Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. This week, amid the devastating coronavirus pandemic, we saw what world powers are supposed to do--join forces to raise funds to research, manufacture, and distribute a vaccine and treatments. This makes obvious strategic and lifesaving sense, being both the moral and strategic thing to do. All of us joining forces and working together will help speed up efforts and the eventual discovery and distribution of a coronavirus vaccine that we all desperately seek. Many of us believe that until that day comes when that vaccine proves to be effective and safe and is widely distributed, we are going to still see what we call our normal lives compromised. So there is no greater priority. This effort will save lives around America and around the world. Who knows where that vaccine is going to be discovered, produced, or distributed? I want America in on this conversation from the start and end on the collective efforts. Clearly, other world leaders understand this. So when there was an effort to raise $8 billion for the discovery of this new vaccine, they had a virtual global telephone conference. Our allies in the European Union and Norway offered to give $1 billion each toward this goal. Who was absent from this critical effort to save lives around the world, to discover this vaccine, including the distribution of it to those who need it in every corner of the world? Which country did not participate in this global virtual telephone conference? The United States of America. In yet another shortsighted, missed opportunity to address the coronavirus, this administration refused to participate. America was missing in action when leaders around the world came together with the determination to find and distribute a vaccine against coronavirus. The President's supporters in Congress said nothing, focusing instead on judicial appointments and other things on their mind. Given this President's penchant for blaming others but not himself for any mishandling of this viral contagion, maybe his dereliction of duty in this global conference should come as no surprise, but it does because of the devastating consequences that could result. What does this mean for America if the United States sits on the sidelines while other countries set out to discover this lifesaving vaccine? Well, we still continue to have some of the best researchers in the world at the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the many university and private researchers around this country. Many NIH-funded researchers have spent years studying coronaviruses. Perhaps their knowledge could be helpful with these other countries in quickly developing an effective vaccine. In fact, some clinical trials are already now under way by the National Institutes of Health. I want to commend Dr. Francis Collins, who heads up NIH, and, of course, Dr. Anthony Fauci, a friend of many years, for their amazing work. But it is quite plausible--it is even possible--that the best vaccine may turn up in another country. There are efforts under way in England and Germany and in many other countries to find this vaccine, as well. In a rush to research and validate a vaccine, ramp up production, address global allocation and supply needs and ensure affordability and access worldwide, will the United States be standing on the sidelines again? When the United States pursues a go-it-alone--not just ``America first'' but ``America only''--approach, while the rest of the world is working together, where does that leave us? Remember, it hasn't been that long ago when the United States first opted to develop and distribute its own American coronavirus test kits that turned out to be faulty, instead of choosing the World Health Organization's test kit, which was available at the time. That set our Nation back at least a month, up to 6 weeks. In fact, many believe we still haven't recovered from that critical first misstep by this administration. Even when his own incompetent response was increasingly obvious, President Trump turned and tried to place all the blame on the World Health Organization, even cutting off all U.S. funding to this critical international body with decades of experience in dealing with pandemics. The New York Times columnist Nick Kristof starkly wrote last month: ``Thousands of Americans would be alive today if President Trump had spent more time listening to the World Health Organization instead of trying to destroy it.'' Don't get me wrong, WHO and many international bodies are imperfect and make mistakes, and they are often only as strong as their member states are willing to help make them or help fund them. The World Health Organization first warned of the coronavirus on January 4, issuing increasingly urgent warnings in February, while the President was saying publicly that the issue ``was totally under control.'' American personnel at the World Health Organization were also sending warnings back to Washington about the threat. What was the President's response? On February 10, he said of the coronavirus: ``When it gets a little warmer, it miraculously goes away.'' On February 27, the President said: ``It's going to disappear. One day, it's like a miracle, it will disappear.'' Well, more than 2 months later, we are still waiting for that and praying for that, and 70,000 Americans have died. The WHO is a critical lifesaving body that helps eradicate polio, reduce the number of women and children who die in childbirth, and stem malnutrition. The WHO has led the historic global vaccination campaign to eradicate small pox. When it was issuing coronavirus warnings, the President and all of us should have been listening. Instead, the President ignored them and chose to walk away from the World Health Organization, undermining its international efforts and, ultimately, giving more global leadership to, of all nations, China, which is only more than happy to step in when the United States steps away. We should be increasing our investment and leadership at the World Health Organization as one of the many efforts to stem this virus and not cover our ears and walking away from it. The World Health Organization's efforts to halt Ebola are an example of what its work can do to save lives at the outbreak of a pandemic and stop one from reaching the United States. Presidents Obama and George W. Bush understood this need for global health engagement. I was proud to rally to President Bush's call to stem the scourge of AIDS around the world through the historic PEPFAR program. It was a bipartisan, international, global effort--the world first, not just America first. Many of my Republican friends in the Senate supported these efforts, and we need them now with this coronavirus outbreak. I was equally proud of President Obama's efforts to set up infectious disease prevention systems and his leadership on the Ebola crisis. Presidents Bush and Obama understood the traditional leadership role of the United States in such matters and how important it was for the world to know that we were engaged and involved. Sadly, so much of the world looks at us in dismay today as President Trump undermines American Governors who are doing their best to try and save lives, and refuses to take any responsibility, snubs our allies, and withdraws from global efforts. That is why I plan to introduce a resolution here in the Senate calling on the United States to join this important global vaccine and treatment effort--something I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support. Can we put aside our political differences for a moment and agree on one basic thing? Wherever this vaccine is to be discovered, we pray that it will be done quickly, effectively, and safely. We want the United States in on the effort, whether it is discovered here in our country or in another country. We want to be at the table to help support the research and development efforts. We want to be at the table when the good news of the discovery of this vaccine is delivered. We certainly want to be at the table when it comes to questions of manufacturing and distributing this vaccine around the world, and especially here in the United States. Standing by on the sidelines with our arms folded, chins jutted out, and saying it is America first or else--this is the wrong moment for it. This is a global challenge. It is a global solution. We don't know which country God will bless with the ability to come up with this vaccine. Whatever it is, we want to be at that table with them in its development and distribution. Let's remember that this global pandemic and any real solution involves more than just our great country. We cannot isolate ourselves from this international race to find treatments and develop a vaccine. Doing anything else will only waste more time and cost lives. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a Washington Post article of May 5, 2020, on the subject

