c-span, on-line at c-span.org or listen live with the free c-span radio app. >> this week, two hearings before the senate. on wednesday at 10 a.m. eastern, sally yates, the former acting attorney general at the start of the trump administration testifies on the russia investigation before the judiciary committee. then on thursday at 10 a.m. eastern, chad wolf acting secretary for the homeland security will report on protests and unrest across the country. watch live on c-span, on-line at c-span.org or listen live on the free c-span radio app. >> and the u.s. senate about to begin its session. they'll resume debate on the nomination of mark menses to be and weekly party meetings may

resume on unemployment benefits that expired last friday and talks on the on a larger package. live coverage here on c-span2. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal spirit, to whom we must give an account for all our powers and privileges, guide the members of this body so that they will be faithful stewards of your will. lord, open their minds and hearts to know and do your bidding, teaching them to rely on your strength and to serve you with honor.

help them to discover in their daily work the joy of a partnership with you. use them to bring good news to the marginalized, to comfort the brokenhearted, and to announce that captives will be released and the shackled will be freed. may our senators depend upon the power of your prevailing providence for you are the author and finisher of our faith. we pray in your great name. amen.

the president pro tempore: please join me in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr. grassley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i'd like to have permission, one minute morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: iowa's secretary of state paul paite will mail an

absentee ballot request. that form will go to every registered iowa voter for the november election. that's a request for a form. that's not a ballot being mailed out to everybody. iowa's current absentee ballot system allows anyone who wants to vote by mail the option to do so. just send in the request form when you receive it or download it online. but if iowans prefer to vote in person, that remains your choice, their choice. there's been a lot of misinformation claiming that some massive federal intervention is needed to allow citizens to vote by mail. this isn't true in iowa or elsewhere.

every state has vote by mail. 16 states ask for a reason, such as being over 65, for example. but most have waived or loosened this requirement. some groups are now using the pandemic to push for a federal mandate on states to adopt a new universal vote-by-mail system overnight. it took five years when washington state implemented voting by mail. requiring every state to replace their current voting system with a whole new centralized mail-only system this close to our november election is a recipe for disaster. in such a system every registered voter including those who have died or moved away would automatically be mailed a

ballot with no voting in person. every iowan who wants to vote absentee in november can do so, and those who want to vote in person can also do so safely. it is the voters' choice and should remain so. i yield the floor.

mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: another day has come and gone in this once in a century national battle for our country. yesterday more of our neighbors had to say goodbye to loved ones whose lives were claimed by this virus. yesterday more doctors and more nurses worked long shifts on the front lines fighting to heal strangers and limit a national death toll that now exceeds 150,000. yesterday more workers brought home pink slips. more main street businesses saw the end of their p.p.p. lifelines fast approaching. yesterday more laid off americans filed new claims for

unemployment insurance or laid awake wondering about next month's rent. yesterday more school officials wondered what to tell parents, students, and teachers about september. so what happened here in the capitol yesterday, madam president? with the american people fighting all these battles and more, what did the speaker of the house and the democratic leader do with yet another day of deliberations? yet again it was the exact same refrain. it never seems to change. we're feeling optimistic. we spoke very politely to the administration but we're still nowhere close on substance. it's now been more than a week since senate republicans released a serious proposal for another major rescue package. a trillion dollars for kids, jobs, and health care. but democrats are blocking it all. it's like they expect applause

for merely keeping a civil tone with the president's team never mind they're still obstructing any action for our country. senate republicans want to revive a federal add-on to unemployment insurance which the democratic leader would not let us extend last week. we want to send another round of direct checks straight into families' pockets. we want to supply generous new incentives for rehiring american workers and workplace safety. we want to send historic money to schools for reopening and invest even more in testing and vaccine research. we want legal protections so schools, churches, charities, and businesses can reopen. the democrats say they want many of the same things. i certainly believe that many of my democratic colleagues who serve as ranking members want many of the same things and could easily find common ground

with our chairmen if the democratic leader would let them talk. but instead we've gotten a full week of the speaker of the house and the democratic leader shutting out all of their own members and refusing to move an inch, an inch off of demands that everyone knows are out landish. the democratic leaders want the entirety of their massive far-left wish list, all of it. speaker pelosi is still agitating for strange, new special interests carve-outs for the marijuana industry and even claiming they were covid related. she said that with respect to this virus, marijuana is, quote, a therapy that is proven successful. you can't make this up. i hope she shared her breakthrough with dr. fauci. any other -- in the other corner leader schumer is still demanding massive tax cuts for

people in blue states or he won't let any relief become law. these are the kinds of nongermane pet projects that our democratic colleagues are demanding. not a dime for kids, jobs, and health care unless the administration lets them check off every left-wing lobbyist christmas wish five months early. let's listen to what speaker pelosi's own house democrats said about this bill when they passed it. here's what house democrats said about the bill that speaker pelosi and the democratic leader now say is their absolute red line. one quote was, the partisan nature and wide scope of this bill makes it doomed upon arrival in the senate. another, in response to covid-19, our relief efforts must be targeted timely and transparent. the heroes act does not meet those standards. another quote, this isn't a plan. it's a wish list. another quote, partisan

gamesmanship. another quote, some 'in my own party have decided to use this package to make political statements and propose a bill that goes far beyond pandemic relief and has no chance at becoming law. further delaying the help so many need. now, madam president, those are quotes from house democrats, views about the so-called heroes act, but now the whole thing is the price of admission for giving hard-hit americans any more aid. what worked back in march with the cares act were productive and good-faith conversations with republican and ranking members with the process led by members. but this time the democrats and democratic leader forbid their members from speaking at all. the ranking member on help cannot even talk with senator alexander. the ranking member on small business cannot discuss p.p.p. with chairman rubio and chairman collins. no, no, the speaker and the

democratic leader only want themselves at the table. so behind closed doors they can say nobody gets another dime of federal unemployment money. nobody gets extra school funding. and nobody gets more money for testing and p.p.e. unless they burn cash on 1,000 unrelated things. i'm talking about things like stimulus checks for illegal immigrants, $1 trillion slush funds for states. $1 trillion slush fund for states even though states and low cattle only spent a -- local 'tis only spent a quart of the money spent them in march. in my state they only spent $6% of the money. diversity and inclusion studies

studies, and on and on and on. the house bill does all these things while completely forgetting a second round of paycheck protection program. no second round for p.p.p. and spending less money for schools than the senate bill. this is what they won't budge f. and every day the script is the same. and the script is we had a pleasant conversation, but we don't feel like making a deal. maybe tomorrow. here's the problem. every day the democratic leaders repeat the same act here in the capitol, they're letting down the struggling people who need our help. day after day americans are trying to stay above water, layoffs, benefit cuts, threats of eviction, the possibility of losing a family business forever, towns wondering if

their main streets will ever come back, school principals with no idea what to tell communities. that's the reality in kentucky and in all 50 states, and none of these people are helped one bit, not one bit by the democratic leader's charade. what american families need is an outcome, a bipartisan result. senate republicans have had a road map sitting on the table for more than a week. we didn't put every republican wish list item in history into an 1,800 page encyclopedia and insist on starting there. we built a serious starting place based on the bipartisan programs bepassed back in march, unanimously, by the way, and what the country needs now. if our colleagues across the aisle would do the same, frankly, if our colleagues across the aisle were even

allowed, allowed to take part in the discussions, we could get this done for our country. we did it in march. we could do it again, but both sides have to actually want it. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. the senate will proved to executive session to proceed to the following nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of energy, mark wesley menezes of virginia to be deputy secretary. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. schumer: madam president. i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: now, madam president, i just listened to my friend, the republican leader. the republican leader is so tied in a knot by his own caucus and his president that all he can do is give alice in wonderland partisan speeches. all he can do is threaten to force sham votes that will not pass and will not answer the anguished cries for help that are coming from so many of our

fellow americans. on the other hand over the weekend and yesterday, speaker pelosi and i continued our negotiations with the white house on the next phase of covid relief legislation. after a week of stalled talks, because republicans could not articulate a position on hardly anything, i believe we're making progress. we came closer together on several issues. however, we remain far apart on a number of issues, but we're finally moving in the right direction. at the moment, the gap between our two parties in the negotiations is about priorities and about scale. as this huge crisis engulfs our nation, democrats believe we need a bold, strong, and vigorous response from the federal government. it will take a lot of resources, but if we don't commit those resources now, for sure the

costs will only grow in the months to come. democrats are fighting to meet the needs of a desperate nation. our republican friends, however, president trump, his aides, and republicans in the senate, do not seem to appreciate the gravity of the situation. they do not understand the needs of the country that are so great. and they are not stepping up to meet those needs. this disease has washed over our country like a great flood, and republicans are acting like we need to fix a leaky faucet. some of our republican friends seem to be going through the motions, content to pass a bill, any bill, so they can check the box and go home, but a bill that doesn't come close to meeting the needs of america. we cannot do that. we cannot pass an inadequate bill and then go home while the virus continues to spread, the economy continues to deteriorate

, and the country gets worse. no box-checking will work. we need real action. we need a relief package that actually rescues american families, american schools, and american businesses that helps defeat this evil virus and prevents our economy from sliding into a depression, and democrats are going to keep fighting until we get there. but republicans on both ends of pennsylvania avenue are not yet awake to the enormity of the challenge, and we see it across a whole range of issues. for example, democrats believe we have an obligation to help every american put food on the table. our republican friends start negotiating by saying they don't think we need to do anything to help hungry families and children. but maybe they can compromise and help feed a small percentage. that's not going to cut it. let's say a million families

can't feed their kids. the republican bill has zero and we cover a million. to say we compromise and only cover half of them is cruel and not going to solve the problem. we want all -- we want to see all our schools open -- reopen in the fall, but they need the resources and guidance to do it safely. not 25% of the resources. not half. schools need funding for masks and p.p.e., for converting space into more socially distant classrooms, for updating their ventilating systems. some need to double the number of buses to prevent packing kids together on the morning route to school. it's going to cost money, and republicans have to understand that. parents must have confidence that if their school is going to reopen, it has the protocols and infrastructure in place to keep their children safe. it's the same with unemployment.

over 50 million americans have filed for unemployment with millions more filing new claims each week. we propose extending the unenhanced benefits that democrats secured in the cares act through the end of the year. the policy has kept as many as 12 million americans out of poverty and boosted consumer spending, one of the few bright spots in our economy. but republicans are intent in slashing those benefits or letting them expire long before the crisis is over. one republican proposal would give newly out-of-work americans a 30% pay cut. another would give them a 33% pay cut. the trump administration's own department of labor warned us that these proposals which would pay a percentage of a worker's former wage are patently unworkable. it will take weeks and months if we adopt a republican proposal before any checks wind up in the hands of millions of americans. and our state unemployment

office who is to administer this program agree. so republicans need to step up to the plate and work with us to find a solution that shields millions of jobless americans from further economic hardship. state, local, and tribal governments have fought this evil virus on their front lines, with budgets strained. they are at risk of shedding teachers and firefighters, bus drivers, sanitation workers, slashing public services. my good friend, senator carper, is leading a group of democratic senators to talk about these issues today because senate republicans and the white house do not believe in giving support to our state and local governments. and that's not an abstract concept. again, that's firefighters and teachers and bus drivers and health care workers. we don't care if they are in a blue state or a red state. they need the help. we must also address our elections and make sure that americans can vote safely and

confidently with the new challenges of coronavirus for the first time in a national election. that means they need to be able to vote in person and by mail, which ever they choose. adequate funding for state election systems and the post office shouldn't be a partisan issue. this is about preserving elections, making them fair, making every ballot count. that's the wellspring of our democracy and it's covid related, and our republican friends are resisting. we're still fighting to get enough funding for testing and contact tracing. it's extraordinarily frustrating that seven months into this crisis, democrats still have to argue with our republican colleagues about delivering enough support for testing, tracing, medicaid, and our health care system. these are just some of the many issues we need to work through. when people ask what's holding things up, it's our view that not only are our republican friends disorganized and all over the lot, not only is president trump tweeting about

so many different things but not taking any leadership in this crisis, but most of all, that we must meet the needs of this enormous crisis and really help the american people. we need a strong, robust bill. we're working hard for that. our republican colleagues inch by inch are beginning to see the light, i hope more of them will. so there are so many issues we must work through. democrats want to get a deal done, but we need answers for all of them, not just a few. can't pick out one or two. oh, we will help schools but not kids who need food. that doesn't work. that doesn't work. we'll help small businesses but not the unemployed. that doesn't work. we have a big, broad, huge crisis. the greatest health crisis in 100 years. the greatest economic crisis since the great depression. and we have got a lot of herbert

hoovers over here who don't want to do anything. a lot of herbert hoovers on the republican side. well, remember what happened then. by not meeting the crisis head-on, they created the great depression, the republicans did, under hoover. let's hope our republican friends see the light and won't make that same mistake again. and let me remind my republican colleagues, when there is a crisis of this magnitude, the private sector cannot solve it. individuals alone, even with courage and sacrifice, are not powerful to beat it back. government is the only force large enough to staunch the bleeding and begin the healing of the nation. one of the main reasons holding things back -- there are so many republicans on the other side who do not believe the federal government even has a role to play. leader mcconnell has admitted, not once, not twice, not three times, but four times that there are as many as 20 senate

republicans who will vote against any relief package for the american people. those republicans who seem to be the tail that wags the dog -- it's a pretty big tail, though, with 20 votes. those republicans don't get it. we know you like the private sector over government, but there are times when there is nothing but government that can step up to the plate and solve the problem, and this is one of those times. faced with the greatest economic threat in 75 years, the greatest public health crisis in a century, more than a third of the senate republican majority will not vote for anything to help the american people. those very same republicans gleefully voted to give a $1.5 trillion tax cut to help giant corporations pad their profit margins, but helping americans put food on the table, go back to school safely, keep a roof over their heads, and survive a global pandemic, that is a bridge too far.

how out of touch can they be? these folks cannot be allowed to dictate our policy. by their own admission, they won't vote for anything. remember, remember that when leader mcconnell claims that senate democrats are the obstacles to progress. more than a third of senate republican caucus doesn't want to vote for anything. so this week, our republican colleagues have two choices. they can engage in the same kind of political theater that precluded the cares act. leader mcconnell can schedule a show vote on legislation that even his own caucus won't support. and then, in again his alice in wonderland style, get up on the floor and say democrats are the ones blocking it. he can engage in the same partisan maneuvers that have resulted in failure and won't answer the anguished cries of americans. as i said earlier, and i want to repeat it, the republican leader is so tied in a knot by his own

caucus and his president that one of his only options is to give alice in wonderland partisan speeches and maybe force a sham vote that will not pass and will not answer the anguished cries for help from so many americans. on the other hand, senate republicans could roll up their sleeves, wake up to the crisis in our country, and figure out what they can support. i think we're all ready for the republican majority to figure out just what that is. what's dictating our policy and our positions on the democratic side is very simple -- the national need, large, large, large. that's our north star. and we're going to keep pressing forward with the hard work of negotiations, hopeful that we can get a deal done to help the country in a time of severe crisis. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: madam president.

the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: madam president, i have a recommendation for my colleagues in the senate. i recommend, as the senator from new york does, and i do, they go home. literally leave washington. go home and meet up with the people who sent them to washington to work for them. i did last friday, as i do every weekend, and i asked specifically to meet with five individuals who were out of work. i wanted them to tell me their story and to share that story with the people of chicago. it was quite a moving experience. we have 800,000 illinoisans who are claiming unemployment, and now there is a possibility that the $600 a week federal benefit that is coming to them to help pay their bills will disappear. technically, it ended last friday.

so i asked these unemployed illinoisans, tell me your story. roshanda williams told me a story of being a bartender for 19 years at the palmer house hilton before being laid off in march. she earns significantly more while working than she is receiving in unemployment. she is literally worried that she is going to lose her home and health care if she loses that $600 a week. andre marino worked in a restaurant in downtown chicago before the pandemic. he was pretty proud of his career in working in the restaurant business. he said i did well. he and his husband have both lost their jobs and their health insurance. without the additional $600 a week in unemployment compensation, they won't be able to even buy health coverage. elene demering was an

interesting person. she is in lighting technology. her job involves big events. they set up the lights for concerts and other gatherings. thousands of people. she said nobody knows i'm there, but i do. i'm one of the first women who has ever been in this profession. well, those big concerts and crowded venues aren't there anymore. alone doesn't have -- eileen doesn't have any place to go back to. she said one thing that still sticks with me. i started working when i was 15. i worked 36 years, she said. do you know how many weeks, senator, that i've had unemployment in the 36-year work experience? i said no. she said one. this notion that i would rather stay home and draw unemployment than go back to work, she said that isn't who i am and i've proven over a lifetime that i'm a person who really doesn't want

to earn their pay. her enhanced unemployment if it expires would mean that her bills, including paying rent, just can't be paid. jesus morales worked at a hotel in chicago for 33 years, made up to $1,700 a week. he reminds me that i meant him 20 years ago when he was a bartender and waiter at an event that i attended. he's been laid off since march. and without the $600 payment, he's' frayed he won't -- afraid he won't be able to make his mortgage payment and health insurance for his family would be impossible. samantha arsay is a mother of three, just gave birth a few weeks before the lockdown began. her place of work is closed and her fiance has lost his job. they quickly went from two working parents with three kids

to no working parents. enhanced unemployment pay has helped them pay hospital bills and care for their young kids. she brought a little boy. he's about 4 or 5 months old, cute little fellow, smiled during the whole event. little did he know what was going on in the mind of his mom and dad as she tries to cope with political decisions being made in washington. losing that $600 a week payment which the republicans have proposed would really create a devastating situation for these families and these individuals. there's this notion -- and i hear it regularly. i've heard it for a long time -- that if you're unemployed, you're just not trying hard enough. there are jobs out there, they say. well, that's not what the numbers tell us. there are four unemployed americans for every available job, four for every available job.

and employers who say well, so and so would come back to work but they're making too much on unemployment, of course that's the case in some instances but it's rare. did you know that if americans have gone back to work since we began this pandemic assault, of those who went back to work, 70% of making less than they made on unemployment. why would they make that economic decision? to go back to work and make less than unemployment? well, it's just like aileen. they're workers at their heart. they believe in the dignity of work and they're proud of what they do and they want to go back to doing it, number one. number two, they know unemployment is not forever. number three, sometimes there are benefits when you go back to work that really count, like the health insurance policy that had the doctor in the hospital which you and your family need. in june the illinois unemployment rate dropped to 14.6% and the state added

