Transcripts For CSPAN2 U.S. Senate Sens. Graham Scott Sasse Durbin Sanders Etc. On Sasse... 20240713

Like a ton of bricks and there are a lot of good things in here. Theres money for Healthcare Providers, hospitals, nurses and doctors. There are so many good things the country is under siege, and i was one of the first republicans, mr. President , to join my democratical colleagues, think of doctor senator durbin. We need to do something more of Unemployment Insurance. Income almost doubled in certain circumstances and i want to help people and i want to make sure if you lose your job. That we cover your wages, but under this bill, you get 23. 15 an hour baseded on a 40hour work week, know the to work. And if youre trying to hire somebody in South Carolina the next four months, youve got to compete with that wage. If youre working in a restaurant or probably not now, but if youre working anywhere from 15 an hour, somebodys making 23 an hour and youre working. Its just not fair. Its going to hurt the rubiocollins construct, restaurants that are out of business. We want them to be able to borrow money to pay the payroll to keep people connected to their employer. Now, what do you do when you make 23 an hour being on unemployment . How do you keep that waitress or bartender at 15 or 17 . Youve made it a nightmare for Small Businesses. Theyre being pitted against their own employees. To senator durbin and everybody else, the reason were doing this is because they tell me it takes six to eight months for unemployment commissions at the state level to figure this out. What are we asking you to do . To get unemployment, youve got it tell us where you work and how much you make and what we want to do is fill in the difference between the state unemployment benefit as your actual wages and stop there. We dont do that under this bill. There are people getting paid more not to work than they were in the work force. Its going to be hard to not incentivize people not to leave their job. You can be unemployed at 23 an hour in South Carolina. Thats more than a lot of people make. So im just urging my colleagues, we need to fix this now. No matter how wellintentioned youre going to make the next four months impossible for Small Businesses to hire. I promise you this, if you pay somebody 23 an hour not to work, theyre probably going to find a way to get there rather than staying in the work force where im sure theyd rather be. We have created a perverse incentive not to help the unemployed person, but to destroy the ability to stay employed. With that, i will say thank you to my colleagues trying to bring sense in the body, weve created pandoras box to the economy. And if we dont, then we need to keep trying and trying and trying, with that ill yield to my colleagues. Senator from florida. This bill as its written out the government will pay Many Americans more to be on. Under this bill as its written now the government will pay many more americans more to be on government assistance than if they were working at their regular job. I support expanding the unemployed insurance program, its the quickest way for them to get the quickest, but it shouldnt be higher than a salary. We cannot pay people more to not work than to work. This is basic common sense. More people would choose the bigger check, i dont blame them at all. No person that knows thinking about economics or human nature would create such a system. This bill for people to be unemployed for the next four months, fact. Without workers our economy cannot reopen. Fact. If our economy essentially remains closed for four more months we will be in a very deep recession, fact. May i ask how do i know all this . I grew up poor in public housing. My mom worked three jobs and my parents were struggling to find work. I know what its like to skip christmas, and i run business and this isnt conjecture, these are facts. There are many good things in this bill and many provisions i wholeheartedly disagree with, but the worst thing we can do right now is create a disincentive to work. We cannot get our economy up and running again, we cannot recover from this, but we can get our economy up and running again and we can recover from this, it will take a lot longer if we dont amend this bill to eliminate the perverse incentives. I yield the floor. Let me be clear, abundantly clear, i plan to support this legislation tonight, but i do want to fix it first. Our amendment is a very simple amendment, but first, it is our responsibility to the extent possible to take care of the American People. I want to provide 100 of the salary while an american is laid off because of covid19. 100 of the salary of someone laid off because of covid19. My goal is to do it the right way. The right way is that you get your income as if youre still working because youve been laid off because of covid19. Not a raise for not working. Not 200 of your income while on unemployment. The goal is simply to keep you whole while youre unemployed because of covid19. I cannot stress enough as a former employer and frankly, as a former employee, the relationship between the employer and the employee is critical. Our nation is built on the dignity of work. What this bill does, without fixing it, is it simply says, you can earn more money by being on unemployment than you can while working. That is an incentive that is perverse. We cannot have intended to encourage people not to work and make more moan than to go back to work and receive your normal pay. With that, i yield. Mr. President. Senator raskin. Thank you, mr. President. As senator tim scott just said and rick scott and Lindsey Graham just said, this amendment is really, really simple. All were trying to say is we should help everyone who needs to be helped without us accidentally creating a disensen tiff disincentive to work, were in the middle of two unprecedented crises, we have a Health Crisis and an economic crisis, and we dont know how long the valley is going to be. And i want to make sure that everyone watching understands what this debate is this afternoon. This debate is how you can be both pro worker and pro recovery. To be kind and charitable and simultaneously affirming the ongoing dignity of work and the necessity of work as our country battles through this virus and ultimately rebuilds our economy. Nobody here is arguing about whether or not we should help workers. Everybody on both sides of the aisle tonight wants to help workers. This is a debate about whether or not were going to let a poorly drafted bill knock this nation still harder in the coming months by unintentionally increasing unemployment. Thats what this debate is about. Right now, as the coronavirus is threatening our economy, we know who the real heroes are, the real heroes are not politicians. A lot of people have been working all night, five and six nights in a row, but the heroes that are going to beat this virus and rebuild america are not politicians. The heroes are the men and women who are stocking shelves, the men and women picking up trash, the men and women who are driving trucks and delivering takeout. Many of them converting restaurants which used to be sitdown into takeout restaurants. Putting food on the table for a lot of their neighbors. The americans who are keeping the pharmacies open, theyre the heroes. The daycare workers who are doing stuff to watch other e. R. Doctors kids, those are the heroes. The heroes are the americans across all 50 states, across every town and village and suburb and city that are doing the work, the ordinary jobs, but now under extroeaordinarily painful circumstances. We should be supporting them, affirming them and once we get through this crisis to get back to work. This bill has lots and lots of good stuff in it. I intend to support it as well, but there are pieces of this bill that are broken and that we can fix tonight. And if we dont fix them tonight its going to exacerbate our problem and we will be back here in a month and two months trying to fix these problems. These are the americans who are going to get us through. The other people who are going to keep the supply chains alive and those supply chains are keeping the americans. And here is whats wrong. Its threatening to cripple different category of workers, some in health care, some in food, and creates is perverse for men and women to not come back to, would for Many Employers who should be wanting to maintain the employee and employer relationships, creates a perverse incentive for them to suffer that relationship. Many other pieces of this bill try to tackle this program in a constructive which, 350 billion for the Small Businesses administration, trying to build bridge loan programs that help employers and employees be connected and remain connected through this down turn. The unemployment piece of this should not work at crosspurposes to what the bill is about in the overall argument. Nobody has a problem with the generous Unemployment Benefits that are in this bill. Nobody has a problem with the generous