October 19, 2020 - Issue: Vol. 166, No. 178 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 2nd Session

[Pages S6308-S6315]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Coronavirus

  Madam President, in addition to considering Judge Barrett's 
nomination this week, the Senate will once again be taking up 
coronavirus relief legislation.
  We tried this in September, of course, but Senate Democrats 
filibustered our relief bill. But we are going to try again because we 
believe there are priorities that need to be met--priorities that 
everyone should be able to agree on. They are things like helping the 
hardest hit small businesses, getting schools the resources they need 
to safely reopen and safely operate, and providing additional 
healthcare resources to fight the virus.
  Democrats, of course, have spent a lot of time talking about how we 
need to pass additional coronavirus relief, but despite being given 
every opportunity to come forward with a realistic compromise bill, 
they have continued to insist on bloated legislation that would not 
only spend taxpayer dollars on noncoronavirus-related measures but 
would not have a chance of becoming law.
  It is very difficult for me to understand Democrats' thinking--that 
is, if they really want to get more COVID relief to Americans and don't 
just want to use this as a political issue.
  I realize that Democrats would like to pass exactly the bill they 
want, but their liberal wish list simply wouldn't make it through 
Congress. Democrats could, however, get something through Congress.
  Republicans have made it clear from the beginning that we are willing 
to compromise with Democrats if they will just come to the table with a 
reasonable offer, but Democrats have so far decided that they would 
rather see Americans get no relief--zero relief--than compromise with 
Republicans. That is really difficult to understand, unless, as I said, 
Democrats aren't really interested in getting more COVID relief to 
Americans.
  The Democrats' position makes a lot more sense if they are just 
trying to exploit this crisis for political gain.
  But Republicans are going to try again this week. The bill that we 
are bringing up would address some of the Nation's most important 
coronavirus priorities--priorities, I would add, that are bipartisan 
priorities. I hope that some Democrats will join us to get additional 
relief to the American people.
  The Democrat leadership may be holding coronavirus relief hostage, 
but rank-and-file Democrats don't have to. They don't have to have 
their all-or-nothing wish list. They can come to a reasonable 
compromise and give much needed resources to the American people. 
Instead, what they are saying is zero relief--no relief--is better than 
compromising with Republicans. Unfortunately, that is an unfortunate 
position for them to be in and a very unfortunate position for the 
American people.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise this afternoon in support of the 
amendment that Senator Rubio and I have introduced to extend and 
strengthen the Paycheck Protection Program. It would allow our Nation's 
hardest hit small businesses to get a second forgivable PPP loan that 
they so desperately need. Our amendment would make available $258 
billion for new PPP forgivable loans.
  Madam President, as I know you are aware from your experience in West 
Virginia, the Paycheck Protection Program has been hugely successful. 
In the State of Maine, three out of four of our small businesses have 
received forgivable loans totaling $2.9 billion. To put that in 
context, that is equal to approximately half of the entire State 
budget. Most important of all, those loans have helped to sustain the 
jobs of more than 250,000 Mainers.
  Nationwide, the PPP has been a critical lifeline for more than 5 
million small employers, helping to sustain upward of 50 million 
American jobs.
  As the Washington Post wrote in June following a dramatically better 
than expected jobs report: ``Give some credit to the government relief 
efforts, especially the Paycheck Protection Program, for bringing back 
jobs.''
  This program has provided one-time loans sufficient to support 8 
weeks of payroll plus a limited amount to help cover certain overhead 
expenses, which were completely forgivable as long as borrowers 
retained and paid their employees. Our purpose was to help small 
businesses save jobs and pay their workers, keeping that all-important 
employer-employee relationship intact so that, when businesses could 
reopen and Americans could go back to work, it could happen quickly 
when the pandemic subsided.
  When Chairman Rubio and I, together with Senators Ben Cardin and 
Jeanne Shaheen, put the PPP together at the onset of the national 
emergency, none of us could have envisioned that the pandemic would be 
so persistent, that here in October it would still be forcing shutdowns 
and mitigation measures that many months later.
  Yet, the cruel fact is that the virus is still spreading, and many of 
the steps taken to fight it, while necessary to protect public health, 
threaten catastrophic damage to many small businesses and their 
employees who have been sustained by the PPP loan funds, but they are 
still unable to return to normal operations.
  According to the NFIB, our Nation's largest advocacy group for small 
business, 84 percent of its small business members exhausted their PPP 
loan funds by mid-August. Many fear that they will have to lay off 
their employees--the last thing they want to do--or even cease 
operations altogether if more support is not forthcoming soon.
  In a key letter in support of our amendment circulated today, the 
NFIB also said that its most recent survey shows that 49 percent of its 
members anticipate needing some sort of additional financial support in 
the next 12 months.
  Let me give you an example. I recently learned of a T-shirt printing 
shop in Maine that received a PPP loan. It provided a lifeline to get 
this business through the past several months, but with many youth 
sports leagues and school activities still suspended, this business and 
its employees need more help to sustain them until springtime, when 
they hope to once again be printing T-shirts for little league teams 
and other sporting events.
  The impact of the pandemic has been critically acute for our hotels, 
our restaurants, our B&Bs, and our seasonal businesses that rely on a 
strong summer to pay their bills throughout the year. A State like 
mine, which is so dependent on tourism, has been particularly hard-hit 
since many of our tourism-based businesses lost the first part of the 
summer.
  A recent survey by the American Hotel and Lodging Association showed 
that, if we do not act and act soon to provide additional assistance, 
74 percent of our Nation's hotels will be forced to lay off more 
workers, and two-thirds could even be forced to close their doors 
entirely.
  The same is true in my State of Maine. An article published last 
month in the Bangor Daily News reports that the State could stand to 
lose two-thirds of hotels and direct lodging jobs if Congress doesn't 
approve more aid soon.
  Our restaurants are also struggling. While tourists finally started 
to return to Maine in August, this summer season has understandably 
been one of the slowest on record for my State. With the warm weather 
gone and outdoor dining no longer feasible, many of our restaurants can 
accommodate only about half as many customers as they used to be able 
to accommodate and

[[Page S6309]]

still comply with the CDC guidelines. They fear that they may not be 
able to make it through the winter without further help.
  A few days ago, I received an email from a couple who owns an award-
winning restaurant in Portland, ME. This couple told me that they would 
have closed without the PPP loan but that they haven't taken a paycheck 
since March and simply cannot make it through the winter without a 
second round.
  They put it as follows:

       [We] love that PPP enabled us to keep in contact with our 
     staff, even when they were not able to work in the beginning 
     [due to the State restrictions]. Furthermore, it helped us to 
     be able to hire them back so that we could reopen 
     immediately. [But] at this point, we are staying open only to 
     support our employees. The new PPP would give us the needed 
     funds to limp through winter, while still keeping our staff 
     employed and our customers safe.