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to add one last thing. Yesterday, we had a telephone conference with Bill and Melinda Gates. They were part of the summit that the U.S. Government boycotted, and they pledged to spend $125 million of their own money in this fight to find a virus vaccine as quickly as possible. Let's join them. Let's join them as a nation--Democrats, Republicans, Independents, those who vote and those who don't--all of us who understand that the sooner this vaccine is found, the sooner it is proven safe, and the sooner it is distributed, it will be the best for America and for the rest of the world. It isn't just America first. It is America involved, America committed, America willing to work with the world to find a solution to one of the greatest public health crises of our time. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, to date, more than 1 million people have contracted coronavirus in the United States--61,000 in the State of Illinois. Sadly, we are quickly approaching a death toll of 100,000 Americans. While more people continue to contract and succumb to the virus, another alarming trend has come to light. The coronavirus disproportionately affects minority communities. Black Illinoisans make up less than 15 percent of the State's overall population. However, they account for 34 percent of all coronavirus deaths. In Chicago, Black residents account for 52 percent of the total coronavirus deaths despite their comprising only 30 percent of the city's population. Recently, a survey of Latinos in Illinois, who make up 17 percent of our State's population, surpassed Black Illinoisans in confirmed cases of coronavirus. Now Latino Illinoisans account for 23 percent of confirmed cases in the State--the most cases of any race or ethnicity. Last week, on a call with the Illinois community health centers, I learned that, of the 34,000 African Americans who were tested in Illinois, 36 percent were positive for coronavirus. Of the 24,000 Latinos tested, 62 percent tested positive--62 percent. Compare that to the 73,000 White Illinoisans tested for coronavirus, wherein 18 percent tested positive. Latino and Black populations in Illinois and across the Nation are bearing the brunt of this pandemic. As we continue to hit new, grim milestones during this public health crisis, these disparities are a sobering reminder of the historical inequities of our healthcare system in our country. Nationwide, Black and Latino Americans are more likely to have chronic diseases, such as diabetes, asthma, and heart disease, and are less likely to have health insurance than are White Americans. These health gaps are the result of historic and structural inequality, including their exposure to trauma, racism, stigma, and food deserts, and this pandemic magnifies the need to immediately address them. Black and Latino Americans are also more likely to hold frontline jobs that have been deemed essential in the food, retail, and service industries. That increases their risk of contracting the coronavirus when reporting for work. I have spoken with many community organizations, such as the First Ladies Health Initiative and West Side United, as well as the Illinois community health centers, and they have all stepped up to help Illinoisans find solutions to these challenges. Yet we can't just talk about the problem. We need to put solutions on the table. Congress needs to step up. I am working with the Illinois congressional delegation to improve our Nation's coronavirus data collection efforts so that we can better understand and address these racial disparities. It is unacceptable that not all States are currently reporting coronavirus incidents and deaths by race. We need these vital statistics to help the Federal Government, as well as the State and local governments, to develop plans to protect our most vulnerable populations. A few moments ago on the floor, the Republican leader--the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell--kind of warned us about the next stage of the debate when it comes to this coronavirus. He warned those of us on this side of the aisle not to see this crisis as the basis for fundamentally transforming our country. Well, I want to say to my colleague from Kentucky and all other colleagues, if we don't learn from this crisis the weaknesses of this great Nation when it comes to healthcare, if we don't understand the inequities of this great Nation when it comes to healthcare, and if we don't resolve to do something about it, shame on us. If at the end of this crisis we breathe a sigh of relief and say that now we will go back to business as usual, wherein health disparities are accepted in this country, shame on this Senate Yes, I want to see our way through this crisis with the fewest number of infections and the fewest number of deaths. That is our immediate goal--to protect America and to restore the economy. Yet, when it is over, if we don't step back and take a look at what we have learned from this crisis and vow to make America stronger, fairer, and more just when it comes to healthcare in this country, shame on us. There are those who voted against every aspect of the Affordable Care Act--so-called ObamaCare--10 years ago. I remember it well. Not a single Senator from the other side of the aisle would support our effort to reduce the number of uninsured people in America dramatically. We barely passed it--by one vote in the U.S. Senate and with Senator Harry Reid as the majority leader at the time--and without any help, without any votes, from the other side of the aisle. And what happened? In my State, the number of those who were uninsured was cut in half by this so-called ObamaCare. Proudly, I call the Affordable Care Act ``ObamaCare.'' Since then, those on the other side of the aisle have been resolute in their determination to repeal it, not to replace it with anything that is better--they don't even have a replacement--and to give up on our quest of making sure that every American has the peace of mind for having the protection of health insurance--affordable, quality health insurance. At the end of this health crisis, are we still going to hear the other side of the aisle arguing that we shouldn't dedicate ourselves to reducing the number of uninsured? I hope they will take the time, as I have, to talk to administrators at hospitals about what is happening in their emergency rooms, in their surgical suites, and in other places in which they have had to address this crisis firsthand. One major hospital in Chicago said that half of the people in that hospital who have died from coronavirus-related disease had no health insurance. Is this a coincidence? No. It is a pattern. Without health insurance and with gross disparities in the delivery of healthcare, we know that there are groups of Americans who are suffering and that many will die. So I would just say to the Republican leader, yes, I hope that our experience from this coronavirus makes us all vow, on both sides of the aisle, to truly change America for the better when it comes to healthcare and health protection. That is a must. Last week, I had the opportunity to speak with several Illinois- focused community development financial institutions. These organizations do amazing work by offering lending services to small businesses and populations that are typically overlooked by the big banks. They were grateful for the work we have done so far and for the legislation we have passed, but they had suggestions on how to improve the Small Business Administration's Paycheck Protection Program to ensure that financial relief makes it to minority-, women-, and veteran-owned small businesses. In addition, I am working with my colleagues to help ensure that vaccine and drug trials that are related to COVID-19 include diverse patient populations and are widely available and affordable. I have cosponsored the COVID-19 Racial and Ethnic Disparity Task Force Act with Senator Kamala Harris. This important piece of legislation would create a task force comprised of healthcare, economic, and government leaders to provide recommendations about how to best allocate resources to address racial disparities in our healthcare system. When the Senator from Kentucky, the majority leader, comes to the floor and says to those of us--warns those of us--on this side of the aisle not to use this healthcare crisis as an excuse or an opportunity to transform America, is he wedded to the racial inequality that we see in our system in his warning us not to try to address it? I hope not. I hope that we can have a bipartisan approach to making this system fairer in its reaching more people. This week, I am introducing the Health Heroes 2020 Act, and here is what is behind it: As we all put up signs in our windows and yards across America to thank healthcare workers for risking their lives, we understand that these doctors, nurses, and lab technicians and these people who work in nursing homes who are taking care of the elderly folks, as well as those who clean up and provide food, are all healthcare workers who are risking their lives to do their work. I thank them. We should all thank them day in and day out. Yet what are we going to do about recognizing the work they have done? First, I think we ought to compensate them for jobs well done. Senator Bob Casey has legislation on that subject, which I am happy to support. Beyond that, what can we do for our healthcare workforce? Why is it that in the United States of America the best and brightest, who get great grades in high school, go through college taking the tough courses and getting