September 10, 2020 - Issue: Vol. 166, No. 156 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 2nd Session

[Pages S5529-S5532]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Coronavirus

  Mr. DURBIN. I want to thank my colleague from New York for his 
comments this morning. He is right. We have seen this play before. We 
know how it ends. Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, comes to 
the floor and proclaims that his latest creation is bipartisan; the 
Democrats have a choice to vote yes or no; take it or leave it; we are 
done.
  We have been through this over and over again. That is not how 
Congress or human activity works. We have a split government between 
Democrats and Republicans. When we sit down together and compromise, 
good things can happen. We proved it March 26. The vote was 96 to 0 for 
the CARES Act, a $3 trillion bill early on to address the coronavirus 
pandemic and to deal with the serious challenges to our economy.
  Thank goodness we did it. It gave $600 a week in additional Federal 
supplements and unemployment to families who were facing layoffs and 
closures of their businesses. We helped

[[Page S5530]]

small businesses injecting billions of dollars back into protecting 
their payroll and keeping the lights on for the day when they can 
return.
  It worked, and it worked on a bipartisan basis, but where we are 
today reflects a failure and a repetition on the Republican side.
  Explain to me this: Why did the Republican Senate leader refuse to 
physically present himself at any stage of the negotiation since March 
26 for relief from this coronavirus pandemic? That is right. Senator 
McConnell refuses to enter the room where representatives of the White 
House and Democratic congressional leaders were meeting to discuss a 
bipartisan compromise. We can't reach a compromise unless we clearly 
have all the parties at the table. When the Republican congressional 
leaders--McConnell, McCarthy of California on the House side--boycott 
these meetings for negotiations, nothing happens.
  I can't tell you how many times back in Illinois during the August 
recess I was asked, so are you going back to Washington?
  I said: Yes, we are planning on going back the first week in 
September.
  What are you going to go?
  I said: I don't know.
  At this point, there has been no negotiation and compromise. Today we 
have a vote. We have been through this before. It is a McConnell 
proposal that was not put to any kind of bipartisan negotiation. It is 
a one-sided offering. It fails in so many respects.
  Think if you are unemployed, trying to make your mortgage payments, 
car payments, medical bill payments, credit card payments, put food on 
the table, make sure the kids are ready to go back to school, and 
Senator McConnell announces, well, we are going to cut that check you 
have been receiving for unemployment benefits in half. It will not be 
$600 a week; it will be $300 a week.
  Why? For that family, their needs and their bills are still the same. 
The economy is still hurting, with 30 million-plus Americans out of 
work, 800,000 in Illinois receiving unemployment benefits, I am sure 
thousands in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. And yet the reality is, what 
is going to be proposed by Senator McConnell today will create a 
hardship on these families they never envisioned.
  Is there any money in there to protect these families from being 
evicted? No. Wait a minute. How about food stamps and SNAP? Many of 
these families are struggling to put food on the table. Any help in 
this bill for them? No. How about money for testing so that we can find 
out if people have positive results and should quarantine themselves 
and stay away from others? No, not the kind of investment that is 
needed at this moment in history.
  Time and again, what this Senator from Kentucky has given us is just 
an effort to say we tried. But he didn't. He didn't present himself at 
one of the negotiations to make a bipartisan bill.
  There is one provision I just want to spend a minute on here that 
really is troubling. Senator McConnell has announced for months that 
nothing will move, nothing will help Americans unemployed or small 
businesses until he gets what he called his redline proposal on 
liability immunity.
  Basically, what they have done is to write a provision in this bill 
which absolves businesses from their responsibility to the public and 
to their employees when it comes to safety in the workplace and the 
marketplace. They have argued they have to do it because of the tsunami 
of frivolous lawsuits they anticipate because of COVID-19.
  It turns out that that so-called tsunami has never materialized. The 
lawsuits that are being filed are primarily by businesses against 
insurance companies to decide coverage under insurance policies and by 