  I am sure that many other Members of the Senate are seeing the same 
in their States, and that is why it is so important that we renew once 
again this very successful program.
  As you know, we went through the first $359 billion in just 13 days. 
That is what the demand was like. Then we passed additional legislation 
to replenish the program with $320 billion, but we only extended the 
date to August 8 for applicants for the program. We need to reopen it 
up to those who didn't apply the first time and now find themselves in 
need and to allow the hardest hit businesses to receive a second PPP 
loan.
  We also need to do this to help our nonprofits that are also 
struggling to survive, and that is why we simply must put aside any 
partisan politics. This program was the product of bipartisan 
negotiations that went on day after day, night after night, and we came 
together.
  Let me describe the key points in this proposal. First, the amendment 
would allow those small employers that have seen their revenues decline 
by 35 percent or more in the first, second, or third quarter of this 
year compared to the same quarter last year to receive an additional 
Paycheck Protection Program loan.
  Second, because we want to target this additional assistance to the 
businesses that need it most, we generally limit eligibility to 
entities that have 300 or fewer employees, rather than 500.
  Third, we expand the list of forgivable PPP expenses in some very 
commonsense ways. We allow forgiveness for the supplier costs and 
investments in facility modifications and personal protective equipment 
for the business to operate safely for its employees and its customers. 
Examples would be those plexiglass guards--the shields we are seeing 
everywhere--masks for employees, of course, and patio insulations and 
related outdoor furnishings. This is especially important to 
restaurants facing dining restrictions and those struggling to get the 
high-quality food supply needed to operate because they have fallen 
behind in their bills.
  Fourth, we extend PPP to small 501(c)(6) organizations that are not 
lobbying organizations and that have 150 or fewer employees, such as 
local chambers of commerce, economic development organizations, and 
tourism offices. They are doing a great job representing their members 
through this crisis.
  Fifth, we would allow forgivable loan funds to be spent through 
December 31 and clarify that borrowers can apply for loan forgiveness 
at the time of their choosing after 8 weeks from the loan origination.
  Sixth, we greatly simplify the loan forgiveness process for smaller 
borrowers. Those who make a good-faith effort to comply with the 
program's requirements would be able to use a one-page, simplified loan 
forgiveness form if they borrowed no more than $150,000. We also make 
the loan forgiveness process less complex for borrowers of loans 
between $150,000 and $2 million.
  Seventh, we provide the SBA with $50 million in additional audit 
funding to ensure that it has the resources necessary to protect the 
program against fraud. Regrettably, there are always going to be those 
who attempt to exploit a program, and that is why we want to beef up 
the audit capacity.
  Finally, our amendment includes a series of set-asides to ensure that 
smaller borrowers and underserved communities get the help they need. 
These set-asides include money for borrowers with 10 or fewer 
employees; $10 billion for community financial institutions, such as 
small community banks and credit unions; and $10 million for the 
Minority Business Development Agency. In addition, the amendment 
directs the SBA to issue guidance addressing barriers to accessing 
capital for minority, underserved, veteran, and women-owned businesses.
  The Paycheck Protection Program is the result of a bipartisan 
commitment to support our small businesses, our nonprofits, and their 
employees during this pandemic. It has been a tremendous success, but 
many small businesses and nonprofits simply require more help now in 
order to survive, given the length and persistence of this pandemic.
  This amendment provides that help. It is supported by the National 
Federation of Independent Business, the National Restaurant 
Association, the American Hotel and Lodging Association, the 
International Franchise Association, and HospitalityMaine
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record the letters of support for our amendment at the conclusion of my 
remarks.
  Madam President, I urge our colleagues to support this amendment, to 
do so now, even if you disagree on other issues that may be taken up. 
Surely, we can come together and extend this bipartisan, highly 
successful program to secure the jobs of small businesses and also to 
ensure that these small businesses stay afloat. We want to make sure 
that small businesses, which employed the majority of people in this 
country, are able to keep their employees employed.
  We can continue to work to find common ground--and I am involved in 
those efforts--on other policies to help support the health and safety 
of Americans and the safe, responsible opening of our communities. We 
need more resources for tests and vaccine development; for aid to 
municipalities and schools; for assistance to our lobstermen, our 
fishermen, our farmers, our loggers, and to our aviation and motor 
coach industries. We need more assistance for childcare and for the 
U.S. Postal Service.
  Now is the time to move forward on this bill, on this proposal, to 
extend and strengthen the PPP before we lose more small businesses, 
before their employees are forced out of their jobs. So let's act 
today. It is past time to put aside partisan bickering to provide this 
much needed relief for the American people.
  I urge all of our colleagues to join us in support of this important 
action to renew and strengthen the PPP program
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                              National Restaurant Association,

                                                 October 20, 2020.
     Hon. Marco Rubio,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins and Senator Rubio: The National 
     Restaurant Association writes to you in support of the 
     recently-filed amendment, ``Continuing the Paycheck 
     Protection Program,'' scheduled for a vote today.
       As you know all too well, the restaurant industry has been 
     uniquely hard-hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. Our industry has 
     lost more jobs and more revenue than any other. Over the past 
     7 months, nearly one in six restaurants (representing roughly 
     100,000 establishments) have closed, and more than 2 million 
     restaurant employees are still without a job today as a 
     result of furloughs and closures. The restaurant industry is 
     on track to lose a staggering $240 billion in revenue by the 
     end of this year.
       Since March, the National Restaurant Association has called 
     for a comprehensive, restaurant-specific response from 
     Congress to assist the nation's second-largest private-sector 
     employer. We continue to call for this, but a comprehensive 
     agreement seems unlikely before the elections, and 
     restaurants are in danger of being left behind.
       If Congress cannot approve comprehensive support this year, 
     a second round of funding for the Paycheck Protection Program 
     (PPP) will at least provide transitional support for 
     restaurants as we approach the winter months. We appreciate 
     your leadership in developing the PPP, in providing more 
     flexibility in its use, and for your calls to ensure that 
     Congress does not leave Washington without providing 
     something for the short-term survival of restaurants.