good grades, get accepted to medical school, and after working hard for 4 years or more there, go through residencies which are backbreaking exercises in actually learning the clinical practice of medicine, and just before we tell them they are licensed doctors ready to practice in America, we give them bad news--the news that they must be carrying a student debt from medical school of between $200,000 to $240,000 on average? What are we thinking? These women and men are critical to our future and our own healthcare. Why do we burden them with this certain awesome debt that they have to carry forward and build their career around? That is why this bill really seeks to look at this from a new angle and says that we ought to reward those medical students who are willing to practice in areas of greatest need--minority students as well--and provide for them scholarships to defray the cost of medical school so they don't end up graduating with this incredible financial burden. This legislation would help provide doctors, nurses, mental health professionals, dentists, and others to communities with shortages which often contribute to health disparities as I described earlier--inner-city areas, rural America, smalltown America. Studies show that having doctors who reflect the communities they treat actually helps health outcomes. So my bill would help to expand the representation of minorities in the workforce. Last week, in a letter to the CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, I urged the agency to support global efforts to build up our community health workforce capacity. Communities of color across America are suffering at disproportionate rates across this pandemic, and we have to step up to help all Americans against the threat of coronavirus. It is unacceptable, but sadly not surprising, that communities of color are bearing the burden of this dangerous virus. I stand here to continue fighting with my colleagues in the Senate to try to solve these inequities happening in communities across the Nation. There aren't many redlines that have been drawn publicly so far as we have considered coronavirus legislation. We passed the original CARES Act, $2.2 trillion, with 96 votes on the floor of the Senate and with no dissenting votes. The next bill, the coronavirus 3.5, as it was characterized, passed the U.S. Senate by a voice vote, adding $484 billion to the effort. More will obviously be needed, not just for small business loans but also for unemployment insurance and certainly to make sure that our hospitals, large and small, can survive this crisis as we all hope America will. We are certain they will, but we have to be prepared to do that. Yet, this morning, the Republican leader came forward and said he is drawing a redline; that Republicans will not move forward when it comes to dealing with these challenges without addressing one issue, and that was the issue of legal liability. I will not describe in detail what the Senator from Kentucky is proposing because we haven't seen it, but what he is suggesting is that our greatest fear shouldn't be the coronavirus; it should be trial lawyers--trial lawyers. He is fearful that we are going to see COVID-19 lawsuits. Well, let me tell you, there could easily be COVID-19 lawsuits and some--and I think most Americans would agree--should be filed. Is there a COVID-19 lawsuit if someone is profiteering with protective equipment, raising the prices way beyond reach because they have this moment of opportunity with the crisis we are facing? One downstate hospital in Illinois talked about surgical gowns that cost 22 cents apiece and now cost between $11 and $20 apiece. Clearly, there is price gouging and profiteering. If we can, can we hold those responsible for profiteering liable? I would say yes. Is that a COVID-19 lawsuit? I think it is related to COVID-19, but it relates to it in a way that most Americans would agree there should be legal action. If there are scams and profiteering, the people responsible for it should be held legally responsible in a lawsuit, if necessary. If people are promulgating phony tests and making representations that are a fraud on the public, should they be held accountable? Well, of course. Is that a COVID-19 lawsuit? Could be. What about those who are talking about the protection of workers? If workers are not protected on the job, they may be turning to workers' compensation for any of the injuries and illnesses that result. Are we going to stop those as COVID-19 lawsuits going too far? Nurses are suing in some situations because they are not being given adequate or quality protective equipment. Do we want to stop that litigation as well? Is that what the Senator from Kentucky is suggesting There is an interesting situation with meatpacking workers right now. I know a little more than some Senators about that. When I was working my way through college, I spent 12 months working in a meatpacking plant in East St. Louis, IL. I was paid $3.65 an hour. I thought that was pretty good, but it was hard, hard work. I saw what it was like then, many, many years ago. I have gone back to see the meatpacking and meat processors today. It is not much different. People stand literally elbow-to-elbow, shoulder-to-shoulder, as conveyor belts bring through hundreds and hundreds of pounds of meat and poultry that have to be acted on immediately to keep up with the line. It is tough, hard work, and now it turns out to be an extraordinarily dangerous line of work as well. We are learning that disproportionate numbers of workers in this industry are coming down with the COVID virus infection. United Food and Commercial Workers, which represents many of these plant workers, estimated that at least 5,000 have already reported infected and anywhere from 10 to 20 have died. Now the President issues an Executive order mandating that these companies open for business. Well, I can say to the President, yes, they should open, but only if they dedicate themselves to the health and safety of their workforce as the highest priority. Let's make that workplace safe before we talk about making it a mandatory opening. In fairness to the industry, in my State of Illinois, several companies that have been affected have reached out to us and are, in fact, determined to make their workplace safe. I salute them for taking that approach. They are talking about testing and making sure that workers on the job have necessary distancing and protective equipment. That is the right approach. In the meantime, those companies that ignore that responsibility, should they bear some liability for the illnesses or injuries that result? Well, under workers' compensation law, they certainly would. Is the Senator from Kentucky calling that the COVID-19 lawsuit? It could be related to COVID-19, for sure. Should they have their day in court? I certainly hope so. As we look at the challenges before us, and there are many, this notion of drawing a redline on legal liability, unfortunately, fails to take into account that system of justice in America which we have turned to in good times and bad to make sure that justice is meted out to those who have no recourse but to consider lawsuits in court. Let's take this issue seriously, carefully. Let's not squander the opportunity of protecting the people who are risking their lives every day in essential workplaces and believe they, too, should be protected by our system of justice. I will stand with them, and I hope that other Members of the Senate will join me. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am learning the etiquette of the mask as we try to make certain we set a good example for our country that is very attentive to the public healthcare crisis we face. I listened carefully to the remarks of the Republican majority leader. He spoke about the reconvening of the Senate this day, and he talked about the work that we achieved a few weeks ago in passing the CARES Act--$2.2 trillion in rescue funds for America--by 96 to nothing. Then, by a voice vote, we passed $484 billion more--almost $2.7 trillion. That is an amount that is far in excess of the annual Federal budget of the United States of America for domestic discretionary spending, and we did it in a matter of days and weeks. We knew that we were facing, as the President characterized it, a national emergency, and we still do. The Senate is here today because, against medical advice, the majority leader has brought us back to Washington. We know what the standard is in the District of Columbia for the people who live here--to stay home; not to meet in groups; to work away from your normal working place to protect yourself, your family, and everyone else. Yet we are back in town. The majority leader tells us we don't take days off. He says we are here to do the Nation's business, which can only be done--that it is only possible--when we are here. He talks about taking careful steps back. I have been waiting for the majority leader to announce what the business of this week will be. Boy, there are a lot of things we should be doing. I know, back home, from the endless telephone conference calls that I am involved in and from the comments by my friends and neighbors in Illinois, that there are many unanswered questions which they would