inmates in prisons who are protesting what they consider to be inhumane 
conditions in the midst of a pandemic. It is only a handful of lawsuits 
that have been filed against businesses or malpractice suits related to 
COVID-19 infections
  Here is the bottom line: Conscientious businesspeople in Illinois and 
across America are prepared to make their business place safe for the 
people who work there in the marketplace.
  What they need is a rational, clear statement of public health 
experts as to what they must do. I heard this over and over again. They 
said to me: Senator, give me the standards on social distancing and 
labeling and sanitizers and masks, and we will live up to them.
  We can never guarantee that someone will not file a frivolous 
lawsuit, but we should be able to say to people, if you will follow the 
public health experts with a real standard of care, then your motion to 
dismiss is going to prevail in that lawsuit, and that will be the end 
of it.
  But Senator McConnell thinks there is a better way to really absolve 
them from meeting any standard when it comes to public health. In fact, 
what he proposes today basically says: If you try to comply with any 
local ordinance, good enough; enough said; it doesn't have to be any 
standard of public health that is credible.
  This doesn't keep America safe. What it is going to do is encourage 
the bad actors to do little or nothing. If we are going to deal with 
this pandemic, everyone has to be serious about it--from wearing these 
masks to social distancing, to putting up with what has become a 
tedious responsibility of staying away from friends and family when you 
want to be with them to get this behind us.
  When it comes to the business and marketplace, the same thing 
applies. They are going to have to pitch in, if they want to reopen--
and I wish they could today or tomorrow--but if I, they went to reopen, 
they have to pitch in with a good-faith effort to meet a good public 
standard. I will stand by them, and everyone else will too.
  Senator McConnell's approach absolves them from responsibility. It is 
liability immunity and an invitation for bad actors to do little or 
nothing in protecting innocent people, including their own employees.
  I am going to yield the floor at this point and say that we can do 
better than what Senator McConnell is offering the Senate today. We can 
gather on a bipartisan basis and reach a compromise if he will attend 
the negotiations.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have listened to the minority whip 
here. I would say that I agree with him. This bill that we will have an 
opportunity to vote on later this afternoon does not have everything in 
it. I think almost--I think every one of us would agree, it doesn't 
have everything that we would like. It certainly doesn't have 
everything that I would like. In fact, it has a few things in there 
that I would have just as soon be jettisoned.
  What we will have an opportunity to vote on today is a targeted 
relief measure. It is targeted toward our small business men and women 
who have been feeling the kick to the gut on a daily basis in my State 
and certainly in a State like Florida that relies on tourism. It is 
targeted relief that is designed to help our kids get back into school 
and teachers to be able to be in a safe environment. It is targeted 
relief that is designed to help provide additional childcare resources. 
It is targeted relief to help us advance to a vaccine that is readable 
and traceable and affordable to all Americans. It is targeted relief 
that will help us with additional testing.
  I think we recognize that more testing is going to be better than 
less testing. There is assistance for the U.S. Postal Service. It is 
not enough, in my view. I would like to see it increased significantly, 
but that is not in there. But there is some targeted relief for our 
Postal Service as well.
  The minority whip mentions the liability protection that is included 
within this measure. It has been no secret that that has been a 
priority not only of the majority leader but of a majority of so many 
of us who have looked at and heard from those in our communities, our 
school districts that are concerned about their liability, our small 
businesses that are concerned about reopening with no liability. This 
is not a ``get out of jail free'' card. This is designed that if you 
have followed the protocols, if you have followed the requirements that 
have been set out there, that you are not going to lose that business. 
Your school district is not going to be, really in terms of their 
funding, eroded because of litigation. Again, it does not absolve if 
you have been negligent in any way here.
  What I want to reinforce is, we will have an opportunity here to vote 
on a measure today that is not everything