[[Page S6310]]

       On behalf of our membership, our state restaurant 
     association partners, and our workforce, we urge the Congress 
     to at a minimum pass a second round of PPP for implementation 
     this year.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Sean Kennedy,
     Executive Vice President, Public Affairs.
                                  ____



                                                         NFIB,

                                                 October 20, 2020.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of NFIB, the nation's leading small 
     business advocacy organization. I write in strong support of 
     the Continuing the Paycheck Protection Program Act offered by 
     Senators Marco Rubio and Susan Collins. This amendment would 
     provide necessary and targeted financial assistance to small 
     businesses for the purposes of keeping workers employed and 
     keeping their doors open during the ongoing public health 
     crisis. A vote to advance the Continuing the Paycheck 
     Protection Program Act amendment will be considered an NFIB 
     Key Vote for the 116th Congress.
       The Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) has been a vital 
     financial assistance tool to over 5 million small businesses, 
     helping these businesses maintain employees and assisting 
     with expenses such as rent, utilities, and mortgage interest. 
     Unfortunately. the negative economic consequences of COVID-19 
     on small businesses have lasted longer than Congress 
     anticipated when the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic 
     Security (CARES) Act was enacted in late March.
       The amendment provides more than $250 billion in funds to 
     allow for second PPP loans for small businesses if they 
     demonstrate 35% quarterly revenue loss this year: NFIB 
     supports allowing a small business to receive a second PPP 
     loan. The opportunity for second PPP loans would 
     significantly help small businesses who continue to be 
     negatively impacted by economic disruptions of COVID-19.
       Additionally. the amendment expands the definition of PPP 
     expenses to include certain operational expenditures, 
     property damage costs, certain supplier costs, and worker 
     protection expenditures, as well as allows small business 
     borrowers to select a flexible covered period to utilize 
     their PPP loan funds. NFIB supports expanding eligible 
     expenses to help small businesses cover essential reopening 
     and operational expenses and providing flexibility regarding 
     timing of PPP expenditures.
       The amendment also simplifies the PPP loan forgiveness 
     process, allowing small businesses who received a loan of 
     $150,000 or less to attest to a good faith effort to comply 
     with PPP loan requirements and obtain forgiveness. NFIB 
     supports providing a more efficient way to demonstrate 
     compliance and receive forgiveness as the vast majority of 
     small business owners have exhausted their PPP funds and are 
     preparing to apply for forgiveness.
       Economic conditions are putting significant stress on the 
     financial health of many small business owners struggling to 
     balance lower sales with fixed expenses, and longer-term 
     sustainability. More than one-in-five (21%) small business 
     owners report that they will have to close their doors if 
     current economic conditions do not improve over the next six 
     months. With the realization that lower than average sales 
     are likely for months to come, many small business owners 
     urgently need additional financial assistance. According to 
     NFIB's most recent survey, 49% of small business owners who 
     received PPP loan and/or an Economic Injury Disaster Loan 
     (EIDL) anticipate needing additional financial support in the 
     next 12 months.
       There is bipartisan agreement to provide a targeted second 
     round of PPP loans to small businesses. NFIB urges Congress 
     to set aside disagreements on other policies and pass 
     legislation to help small business owners immediately.
       NFIB strongly supports the Continuing the Paycheck 
     Protection Program Act amendment and a vote to advance the 
     legislation will be considered an NFIB Key Vote for the 116th 
     Congress.
           Sincerely,

                                                Kevin Kuhlman,

                                Vice President, Federal Government
     Relations, NFIB.
                                  ____

                                                Hospitality Maine.
     Senator Susan Collins,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: I am writing this letter in support 
     of another round of PPP. My understanding is that there are 
     those that feel funding restaurants through the RESTAURANTS 
     Act should be the only hospitality funding provided in a 
     Federal stimulus bill. As an association that represents both 
     small lodging and restaurant businesses in the State of 
     Maine, I can assure you that both have been hit equally as 
     hard. In the State of Maine, one could argue that with the 
     very stringent reopening guidelines and embargoes on certain 
     states to come here, that our small lodging properties may 
     have been hit harder. In a state where the average size 
     lodging business is 14 rooms, we are not talking big 
     business. We are speaking of mom and pop inns and bed and 
     breakfasts that will have a difficult time surviving the 
     winter.
       We are not opposed to the RESTAURANTS Act, quite the 
     contrary, we support it wholeheartedly, along with a 
     reasonable form of assistance to the many other business 
     sectors both inside and outside of the hospitality space. In 
     Maine there are windjammers, attractions, museums, music 
     venues and yes small inns and hotels that could also use some 
     help. Let's make sure we don't leave them behind.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Greg Dugal,
     Director of Government Affairs.
                                  ____

                                          American Hotel & Lodging


                                                  Association,

                                                 October 20, 2020.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Chuck Schumer,
     Democratic Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Leader McConnell and Leader Schumer: On behalf of the 
     American Hotel & Lodging Association (AHLA), the sole 
     national association representing all segments of the U.S. 
     lodging industry, including iconic global brands, hotel 
     owners and franchisees, lodging real estate investment trusts 
     (REITs), hotel management companies, independent properties, 
     bed and breakfasts, state hotel associations, and industry 
     suppliers, I write in strong support of the Continuing the 
     Paycheck Protection Program Act (S. 4773) introduced by 
     Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Marco Rubio (R-FL). This 
     important legislation would enable hotels and other small 
     businesses access to a second draw of the historic and 
     bipartisan Paycheck Protection Program, giving them a 
     financial lifeline to keep their employees on the payroll and 
     doors open.
       The hotel industry continues to be decimated by the COVID-
     19 pandemic. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics 
     (BLS), the leisure and hospitality space has lost 4.1 million 
     jobs since February and the accommodations sector has an 
     unemployment rate of 34.5% compared to the national average 
     of 8.4%. The human toll on our employees and our workforce is 
     devastating. The economic impact to our industry is equally 
     as dramatic, estimated to be nine times greater than the 
     September 11th terrorist attacks. According to Oxford 
     Economics. the industry is expected to lose more than fifty 
     percent of its total revenue in 2020.
       In a recent survey of hotel employers. AHLA found that 74% 
     of hoteliers reported they would be forced into further 
     layoffs without additional government support, such a second 
     PPP draw. Nearly half of hotel owners reported that they are 
     in danger of foreclosure due to the pandemic. The hotel 
     industry desperately needs additional relief to survive this 
     crisis.
       On behalf of the more than 33,000 small business hotels and 
     the millions of associates they employ, I urge you to support 
     this legislation and to allow the many thousands of hotel 
     owners across the country access to this program. Without 
     immediate relief from Congress, hotel businesses and the jobs 
     they provide will be lost permanently. Thank you for your 
     consideration of this critical matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Brian Crawford,
                     Executive Vice President, Government Affairs.