Unemployment Insurance benefits that are in this bill. They should be generous amid the National Crisis that were in, but we dont want this piece of the bill to create an incentive for folks to stop working, to have their employers push them away, when the employer and employee should be trying to rally around and together to help us go through this comprise sis. So we want to do something really simple, we want to fix whats broken here by saying that Unemployment Insurance benefits should be capped at 100 of the pay you had before you were unemployed. This isnt just about people who have already been made unemployed. This is about people who are going to be made unemployed in the coming weeks. All this amendment says that were voting on in a few minutes is that we should cap the Unemployment Benefits at 100 of the wages you were just receiving while working. It should not be something that the u. S. Congress does to create an incentive where youll get paid more by not working than you get by working. Thats pro recovery legislation that tries to keep our supply chains humming and tries to help us together, 325 million americans come together to beat this thing, we should vote for workers, we should vote for recovery, and we should vote to beat this thing and come out stronger on the other side. Thank you, mr. President. Mr. President. Senator from illinois. Mr. President , id like to address this issue because i think its important that we explain where we are today and why weve reached this point. I can recall when senator graham crossed the aisle a week or so ago, perhaps, and started talking about Unemployment Insurance and his goals were Unemployment Insurance. It sounded consistent with the language and conversation id heard on our own side of the aisle, our own caucus to use the Unemployment Insurance system as a way to make sure that people were able to really weather the storm when it came to the public Health Crisis we face. The number of people who are filing for unemployment has gone up dramatically. Two million new unemployment claims filed last week, compared to 218,000 nationwide in previous weeks. So we know that the number of people who have lost their jobs, laid off, furloughed, fired, is growing just in a fashion weve never seen before. Ive seen it reported in my state and im sure each of you have seen the same, but lets get down to the bottom line and i ask my colleagues to just bear with me for a minute. What you are describing is what we initially set out to do and then we met with the representatives of the United States department of labor. I was in one of the task forces for the Senate Finance committee and i sent there as a representative from the u. S. Department of labor came in and said, senator, you dont understand 50 different states Computer Systems when it comes to Unemployment Benefits. We can tell you point blank that only six or eight states out of the 50 could possibly do what you want to achieve. They tell us it will take them months to reprogram their computers to make the simple calculation what appears to be a simple calculation that says you never get paid more in unemployment than were you work r making on the job. That was the reality. We didnt make that up. This wasnt a democratic dreamed up idea. This was the Trump Administration, department of labor, telling us that when they looked at the state departments of labor, they couldnt achieve what you want to achieve with your amendment. In other words, if you go forward and youre successful, i dont believe you will be. If you were successful what we would end up with is frankly a deadlock. No increases in Unemployment Insurance benefits, now, let me tell you beyond this administrative problem, which was not our creation, it was identified by the Trump Administration, beyond this administrative problem there are two or three things i want to say as a bottom line. First, we are determined to make sure that the workers come out at least whole, if not better through this terrible experience theyre going through. Now, this notion that the workers would come out better is not unique to the democratic side of the aisle. The cash payment proposed by the Trump Administration, 1200 per adult, 500 per child, for some will be a benefit. May even be a small, but important windfall that comes their way. So be it. That working families across america would end up with this cash payment from the Trump Administration. I dont object to at all, but the democrats have said thats one and done. And thats an airdrop of cash to people. What about the next week and the next month . Thats why we brought up the Unemployment Insurance. Now the 600 figure we came up with was an attempt to make sure that everyone was whole at the end of the day. I will concede your point. Some workers, some, may end up coming up ahead because of this calculation, the 600 a week and they may come out ahead. Im not going to stand here and say i feel badly about that. I dont feel badly about that at all when less than half of the people in america have less than 400 in their savings, the notion that we might give them another this has the ebbed ends of two months, and the Cash Payments to the same family. Theyre going through a tough time, have been for a long, long time. How many have given speeches about income inequality in america and hardest working people still unable to make it paycheck to paycheck, week to week . So lets give them that helping hand and apologize for it for a minute. Were standing with these workers and their families and i think you want to as well. But the way you want to calculate it, were told cannot be done. It cannot be done in a fashion that brings relief to these families when they need it right now. Senator yield i will in just a minute. Ill be happy to yield as soon as i finish. I want to make this point as clearly as i can. I believe this is not a windfall. Lets assume instead of 600 a week, your calculation, makes it 450 a week, 150 times 16 weeks, four months, how much is that going to come out to, 2400 . Is that going to mean that someone now becomes lazy and wont go back to work . I dont think so. I think a lot of people will use that money and need that money and are given a helping hand, and will put it right back in the economy. Thats what this is about. That these families can keep their homes, pay their utility bills, put food on the table, and put the money back into the economy. Thats part of what were trying to achieve here. If we err on the side of giving a hard working family an extra 1,000 or 2,000 because of our approach, so be it. No apologies. We didnt design the system, we were told they had to work within the design of the system. We tried to do it, we think the 600 a week is a reasonable way to do it, ill yield for a question. Thank you, senator. The 600 a week, i think, if i do the math correctly times 16 is 9600 on addition to 1200 per person for 2400 per family, and is an important number we should consider. I think you have hit on the point that we should all be willing to agree upon, that the systems of unemployment throughout our country perhaps are working on antiquated equipment that may need to be updated, so that we can, in fact, keep people whole during their unemployment. I would love for us to work in a bipartisan fashion to try to figure out through the department of labor how to fix the problem so that those folks who deserve the benefits get all that they deserve, but that we actually have a system thats nimble enough for us to meet the needs state by state, without exceeding the need so that when were in this position again, as were looking at phase four, phase five, were not again having a conversation about systems that are so antiquated or perhaps even obsolete that were doing something that was not that was not intended. Im not suggesting that we can get that done tonight. Im not even suggesting we can get that done over the next few months, i am, however, concluding that we should work to get it done. I dont disagree with my friend from South Carolina at all. I agree, but completely. Were in the midst of a National Emergency, thats not my announcement, thats the announcement of president trump. When you look at the people filing for unemployment. When you look at hardships theyre facing, the life styles which theyve had to live to try to comply with shelter in place and the rules going out here, the number of people filing these Unemployment Insurance claims, they tell us the reality of the situation. The notion, as you said, 9600 dollars times three, three times four months, it basically comes out to about 30,000 a year, roughly. Thats what the 600 is calculate today mean on an annual basis. So, on the four month basis if we end up people giving people an extra thousand or 2,000, its not inconsistent with what the Trump Administration says they want to do with their cash payment. In the meantime, if were going to move forward and i hope this crisis comes to an end quickly, if were going to move forward into a new phase, phase four, phase