142,000 jobs, but that unemployment rate of 14.6% is the greatest we faced since the great recession. since the beginning of march around 1.7 million unemployment claims have been filed in our state of a little less than 13 million people. that's nearly ten times the number of claims processed during the same period a year ago. same thing is true in neighboring states like kentucky where the unemployment claims are ten times what they were a year ago. nationwide around 30 million americans are relying on enhanced unemployment benefits just to keep things together. trust me, they tell me, we're not saving this money. we're not investing this money. we are spending this money as fast as it's handed to us to pay for our home, our car, utilities, food. the republican approach would cut the unemployment benefit check from the federal

government from $600 a week to $200 a week. a $400 cut. it would then require states to put in place a complex system of 70% wage replacement. it sounds so logical that if you're unemployed, you get 70% of your paycheck. interesting formula. how do you make a formula work? you have to gather a lot of data about what a person was earning when they were unemployed. and then put that into your computer in terms of the payout each state would make under this new formula. it's different than what states are already doing and what we found out is states are very different when it comes to their computer technology. we were told that incidentally by the trump administration when we established the $600 a week payment. they told us back in march don't make this too complicated. make it simple. a flat dollar amount because these 50 states have computers that range in sophistication

from primitive to the most modern. and they're not going to change these computers in time to help the people who are currently unemployed. the republicans seemed to have forgotten what we were told by the trump administration when we initially enacted the $600 a week payment. the 70% payment for unemployment doedoesn't work if the computers can't make it work and we're told it will take anywhere from two months to five months for these computer systems to even try. what are the families supposed to do, the ones i just described to you while the computer systems are being retoold and who's going -- retooled and who is going to pay for the retooling? if states can't implement this program and instead the flat cash payment goes from $600 to $200 for month after month after month, trust me the lines at the food pantries will be longer than ever. the economic policy institute has estimated that cutting this

benefit to $200 a week will reduce our gross domestic product by 2.5% and cost us 3.4 million jobs, just what we need, more unemployment thanks to the republican formula. research from the j. p. morgan chase institute subjects the enhanced benefits have helped thousands of households continue purchasing critical needs, food, diapers, the basics. allowing these benefits to expire will result in household spending cuts and reduction in economic activity, exactly the opposite of what we need to do right now. this weekend on television there was a governor from the federal reserve in minneapolis who basically said this is exactly the wrong time to cut back on benefits to the unemployed. and when the questioner said to him, well, what about our deficit, he was very frank about it. yes, for the time being it will add to the debt of the united

states, but if the economy recovers, which we all have to work to achieve, that recovered economy will be able to take care of that debt. that's something to keep in mind, too. it isn't just for the benefit of the families that are employed. it's for the benefit of the overall economy, to put money back into it now. we learned in basic economics that if you want to get out of a recession, the first dollar the government gives away should be to the unemployed. they'll spend every penny of it and they'll spend it and then have it respent into the economy over and over again. that's how you create consumer demand. that's how you create demands for business activities, goods and services. so, madam president, i want to make it clear from what i learned last friday in chicago, no one, no one is getting rich off of unemployment. they're using their unemployment

benefits to survive. average rent is about $1,400 a month in this country. cobra health insurance where you pick up the health insurance policy from the employer who just laid you off runs about $1,400 a month for a family, $600 a month for an individual. the average cost of food for a male adult in america, between $200 and $400 a month. add it all up, there isn't much left over. and if the republican proposal of cutting $400 a week from each of these unemployed becomes the law of the land, try to make ends meet. workers of color have disproportionately impact when it comes to this economic collapse. overall unemployment was 11.1% in june. unemployment among black workers, 15.4%, 14.5% for lat teen know -- for -- according to the national bureau of research, black households cut their

consumption by 50% more and latino households cut their consumption by 20% more than white households. that is the reality. let me address two or three particulars raised by the senator from kentucky about the state of play as we negotiate or try to negotiate a satisfactory conclusion, the next step. first point, this week marks the third month, the third month since speaker nancy pelosi and the house democrats passed a rescue package. for three months their effort called the heroes act has been sitting on the desk of senator mcconnell. initially he said, i don't feel a sense of urgency to address this issue. then he went on to say we haven't spent all the money we appropriated the first round. whatever the reason, it wasn't until seven days ago that the

senate republicans kind of made a proposal. the only thing we've seen specific in writing was their proposal for liability immunity, which i'll address in a moment. the rest of the things were oddly presented as potential legislation which would be brought to the floor of the senate. imagine that. we have the white house and congressional leaders sitting down and negotiating and senator mcconnell said, well, the republicans will bring a bill to the floor. if you follow the senate, six or eight different bills to the floor. first, why did they go through republican majority committees. second, how long is that going to take for us to debate? and then negotiate between whatever we pass and what is pending in the heroes act? it makes no sense. but i'll tell you what makes even less sense. in the negotiations, these delicate and important life-changing negotiations that are taking place on capitol hill, these negotiations to

determine what's next now that the $600 federal payment is expired under employment, for example, in these negotiations there are six chairs. one chair is occupied by the chief of staff to the president of the united states mark meadows. another chair is occupied by secretary mnuchin from the department of the treasury. third chair, speaker of the house nancy pelosi. fourth chair, chuck schumer, democratic leader of the united states senate. but there are two empty chairgs in this -- chairs in this room for negotiations. those two empty chairs should be occupied. one should be occupied by kevin mccarthy, the republican leader of the house. he's not there. he isn't attending these negotiations. the other, of course, should be occupied by senator mcconnell, the republican leader in the senate. he has enough time to come to the floor each day and criticize speaker pelosi's measure that she passed three months ago, but he apparently doesn't have time

to attend the negotiations which could resolve the differences it the house and senate and finally bring to rest the concerns of millions of americans about whether or not there will be enough money coming in next week to pay the bills. it's pretty tough to come to the floor each day and criticize the democrats for not showing success in negotiations when the republican leader in the senate is boycotting the negotiation meetings. what is that all about? i've been around here for a while. never seen that before. where one leader is intentionally staying away from the negotiations. i don't see how that can end well. i see my colleague from texas has come to the floor, and i want to say a word about a proposal which he is promoting and is likely to speak to this morning before i turn the floor over to him. do you remember when senator mcconnell came to the floor over the last several months and said i'm drawing a red line when

it comes to any negotiations, this red line is liability immunity for corporations. and if you don't accept my language on liability immunity, there will be no negotiations. there will be no positive outcome. red line. he made that speech over and over again as he warned us about the flood, the tsunami -- tsunami was his word -- the tsunami of lawsuits that are going to be filed by people, by trial lawyers, these mischievous, frivolous lawsuits over the issue of covid-19. so we kept wondering when are we going to get to see senator mcconnell's liability immunity proposal. we waited week after week after week after week. nothing. just speeches on the floor. and then last monday it was unveiled. a 65 whennen page bill. we final -- 65-page bill. we finally got to see what he was talking about.

well, it's understandable why they held it back. it is the biggest giveaway to the biggest businesses in america in modern memory. this bill would literally override state laws that have been passed to deal with this issue. of culpability and blame when it comes to the pandemic we face. some 28 states have already enacted laws to deal with it. this mcconnell-cornyn proposal would override these state laws. and, sadly, their proposal would give incentives to cut corners when businesses deal with health and safety in the midst of this pandemic. this bill would jeopardize front-line workers and families and, sadly, it would risk further spread of the virus. here's my top ten list of what's wrong with this bill proposed on liability immunity. the bill does nothing to protect workers improve safety standards

or give businesses any incentive to take the proper precautions. we had a hearing in the judiciary committee, and i believe the senior senator from texas was at this hearing, and a fellow representing a convenience store chain in texas smart -- was the republican witness, and a very good witness, i might add. he told us how in the hundreds of convenience stores that he had around texas, his company was literally doing everything they could think of to make the work environment and the customers' environment safe. he talked about social distancing and masks and sanitizers. they were doing everything they could. but his plea to us was, senator, what is my standard of care? what is the standard i'm expected to achieve? if i know that, he said i can move forward and meet that standard, and i'm going to. i'm just committed to it. and you know what? i believed him. i believed his was a good-faith

position that said he wanted to know the standard, the public health standard expected of him, and he would meet it. i want to tell you this, if somebody turned around and sued him afterwards because of that, i'm convinced there isn't a jury in america, let alone in texas, that would find him to be guilty of negligence or recklessness. he did what he was asked to do. he followed the standards he was given. but his plea to us was give me a standard. i don't know where to turn. that's what he told us. the second concern i have with this bill, it would gut existing state law and safety standards. it would federally preempt the right of workers and victims to bring cases under state law to seek accountability for coronavirus-related harm, and it would supplant state laws that require businesses to act with reasonable care. under the bill, the only way a victim could hold a business liable is if the victim proves by clear and convincing evidence

the higher standard than most, both that the corporation didn't even try to comply with the weakest available safety guideline and also, also to prove that the corporation was also grossly negligent. i can just tell you, having spent a few years making a living as a lawyer, those are almost impossible standards to meet. third, by setting immunityty threshold at gross negligence, the bill would immunize corporations from accountability that meets the standard for -- meets the standards to prove recklessness under state law. you can get away with negligence, you can get away even with recklessness but you better not show gross negligence. that's what the bill says. fourth, the bill would enable corporations to be shielded from liability even if they make no effort, no effort to comply with the guidelines of the

centers for disease control due to the way the bill treats nond mandatory -- nonmandatory guidelines. why would congress federally preempt state laws and allow businesses to ignore the centers for disease control guidelines. fifth, instead of establishing strong, clear enforceable federal safety standards by osha and c.d.c., the republican bill would go the other direction and shield businesses from enforcement proceedings under federal health and safety laws. in other words, specifically protecting businesses from being held accountable under existing health and safety laws, federal bills. laws like the fair labor standards act, americans with disability act, osha and many, many more. six, my republican colleagues say this bill is aimed only at frivolous coronavirus lawsuits. but the bill would wipe out legitimate claims by workers and victims. by forcing all of covid lawsuits to meet a higher standard of

care, heightened pleading requirements, limits on discovery and other restrictive hurdles, the bill would make it again nearly impossible for workers and victims to even file a claim, let alone prevail. seventh, the bill would upend the medical liability laws of all 50 states and impose five years of sweeping federal preemption for nearly all health care liability cases, including for claims that are not related to covid. i went through this and read it over and over again because i used to deal with medical malpractice cases, and i've heard on the floor senator mcconnell and senator cornyn say we've got to protect the doctors, we've got to protect the hospitals, we've got to protect the nurses. that of course appeals to all of us because we feel such a debt of gratitude to the health care workers and what they're going through to protect us. so i took a look, and it turns out they compiled the statistics on the number of medical malpractice cases filed in

america, in the entire nation that mention coronavirus or covid-19. do you know how many medical malpractice cases have been filed during what they call a tsunami, a tsunami of frivolous lawsuits against medical providers? how many do you think in the course of this year? six. in the entire nation of 50 states, six lawsuits. what a tsunami. and then the provision on medical malpractice goes further and says you don't have to prove that you were dealing with coronavirus to get this special treatment. you can say that the coronavirus had some impact on you as a medical provider. some impact? that's it? what does that mean? the coronavirus has had an impact on every single american, some impact. it basically means that all medical malpractice suits are going to be put on hold for four or five years regardless of the

circumstances, regardless of whether they had anything to do with covid-19. eighth, the bill aims to solve a problem that does not exist. we are months into this epidemic, no tidal wave of worker lawsuits that justify this massive federal preemption of state law and grants of broad immunity. out of 4.7 million americans -- and that's a low-ball number -- 4.7 million americans that we think have been infected by covid-19, six covid medical malpractice suits, 17 consumer personal injury suits, 75 condition of employment suits. most of the lawsuits involved with covid-19 are between insurance companies. does your policy cover or does your policy cover? ninth, the bill is entirely one-sided in favor of corporations. under the bill, corporations get immunity as defendants but can still bring covid-related cases as plaintiffs.

only workers and infected victims have their rights cut off by this bill. and finally, the bill even goes so far as to allow corporations and the department of justice to sue the workers for bringing claims under covid infection. the liability immunity of this bill would grant would last for five, five years. the fact that our republican colleagues are proposing five years of immunity for corporations but only a handful of months of assistance for workers and families tells you their priorities. this republican corporate immunity proposal is not credible, and there are serious questions as to whether it's even constitutional. this is an area traditionally gornd by state law. 28 states have written laws to cover it. the federal government has deferred to the states on nearly every aspect of covid response. as the president said, leave it

to your governor, leave it to your mayor, from testing to procuring p.p.e., from mass policies to stay-at-home orders. there's no reason why the federal government now wants to step in at the is expense of workers, at the expense of customers. i urge my colleagues to oppose the republican corporate immunity bill, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from texas is recognized. mr. cornyn: madam president, i guess it was fortuitous i was here on the floor when my friend from illinois decided to talk about the liability provisions of the, of the bill that we filed last week, the next installment and covid-19 response. let me just spend a couple of minutes talking about the issues that he raised. my friend, our colleague from illinois is a very talented

lawyer. he's got a lot of great experience in the courtroom. he understands how courts work and how the litigation practice works. and i think at last county saw there were roughly 3,000, 3,500 lawsuits that were filed. i don't know what the exact number is, but it's pretty irrelevant because there is older under state tort law, at least in my state, a two-year statute of limitations for a personal injury lawsuit. so i guarantee you the flood is coming. having survived one pandemic, the american economy is going to have to withstand a second pandemic of opportunistic lawsuits. now i think it's going to be hard for people to be able to prove where they acquired the virus, and ordinarily that will

the plaintiff's burden of proof. but we know in jury trials where expert witnesses are hired, all they would need to say is it's more likely than not they got it at this day care center or this nonprofit or in this hospital, enough to create a question for the jury. and then it's really a matter of swearing of whose expert witness you believe. and of course the chances are you will be found responsible based upon that contested factual issue. but it's more likely, i believe, that these lawsuits will have very little merit, and the juries will be very skeptical of these lawsuits because they understand that this pandemic came out of nowhere -- actually nowhere, it came out of china -- but that nobody was fully aware of

all the circumstances under which we would need to respond. and we've had to adapt as time has gone on, and we've had different advice from the c.d.c. and the national experts. for example, i remember, i went back and checked, the c.d.c. didn't recommend that we wear masks until roughly april. before that, it was really considered ineffective. so if somebody files a lawsuit saying, well you should have been wearing masks at your workplace, and because you didn't somebody got the virus, well, what's the time frame in which that guidance would apply? would it be retroactive to january, when the virus first broke out here in the united states? or would it be sort of on lessons learned down the road? but here's the real problem.

here's the real problem. my friend from illinois knows that lawsuits are filed every day in america with no real expectation of ever trying this case in front of a jury or a judge, for that matter. because we all know that the costs of defending those lawsuits can be enough in and of themselves to deter people from reopening their business. and frequently what happens, there's a phenomenon known as nuisance settlements where defendants calculate how much is this going to cost me to defend, and i'll go ahead and pay that money now in order to avoid the further vexatious of . that's the seed money used to file the next lawsuit and the next lawsuit and next lawsuit. and we can, i think, reasonably expect there will be

a lot of class action lawsuits. so the goal here is not to provide blanket immunity. the goal is to do what we did after the y-2k phenomenon when we questioned whether our computers would actually register the change of the century rather than go back to the earlier century, whether the disruption in financial markets and the like would occur. this is roughly the same sort of thing we did after 9/11 too, to provide some stability, some certainty to very chaotic and challenging times. so we know that in addition to the public health fight, we are trying to reopen our economy safely, mothers and fathers and teachers and school officials are thinking about how can our children resume their education, whether online or in

person. but safety obviously is the most important point. but the fact is we had one of the best economies in my lifetime before this virus hit in january, and now we're in a recession. and the question is are we going to recover, rebound from this once now that we have learned how to treat people with the covid-19 better, save more lives, to prevent them from going on ventilators and the like, and as we -- we are in a race to come up with better treatments and hopefully a vaccine which will be the gold standard, i believe, in terms of our learning to live with this virus, what's going to happen to the economy, what's going to happen to the jobs that used to be there but which no longer exist because of the recession we're in? the threat of that second pandemic of litigation, opportunistic litigation will be

a body blow to an economy that wants to reopen to people who want to go back to work safely, children who want to go back to school, parents who want to have a day care facility watch their children in a safe environment while they go back to work. it almost seems like -- you know, one of the things we have talked about during all this is essential workers. well, madam president, i think all work is essential. it's important. it's important to our personal well-being, it's important to our economy. and it's important to the families that depend on the wage earner to bring home a paycheck so that they can put food on the table and pay the rent. i believe that this second

pandemic of covid-19 litigation, which as i said -- there is ordinarily, i believe, a two-year statute of limitations, this could well keep our economy shut down, destroy small businesses that have been holding on by a thread, and frankly punish people who had no choice but to show up for work. if you're a physician or a nurse, you didn't have any option but to show up for work. you know you had to do it in order to do your job, in order to pursue your profession. and are are -- are we going to subject them to litigation risks because they are having to encounter something totally new and unprecedented? i think it would be a cruel joke for us to say yes, you are an essential worker, yes, you have no choice but to show up, and

yes, you have no choice but to be subjected to a lawsuit because somebody two or three years later wants to second-guess the decisions you made in the middle of a pandemic. i just think it would be enormously unfair to those essential workers who had no choice but to show up. and i want to just in conclusion say i -- i disagree with my colleague on one other matter as well. i believe by rewarding compliance with government public health guidelines, providing a safe harbor for negligence claims, that it actually incentivizes people to follow those guidelines. isn't that what we want to do? isn't that what we want our schools, our day care centers, our nonprofits, our retail businesses, don't we want them to comply with those public health guidelines? well, this is one way to reward

them and incentivize them to do exactly that. so i know we're still a long way away from a negotiated resolution of the things that separate us here on this next covid-19 bill, but i agree with the majority leader, this is an essential ingredient in that next bill. madam president, prior to the arrival of covid-19 in america, the texas economy was booming, along with the rest of america's economy. businesses have flocked to texas, creating new jobs and attracting top talent from around the country. people are literally voting with their feet and coming to where they have an opportunity to work, provide for their family, and pursue their dreams. we began the year with a 3.5% unemployment rate in texas. 3.5%.

just .1% above the historic low set last summer. but as the pandemic began its deadly sweep across the country, everything changed. texas businesses, as required, closed their doors to stop the spread of the virus, and millions of workers were suddenly without a paycheck. we didn't know when our economy would begin to recover. when we would be able to reopen to a point where those that were laid off work could come back safely. and we knew state unemployment benefits alone were not sufficient to bridge the gap. that's why when we passed the cares act late in march, we didn't just enhance the unemployment benefits. we actually sent a direct deposit to the bank account of all adults earning less than $75,000 a year.

we sent them $1,200 to tide them over, give them a lifeline, which i think was very, very important. because even if you were out of work, you can't get unemployment benefits instantaneously, and we know that a lot of the -- a lot of the workforce commissions like we have in texas that administer the workers comp -- the unemployment compensation program, they were overwhelmed with applications. so it was important we provide that direct relief and then the enhanced unemployment benefit. in texas, the average unemployment benefit is $246 a week, with an additional $600 a week which we added as part of the cares act, that amount more than tripled. since march, more than three million texans have filed for unemployment benefits, and recipients have taken advantage of the wol inserted in the record benefits, which i supported. -- of the bolstered benefits,

which i supported. this has helped families cover their rent, their groceries, and other critical expenses until they are able to return to work. for a great many workers, there is a great deal of uncertainty about when that might happen. when the cares act passed in march, we were all hopeful that the economic outlook at this point would be much brighter than it is today. and that's why these benefits came with an expiration date of july 31, last friday. we had hoped that our economy would be rebounding and we would be in better shape, controlling and defeating this virus, and that more businesses would be able to reopen their doors or create new jobs, which obviously has not happened as quickly as we would have liked. in texas, our unemployment rate went from 3.5% to 13.5% in april, a 10-point increase in unemployment. and we made progress since then,

thankfully, with it dropping down now to 8.6%. still a historically high level of unemployment. but it is moving in the right direction. while this is encouraging, we still have a long way to go, and we cannot allow those impacted to go another day without the income that they need to support their families. as republicans and democrats continue to work together toward an agreement on the next coronavirus response package, these individuals are being sacrificed and hurt in the interim. why did democrats block our attempt to extend unemployment benefits last week? is it because they don't care about the people who are hurting, who need those resources? our colleague from arizona, senator mcsally, offered a bill last week to extend these benefits for an additional week

so we could continue negotiating , but the minority leader, the democratic leader, senator schumer, blocked it. he prevented us from passing the simple one-week extension to give us some time to complete our negotiations and make sure that people who needed that money would not be hurt. i'm embarrassed that the senate could not overcome this partisan dysfunction in order to provide this extended benefit to people who need it while we do our job here. there is no excuse for allowing this provision to expire without even a temporary measure until a final decision is reached. madam president, i think even though we're coming up on the traditional august recess, i believe we need to stay here working until an agreement is reached to provide these workers with the support they need.

of course, there is a delicate balance between helping these workers and standing in the way of an economic recovery. and here is the twist. over the last few months, i have been hearing from a number of business owners in texas that are struggling to rehire their employees because -- get this -- they are actually making more from unemployment than they made while working. and this is not just a one-off or isolated issue. according to the texas workforce commission with the $600 federal benefit on top of the state benefit, 80% of the recipients of work -- unemployment insurance were making more money on unemployment than they were when previously employed. 80%. now, i think that's a mistake. paying people more not to work than they would make taking

available work makes no sense whatsoever. now, obviously, if there is not a job for people to take, then they should continue to get unemployment benefits, but if there is a job, then i think all of the incentive should be to encourage them to safely return to work, not to pay them more not to work. the bill proposed by house democrats would extend the $600 federal benefit through next january, providing even less of an incentive for workers to safely reenter the workforce. this is just one of the countless places where the democrats' $3 trillion heroes act fails to deliver the relief our country actually needs. this is $3 trillion on top of the roughly $3 trillion that we have already spent. rather than helping americans get back to work, the heroes act passed by the house includes a long list of liberal priorities,

things like environmental justice grants. what the heck does that have to do with covid-19? soil health studies. and not one but two subsidies for diversity of inclusion in the cannabis industry. hardly anything to do with covid-19. what's more, our colleagues across the aisle who have railed about tax cuts for the rich, well, they want to allow millionaires and billionaires in blue states to pay less in taxes. they want a tax cut for the millionaires and billionaires in their states. by eliminating the cap on the deductibility of state and local taxes. for too long, people in my state and other parts of the country have had to subsidize the big-spending blue states by

allowing them to deduct all of their state and local taxes. that means you and i have to pay to subsidize those high-tax jurisdictions like new york city, for example. well, in addition, the heroes act deepens the hiring struggle businesses are already facing, and it rapidly digs our nation deeper and deeper into debt. it's so unpopular, even among our democratic colleagues, that it barely managed to pass the house in may. i want to credit the senator from wyoming who is here in the chamber who pointed out some of the quotes from the "new york times" and others at the time. here's what "the new york times" said. even though the bill was more a he messaging document than a viable piece of legislation, its fate was in doubt in the final hours before its passage. national public radio, hardly a bastion of conservative news,

said more than -- the more than $1,800-page bill marks a long wish list for democrats. if this bill were to become law, texas tax dollars wouldn't be supporting our response and recovery. they would be funding a completely -- a range of completely unrelated liberal pet projects. and speaker pelosi knew the heroes act didn't have a chance of passing in the united states senate. she never intended for that bill to pass in the senate. it was all about messaging and pog posturing and trying to -- and posturing and trying to manage the radicals in the democratic caucus in the house. these unwanted, unaffordable, and, frankly, laughable proposals are not the type of solutions america needs to recover from this crisis, especially when it comes to rebuilding our economy. in the next relief bill, congress must include additional

unemployment benefits to help those who through no fault of their own are out of work. but we can't defy common sense and continue paying some people more to stay home than return to work. our long-term economic recovery will depend on people safely returning to the workforce, and congress cannot stand in the way. in addition to supporting workers until they are able to return to work, we also need to ensure they'll have jobs to go back to. madam president, i would ask unanimous consent to proceed for five more minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: i thank my colleague for his indulgence. one of the things we need to do is make sure the paycheck protection program is replenished as well. this is the most successful part of what -- of our coronavirus response. more than $670 billion appropriated to help small

businesses maintain their payroll, keep their employees on payroll. more than 400,000 small businesses in texas have received these loans bringing in over $41 billion to the lone star state. this money has kept countless texans on the payroll, not only for today but into the future. sol i hope we will continue -- so i hope we will continue the paycheck protection program as part of the next covid-19 response. there's another provision that we need to address, though, and that has to do with deductibility of the expenses of businesses that have received the paycheck protection -- paycheck protection program loans and grants. unfortunately, while congress made clear that we expected businesses that receive these loans and grants to have the benefit of the ordinary business

expenses, the internal revenue service has said just the opposite. congressional -- the joint tax committee that scores bills, tax bills, has said that a bill that we've now introduced that would allow that deductibility, make that very clear, has a zero score because they understood that congress intended to allow those deductions in the first place. we have two choices to help small businesses. we can write them another check or we can allow them to deduct their ordinary business expenses. this would provide some more liquidity and provide additional assistance and cost nothing in terms of the score on the bill. and it has bipartisan support that i believe merits our consideration. madam president, in conclusion we need to do everything we can to support the workers and families struggling to make it through this economic downturn

while same towniously secure -- simultaneously securing the foundation for a strong economic recovery. the stakes are high, and i believe the senate must stay in session until we're able to deliver the relief that our country needs. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. barrasso: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent that i be able to complete my remarks prior to the scheduled vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. madam president, i want to start by addressing a few of the things that the minority leader, senator schumer, discussed this morning. senator schumer last week twice, twice blocked an extension of the federal unemployment bonus payments. twice the democrat leader threw his hands up and he said no. no democrats will -- he said no, democrats will not support an extension of these benefits, he

said, at any level. why? well, he just -- he said why. he said he wants republicans to pass his leader's bill, his leader is nancy pelosi. it is partisan and it is bloated. senator schumer likes to talk about some of the things in the speaker's bill, but he carefully avoids much of it. because one-third of the spending is completely unrelated to coronavirus, a full one-thi one-third. senator schumer says, he says we remain far apart. he said the difference is, quote, between, quote, priorities and scale. priorities and scale. well, let's look at some of the priorities in the bill that he supports. direct payment checks to illegal immigrants. taxpayer-funded abortions, changes to election laws permanently, tax breaks for the wealthy in new york and in california. millions and millions more for

environmental justice, the national endowment for the arts, a long, long list. the minority leader's statement was full of metaphors and analogies this morning, but he had very little if any substance. the votes that we had last week were not what he said sham votes. they were real votes that would have extended real money to real people all over the country. the answer by senate democrat, according to their senate democrat leader, is a larger federal government. that's what they're proposing. now, the minority leader used the analogy of a leaky faucet. he said that we have to take care of the flood, but he never mentioned actually fixing the faucet. their bill does exactly that. never gets to fixing the problem. it just gives americans a larger government. now, the republican plan

provides ten times more for vaccine development and distribution than what the democrats have passed in the house. it actually gets at beating the virus. the democrats say they're rescuing skills and small businesses, but their bill actually zeros out the paycheck protection program and provides less money for schools. and as for understanding the needs of the country trks senate republican -- country, senate republicans have passed in a bipartisan way $3 trillion in relief. well, half of that is still unspent. on the state and local government side, it is ironic to hear the minority leader mention all of his preferred public service workers. but not once in that discussion did he mention police officers. that's because, madam president, the platform of the democrats now really is to defund the police. and this at a time when the murder rate in his own hometown,

new york city, is at a record level. so i come to the floor, madam president, to discuss the reckless spending and the partisan obstruction by the democrat party. it is the path that they have chosen to deal with coronavirus. it's the speaker's $3 trillion runaway spending spree. speaker pelosi says it's her way or the high way and the senate democrat leader, her deputy, chuck schumer, has been 100% behind her political stunt. at the same time the democrats are ignoring what the american people tell us they want and they need. they want to resume their lives. people want to resume their lives safely and sensibly. and to do so they need a safe work environment, they need a safe, effective vaccine, they need their jobs back, and they need their kids in school. republicans are doing everything

that we can to provide this. at this time of soaring national debt, we must make sure that every penny we spend is focused on the disease and the recovery. congress has already approved nearly $3 trillion in combined coronavirus aid. when the senate passed the bipartisan cares act, it was the largest rescue package in u.s. history. over a trillion dollars of the relief money has still not been spent, and at the same time millions of people who lost their jobs in lockdowns remain out of work. schools and small businesses face challenges in reopening as well. so congress needs to act and we need to act now. we want to support people who are most in need and to do it in a way that encourages, not discourages work. according to the university of chicago study, two out of three unemployed people are currently making more at home than they would at work.

that's due to the $600 per week bonus payment. it's not common sense, madam president. so last week when republicans offered a sensible compromise, democrats rejected it out of hand. they want to continue paying people more to stay home than they would make at work. democrat leaders are holding the unemployed hostage as they say leverage in their negotiations with the white house. once again the democrats are putting politics above people, slowing the economic recovery, and destroying millions of jobs in the process. senate republicans meanwhile introduced serious relief legislation. the republican legislation targeted tailored to the emergency. our bill provides resources for health care, for kids, for jobs. we safely reopen the economy. we safely reopen schools. and we fund testing, treatment, and vaccines. we provide liability protection. we shield the medical community,

k-12 schools, colleges, university, small businesses from frivolous coronavirus lawsuits. we already see greedy trial lawyers trying to profit from the nation's pain. over 4,000 lawsuits have already been filed. an avalanche of abusive coronavirus lawsuits will flatten and flat line the economy as it just tries to awaken. so we continue to put health, safety, and well-being of the american public first. madam president, we're doing everything we can to defeat the virus and we contrast our serious efforts with speaker pelosi's pricey partisan pipe dream. if enacted her so-called heroes act would be a huge waste of taxpayer money, the largest waste of taxpayer money in u.s. history. in fact, her bill costs more than all previous coronavirus

legislation combined. it may be her dream. it would be a nightmare for the american public. we can go through the things that are in the democrats' wish list and anything i would say here would just be the tip of the iceberg. but let me remind you what "politico" reported when the bill passed the house. it said, it's a democratic wish list filled up with all the party's favorite policies. national public radio said the bill marks a long wish list for democrats and "the new york times" said the bill was more a messaging document than a viable piece of legislation. madam president, government doesn't have a spending problem so much as an overspending problem and it's on full display right now as the democrats promote runaway spending, spending that is unrelated to the challenge before us.

speaker pelosi is wasting our nation's time on a far-left fantasy that does not have a single chance in the world of becoming law. so let me be clear. republicans will hold the line on reckless spending. we need to keep the next relief bill to no more than a frill dollars and we -- frill dollars and we -- trillion dollars and we need to ensure the bill only includes things directly related to the coronavirus. i'm ready to act now. it's essential we get this right. and for the good of the country, this wild, willful wasteful spending by the democrats has to stop. thank you, madam president. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, all postcloture time is expired. 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 ayes are 79. the nays are 16. and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's actions.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: mr. president, i also ask unanimous consent that senator blumenthal, senator collins and i be able to complete our remarks before the recess. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 503, s. 2330. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 503, s. 2330, a bill to amend the ted stevens olympic and amateur sports act to provide for congressional oversight of the board of directors of the united

states olympic and paraolympic committee and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. moran: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be withdrawn and that the moran substitute at the desk be agreed to, the bill as amended 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: is there objection? without objection. mr. moran: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: mr. president, it's an honor and privilege to be here on the senate floor today on this cause. young athletes across this country dedicate years, sometimes decades of their lives to earn their spot on the world stage representing the united states at the olympics. standing on that podium they should be proud of their hard work that earned them that place, that honor of wearing our

flag's colors at the games. but no athlete, no athlete whether an amateur athlete or an olympian should have to endure abuse and mistreatment to purr siewf the sport they love -- pursue the sport they love. were it not for the pandemic, hundreds of our athletes would have been in tokyo right now representing the united states of america at the olympics. even though our athletes are unable to compete today, we owe it to them to create for future athletes and future competitors a safe place in which to compete. today's passage of senate bill 2330 marks a step toward providing effective safeguards and protection to olympic, paraolympic, and amateur athletes across the nation. on january 25, 2018, the day after dr. larry nassar was

sentenced to life in prison, as chairman of the commerce subcommittee with jurisdiction and oversight over the health and safety of amateur athletes, i opened an investigation with my ranking member senator blumenthal into how the u.s.a. gymnastic, the united states olympic and paraolympic committee and michigan state university allowed girls and young women to be assaulted and abused over two decades. nassar was ultimately sentenced to 40 to 175 years in prison for his heinous crimes. but the fight overhaul system that had allowed him to evade justice and accountable was far, far from over. over the next 18 months we conducted hundreds of interviews with athlete survivors, reviewed over 70,000 pains of documents and held four subcommittee hearings, including listening to the horrific stories from

survivors, issuing subpoenas to leaders who failed these athletes, watching those who were charged to protect them plead the fifth and even referring witnesses to the justice department for failure to tell the truth. senator blumenthal and i stood in the russell senate office building with more than 80 courageous survivors of abuse. some of these women had been assaulted by nassar while competing at the olympics. some while training with the national team. others while attending michigan state. one by one they told us the organizations that were supposed to protect them had failed them. one person's abuse is too much. but the question asked that day by one of the athletes is why was there more than one. al question that has stayed with me since spoken. not only do we condemn the abuse

but we condemn those who allowed it to continue, who failed in their responsibilities as human beings as well as their professional capacity to care and to protect these young men and women. our bipartisan effort, senator blumenthal and i, cult mated in production of a comprehensive investigative report which is this document here, significant work for a serious challenge. and it also resulted in s. 2330, the empowering olympic, paraolympic, and amateur athletes act. the bill we are on today. this legislation is intended to strengthen legal liabilities and accountability mechanisms in the governing structure of the olympic organizations, restore a culture that puts athletes first

through clear procedures and reporting requirements, and fortify the independence and capabilities of the u.s. center for safe sport through dependable funding and oversight. during the november 13, 2019 markup, markup of this legislation the senate commerce, science and transportation committee, our colleagues provided thoughtful input through amendments to strengthen this legislation. as such, i take this moment to thank my colleague, senator cantwell, senator peters and grassley and senator thune for their efforts in improving the legislation to put us in the position that we are in today. i would like to specifically thank senator lee for his input in the markup and his continued contribution to the legislation to improve the processes governed by the bill. additionally, senator grassley, his leadership on this legislation was -- i'm sorry. senator gardner, his leadership

on this legislation was paramount to senate bill 2330's successful passage just a few moments ago. senator gardner's own legislation to establish a commission to study the broader issues within the olympic and paralympic movement strengthens our ability to guide future oversight efforts and his support, senator gardner's for this package was critical. i would be remiss not to thank senator wicker, the chairman of the full committee for his continued support as the jurisdictional chairman of the commerce committee. from the early stages of this effort and the support of his predecessor, senator thune, then the chairman of the commerce committee, who was fundamental in this effort getting the momentum it needed to get us to the point we are at now. finally, this entire effort would not have been possible if not for the tireless and thorough work of senator blumenthal and his staff. serving as chairman and ranking member of the same commerce

subcommittee has allowed us to work on a number of important issues and legislative items together, but i can honestly say this effort could not very well -- this effort could very well be one of the most important bipartisan efforts and pieces of legislation resulting therefrom that i have been a part of as a united states senator. i thank senator blumenthal for his leadership and his team's efforts, again, to see that these survivors' answers could be attained and their safety protected in the future. most importantly, if there is anyone who deserves thanks and gratitude, it is the athletes and survivors for their exceptional bravery, bravery they demonstrated through their willingness to share their stories, to tell what happened to them, to talk to us and to talk to the rest of the world. this legislation and the prior investigation are only possible because of the hundreds of

courageous and selfless survivors who spoke out against abuse, shared their stories, and offered input on how we can create change to make certain all future athletes can participate in the sports they love without fear of abuse. i especially want to recognize the athletes who we worked with and who shared their circumstances with us during our committee hearings and in a number of meetings and phone calls over two and a half years. jordan weaver, jamie dancer, ali raismen, maggie nichols, racism denhollander, em-- rachel denhollander, sarah klein. morgan mccall, hannah morrow, bridey farrell and craig moritsey.

we told these survivors that while powerful institutions failed them in the past, we, the subcommittee, the committee and the senate, were not p going to. i would also like to thank the staff and individuals who have advocated for our athletes. on my staff, george redden, matthew vesio, conner mcgrath, miranda moore and tom brant. senator wicker's staff, olivia trusty, tyler levens, crystal tully and john keist. senator thune's staff, peter feldman, jason vandy and nick rossi. despite the olympics being postponed and everything that is going on around the world today, i am grateful that we were able to deliver good news and take this step today. we are not done.

we intend to keep that promise and get this bill across the finish line. we now will continue to work with our colleagues in the house of representatives and the white house to ensure the timely consideration and enactment of the empowering olympic, paralympic and amateur athletes act of 2020. one is too many, but why was there ever more than one? may we never have to ask that question again, and may there never be one in the first place. mr. president, i yield to the ranking member, the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i am here with profound gratitude and pride, first of all, gratitude to senator moran for his leadership, his vision, his courage, and his steadfastness on a journey that had many bumps.

this task was far from easy intellectually, politically, emotionally. but he stayed with it and he demonstrated the spirit of bipartisanship that i think will enable us as partners to achieve more, but also perhaps reflect a model that this body may take in the future, even as we go through one of the most difficult periods in the history of the senate, i hope that the work that we've done on this bill which affects real lives, real people who suffered such grievous harm. and i will begin where he ended ended, to say that the heroes here are really the l athletes and survivors. as extraordinary as their performance on the field of athletic endeavor, as wonderful

as their prowess and their grace , what will last in history as their enduring legacy will be the courage and strength they showed us again and again and again. they relived one of the most deeply tragic and painful chapters of their life. as much as they celebrated victories in gymnastics and other sports, they endured the abuse, emotional, physical, and other abuse from coaches and trainers that they trusted. they put their trust in people who betrayed them. and it was more than just one

coach, larry nassar. it was more than just one sport, gymnastics. it was more than just one year or one episode. and it was more than just one form of abuse. larry nassar became the face of a pattern of systemic failure and abuse, and he reflected a culture of putting medals and money above the lives of athletes, prioritizing those tangible signs of victory above the human lives that were impacted so adversely. systematic failures were reflected in larry nassar's

success in terrorizing these young athletes, and it affected other trainers, other coaches who similarly betrayed trust. it affected other sports -- figure skating and swimming, as well as gymnastics. none were immune from the sexual, physical, or emotional abuse. almost exactly a year ago senator moran and i issued the report that he just showed on the floor of the house -- of the senate, showing that this investigation into sexual abuse in gymnastics and the olympic movement should lead to a bill. and i would like to thank not only senator moran for his partnership, but also other colleagues, as he has mentioned senator wicker and senator thune, senator shaheen and

feinstein as well as senators peters and cortez masto. each of them provided very important assistance in this effort. but most important, and i simply cannot say it enough times, the real heroes here are the athletes who shared their stories and stood steadfast in the face of betrayals from the very organizations that were supposed to protect them. these survivors were failed at every level, by their doctors, by their coaches, by the united states olympic and paralympics committee, the national government boards of their individual sports. the gymnasts who survived larry nassar's abuse were also failed by michigan state university, by the f.b.i., and by local police departments. given the monumental abdication

of responsibility from countless people in power, no one could have blamed them for surrendering hope that change was possible. but against those odds, they persevered, and they are the reason that we have passed this bill today. they stood with us, physically stood with us on so many occasions, invoking their suffering and pain. and i would like to ask unanimous consent that the names of 140 of the larry nassar survivors be entered into the record with my remarks so that history will forever remember their bravery and strength. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you. and i would like to recognize the 193 additional survivors who

have chosen not to be identified publicly by name. they too contributed to this cause, and they too deserve to be recognized, as do survivors in the future who will come forward under the tools and mechanisms that we are establishing today. they should be recognized and valued and cherished for their courage in the future as well as the past. over these past years, senator moran and i heard again and again and again that the usopc and the n.g.b.'s have failed their athletes and have returned men and women in these organizations knew what was happening. they did nothing. they already had a legal duty under the law to report what was going on, clearly laying out in the law what should be obvious,

that you must report allegations of sexual misconduct involving minors, was not enough for them they betrayed not only their trust of these athletes, but their legal and moral responsibility. the bill that we have passed today provides for enforcement and deterrence, and it gives congress essential oversight tools to assure that the u.s. olympic, paralympic committee and n.g.b.'s will comply with the heightened standards that this bill spells out. no one in these organizations can plausibly claim ignorance now of the duty report these heinous crimes. and if they try, congress has the ability and responsibility to intervene.

this bill also ensures that safe sport, the organization tasked with investigating and adjudicating reports of athlete abuse, has the resources and independence it needs to do its vital work. the united states olympic paralympic committee should play no role in determining how much money the organization charged with investigating its members' worst crimes will receive each year or how that organization is run. once this bill is signed into law, safe sports will be independent of the resource and other powers that have prevailed in the past. the bill enacts numerous other reforms that ensure that athletes' safety and well-being are prioritized in the olympic movement. it assures that morals and

athlete interest are put first. that medals and money do not take the place of athletes and their interests. i want to finish by stressing the urgency of this task. i urge that the house follow our model here and move in a bipartisan way to enact these measures. the tokyo games have been delayed until next year, but it's essential that our framework go into effect as soon as possible and that athletes be given the protection they need and deserve. the urgency of this task should be shared by the house, and my hope is that the survivors of

these horrible -- who have waited years for this to happen will see action during this session as soon as possible. i want to say finally how grateful i am to my staff. thank you to anna yu, adam daly, natalie mattis, charlotte schwartz, colleen belle, and mariah mcelwain. i want to join in thanking senator moran's staff. our staffs worked together with the teamwork that i think also can provide a model for this body. finally, this step is profoundly important to the future of olympic athletics and sports generally in our country. it says in effect that trainers

and coaches, the organizations that represent them, the organizations that are supposed to care for athletes should do their job and keep their trust for these athletes, protect them, not betray them, put them ahead of whatever the other tangible signs of success may be, medals or money. it will depend on effective, strong enforcement, on deterrence, and my hope is that we will look back on this day and say it transformed this athletic endeavor. it was a transformative moment. it changed the culture, not just the rule. it changed the way sports in the united states are done. and it embodied the best value

of competition and athletics in our great country. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. moran: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: thank you, mr. president. i would like to recognize the efforts of senator collins, the senator from maine, for her substantive and persistent endeavors throughout our process to see that a just and right result occurs, and i yield to the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. let me begin by thanking my two colleagues, senator moran and senator blumenthal, for their tremendous leadership on the empowering olympic, paralympic and amateur athletics act. i'm very proud to be a cosponsor of their bill, and this shows what the senate can do when we work together to accomplish such

a critical goal. so i salute both of them. this bill takes effective action to end the negligent behavior by some members of the u.s. olympic committee, and the amateur athletic organizations that oversee olympic sports that have on far too many occasions failed to protect young athletes from truly horrific instances of abuse. mr. president, right after the larry nassar scandal broke, senator feinstein and i introduced the protecting young victims from sexual assault and abuse act. members of the u.s.a. gymnastics team gave powerful, compelling testimony before the senate judiciary committee about the

introduces that they had suffered and endured. we learned more about the horrific acts, the crimes committed by larry nassar against the members of the u.s.a. gymnastics teams. our bill, which became law in 2018, required prompt reporting of every allegation of sexual abuse to the proper authorities, and it is helping survivors obtain justice and protect our young athletes. senator moran and senator blumenthal then launched an 18-month bipartisan investigation into the failures of the u.s. olympic organization. they found that these governing bodies also failed to protect

their athletes from acts of abuse committed by coaches and other powerful individuals within their organization. i am delighted that they have led the way and that congress has continued to focus on this issue to protect the courageous young athletes across the country who have come forward to tell their horrific stories. this bill strengthens legal liability against the olympic and amateur sports governing bodies for the central abuses perpetrated by coaches and employees, and it gives the athletes greater representation on these governing boards. it will also ensure that congress conducts more systematic oversight, and it will strengthen reporting

mandates for adults with knowledge of abusive allegations. mr. president, these young athletes who train to represent our country at the top levels of competition and indeed those at all levels of competition and those who aspire to compete should never have to fear victimization by trusted coaches and sports officials. i, too, commend the young athletes with whom dianne feinstein and i met and who have worked so closely with senators moran and blumenthal for coming forward. these survivors have told their stories. we are now going to make a

difference for them and for future athletes. i hope that this legislation will be enacted and signed into law very soon. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. ms. mcsally: i ask unanimous consent that senator wyden and i be able to complete our remarks prior to the recess. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mcsally: five days ago, i stood before you in this body and urged our fellow senators to reach across the aisle and find an agreement on how we can best help millions of americans who have lost their livelihoods through no fault of their own due to this once in a century pandemic. i made a simple request for senators to be pragmatic, to

meet in the middle, and to expand the unemployment benefits through friday, for seven days, while congress continues to work through our differences and to come up with a solution. i asked who could possibly be against this? well, it turns out the minority leader came to the floor personally in order to object. the senator from new york decided to play political theater. he thought that was more important than assisting americans who are struggling to make ends meet. once again, he led the way and used hardworking arizonans and americans as pawns in a political game. many arizonans are out of work right now, but this is not a game. so here i am again asking for a simple extension through the end of this week so that arizonans don't see an interruption of these benefits as we work through our differences.

and again, i ask who could possibly be against this? while some states continue expanded checks after they expired on friday for a few weeks, arizonans got their last one. these arizonans, they live in my neighborhood, mr. president. they live on my street. they worked paycheck to paycheck before this pandemic hit, and then they couldn't work. these arizonans are the people who we know, like the single mom of two from phoenix who for the first time in her life had to rely on unemployment to survive. she is the owner of a catering business. she has seen her income drop drastically as weddings and large be events continue to be canceled. the $840 she collected a week on unemployment was helping her get through, keep her afloat, keep her business and her family afloat to care for her two sons, one of whom is autistic and requires significant support.

i am pleading with my fellow senators, as we work through our differences, let's extend her benefits for one week. who could possibly be against her? i heard last week from another single mother of three who lives in tucson. she told me she is terrified of falling into poverty because she is forced to live on $240 a week. the extra that we provided during this once in a century pandemic helped her pay her bills and make ends meet, and i'm imploring my fellow senators to extend her benefits, keep her afloat for one week while we work through our differences, to address what we need to do to fight this pandemic, to defeat this virus, which we will, and provide the economic support and the recovery that we need. because america will emerge stronger from this. we need to work through those differences. let's just extend for a week. who could possibly be against

her? arizona's seniors are also suffering. a 70-year-old man in arizona drove for uber and lyft before the pandemic hit. he can no longer safely drive strangers through phoenix given his high-risk status. he, too, benefited from the extended unemployment. that additional week will really make a difference for him. so again, i urge my fellow senators, who could possibly be against him getting those benefits for another week? these are just three of the countless stories i have heard from arizonans, and they are pleading with congress to put the bickering and the dysfunction aside and work together. but when i went back home last weekend, people were asking why did they object? it was seven days while you guys work through this. why can't you guys just get your act together? why can't you just do your job? and in the meantime, just have seven, seven more days. this is a reasonable request.