  Ms. COLLINS. I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, first, I would like to commend my 
colleague, the Senator from Maine, for her absolute, unquestioned 
leadership in this issue of paycheck protection. She knows, in Maine, 
as I do in Wyoming, the importance of small businesses to our 
communities, to our Main Streets, to the vitality of our economies, and 
she has led the fight from the beginning of coronavirus to make sure 
our businesses would remain viable; that they would have opportunities 
to keep people on the payroll; that they can continue to contribute to 
their communities.
  She was the one who brought up this idea in the first place, 
shepherded it all the way through Congress as part of the CARES Act, 
and continues in that leadership role today.
  I come here today on the floor to first commend my colleague from 
Maine and also to talk about the ongoing fight against coronavirus and 
the plan forward, guided by data and doctors, to put the disease behind 
us and let all of these small businesses that the Senator from Maine 
has been working to allow to continue to strive and to thrive.
  Those in the fight against the virus--and I talk to you as a doctor 
now--continue to hold our respect and our admiration. They are doing 
remarkable work in community hospitals and clinics all around the 
country. And across the country, as a result of the PPP program, our 
Main Streets are getting a little busier; our economy is gaining 
strength; kids are going back to school; and even some football is 
being played.

[[Page S6311]]

  Most importantly, we are learning more about this disease and how we 
can successfully treat COVID-19. What doctors and clinicians and 
researchers and scientists have been able to accomplish in such a 
relatively short period of time is nothing short of remarkable. These 
men and women are fighting a battle every day in the labs and the 
hospitals around the world; they are racing against time; and they are 
saving lives. They are our heroes today at work all across our Nation.
  An effective vaccine will allow everyone to get back to work and to 
school. It will also be the protection our most vulnerable Americans 
desperately need: our seniors, patients with preexisting conditions, 
anyone confined to a nursing home.
  Congress has already directed $10 billion for vaccine development. I, 
for one, and other Members of the Republican conference believe that we 
should be doing more. A month ago, the Senate tried to begin debate on 
our plan to finish the fight against coronavirus. The bill we brought 
to the floor of the Senate would get people back to work safely, would 
get kids back to school safely, and would put the disease behind us. 
Instead, Democrats, on this very floor--on this very floor--blocked the 
focused, targeted bill.
  Now, this week, Democrats once again are blocking another vote on 
relief for coronavirus--relief that is needed all around the country; 
relief that I hear about in Wyoming and, Madam President, you do in 
West Virginia; relief that our constituents talked to us about as we 
travel our States.
  So why are the Democrats blocking this legislation? Well, it must be 
something significant to make them block giving aid to the American 
people when the people need it most urgently. Well, maybe this is why: 
Maybe the Republican bill doesn't include millions of dollars in tax 
breaks for rich people in New York and California. The Democratic 
House-passed bill includes those things. Now, the Republican bill 
doesn't give taxpayer money to people who are in the country illegally, 
but the Democratic House-passed bill does do that.
  The Republican bill doesn't bail out States that were mismanaged way 
before anyone had ever heard of the coronavirus. Well, the Democratic 
House-passed bill does that as well.
  The Republican bill doesn't include money for marijuana banking, but 
the House-passed bill does all of these things.
  It is hard to believe these are the reasons the Democrats are 
preventing coronavirus relief from reaching the President's desk, but 
just look at the differences in the priorities.
  The Democrats are refusing money for Americans until Congress funds 
their laundry list of unrelated liberal items for their favored liberal 
special interest groups. Now, I hope the real reason this coronavirus 
relief bill is being blocked isn't because of an upcoming election. I 
mean, I sincerely hope that Americans aren't being used to score 
political points or to damage political opponents. Surely, that can't 
be the reason. It would be unthinkable.
  The Speaker and Senator Schumer need to set aside all of their 
political demands and focus on the people in need. They need to set 
aside the wasteful spending that is unrelated to this battle in order 
to save lives and set aside their opposition to more money for a 
lifesaving vaccine. Now is the time to make an agreement that would 
actually benefit Americans today. There is an urgency. We need to act, 
and we should act now.
  To paraphrase Winston Churchill, this virus can do its worst, but we 
will do our best.
  We are doing our best. We are doing our best to get through this 
together, to get a safe and effective vaccine, and to get our economy 
and lives back on track. It is time to pass targeted relief. This is 
the path forward for America.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Blackburn). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, once again, the Republican leadership is 
circumventing and abusing the rules of the U.S. Senate. In this 
Congress, this has happened over and over and over again--denying 
debate on the Senate floor, where we have the opportunity to offer 
amendments and have a debate, which the Senate is very famous 
historically for engaging in. I can give you numerous examples.
  There is Justice in Policing. After all of the problems that we have 
seen around our country, there has been no opportunity on the floor of 
the Senate to consider legislation, to offer amendments, and have 
debate.
  As for the environmental challenges that our Nation and world face, 
there has been no debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
  As for gun safety, we have heard from students and communities of all 
of the tragedies that have occurred during this Congress, but there has 
been no debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate, where we would have an 
opportunity to offer amendments and have a full debate.
  As for immigration reform, it is something that has been talked about 
a great deal, but there has been no real action taken on the floor of 
the U.S. Senate during this Congress.
  With election reform, once again, there has been no debate on the 
floor of the U.S. Senate and no opportunity to offer amendments.
  We are not doing what the American people expect us to do, and I can 
name many, many, many more examples. At last count, somewhere around 
400 bills have come over to us from the House of Representatives--many 
bipartisan--that have not been considered by the U.S. Senate.
  Then, of course, the Republican leadership changes the rules when it 
suits itself in order to do what it wants to do, particularly with 
judicial confirmations. We are seeing that right now in the attempt to 
fill Justice Ginsburg's vacancy. They are changing the rules. The rules 
that apply to the Democrats don't apply to the Republicans. They do 
whatever they want to do. That is not what we should be doing. Now we 
see the Republican leadership circumventing and abusing the rules of 
the U.S. Senate as it relates to our responsibility with COVID-19.
  Everyone knows, including the Republican leader, that we are not 
going to enact the bill that is currently before the Senate without the 
amendments being offered by the majority leader. Why are we taking up 
these issues? There is one simple answer: political cover votes. That 
is the only reason for it, but there is a consequence to this. It makes 
it more difficult for us to get relief to those who need it. Whether it 
be small businesses or whether it be our schools or whether it be our 
State and local governments or whether it be those who are unemployed 
or whether it be American families, it makes it more difficult because, 
as we are taking up these issues, Secretary Mnuchin, on behalf of the 
Trump administration, and Speaker Pelosi are negotiating, from which we 
hope there will be a comprehensive package to deal with COVID-19.
  I must tell you that Secretary Mnuchin has a very difficult 
challenge. First, he has to represent the President of the United 
States, who changes his mind every few minutes on whether he wants a 
package or doesn't want a package, which makes it very difficult for 
Secretary Mnuchin to negotiate with Speaker Pelosi. Then he has to deal 
with the Republicans in the U.S. Senate. We will be voting tomorrow, I 
understand, on a proposal from the Republicans that will be less than 
one-third of the amount of money that President Trump has authorized in 
negotiations, pulling us further apart and making it more difficult for 
us to reach an agreement to help the people of this country.
  Since mid-May and again several months ago, the House did its work. 
It sent over to us a comprehensive bill to deal with the next phase of 
COVID-19. There have been no efforts--none whatsoever--by the 
Republican leader to bring that legislation to the floor of the U.S. 
Senate so that we can have an open and full debate with amendments as 
to what to do. That bill has been here since mid-May, and we can't find 
the time to have that type of debate. So what is Leader McConnell 
suggesting? You will have to follow this