like this Congress to address. We have been waiting carefully, expectantly, for the majority leader to announce what we are doing this week that merits this return. It is not just because Members of the Senate are being asked to come back. Listen, that is what we ran to do. We promised the people of our States that we would be there to do the business of the Senate and the Nation when called upon. Certainly, I want to keep that promise. All of us do. Yet it is appropriate to ask exactly what it is this week that we will be doing. There is a noncontroversial nomination that will be before us in a matter of 2 hours, which is likely to pass by an overwhelming vote. That can't be the reason. There must be more, but what is it? There are lots of things which the majority leader could bring us back to do. It appears one of the things he is most intent on is to make certain that we consider the nomination of a young district court judge from the Commonwealth of Kentucky. This individual was nominated last year to serve on the district court in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. His name is Justin Walker. Justin Walker has a distinction. He is one of nine Presidential nominees who has been sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee by the White House who has been judged ``not qualified'' by the American Bar Association. It was the American Bar Association that said his absence of any significant trial experience disqualified him to serve at the lowest Federal court--a lifetime appointment, make no mistake. Yet it seems Justin Walker is well connected with the majority leader by his having served on his staff, at least as an intern, but it may be more-- I am not sure--and other connections that I am not aware of. It is enough that his nomination has become a priority for the U.S. Senate, which is interesting. Despite any ``career'' on the Federal district court of less than 6 or 8 months and despite the fact that he has had no trial experience by which to take that job, the majority leader, Senator McConnell, wants this man to be elevated to the second highest court in the land--the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. I don't understand it. It is certainly hard to argue that this is part of a response to a national health emergency in America. It has nothing to do with it. It is a political decision, clearly, to elevate this man--of all of the members of the Federal district court bench across the Nation--to be next in line to be considered for the Supreme Court. I hope he has seen a Federal trial in the time he has served on the district court in Kentucky. I guess we will find out in the hearing that has been called for on Wednesday of this week. So, when the majority leader comes to us and says we have important nominations that deal with national security, I am sorry, but Judge Walker is not one of them. What we have in his confirmation hearing is a political decision for political advancement at the risk of this Senate and the hundreds of people who are working here today because we have been called back. What else could the Senate Judiciary Committee do other than to entertain Senator McConnell's former intern to be raised to the second highest court in the land? There are a number of things we might consider. I think one is contact tracing. Contact tracing is going to be the key to opening our economy in America. Contact tracing says, if you have been exposed to a person who has tested positive for COVID-19, that we have ways--technological ways and other ways--to trace you and notify you. That also raises questions about information and privacy, which is one of the issues the Senate Judiciary Committee considers. There is the Bureau of Prisons. Currently, at the Bureau of Prisons, there is a raging conflict because there is raging infection. This is not the only correctional institution that faces that, but it does. Guards, correction officers, as well as the inmates themselves, are at risk because COVID-19 is in the ranks of those serving time in our prisons. Many States--even the Federal Government to some extent--are considering the appropriate policy to keep America safe but also to treat these individuals with fairness, especially those who are working for the Federal Government and are doing what we ask them to do. That is under the jurisdiction of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Instead of this Kentucky nominee of Senator McConnell's, whom he wants to move up quickly to the second highest court of the land, shouldn't we be asking basic questions about the policies of the Bureau of Prisons? There are immigration issues too. It is interesting when you take a look at the spokespersons when it comes to medicine. So many of them-- not all of them by any means--are new immigrants to America. I salute all of our healthcare heroes. We have signs in our yard at home, and others around the neighborhood do as well. We can't thank these men and women enough for going to work every day and risking their lives every day to keep us safe--doctors, nurses, lab technicians, those working in nursing homes--and to treat those who are infected and save the lives of the people we love. As you listen on television to their comments about the risks they are taking and the costs they are paying with their families and others, I note how many of them are new immigrants to this country. It is no surprise. Many of these people--well-trained and educated--come to the United States for opportunities they can't get in their home countries, and in terms of our healthcare, we prosper because of that decision. Yet, when it comes to decisions by the U.S. Senate in dealing with immigration and healthcare, you would think that we would have no use for these people. Take the DACA protectees--those who, under President Obama's Executive order, have the protection of DACA so they will not be deported from the United States and can legally work in the United States. These are important people. I tried, with Senator Graham, in a bipartisan amendment back 6 weeks ago, to say that their legal status in America would be respected at least until the end of this calendar year so they could continue to be here without the fear of deportation, and it was stopped. According to Senator Graham, the comment from one of his colleagues was: There go Durbin and Graham again, working on the Dream Act. Yes, I am. I am still working on the Dream Act. Do you know why I am doing this? It is that, out of the 780,000 DACA protectees, at least 41,000 of them are in the healthcare field today. When it come to those here in the United States who have temporary protected status--at least 11,000 of them--are we ready to say publicly what some Members of the Senate say privately: ``Let them leave. We don't need them''? I am not going to say that. I know better, and so do families across America. Thank goodness for these healthcare heroes-- those born in the United States and those not born in the United States--who have come here to help us through this public healthcare crisis. Immigration is an issue for the Senate Judiciary Committee. Will there be a hearing this week? None have been posted that relate to this COVID-19 challenge. We haven't even addressed it. What about profiteering? Wouldn't that be an interesting issue for us to have a hearing on in the Senate Judiciary Committee--violations of current law? As I mentioned, I spent my time in telephone conference with a lot of people who are buying protective equipment-- administrators of hospitals, clinics, and medical professionals themselves. They report what is happening. It came from Fairfield, IL, which is a smaller community in downstate Illinois, where the hospital administrator said: Senator, we used to pay 22 cents for a surgical gown at this hospital. The price is now between $11 and $20 apiece. Somebody is ripping them off. They know it, I know it, and the Senate Judiciary Committee should know it too. This is another issue we could take up and that I hope we would consider. Instead, we have McConnell's nominee for the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which he considers to be vital national business. I don't see it that way. What I see is a lot of people here who are gathered in the Capitol, doing their jobs as they were hired to do and as they are dedicated to perform--at risk. I am prepared to be here because that is what I ran for office to do, but I would hope it would be for something substantive in order to deal with real issues of national security and, certainly, issues related to this national health emergency. The District of Columbia and the States on either side of the District--Maryland and Virginia--all continue to record new cases of COVID infection and death. They have not seen a 2-week decline in new COVID cases, which the White House announced as a guideline a few weeks ago, that is necessary to begin the first phase of reopening. The opposite is true. In this Washington Metropolitan Area, where we have been called in to work today, we find a COVID hotspot. In the week ending last Thursday, the District, Maryland, and Virginia recorded 20,000 new COVID cases--a staggering amount of sickness and suffering. All three jurisdictions remain under stay-at-home orders to try to curb the spread of this deadly virus in order to save lives and ease the burden on our exhausted medical workers. My State of Illinois also remains under a stay-at-home order as do more than half of the States. Not one State in America has yet to meet the first requirement of safety to reopen our schools and businesses and communities in this pandemic. That first requirement is a 2-week decline in new infections. Like millions of Americans, Members of the Senate and our staffs have been working from home for the last 6 weeks to try to save lives and keep our health system from collapsing. I do have to take exception to the statement made by Senator McConnell when he said: Across America, you don't get to take days off. I have been on the phone every single day--my colleagues, the same-- talking to people in their own home States, dealing with challenges and issues that face businesses and labor unions and charities and hospitals. The list is so long that I don't know where to start or where to end. Yet he would suggest I was home, taking a day off. Out of my home, Senator McConnell, my kitchen became my surrogate office, and I am sure many Senators will say the same. I worked as hard there as I do in this building--maybe harder on some days. So we didn't take days off. We have negotiated a nearly half-trillion-dollar COVID emergency aid package for our home States--a life support package to provide much needed resources for testing and for our heroic healthcare workers. When you take a look at the issue of lost revenue, I spoke to the mayor of the District of Columbia a few minutes ago. She talked about revenue that is, obviously, lost to her--hundreds of millions of dollars that she has to face in the next budget--all related to the COVID and all related to the downturn in our economy. The same thing is true in my State and virtually every other State. This COVID crisis has taken its toll on business activity, on the attendance at events, on purchases. It means less revenue going into the coffers of States and local governments. We provided $150 billion for this purpose in the original CARES bill. Many of us believe we need to stand up for them again. You can't give speeches on the floor about your respect for the police and first responders and firefighters and then say it is a darned shame that the people who employ them will not be able to pay them in the months ahead. As for this notion of declaring bankruptcy, what an economic disaster that would be if States and local governments were declaring bankruptcy right and left, not to mention the real hardship it would cause among first responders and those healthcare workers, including nurses, whom we value so much. So many of them who are employed by State and local governments would suffer if the suggestion of bankruptcy went forward. We can legislate without violating public health guidelines and risking making this pandemic worse. So the urgent business of the Senate should be the COVID challenge that we face everywhere. In our coming back to Washington, why isn't that a priority that has been announced? At this moment, we don't know what will happen with the Senate's agenda tomorrow or in the 2 or 3 days after. If it relates to COVID-19, count me in. If it relates to true national security, count me in. Yet, if we are just coming here because of a promise made to a 38-year-old Federal judge in Kentucky, it doesn't meet the test. As I mentioned before, this nominee was judged ``not qualified,'' and he has made statements that are openly hostile to the Affordable Care Act, which I would like to address for a moment. When we passed the Affordable Care Act about 10 years ago, the goal was to reduce the number of Americans who had no health insurance. It was successful. In the State of Illinois, it cut in half the number of uninsured--people without health insurance. Its critics didn't vote for it; have not come up with an alternative to it; and like this Justin Walker, the Federal judge in Kentucky, have been openly contemptuous of the notion of moving our Nation toward full healthcare coverage. I don't think that argument is as compelling today, under the current circumstances, if it ever were. All of us appreciate the need for a real safety net. All of us understand, without real health insurance protection at this moment in history, the people we love--our children, our spouses, our parents--would be at risk because they wouldn't have access to good, quality healthcare. This is a situation in which this judicial nominee--Mr. Walker, who was found ``not qualified'' for the Federal district court position--is now openly contemptuous of the Affordable Care Act and argues that it should be eliminated at this moment in history--the assurance of healthcare and health insurance protection. Is he the person we want on the second highest court in the land? In the midst of the most deadly health crisis and the most devastating economic catastrophe of our times, the majority leader's agenda remains unchanged--to fill the Federal bench at any cost. The Trump administration's response to the COVID-19 crisis has shocked many people. America has 5 percent of the world's population. Yet we have one-third of the world's COVID infections and more than 25 percent of the COVID deaths. Let me say that again. America has 5 percent of the world's population and more than 25 percent of the COVID deaths. As of this morning, 67,682 Americans have died of this ferocious virus. They include my friends, people I know, and members of my family. In my State of Illinois, we have lost 2,618 men, women, and children to this pandemic. When the Senate left Washington, DC, 6 weeks ago to work from home, there were 5,000 COVID infections in my State. There are more than 50,000 today. We are No. 2 in testing, so our numbers, I think, are more accurate than in many other States. Americans feel great anxiety and sadness, but these healthcare professionals keep our heads up and our focus very clear. These essential heroes are doctors, nurses, respiratory therapists, pharmacists, and the men and women who make sure there is food in these hospitals and that the floors are clean. They include postal workers, grocery store clerks, truckdrivers, law enforcement officers, teachers who continue to teach our kids and help to keep them safe. They are all part of this national effort. I would say that the notion of homeschooling, or e-schooling, which is now very common across America, has renewed the appreciation of many parents for what the teachers are doing every single day to help their kids. In my State and every State, people of color have suffered more than their share of COVID sickness and death, partly because of longstanding health inequities that leave people of color with more preexisting health conditions, partly because of barriers to healthcare, and partly because Black and Brown people fill so many jobs that are deemed essential. One major hospital in Chicago told me that half the people who died from COVID-19 in their hospital were uninsured, many of them Hispanic. They are people who may or may not have health insurance. They are desperate to work and earn a living. Some of them are afraid that they or some member of their family may be deported if they show up to a hospital to report themselves sick, so they wait until it is literally too late, and they die. We have seen our economy shut down and a lot of hardship as a result. Many owners of businesses, restaurants, and others have talked to me and others in the Senate about how soon we can reopen. But most of them, not all of them, most of them understand that going through this kind of shutdown of our economy and our personal lives is bad--bad if we do it one time; it is horrible to think about doing it a second time if we reopen too soon in the wrong way. In my State, 830,000 people filed for unemployment insurance between March 1 and April 25. They are among the 30 million Americans who filed for unemployment since COVID came to America--40 million. That is the fastest, deepest loss of jobs we have ever seen. To reopen our States and Nation before we have done the hard and careful work required to open safely only risks more infection, more death, more lost jobs, and more economic hardship. Reopening before we can reopen safely risks overwhelming our hospitals and ICUs. We need to listen to public health experts, the doctors and the nurses, many of whom have worked past exhaustion. We need to be responsible and not give in to chance on the street. What is the essential work that the Senate should be doing? Investigating why we do not have enough testing in this country that is essential to reopening the economy and working with State, local, and Tribal governments to help them hire and train the estimated 300,000 contact tracers needed to reopen America safely. Rather than forcing States to bid against each other, we have to plead with the President to use his authority under the Defense Production Act to produce here in America the respirators and other PPE that is essential for workers and their families. We have to provide oversight for the Paycheck Protection Program and make sure those loans are going to small business as we originally intended and not to wealthy hedge fund operators. We ought to be working to shore up the U.S. Postal Service, an essential public service created under the Constitution. What a reminder it has been to all of us staying at home, watching that letter carrier come by every single day. It is a bright spot, with his big smile, greeted by everybody on my street with gratitude for his continuing work day in and day out. That is what our Postal Service is. For them to be degraded and insulted by the critics is totally unfair-- totally unfair. We ought to be making plans to ensure that every American voter can vote by mail in the November election, given the likelihood that this lethal virus will still be threatening us. If this Senate is going to gather as a body in this pandemic against the medical advice of some and the sound judgment of others, let's make sure our work is essential. We are still waiting for a report from our Republican majority leader about the agenda that brought us to Washington and that brings us here this week, ready to work, ready to address the COVID-19 crisis that faces our country. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz), the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, America has never seen anything like this before. To think that half of the people who live in the United States are under some order to either stay home or at least avoid contact with others is unheard of. This is an enemy--this virus--the likes of which we have never faced. As strong and determined as our Nation is when it comes to these challenges, this is unique, and it calls for unique leadership. There are a lot of critics of the U.S. Congress--for good reason--but I think what we have demonstrated in the last several weeks since we have addressed this coronavirus is that there is a capacity for common sense, bipartisan work, and a timeliness that is essential. The first two measures were passed in record time--one for $8 billion, which opened the door for more medical resources; the second, for $100 billion, which tried to guarantee to people they would never have to pay to be tested for coronavirus, that there would be adequate food supplies during this calamitous time, that we would have resources sent to the States for Medicaid reimbursement at new levels, that we would also engage people with family leave, as necessary, so that they could stay out of the workplace if they felt badly, and that we would also have an idea that we would come together as a nation to move unemployment insurance with dispatch. That passed, again, in a timely way with a bipartisan vote. And, then, we came to the third challenge--a challenge the likes of which I have never seen in my time in Congress, and I don't imagine anyone else has. We decided in a span of about 7 days to come up with a package of authorizations and appropriations, which is larger than the annual Federal budget for domestic discretionary spending in America. In 7 days we did what usually takes 12 months or longer, but we knew we had to because the need is that great and America was watching and wondering if we could rise to that challenge. There were some bumps in the road, and it is no surprise. An undertaking of that magnitude with this kind of pressure to get the job done quickly and properly is bound to create differences of opinion, and it did. There were moments of anxiety on the floor of the Senate. Those who have followed C-SPAN have watched many speeches that reflected the emotional levels that were reached in this Chamber, but the emotions in this Chamber were not that different than the emotions in most homes across America as people worry about whether this illness will touch their families and, if so, will they be able to conquer it. That emotion on the Senate floor led us to further negotiations in an effort to try to make a bill presented to us on Sunday better 3 days later. And that brings us to this moment. History will judge, as the Senator from Kentucky noted earlier, as to whether there is an improvement that has been made to this bill over the last 72 hours. I will stand up and tell you I would testify definitely--definitely. Just consider the first priority. We have to make sure that hospitals and clinics and healthcare providers at every level in America are prepared to rise to this challenge. And we know this is a challenge the likes of which we have never seen. When the Governor of New York suggests that the hospitals of that great State expand their capacity by 50 percent as quickly as possible to take the incoming patients from this COVID-19 virus--and be prepared, he said, to expand it by 100 percent--we appreciate the magnitude of the challenge. On the Democratic side, our leader Senator Schumer has called it a Marshall Plan for hospitals and healthcare. I don't think that is an exaggeration. The bill that was presented to us on Sunday envisioned some $75 billion for that purpose, and many of us felt that was not adequate, as large as that number may be. Today, we will bring a bill to the floor that will increase that allocation for healthcare from the $75 billion in the bill just 3 days ago to $130 billion. Is it enough? Probably not, unless God spares us from the spread of this disease even further in the United States. It says to those who are anxiously expanding their resources, expanding the number of beds, bringing in retired medical personnel--as the Governor from Illinois, J.B. Pritzker, is doing--that we hear them and are providing them the resources to go to work to fight this challenge we face at every corner of the United States. The second thing that we set out to do when the bill was presented on Sunday was to expand the opportunity for unemployment insurance. Some have criticized us on the floor and said: Don't get into structural changes. Well, you couldn't expand unemployment insurance without getting into a structural change because the system, which affects only a small percentage of Americans, is not adequate in most cases to keep a family together. If you lose your job and try to live on that unemployment check, it is hard to do. People lose their homes over that and their cars. They can't pay their utility bills. So what we have done has been described as putting unemployment benefits on steroids. The amount of money that is going to be sent to families who were furloughed, laid off, or unemployed is dramatically bigger than it would have been if we hadn't restructured unemployment compensation. At the same time, the President and the White House suggested direct cash payments. We never argued against those but said it is just a down payment. It is just a single check. We believe unemployment insurance is going to be a guarantee of payments in months to come. Since Sunday, we expanded the period of additional unemployment compensation from 3 months to 4 months. There is a big price on that, of course, but we think it is reasonable to give people peace of mind that for 4 months they will be able to keep their families together as we work our way through these medical challenges and, God willing, see our economy back on its feet. I hope that happens. I hope it is even sooner, but we are prepared for 4 months. The third thing we set out to do is one that is near and dear to me in my State and, I will bet, in most other States. We set out to compensate the States and some localities, counties, and cities that are spending substantial sums of money because of the COVID-19 threats they are facing. Let's face it. For the most part, our Governors have been on the frontline of defense over the last several weeks when it has come to America's healthcare. They have done exceptional things, and they have been called on to spend money in ways they never dreamed of. For example, unemployment benefits, which involve State payments in many respects, have mushroomed and skyrocketed--sometimes 10 times the number they were just last year at the same time. My Governor and others--mayors and the leaders of county government-- have come forward and asked: Are you going to help us? We are spending a lot of money because of this COVID-19. This bill does it. It was not an easy task. We had to convince the other side that it was money well spent, and I am happy to report that, on a bipartisan basis, we reached that agreement. As it should, some $150 million will be going to these State and local governments. Those are things that I believe will move us down the path toward resolving this challenge in America and doing it in the proper way--always keeping in mind that the welfare of workers and their families is of paramount concern. First is the investment on the medical side to stop the onslaught. Second is the support for families and workers across America. There are some items that are still being debated on the floor here. You heard it in the early statements by the majority leader, and they relate to the benefits to be given to businesses in order to keep them moving forward. We all understand the aviation industry is at the heart of the American economy--an engine to move it, in one respect, and a reflection of its activity in another respect. That aviation industry is flat on its back. Some 80 to 90 percent of the passenger load has disappeared. Hundreds of thousands of employees in the airline industry have come to us and asked for help. We are prepared to do that, and it is part of the package that will come before us. The administration also asked for resources to be loaned to other businesses that need a helping hand. I am not opposed to that. Some are, but I am not. Yet I do believe that accountability and transparency are essential. Since Sunday, we have dramatically changed this package so that there will be transparency and accountability on a timely basis as decisions are made by this administration to allocate these taxpayer funds to help these companies. Some of us learned a bitter lesson in the past when benefits were given to corporations, and they were misused for stock buybacks and dividends and profiteering at a time of great national need. We don't want to repeat that story. We want to make certain that the taxpayer dollars being invested in these corporations are really designed to get them back on their feet and the economy moving forward for the benefit of everyone who lives in this country. Accountability and transparency are essential, and I believe this new agreement--some 3 days after the original one was proposed--is an improvement. Credit should be given to both sides for many of the things that I just mentioned, because Democrats and Republicans have had to agree for this to make the final package. Yet we believe what we will vote on this afternoon--and I believe we will enjoy strong bipartisan support on the floor of the Senate--will be a dramatic improvement over the last 72 hours. I give credit to both sides. We believe some of these ideas were essential, and that is why we voted as we did on the floor. Yet to reach this agreement and bring it forward, it took both sides. I salute my colleagues, starting, of course, with the Democratic leader, Senator Schumer. He has put in some hours. I can't tell you how many times I stepped into his office, and Michelle, his assistant, told me he was in with Secretary Mnuchin. They spent days together--going until 12 midnight and starting fresh early in the morning--to try to reach an agreement, which I believe we finally have done--finally. There are just a few little items left, but I don't think they will hold us up. So, to Senator Schumer and his staff, to all of my colleagues, and to the ranking members who pitched in with their committees of jurisdiction to try to come up with good ideas and to sell them in a bipartisan agreement, that was an exceptional amount of work. I give special credit, too, to the staff--to my own and to those of the others--who have come to work in this dangerous moment. We are being told to stay home, to telework from home when you have to and when you can. In some cases, you can't. Those who have shown up at the Capitol, including the staff who is here today on the floor, have come at risk, and we know that--at risk to their own health and the health of their family members and others whom they love, as we do. So I thank them for this. I understand that we may be gone for several weeks, and I think that it is appropriate. But for a national emergency that would call us back--and we will come back if that is necessary--I think we should take some time away from one another and away from the Capitol to really mind to our own health and the well-being of our own families and work back home as best we can, by teleconferencing and in other ways, to let people know what we have done with this new legislation. I hope that during this period of time, I can engage my colleagues in thinking about another issue. I and Senator Portman, the Republican from Ohio, have introduced legislation that at this moment in history calls for at least an inquiry into remote voting or some different approach to voting that doesn't require our physical presence on the floor in times of national emergency. It just makes sense. The fact is, our meetings of the Senate almost every single day have violated the CDC guidelines that tell us not to gather in a group of 10 or more. Yet we come to the floor because we have to--because this is life and death when it comes to this legislation we are considering-- and because we know what our jobs are. We can find a better way to do this in the 21st century by using the technology that is available in so many different ways in order to have verifiable, accurate, honest voting for those who cannot or should not physically be present on the floor. I have spoken to Elizabeth MacDonough, the Parliamentarian of the Senate, and her staff and want to engage in a conversation. What we know is that this is historic, and it really is a dramatic change from what we have done in the past, but I don't think it is unrealistic. I think it reflects the reality of where we are today with the public health crisis. It may reflect the reality of tomorrow, which could be some different national emergency or, God forbid, some terrorist activity that keeps us away from this Capitol Building when we still have work to do. I thank Senator Portman; Senator Klobuchar, who has really been one of the leaders in this effort; and Senator Schatz, who I know is a cosponsor. We are now up to close to 20 cosponsors, on a bipartisan basis, to move forward in this change in the Senate rules. I hope we can have conference calls during the time that we are physically away from the Capitol and move this idea forward. The House is considering the same thing as well. Now is the time to do it. It is time to bring this great body--the U.S. Senate--into the 21st century when it comes to executing our constitutional responsibility without endangering anyone, especially Members and their staffs and families I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. I don't disagree with my friend from South Carolina at all. I agree with you completely. We are in the midst of a national emergency.

Mr. DURBIN. That is not my announcement. That is the announcement of President Trump. I believe it. When you look at all the people now filing for unemployment, when you look at the hardships they are facing, the lifestyles they have had to live to try to comply with shelter-in-place and all the rules that are going on out there, the number of people filing these unemployment insurance claims, they tell us the reality of the situation. The notion, as you said, $9,600 times three--three times 4 months basically comes out to about $30,000 a year, roughly. That is what the $600 is calculated to mean on an annual basis. So, on a 4-month basis, if we end up giving people an extra $1,000 or $2,000, it is not inconsistent with what the Trump administration says they want to do with their cash payment. In the meantime, if we are going to move forward--and I hope this crisis comes to an end quickly-- if we are going to move forward into a new phase--phase 4, phase 5, whatever it is--let's work together to try to upgrade these systems, to make them work the way we want them to work. But in the meantime, wouldn't we want to err on the side of standing with working families and their employees? Wouldn't we want to do that in this first effort? I think it is the reasonable and thoughtful way to do it.

Mr. DURBIN. I would be happy to yield for a question from my friend from South Carolina.

Mr. DURBIN. Of course.

Mr. DURBIN. There is no disagreement. I say to my friend from South Carolina, there is no disagreement, but the U.S. Department of Labor says we cannot do that at this moment. And at this moment, when people are hurting so badly, when they have lost their jobs, been furloughed, laid off, and they are worried about paying their bills, the Trump administration says we are going to send them a cash payment. We say--and I hope it is a bipartisan statement: We are with you too. It isn't going to end with that one cash payment. We are going to stick with you and make sure your unemployment insurance benefits are going to keep you and your family together. And if, by chance, you come out a little bit ahead in this process with the cash payment or with the calculation of this formula, so be it. So be it. At this moment in history, facing this national emergency, we would rather err on the side of your being able to pay your bills and keep your family together. Future needs, we can discuss and we can debate. We can see what we can do with the State systems. But for the time being, there are no apologies. From where I am standing, $600 a week is exactly what Democrats are committed to--I hope Republicans are as well--because our belief is that this is the moment when we need to stand with these workers. I might say that I support Rubio and Cardin in their efforts to help small businesses. I think that is the right thing to do. It was bipartisan from the start and really without much controversy. Have we asked any of those businesses to produce net worth statements before they receive those benefits? No, we are not doing that. We understand this is an extraordinary moment. And we may do something different if we are thinking about a long-term policy, but for the immediate term, let us do the right thing. Let us err on the side of helping working families who are out of work. That is why I would oppose this amendment if it is going to be offered by the Senator from Nebraska. I came to the floor to explain how we reached this point, and I hope that others will consider my point of view.