five, whatever it is. Lets Work Together to try to upgrade these systems to make them work the way we want them to work, but in the meantime, wouldnt we want to err on the side of standing with working families and their employees . Wouldnt we want to do that in this first effort . I think its reasonable and thoughtful way to do it. Happy to answer that question if the gentleman will yield. Ill be happy to yield for a question from the senator from South Carolina. I would say that on both sides of the aisle, would you not agree that were both trying to get to the place where we are, in fact, keeping the average person, especially the working class people whole as they ponder and discuss this amendment. Would you agree . Of course. And my final thought is, it isnt come down and err and have a disagreement as much to illuminate an important part of the process. If we can get it fixed throughout our country, that as we tackle these issues in the future, more folks on both sides of the aisle will have greater confidence in giving these resources to the states so that our people can be whole. Thats all i wanted to say. No disagreement. I would say to my friend from South Carolina. The u. S. Department of labor says we cannot do that this moment. And when theyre hurting so badly, lost their jobs, furloughed and worried about paying their bills, the Trump Administration says were going to send them a cash payment and we say and i hope its a bipartisan statement, were with you, too. It isnt going to end with that one cash payment. Were going to stick with you and make sure your Unemployment Insurance benefits are going to keep you and your family together and if by chance, you come out a little bit ahead in this process, with the Cash Payments or with this calculation of this formula, so be it, so be it, at this moment in history, facing this National Emergency, we would rather err on the side of you being an i believe to pay your bills and keeping your family together. Future needs, we can discuss, we can debate, we can see what we can do with the state systems, but for the time being, no apologies. 600 a week from where im standing is exactly what democrats are committed to. I hope republicans as well. Because our belief is that this is the moment when we need to stand with these workers. I might say, i support rubio and carden in their efforts to help Small Businesses. I think thats the right thing to do, bipartisan from the start, and really without much controversy. Have we asked any of those businesses to produce net worth statements before they receive those benefits . No. Were not doing that. We understand this is an extraordinary moment and we may do Something Different if were thinking about longterm policy, but for the immediate policy, let us do the right thing, lets err on the side of helping working families out of work. And thats why im going to oppose if its from the senator of nebraska and i came to the floor to explain how we reach this point and hope that others will consider my point of view. Thank you. I yield the floor. Senator. I would say briefly that i appreciate the comments from the senator from illinois, explaining his position, it seems to me that from where he started, he should actually be supporting the amendment and figure out what we need to do to push on the department of labor to actually modernize their systems, but i just want to say in public, something that has been negotiated for the last eight or nine hours and we havent been able to get conversation partners really on that side of the aisle, which are, youre absolutely right that the department of labor says their are massive system problems in the state and given were entering a recession at this moment and were going to have lots and lots of needy americans, the calls on these state departments of uninsurance benefits are substantial right now and so, i would just say, taking you at good faith, that youd like to upgrade the systems so that we can do this thing which doesnt accidentally stimulate unemployment by disincentivizing work. Ive been trying all afternoon to get people on that side of the aisle to say maybe we cant get this solved by day one of the benefits, maybe week eight or nine get to a place where the department of labor had the resources to help the state department of Unemployment Insurance. If wed ments if youve got one more word. A nation of the question through the chair which i believe is appropriate procedural. The presiding officer is pretty liberal on these things, pretty easy. This is turning out to be a debate on the floor of the senate, almost historic, but i would just say this, we disagree on one basic premise. I dont believe giving people 1200 as the president has suggested for each adult or if they ended up with a net gain out of our approach of 2,000, that weve now turned them into lazy people who will not go back to work. Theyll wait for the next government check. These arent the people i know and you know. By and large these are hardworking people with additional thousand dollars may finally be able to buy that refrigerator or may finally get the car fixed or dental work done so i dont think paying them a little extra here is going to change their life style and attitude toward hard work. We were agreeing for a while. And pretty important to underscore your math isnt real. The reality is in lots and lots and lots of states in the country people are earning, 12, 13, 14 an hour, the unemployment option theyre going to be offered is more like 24, 25 an hour. Were not talking a thousand dollars. Were talking cases of people might have annualized wage of 30,000 and looking at unemployment benefit of 1,000 a week, which is 50,000 annualized. So your math isnt real. The reality is, it isnt 600 total, its 600 on top of what the Unemployment Benefits already were in that state. And so, there are lots of people who are struggling to work hard to love their neighbor, weve got a lot of health aides in nebraska who make 16 an hour, thats a 32,000 a year job. Their work is important, thats a vocation. People need them. There are sick people from covid19 and other diseases right now in nebraska that need the benefit of those health aides. And youve just told them, in this bill, weve just told them in this bill, yeah, your work is a little bit important, but look at this, you could make substantially more money if you didnt do the hard thing of trying to figure out what do we do with our kids today when school is closed and my sister agreed to help take care of my kids do i put the burden on her when i actually dont have to get the same money. I can substantially more money not to. And its not a republican versus democrat issue this is an american issue, we believe in workers and work and we dont believe that government should come in and say its much bitter off to be a nonworker than a worker. You can make more money, a nonworker than a worker. Were not talking who suffered work last week, its more unemployment last week, thats a mistake by this congress and we could and should be doing better than that tonight. I know the senator from texas is trying to get in. So, mr. President , ill yield the floor. Thank you, mr. President. ; is that right from texas. Mr. President , this bill is going to pass overwhelmingly and may pass unanimously tonight. I think this amendment would make it better. And i think we will see a Party Line Vote on this, thats unfortunate because the present unemployment in this were going to disincentivize. And hurt workers and Small Businesses. In texas maximum Unemployment Insurance is 521 a week. After this bill passes, that will rise from 521 to a week to 1121 a week, just over 58,000 a year. That means in the state of texas, were going to be paying people, offering them basically 28 an hour, not to work. Now, listen, every one of us recognizes people are hurting, the problem is the incentive. Were creating an incentive that will hurt Small Businesses, if youve got a waiter or a waitress who has lost their jobs for a few weeks, theyre on unemployment and making 25, 26, 28 an hour, suddenly, the prospect of going back to that job and seeing the money theyre making going down substantially, that doesnt seem too attractive and suddenly, the Restaurant Owner thats trying to make the Small Businesses work, cant attract those workers back and thats bad for everyone, incentives matter. We want people to work. So i would ask the senator from illinois, you said the problem with implementing this principle, that we shouldnt pay people more not to work than they make working. You said the problem was administrative, as the department of labor and the states couldnt do it. Would the senator agree with this amendment and with the Democratic Party with this amendment if it simply had language inserted, to the best extent practicable. Acknowledging it may not be practicable, but agree in principle in implementing this the states and department of labor should try to make sure were not paying people more not to work than they would