[[Page S6312]]

because I know, if it were not so serious, the public would find it 
somewhat amusing.
  First, he wants to withdraw the amendment that was championed by the 
Republicans that deals with preexisting conditions. I must tell you 
that we all on our side of the aisle said that this was just another 
political cover vote. Now Leader McConnell is making that prediction 
very clear by withdrawing it and offering it again later as an effort 
to block the Democrats from being able to offer a clean vote on an 
amendment. We are going to make it a clean vote anyway, but that is his 
motivation. He is withdrawing the amendment that deals with preexisting 
conditions so that it will no longer be a part of the bill.
  Then he is going to offer an amendment to the underlying message, S. 
178, which is legislation that deals with sanctions against China. You 
heard me right. This is a message on legislation that deals with 
sanctions against China. It already includes the underlying amendment 
that Leader McConnell is offering--the amendment that we are voting on 
in a few minutes. Then he is going to file a motion to table, which 
means he will want to kill the amendment. Then he is going to vote 
against his own motion. I hope you all can follow that.
  Here is the irony or hypocrisy of all of this: If the motion to table 
carries, the provisions that are in the amendment are still in the 
underlying bill. In other words, it has no effect whatsoever because it 
is already in the bill. So this is a vote for one purpose only--to give 
political cover. The American people understand that, and they 
understand that this is strictly about dealing with a partisan, 
political type of trickery, and we should have no part of that.
  Let's talk about the process that we have used. There will be no 
chance in this legislation of helping businesses with the passage of a 
comprehensive bill under the approach taken by the Republican leader. 
Now, there is a model we could follow. It has worked before, and it can 
work again. Look at the CARES Act. We had partisan differences, and we 
bridged those partisan differences. We worked together and put the 
American people's interests first. As a result, we passed the CARES Act 
with a proud 97-to-0 vote in the U.S. Senate and provided desperately 
needed help in dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic itself, in dealing 
with the health professionals and the public health people, and for 
testing and for vaccine development. We provided money for State and 
local governments, and we provided money for businesses and taxpayers. 
We also dealt with unemployment insurance. We did all of that.
  When we passed that bill in March, we thought this pandemic would be 
behind us by now and that we wouldn't still be in the first wave and be 
increasing the numbers of people infected with COVID-19. We need more 
help, not less help, so we need a second round.
  I am frustrated in regard to the provisions affecting small business. 
I say that because Senator Rubio, the Republican chair of the Committee 
on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, and I, as ranking Democrat of 
that committee, were proud to work together and put the interest of our 
country first and develop the tools that were included in the CARES 
Act, which included, yes, the Paycheck Protection Program, the PPP. It 
also included EIDL loans and grants.
  It also included loan forgiveness in an effort to help small 
businesses. It was truly a bipartisan working effort. We were, I think, 
the first of the different provisions that were included in the CARES 
Act that were basically worked out in a bipartisan manner. But that is 
not the process the majority leader is following today. The proposal he 
is making is not a bipartisan proposal that has been worked on by 
Senator Rubio and me. We haven't come together. We could easily resolve 
our differences; I have no doubt about it. If we get the parameters on 
how much money we have, and give us a few minutes to negotiate, we will 
come to an agreement, as we have done in the past. I have every 
confidence in the world that we will do it. But this process doesn't 
further that aim--a process that cannot lead to help for our small 
businesses.
  Let's talk about what our small businesses need.
  First, they need comprehensive help. Similar to what we did in the 
CARES Act, they need a second major influx of help. They need help for 
State and local government. Why? Because the stability of the services 
provided by State and local government is critically important for the 
climate in which small businesses need to operate to get back to some 
degree of normalcy.
  They need help for our schools because our schools need to reopen as 
fully as they can safely, whether it is virtual or in classroom or 
hybrid, and they don't have the resources to do it. Our economy will 
not get back on track unless parents are confident about the 
educational opportunities of their children and can fully participate 
in our economy knowing their children are safe. Small businesses need 
that type of support.
  They need help for the people who are unemployed. That $600 a week 
went directly to helping small businesses by providing customers that 
use small businesses.
  We have 12 million Americans who are uninsured today. We didn't 
anticipate that in March when we passed the CARES Act, that we would 
still have those numbers.
  We need a comprehensive approach, and, yes, we need to get COVID-19 
under control. We need confidence among Americans that it is OK to go 
out and shop and use services and participate fully in our economy. But 
until they are confident they can do that safely, the economy will not 
rebound the way it needs to. So small businesses need a comprehensive 
approach.
  Food services are still doing very poorly, and now we are entering 
into the cold months, when it is more difficult to eat outdoors. It 
means restaurants are going to need more help, not less.
  The hospitality industry is still very much impacted by COVID-19. We 
know that there are no large gatherings or events. The travel and 
tourism industry has taken a hit. I saw that during COVID-19, during 
the summer months, down on the beaches when the normal crowds were not 
there. We will see it again this winter in the western part of our 
State, as we see fewer people are traveling to Deep Creek Lake.
  We all recognize that we need to give attention to these types of 
conditions to get consumers back, that this economy is OK, to help 
small business.
  Now, the House has acted not once but twice, and Senator McConnell 
instead brings up a bill one-third the offer the President--less than 
one-third of the offer the President has already put on the table and 
probably about a quarter--less than a quarter of what the Democrats 
have passed in their most recent bill.
  So Senator McConnell is going to first file an amendment that would 
provide a second round of the Paycheck Protection Program. I agree we 
should have a second round of the Paycheck Protection Program. We need 
a second round--that is nothing new. We have had hearings in our 
committee where Secretary Mnuchin acknowledged that, the Democrats 
acknowledged it, and the Republicans acknowledged it.
  I filed legislation in June with Senator Shaheen on a second round of 
PPP--in June. It is now October, and we haven't brought that bill to 
the floor so we could reconcile differences if we were going to bring 
it up on its own, if it is not going to be part of a comprehensive 
package. But what Leader McConnell is saying is we are going to bring 
it up on our own, but it doesn't take into consideration the lessons we 
learned from the Paycheck Protection Program, the first round.
  What did we learn? We learned that underbanked, underserved 
communities were not treated fairly; that they didn't have the 
relationship with the banks that allow them to get the money in a 
timely way, get as large of a loan as the more established small 
businesses were able to get; that the lenders were more likely to do 
business with those who had existing relations, with the larger loans; 
and that we needed to empower the mission lenders who go into 
underserved communities and we needed to concentrate on the smaller and 
the smallest of the small businesses. If you look at what is being 
brought forward today, the legislation does not adequately provide for 
the underserved community.

[[Page S6313]]

  We also learned from the first round of help in the CARES Act about 
the importance of the Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program, the EIDL 
Program. Now, you see, the EIDL Program provides loans, and those loans 
are critically important because that is working capital. That is not 
just payroll; it is working capital. Small businesses need long-term, 
low-interest EIDL loans that are able to be paid over a long period of 
time and to get a break in the first year or two where they don't even 
have to make payments.
  They needed the EIDL loans, but we also created an EIDL grant 
program. Now, I must tell you something. Many small businesses--
particularly the smaller of the small businesses--are reluctant to take 
out any more loans. They don't know how they are going to pay them off. 
They need grants. They need grants. We provided originally $10 billion 
and then another $10 billion. We provided $20 billion, but that is 
gone. We need to replenish that money for the grant program. The 
amendment the leader is bringing up doesn't provide any help for that 
grant program.
  In addition, we need to think more strategically about grants under 
the EIDL Program, and there is a way of doing that. I will come back to 
that in a minute. It is not in the leader's amendment.
  We need to do something about the arbitrary cap that the 
administration placed on the EIDL loans. They placed a $150,000 cap. 
The law says $2 million. They compromised the effectiveness of this.
  Now, here is the good news. We have bipartisan support for these 
changes. Senator Rosen and Senator Cornyn have filed legislation that 
would allow us to move forward with the EIDL Program, but it is not in 
the amendment being offered by the majority leader.
  There are so many other programs in the small business field that are 
important. There is the loan forgiveness program--Senator Coons worked 
on that--that forgives loans for 6 months under the 504 and the 7(a) 
programs. We can reduce the cost of small business loans. We can 
approve microloans. I could mention so many other areas where we could 
provide help.

  We know we have specific industries that need special attention, such 
as the restaurant industry, such as local newspapers, such as 
nonprofits that weren't covered under the first PPP program. Those are 
not covered under Leader McConnell's amendment.
  Here is the tragedy: There is no opportunity under this process for 
us to correct errors in Senator McConnell's amendment. No chance to 
amend. Never had a chance to amend. Never went through the committee. 
And, by the way, is on a bill unrelated to this relief and has no 
chance of passage.
  That is not what we should be doing. We have other options. We could 
bring the revised House Heroes bill to the floor of the U.S. Senate. It 
is a comprehensive approach. It has been compromised. We could open it 
to amendment. We could debate it and pass it and provide comprehensive 
relief. It includes all of the small business provisions that I 
mentioned earlier. They are included in the House-passed bill. They 
passed a couple weeks ago.
  If Leader McConnell is just determined to bring a small business bill 
to the floor, then I have filed such legislation today with many of my 
colleagues--a bill that works with issues of concern to small 
businesses, which is very much bipartisan. It includes not only the 
second round of PPP but also includes important help for the 
underbanked communities and mission lenders. It provides real help for 
the smaller of the small businesses. It increases the EIDL Program--
similar to the Rosen-Cornyn bill but also adds a new opportunity for 
grants under the EIDL Program. It strengthens programs in areas for the 
hospitality industry, for our local newspapers, for our nonprofits. It 
provides help in many of the small business existing programs, such as 
the loan forgiveness program. The cost of small business loans are 
reduced. Microloans are improved.
  We could bring up that legislation, and then we have a bill that 
really deals with small business that can be debated, amended. We can 
have amendments and vote on it. But at least we have a comprehensive 
bill that has a chance of being enacted. Why do I say it has a chance 
of being enacted? Because the House has already acted on this. It is 
included in their package. We don't have to try to conference this.
  Look, we should have passed this months ago, but we all know 
elections are coming up in 2 weeks. We have to act if we are going to 
act. Here is a bill we can act on now and get done because we know the 
House has already voted on a similar package.
  We know small businesses need help. They are in desperate need of 
help. Our economy needs help. Americans need the Senate to stop playing 
procedural political games and to be serious about taking up 
legislation that can deal with their needs.
  I am ready at any time to sit down with my Republican colleagues and 
work out such legislation, but the way the majority leader is going 
about this is just wrong, and it should not be supported by any of us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, I don't know of any topic that is more 
supported around here than the helping of small businesses. I think the 
biggest evidence of that is that I would venture to guess almost every 
Member of this body has at some point gone back home and bragged about 
what we were able to achieve together in a bipartisan way.
  And to remind everybody, this program has never existed before. It 
was put together in a bipartisan way with the ranking member, the 
Senator from Maryland you just heard from. We worked on it--I think it 
was 6 or 7 days. And it wasn't a perfect program. Like anything new, 
this big, that fast, it had some hiccups, and we worked in a bipartisan 
way with the administration to implement it.
  I will say this without any reservation: It was by far the single 
most effective piece of that CARES package, and there isn't a day that 
goes by when I am back in Florida or, frankly, anywhere in the country 
that I don't hear about it. I don't know anyone who hasn't. One of the 
most common themes when we go places is a small business owner who says 
PPP was a lifesaver, and then they ask: Is there more on the way, 
because we are still struggling?
  That it is a lifesaver is without question. I mean, I look at 
Florida. Over 430,000 of these PPP loans--which, really, in most cases 
are going to end up being grants--were made. That is $32 billion of 
relief into our economy. The ranking member's home State--87,000. I 
looked at some other States just quickly on the way over here. Iowa, 
61,000. In North Carolina, 129,000 of these were made. Michigan, 
128,000. Arizona, 85,000. In Colorado, 109,000 of these were made. 
Montana, 23,000. The State of Maine, where Senator Collins was a key 
part of all this, 28,000. Georgia, neighboring Florida, 174,000. I 
could go on and on.
  Another thing we should be really proud about as far as PPP is that 
two-thirds of the loans--the grants--were under $50,000, which tells 
you about the size of these businesses. In fact, 70 percent--70 
percent--of these were made to businesses that had 10 employees or 
fewer. By far, it was the most effective thing we did.
  You can look at the jobs figures. I have this chart up here just to 
show it. PPP and small business employment--you look at the precipitous 
dropoff in March, and then once PPP began to get disbursed, you see 
those numbers, and as the disbursal goes up, the chart goes up.
  Now, are they perfect? No. Will we want it back up here? Of course. 
Are there businesses that didn't make it? Sadly, yes. But there are 
people working right now. There are small businesses that were going to 
be wiped off the face of this country's economy that are open to this 
day because of what we were able to do. But it expired, meaning that 
you could only get it once. There was a date where it cut off. The 
ranking member wisely moved and we all agreed and we were able to 
extend it by another month to help people apply, but now you can't go 
back.
  So what do you do? You are a business or restaurant, for example, and 
you used PPP once and have expended that money over 24 weeks, and now 
you are in the same boat or potentially in the same place you were back 
in March and April. The money is gone, the customers aren't back yet, 
and you are