Mr. DURBIN. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. I would, in the nature of a question through the Chair, which I believe is the appropriate procedure.

Mr. DURBIN. Well, this is actually turning out to be a debate on the floor of the Senate. It is almost historic. But I would just say this. We disagree on one basic premise. I don't believe giving people $1,200 for each adult, as the President suggested, or out of our approach, if they ended up with a net gain of $2,000, that we have now turned them into lazy people who will not go back to work, and that they will just wait for the next government check. These aren't the people I know, and they aren't the people you know. By and large, these are hard-working people who, with an additional $1,000, may finally be able to buy that refrigerator, may finally be able to get that car fixed, and may finally be able to get some dental work done.

Mr. DURBIN. So I don't think paying them a little extra here is going to change their lifestyle and attitude toward hard work.

Mr. DURBIN. All right. Let me just say at the outset that we are talking about people who did not voluntarily leave their jobs. These people did not voluntarily leave their jobs. They were terminated. They were laid off. They were furloughed. These are not people who were gaming a system. These are people who are victims of the system that is hurt by this national emergency. Secondly, if we are erring on the side of giving struggling, hard- working families an additional $1,000 a month--$1,000 a month--for goodness' sake, I am not going to apologize for a moment. These people are living paycheck to paycheck, in many respects, if they are making $15 an hour. That is $30,000 a year. And for us to say: Well, they are going to end up with 1,000 bucks; now they will never go back to work, those people. I don't believe that. In this world of social media and such, we have been contacted by nurses who say: So you think we are going to quit our jobs so that we can take advantage of the unemployment benefits? No, we go to our jobs, and we do what we have to do, and the amount of money is secondary.

Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to, and I thank the Senator from Texas. But I would just say this: Yes, in this respect, I agree with you. Take a look at the State systems of paying unemployment benefits. We are told by the U.S. Department of Labor that many of them are way behind the modern technology and cannot meet what you have stated as your goal here. If we want to work toward that goal of improving those State systems, as Senator Scott said earlier, I will join you in that effort. But let's not apologize for, perhaps, sending them an extra $1,000. One last point, we are asking these people to stay home. We were asking them to help us defeat this virus by not working and to stay with their families. So one of the incentives here, if there is a good unemployment benefit coming in, is that they can keep their families together while they obey this directive, at least, from government, State and Federal.

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DURBIN. Senator, I am sure you are acutely aware that this is a 4-month program. We are not offering people this benefit indefinitely. I hope we don't have to renew it, but to say that I am going to change my lifestyle and give up returning to the place where I have worked forever, where I was just laid off because they closed the restaurant because of a 4-month program, I don't think so. I think people are more loyal to the workplace if they are treated fairly. And if we end up giving them an additional $1,000 a month, at the end of the day, I think it is the right thing to do.

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DURBIN. Does the Senator support the Trump administration's cash payment to these families, which comes to them whether they work or not?

Mr. DURBIN. If I may just comment and say this. I don't think President Trump's cash payment or an additional $1,000 a month, or whatever it is, under the unemployment benefit is going to make a worker lazy and government dependent. These are not the people I know. These are people who get up and work hard every darn day, and if they get an extra helping hand out of this, so be it. We are trying to deal with a health crisis and help these families get through it. That is where we started on this side of the aisle. We may talk about something in the future and approach it a little differently, but I don't think it makes them lazy to receive the President's cash payment or to receive an extra payment from this unemployment benefit.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to address this issue because I think it is important that we explain where we are today and why we reached this point. I can recall when Senator Graham crossed the aisle a week or so ago, perhaps, and started talking about unemployment insurance and his goals for unemployment insurance. It sounded consistent with the language and conversation I heard on our own side of the aisle, our own caucus, to use the unemployment insurance system as a way to make sure that people were able to really weather the storm when it came to the public health crisis we face. The number of people who are filing for unemployment has gone up dramatically. There were 2 million new unemployment claims filed last week, compared to 218,000 nationwide in previous weeks. So we know that the number of people who have lost their jobs--laid off, furloughed, fired--is growing in a fashion we have never seen before. I have seen it reported in my State. I am sure each of you have seen the same. But let's get down to the bottom line. I ask my colleagues just to bear with me for a minute. What you were describing is what we initially set out to do. And then we met with the representatives of the U.S. Department of Labor. I was on one of the task forces for the Senate Finance Committee, and I sat there as a representative from the U.S. Department of Labor came in and said: Senators, you don't understand 50 different States' computer systems when it comes to unemployment benefits. We can tell you point-blank that only 6 or 8 States out of the 50 could possibly do what you want to achieve. They tell us it will take them months to reprogram their computers to make the simple calculation--what appears to be a simple calculation-- that says that you never get paid more in unemployment than you were making on the job. That was the reality. We didn't make that up. This wasn't a Democratic, dreamed-up idea. This was the Trump administration's Department of Labor telling us that when they looked at the State departments of labor, they couldn't achieve what you want to achieve with your amendment. In other words, if you go forward and you are successful--I don't believe you will be--but if you were successful, what we would end up with is, frankly, a deadlock: no increases in unemployment insurance benefits. Now, let me tell you, beyond this administrative problem, which was not our creation--it was identified by the Trump administration--there are two or three things I want to say as a bottom line. First, we are determined to make sure that the workers come out at least whole, if not better, through this terrible experience they are going through. Now, this notion that the workers would come out better is not unique to the Democratic side of the aisle. The cash payment proposed by the Trump administration--$1,200 per adult, $500 per child--for some, will be a benefit, may even be a small but important windfall that comes their way. So be it. That working families across America would end up with this cash payment from the Trump administration--I don't object to it at all. But the Democrats have said that is one and done. That is an airdrop of cash to people. What about the next week and the next month? That is why we brought up the unemployment insurance. Now, the $600 figure we came up with was an attempt to make sure that everyone is whole at the end of the day. I will concede your point that some workers--some--may end up coming out ahead because of this calculation of $600 a week. They may come out ahead. I am not going to stand here and say that I feel bad about that. I don't feel bad about that at all. When less than half of the people in America have $400 in their savings, the notion that we might end up giving people another $1,000 or $2,000 at the end of 4 months, to me, is not something we ought to be ashamed of or run away from. That is a real possibility, and it may happen I will support that just as I supported the Trump administration's cash payment to that same family. They are going through some tough times, and they have for a long, long time. How many of us have given speeches on this floor about income inequality in America, and some of the hardest working people are still unable to make it, paycheck to paycheck, week to week? So let's give them a helping hand and not apologize for it for a minute. We are standing with these workers and their families, and I think you want to as well. But the way you want to calculate it, we are told, cannot be done. It cannot be done in a fashion that brings relief to these families when they need it right now.