fair to americans across the nation that need better access to affordable health care. we've seen that a government takeover health care does not

work. obamacare was sold on a lie, plain and simple. let's remember, when obamacare passed, they promised it would save $2,500 per family. not true. costs and premiums have gone up. they promised you could keep your doctor. not true. provider networks got narrower and people lost their doctors. they promised if you like your plan, you could keep it. again not true. the promise of obamacare didn't happen. actually, the opposite happened. under obamacare, costs have skyrocketed and families lost the doctors they liked. the american people don't want more lies. actually they want more solutions. the solution is not to create more inequity in the system. what we need is to take concrete steps to make sure we're helping all families across the nation actually get the health care they need. my colleagues bill does nothing to help patients.

states will make their own decisions on medicaid. giving certain states free medicaid is nothing more than a bailout for state budgets. madam president, in june, i wrote to all 50 governors requesting information on how their states have allocated the trillions of dollars in taxpayer funding from the federal coronavirus response measures passed by congress. unfortunately, a majority of the states have simply chosen not to respond, including virginia and alabama. the federal government already allocated $1 trillion to states and local governments to respond to the coronavirus, but these states are refusing to tell us how they're spending these extra funds, including the estimated extra $50 billion in federal medicaid dollars they received in the families first act. since the families first act passed, medicaid costs have actually gone down. but the states don't want to tell us that because they simply want a bailout.

instead of pursuing a partisan bailout of a select number of states, i want to use this opportunity to propose a commonsense solution using bipartisan principles to help every single american in this country. while obamacare was a failure, i support protecting people with preexisting conditions and ensuring that young adults can stay on their parents' health plan until age 26. i think my colleagues would also support these principles. i've been working with senator tillis on the protect act which would directly assist americans by, one, guarantee coverage for preexisting conditions and prohibiting insurance companies from excluding coverage of treatments for patients' preexisting conditions. two, prohibiting insurance companies from charging americans higher premiums due to preexisting conditions. and, three, guaranteeing the availability of health insurance coverage in the employer or individual markets regardless of a preexisting condition. my amendment builds on the

protect act and adds protections to allow young adults to stay on their parents' health insurance plan until they're 26. we could pass this amendment, which i believe has bipartisan support, and ensure that every american with a preexisting condition would be protected no matter how the supreme court rules on obamacare. the american people and certainly the people of florida, virginia, and alabama want us to get something done that will actually reduce health care costs and increase access to care. that's what my proposal does. protecting americans with a preexisting condition is a commonsense step we can and should take today to lower the cost of health care for all americans. i hope my colleagues will join me in supporting these bipartisan health care reforms. madam president, therefore, i ask the senator to modify his request to include my substitute amendment which is at the desk, that it be considered and agreed to, the bill as amended be considered, read a third time and passed, and that the

motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: does the senator so modify his request? mr. warner: madam president, reserving the right to object, and i have great respect for my friend, the senator from florida. i know he has a long and deep background in health care. but i've got some news, the affordable care act already provides strong protections to millions of americans with preexisting conditions. i believe that it's unfortunate that the legislation my colleague is proposing would allow insurance companies to once again impose arbitrary annual and lifetime cap limits on care. and it would allow insurance companies to refuse to cover essential health benefits like mental health coverage, substance use disorder or maternity care. i don't believe we can go back to the days when a certain number of companies held all the

power and consumers were routinely denied access to health care. i do believe the same act sponsored, again, by my good friend, the senator from alabama, which would simply continue to extend the right to have the same level of federal subsidies for all states -- and we're seeing voters across the country as they have a chance to weigh in on this -- agree to this principle that those same rights ought to be extended to states like alabama, who have chosen not to move forward, to states like virginia, who move forward but a little bit late. i think, still strongly believe the same act which would equalize and level the playing field is the appropriate action. and so respectfully, i object to the senator from florida's unanimous consent request to pass this bill. the presiding officer: objection is heard. is there objection to the

original request? mr. scott: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. scott: madam president, reserving the right to object. first off, i want to thank my colleagues, and i hope to work with them to figure out how we can drive health care costs down, because as we know, in all of our states, health care costs is too high, and we have, like my colleagues have said, we have people that are being impacted because they can't afford the cost of health care. i'm clearly disappointed my colleagues don't want to protect those with preexisting conditions and ensure young adults can stay on their parents' plans until age 26 if obamacare is actually ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court. i hope that we can, i hope that we can figure out how to work together, whether it's to try to figure out how we can bring drug prices down or the whole cost of health care because it shouldn't be this high. therefore, i respectfully object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. warner: madam president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

vote:

roo madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: madam president, i ask consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will are report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22, do hereby bring to a close debate on the nomination of lauren mcgarity mcferran, of the district of columbia, to be a member of the national labor relations board. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of lauren mcgarity mcferran, of the district of columbia, to be a member of the national labor relations board shall be brought to a close?

the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 65, the nays are 41. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, national labor relations board, lauren mcgarrett mcferran of the district of columbia to be a member. the presiding officer: under the previous order, all postcloture time is expired. the question is son the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be.

the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: does any senator wish to vote or change his or her vote? if not the yeas are 53, the nays are 42. the nomination is confirmed. the nomination -- the president will be notified of the senate's action.

vote: