Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I will in just a minute. I am happy to yield as soon as I finish. I want to make this point as clearly as I can. I believe that this is not a windfall. Let's assume that instead of $600 a week, your calculation makes it $450 a week. So $150 times 16 weeks--that is 4 months. How much is that going to come out to? $2,400? Is that going to mean that someone now becomes lazy and won't go back to work? I don't think so. I think a lot of people will use that money and need that money and are given a helping hand and will put it right back in the economy. That is what this is about--that these families can keep their homes, pay their utility bills, put food on the table, and put the money back into the economy. That is part of what we are trying to achieve here. If we err on the side of giving a hard-working family an extra $1,000 or $2,000 because of our approach, so be it. No apologies. We didn't design this system. We were told we had to work within the design of the system. We tried to do it. We think the $600 a week is a reasonable way to do it, and I will yield for a question.

Mr. DURBIN. Is that a question directed to me through the Chair?

Mr. DURBIN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, first let me say a word to my colleague from Tennessee. It is good to see you, and it is a good social distance. I thank you for your presentation. We may not agree on everything, but we do agree on some things, and we are working together on the issues that affect Tennessee, Illinois, and many other places, to increase the number of medical professionals available in small towns and rural America. As we go through this public health crisis, it reminds us that we need to keep focused on that, and she and I will continue to work on that. I thank her for her bipartisan cooperation. That is a timely issue with or without the current crisis we face, and I look forward to her successful completion on that bipartisan issue. Madam President, my daughter called me yesterday from New York and talked about her first day in the classroom. You see, our grandkids go to public schools in Brooklyn, and they are, of course, closed, and the kids are back home. Well, yesterday was the first day there was to be remote learning using laptop computers. So my son-in-law took my grandson and my daughter took my granddaughter into separate rooms and spent 3 or 4 hours in that made-up classroom. My daughter said: This is harder than I ever imagined. So it is a reminder, No. 1, of how much we owe it to teachers every single day, and not with 1 child, usually with more than 1-15 to 30 in a classroom. Let us also remember that the learning process is critically important as we go through this health crisis. I hope all parents will try--I know my daughter and her husband are trying--to help the kids keep up with their learning process. In some places, it is hard. Kids don't have access to computers or may not have remote- learning possibilities. But it is something that is essential, and I thank the teachers and school districts that are trying to put it together. Janice Jackson, who is the head of the Chicago Public Schools, called me just a few days ago, and we talked about how they were implementing this in the city of Chicago and how they are trying to distribute school lunches. It is an awesome responsibility. Let's give special thanks to those who are working overtime to try to make sure our kids can keep up with the learning process and some of the basics in life, like feeding them to make sure they have something for lunch and breakfast, if not more. I can go through the long list of people to thank, which I have done before, starting with those in healthcare--nurses, doctors, lab technicians, and others working in senior citizen facilities, our first responders, and many like them. Let us not forget that every single day while we isolate, they are forced to break isolation and to come to help those in need, and we can never thank them enough. So what is going on in the U.S. Senate? If you hear the other side of the aisle, there is a suggestion that we lost our opportunity, that we are wasting time and nothing is happening. They argue that we have had two votes in a row--Sunday afternoon and then yesterday--to decide not to debate on the floor the McConnell bill which was produced. The argument is that we can't waste a second, that we need to get to the serious business of helping people across America and turning our economy around. I just want to say for the record that I left the office not 30 or 40 feet away of the Democratic leader, Senator Schumer. I didn't go and see him because he is in active negotiations at this minute with Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, representing the White House. He is in communication with the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, about the progress being made, and, as he said on the floor yesterday, he feels positive and optimistic about the outcome. I do too. This is an awesome undertaking. Consider for a minute that the bill we are trying to style and craft literally is larger than 1 year's Federal budget for domestic discretionary spending, and we are doing it in a matter of days. When it comes to the Federal budget, we spend a year--sometimes longer--putting it together. In this case, we are writing a bill of that magnitude in a matter of days because it is a compelling challenge and should happen. The argument on the other side of the aisle is that we wasted our opportunity here, that we should have agreed to the McConnell bill that was brought forward for a vote on Sunday and got on with it. But many understood that there was a fundamental flaw in the process Senator McConnell started. When he suggested that we needed this third bill, it was after we had passed two previous bills. The first one, the President asked, if you will remember--it seems like ancient history--about 3 weeks ago, the President asked for $2 billion to deal with coronavirus. Many of us thought that was totally inadequate, and we put our heads together on a bipartisan basis with the President and raised it to $8 billion. We did it in a timely way, and we did it in a bipartisan fashion. It probably shocked people across America who have limited high regard for Congress to start with. Quickly thereafter came a need for another bill. We upped the amount from $8 billion to $100 billion in that second bill. It passed in the early morning hours of last Saturday--just last Saturday. What happened in the Senate? Well, the Senate didn't move on the bill until Wednesday of last week. So we are talking about waiting 4 days when we could have considered the bill in the Senate and didn't move forward with it because we didn't have consent requested or given. But it has been done that way before. It doesn't have to physically make it across the rotunda. So 4 days passed, and last Wednesday, Senator McConnell called for this vote, and it passed--$100 billion. Then he announced we would start crafting this third bill. If you notice the calendar days we are facing here, it hasn't been a week since that announcement, and we are considering a bill of the size and magnitude the likes of which we have never seen in a single undertaking. It is a bill for authorization and appropriation that may range somewhere north of $1.5 trillion. Why is it that big? Because the problem is that big, if not larger. That is why we are trying to do this the right way. When Senator Schumer was told by Senator McConnell we were moving toward this third bill, his first response was the right one: Let's do it as we did with the first two. Let's have a bipartisan, bicameral approach. He suggested bringing together the four corners, as we call them here--the Democratic and Republican leaders of the House and Senate, together with the White House, sitting down at the table to craft this bill. Senator McConnell refused. He said: We will start this as an exclusively Republican Senate bill. We will ask our task forces to write something. We will get back to the Democrats in the Senate later. No mention was made of the involvement of the House. Well, after some 48 hours, we were presented with the proposal from the Republican side. In fairness, there were parts of it that were bipartisan in the McConnell bill. I think of the effort that Senator Cardin of Maryland and Senator Rubio of Florida put into the whole question of dealing with small business and the problems that they are facing with this massive public health crisis. They have come up with what I consider a good approach--a good approach that literally could help 50 to 60 million small businesses across America. There were others involved in the conversation--Senator Wyden, Senator Graham, and others. It was bipartisan--start to finish--and I believe we are this close to coming up with this bipartisan proposal. However, the other provisions in the McConnell bill were not as bipartisan, and there reached a point where Senator McConnell announced that that was the end of the story. He was bringing the McConnell bill to the floor without further negotiation. That came as a surprise because there were elements that the Democrats were asking for and insisting on that really were fundamental. So a vote was taken this last Sunday afternoon, and we decided, as a caucus, to argue on the Democratic side that there were fundamental elements missing in the McConnell proposal and we wanted to include them. So we voted no in going forward on the McConnell proposal. At that point, we didn't stalk off and fold our arms and say: That is it; we are not part of the process. Senator Schumer and the leaders in our caucus did exactly the opposite. We sat down with the White House, with the Treasury Secretary, and started engaging on those issues of importance, and, within a few hours, we involved the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi. Time and again, I have noticed over the last several days that Senator McConnell and others have come to the floor and complained that Speaker Pelosi was part of this negotiation process. If you go back to that pamphlet of how laws are made, you understand that this is not a unicameral legislature. Both the House and the Senate need to pass a measure for it to be sent to the President. So the involvement of the House leaders--starting, of course, with the majority, Speaker Pelosi, and including Mr. McCarthy of California, representing the minority--is an integral part of this process, and it should be. I don't understand why it is so unnerving for so many Republican leaders to consider sitting down at a table with this woman from California who happens to be the Speaker of the House and the leader of the majority, who is essential if we are going to get this done in a timely way. I think she should be part of it. She has been following the progress that is being made with Senator Schumer, Mr. Mnuchin, and Senator McConnell. She has made positive statements in the hopes that we can reach a point where we have a bipartisan agreement, and that would speed this up, as it should be. So we involved the House of Representatives in this conversation at the earliest stage, not after we have finished the Republican measure that Senator McConnell wanted to bring to the floor, but after we have completed a bipartisan measure that is one that she may be able to take to the House of Representatives for consideration and maybe even a unanimous consent on the floor. So what are the items that we are now negotiating, and where do they stand? The first item--and we made it clear on the Democratic side-- that is essential is that we deal with the healthcare system across America. The Governor of New York, Governor Cuomo, announced yesterday that he wishes that every hospital in New York would increase its capacity by 50 percent. Then, he went on to say: I really mean 100 percent. But 50 percent is so that they have enough bed space for those who are likely to come in seeking help facing this COVID-19 virus. We can understand that if a great State like New York--and even Illinois, for that matter--has to anticipate this dramatic increase in patients, our system could be easily overwhelmed. So the Democrats have said from day one that we want to make that the highest priority in this third bill. We want to make sure we put money in there for hospitals and for healthcare to respond to this crisis, and I will tell you that progress has been made. Since the negotiation between Senator Schumer and Treasury Secretary Mnuchin has been under way, we have made progress, and I hope that if we can hold it, we will have a dramatic increase in the amount of money that was originally in the McConnell bill for this purpose when it comes to hospitals. I also want to say a word about the unemployment insurance. This is a proposal that comes from the Democratic side but has been embraced by many Republicans as well, and the notion behind it is that those workers who cannot go to work, because there is no work to be done or they have been furloughed or lost their jobs, would have access to the highest levels of unemployment compensation in our Nation's history. Now, we think that this is a significant change and even a significant restructuring of unemployment insurance to reflect the current crisis we face. I don't run away from this issue of restructuring. I have heard many Republican critics, but when it comes to unemployment insurance, we are, in fact, restructuring it. The payments that were generally made in my State of Illinois and in other States were just not sufficient for those to maintain a family and pay their bills during times of economic crisis. So we have started moving toward an amount for individual workers closer to what they were paid at work, and we believe that this should be done over a long period of time. To say 3 months is enough may be a rosy scenario, which we hope will occur, but it may not. We want to give these workers the assurance that they can keep their families together and pay their basic bills, even if they are not going to work because of this public health crisis, which we are facing. Is that restructuring? I think it is. Is it necessary? Certainly, it is, and it has been agreed to on a bipartisan basis. That is one of the things that we don't believe the McConnell bill, originally proposed to us on Sunday, really addressed in a fulsome and complete way. We have made it our kind of standard on the Democratic side to make certain that we measure every proposal for economic recovery against the workers and working families of America--not what it does in the boardroom but what it does in the family room of individual families who still get those bills in the mail and still face the pressures of being out of work and wondering if there is enough money to get by. We know that a majority of Americans do not have savings of $400 or more. Many of them live week to week, not paycheck to paycheck, and we want to make certain that they have that peace of mind. We have measured every proposal for economic recovery against working families in America and against the individual workers and the challenges they face. There has been a complaint that we raised the issue of collective bargaining. We want to make certain that when we give money to corporations, it does not change the status of the workers whom they have bargained with over the years. We are going to wait, of course, for another day to consider future contracts and work contracts, but for the time being, we want to make certain that whatever money is going into the corporation respects the existing rights of workers under their collective bargaining agreements. I don't think that is a radical notion. Corporations are going to continue to operate under the laws of America. I think that the workers should be entitled to the rights that have been granted to them under their collective bargaining agreements, and that is basically the bottom line for us when it comes to collective bargaining When it comes to loans to corporations, that is where we have a serious problem with the McConnell bill. There was a provision in Senator McConnell's bill, which he calls a bipartisan bill--and I acknowledge that, in part, it was--but there was a provision that was far from bipartisan. It was a provision which said when it came to loaning money to corporations, the Treasury Secretary could waive the disclosure of that loan for up to 6 months. That is unacceptable to me, and it was to most of us on the Democratic side. We believe that if billions of dollars are flowing through the decision of the Treasury Secretary to individual corporations, there should be transparency and accountability: Who is receiving the money, under what conditions, and what is going to happen with the money that is being sent--taxpayer money that is being sent--for this purpose? So we have insisted, as we sit down in negotiation here, for this accountability and transparency when it comes to these massive amounts--billions of dollars--that could be transferred by the decision of one person in the administration. I don't think that is too much to ask. We should be held accountable as Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives for the money that is appropriated when we allocate it, and the administration should be held to the same basic standard. We also believe that when it comes to the basic standards, we have been burned once and don't want to be burned a second time. For those of us who voted for past legislation to give money to corporations, we want to make certain that that is for the good of the economy and the good of the workers. Sadly, in the past, we have seen, under tax bills and other provisions that were supposed to benefit the economy, that they ended up being a windfall for executives and corporations in terms of stock buybacks and dividends. Yes, we are holding a standard that buybacks should not be part of the future of any corporate assistance. We should be dealing with this to help the workers and help the economy but not to line the pockets of those who are at the highest levels of corporate governance. I don't think that is a radical idea. I think most Americans agree with it, and it is one of the things that we continue to argue for. I see my friend Senator Carper has come to the floor. We served in the House of Representatives together, and then he took a little vacation and became Governor of the State of Delaware and then returned to service at the Federal level in the Senate. He knows, as all of us do, that Governors across the United States and mayors and presidents of county boards, for example, are making exceptional sacrifices to fight this battle against this coronavirus. They are spending a lot more money on public health matters than they ever anticipated. They are seeing more claims at our State level for unemployment insurance than they have seen in history, and many of them are facing fiscal budgetary problems because of it. It is so obvious. We have seen dramatic leadership when it comes to the Governors. One of our colleagues of the House, Mike DeWine, now the Republican Governor of Ohio, has made some, I think, significant, important, and good decisions for his State. Some of those have involved more spending by the State of Ohio than he ever could have anticipated. The same thing is true for J.B. Pritzker in the State of Illinois. I talk to him virtually every single day. We text many times during the day, and I know that he is spending money that he thinks is necessary to save lives in Illinois. So the point I am making is that we want to make sure that the bill that emerges helps State and local governments with the fiscal problems they face because of this economic and healthcare crisis. I don't think that is unreasonable. I think it is the right thing to do, and I hope that we can include it. That is why the original proposal in the McConnell bill did not go far enough and why we have continued to negotiate up to this minute I might raise an issue of difference between myself and the Senator from Tennessee, who was on the floor just a few moments ago. She had suggested that we shouldn't involve ourselves in issues that really have nothing to do with COVID-19, and she used as an example the administration and execution of elections. Well, I will tell you, we went into a debate just a week or so ago in Illinois as to whether to go forward with the primary election. We decided in Illinois to do it, and it wasn't easy at all. They decided in Ohio to postpone the primary election. The point I am getting to is that the conduct and timing of elections relates directly to COVID-19, whether there are enough people who will be able to vote and enough people to serve as judges in polling places. So I don't know if that is being debated in the other room, but we should bring that issue up, because we want to make sure that, in this democracy, the most fundamental element of a free and democratic election is going to occur. I encourage all of my friends and family to vote by mail and vote early. We can do it in our State. In some States you can't. I hope we can find a mechanism to guarantee that elections really do reflect the sentiment of the American populace. Is that related to COVID-19? You bet it is. It is basic. And whether it is included in this bill or in a later bill, I don't think we should ignore it. Finally, let me say a word about the President's press conference last evening. I watched it, and I watched it because the news reports leading up to it raised a question as to whether the President was going to change America's strategy when it comes to dealing with this coronavirus. The current strategy, of course, is social distance, to make sure that you are isolating yourself as much as possible, and when in the presence of others, you don't stand too close, and wash your hands over and over. Those are the fundamentals. I mean, we hear those recommendations, and I think they are sound. But now there is a suggestion from the President that we may take a different course. I don't know what he will finally decide, but I will stand with the public health experts--Dr. Fauci and others--who believe that the best way to slow the growth of this infection rate in our country is by using some form of social distance and isolation of individuals and families. It is a great personal sacrifice and burden for many families to go through this, I know, but if, at the end of the day, we can reduce the number of people who suffer or die from this virus, it is worth the sacrifice, as far as I am concerned. Presidents, in times of national crisis, are expected to be credible, with clarity and consistency. I hope the President will remember that as he makes his decision on policy. Don't follow somebody talking on cable TV and their recommendations. Follow the experts in public health who have dedicated their lives to saving the lives of others. Even though it may not be politically popular to continue with this current social distancing, it is an approach which I believe has been proven in many other countries around the world to work successfully. The notion that we are doing damage to our economy, of course, is being heard. The number of unemployment claims may reach historic and record-breaking highs, but the fact is, if we don't deal with the underlying cause of our economic chaos, and that is this virus, and deal with it effectively, sadly, we are going to see the economic situation in this country deteriorate even more in the future. I am going to close my bottom line with this: We believe that the first two measures passed related to COVID-19 were done in a timely and bipartisan manner. They have been done in an effort to make sure the American people know that we can overcome our political differences and actually come together in a bipartisan way to serve this Nation, as we were sworn to do. There have been differences along the way. This bill that we are currently considering is one of such magnitude that we have never seen anything like it in the history of Congress in terms of the dollar amounts that are being debated now. We want to make certain that we do everything in good faith that we can to have a good negotiation and a bipartisan negotiation involving the House, the Senate, and the White House in the hopes that we can get this done and come up with a truly bipartisan package. The original bill--I mentioned four or five particulars--was lacking, from our point of view. I am happy to report that, in most of these, we have made progress since the early decision not to move forward with the McConnell bill. But there is more work to do. I think it is naive to believe this is the last piece of legislation that will be needed. We don't know where America will stand in 30, 60, or 90 days. But whatever it takes--whatever it takes--we need to come together as a nation, put aside political differences, and agree on a strategy that serves the best interests of families across our country, red and blue States alike, and do it here in Washington as well. Engaging the House of Representatives in the earliest stages of these negotiations just makes common sense. Whatever we agree to here has to head over to the House of Representatives for approval as well. So let's involve the Speaker, involve the Republican leader in the House-- the four corners that Senator Schumer asked for at the earliest stage of this conversation. To me, that is the best way to achieve it. For those who see an empty Chamber and wonder if work is being done, as I mentioned earlier, just across the hallway, Senator Schumer, who may come to the floor in a moment to give us an update, has been negotiating around the clock with the White House and with Senator McConnell to come up with a better bipartisan package to move forward from this point. I am going to close now with just one point I would like to make, and that is that many of my colleagues are joining Senator Portman and me in cosponsoring what we have called the remote voting amendment in the Senate rules. It is complex because it is the first of its kind where we are discussing using modern technology to meet our constitutional responsibilities and obligations. The reason, of course, is obvious. We shouldn't be gathering on the floor in groups. We have been warned by the Centers for Disease Control not to do that. Yet we do it because we have very few alternatives. So I am hoping we can work with the Parliamentarian and with the officers of the Senate to come up with something that is bipartisan, makes sense, and protects the integrity of voting on the floor of the U.S. Senate. We need to do our jobs, even in times of national crisis, whether it is a public health crisis or a threat of terrorism. Let us devise a way--let's work hard on it--that both the Senate and, I hope, the House can agree on that respects the rules and traditions of the Senate but gives us options that make more sense in this time of special peril. I yield the floor. Recognition of the Minority Leader

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN. Yes, I object.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to suggest to my friends on both sides of the aisle that we first assume the appropriate distance and then, secondly, that we take a deep breath. The emotions we have seen on the floor on both sides of the aisle are reflected in homes across America, where families are very emotional at this moment as we face this public health crisis. It is no surprise that it is reflected on the floor of the Senate. We are going to solve this problem, and we are going to do it in a timely way, which the American people expect of us. We have had two measures now that have come before us--one for $8 billion and another for $100 billion--that were addressed on a bipartisan basis with an agreement. This will be as well. Now, as for this argument that we can't spare 1 minute, that we can't spare 1 day, I understand the sense of urgency. The House of Representatives passed the second bill, the $100 billion bill, in the early morning hours of Saturday. When did the Senate pass the bill? It passed it on Wednesday--more than 4 days later. With regard to this $100 billion bill, which included medical leave, accelerated access to unemployment compensation, food, new Medicaid payments to States, a guarantee that you would never have to pay for a test, the Republican leader waited 4 days to call that bill. His argument was, Wait a minute; the paperwork is not here. Well, I checked on that because the Senator from Idaho raised it on the floor, and it turns out that, as we have many, many times--and we were prepared here--by consent, you can move on a measure before the paper actually comes across from the other body.

Mr. DURBIN. I will yield.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I might say to my friend from Idaho that it is not unusual for us to move on a measure before the bill, the paper, has come across the rotunda. We do it by consent. Yes, it happens here, and we were prepared to do it again.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if time remains on the Republicans' side, they can use it as they wish.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I will not yield at this moment. I want to finish my comment as I allowed the Senator from South Dakota to finish his. I hope the Senator from Arkansas will show me that respect. Thank you. Measures that have been raised this morning are important measures, and for the most part, my colleagues are pushing an open door. The Rubio-Cardin plan is one that I support. It is supported on a bipartisan basis. I think it is an excellent idea for dealing with the challenges of restaurants and small businesses. I support it. There is no issue in terms of whether that will be included in the final package. I believe it will, and I certainly hope it will. As for the notion of cash payments that was brought to us by the White House, I don't hear any objection whatsoever on the Democratic side of the aisle to it. With regard to the notion of extending unemployment insurance and providing additional benefits within unemployment insurance, I guess we are going to argue as to who came up with the idea first, but both sides agree on that basic idea. So these proposals that have been brought before us are not in controversy, as I understand it, in the negotiations that are underway. The thing that I was concerned about and that Senator Schumer addressed--and Senator Manchin raised the same issue--was really focusing on the threshold issue of the capacity of our healthcare system to deal with this public health crisis. When we heard the Governor of New York this morning suggest that the hospitals of that State will have to increase their capacity by 50 percent and that it will still not be enough, it is a suggestion to all of us that we need to start with healthcare and hospitals. It was our feeling that the bill Senator McConnell tried to move yesterday was not adequate. It didn't provide the necessary resources for that. When we return to this measure--it has been said by Senator Schumer and others that it could be today, and I pray that it will be--I think you will find additional resources for hospitals and healthcare. In my State, that is a critical element. Let me also talk about the fact that we are dealing with a bill of great importance and great magnitude. Reflect for a moment that the amount of money we are talking about in this bill is roughly equivalent to the entire Federal Government's domestic discretionary budget in 1 year. We are dealing with this bill, as we should, on an urgent basis. We should take care to make sure we do the best we can but to not wait for the perfect. Let's make sure we have something that is good and responsive to the needs we have I also think that the measure yesterday that was pushed by Senator McConnell did not provide adequate resources to State and local governments. When I talk to my Governor in Illinois, Governor Pritzker, they are spending money in ways they never dreamed of in order to deal with this public health crisis. They are also seeing more unemployment insurance benefits being claimed than we ever have in our history. We need to help the State and local governments, and that was one of the objections we had to the bill yesterday. We didn't feel that it was adequate. When it comes to corporations and providing help to businesses, large and small, count me in. I am one of those Democrats who stood for the stimulus package that President Obama brought before us because I thought it was necessary. I still believe we did the right thing in passing that stimulus package when many on the other side of the aisle did not. Part of that package helped larger corporations, and so be it, for I thought that was necessary. Yet we learned a bitter lesson. Many times, the benefits being given to those corporations and the tax breaks being given to them translated into stock buybacks, whereby they took the money and ran. We don't want that to happen again. Arguing for transparency and accountability on the money that goes to any business, large or small, is not unreasonable, and it used to be bipartisan. We are arguing over that, debating over that, and negotiating over that at this minute. Let me also say that I continue to be amazed at the references to the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. She really unnerves a lot of people on that side of the aisle. She is the Speaker of the House, you know, and the measure--whatever we do here--will be headed over there for consideration. The fact that she would want to be party to that negotiation is not an outrageous idea. It happens to be consistent with the bicameral system of government that we have. The Senator from Kentucky got up and talked about how she came into the meeting and ruined the whole meeting by asserting herself as the Speaker of the House. It is reasonable for her to do that. In fact, the suggestion by Senator Schumer at the outset was that we have the four corners--the four leaders, the Democrats and Republicans--and a representative of the White House for this negotiation. That approach was rejected by the Senator from Kentucky. We will do our own, he says. We will get back to you when we have a Republican plan. It was not bipartisan from the start, and it should be all the way. It is the only way it will work. Let me say for a moment that if and when we have reached an agreement--and I pray that it will be done under the circumstances--and if and when we vote for cloture on the motion to proceed, at that point, the Senator from Kentucky can offer any amendment he wishes. At that point, I hope that we will have an agreement and that we will all agree to do it in a quick fashion. Yet this idea that it is going to be instantaneous as soon as we vote for the motion on cloture on the motion to proceed is not a fact, and it hasn't been for a long time. Let me just conclude by making an observation on something related to our meeting here today and what is going on in the United States of America. Five of our Members did not vote yesterday on the Republican side of the aisle. One has been diagnosed as having COVID-19, and the other four are self-quarantining because of the concern about their own health, which is natural. It is naive for us to believe this will be the end of this challenge to our membership. I implore Senators to consider the bipartisan measure that Senator Portman and I have offered for remote voting. We should not be physically present on this floor at this moment. We know better, and our staff is subjected to whatever we bring on the floor in terms of viral load. Let's think about this in human terms. Too many of our colleagues and their families are falling prey to this disease. We should change the rules of the Senate to reflect humanity and reality. It is the 21st century. Voting in a remote fashion, as I have suggested with Senator Portman, is the best way, I think, to protect us and our families from further problems from a health viewpoint. Let me close by saying a final word on this. Senator Schumer came to the floor and didn't say, with arms crossed, we are stonewalling. He said he had to leave the floor to go back and negotiate. With whom? He left the floor to negotiate with the Republican leaders from the White House and, perhaps, from other places. That is the way it should be. We are going to get this done today. Take a deep breath. Everybody is emotional at this moment on both sides of the aisle, but we have a job to do, and we are going to get it done. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our side?

Mr. DURBIN. I yield to the Senator from Montana.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. DURBIN. Who has the floor?

Mr. DURBIN. Who has control of the floor?

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me just say, strike a responsible distance and take a deep breath. We are going to pass this bill--not the one that Senator McConnell brought before us yesterday but a version of that, which I think is a dramatic improvement. My prayer is that bill is going to include even more money than the McConnell bill when it comes to dealing with the healthcare crisis we face and the challenge we face--more money for hospitals, more money for providers, and more money for equipment, and we are going to have to come back again, I am sorry to say, if this continues, to make sure we put even greater investment in the men and women who will save our lives across this country. Secondly, we want to make certain that this McConnell bill is improved when it comes to accountability for the taxpayer dollars given to the largest corporations in America. Some of us feel burned by what has happened with some of those corporations in the past when we trusted their leadership to build their companies and help their employees, but, instead, they built up their own bank accounts at the expense of their employees. We don't want to return to those days. I am sure the Republicans don't either. We want language in this bill that moves this in the direction of accountability and transparency when it comes to spending taxpayers' dollars by major corporations. Third, never overlook the need of State and local governments. They have been waiting, begging, and pleading with the administration in the White House to give national leadership. Absent that, they have taken on the responsibility themselves. They are asking us to stand behind them as they make these difficult decisions, State by State by State, because the White House refuses to make these same decisions. We need to provide the resources to do that. State and local governments need that help, and I believe the McConnell bill could be improved by providing more resources in that regard. There are so many bipartisan things that we do agree upon in this bill. Let's get these things right. As Senator Murphy of Connecticut said, if we don't get it right in terms of dealing with the coronavirus, we can't put enough money on the table for economic recovery. Let's do it. I am sorry we are going to this roll call. It is not an indication of the progress that I believe has been made since yesterday in negotiating a bipartisan approach to improving the McConnell bill.

Mr. DURBIN. I think it is time to recognize that. Thank you. Cloture Motion

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, before my colleague from the State of Ohio leaves, I would like to note one issue that he did not raise, which we have in common, and that is the issue of votes on the floor of the U.S. Senate in times of national emergency. Senator Portman and I have cosponsored legislation to address this issue, acknowledging in our introduction of it a few days ago, that when we face something, as we did this evening, where five of our Senate colleagues were unable to come to the floor of the Senate and vote because they are self-quarantining at this moment, this could grow. Let's be very honest about it. The numbers could grow to a point where it could reach an extreme where there is a question of an actual quorum for the Senate. What Senator Portman of Ohio, a Republican Senator, and I have introduced with him on the Democratic side, is an effort to establish a verifiable technology procedure so that once the decision is made that we are in a time of emergency, that Members could vote and not be physically present on the floor of the Senate. If you notice tonight on my side and even on his side, there are some Members who came to the floor quickly and left. They are genuinely concerned about social distancing and about contagion. I understand that very much. I share that concern. So I would just say to my friend from Ohio, that we are certainly not going to call this measure, but I hope we call it soon. It is time for us to have this conversation about how to protect Members and their families, staff and their families, in the way that we vote on the floor of the Senate when we are facing a public health crisis, such as the one we have at this moment. I will be happy to yield for a question.

Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Ohio. This is a bipartisan issue, as it should be. It affects both sides of the aisle. We are all vulnerable, and if we can find a practical solution which respects the integrity of the voting process of the U.S. Senate, let's do that. As we have drawn it up in the earliest version, it has to be agreed to by both leaders, Democratic and Republican, to go forward and do it for 30 days at a time, renewable for another 30 days, with a vote of three-fifths of the Members to go forward an additional 30 days. So this is not a permanent change, but it is a change that may be necessary if we face a public health emergency or a terrorist threat, God forbid, or something of that nature. So I thank the Senator from Ohio. I know he is prepared to depart. I thank him not only for his remarks but the tone of his remarks because what I sensed from the Senator from Ohio was a genuine feeling that we can achieve this goal of coming up with this critical third piece of legislation and do it with both sides of the aisle working together. The American public has a very low opinion of those of us who serve in Congress, as much as we respect the institutions--and many of us have given so many years of our lives to--but I think they have been pleasantly surprised in the first two measures that we passed. They were done on a timely basis, and they were done on a bipartisan basis. So when we addressed the issue of the resources to fight this COVID-19, when we talked about providing free testing and medical leave and unemployment insurance being accelerated and food and Medicaid reimbursement to States, it was done quickly, and it was done with both the House and Senate together on a bipartisan basis. I think that should be the standard. I am sorry we stumbled today. I wish the Senator from Kentucky, the majority leader, would have withheld calling this vote this evening because I do believe that there are serious negotiations underway, even as we meet here on the floor. In another part of this building, those conversations are taking place. I have heard a lot of speeches on the floor, and if you listened carefully to the comments of the Democratic leader, Senator Schumer, they were positive. He really, I felt, gave me the impression that even in the last several hours, there have been some steps forward. There are key elements that still need be resolved, but I feel confident that we can reach that point, and we must. The first and highest priority from our side of the aisle, we share. He said it. We all would say it. We have to slow down and stop the spread of COVID-19 in the United States of America. Unless and until we do that, there is nothing that we can do to repair and restore this economy that has any promise. We have to reach the point where we have crested and start to see a decline in infections in our country so that we can start envisioning the moment when we can get back to business in America. That moment couldn't come any time too soon for me or for all of us across the United States. That is why we sent a Marshall Plan--that is what Senator Schumer kept referring to. A Marshall Plan for healthcare and hospitals was our highest priority. I will concede the bill that he has described has substantial resources, but I must add, from my point of view, just listening to my hospital administrators in Illinois, that it is not enough. It isn't going to be enough. We are going to quickly see our healthcare system overwhelmed if we don't invest now and invest dramatically. Many of these hospitals in my State have said to me--and they said it publicly, as well--that their revenue sources, primarily outpatient treatment and elective surgery, have been pushed aside because so many patients are coming through the emergency room door complaining of symptoms that are consistent with COVID-19. They have to take them as a priority, and they can't schedule elective surgeries. So the revenues coming to many of these hospitals--not just in Chicago but across the State--have been compromised. So from a financial viewpoint, let's make sure that this third bill we are debating puts an adequate amount of money in for these hospitals. They are our first line of defense against the spread of this virus across America. I think we all agree that should be done. I continue to be frustrated--and I know my Governor, J.B. Pritzker, shares this frustration--that all of the promises and all of the press conferences that the White House and other people are having about all of the testing kits and all of the equipment headed our way have not borne fruit. We just don't see it. We are waiting for evidence of it. We are not testing nearly enough people in our State. A State of 17.7 million people is a State that needs more than 350 tests a month. So what we need to do is to make sure we do this and have the testing kits available so we can map the increase or decrease in infections, and we can chart, specifically, the spread of the disease in our State, which I hope is moderated very, very soon. As for the protective equipment, we have people who are volunteering to make masks at home, we are so desperate to supply the needs of protective equipment at all levels. It is not nearly enough, and it needs to be done. Let me also speak for a moment about the role of the Speaker in this. I listened to the Republican Senate leader speak in somewhat questionable terms, to be kind, about the role of Speaker Pelosi in this conversation about this third bill. I must say, it is pretty obvious that if we are going to pass this measure and do it with dispatch, we need to have cooperation on both sides of the Rotunda, not just a bill that is acceptable to the Senate but to the House as well. So when Speaker Pelosi comes to the table, it is important that she be there, along with Leader McCarthy and the House Republican leadership, so that all four corners are represented. That is exactly what Senator Schumer suggested at the earliest stages; that we have the four corners of leadership come together with representatives of the White House and reach a truly bipartisan agreement that way. So the fact that Speaker Pelosi is interested--she should be. She should be more than interested. She should be at the table and involved in making the decision on this. Let me tell you that cash payments are important. We have never opposed them. We have said that we want to extend unemployment insurance. There is a proposal for that. The duration of this extension is important to our side. It is a critical element, which I hope we can quickly reach an agreement on. When it comes to the 7(a) loans that are going to be made to small businesses, Senator Rubio and Senator Cardin have worked on this for a long time. I think they are very close to a bipartisan measure that we can agree on. The phase 3 effort that Senator Mark Warner and others have focused on really takes into account certain corporations with more than 500 employees who definitely need a helping hand. When it comes to the largest corporations, I hope you can understand the reservations which some of us have. We want to make certain that the money going to these corporations isn't paid out in dividends or in stock buybacks so that someone ends up getting rich at the expense of a truly bipartisan effort to help the workers at those corporations, which are our highest priority. We can have restrictions so that these moneys are not abused and misused, and I hope we can do that as part of this agreement. Let me close by saying that I do believe we could close this deal. I don't know that it can be done tonight. I pray it will be. If there are people of good faith on both sides of the table, it will be. If it is truly bipartisan, I believe we can reach the goal that we are all seeking. Let's get this done. Let's restore the confidence of the American people in Congress that we can act on a bipartisan basis and on a timely basis to respond quickly to what is one of the greatest challenges I have ever lived through in this Nation. The American people in our neighborhoods, towns, and cities across America are proving every day that they have the courage and determination to see their way through this challenge--first and foremost, our healthcare workers, God bless them, at every level. The doctors, the nurses, the laboratory technicians, and those working with our elderly, they are risking their lives every day in their mission to deal with this crisis. We should do no less when it comes to our responsibility here in the U.S. Senate. And a word about our first responders, whether it is the police, the firefighters, or those in the medical professions, they, too, are doing their jobs, regardless of the threat to them personally. So, in that spirit, we should resolve this matter and resolve it quickly. I believe we can do it. I believe there is a feeling of good will and determination on both sides of the aisle here in the U.S. Senate. I hope that it can even be accomplished this evening. I stand by what Senator Schumer said earlier. There is a light at the end of this tunnel. Let's try to pursue it, both parties, and get it done as quickly as possible 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, each of us receives a report almost on an hourly basis from our home States. At the end of the day, my State of Illinois sends a report on the latest situation involving this COVID-19 virus. There were 163 new infections announced yesterday--that is the biggest 1-day jump we have had--and 1 additional death. Governor Pritzker has issued a stay-at-home order for the State of Illinois today beginning Saturday, today, at 5 p.m. until April 7. The city of Chicago is closing its parks and libraries, as well, starting today. The Veterans' Administration has reported one confirmed veteran's case with the virus in the Chicago area. That person is now under home quarantine. We had an exceptional situation at Midway Airport where two FAA tower employees tested positive for the virus several days ago, and we, of course, have to have an abundance of care and caution for the remaining employees there. The FAA, together with the city of Chicago, has been involved with screening the other employees and also determining whether the workplace has been cleaned properly before anyone goes back to work. The net result of it has been that Southwest Airlines announced suspending its flights in the Midway Airport because of this tower situation. When I spoke to the head of the Federal Aviation Administration, he told me there was a similar challenge at another major airport. I am afraid we haven't heard the last of it. It is an indication of what happens when someone tests positive in a work atmosphere that is a critical part of our economy and the safety of our Nation. Our hope is--fingers crossed--that this tower may resume its activities the early part of next week, but we want to make sure that when we do, all the employees are going to be safe in their workplace. We are also laboring in Illinois, as many States are, with the problem of not having adequate testing. We just don't know the extent of the infection. I mentioned