make if they were working . Is that a question directed to me through the chair . Ill yield to the senator from illinois. All right. Let me just say at the outset were talking about people who did not voluntarily leave their jobs. These people did not voluntarily leave their jobs. They were terminated, they were laid off, they were furloughed. These are not people gaming a system. These are people who are victims of a system that is hurt by this National Emergency and secondly, if we are erring on the side of giving struggling, hard working families an additional thousand dollars a month, a thousand dollars a month, for goodness sakes, im not going to apologize for a moment. These people are living paycheck to paycheck in many respects if theyre making 15 an hour, thats 30,000 a year. For us to say, well, theyre going to end up with a thousand bucks now theyll never go back to work, those people, i dont believe that. And we have been contacted in this world of social media and such by nurses who say, so you think were going to quit our jobs so that we can take advantage of the Unemployment Benefits . No. We go to our jobs and we do what we have to do and the amount of money is if i could reclaim my time. Ill be happy and i thank the senator from texas, but i would just say this, yes, in this respect, i agree with you. Take a look at the state systems of paying unemployment benefit. Were told by the u. S. Department of labor, many of them are way behind the modern technology and cannot meet what you have stated is your goal here. If we want to work toward that goal of improving the systems as senator scott said earlier, ill join you in that effort, but lets not apologize for perhaps sending an extra thousand dollars. One last point were asking them to stay home, asking them to help us defeat this virus by not working, stay with your family, so one of the incentives here is theres a good unemployment benefit in coming in, they can keep their Families Together while they obey this directive at least from government, state and federal. So these quarantines are going to end, the period of staying at home is going to end you, but under the policy favored by the Democratic Senators, theres going to be an incentive thats going to end up with more people being unemployed. Lets say youre a Restaurant Owner and if you keep your employees on, maybe through a Small Business loan, you can pay them, say, 10 or 11, or 15 an hour, whatever youre paying, but if you let them go, they can go on unemployment and make a whole lot more money. You dont think theyre going to be a lot of Small Business owners that have their employees saying, wait a second, i can make more money . Thats a bad incentive. We want to create incentive. I agree people want to work, but government can mess that up. If we make it more profitable, id much rather look, the checks were sending 1200 a person, its not incentive. Its not 1200 if you do x conduct. We want incentive to bring people back to work so Small Businesses closing their doors every day dont stay closed, they open up again, they have opportunity again, and it is a perverse incentive to pay people more not to work than to work. Yes, we should help them, but we shouldnt track them and senator yield for questionments of course. Is the senators, im sure youre acutely aware, this is a fourmonth program. Were not offering people this benefit indefinitely. I hope we dont have to renew it, but to say that im going to change my life style and give up returning to the place where ive worked forever where i was just laid off because they closed the restaurant, because of a fourmonth program, i dont think so. I think people are more loyal to the workplace if theyre treated fairly and if we end up giving them additional 1,000 a month at the end of the day, i think its the right thing to do. The incentives matter. And we dont want to delay a recovery from this crisis by four months. Hopefully we stop this Global Pandemic and we stop it soon. You dont know how soon that will be. I dont know, and one of the benefits of this bill is were flooding more resources and we should be into testing and into preventative gear, into ventilators, a lot we need to do to stop this pandemic. When we go through this, we want people to go back to work. Not four months from now, we want them to go back to work as soon as theyre able to go back to work and thats what our economy needs to be strong. I would note again that i posed a question to the senator of illinois, would he take a modification that acknowledged the administrative problems, but said this is the principle we should follow, that you shouldnt be paid more not to work than you are paid to work, and the senator from illinois didnt answer that. Yield for a question. And would the trump incentives to family whether they work or not. Im going to vote for it, it doesnt create an incentive. This is where too many in the Democrat Party dont understand the incentives of trapping people out of work, incentives are future looking, sending these checks right now if youre make if you make 75 or less youre going to get a check in the mail in the next couple of weeks, thats help and re leff, but it doesnt create an incentive for conduct tomorrow. What i dont want is people sitting there making a choice. Making a rational choice and sitting there sitting gosh, i can make a lot more money staying at home with my kids and not working than if i go back to the job, thats not an irrational decision if youre making 28 an hour to stay at home . Were causing that problem if were incentivizing people not to work and thats not ultimately in their interest or in the economys interest. This is hurting workers to pay them more not to work than they would make if they were working. Just comment and say this, i dont think president trumps cash payment or an additional thousand dollars a month or whatever it is under the unemployment benefit is going to make a worker lazy and government dependent. These are not the people i know. These are people who get up and work hard every darn day and if they get an extra helping hand out of this, so be it. Were trying to deal with a Health Crisis and help families get through it and thats where we started on this side of the aisle. We may talk about something in the future and approach it a little differently, but i dont think it makes them lazy, to receive the president s cash payment or to receive an extra payment from this unemployment benefit. With respect, the senator from illinois is suggesting this is somehow some negative moral judgment that makes them lazy. Exactly the contrary. Im saying that people behave according to rational incentive. Look, our girls are 11 and eight at home. We have incentives all the time. Positive incentives. Negative incentives. Incentives work. We dont want to create a system where someone being perfectly rational and reasonable says, well, gosh, i can make a lot more money for my family staying home than i can going to work. If i go to work, my family makes less money. Thats not a question of being lazy, thats a question of the government is putting me in a position where if i want to care for my kids, i can do a better job of that by staying home. That is really foolish and that, unfortunately, is the position right now of what i expect to be the Democratic Senators who will vote no on this. That is a bad policy for workers, its a bad policy for Small Businesses, its a bad policy for the economy. We should support jobs, not paying people not to work. Give them a safety net, yes. Give them relief, yes. But dont create incentives that make the problem worse and thats what this democratic policy will do. I yield the floor. The senator from delaware spoke first. Thank you. And is recognized. Thanks, thanks very much. To my colleagues, i think senator from nebraska and South Carolina know that i have great affection and respect for them and have from the day they got here. I used to be a state treasurer, i was elected at the tender age of 29 and delaware had the worst Credit Rating in the country. We were dead last and couldnt balance our budget to save our souls and we had pretty much no money and the Unemployment Insurance fund. Over time we straightened out our finances and elected a guy named pete dupont as our governor and i was treasury for a while. And we learned how to Work Together. Called the delaware way. And the what i was later on, as i get to be governor, succeeded not pete dupont, but mike castle. And i was active in the association, and led the democratic welfare reform when i was a member of the National Governors association. I was raised in a coal mining town in west virginia. We, parents not much money, deep faith, hard work. And my dad used to say to my sister and me, i dont care if you have to work three jobs to pay your bills, work three jobs. Thats really the way i was raised. And i suspect most of us here were raised that way. Strong work ethics. When i was involved with the lead democratic welfare reform i used to say people ought to be better off working than welfare and bill clinton and welfare, people were better off staying at home than working and kind of the same principles were talking about here. The every state has its own Unemployment Insurance fund. We have one in delaware, one in nebraska, with unin texas, one in illinois. Theyre different and different benefits are calculated in different states and delaware, i just got off the phone colleagues with a fellow, used to be member of my team earlier in my time in the senate and now secretary of labor and i said, what mr. Secretary, what do we pay people in compare on Unemployment Insurance . What is the replacement rate . And he says its somewhere between 25 and 50 of what people were earning. And, but he said, theres a 400 cap per month, excuse me, per week. A 400 cap per week on benefits that we will pay anybody regardless of what they were making. 400 a week. And if you think about it, 400 a week for four weeks is like 1600 a month. Add to that, the 600 benefit and were talking about 2200 per month. If somebodys working fulltime excuse me, yeah, there you go. But if you add the numbers, if you add the numbers, im not sure we end up with 24 per hour in delaware. They it might be the case, but i would have to see those numbers. My secretary of labor said he thought that the number that were looking at here was Something Like 13 an hour in delaware when you add it all in as opposed to 24. So well go back to ill go back and do our math. Will the gentleman yield . Happy to yield. So, just, i dont think any of us think that a math debate is the most productive way to spend time in the senate so were all talking off the same song sheet. 400 a week, add 600 is a thousand dollars a week, divided by a 40 hour week, thats 25 an hour. I dont know how you explain that to people who are making 15, 16 an hour in delaware that youre now going to pay them 25 if they become uninsured. And the senator from illinois said this is a program only for people who are involuntary separated. If thats the way the program worked it would be great, but anybody who has ever spent anytime with Unemployment Insurance in your state knows thats not how it works. How it actually works is once you create a disincentive to work, employers regularly work with employees to say, kind of would like to drive you off the system and i think you should recognize that this would be better for you, too, if you can capitalize it, thats actually what happens. And so, ill give the floor back to the gentleman. Thank you very much. Well go back and reengage with our exhibit is of labor and make sure we have our math right. The other point that he made was i asked him how hard would it be to administer, is this something we could stand up in a couple of weeks or we are tea talking about months or what . He said this would not be an easy thing administratively to do and at a time when were anxious to get the benefit out the door in a hurry, this would not be easy. And i would just ask us to keep that in mind. One of the people i talked to last week when im trying to figure out, really, what kind of big packages, legislative package number three should be. And one the people i talked to told me about the three ts. Timely, targeted, and temporary. Those are the three that he talked about. And timely means like making sure we figure, calculate the benefit, but were able to turn around and pay it in a timely way. And what i gathered from my secretary of labor is were not going to be able to incorporate what theyre doing at the state level. And feed in through that the, state, the federal benefit and do it in a timely way. I think if we could do that, youd have probably a fair amount of bipartisan support. And with that delay, we just dont know how long that delay would be. This is ted kennedy used to sit behind me when i first came to the senate and i knew some senators were dick durbin and i would sit in the house together. And other people would be governors together. I didnt know ted kennedy and he said one day, i said im new in the senate, i dont know you very well, what i was doing was going to meet with have a cup of coffee with the senators i didnt know well and i asked if i could, maybe have a cup of coffee with him. He said well do better than that, well come to my hide away and well have lunch together. And i said thats great. I didnt think we ever would, but it was a nice offer, two weeks later we had lunch together in his hide away, like a kennedy museum. Some of them have been there before, an amazing place, i asked him how is it that so many republicans want you, ted kennedy, the most liberal democrat at the time how they want you to be their lead cosponsor on their bills, why is that . And he said im always willing to compromise on policy and never willing to compromise on principle. I think that the policy here is that when people are unemployed and they need help, we want to help them. Help them in a timely way. Would the senator yield for a question. Just finish my thought and id be happy to. But in a timely way. And the im just concerned, second concern along with my first concern. Im just concerned that the ideal is to deal with this in a timely way is going to be diminished. Maybe significantly. We just honestly dont know. Im happy to yield. A question for the senator. You said that you were concerned about implementation that it may not be timely at the state level to implement this. I think just prior tro to when you came to the floor, i suggested to a possible amendment to the senator from nebraskas amendment that would add an extent practicable. It doesnt slow the department down, but acknowledges that the department and the state should endeavor to implement this in a way that people dont get paid more to work than not to work so it puts a qualifier. You just suggested there might be possible agreement. Would the senator from delaware be amenable to change . Id be happy to discuss that with you off line and i wasn wasnter had when you spoke. Ill be happy to yield the floor. The senator from michigan. Thank you, mr. President , over 200 years the American People have shown resilience in the face of great challenges, from civil wars, International Conflicts and yes, pandemics. We have faced these challenges united and with resolve. And like the challenges of the past, the Novel Coronavirus pandemic is a crisis that together we can and we will overcome. As the cases of covid19 increase each day, my top priority is protecting the health and the safety of michiganders and people all across this nation. Theres no doubt were facing an unprecedented Public Health emergency and an economic crisis at the same time. Families in my state of michigan and americans across this country are worried about their health and their safety, and whether or not theyre going to be able to make ends meet during this emergency. We must act quickly to provide relief for struggling families and Small Businesses, and Health Care Providers. And even as we move with the urgency that this difficult time demands, we must ensure that this bill is done right. And that were getting the right help to the people who need it the most. We must act aggressively, and now, we must do everything to provide relief to workers and families in michigan and across the country. Americans are facing an unprecedented personal health and financial challenge. Workers in my home state of michigan who are forced to stay home from work due to coronavirus shouldnt need to worry about whether or not they can pay their bills or put food on their table. Thats why i authored legislation included in this package before the senate to expand unemployment assistance. Weve never had Unemployment Benefits in response to a public Health Crisis, but we have never seen an emergency on the scale of what we are seeing right now. We must support workers who are not receiving a paycheck or have been laid off due to coronavirus. Thats why i fought to create an Unemployment Compensation program to provide federally funded benefits to people who are unable to work during this pam. It would expand Unemployment Benefits to workers who have exhausted their state Unemployment Benefits. And it would make Unemployment Benefits available to people who dont usually qualify, including Small Business owners freelance writers and workers, independent contractors, seasonal workers, and people who have recently started or about to start a new job. And it provides workers with extended Unemployment Insurance so that hard working families can have some certainty that they can stay afloat financially during this crisis, and is likely to last a while. Our Small Businesses have been hit especially hard and some are at risk to closing their doors or lay off their employees. Our Small Businesses are the backbone of our economy and they need support now more than ever. Thats why i worked with my colleagues on the Small Business committee to craft legislation to expand funding available for Small Businesses loans. And as a result of those efforts this