[[Page S6314]]

about to close and people are about to get laid off. So we need to do a 
second round.
  There are a lot of other things we can do for small business--I agree 
with that wholeheartedly--but this is one that I think we have to do 
because there is tremendous agreement. The reason it is not happening 
is because, No. 1, some people think of it as leverage. Everyone likes 
PPP, so let's hold out on it. Let's not do it until it is part of a 
broader package of things unrelated to small business because it is so 
popular. It is the carrot that will bring everybody toward supporting 
the broader deal.
  That may have made sense back in May or June, but not now, not in 
October, not since we have long since expended the moneys that these 
companies received, and now they are facing the same situation they 
were back in March and early April. Now we have to do what we can.
  I don't think we can fall--unfortunately, we have, but it is not very 
smart to fall into this habit of saying that if we can't do everything, 
we shouldn't do anything. That is just across the board. There are a 
lot of other areas that we need to provide COVID relief in--I agree 
with that--but we are not going to do it in 6 days. We should have done 
it a long time ago. It didn't come to that. But this is one piece I 
think we can all agree on. Even if they are small businesses--and I 
only caught the tail end of what he was saying. The ranking member 
points to a lot of other things we could do to help small business. I 
agree with that. There are things beyond PPP that would help them. The 
fundamental challenge we have here is that we have a limited amount of 
time to get this thing done, and I appreciate the idea that the House 
already passed it. But the thing is, that is not something that is 
going to become law. That is the reality. Just like there are things we 
want on this side that are not going to become law, because to pass a 
law right now in Washington requires passage in a Senate with a 
Republican majority, but there are not 60 Republicans, so we need 
Democratic votes. We need this body to pass it, and we need a 
Democratically controlled House to pass it and a Republican President 
to sign it. That is just basic math in terms of what it takes. That is 
just the basic outline of what it takes to turn whatever it is we are 
talking about here into a law to actually help people.
  If you want to help people, we have to figure out something that at 
least 60 people in the Senate and a majority in the House will agree on 
and that the President will sign. The one thing I know for sure that 
could get that, if we just had a straight up-or-down vote on it, is the 
notion of extending a second round of PPP assistance to a targeted 
number of small businesses. That is it.
  Now, is that everything I want to do? No. I want us to do more. By 
the way, if we can figure something more to do in the meantime, that 
would be great, but this must happen. There is no way of explaining to 
people: Hold on a second. Everybody agrees that we need to do more just 
to extend PPP.
  Well, why haven't you done it?
  Then you have to explain: Well, because there were nine other things 
we wanted to do for small business, but because we couldn't agree on 
those, we didn't do the one we agreed on; or, there was a bunch of 
things non-small-business related that we wanted to get done, and 
because those didn't happen, we are holding up the whole thing.
  People don't understand it. That doesn't make sense in the real world 
to anybody.
  The bottom line is this: We have a basic formula here that, if we put 
aside those considerations, could get support and could pass pretty 
quickly. The other issues are still going to be there, and we should do 
them, too, but we shouldn't hold this up in order to do that.
  That is what we are going to have a chance to do here in a few 
minutes. If we don't, if we don't, then we will have to explain--all of 
us--to people why it is that this is being held up. If you tell them it 
is because people want leverage for more stuff, they are not going to 
understand that. It is very simple.
  For anyone watching now or for anyone who watches this later, it is a 
simple concept. We have before us right now the ability to help--to the 
tune of close to $250 billion--millions of small business workers 
across this country and their employers, to keep them on payroll, to 
stay open for a few more months while we get through this pandemic. We 
have a chance to do it through a model that we know works, a model that 
was recently used. We just re-up that for a second round to a targeted 
number of small businesses, under a certain number of employees, facing 
certain revenue constraints. We even open it up to some additional not-
for-profits. We have a chance to do that. We have all these other 
things that we should do as well, and we should do those, too, but we 
shouldn't wait for those things to do this thing, to help right now.
  This is not theoretical. Right now, at this very moment, there are 
thousands upon thousands of small businesses that are holding on, on a 
week-by-week basis. Whether or not they can survive isn't up to them. 
It is up to whether the local government allows them to open and at 
what capacity. It is up to whether their customers have the financial 
wherewithal to go back and visit or spend.
  The businesses we are talking about are restaurants, absolutely; live 
venues, absolutely; and all those other places that have been hurt in 
hospitality, without a doubt. But other businesses are being hurt too. 
I know a drycleaner in South Florida who is being hurt. You might ask, 
why? They are allowed to open. Well, because when people stopped 
working and going to certain places, they spent less money on 
drycleaning. Now a place that had eight employees now has six, and of 
the six, four are only part time. They will have an opportunity, if 
they get PPP, to keep that workforce employed full time, and it would 
matter to those families.
  We can do this. Doing this doesn't mean we don't do anything else. 
Those other issues still have to be addressed. But let's at least do 
this. It isn't everything, but it is a lot, and it is something, and it 
will matter, and there is no reason not to do it. It will in no way 
keep us from doing the other things that need to be done.
  Again, just because we are not going to do everything in one shot 
should not mean that we don't do something. We have a chance to do 
something, and it is meaningful, and it is a model that we know works, 
and it is a model we have all supported in the past, and it is one that 
I hope that in the next few minutes some people will change their minds 
on and support now because to not do something is inexplicable. It 
would make no sense.
  There are real people in the real world who are just trying to hold 
on and can't figure out why it is we are here and we can't do something 
to help them at their hour of greatest need
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I rise today to speak on behalf of 
people and small businesses in Michigan that are being left behind on 
this Republican bill. As my friend from Florida has said, we can do 
something. The Senate Democratic leader is going to be offering us an 
opportunity to vote on something comprehensive that has been passed by 
the House that doesn't leave small businesses, families, healthcare 
providers, and the need for testing and tracing behind.
  When I think about who is being left behind in this bill, I think of 
the single mom of two boys who is seeing her hours cut, and her 
paycheck has shrunk, and she is left behind by what we are being asked 
to vote on right now. There is no need for that. She doesn't know how 
she is going to keep the lights on. The weather is getting cold.
  The 83-year-old retiree who is struggling to afford food and who goes 
to bed hungry night after night is being left behind on what we are 
being asked to vote on. That doesn't have to happen. We have an 
alternative that has passed the House that we can vote on and get this 
done today.
  The owner of a small restaurant is being left behind. He has been 
able to stay open by offering takeout, but he is just barely--just 
barely--holding on, wanting specific help that is available through 
legislation introduced in the Senate, that is bipartisan, that is not 
in this bill. He is being left behind.
  We are talking about the families who thought 2020 would be the year

