Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

[Pages S1929-S1969] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] MIDDLE CLASS HEALTH BENEFITS TAX REPEAL ACT OF 2019--Motion to Proceed The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 748, which the clerk will report. The bill clerk read as follows: Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 157, H.R. 748, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health coverage. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, for the information of our colleagues on both sides, as a result of this procedural obstruction, let me explain where we are. By refusal to allow us to take this first step, which would have still given them plenty of time to negotiate, we have put the Senate in the following position: If any 1 of the 100 of us chooses to object, we can't deal with this until Friday or Saturday at the earliest. If any 1 of the 100 of us objects to some of the procedural hurdles we have to overcome as a result of this mindless obstruction--absolutely mindless obstruction going on on the other side, while the public is waiting for us to act, while people are losing their jobs, losing their income, and shutting down the economy, which we have had to do to deal with this public health crisis, they are fiddling around with Senate procedure that could, if 1 Senator objected, take us all the way to the end of the week to solve this problem. I am beginning to think our Democratic colleagues don't understand the procedure in the Senate. I am not sure you understand the position your leader has put you in. He loses nothing--nothing--in terms of negotiating leverage by letting us get through these procedural hoops sooner rather than later--sooner rather than later. The American people have had enough of this nonsense. They wonder where we are. They are looking to us to solve this problem. The Secretary of the Treasury keeps going into the Democratic leader's office, and the list keeps getting longer and longer and longer. The bazaar is apparently open on the other side. Never let a crisis go to waste, one former President's Chief of Staff famously said. So, look, I hope my colleagues will come out here and express themselves in the course of the afternoon. The American people would like to hear from us. They would like to know what is going on here. So let's tell them. I yield the floor. Mr. SASSE. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, we are at an odd spot right now not just as a Senate but as a nation. We have millions of people who are gathered in their own homes, trying to figure out what is going to happen next, waiting for a virus to die down. We have people in a hospital who are afraid because there is no tested treatment yet. We have firefighters; we have law enforcement; we have hospital workers all with not enough personal protection equipment because they do not know who is a citizen without the virus and who is a citizen with the virus. The most basic elements of decision making of how you take care of your neighbor have become a distraction across the country as Americans have become afraid of a stranger and of a friend. This is a huge shift in where we are as a country. What this demands is immediate action. Three weeks ago, the Senate and the House passed $8.3 billion, and we did it with an overwhelming bipartisan support, to add additional funding for diagnostics, for testing, and for rapid work on a vaccine. All of that work is advancing quickly. We have human trials on a vaccine happening right now because we came together, and there weren't extra things added to it. We focused in on the problem, which is the virus. This body has a lot of things we disagree on, there is no question. There are lots of moments to debate the things we disagree on, but this is a time we need to focus in on what is the problem, and the problem is dealing with COVID-19. There was a bipartisan bill that was put together in the Senate. A week ago today, Senator Schumer released a 10-page list of--here are the things the Democrats would like from the Senate. It was a 10- page, very detailed list. Twenty-eight of those items on that list are included in this bipartisan bill--28 items from it, of that 10-page list of items. So much of that list that was released a week ago is included in this bipartisan bill. Republican chairmen and Democratic ranking members of the committees of jurisdiction met and talked about this. The chairman and the ranking member of Appropriations worked together on an appropriations package for a quarter of a trillion dollars on just that one section that they worked on together to get resolution. Put all of those items together, and let me tell you what I mean by that: $250 billion dealing with things as distant to believe as things like getting Peace Corps volunteers back home, away from where they are now. We have to get them back home and away from harm's way. There is funding in there for that as well as $88 billion for hospitals, trying to help them through this; help for nursing homes; help for individual firefighters and their departments; $10 billion for community development block grants to help cities as they are rapidly trying to work through this process--$250 billion allocated just to things like that to help people get testing, personal equipment, travel and additional expenses, teleworking capabilities that have to be done for cities and communities and Federal entities. All of those things were put together and agreed upon. There is a lot of work on the medical side, rightfully so. Testing makes a world of difference on this. Getting access to a vaccine--there are billions of dollars in that particular area. All of that is included in this proposal. In addition to that, there are direct payments that we had agreed upon to send out, literally, to every American. We had set up $1,200 for every American to receive. That is a stopgap method to help folks who are having trouble with their utilities or whatever it may be, or extra expenses so they will have something. It was not just that for the individuals. It was also unemployment insurance. This is something the Republicans and Democrats had worked on together, to do a plus-up of unemployment insurance because we have millions of people suddenly unemployed with no advanced warning at all. There is a significant increase of unemployment insurance that is built [[Page S1930]] into this, about $250 billion additional that is put into that amount. Small businesses--the goal is not to have people on unemployment; the goal is to have people employed. A very creative thing was built into this that I happen to be a part of in the design, and that was small businesses--a business with 500 or fewer employees--could actually apply for a rapid loan. That loan would be given to them quickly. If they used it for payroll, it would be forgiven entirely. If they used it for their lease, it would be forgiven entirely. The goal was to not have small business go out of business and to keep employees currently connected to their company, not to put them out on unemployment but to keep them employed so they have the same system. So when we get through this virus, which we hope we do soon--they still have the same job, they are not on unemployment and later looking for a job. They are able to keep their same job. We thought that was very significant. It is a brandnew strategy for how to do this. It is a much better idea than just pushing people on unemployment--although, we do have great aid for unemployment. That program is $350 billion. As I have already laid out: healthcare, hospital, first responders-- that is the first piece of this--working on testing, vaccines. The second piece is direct payments to individuals, direct payments for unemployment insurance, and then assistance for small businesses to stay in business and help their employees stay connected to their business, and then, on top of that, loans for the largest businesses in America. It is not a bailout--loans for the largest businesses in America. My Democratic colleagues keep saying over and over again that this is a bailout for the biggest companies. It is loans for the largest companies because--you know what--they employ a lot of people, and we would like those businesses to also stay in business. All of that seemed to be going well and negotiating well until the last 36 hours when it suddenly blows up. Here is what I heard first: It is not enough. It is $2 trillion. It is $2 trillion. It is suddenly: Well, it is not enough. We need to plus this up to be even bigger. And then suddenly it has become this whole transition into the most random of things: Well, if a corporation gets a loan from the Federal Government, then someone here in Washington, DC, should determine how that corporation is run. We should have a member on their board or a union representative on their board. We should have some kind of stake in their board to do that. This was my favorite one. We should be able to tell the board, if they are considering layoffs, someone here in DC should be able to go to the company, evaluate the rest of their portfolio and tell them other ways they can do their business besides laying people off. Are you kidding me? We are now going to create a whole new Federal bureaucracy that goes to every company, and if they take out a loan in this program, they are able to tell them how to manage the day-to-day operations of their company. There was a requirement that every company had to do a $15 minimum wage for their company. There was a requirement they couldn't do stock buybacks. By the way, I have no problem with prohibiting the use of these loan dollars to use for stock buybacks, but that is not the concept. The concept was for the next 10 years, you can't ever do stock buybacks on anything, regardless if it is with these loan funds. It became this bizarre shift into--oh, we have an opportunity to run every company in America and tell them how to operate, and that became the goal. Then it became--we need to also add solar grants. The latest proposal that just came out today was $600 million for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for Humanity--$600 million. It is not connected to anything COVID; it was just that they need a plus-up of an additional $600 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities. The other one was that we need to have a forgiveness of all debt for the post office, ever--all post office debt. That was just released today. The list is going on and on. My frustration is that I have people at home who are suffering, with small businesses teetering on the edge, about to go out of business, trying to figure out if there is going to be a proposal to come out of the Senate while folks are discussing whether we need to do more solar grants and if we are going to take over corporate boards and require a $15 minimum wage at the end of this. Can we just deal with COVID-19? Can we just deal with one thing, with COVID-19, to say, Let's help businesses and workers and families who are struggling? That is what I thought we were trying to do with this bill, but now suddenly it seems to be everything but. Let's just do that, and then there is plenty of time to argue about the other issues. We can do those in the future. We will have the debate on solar panels, I promise, but let's deal with COVID-19 and the families and individuals who are struggling and stop holding everything up, trying to add one more thing in to say: It is a really big bill. I am going to try to get my one piece. One thing we worked on in a bipartisan way--Senator Coons and I--was this one area of not-for-profits. The not-for-profits are part of our social safety net. Our communities are put together by our families, and the people who walk alongside our families are local nonprofits. When those can't meet the needs, then government steps in to meet the needs. Our nonprofits are teetering on the edge right now. This bill allows the nonprofits to be a part of this whole focus on small businesses being able to get a loan and sustain their personnel. It also allows individuals who want to donate to local nonprofits to write that off as an incentive for folks to be more engaged in that. This is a reasonable proposal on how to help. It is a bipartisan solution that Senator Coons and I have, but we can't get to it and vote on it because we being held up by some bizarre new thing that is thrown in every couple of hours that is unrelated to COVID-19 or the perpetual statement of: It is only $2 trillion. It is not enough. This government is not even set up to distribute $2 trillion. Let's get this out the door. Let's get something started, and let's keep the battle going for the other things. But for the sake of our nonprofits, for the sake of our small businesses, for the sake of people who want to stay employed, the people who are small business and restaurant owners and coffee shop owners and retailers--for the sake of them, why do we not just go ahead and get this vote on and stop delaying it, trying to add one more special interest something into it? I move that we get going and get this done. I encourage my colleagues on the other side to stop trying to renegotiate everything we have already negotiated and to stop adding one more thing. Let's make the one more thing a vote. With that, I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota. Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, earlier, I was on the floor and talked about how important it is--along with my fellow colleagues--that we move this bill and get it done now. I mean, it is very important that we get it done now. We talked about a lot of different things, but one of the points I wanted to make--I work with it so much, as do some of my colleagues who are going to join me here--is making sure we are also addressing rural America: our farmers, our ranchers, agriculture, rural America. That is the food supply everyone depends on every single day. It is so critically important all the time but particularly at a time like this when we are faced with a pandemic that we keep that food supply working and moving--the whole food chain--all the way from the farmer and rancher, all the way up to the consumer. As a result of what our farmers and ranchers do, every single American benefits from the lowest cost, highest quality food supply in the history of the world, and they can count on it. They can count on it. As we pass this phase 3 bill, which is now, I think, about $1.8 trillion, we cannot leave the farmers and ranchers of America out of the bill. It is that simple. Every single American depends on them every single day--and not just Americans but people around the globe. It is so important that we include agriculture in this bill. That is what we have worked to do. We have worked to make sure there is a provision in there so whether it is our cattle producers or whether it is our farmers raising crops [[Page S1931]] across this great Nation, they can continue to do what they do every day on behalf of all Americans. I talked about that a little bit earlier, but some of my colleagues want to join in, emphasizing how critically important it is that our farmers and ranchers and rural America are part of this legislation. You see on television the cities every day and what is going on in the cities. In New York or San Francisco or wherever it may be, we get it. There are a lot of people there, and they are close together. It is a huge challenge. Yet the food, the sustenance--the food, fuel, and fiber--they get every day comes from the heartland. It comes from the rural areas. It doesn't just come from the grocery store. It comes from rural America, and we have to be there for them and keep them going so that they can supply people across this Nation in communities large and small. I would like to turn to my good friend, the Senator from the State of Kansas. Clearly, it is a State known as part of the breadbasket of this Nation. I would ask that the good Senator from Kansas be allowed to make some comments. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas. Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the leadership of my colleagues and, particularly today, Senator Hoeven, on his efforts. He chairs the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture and Rural Development. We are joined here by the Senator from Nebraska, Senator Fischer, and the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, my colleague from Kansas, to highlight something that is particularly going to be absent from this legislation. Earlier this month, I asked Secretary Perdue in a letter in which I was joined by many of my colleagues--both Republicans and Democrats--to look for a way to be helpful, particularly to livestock producers. The men and women who raise cattle and who feed cattle are the backbone of the ag economy and are certainly a huge and critical component of how we earn a living in Kansas. Both Republicans and Democrats signed the letter asking that Secretary Perdue take steps. The reason this is necessary, at least according to Kansas State University research, is that since the arrival of corona, since January, $8 to $9 billion in lost income has occurred for livestock producers in this country. That is a huge and significant amount of money and one that is hard to recover from. The chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Hoeven, indicated about the importance of rural America. This is absolutely about feeding not only the rest of our country but the globe in its entirety. Before I return to this conversation about agriculture, I would highlight how difficult it is in rural America to recover from an economic challenge. Certainly, our cattlemen and our livestock producers, our farmers and ranchers, recognize that we have seen instance after instance in which farmers are going out of business. I would put on top of this that, since 2013, the farm income in Kansas is down 50 percent. You add this crisis to the challenge, and many of my farmers and ranchers may not--probably will not--survive this crisis. We are asking the Secretary of Agriculture to come to our aid. What we discovered is that the Commodity Credit Corporation, or the CCC, needed to be replenished. Money had been spent from the CCC. We proposed in this bill that is being debated now that the CCC be replenished--that $20 billion be restored to the Commodity Credit Corporation. We were told by our Democrat colleagues that they wanted to make certain the money couldn't just be spent on the livestock side. So the provision in this bill, which is a bipartisan agreement, shows there is certainly agreement on the side of all of us that we care about farmers as well as ranchers. We changed the language to make certain the Secretary of Agriculture used CCC funds not only for livestock producers but also for the cultivation side, or the crop side, of agriculture. Incidentally, my colleagues on the Democrat side asked that their names be removed from the letter. I don't understand what happened in a manner of just a day or two, in which they decided they were not interested in agriculture producers--livestock producers, in particular. Then, within the last couple of days, we now learned that the Democrats--I am not in the room. So I can't verify this. But I am told by those who presumably know that Democrats are opposed to this provision being included in the bill at all. We cannot forget livestock producers and agriculture as we try to deal with the economic consequences of COVID-19. It is a huge challenge. I would say to my Democrat colleagues--those who signed the letter and others who visited with me and my colleagues about trying to solve this problem--that I don't know what is going on in the room that I am not a part of, but we need to make certain that the end result is where we started, which is taking care of those who produce the food and fiber of our Nation. While I have the floor, let me point out the challenges of rural America and why it is so important to get this done today, now. Community hospitals. There are significant resources in this bill to try to keep the doors of our hospitals open, to keep our physicians practicing medicine, and to keep the pharmacy on Main Street. They are in this bill. The dentist is a pretty important person in a small town in Kansas-- and the optometrist. They are all a huge component in how we deliver healthcare. These are very small businesses. Many are sole practitioners, and they employ just a handful of people. This bill will help them. Yet it is stymied. I would say that even if you are not a healthcare provider, this bill is important to every small business in Kansas. It is important to the business, not for the business's sake but for the people who work for that business. We want that sole proprietor. We want that business that employs 5, 10, 50 people. A lot of small manufacturers in Kansas produce agriculture equipment. They are on the cusp of being put out of business, and what is so dramatic in rural America is, if we lose a business, the chances of reviving it in the future disappears. Almost all of our businesses in small towns across Kansas and around the Nation are hanging on already by a thread. This is the factor now that may put them out of business--is likely to put them out of business--and the chances of them coming back into business when this is over are virtually none. Our businesses are run by small families. They are run by families, by individuals, by people who often run a business for the sole purpose of making certain their community has a business. We can linger no longer and expect that it will get better if we don't take action to help them preserve their business and the people who work for them. We need to do it now, not later. I yield to the Senator from North Dakota Mr. HOEVEN. I would like to thank the Senator from Kansas for his remarks and his strong work on behalf of, not just the livestock industry and, of course, Kansas, which, obviously, has a huge role in the cattle industry, but for all of agriculture. You are always there, and I deeply appreciate it. Before I recognize our next colleague, I do want to make a little change in the order here. If I could, I would like to recognize our colleague from Michigan who is the ranking member on the Ag Committee. She had some thoughts she wanted to interject. I would be willing to defer to her. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan. Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I wanted to share some thoughts, and I appreciate this discussion, obviously. As you know, Senator Roberts and I have basically coauthored the last two farm bills, and we all care deeply about rural America. I grew up in rural America. We have to get things done that are going to help small towns in rural America. The distinguished Senator from North Dakota and I have been talking about what we need to be doing in a number of ways. I just wanted to indicate that, when we talk about the needs that have been addressed through the market facilitation with payments and so on, I think we have a joint interest in making sure [[Page S1932]] all of agriculture that has been hurt will be benefited by this. I understand the concerns about livestock. About half the cash receipts of the country are what we broadly call specialty crops. I can tell you that as the No. 1 producer of tart cherries in the country-- maybe the world--we have been hit so very hard by unfair practices with Turkey that we could lose the industry. We have received no help so far from the CCC. If we are going to move forward, I have supported and will continue to support doing things we need to do for farmers, but we have to recognize all of the needs. I am certainly willing to work with you on that because that has to happen. I would finally say this. On the one end, we have our farmers. On the other end, we have all of us who eat. We have a lot of folks in between who think the food comes from the grocery store--a lot of kids. One of the reasons I support having school gardens is for children to understand that there actually is a lot of hard work involved and food comes from our farmers. Part of all of this, when we look at this large package, is that I know there is concern about not leaving farmers out, but we can't leave out people who are at this point struggling to eat, as well. We have done a SNAP increase in every other crisis. In every other crisis, we had a temporary increase in SNAP funds. We desperately need to do that as well. We know that one of the best economic stimuli is to provide people with food assistance, who immediately have to spend that at the grocery store. Our grocery store owners, large and small, are challenged and are going to be challenged. This all goes right back to the farmers. I thank you for yielding some time. I want to say that there are many of us on both sides of the aisle who certainly care deeply about agriculture. We had the largest vote, Mr. Chairman, and 87 of 100 Senators voted for the last farm bill. I think every Democrat did. We want to make sure we are supporting our farmers. We want to make sure that families are lifted up who are struggling. I am getting calls from churches and food banks and those who are desperately concerned about families right now. We can't leave our families behind either. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota. Mr. HOEVEN. I would like to thank the Senator from Michigan. There is no question that she has been a strong advocate for agriculture. I appreciate that and her willingness to work on this. It is imperative that we include our farmers and ranchers in this package. I look forward to working with you. We do need to get to something we can approve and include in the package. Thank you for your comments. I turn to my colleague from Nebraska. By way of turning to her, I want to say that the cattle industry has lost between $7 and $9 billion over the last 2 months. I know the cattle industry is important in the Presiding Officer's State. The cattle industry lost between $7 and $9 billion the last 2 months. That is why this is very urgent, and we need to act. I turn to the Senator from Nebraska for her comments. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska. Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleague from North Dakota for really being a leader and recognizing the needs that we have across rural America, the needs that we are facing in the heartland for farmers, ranchers, rural communities, and rural hospitals. When we are looking at this pandemic and the effects it has all across this country, we need to be cognizant of the fact that we are a very diverse nation. We are a nation of condensed urban areas, and we are a nation with extreme vastness. I happen to live in a county that is in the middle of cattle country here in the United States, where we have less than one person per square mile and there are over 6,000 square miles in my county. We understand what being rural means. We understand the differences that exist, not just within the State of Nebraska but that exist here in this country. We believe that diversity needs to be recognized when we are talking about providing relief to families, relief to small businesses, and recovery. First, we have to get to the relief. We can't get on this bill right now. What I hear from my constituents, and I know all of you do--it doesn't matter if you are a Republican or a Democrat. I know all of you are hearing from your constituents about how ridiculous we look because we can't get on a bill for political reasons. I hope that, as we move forward, we are able to provide relief to families. People are in need. People are hurting. People are scared. And we are here talking--which is a good thing, if we come to a positive outcome--but we don't have much time. We have small businesses across this country that are hurting. I have heard from my dentist. I have heard from my neighbors who are very concerned about what is going on and whether they are going to be able to provide for their employees, their families and have a business to come back to. Yet, when you talk about livestock, I think Nebraskans have a good understanding of that because livestock is the economic engine in the State of Nebraska. It is the biggest revenue provider in agriculture in the State of Nebraska. It is a part of that ag economy that drives our State's economy, which is why working on provisions that are going to help producers will help every single person in my State. My office reached out to numbers of my friends and neighbors who are family ranchers and family farmers, and we asked them what is going on. The Senator from North Dakota talked about the losses--the extreme losses--that we are looking at. When I talk about farmers and ranchers, I am talking about family farmers and family ranchers and how people are looking at their families, their neighbors, and their communities. The coronavirus is adding another dimension to an already battered agriculture economy. This disease has been driving down crop and livestock prices. Therefore, I am adamant that, in this bill, we have to provide relief to address that. As for my colleague from North Dakota, who has led on this and come up with a solution that will help families, neighborhoods, communities, and my State, I thank him, for we have seen ag futures that have been dropping since February. Prices that have been offered for ranchers' cattle have been dropping. Ethanol plants are starting to idle, and they are starting to close down across the country. There is a lot of unsold grain that is sitting out in the countryside or that is in farm storage right now. As for the cattle--and I can speak to this--we have seen large volumes of negotiated cattle being procured at lower prices. We have seen a sharply rising boxed beef market both in volume and in price. As of last Thursday, cattle volume at live auctions declined by 75 percent, which is due to the folks who are practicing social distancing. That, in turn, has caused a $10 to $15 drop in the market price. Feeder cattle sales have slowed down. If you drive around counties in my State, where we see a lot of fed cattle, you will see empty pens. Feeders are getting hit twice and, arguably, the hardest. Suppliers, which include ethanol plants, are telling feeders that they have, maybe, 1 to 2 weeks max in which they can provide feed to them, and then those family farms are going to be in trouble because those ethanol plants are going to idle or they are going to shut down, which is going to cause feeders to worry about supply. The panic buying that we are seeing in the news can be correlated back to that high volume of beef that is being sold. We can see packers that are selling large volumes of beef with outstanding consumer demand. As a cattle rancher, you want to see that consumer demand but not in these times that are so uncertain. We have had packers communicate that they are going to continue to ramp up production. We are grateful for that, and it is needed to meet that high demand. Beef sales are increasing, as are boxed beef prices, and producers need to be able to share in the price gains of this unexpected surge in demand. In reality, the opposite has been happening. I have been working with my colleagues on measures that are in the CARES Act that will provide some relief to people in my State and across the heartland who are working to keep the world fed during this pandemic. [[Page S1933]] The provision that we have in this current version of the bill will help to provide relief to cow-calf producers and feeders through the Commodity Credit Corporation, the CCC, which we have talked about, so we can have that increase so that livestock--beef, pork, poultry--can be included, which can also assist other commodities. This provision is needed. These dollars are the vehicle that we can use to help our producers get the relief they need during these tough times. There are so many times I hear from my neighbors that we leave agriculture out all the time; that we don't think about rural America. We do. We always do. Yet to listen to colleagues on the other side put off a vote is appalling. People are suffering, and people must be helped. We need to be here to provide relief and to have a plan for recovery. We have that. We worked in a bipartisan way to have it. Agriculture must be a part of that. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota. Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nebraska for her very powerful and heartfelt comments. I have to say she knows of what she speaks. In her coming from Nebraska and being in agriculture, nobody sees it out there more directly or understands more what our farmers and ranchers are going through than she does. I really do appreciate her comments. I think she brings home very clearly how we need to make sure that our farmers and ranchers are part of this important effort as we seek to battle this pandemic. Again, I can't thank her enough for her heartfelt comments. I turn now to our colleague from the State of Mississippi for her comments. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi. Mrs. HYDE-SMITH. Mr. President, as we continue to navigate this unprecedented position we find ourselves in because of this extremely contagious virus, I want to bring one issue to the attention of all of my colleagues. Anyone who has been on social media has seen the empty shelves in the grocery stores throughout the country. The last shortage we need right now is with our American farmers. We are going to be able to feed this country but only if we keep the farmers in business. With virtually every restaurant in this country now being on shutdown, we have never found ourselves here. They are not ordering the food they normally order because they are on shutdown. We are here, in the city of Washington, DC, and have every restaurant closed except for a few for takeout, which is one market our farmers have just lost with our being in the position that we are in. We don't need to be. We have to make sure our food production continues. As the former agriculture commissioner of the wonderful State of Mississippi, I can speak to this firsthand. When this market slows down, it doesn't move the needle a little bit; it moves the needle a lot. The emergency supplemental appropriations portion--division B of the phase 3 coronavirus legislation--provides that critical support for American farmers and ranchers who are truly being impacted by this virus. It is an important provision that the Democrats seem to oppose but that is just a no-brainer for me. Firstly, it reimburses the USDA's CCC that we have referred to, which is the Commodity Credit Corporation, in order to prevent any delays in program funding that is vital to U.S. agriculture. The second thing it does is to temporarily raise the CCC's borrowing authority to ensure that the USDA has the resources it needs to assist producers during this COVID-19 emergency. This is just basic economics. People come to the floor, and they talk about all of these programs that we need to be increasing right now. The Democrats want billions for domestic food programs, but what happens when those who are supplying our food go out of business? This is a $1 trillion-plus package, and as the dear Senator from Nebraska stated, we cannot leave our farmers and ranchers out--the backbone of rural America. I look at the Democrats' bill, and they are calling for the workers first. There is nobody working any harder right now to feed this country or to feed those medical workers who are being pushed beyond restraints to which they should never have to be pushed but who are willing to step up because they are within the medical community that is willing to take care of these patients. Every small business has employees, and they are going to have to be fed. We have to ensure that we continue to have the safest food supply--and cheapest, I might add-- of anywhere in the entire world. I appreciate the work of Chairman Hoeven and others of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture for including this in this bill--this provision that is very vital. It has to remain in there. I just want to stress the importance of making sure the farmers and ranchers can continue to do what they were born to do, including those wonderful farmers and ranchers in the State of Mississippi and throughout this country, and that is to produce our ag products in order to make sure this country will continue to sustain itself. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota. Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi, who understands agriculture, is a strong advocate for agriculture, and recognizes how critically important it is. At this point, I turn to our chairman of the Ag Committee. He is somebody who has been around agriculture for a long, long time. He has worked on many, many farm bills, and whether it is livestock or crops or specialty crops--across the board--he understands. I say that for this reason: The provision that we have put in here helps all of ag. It is designed for all of agriculture. Certainly, it is absolutely vital for our cattle ranchers to help them in their working with the USDA, but it is for all of these other crops, too, across this great country, and there is incredible diversity in agriculture. What we have tried to do here is to make sure we have something that enables our Department of Agriculture and this body to help all of our producers. Without this, we are not able to do that, and that is why it is so vital that it is part of this package. With that, I turn to our committee chairman. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas. Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding to me. As has been aptly pointed out by Senator Hoeven, who, by the way, does an outstanding job as our protector on the all-powerful Senate Appropriations Committee, we are in a tough place. We really are-- rural, smalltown America--given the rural healthcare delivery system with regard to this virus. I thank Senator Fischer, who is in the business and always does a good job of telling the story of the beef producer and of always trying to tell me that Nebraska's beef is more tender or delicious than the beef in Kansas, but that is her right. As Senator Hyde-Smith has just pointed out and what we have been trying to point out--and Senator Stabenow, who just recently spoke on the floor--we on the Ag Committee like to say we are the least partisan committee in the Congress. I think that was evident by the time we passed the farm bill. It took us a year to do it--a little over that-- but we got 87 votes. It was truly bipartisan. I deeply regret that we have reached a point here in the Senate where that is not the case with regard to the whole Senate. If you talk to any agriculture commodity group, any farm organization, or just up and down Main Street throughout Kansas--as a matter of fact, I talked to the chamber of commerce, Senator Moran, who just gave some very pertinent comments to our situation out in Kansas, about the second question in: Chairman Pat, what about our rural areas? Well, at that time, we were having trouble with regard to the testing, and some rural hospitals were having to drive a great deal of miles to Topeka. That was the only source. That stopped. In other words, it hasn't stopped, it has gotten a heck of a lot better, with Quest and LabCorp and other folks who are now making these tests available. But I want to get back to agriculture, and the Senator from North Dakota is exactly right--we have been hit pretty hard. Two thousand thirteen was the last time we had our prices above the cost of production, and that involves everybody involved in agriculture, along with Senator Thune. [[Page S1934]] I am going to try to wind this down here pretty quick so we can get to you, Coop, and I thank you for your help, and I thank you for your overview of what is in this bill, what isn't in this bill, and why on Earth we can't get to it. So I think probably the best thing to do for our beef industry is to continue to work with our Secretary of Agriculture, Sonny Perdue. If there is anybody who is more knowledgeable about what we are facing, I don't know who it is. And I think possibly there could be a CCC payment that would help us out in the beef industry in particular because that is where we are really in trouble. But you could go down every commodity, and you would see the same thing. People from all of their organizations are coming forward to all of us on the Ag Committee and saying: Why can't you help? I am going to leave that subject. I think we can work on that. I think we can get some more help from CCC, and that would be a direct payment that would be immediate and that could be of help to people who are really in trouble. I want to say something else with regard to Senator Manchin, who is sitting over here by his lonesome on the other side of the aisle. I really like this guy. We are good friends. We hit it off right from the first. Both of us want the same thing. In particular, his comments this morning were about the rural healthcare delivery system in West Virginia going through the same tribulation that we are going through nationwide with regard to our rural areas. I want to point out that there is $75 billion in this bill for our rural hospitals to pay doctors and nurses who are dealing with the virus. Well, we all are doing that. It lifts the 2-percent sequester that happens all the time. You have to go back to 2013, and under the Budget Control Act that was passed at that particular time--not in force but at least was--what is the word for it? Referring to President Obama, he would always be under the Budget Control Act, finding the necessity that--no matter what we got from the CMS, the Centers for Medicare Services, which is lovingly called in our rural areas ``It's a Mess''--not under Seema Verma, though. I think she is doing a good job. But every time we would convince CMS to raise the Medicare reimbursement to critical access hospitals, of which we have over 80 in Kansas, there was, again, that 2-percent cut. So we waived that cut for the first time since 2013. In addition, let me say that there is special funding called for by all of the community healthcare centers and rural health centers--of which I know there are a lot in West Virginia, as there well are in Kansas--for telemedicine. That was something back in the day that we couldn't even have thought would be feasible, but it is now. There is a 15-percent reimbursement increase for these folks who are using telemedicine. So it is not like we haven't put together something we think will be approved. We could do more. We could do more, and the Senator from West Virginia has certainly indicated a strong interest in doing that. My point is, we could do that if we would just vote to get on the bill, and we would have 30 hours. I know that Senator Manchin and Senator Roberts, working together, could accomplish darn near everything. I see the Senator rising. I am not quite through. Mr. MANCHIN. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, if you have to. You are my distinguished friend. Mr. MANCHIN. Well, truly, we are friends, and there is not a person over there I don't consider my dear friend. A lot of times, that is used in a very colloquial way, but I mean it. The Senator from Nebraska, let me--from Kansas--let me just say this. Excuse me for pronouncing the wrong State here. You don't have a problem on this side with the 30-hour wait. That has never been. We very seldom object on anything. That is not where the problem comes from. So everyone thinking that we are going to make everybody stay here for 30 hours--that is not going to happen from the Democrats objecting. We will not. There is not a person I have spoken to who is going to stop it. What they want to do is, in good faith, get to the bill. Once we get to that bill--and in the meantime, they said: Well, let's get on the bill. Can't we at least get on it and work on it? Usually we don't move to that unless there is good faith in the beginning. Right now, there is very little good faith there from the top end of the food chain. That is the sad scenario we are in. But I can assure you, as soon as there is an agreement, we are moving, unless somebody on your side would object. There are no objections on this side. So I would hope that you all you would not use that 30-hour obstruction because it is not here. I will have a chance to speak about this more, but I just thank you because I know rural--your State is rural, my State is rural, and it is the same. These people are out there, and they are depending on us, and we have to get together here as Americans. Mr. ROBERTS. I appreciate your comments. I guess it is OK to call you Joe. Mr. MANCHIN. Please. Mr. ROBERTS. And I appreciate your friendship. You did mention something else about, there is no objection on your side. Well, about 2 hours ago, when we got this whirlwind or this dustup going again, when our distinguished leader pointed out that we have a good bill, and it is a bipartisan bill, and now we are talking about the footprint that the airlines--the carbon footprint, that we have to take a look at that, and on the boards of these corporations, we want to investigate whether they are truly diverse, et cetera, et cetera, and something about the Green New Deal. That is not pertinent to this particular situation, to say the least. Then when you said an objection, here is what I am worried about: We had the Democratic leader, whom I have known from his House days--we used to play basketball together, for goodness' sake, both of us very slow. What I was doing on the court at my age, I have no idea. My job was to set blind-side picks on Democrats, which I enjoy, one of whom was Chuck Schumer. But here we have the Democratic leader--Susan Collins, sitting right here, stood up to be recognized, and there were three objections to her even talking? That is going back to the days we really don't want to go back to. This is not the Senate I came to 24 years ago or, for that matter, the House 16 years ago or as a staff director for 12 before that and 2 before that in the Senate. I mean, I have been around here for quite a while. And these are not the worst of times. I mean, Washington was on fire when we had the horrible assassination of MLK. Then we went through Watergate, and then we went through the Vietnam war. Actually, it was the Vietnam war before Watergate. And that tore the country apart. Here in this Senate, we were able to come together to try to reach bipartisan agreement. I am telling you that this blanket of comity and respect is pretty threadbare right now. We are right there--for a lot of reasons. I could go back to the Kavanaugh hearings or the impeachment hearings, where one of the House Members--I was sitting right here, he was talking right here, looking right at me, and said: You are on trial, and if you do not vote for this, it is treachery. I said: What? Me? I mean, what was that all about? At that time, by the way, we could have taken first steps with regard to this virus. I know that the assistant or the deputy leader there on your side said: Everybody take a deep breath. We don't want to take a deep breath anywhere now. But I will tell you that I hope we can come together on this and see if we can't reach some agreement. Let's get on the bill. We have got 30 hours to do it. The Senator from West Virginia said that if we could just come to an agreement--I suppose he is meaning beyond those two doors. We have been meeting along and along and along. I would ask the Senator, the distinguished Senator who is sitting right down here, who is about ready to do a speech, how many workshops have we had? I thought there were three. I guess there are five. But each one of them worked with our Democratic counterparts, and they got--I mean, they produced a bipartisan agreement. [[Page S1935]] I really don't understand why we can't get to at least vote for cloture, and then we have 30 hours to--and maybe we could cut back that 30 hours. I would hope that is the case if we finally come to an agreement. But with some of the things that I have heard that you want put in this bill, A, they don't fit, and two, they are counterproductive. Let me just say this. There is a saying out in Dodge City, KS: There is a lot of cactus in the world; you don't have to sit on every one of them. And it appears to me that is what we are doing. I have a nice square saying that is in an 8-by-10 right next to my desk, and it is a quote from Lyndon Baines Johnson: ``Sometimes you just have to hunker down like a jackass in a hailstorm and just take it.'' Well, I am tired of just taking it. I am tired of the partisanship. I am tired of all of this work that we have put together to address what everybody understands is a national pandemic--a world pandemic--and here we are, messing around, trying to say: Oh, no, we can't vote for cloture and address some of these things with the now five working groups who have worked together to produce a product. That is wrong. That is really wrong. So I plead with my colleagues. I don't do this. I don't come down to the floor and make partisan speeches. You do that to introduce an amendment; half of your folks won't vote for it. The same thing the other way around. When they say ``Senator Roberts,'' I hope they remember that I am chairman of the Ag Committee, and I work very well with Senator Stabenow, and we produced a great farm bill. So I don't like doing this. But I have to warn my colleagues, this so-called blanket of comity that we always have here in the Senate is pretty threadbare. I hope we can get past this, and I hope we can vote to get to cloture and then get to a bill as soon as we can The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota. Mr. HOEVEN. I want to thank the senior Senator from Kansas for his comments and for his long service on behalf of agriculture, and I want to thank all of my colleagues who have spoken here. These are people who are working every day on behalf of our farmers and ranchers and on ag and on the Agriculture Committee. We fashioned something here that works for agriculture. Our message is very simple: We need to make sure our farmers and ranchers are included in this bill, and we need our colleagues across the aisle to work with us to make sure it is in the bill, and we need to get this bill passed now. With that, I would like to turn to our assistant majority leader-- also from ag country--for concluding remarks. I appreciate the patience of our colleague from West Virginia. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip. Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota for his great leadership on this issue and all over here. Senator Roberts--the longtime chairman of the Senate Ag Committee and before that, the House Ag Committee--was very instrumental in our getting a farm bill in late 2018--a farm bill which provides a safety net and provides a little bit of stability in agriculture, which, as he pointed out, has been just in the tank literally since 2013. Our producers, farmers, and ranchers across the country and in South Dakota have been operating with negative cash flows, eating into their equity, and trying to keep their operations viable, and that was before COVID-19. Now we have COVID-19, and we saw the bottom fall out of the cattle market in this country. I don't have to tell the Presiding Officer that agriculture is important. It is the lifeblood of our economy in South Dakota. It is our No. 1 industry. But that ripple effect is felt all across the country. It is our food supply. Senator Hoeven talked earlier today about the importance of ensuring that we maintain a safe, quality, predictable, and affordable food supply for people in this country, particularly when people are concerned in a time of crisis. We need to maintain that food supply. So I want to thank him and all of our colleagues here from farm country for working together to provide some assistance in this particular bill, which would hopefully give some relief for those who are out there, day in and day out, grinding it out to make sure we have the food and fiber to keep this country going and, for that matter, to feed the world. Unfortunately, again, Senate Democrats don't seem willing to do that. I was encouraged to hear just a little bit ago from my friend from West Virginia, who is an advocate for agriculture. We also had the ranking member of the Ag Committee down here earlier, saying she is willing to work with us. But, unfortunately, we don't have time to waste. We don't have time to waste. This isn't something that can be put off to another day. We have producers that, if we don't do something, we are going to leave them behind, and we need our Democratic colleagues to step up and help get this bill passed. As Senator Hoeven mentioned, the bill would provide $30 billion to replenish the Commodity Credit Corporation, and it has a temporary funding increase of an additional $20 billion in CCC funding to address the impact of the outbreak of COVID-19. This funding would allow the Department of Agriculture to quickly get assistance to farmers and ranchers throughout America who are facing market volatility and declining pricing in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Farmers and ranchers, I might add, as I already mentioned, were already dealing with a weak ag economy well before this emergency hit. I spoke with the Secretary of Agriculture a couple of days ago and conveyed to him the incredible amount of hardship and economic pain that is being created across the farm belt these days, particularly with our cattle ranchers, and the pain they are feeling as a result of these declining prices and what it might mean to their operations. So I would simply say, in supporting all of my colleagues in what they said today, that we don't know the full impact of this outbreak across the agricultural industry, but we do know this: Our producers are doing their part to keep the grocery shelves stocked and food on our tables, and we need to do our part in providing the resources necessary to support them, which is why it is so important for many of the reasons we talked about earlier today to get on this legislation and get it moving. The national economy is melting down, and, of course, as I said, in the economy out in farm country, it was happening well before the national economy. But if we don't do something to stop the bleeding and do it soon, there is going to be a whole world of hurt. Let's get this bill across the finish line. We need help from our Democratic colleagues to do that. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia. Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I want to thank all of my colleagues, who truly are all my friends, who are here expressing their concerns. I think we are all on the same side. I think that for every one of you and me and everybody within the House and Senate, we have this disease in our States and we have it in our neighborhoods and backyards. This COVID-19 doesn't know whether you are a Democrat, a Republican, or an Independent. People are scared right now. We have States that are sheltering in place. My State just announced that at 12 or 1 p.m. today, they are going to shelter in place, and I have a very vulnerable population I am concerned about. I have a very vulnerable healthcare system I am very much concerned about, because if they are not able to provide the services we are going to need and that we need now, then, Good Lord, help us all. We will be in trouble then. We are going to protect them, and that is what we are fighting for. I know they are talking about this: Why are the Democrats stalling just to get on the bill? If we just got on the bill, everything would be fine. How can we? For people to understand how this process works, we usually have an agreement before we get on a vote to pass something. If there is not an agreement, then, there is political posturing. That is what is happening. The political posturing is going on because they know there is a difference. So where can the pressure be put? I have been here for 10 years, and I have never seen the place work at all. [[Page S1936]] So I appreciate those of you who give me some historical values on how it used to work. I wish it did. I always thought that when there was good faith, whether I agreed or not, you could have a chance to amend the bill or change the bill or do something to it. We don't get that chance here. So if we start moving before we have an agreement, then there is going to be no conciliatory movement toward something to then make it happen. Where are we at right now? Let me state something with regard to the $500 billion in that bill. I don't know whether it is $1.3 trillion or $2 trillion, but I know it is moving up rapidly. But in $500 billion of it that we can basically identify, this is where I have had some problems in what I understand. First of all, there is no strong language that prohibits the stock buybacks. I know they keep saying corporate bailouts. OK, forget about the bailouts, but you tell me if this is not pretty favorably slanted to one side. There is no strong language to prohibit stock buybacks. As written, the buyback limitation can be waived by Secretary Mnuchin. Secretary Mnuchin can direct funds to whom he sees as necessary but with very, very little oversight. There is no restraint on taking the assistance and firing employees at a later time, as employers only have to keep employees ``to the extent possible,'' which is in the language. These are the concerns. The bill allows for a 6-month delay on releasing the names of businesses. Tell me why we would put a 6-month delay on releasing the names of businesses that take advantage and get this economic opportunity. Why shouldn't we be transparent? There is only a 2-year prohibition on increasing executive compensation. We have seen what happens when it runs amuck. Those are the concerns we have. Those are the concerns I have. With that, let's take the measures we agree on. We agree we should be protecting the healthcare industry. We have agreed on $100 billion. We were way off from that, but, finally, by not agreeing to move on to the bill, it is now up to $75 billion. I think when we come out this afternoon, there will be $100 billion to take care of our hospitals, our rural and other healthcare systems, so they can survive, making sure that all of our healthcare providers are protected. These are the things that we are talking about and the things we have asked for. So they start saying: Oh, just get on the bill. Yes, just get on the bill And then what happens? Nothing else happens, because then it is out of our jurisdiction, if you will, because we have little chance to intervene. The rules are that, basically, the majority has the rule. They can rule, and that is exactly how it works. So, we are trying to get a bill. There is no need for us to take a vote today because we are still working on it. I know the Secretary of Treasury is in there working on it. They are all sitting there working on it. Why would we have a vote when we knew we didn't have an agreement? But we are getting close to one, and if we get an agreement, I will state that every Democrat will vote to suspend the rules, and we will move immediately, unless there is an objection from my friends on the Republican side. That is what we are talking about. Please, let's quit blaming each other. People are depending in my State on our taking care of healthcare workers, taking care of people laid off and who don't have a paycheck through no fault of their own. Businesses have had to close through no fault of their own. Those are the people on the frontlines. I have people scared and sheltered in place right now, an elderly population. So there are things we have agreed on. I heard Senator Lankford from Oklahoma, who was speaking on the things that I agree on 1,000 percent with him. Why can't we be on that? If we can't get anything else done, let's vote today on the things we can agree on. Let's move on the healthcare, take care of COVID-19, and take care of the healthcare industry and the workers and take care of the people who lost their jobs and businesses. We are worried about a $500 billion payout with very little oversight and transparency. That is truly the problem in a nutshell, and all we are asking for, basically, is, Shouldn't the people and the taxpayers of this country understand where their money is going and the people who are going to be able to use it? Add some transparency and oversight to it. That is all we ask for, and that is all I ask for. About all those other things that have been thrown in, I am not for that, and I think you all know that. I am not for the green deal, and I think you all know that. I think there has to be an all-in energy policy approach. I think we all have to have common sense, and we have to produce affordable, dependable energy and use everything we can-- renewables and using fossil fuels in the cleanest possible way. So who is throwing that stuff in? I have no idea, but I can guarantee I wouldn't vote for it. But what I will vote for is exactly what we should agree on and what I think we do agree on. Let's come together as Americans and forget about Republicans and Democrats and get this place working again. If we had the amendment process--I was totally opposed when Senator Reid basically kind of shut things down and we weren't able to have amendments. You all were, too. We were promised that no matter who takes over leadership, by golly, the system is going to open up, and we are going to have amendments and debates on the floor. And guess what. It got worse. It didn't get better. It got worse. If you want to know why people are throwing everything but the kitchen sink into a piece of legislation, it is because they have very little opportunity to do anything here. There is too much power in the two basic leaderships. This much power should not be in so few people. All of us should be involved. I believe--and I have said this--that we all have that better angel inside of us. I hope you let her fly. I hope you let her fly today. She needs to get out and go a little bit. We need her. We need the better angels in all of us to start looking out and taking care of each other. There are a lot of people hurting and a lot of people with uncertainty right now, and I want to make sure that we fix it. I will stay here all day and all night to make sure it gets fixed--whatever it takes. With that, I ask all of my good friends--and I mean that, all my good friends--let's work together for the sake of this great country. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I just heard my friend and colleague from West Virginia say there is no reason to vote today. There are a lot of reasons to vote today. There is a country affected by disease. People are waking up anxious, scared, afraid of the disease and the economic consequences that are there. There are a lot of reasons to vote today. Every Member of this Senate needs to stand up and be counted, and for the Senator from West Virginia to say: I wouldn't be for this, and I don't know where that is coming from--well, just read the papers that are coming out of the Democratic House. Just read the papers of the demands by the Democrats to muck up the bill that is designed as a rescue operation for the American people. That is where the problem is. We need to vote today, again and again and again, until we provide the relief, the rescue that the American people need. That is why we have a dozen Republicans on this side ready to speak, standing at podiums ready to speak, and there hasn't been a single Democrat on the floor to defend their position because it is indefensible. That is where we are. We have Nancy Pelosi flying back from California because she sent the House home a week ago--they are not here--to defeat the work that we have done in a bipartisan way, and to say: Well, all of you have done nice work. Now look at our laundry list of things we are demanding: tax credits for solar panels, wind turbines, a bailout of the Postal Service. And when you go through this list, there are portions of the Green New Deal. I am a doctor. I have been on the phone with doctors around the country, with my colleagues at the Wyoming Medical Center. They are working double time, through the weekend, day and night--the nurses, the doctors, the healthcare providers--and they need help. They are looking to us for help. [[Page S1937]] They need tests, they need masks, they need respirators, and they need hope--hope that there will be a vaccine, hope that there will be a treatment. Those are the things that are in this bill that the Democrats voted to block last night and the Democrats voted to block again today, and that is only the healthcare component of it. Our economy cannot be unleashed again until after we get the healthcare component behind us. But our colleagues, our friends, our neighbors, people we know in our home States woke up today not being able to go to work, not being able to know if they are going to have a paycheck, not being able to pay their bills, not being able to know if they are going to feed their families, not being able to know that they are going to get food, if it is available, if they could have the money to pay for it. Yet we are not ready to provide relief. They need it immediately. They don't need it after the Democrats block it again and again and again. The Senator from West Virginia said: I don't know why we voted today. That is why we voted today, and that is why we need to keep voting, because the American people need relief and they need it now. This is our duty station, and I am prepared to stay here until we get this done--but to go through this. I talked to a small business owner who has a restaurant and has been there for 37 years. She doesn't know how she is going to make payroll. She never closed the doors except for snowstorms in Wyoming. It is a successful restaurant. She doesn't know how she is going to pay for the food that was delivered last week. She doesn't know how she is going to pay for healthcare. This bill takes care of so much of that. It was blocked by the Democrats today. We have a good program for small businesses. It is really good. It was worked on in a bipartisan way, but yet it is being blocked by the Democrats. They blocked even the motion to proceed to the bill. Businesses all across the country employ people, regardless of the size. It is the people who need the jobs, the people. A job is part of somebody's identity. It is who they are. The people who work realize how important it is to who they are. They feel a sense of productivity. People I know aren't looking for a check. They just want a job. They want to work. They are ready to produce, and they can't. Why? Because a disease has struck America, and the government--not the economy--the government has said ``We are going to shut down this economy,'' and the government has the responsibility to provide relief--to rescue those people and to provide immediate relief. Every Democrat came to the floor and voted against doing that last night and again this morning. We need to continue to vote. This bill is about our healthcare system. It is about our economy. It is about money in the pockets of people who, through no fault of their own, are finding themselves in a position they have never been in before--ever--where they can't go out and knock on the door and say: Will you hire me? I am ready to go to work. Whether it is a farmer or a rancher--anyone--they can't do that today because the government says: You may not. You stay home. You might have had a good job, a job you love, and you can't go to it today. Monday-- we want everyone to work on a Monday but not in America on this Monday. So there is a role and responsibility for us to step in and do what the role of government ought to be in this case of crisis, a crisis caused by both a disease and the economy, the government's action to shut down the economy. Yet Democrats, one after another, continue to block it. They are not blocking it for things that have to do with actually helping the American people. It is a wish list--a liberal wish list. It is astonishing that they are delaying direct assistance so they can play to their liberal left--the extremists, the environmental extremists, the labor special interests. We are here trying to fight for the men and women in the street and our hometowns, yet they are fighting for the Green New Deal. Bernie Sanders may have lost to Joe Biden, but the Green New Deal of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and that entire crew is alive and well in the Democratic cloakroom and is controlling the actions today on the floor of the U.S. Senate. They want to put up an entire cap-and-trade system for the airline industry. That is a worthy debate to have, but not on this bill. They want to expand tax credits for wind and for solar power. That is a debate that is worthy of being held, but not on this bill today. That is not going to help one person who is having problems breathing to get a respirator that they need. That is what is holding this up. We know Nancy Pelosi has been pushing this extreme environmental agenda from the moment she cut the deal to remain as Speaker and said to the liberals: I will do what you want if you just allow me to be Speaker again. And, now, through a letter that she has written to the Democrats, she is bragging that she is carrying the flag for the Democratic agenda. The Speaker is pushing for diversity on corporate boards, for collective bargaining, and for election reform. There are proposals here in her proposal--she said: I am going to go write the bill requiring early voting and requiring same-day voter registration. Where does that fit into a bill to rescue the American people who, right now, find themselves in the throes of a disease that may kill them and in an economy that has been shut down? That is why the Democrats aren't on this floor, because what they are doing cannot be defended. So, I would just say and I would appeal to my colleagues: Let us do the work of the Senate. It is time for everyone to stand up and be responsible. Let us get this done. Let us get this passed. The days for political games are now behind us. Everyone who is watching should understand the House of Representatives is not in town. They have been gone for a week. Only Nancy Pelosi just flew back from California to throw a monkey wrench into the works, and we need to get this done. We failed the cloture vote last night, blocked by the Democrats, and at that time, we found that one of our colleagues had tested positive for coronavirus. We failed a cloture vote today, blocked by the Democrats again, when we learned that the spouse of one of our colleagues is hospitalized, on oxygen, with this same disease that is hitting the entire country. We can litigate the Green New Deal another day. Americans' lives and livelihoods are at stake. That is the situation we are in today for the Nation. We can litigate election reform another day. We can debate diversity on corporate boards and airline fuel standards; we can do all of that another day. We can talk about cap and trade another day. America needs now to know how we, as a nation, will survive from the standpoint of our health and our economy. We need immediate relief. The bill on the floor accomplishes that. We need to make sure that, when Americans wake up tomorrow, they don't have that same fear and trepidation about the disease, as well as their families' well-being. We need to take that decisive action today. The time for politics is beyond us. We need to vote today, and we need to pass this today. I know my colleagues are on the floor. I know Senator Portman is here after me and Senator Cotton after him. We have a dozen who are ready to speak, but I thank you for your indulgence. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Wyoming, and I think he has made it very clear what is at stake here. We are in a crisis. Our economy is in a free fall. The people we represent and families are suffering. The healthcare system is under tremendous stress. I spent the morning on the phone, talking to Ohioans and small business owners, people who are out of a job and worried and nervous. We all know somebody who has lost a job. We all know somebody who has tested positive for this virus. Some of us, including me, know somebody who has died from the coronavirus. We need to pull together as Republicans and Democrats, as Americans, and address this crisis. I got to listen this afternoon to colleagues of mine on the other side of the aisle talk about the legislation that is before us, and I have to tell you, it was like they were [[Page S1938]] talking about another bill, not the one that we actually are asking Democrats to allow us to vote on. The one we are asking them to allow us to vote on is the product of a bipartisan process. The majority leader set up five different task forces. Each task force is represented by Republicans and Democrats. I was in one of them--two Republicans and two Democrats. We sat down, and we hammered out details. We took Democratic ideas, and they are represented in the legislation. This process we have gone through--very different, by the way, from what happened in the House with regard to the first bill. We got an $8.3 billion healthcare bill. We also had a phase 2 bill, which is about $200 billion, that provided free testing and health insurance and healthcare and paid leave. Now we have this bill that is $1.8 trillion--$1.8 trillion. That is about as big as our entire domestic discretionary spending, which we approve here every year. Yet Democrats are saying that it is not enough money. So the most charitable way to describe what the Democrats are asking for now--although Senator Barrasso