package now increases the funding for the popular and successful 7a Small Business loans to 350 billion. I also press for additional funding, 240 million for Small Businesses Development Centers and Womens Business Centers that increase the funding for minority Business Centers as well. These funds will go a long way toward helping Small Businesses pay their rent, and keep their lights on. This legislation also includes significantly more funding that will go to our hospitals and health care system, this funding will ensure that our overstretched hospitals can make up for lost revenue, keep their doors open, and make payroll for the dedicated nurses, doctors, and Health Care Professionals who are on the front lines fighting day in and day out to stop this pandemic. Ive been working closely with the hospitals and Health Care Providers in michigan and they cannot stress how critical this funding is to their ability providing the care and comfort during this pandemic. I will keep fighting to ensure that they have the resources, the supplies, the gloves, the masks and the medical equipment to protect themselves and their patients from coronavirus. And as the affairs committee, i work with ron johnson to ensure that this has strong oversight provisions in place. We must assure the funds were authorizing are going to the people, the Small Businesses, and the Health Care Providers who need them the most. Our oversight provision creates a Pandemic Response accountability committee, a board thats made up of agency watch dogs who will be charged with auditing and investigating the Coronavirus Response efforts and how americans hard earned tax dollars are being used to address this serious crisis. Were also requiring the Government Accountability office to audit where the funds are going and Keep Congress and the American People uptodate through realtime publicly available reports. This model was used to successfully track spending from the 2009 recovery act during the Great Recession. And i was proud to work with my republican chairman to get this important accountable measure included in this bill. This bill is an important step forward to addressing this crisis head on and ensure our nation can get back on track once we have addressed the serious Public Health threat and the resulting economic crisis as well. Its an important step, but its not the last action well need to take before this pam pandemic is over. Im going to do everything to work with my colleagues in a bipartisan manner to assure michigan families have the resources and support they desperately need and continue working closely with michigan governor gretchen whitmer, local leaders, Public Health experts and officials. And continue to take each and every one of us, doing our port to prevent the spread of this pandemic. Protect Public Health and continue to address this economic crisis. But together, mr. President , i know that we will get through this and we will come out stronger on the other side. I yield the floor. Mr. President. Senator from vermont. Thank you. Mr. President , let me be very honest and tell you that there is much in this bill action we have not yet seen the printout yet that i am concerned about, i am especially concerned that the administration will be able to expend 500 billion in virtually any way they want, any corporation they want with virtually no strings attached. The American People at a time of massive income and wealth inequality do not want more corporate welfare and they do not want policies which will allow corporations in some cases to receive loans or grants and then do stock buybacks to enrich their stock holders, provide dividends or maybe raise the compensations benefits of their already wealthy ceos. What the American People want right now is for us to use our taxpayer dollar in every way that we can to protect the working families of this country, to protect the middle class, to protect the 50 of our people who are living paycheck to paycheck. And as we speak tonight half of our people in this country, the richest country in the history of the world, are living paycheck to paycheck. And they wake up in the morning and theyre saying, you know what . I can barely make it on the paycheck that i got because im making 12, 13, 14 an hour and now that paycheck has stopped. How am i going to pay my rent . How am i going to put food on the table for my kids . How am i going to make sure that the lights remain on, how am i going to pay my student debt . How am i going to pay my Credit Card Debt . Somebody in the family gets sick, how am i going to pay that . Now, this bill has been worked on extensively in the last few days, there are elements in it that in my view are positive. Dont go far enough by any means. But one of the things this bill does do is provide the largest expansion of Unemployment Benefits in history. Expending about 250 billion of federal fund and what it does importantly, the bill understands that for all kind of absurd reasons, having to do with the republican attacks on workers for many years, fewer than 50 of American Workers today are eligible for Unemployment Benefits. What this bill does is says, rightly so, that in the midst of this terrible economic crisis where some people, nobody knows, where some economists are estimating that by june, the end of next quarter, unemployment could be 20 or 30 what this bill does say is whether or not you are eligible for unemployment today, youre going to get Unemployment Compensation. And that means many of the gig workers, people who drive uber cars, many of the waitresses and waiters, who make starvation minimum wages. Many socalled independent contractors, they will be eligible for the extended unemployment benefit, and thats exactly the right thing. And the other thing that this bill does, which is right, is it says, okay, we are in the midst of a historic crisis. Unprecedented in modern american history. So, not only are you going to get your regular Unemployment Benefits, were going to add another 600 a week to it. And now i find that some of my republican colleagues are very distressed, theyre very upset that somebody is making 10, 12 an hour, might end up with a paycheck for four months more than they received last week. Oh, my god, the universe is collapsing. Imagine that. Somebody who is making 12 an hour now like the rest of us, faces an unprecedented economic crisis with the 600 on top of their normal, their regular unemployment check, might be making a few bucks more for four months. Oh, my word will the universe survive . How absurd and wrong is that . What kind of value system is that . Meanwhile, these very same folks had no problem a couple years ago voting for a trillion dollars in tax breaks for billionaires and large profitable corporations. Not a problem. But when it comes to low income workers in the midst of a terrible crisis, maybe some of them earning or having more money than they previously made, oh, my word, weve got to strip that out. Got to tell those poor people no matter what when this bill when the mcconnell bill first came up, unbelievably, and i know many republicans objected to this, they were saying that well, we want to give, whatever it was, a thousand or 1200, but poor people should get less. Because poor people are down here, they dont deserve, they dont eat, they dont pay rent, they dont go to the doctor, theyre somehow in infear inferior and get less. 1200. And some of the republicans, punish the poor and working people. You havent raised the minimum wage in 10 years. They otherw. Needless to say this is an amendment thats coming up. I dont think its going to go very far and if it does go far, i will introduce an amendment to deal with the corporate welfare, the 500 billion in corporate welfare which is to me a very serious problem. But i do not think theyre going to get the 60 votes and take to get the 60 votes and take i do not think they will get the 60 votes and that will be the end of it. The bill also includes some 250 billion in onetime checks of 1200 for adults and 500 for kids. I have a couple o of concerns. Number one, i happen to believe in the midst of this unprecedented crisis that we should make this a monthly benefit, not a onetime benefit. And depending on what happens, and i expect very much that this congress will be reconvening because i think this coronavirus three, the bill we are on right now, is going to be superseded by coronavirus four. This does not go far enough but the bill does include 1200 120 check for adults, 500 for kids that will help in the shortterm. We got got to do a lot better than that. As many of you know, in countries around the world, uk, denmark, otheres countries, the approach that theyre taking which makes sense to me is to basically say to employers, if you keep your workers on the job, even if theyre not working right now, we will pay it in the uk case, 80 of their salary. Other countries a bit higher. I think that is the direction we shouldve gone. This this is a little bit more convoluted but what we do