that's why i'm here again, mr. president, to again offer a simple commonsense solution to extend the $600, to expand the $600 for unemployed americans through the week while we continue to work through our differences here to provide economic support and relief and economic recovery for america. who could possibly be against this? who could possibly be against this? therefore, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to my immediate consideration of my bill at the desk. i further ask the bill be considered and read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. wyden: reserving the right to object, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president and colleagues, the only thing worse than what the republicans have

done here, cutting off desperately needed unemployment insurance to millions of american families and communities would be to allow a bill to pass that promises money without actually delivering it. even if this short-term extension were to pass, state agencies, the experts in this field, have told us -- the ranking democrat on the finance committee in very clear terms that states don't have enough time to reprogram their systems and avoid a lapse in benefits. the state unemployment systems are not equipped to flip these

unemployment benefits on and off. short-term extension, don't work, and won't work from an administrative standpoint. mr. president and colleagues, no senator has to take my word for it. the national association of state workforce agencies have said what i have just said. a short-term extension isn't enough for the hardworking americans relying on this lifeline who don't have jobs to go back to. what about next week and the week after that? the only responsible route is to agree to the extension with

triggers that will lower the payments only when it is appropriate to do so. and that means when the economy is in recovery, not when the economy is in free fall like it is still now. republicans wish to cover for the fact that they refuse to come to the negotiating table for months. mr. president and i looked at the record literally for months as the author of the $600 expansion, the $600 more each month in the expansion to cover gig workers and others, for months we asked senate republicans to join us in negotiations. the democratic leader, senator schumer, the speaker, nancy

pelosi, all made that request again and again and republicans were unable -- unwilling to do that. so republicans are trying to cover for the fact that they refused to come to the negotiating table for months. our country needs a long-term solution that ensures the extra $600 remains available for as long as this four-alarm economic crisis continues. i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. ms. mcsally: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. ms. mcsally: i'm just picturing if you're one of my neighbors or one of the people i mentioned and you're watching tv right now, this is washington speak. this is bureaucratic reasons why we can't just simply do what i'm

asking, which is extend for one week what we all agreed upon in the past while we continue to work together to try and solve problems on behalf of arizonans. that's all i'm asking. and bureaucratic reasons or posturing or finger pointing, people are so tired of it. i'm tired of it. that's why i first ran, to come into this deployed zone and fight in a different way than what i did in uniform but with the same, exact oath. we're here to solve problems. we're here to represent the people we represent. while we work through our differences, there is political theater happening, arizona indians. there's -- arizonans. there's unserious negotiations, unfortunately, happening because some people like the minority leader think this is the path to power. somehow arizonans can be hurt and others can be hurt. somehow that's going to work in

their favor. and i'm disgusted by that. simply asking us to do our job. maybe i need to offer another bill that all members of congress have their pay held until we sit down and solve this. i did that before when the cares act was being delayed for political reasons. this is frustrating. it's disappointing. it's simply a seven-day extension while we work through our differences. so, mr. president, once again friends on the other side have led arizonans and americans down, but we need to keep working to solve this issue, support the people we represent. this is a commonsense request and it's very disappointing that they're not letting it through. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: i'd like to offer a proposal that really is growing to help working families and those who are trying to make rent, trying to pay for groceries, who every single day walk an economic tightrope balancing their food bill against their fuel bill.

and we just heard a little bit about how we really need to solve the problem. this does that because under our bill trks 4143 -- bill, 4143, the american workforce rescue act of 2020, what we wish to do on our side is tie these unemployment benefits to the actual conditions of the american economy on the ground. and we have had this proposal for months now because to some extent -- and i see my good friend from south dakota made an important point in this discussion. he's a member of the finance committee. and i saw an article in which he stated, you know, it's important for people who are really hurting in a tough economy, it's

important for them to get benefits that let them pay the rent and buy groceries. and then my good friend from south dakota made a point i agree with. he said, you know, when the economy gets better and unemployment goes down, then in the words of the senator from south dakota, then the benefits can taper off to reflect that. that is essentially what 4143, the american workforce rescue act that i have authored with the democratic leader, senator schumer, and what it does is it ensures that we're not going to have millions of workers every month or every few months live in fear that donald trump and

mitch mcconnell are going to pull the rug out from under them. we would have a benefit that would reflect economic conditions on the ground and it would deal with this economic challenge for all the months until the economy recovers. that is what senator schumer and i put forward some time ago. the $600 would gradually phase down based on a state's average unemployment rate over three months. this would provide certainty for families and ensure the broader economy continues to receive the support it needs. and especially it doesn't set up artificial timelines. that's what the senate ought to be aid vog -- be avoiding, to

just set arbitrary dates. what we need to do is make sure that politicians and certainly donald trump and mitch mcconnell have been willing to pull the rug out from under the employed. -- unemployed. we need to make sure that there is a plan going forward. that's what s. 4143 does, the american workforce rescue act. and it will provide certainty for families and ensure the broader economic recovery will be our focus and there will be support until we see that kind of recovery. so i ask unanimous consent the finance committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 4143, the american workforce rescue act, the bill be considered read a third time and passed, 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: mr. president? reserving the right to object. mr. thune: i would just say that the fact that the senator from oregon is down here right now instead of the democratic leader, i would characterize that as movement in the right direction, than the fact he is making a proposal that is based upon legislation that, as he mentioned, he's introduced that actually has a trigger, if you will, or a way of phasing down unemployment benefits i think is a step in the right direction. because up until now, every time that the senator from arizona has come down here to offer up a one-week extension of unemployment benefits -- by the way i think is very reasonable and to the senator from oregon's point, i find it hard to believe that any state and any computer system which is already paying out the $600 bonus wouldn't be able to continue that. i mean, it strikes me as just

really inexplainable that you would have problems adjusting a computer system that is already programmed to pay $600, to continue to do that for an additional week. that defies logic to me. so i think that's a very reasonable request and would allow us some additional time to work on proposals like would the senator from oregon has suggested and there are others out there. we have the senator from utah, senator romney has a proposal that would ram down the unemployment benefits over time. it seems to me at least we mind be able to find some common ground there between what the senator from oregon has proposed and the senator from utah or other members on our side have proposed. i do believe that what the senator from oregon is suggesting and that is to lock in the $600 bonus indefinitely one, puts it on autopilot and, two, sort of takes congress out of the equation and three,

continues to offer a benefit that for five out of the six people who are receiving unemployment benefits offers them more in terms of a benefit than what they were making when they were working. that to me is something that i think in the -- that needs to be addressed. if you talk to any small business across this country right now, they will tell you one of the big challenges they have is trying to find workers and to compete with a payment, an unemployment payment that actually pays them more than they were making when they were working, trying to get those employees back i think has been a real challenge for a lot of employers across the country. i think that's an issue that has to be addressed. and i've talked to -- i've heard from people on this side of the aisle, both house and senate, say the same thing. there have been democrat governors who have said the same thing, that the $600 benefit needs to be modified in a way that more reflects what people

were actually making when they were working. so i think there's some -- i think there's some common ground that we can find, but again the idea that has been advanced by the other side prior to the senator from oregon coming down here which has been put forward by the democrat leader is that the heroes act should be taken up and passed by unanimous consent. that's been the unanimous consent request now on multiple occasions when senator mcsally or others have come down here to try and get action on this unemployment issue is to come over and offer unanimous consent to pick up and pass the heroes act which, as we all know, is not a serious piece of legislation. in fact, the democratic leader's paper of record in new york, "the new york times" said, and i quote, the bill was more a messaging document than a viable piece of legislation. that comes from "the new york times." and the -- many of the proposals in that legislation had nothing to do with the coronavirus.

in fact, addressed a lot of other what i would call extraneous items on the policy agenda of the democrat majority in the house of representatives to include mentioning cannabis more times than it mentioned the word jobs in that legislation. there are studies, studies authorized in the heroes act that look at diversity, diversity in the cannabis industry. more mentions of that than the mention of the word jobs which i think right there tells you that it wasn't a serious piece of legislation. and furthermore, included -- if you can imagine this -- tax cuts, tax cuts for manhattan millionaires, tax cuts for manhattan millionaires included in the heroes act. again, not something that has anything to do with helping the people who are hurting as a result of the pandemic or get at the point that the senator from oregon is talking about, and that is addressing the

unemployment issue. so i view this as progress. i view this as movement in the right direction. the fact that the senator from oregon, not the democratic leader is down here offering up an unemployment proposal, not the heroes act, and i hope that we can build on that and find that common ground that would enable us to address clearly what our serious needs among lots of americans who are through no fault of their own are unemployed as a result of this pandemic. but having said that, i will object to the senator of oregon's request right now but suggest to him that he and democrats other than the leader who i think there are a number of democrats on this side of the aisle, including those who lead committees like the senator from oregon, who is the ranking member on the finance committee, a committee on which i serve and with whom i have worked on a lot of issues, can sit down and find common ground. but as long as rank and file members and leaders of relevant

committees are sort of locked out and the leaders continue to try to do this behind closed doors, it's going to be very hard, i think, to find those types of practical, real world commonsense solutions. so, mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. wyden: mr. president, while my colleague is here, just a brief reaction, and i think my colleague knows that you don't go out and negotiate from the seat of your pants on the floor. first, i want to be clear on this proposal. this is a proposal the democratic leader and i as the ranking democrat on the finance committee worked very closely together on, and it is a proposal that many senate democrats think could be the basis of reform, and lots of people who look at the future of these kinds of economic

challenges find this idea attractive. that's number one. number two, my friend from south dakota thinks that somehow the benefits can just be turned on with the snap of the fingers. the national association of state workforce agencies have said that the proposal offered by the senator from arizona would not get benefits that make rent and pay groceries to people any time soon. so the question is are you going to solve a real economic challenge here? the economy has faced last week a staggering economic contraction. according to the bureau of labor statistics, the last numbers,

there are four unemployed workers, colleagues, for every job. so this idea that unemployed folks don't want to work is just insulting. what unemployed people tell me at home is that if somebody offers them a job on monday night, they will be there first thing tuesday morning. so what is really needed is solutions to this question of unemployment insurance that ties the benefits to the real-world conditions on the ground. and in fact, when you have unemployment like this, well over 10%, the $600 extra per week coverage is clearly what's necessary to make rent and pay

groceries. but make no mistake about it -- i see my colleague from south dakota leaving the floor -- i listened when he said there ought to be a good benefit for folks when unemployment is high and that when unemployment goes down, the benefits would reflect that. that is the american workforce rescue act. so if my colleagues are saying they want to back s. 4143, i would sure like to get that message in a direct kind of way. and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands in recess leader.

mr. mcconnell: another day has come and gone in this once in a century national battle for our country. yesterday more of our neighbors had to say goodbye to loved ones whose lives were claimed by this virus. yesterday more doctors and more nurses worked long shifts on the