did a good job of laying out some of the outrageous demands that have come up that have nothing to do with coronavirus--but the most charitable way to say it is that they want more money. They want more money for States. They want more money for hospitals. They want more money for so many things. Guess what. There is $1.8 trillion in this bill, including billions of dollars--hundreds of billions of dollars--for those purposes. If we find out in 3 weeks, in 6 weeks, or in 2 months we need to do more, we will. But that is not an excuse for stopping the progress of this legislation now when it is so badly needed. One of the calls I got this morning was from a small business owner. Do you know what he said to me? He said the same thing I am sure all of my colleagues are hearing, which is this: I am watching; I am waiting; I don't want to pull the trigger and let my employees go. I started this business. I started it from scratch, and now I have to see the prospect of these people, whom I know and love, losing their jobs. I am waiting. I am waiting to see what you do today. The country is waiting. The markets are waiting. People are hurting. They are suffering, but they are waiting to see if we can get our act together and actually come up with something that helps them. And do you know what? This legislation does exactly what all of us, I thought, wanted to do. There are three things it does. One, it helps keep people at work. We want people to stay with their employer, have a job, have their healthcare, and have their retirement. Two, it helps workers who, through no fault of their own, lose their jobs. This legislation does that. And, three, let's get this healthcare crisis under control. Let's slow the spread of the coronavirus. All three of those things are precisely what is in this legislation. Last night, I went through in detail and described every detail of how it addresses that and where the bipartisan ideas came from. I won't do that now because I see the majority leader on the floor, and I want him to have an opportunity to speak. But I will tell you, those three objectives are in this legislation--specifically laid out in this legislation. On the healthcare side, which is so important, we need more masks; we need more gowns; we need more ventilators; we need more respirators; and we need to have more testing and a system to track that. That is in this legislation. There is over $4 billion to CDC to do exactly that. We need to have some data, some metrics, some measurements to know how we are doing and to be able to get out of this crisis because, until we deal with the healthcare crisis, we will continue to have this failure of our economic system because we are letting people down right now. Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. PORTMAN. I will yield. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, beyond what the Senator is accurately pointing out, they put us in the following procedural position. By refusing to jump over some of these procedural steps along the way--it would not disadvantage their negotiating one bit--they have put us in a position where one Senator 1 of 100--1--could keep us here until Friday or Saturday. Our constituents are saying to act now--as the Senator from Ohio was pointing out--minus procedural roadblocks in a time of national emergency. Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, reclaiming my time, that is added to the absolutely inaccurate descriptions I have heard from the other side as to what is in this legislation. In other words, they are blocking us from moving forward, creating the procedural hurdles that the majority leader just talked about, but also doing so by telling the American people, for instance, there is not enough in here for small businesses. My gosh, this is an unprecedented program for small businesses, something we have never done before. We are telling businesses: If you are paying your employees to stay there, you not only get a loan, you get a grant They say there was not enough in here to help people who are falling between the cracks. It is an unprecedented unemployment insurance system that we are setting up here. By the way, if you look at the unemployment insurance side, look at it this way. What we are saying is that we want to increase by eight times the cost of the national unemployment insurance system. That is how I look at it. It is an additional $600 per week, per person. It is a broader employment system because we are going to bring in people who are self-employed, people who run the gig economy--something that we should be doing as a matter of reform, perhaps, but in this case we have to do it. These people are hurting too. This is unprecedented to provide people who are low- and moderate-income Americans the ability to have wage replacement through unemployment insurance. That has never been done before. That is in this legislation. This is a rescue package. It is to help people weather the storm. It is to ensure that we have the ability to say to the people who are calling us and saying ``Please help us'' that help is on the way. Are we going to solve every problem in this one bill? No, although $1.8 trillion goes a long way toward solving the problem. But we will be back here again. We will be back here to ensure that we can fine- tune this legislation. And if we need to react to other challenges, we have to do that because our constituents need it. This is a crisis. But in the meantime, let's pass this legislation. It does help small businesses and keep people at work. It does protect those workers who lose their job through no fault of their own. It does take our healthcare system, which is under such tremendous stress, and improve it in every respect to deal with this coronavirus, to slow the spread and ensure that we can tell the American people: Not only are you going to be safer and healthier if this legislation passes, but guess what, you have a fair chance of keeping your job and being able to take care of your family. With that, I yield to my colleague. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut. Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, let me just make clear what happened over the course of the last couple of days, because I heard many of my colleagues come down to the floor today and claim that this is a bipartisan bill that is on the floor of the U.S. Senate today, which would strike a lot of Americans as curious because the votes are not bipartisan, so how could that be? How could it be a bipartisan process, as has been claimed by my Republican colleagues, yet there is not bipartisan agreement? Well, let's start from the beginning. Instead of deciding to write this legislation from the beginning, with Republicans and Democrats in the room, the leader decided to write the bill initially, bringing together a consensus of Republican Senators and then bringing Democrats to the table. And there was a period of time--for about 24 hours--in which Democrats were in the room, and we were making progress, and that was a great 24 hours. And then, on Saturday night, all of a sudden, Democrats were let out of the room. And on Sunday morning, lobbyists on K Street sent a draft of legislation to chiefs of staff here that Democrats had no part in writing. So you can't call it a bipartisan piece of legislation if Democrats [[Page S1939]] weren't involved in the beginning, and then they were let out of the room at the end. We appreciate having some input in the middle, but we clearly ended up with a product that doesn't have bipartisan buy-in, and much of that is because of the process that led us here. The decision could have been made to include both parties at the table from the very beginning because, guess what. We do have differences of opinion. We do have different ways of looking at this crisis. And our objections, our policy objections--I mean, spare me the righteous indignation about Democrats trying to settle outside political scores in the context of this legislation. Let me tell you what I care about. What I care about is making sure that if we are going to spend $2 trillion, we spend it wisely. And if you spend $2 trillion, and you don't stop the virus, then you haven't done anything meaningful in the long run because this is, first, a public health crisis that is causing an economic crisis. So, yes, one of the things that is an open issue in negotiations right now is whether we are putting in enough money for healthcare providers, nursing homes, hospitals, States, and municipalities to give them the resources to stop this virus in its tracks. We don't believe that this bill, today, has enough resources in it for States, municipalities, hospitals, nursing homes, and healthcare providers to stop the virus. We don't think that this Congress is serious enough about the crisis in the medical supply chain today, in which our States and our hospitals and our healthcare providers are engaged in a ``Lord of the Flies'' environment, where they are trying to bid against each other for scarce medical supplies. We think this bill shortchanges the people who are actually going to stop this virus in its tracks. So, yes, we don't think it is wise to rush to spend $2 trillion if the bill doesn't stop the public health epidemic. That is a policy disagreement we have. It is a policy disagreement we have. And had Democrats been in the room with Republicans at the beginning, middle, and end, we wouldn't be here today. As many Republicans who want can come down to the floor and say that it is one party who is responsible for this impasse, but had Democrats not been ushered out of the negotiations on Saturday night, had Democrats been there from the beginning, we likely wouldn't be here. Second, yes, we do have policy disagreements over how we spend the enormous amount of money that is going to end up in the hands of corporations. And for those of us who were here in 2008, for those of us who voted for that bailout bill, we have regrets and reservations about how that went down because much of that money ended up in the pockets of CEOs and shareholders. Now, I get it. We want to get the money out fast, and you are not going to be able to account for every single dollar, but what we are talking about here, which is applying very minimal conditions for job retention to literally hundreds of billions of dollars of my taxpayer money, is not wise policy. If we don't have assurances that the billions of dollars that we are going to hand to big companies is used to preserve jobs, then I am going to tell you that my constituents don't want to spend that money unless they know that it is going to hold on to jobs, and we have policy disagreements about that right now. I take my Republican friends at their word that they believe that the restrictions in the bill are good enough. We don't think they are. We don't think they are. And so we think we should work together throughout the day to get this right, to make sure that every dollar is there that is necessary to stop this virus, to stop looking at it as an economic crisis first and a public health crisis second, and that we should make sure that there are real requirements on this $2 trillion to make sure that it doesn't end up in the hands of people who don't need it; that it ends up protecting jobs--not just in the hope of protecting jobs but the actual result is protecting jobs. These are policy disagreements we have, but they are disagreements that we are still fighting over today because of the process--because of the process. So you are angry, and we are angry. We are angry for being shut out at the beginning, and we are angry for being shut out at the end. Our Republican colleagues knew they couldn't pass anything without 60 votes. They knew, as they were developing this legislation, that they needed to get bipartisan buy-in. And yet there was a limited opportunity for us to have input here, and now we are engaged in a series of votes that are forgone conclusions until we get on the same page. And we can because, from what I understand--and I admit, I am not one of the negotiators in the room, but from what I understand, these are not unbridgeable differences. These are not unbridgeable differences. We can figure out a way to put tighter controls on the funding that is going to companies and corporations. Let's just make sure