here is give 367 billion in loans to Small Businesses, and those loans could be forgiven if those Small Businesses dont lay off workers. For variety of reasons that is exactly the right thing to do. The goal right now is to stabilize the economy by telling workers that theyth will have their jobs when they come back, when this thing is over, and that in o the meantime they will have all or most other income. That is my preferred approach. This bill provides 150 billion to states and cities. I can tell you in vermont and im sure in every other state in this country, states and cities are hurting because we all know theres been a major decline in tax revenue. That is an important thing. Because by the way, in the midst of this crisis a lot of the responsibility is going to fall on local and state government. One of the concerns of many that have about this bill is that in the best of times this bill requires an enormous amount of work by the federal, state and local governments. How do you get all these unemployment checks out . How did you do with all the Small Businesses when they apply for these loans . This is hard stuff and becomes even more difficult when so many workers who work for local and state governments are not coming into work because of the coronavirus. One of the issues were going to focus on big time is, if anyone thinks just passing this bill tomorrow everything is going to low smoothly, you are terrible mistake. This is a complicated multifaceted bill, and it is going to take an enormous amount of work to make sure that the money goes where it should go in a costeffective way. This bill does a lot of other things as well that a think love the american economy. To conclude, mr. President , this is not the bill that i wouldve written. Frankly i dont think its a bill that most americans would have written. I think most americans are very, very apprehensive that one quarter of this bill is going to go to large corporations but very little in accountability and in a political season let me make the radical suggestion that we have a president of the United States who may s end up targeting some of this money to states that hee needs to win. This bill i has some good things and has some issues of real concern but one thing we must not do is to punish low income workers might get a few bucks more than they previously earned. Thank you very much, mr. Presid. Mr. President . Senator from nebraska. Im just looking at the senator from vermonts speech and theres always a lot we agree on in life and politics and policy, economics. He caricatured the entire purpose of this amendment night, it is to affirm work. And his vision i dont know exactly where he thinks the workers who stock shelves and drive trucks right now would come from. Because he made an argument about government subsidies that would be on a permanent basis higher than the wages of all those job site understand how his Economic System would ever work but but iis would like toe him here. Two things. One, he said something the politicians you dont say, usually they say the bill is utopian would everything right. They will vote against something they say its the worst thing thats ever been written. Sanders just said this bill has a lot in it. Cyits big, clunky. Were in the middle of a National Emergency and for some good and some bad in it and is going to vote for it. I also believe this bill is big and clunky and stinky, a lot that isme broken, and that is gd and virgin this are an important theres a lot of bad and poorly thought out and not be admitted effectively. On that im also inclined to vote for it. I appreciate his candor in admitting this is a big crap sandwich. But in addition i want to praise the senator from vermont for his candor in saying something that aot totally oppose, but appreciated his integrity and honesty and commitment. He said, i believe, correct me if im wrong, he said he wishes the 1200 Monthly Payment would be, 1200 emergency payment would be made monthly and permanent. Is that right . No, not permanent but during the crisis, yet. Thats helpfuls clarificati. You were saying aen lot of Different Things and i thought you were arguing for a upi of 14 grants i just wanted to clarify that point but i appreciate the fact that you believe a lot of things very differently. The senator believes, speaking in third person, a lot of things are different than i do but he argues forcefully for his positions and i think this body would benefit from more people who spoke as bluntly and reckless senator from vermont. I hope his positions are voted down again and again and again but appreciate the way m he args for his positions. Thank you, mr. President. Several senators on the other side have been arguing against the provision in this bill to supercharge Unemployment Insurance right now. Some think that Senate Democrats have negotiated with the Trump Administration, secretary mnuchin and chairman grassley. Based on what im hearing, senators on the other side, you would think that this provision was pretty much going to end western civilization. Now, supercharging Unemployment Benefits has long been a priority for Senate Democrats who have been fighting for those improvements in unemployment since the process began. In our view, its a key to getting help to where speed is senator for organ. Yes. Would you please use yourph microphone. Thank the president. Certainly. Supercharging Unemployment Benefits has long been something Senate Democrats have been fighting k for. Its the key to getting help where its needed most and believe me, colleagues, when you see the unemployment claim numbers tomorrow, if the numbers are accurate, the chamber is going to see that the Unemployment Crisis is exploding in america. I dont believe anybody in our great country should fall into destitution as result of this pandemic. So i obviously disagree with my colleagues who oppose our amendment so strongly to improve Unemployment Benefits. I just want to make a few key points in response to their arguments. First, i want to start with an argument i heard that just about knocked the wind out of me when they heard it earlier. Its the idea that nurses are going to quit their jobs as a result of this legislation. Mr. President , nurses are not going to be quitting their jobs to get Unemployment Benefits, because thats not how nurses think when they get up in the morning. By now everyone has seen the herculean efforts of our nurses fighting the pandemic. Nurses in america are brave. They care. They are the true professionals. From portland, oregon, to portland, maine, there on the front lines of the site putting themselves in harms way to save this fight to save the lives of the neighbors weather in South Carolina, oregon, or anywhere else. They dont cut and run. And contrary to the suggestion ofe my colleague from nebraska, retired nurses have been coming out of retirement in droves to help treat patients who are suffering because of the coronavirus. Second, its i h had scratcher o me that my colleague from nebraska is raising this objection now. Im ranking democrat in the finance committee. Objectionabout his when i watched his press conference and then i called him about it. The proposal has been out there for days. Senator has known about it the whole time. Its not a drafting error. Its not a lastminute surprise. What the senator from nebraska once to in effect drop now was part of the bill. Mr. President , you are a member of our committee and i enjoyed working withth you. What the senator from nebraska wants to drop now, in fact, was part of the bill that republican leader mcconnell introduced on saturday. He introduced it on saturday because Senate Democrats insisted on it being part of the package. And as secretary mnuchin said this afternoon, on national television, we all heard it, republicans agreed. Ill have a a little bit more o say about secretary mnuchin remarks and a minute. Ut third, i want to talk about why this is so needed. Wide my democratic colleagues and i have worked so hard to up the millions hit by this economic wrecking ball get through these horrendous times. For most americans, the old unemployment rules would cover only a third to half of their lost wages. Thats it pretty hard to pay the rent, put food on the table with that. Even before c this crisis, even before the crisis, mr. President , the Federal Reserve found that nearly half of americans wouldnt have been able to come up with 400 cash to cover costs in an emergency. So lets face it. Millions of americans were walking on an economic tightrope balancing the rent against the food and the food against the fuel, and that was before the pandemic. Thats why we on our side feel so strongly, so appreciative off the work of senator peters, senator menendez who helped in the negotiations. And, of course, the leader. We all said we need an improved supercharging unemployment benefit to replace peoples lost wages. Those are people who shouldnt e the choice between homelessness, hunger or bankruptcy because the virus has shut down