[[Page S5531]]

to everybody. We couldn't get there. Negotiations--I think it is fair 
to say we all wish that there had been greater success with broader 
bipartisan negotiation. We haven't gotten to this place.
  We are at a place where we do have an opportunity to put a measure 
out there that is more directed in its targeted relief; that does leave 
out certain areas; that, in my view, does include some things that 
should not be in here, but it is where we are today.
  We either have an opportunity to do some incremental steps to build 
on what we put in place with the CARES Act several months ago or to do 
nothing for an indeterminate period of time.
  I can tell you that in my State, I have small businesses for whom the 
PPP was a lifesaver. But I come from a State where we are pretty 
seasonally focused with our economy, and the relief they were able to 
get for those few months in the summertime, that allowed them to stay 
open.
  When you don't have your tourists come to town and when you really 
don't have your economy kick into gear during the summer--believe it or 
not, folks--it doesn't happen in the wintertime in Alaska. We don't 
have those people coming to visit us. We don't have the cruise ships. 
We don't have the airplanes that are filled with people willing to come 
and spend their money. So we have to wait until at least next May. 
Alaskans, right now, are hoping and praying that they can hold on until 
May.
  There are some things in this targeted relief package that directly 
helps them. There is an opportunity for a second round, an opportunity 
that is focused on our smaller businesses, an opportunity for an 
extension of time within which to pay down those CARES Act monies. The 
thing I have heard more often than anything else is this: Give us more 
time to spend this because we don't want to spend it on things that we 
don't need right now because we know that the winter is going to be 
long and dark and tough. Give us that ability. We didn't get the 
flexibility that we had asked for. That would have been important.
  The time extension will be important. The loan forgiveness piece for 
the smaller loans will be important. The extension of the additional UI 
will be important. No, it is not a full $600, but it does allow for 
additional support for those who are suffering most.
  Again, what we are trying to do is to target the relief and not put 
it all out there in areas where some didn't need it, some did, and hope 
we get it right. Again, this is a measure that many will say is a half 
measure, but I am talking to folks back home who are saying: Give us 
something. We need to have something now because otherwise we don't 
know how long we can hold on.
  This is something that I am going to be supporting later this 
afternoon, despite what I point to as the flaws in it. I am not going 
to spend my time here today to talk about why I disagree with some of 
the school choice provisions that are in here. I think my position on 
that is relatively well known. But I am going to vote for this 
regardless of the fact that those provisions are in there because there 
are provisions that are going to help our fishermen, that are going to 
help our small businesses, that are going to help our schools, and that 
are going to help us help those who need this additional unemployment 
insurance.
  There is a measure in this bill, though, that has evoked an 
interesting bit of controversy. It is in an area that I offered. This 
comes from the text of my American Mineral Security Act. This is a bill 
that we reported from the Energy Committee last year. The portion of 
the bill that is in controversy right now, according to my friends on 
the other side of the aisle, is actually text from a bipartisan bill 
that my friend and the ranking member on the Energy Committee inserted 
himself. I cosponsored it. It would effectively authorize the 
Department of Energy to conduct research to develop advanced processes 
to help recover rare earth elements from coal and coal byproducts. It 
authorizes. It doesn't appropriate. It authorizes $23 million a year 
for 7 fiscal years.
  We saw that this was a particularly worthy provision to advance. We 
know that we import almost all of our rare earths from abroad, 
primarily from China. We know the supply is precarious. China has 
already demonstrated its willingness to cut off another country when it 
feels like it. And we know we need this, whether it is for iPhones, 
flat screens, jet engines, satellites. It is all about supply chain.
  I was a little bit bemused, I guess, when I saw that this particular 
provision was the object of partisan scorn. It was actually the Obama 
administration that helped fund the research to examine the potential 
of these technologies. NETL, the National Energy Technology Lab, has 
been working on this, as have a number of universities. When you think 
about what we are doing here, we are seeking to recover rare earths 
from coal waste. It is a little bit like turning your trash into 
treasure. It is the ultimate in recycling. You have already disturbed 
the earth. That has already happened. What we are doing now is we are 
going through that and trying to determine if we can't utilize some of 
that waste for something of great value--rare earths. It could 
ironically add to our domestic supplies without necessitating new 
mines. You would think that those on the other side of the aisle who 
don't like mining would agree that recycling that waste is a strong and 
a positive thing to do.
  Some have said: Why is this American Mineral Security Act or any of 
the provisions in this bill at all? I think one of the things we 
learned from this pandemic is that supply chains really matter, whether 
it is supply chains in the pharmaceutical end or supply chains when it 
comes to these minerals. They are so essential to everything that we 
do.
  There have been some interesting attacks on this bipartisan 
provision. One of my Democratic colleagues declared that it could 
``fast-track coal mines.'' One said it is ``targeted to corporate 
donors.'' Another said on Twitter that this amounts to ``corporate 
welfare to the coal industry during a climate emergency.'' It is so 
wrong on so many levels that you don't know where to begin to rebut 
that.
  Let me just cite a couple. For a starting point, the Department of 
Energy has a research mission. DOE does not permit coal mines. So there 
is no fast-tracking under the provision because there is no authority 
within the DOE to do so. It doesn't exist. We are not putting labs in 
charge of the review process. You are not going to see one of your 
National Labs now become a permitting office.
  I have also been surprised to hear that research grants from the 
Department of Energy are somehow or another corporate welfare now. I 
have a great deal of respect for the work that goes on within DOE. I 
think that they are the ultimate engine for innovation, leading to good 
jobs, economic growth, cleaner air, cleaner water. These grants are not 
just directed to industry. Many of our universities will be among the 
likely recipients.
  It is important, I think, to recognize that what we are establishing 
within this measure is something that would benefit our economy, 
benefit jobs, and benefit the environment. I mentioned that this 
provision is an authorization of appropriations. It doesn't allocate 
any taxpayer dollars. It simply creates a new option for those of us 
who serve as appropriators to choose as part of our normal budgeting 
process. We have seen a lot of accusations--misleading attacks over 
different things that are in this bill or perhaps some things that are 
not in the measure.
  I think, again, what we have in front of us is an opportunity to 
provide targeted relief to Americans at a time when they are in need. 
What we do today, how we do it today, I think, is important. I think it 
is unfortunate that we will likely see this as a wholly partisan 
exercise. I would like to think that we would have a different outcome. 
I would like to think that each of us can look at these provisions and 
say: Well, it might not be as much as I would like for my constituents 
in Florida or Alaska, but it does allow us to advance one step further.
  My hope is that we will continue aggressive negotiations because I 
continue to hear from people in my State who are still reeling from the 
impacts of this pandemic. They do not see the upcoming months giving 
them notable relief from an economic perspective. They want to know 
that their Federal

[[Page S5532]]

Government will be a partner with them in aiding them in the recovery.
  We will have an opportunity to vote on this later. I would certainly 
hope all Members look at where we are today with the offering that is 
in front of us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote 
scheduled for 11:30 begin now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Jarbou 
nomination?
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris) 
and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 83, nays 15, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 165 Ex.]

                                YEAS--83

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Loeffler
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--15

     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Gillibrand
     Klobuchar
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murray
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Van Hollen
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Harris
     Warren
       
  The nomination was confirmed.

                          ____________________