April 9, 2020 - Issue: Vol. 166, No. 68 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 2nd Session

[Pages S2169-S2170]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  This is an unfortunate moment for the U.S. Senate. We came together 
on a bipartisan basis just a very short time ago to pass the CARES Act. 
It passed here 96 to nothing. That followed two other bipartisan 
efforts that came out of the House, passed the Senate, and were signed 
by the President, again, with overwhelming support.
  Yet, today, we see from the majority leader a complete political 
stunt here on the floor of the U.S. Senate--something that does not 
have bipartisan support, something that is go it alone, take it or 
leave it, and totally violates the spirit all of us have been working 
on during this crisis where we were able to come together in the U.S. 
Senate and the House of Representatives with the White House to, on 
three prior occasions, pass legislation in a way that addressed the 
issues that are important to this country.
  Yet, today, we have this situation where the majority leader knew 
full well there was not agreement and consensus on moving forward with 
this proposal. That is why we are here today. This was, in fact, 
designed to fail, designed as a political stunt. It is actually not the 
first time we have seen this. You may recall that, just before we came 
together and passed the CARES Act 96-0, the majority leader came to the 
floor of the Senate back then and tried to ram through an unfinished 
product while negotiations were going on between Secretary Mnuchin and 
Democrats in the House and the Senate to try to finalize the bill, and 
that actually caused unnecessary delay. But the majority leader came to 
the floor then and tried to ram it through. It didn't work then, and it 
is not going to work today.
  I would ask the majority leader--and I think all of us would--to go 
back to trying to address these issues the way we addressed them in a 
successful manner before. I am going to shortly propose an amendment 
that addresses some of those concerns--an amendment to the majority 
leader's proposal.
  I would like to address some of the issues first, and my colleague, 
Senator Cardin, has addressed many with respect to small businesses. 
First of all, he pointed out that the one program to help small 
businesses that has actually really run out of money is the emergency 
loan and grant program.
  Let's talk about the PPP program. This is a really important program 
to incentivize small businesses and nonprofits to keep employees on the 
payroll and allow them to help keep the lights on, pay fixed costs, pay 
the mortgage, pay the rent, whatever it may be, so that they can emerge 
on the other side of this storm without having had to fold. Many of us 
anticipated long before the CARES Act passed that this program would 
need more money. I was part of a group that proposed $600 billion for a 
program like this, recognizing the demand would be huge, as it is on 
other programs. It is not just in need of more money. It needs some 
important fixes, which I daresay would have bipartisan support as well.
  I don't know if the majority leader saw the letter just this morning 
from the National Restaurant Association. Here is what they say:

       The PPP is funded at $349 billion, and we expect that 
     lenders will reach that ceiling shortly. We appreciate the 
     bipartisan calls this week to provide prompt additional 
     funding for the program.

  Then they go on to say:

       However, equally important is the need to address the 
     limitations of the program that do not recognize the unique 
     and evolving challenges of the restaurant business cycle and 
     our path to recovery.

  This is not a Republican group or a Democratic group. This is a group 
that represents small businesses, restaurants, just trying to get by, 
and what they say to us this morning is: Yes, we do need additional 
money. We know that. But equally important, let's fix some of the 
kinks, and there are kinks in this program.
  I got a letter at 12:44 a.m. this morning from a small business owner 
who had been banking with Wells Fargo. Then, of course, Wells Fargo hit 
the cap. We thought we had dealt with that in recent days. But he is 
not sure he is still going to be able to get that loan through Wells 
Fargo, and he says:

       I've also now looked at more than 100 websites of 7(a) 
     lenders in the greater DC area and have found that NONE--
     capital letters NONE--will accept a PPP application from any 
     small business that did not bank with them before February 
     15, 2020.