our economy and cost them their job. This isnt the fault of any workers in South Carolina oregon or anywhere else. And while the consumer economy is t shattered, the congress has responsibility to make sure that america can bounce back in the matter of weeks or months. Otherwise, millions are going to struggle slowly to recover from the economic crisis, and many might not make it if the senate doesnt move to help them now. Now, now. The panic people feel over the virus is already too much, and the least we can do as lawmakers is to have their back when it comes to surviving this economic crisis. Now, all my colleagues know we are on the third bill in the fight against the virus. Mitch mcconnells first version of this bill did virtually nothing for those who are losing their jobs. I read it carefully. Out of two and 47 pages, and Republican Leaders first bill, eight lines of text, not eight pages, eight lines and those eight lines only dealt with filing for f unemployment onlin. Now, that bill had an awful lot of corporate goodies, lots of slush funds for big corporations, but just a few measly lines for people hurting, forr workers hurting, workers losing their jobs. Senate democrats fought for and won changes that make up this robust, expanded, supercharged program of Unemployment Insurance. Its based on a bill that our colleague senator peters and iuc introduced not long ago. In these punishing Economic Times americans will need more weeks of coverage than they would otherwise get from Unemployment Insurance. The existing length of Unemployment Benefits will not cover the time this crisis will last. Second, the senate needed to modernize the Unemployment Insurance program because it really hasnt changed much since it was developed in wisconsin in 1932. Mr. President , 1932, nobody was talking about gig workers. And that in a Public Program that was invented then hadnt changed all that much. Certainly hasnt and built to take on the kind of challenge our country faces right now. Democratic senators and i looked at that system and said the old system wouldnt be good enoughnd for independent contractors, the selfemployed, gig workers, our time workers, and freelancers parttime workers. Theyre a big part of the face of the modern economy. They were not the kind of work or anybody was thinking about in 1932 when the program was invented. Senate democrats leded the effot to get those people coverage, and im glad that at one point in negotiation weot could get or partisan support for it. For people who still have their jobs but have hours slashed, were going to bat for them. For people in the surf the economy, restaurants, salons, gyms, name it. All those people who are suffering because their job and a businesses have been put on pause, we are going to bat for them. Were talking about millions and millions off americans, people who are looking at hard times ahead andd the need our help no. The old unemployed insurance system wasnt working, so Senate Democrats, Senate Democrats sd we were going to come together and were going to go to bat for all those independent contractors and thefr selfemployed and the freelancers in the gig workers. And now i think that only are going to helpng them over the nt four months, but i think we have developed some ideas that b cane part of reforming the Unemployment Compensation system after those four months. Now, i want to turn to why this agreement raises benefits specifically by 600 a month. Ive heard my colleagues and their strenuous objection to that amount. The reason it is 600, mr. President , is because labor secretary scalia, after meeting with the senate negotiators, myself, senator grassley, secretary mnuchin, senator menendez, senator portman, a big group of us, secretary scalia, after meeting with senate negotiators, left us with no other way to get benefits to workers quickly. Secretary scalia said that the states had no other way to get the benefits to workers in time. We needed a simple solution. And i know my colleagues, distinguished president of the senate and others who are sponsoring this proposal to unravel, what Senate Democrats did with the secretary mnuchin, the Trump Administration and chairman grassley may not believe me, but i want to share the words of secretary mnuchin himself, specific on this question, of why we were focused on making sure that workers could get that extra 600 a week. Just today, secretary mnuchin said, and im going to quote here, most of these state systems have technology thats 30 years old or older. If we have the ability to customize this with much more specifics, we would have. This was the only way we could ensure states could get the money out quickly and in a fair way, so we used 600 acrosstheboard. I dont think it will create incentives. Most americans want what they want. They want to keep their job. That is what secretary mnuchin said today in defending the language that is in the bill as in effect the fastest, simplest way for workers to get the benefits, and why we disagreed so strongly with the amendment from the senator from nebraska to unravel that approach. Thehe math shows standard paymet of 600 is the simplest way to get to full wage replacement without causing, as of now, and administrative train wreck. So im going to close on this. Im sure everybody here read thatlo unemployment claims are expected to go up by 2. 5 million in one week when the statistics are released tomorrow. Let me say that again. 2. 5 million, thats almost as many jobs that were lost in the entire year 2008 when the Great Recession hit our country so hard. Its the single largest rise in unemployment since that figure began to be tracked. An entire month of Great Recession job losses, thats how many claims economists expect to see and the single week. This country is a never faced anything like it. Normal recession. This isnt a normal bill that tries to see what the economy, in which government tries to get the economy a shot of fiscal adrenaline. This is a time when we face a shutdown of entire sectors of our economy. What the Congress Needs to do is keep our economy alive, and act now. Were not going to do that by shortchanging workers who are losing jobs, losing hours, or losing gigs. I feel so strongly that americans want to work. Businesses want to keep their employees on the job. Americans want the economy to spring back to life once the pandemic is under control. And thats what supercharged Unemployment Benefits is all about. So here isan the bottom line on the provision that Senate Democrats agreed with the Trump Administration, secretaryit mnuchin, and chairman grassley on. Our proposal was not a drafting error. R. It didnt top out at the last minute. Thats not going toth bring abot the end of western civilization. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will review what secretary mnuchin haday to say. This afternoon on national television, supporting what Senate Democrats negotiated with him and the administration, and join us in making sure millions and millions of americans dont fall into destitution. I yield the floor. Mr. President . Th senator from vermont. Thank you, mr. President. I dont wish to delay thanks. I just want to make a couple of comments. I did speak earlier this afternoon about this. Its almost an understatement to say that americari is at an inflection point. Were facing a public Health Crisis unlike anything weve seen in generation. Governments in every local, state and local county respond and mitigate the crisis. Hospital systems, will soon be over overrun if they have not already been. The package here is a good one. Does it do everything . No. Is it perfect . No. But its a lot better than when we were . Yes. Ii think of the senate, the by should be the conscience of the nation. And it is time for us to have reality trumps rhetoric. Weve had enough rhetoric. As i sit in the past, it speaks to reality. I think of our own governor, republican governor, who has worked so hard to help our state. This will give him some tools as a will to our speaker of the house and are president pro tem of our legislature. But with this bill we support the victims of this terrible virus, the Healthcare Providers and First Responders that are on the front lines tended to take care, these essential workers are keeping our stores shelves stocked with ssas available, the family said from the fallout during this pandemic. I have been fortunate, been married now for almost 58 years, to the best medical surgical nurse ivet ever known. I hear her tell what it is, she tells me what the doctors and nurses face in a situation like this. Mr. President , i pray that neither you or i or any other member of this body have to face what they face on the front lines. We should go forward and pass this bill. I would ask that my full statement be included inth the record. Without objection. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. I asking innocents at the cloture motion with respect to the motion to proceed to h. R. 748 be withdrawn. Is there objection . Without