that if we are going to spend $2 trillion, we spend it right and make sure we aren't shortchanging our States and our hospitals. There are provisions in the first draft of this bill that would limit which kind of providers get Medicaid dollars and which will not. Our belief is that that language actually leaves a whole bunch of healthcare providers out in the cold. Now, some have said that was intentional. That was because Republicans didn't want Medicaid dollars to go to abortion providers. That sounds like politics to me, but that is just something I read in the paper. I don't know that that is true. What I do know is that, whether or not that decision was about politics--the politics of reproductive healthcare--it still is just not good policy to leave a whole bunch of healthcare providers outside when it comes to the additional Medicaid money that is absolutely necessary to make sure we have what it takes to stand up defenses against this virus. That is a policy difference. I could sit here making accusations that Republicans are bringing outside political issues into this process, like Senator Barrasso made accusations about Democrats, but aside from that question, it just still is not good policy to limit the number of healthcare providers who can get this additional Medicaid money when everybody is in this together, when we know that every single healthcare institution, by the end of this week, is going to be dealing with patients who have positive tests for COVID-19. These are policy differences but policy differences that didn't have to be outstanding today had the process, run by the majority party, been different and been more inclusive. I agree that back home my constituents do not care about who takes credit for this and who drafts it. They want a bill done. They want assurances that money is on the way. I think we have agreement on big pieces of this. I may not love the small business provision of this bill. I put a different concept on the table that I think is better than the one my Democratic and Republican colleagues have come up with. But do you know what? On that front, I will not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I think we have made tremendous progress on employment compensation insurance. There are big titles of this bill that I think are in good places. We should be working out the details of those outstanding issues right now rather than spending all of our time on the floor casting broadsides against each other. I understand my Republican colleagues are complimenting themselves on how many of them are down here on the floor blaming Democrats. You are right. There are not as many Democrats here levying the same charges against Republicans, but it would be better if we were all spending time trying to work out these final differences because we can get there. We can get there. I think we can get there by the end of the day if Republicans are committed to making sure that we attack the virus first, that we don't shortchange the public health response, and that we make sure our taxpayers don't end up subsidizing the profits and pocketbooks of people who don't need any more help from this government. Thank you. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa. Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, our country is facing a crisis. Maybe I don't [[Page S1940]] need to whisper that. Our country is facing a crisis. I have served many times over--many times over--in crisis: floods, hurricanes, and war in a slightly different suit. We are facing a crisis. We have three States that have had National Guardsmen activated in support of the coronavirus pandemic. We are in a crisis. And right now, right here in Congress, we have the ability--the duty--to act and to provide additional, much needed relief to the American people. Last night, and, unfortunately, yet again today, have been very, very disappointing displays of putting partisan politics ahead of the immediate needs of the American people. Now, some would call this righteous indignation. I say, no, it is fighting for the American people. My friends on the other side of the aisle delayed--no, let's say it the way it is. They blocked--they blocked--this package to move to cloture to further debate this bill, this bipartisan relief package. Let me make this clear. The votes we have been taking haven't even been on the final bill. It is simply a way for us to continue negotiating and debating on a path forward on a bipartisan relief package--a package that, again--I am going to echo what my colleague from Ohio said--was written in a bipartisan way, two Republicans and two Democrats from those lead committees assigned to these task forces. Folks, Iowans deserve better than this. All Americans deserve better than this. This is no time for political games and partisan wish lists--and, yes, there are partisan wish lists out there--of things that have nothing to do with the immediate needs of this pandemic. This is a time for action, folks, and it is a time for leadership. Look, folks, the Senate took up a House-led phase 2 package that many of us considered not perfect. Phase 2, now, let's keep that in mind. There are many phases going on during this pandemic. Phase 2, we didn't feel that was perfect. Well, what happens when a phase 2 is not perfect? You move to a phase 3 because we need relief. We put our differences aside here in the Senate, and we supported--we supported the phase 2 package and provided the second round of immediate relief for our workers, our families, our seniors, and our businesses across the country. Why? Folks, gosh, darn it, it is the right thing to do. Why can't my Democratic colleagues do the same? We need to be working in the most efficient and effective way possible to get immediate relief to the men, the women, and the children across this country. We need to give them what they need. I have spoken directly with Iowans by phone all week: the small businessowners, the members of our ag community, many workers at our hospitals and in our healthcare industry, these moms and dads, the employees and employers, the grandmas and the grandpas, nurses and doctors, small businessowners, farmers, and veterans; you name it. They are all in crisis at this very moment. I can't tell you how many of those Iowans were crying on the phone with me. They keep saying: We need it now. We need relief now. Maybe you don't think, across the aisle, that phase 3 is perfect, but--you know what--the longer we delay this, the more Iowans I am going to hear crying on the other end of the phone. Not one of them has told me: Don't pass this bill. Not a single one of them. What they have said is it needs to be done today. Again, I will remind you that there are States where we have mobilized National Guard soldiers. The President and those Governors don't just mobilize National Guard soldiers because it is a fun thing to do. They do it because we are a nation in crisis. Just overnight in Iowa, we had 15 more cases, and that is a total of 105 cases of coronavirus in my home State. That is not a lot compared to other States, but--you know what--Iowa is not populated a lot like other States. In Iowa, 105 is a lot. Just a couple hours ago, I was on a call with Iowa's State leaders who were at the State Emergency Operations Center. Let me say that again--Emergency Operations Center, an EOC. You don't just set those up for fun, folks. You set them up when your State is in crisis. They gave us a picture of what is going on with our workers and our small businesses on the ground in Iowa. Within 3 hours, the State received over 11,000 calls for unemployment insurance, and 2,000 of them are self-employed. They will not qualify for unemployment insurance. You know what would relieve their hurt? This package, phase 3. Meanwhile, my Democratic colleagues are holding this bill up that would actually deliver the relief that is necessary for these workers whom I just mentioned for things that have nothing to do with a crisis. Senate Democrats are stalling funding for hospitals and small businesses until they get to jam through their Green New Deal. You tell me: What does placing emissions standards on airlines have to do with getting Iowa families and workers the relief they need right now? The Green New Deal was brought up on this very floor last year. How many of them voted for it? None. None. Big zero. Big zero. They didn't believe in it then, so why are they trying to jam it through now? Americans from every corner of this Nation are looking to the Senate for more help. This is an extraordinary situation, folks, and it requires an extraordinary response. This is, arguably, the biggest bill ever--nearly $2 trillion of funding. But is that enough? If we were offering up $3 trillion, would it be enough? If it were $4 trillion, would it be enough? I guarantee you that our friends on the other side of the aisle would say: Oh, that is not enough. We need the Green New Deal. We need XYZ-- which has nothing to do with the COVID-19 crisis. We are better than this. Let's come together in a bipartisan way, as we have done through much of this process. We took up phase 2. We supported it. I was glad to support it because it was the right thing to do. Let's deliver for the American people. It is our duty. We do not have time to delay. We must pass this additional relief now. Again, it is phase 3. There may be many more phases to go. And if the Democrats believe it is the right thing to do, they will get this package done today, and we will move on and have discussions for yet another phase. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, America is in crisis. Time is of the essence, and the Senate needs to work on a bipartisan basis to get the job done and get it done today, without delay. We see our fellow Americans all across this country uniting at this time of crisis--neighbors helping neighbors, people helping throughout their communities. We are watching our healthcare workers on the frontlines of fighting this virus, true heroes who are putting themselves at risk every day in order to help patients coming in the door. They are facing extreme shortages in personal protective equipment. We need to rush that out in much greater volumes to protect them. We still have a huge shortage of tests in this country and got caught way behind the curve, and we are having to catch up. We are trying to manufacture ventilators to help those who are sick and those who may get sick. In doing that, Americans are coming together. We have seen stories of notices going out to dentists' offices and others who have important personal protective equipment like masks but aren't needing them right now, to try to rush those to local hospitals. We have seen nurses and doctors and other healthcare workers on the frontline coming together, and that is exactly what this Senate and House need to do. We need to do what Americans around the country are doing, uniting to help one another and help our country. We did that on rounds 1 and 2. We worked very quickly to put together an $8.3 billion package for round 1. What did that include? More resources for our public health infrastructure, more resources to try to accelerate the development of a vaccine and therapeutics. That was all good work. On round 2, what did we do? We said we want to make sure that tests for the coronavirus are free because we don't want Americans not going to get tests because they can't afford them. We had to fight for that on the Democratic [[Page S1941]] side, but it became bipartisan in the end. We worked to provide more paid sick leave because we don't think it is a good idea for workers who are living paycheck to paycheck to feel like they have got to go to work when they are sick even if it means they are going to potentially spread the virus. We want to make sure that they can pay the bills at home and stay home and not spread the virus. The provision in round 2 regarding paid sick leave was good. There are still big gaps in it. So how did rounds 1 and 2 come to pass? I hear talk over here that this is all a House initiative. Actually, it was a bipartisan initiative. The White House sat down with Speaker Pelosi, Secretary Mnuchin with Speaker Pelosi, and they hammered out rounds 1 and 2 in a bipartisan fashion. They came to the U.S. Senate, and they were passed with big bipart