[[Page S6315]]

they would finally get ahead, and then COVID hit, and now they are at 
risk of being evicted and losing their homes that brought their 
children stability for the first time.
  There are the Michigan families who have lost loved ones--more than 
7,000 grandmas and grandpas and moms and dads, sons and daughters, 
brothers and sisters, cousins, neighbors, and friends.
  People in Michigan aren't talking about a stimulus bill; they want a 
survival package because it is survival for them right now. Instead, 
Republicans have introduced a bill that leaves our urgent health care 
needs, our families, and far too many businesses behind.
  This Republican proposal leaves behind the most important thing we 
need to do right now to get the pandemic under control. President Trump 
has said that we will wake up one day and COVID-19 will have 
miraculously gone away. Oh, wouldn't that be great. But we are tired of 
waiting and getting up every day and being faced with the threat of 
COVID-19.
  If we want people to send their kids to school, reopen their 
businesses, get back to work, be able to go shopping at their small 
businesses, to be able to eat at their restaurants, then we need to 
make sure things are safe. Right now, it is not safe.
  COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations and deaths are spiking all across 
the country. The White House is still resisting a national testing 
strategy, as if it is some kind of giveaway to Democrats instead of 
public health 101.
  Meanwhile, millions of people have lost their jobs, which means they 
have also lost their health insurance, which he doesn't want to 
address, and our healthcare system is under strain. Our hospitals and 
our nursing homes are still struggling to get enough personal 
protective equipment for their employees, for families who want to 
visit, and for patients. Our healthcare professionals are exhausted, 
stressed, and at severe risk of burnout. Healthcare needs are left 
behind in this bill, and so are the needs of our families.
  Right now, the unemployment rate in Michigan is 8.5 percent--higher 
than the national average. Since March 15, 2.3 million Michigan 
residents have relied on unemployment. The extra $600 a week provided 
in the CARES Act was a lifeline for these Michigan families, and it 
needs to be extended so they can have a roof over their heads and pay 
their bills and survive. A survey last month by the U.S. Census Bureau 
found that 25 percent of Michigan residents thought they would be 
evicted or lose their home to foreclosure in the next 2 months.
  We need to act now--now. We have an opportunity. The Senate 
Democratic leader will give us the opportunity to vote on that bill and 
act now. Without additional unemployment aid and rental assistance, 
where will these families go in January when the CDC eviction 
moratorium expires and they are months behind in rent?
  This legislation also leaves our children behind. The Republican 
bills have not provided adequate funding to reopen our schools safely, 
and millions of parents, including my own daughter and her family and 
my own son and his family, are juggling, trying to make sure that kids 
can work online, trying to make sure they are getting the education 
they need. It is hard.
  The money that has been provided in the bill, unfortunately, in the 
underlying bill--there is some, but it comes with strings attached. 
Schools must physically reopen in order to receive their fair share of 
funding. So if your school district has decided that COVID cases have 
gone up and it is not safe for the children to go back to school--they 
are still paying the teachers, they are operating remotely, and they 
have all the costs of operating remotely, but if they are not 
physically there, as President Trump insists on, physically there 
regardless of the health risk, they would not get the help they need 
for our children to be educated--quite a change for a political party 
that likes to talk about local control.
  But there is one exception. If your child is going to a private 
school, you get a great big tax credit if you send your child to a 
private school rather than a public school, like the vast majority of 
children in our country.
  Brecken is a 5-year-old kindergarten student in the De Tour area 
public schools in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. She has access to high-
speed internet in only one way, and that is if her parents disconnect 
every other electronic device in their house while she is doing her 
studies. And the connection isn't great. Brecken and other students in 
rural areas deserve the same internet connectivity that their city 
friends enjoy, but the Republicans leave them behind.
  Democrats have proposed a $4 billion E-rate funding increase to 
ensure children are able to go to school remotely. We don't want 
Brecken or any child left behind in this COVID-19 crisis.
  We can't talk about schools without talking about healthy food and 
nutrition. They go hand in hand. The average person getting help right 
now--food assistance--receives $127 a month, which is $1.40 per meal. 
About 40 percent of our families who are getting even that have gotten 
absolutely no increased help whatsoever. And we know in the food lines, 
people who have donated to the food banks all their lives are now 
sitting in their car for hours sometimes, waiting to go through the 
food line themselves. Our families need help. Our families are hungry. 
We can fix that if we pass the bill that the House sent to us.
  Finally, this legislation isn't just about leaving critical 
healthcare needs and testing needs behind, leaving our children and 
leaving our families behind. It leaves far too many businesses behind. 
Over the past few months, I have met with so many Michigan business 
owners, mostly over Zoom--restaurants, gyms, entertainment venues, 
craft jewelry, theaters that have been revitalizing Michigan downtowns. 
One of the things I love is that not just in big cities but in small 
towns across Michigan, you will go downtown, and there is now a craft 
brewery, and then they have rebuilt and revitalized a historic theater, 
and they are rebuilding the downtown. They have been hit so hard by 
what has happened with COVID-19. They deserve specific help that they 
are not getting in this legislation.
  All small businesses are not getting the help--the kind of help--that 
they need. We don't want to leave any small business behind, including 
our minority-owned small businesses in underserved communities and 
nonprofits. We fought successfully, as Democrats, to add $30 billion in 
dedicated funding for those who are underbanked or receiving their 
financial support in other nontraditional ways. That is not in here 
either.
  So we need an approach for this pandemic and the economic catastrophe 
it has unleashed across the country. We need an approach that is 
serious and is bold--neither of which is what we are about to vote on 
with this PPP vote--for testing and healthcare, for keeping our 
children safe so they can get back to school, for our families and all 
of our businesses.
  We know that so many have been hit in ways that are different than 
others, so we need to address all of our small businesses. This is no 
time to leave any of them behind, and the Republican initiative in 
front of us does just that. People deserve better.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island