  Here are some other headlines in recent days:
  ``Baltimore-area small businesses complain of continuing problems 
gaining access to federal lending program.''
  `` `Nightmare': 3 small-business owners describe process of applying 
for PPP coronavirus loans.''
  The Journal Record: ``Community bankers frustrated with PPP 
rollout.''
  Another headline, this one from another part of the country: ``PPP 
loan plan a mess so far for small businesses riding out coronavirus 
crisis.''
  ``Billions `disbursed' through Paycheck Protection Program? Small 
businesses say not yet.''
  The Wall Street Journal: ``Big Banks Favor Certain Customers in $350 
Billion Small-Business Loan Program.''
  Another article: ``Many small businesses are being shut out of the 
new loan program by major banks.''
  Mr. President, what we are saying here today is, yes, we know we need 
more money for this program. Many of us predicted this before we passed 
the CARES Act. But for goodness' sakes, let's take the opportunity to 
make some bipartisan fixes to allow this program to work better for the 
very people it is designed to help: small businesses, nonprofits.
  That is what they are asking us to do. That is what the restaurant 
association is asking us to do. That is what

[[Page S2170]]

they want us to do, and we could do it probably just as quickly if the 
majority leader took a moment to sit down with us and negotiate that 
piece.
  There are also other major demands on the system right now that we 
should address at this moment, and one of them is something I know we 
are all hearing about every day, which is to protect the healthcare 
workers on the frontlines. After all, if we want to address the 
economic crisis, we need to address the health crisis that precipitated 
that. We need to flatten this virus out, bring it down, and that is the 
best way to get on the road to economic recovery.
  I am sure all of my colleagues are hearing from their nurses and 
doctors and frontline healthcare workers about the urgent need for 
personal protective equipment. We provided funds in the original bill, 
but we know, today, that that will be exhausted quickly. We know it 
because we can add up the requests coming from around the country. So 
let's address that issue. We are hearing about it every day.
  Just yesterday at our delegation, our region, Senator Cardin and I 
and other members of the Maryland delegation, we wrote to FEMA just 
yesterday, to the Administrator of FEMA. We pointed out that in our 
most recent requests, Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia 
received just a small percentage of the equipment that we requested 
from FEMA. The District received no hospital ventilators. I would point 
out for all of us who are following this, it is predicted that this--
Maryland, DC, and Virginia--is going to be one of the next hotspots. 
Zero ventilators, zero safety goggles--we asked for 663,000 gloves, and 
over 1 million respirators masks. We got 4,000 of one. That is one 
problem we need to address on an urgent basis, just as urgently as we 
need to address the small business situation.
  Testing--my goodness, look, this virus, we all know, got an 8 to 10-
week head start on us because we were flat-footed when it came to 
testing. We need a national rapid testing system so that we can ensure 
that people will get the tests and find out whether they have the 
virus. That not only helps us fight the virus, but it will also help us 
as we try to get the country back to work on the other end of this. I 
would propose those are real needs as well and that we can address 
those here now.
  In addition to that, as Senator Cardin said, we just spoke to 
Maryland's Governor yesterday who, in addition to being Maryland's 
Governor, is the head of the National Governors Association. He and 
Governor Cuomo have worked very closely together. We have a bipartisan 
request from the National Governors Association to help States and 
local jurisdictions. We have been on the phone nonstop with our local 
officials. They are running out of equipment. We have got firefighters 
who need help. We have emergency responders who need help.
  All of these requests are urgent and, I believe, could be dealt with 
on a bipartisan basis, if the majority leader would just take a moment, 
instead of trying to rush this through, and we could actually get it 
done, as we were able to do before with the 96-to-nothing vote.
  So, at this time, Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk. I 
know people are anxious to get out of here. We didn't have to come in 
at all, if it hadn't been for the decision to try to ram this through. 
I just want to make that point. To the majority leader, we knew this 
wasn't going to get through. I see people are frustrated and want to 
leave, but let's get it done, and let's get it done right, and let's 
have another 96-to-nothing vote here in the U.S. Senate.
  So I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader modify the 
request and ask that the amendment at the desk, which is the text of 
the interim emergency COVID-19 Relief Act, be agreed to; the bill, as 
amended, be read a third time and passed with no further intervening 
action or debate.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the 
modification?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Is there objection to the original request?
  Mr. CARDIN. I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would just repeat that all the 
amendment I offered would do is change the amount in the bill--that is 
all--to respond to the obvious emergency we have with the Paycheck 
Protection Program.

                          ____________________