the numbers that were reported yesterday, but that is based on the very small sample of tests that are being taken. We still have not received the test kits, and those that we have, some of them cannot be used because they don't have the necessary reagent or chemical that is part of the collection process. It turns out we are dependent on a foreign source for that chemical. In ordinary times, it was never a problem, but in extraordinary times, it is. I joined with Senator Alexander, Senator Blunt, and Senator Murray asking the National Academy of Sciences, in the midst of this crisis, to step back, get to altitude, and look down on the dependence of the United States on foreign-made medicines, medical equipment, and medical devices, and determine whether we need to reassess that dependence. In the ordinary course of business, there is no problem with things traveling back and forth between the United States and foreign countries, but in this situation, where there is a public health crisis that has interrupted ordinary trade patterns, or in the future, if we anticipate a similar challenge because of terrorism, we have to think ahead. I hope the National Academy of Sciences will give us their analysis of this situation as it currently exists and some guidance on how to look to these issues in the future. It is critical that we do. We also know that we have problems relating to our hospitals. One of the things we have urged Senator McConnell to consider--and Senator Schumer used the term ``Marshall Plan'' for our hospitals--I think it is absolutely essential. Yesterday, I had a conference call with 30 or 40--maybe more-- hospital administrators in the State of Illinois. I wanted to share some of the thoughts they gave me yesterday in the course of that conversation. This is through the Illinois Hospital Association. They said: What we need is a direct and immediate infusion of funds. We need access to critical supplies. We need a surge capacity. There are 300,000 hospital workers in Illinois. At this point, they need protective equipment that is lacking in so many areas. It turns out that our Federal stockpile--whatever it is worth--was either not large enough or cannot be distributed fast enough to meet the needs of these hospitals. One of the hospital administrators--I am not going to name the individual hospital, but one of the hospital administrators of a major hospital in Chicago said: We are worried about a shortage of ventilators. I heard that over and over again. They also want to let us know that these hospitals are taking huge financial hits today. We know about the restaurant industry because we see the closed restaurants, and we can imagine all the workers not reporting to work and trying to make things work for their families under the circumstances, but we don't appreciate the fact that because of this COVID-19, many of our hospitals have seen a significant reduction in their revenue streams. One of the hospital administrators said: Our outpatient clinic work is down to a minimum, and elective surgeries are being put off for obvious reasons. That is 50 percent of our revenue at the hospital, and so we have revenue issues going into this. They urged me to, through Medicare and Medicaid, increase reimbursements, and based on preliminary bipartisan discussions yesterday, I believe that is being considered. Both Medicaid and Medicare would increase the DRGs, for example, which is the reimbursement mechanism for those treating COVID-19 patients. They are concerned--and they told me this over and over again--that at a moment when we need our hospitals more than ever, many of the hospitals are facing closure because they just don't have the funds necessary to keep the doors open. The ordinary sources of revenue and profit have been pushed back and reduced. There are a variety of proposals that came to us in terms of making these Federal funds available, but they urged me over and over again to do this as quickly as possible and not to establish some long, involved bureaucratic process for applying for these funds. We also talked about the money flowing directly to the hospitals rather than through State governments or through some Federal agencies. I know this is risky business when it comes to accounting, but at a time of a national economic and public health crisis, I personally agree with them. I think we have no choice. I went through the hospitals, and they talked about their liquidity and cash problems. They said we need to treat this like a FEMA emergency. There are responses that use hospitals in those emergencies, that cut through the redtape and get the money to the places needed as quickly as possible. We have to do exactly the same thing. They talked about the number of infections growing exponentially, and they also talked to me about one rural hospital that literally said they were within days of closing. I can tell you, in that area of the State--a rural part of the State of Illinois--it means patients facing any medical challenges will have long distances to travel to find a place to be treated. We can't let that happen if it is at all possible to save these hospitals. They understand the overseas supplies are coming in. Many of them are desperately needed. They asked if there is any way to expedite that by the use of cargo air that may not be utilized in the ordinary course of business. We are looking into that because of our economic situation. I could give more information, but I won't. It is pretty obvious. The first line of defense for us in this public health crisis will be our hospitals. We are hoping that patients, through telemedicine, can be at least counseled and diagnosed and we can avoid people coming to emergency rooms unless it really is necessary. I understand the impulse we all have. If someone we love feels sick and appears to have the symptoms, we want them tested immediately and treated immediately. We have to take care and heed the advice even when it is hard. Telehealth is a way for us to have a better diagnosis of those in long distances and perhaps counsel them that an immediate trip to the emergency room is not necessary. I hope we can reach that point. We are also concerned about extension of facilities. Currently, the major hospitals in my State are looking to the expansion through tents--the kinds of emergency shelters that might be available so that people can be separated from one another. Yesterday, I spoke to the Secretary of the Army, Mr. McCarthy, about the availability of Department of Defense expertise. The Department of Defense can step into a situation and very quickly convert hotels into hospital-type arrangements. They can take closed hospitals and put them up and running in very quick order. I think that expertise is desperately needed. I encouraged the Secretary of the Army and Secretary of the Defense to make that expertise available. We are connecting them right now, between our State and the experts at the Department of Defense. These are men and women who do this. They are prepared to do it at a moment's notice if our military men and women are in peril. I would say at this point, America is in danger because of this, and we should turn to their responses and help as quickly as possible. I want to say one thing about a statement made earlier today by both Senator Schumer and Senator McConnell. We have before us an opportunity--and I hope we seize it--to show we can continue the bipartisanship that leads us to this moment. The first two bills that addressed this COVID-19 or coronavirus virus threat to America were handled in an extraordinary way--perhaps to the surprise of many Americans. They were done on a bipartisan basis and on a timely basis. We have only had the Republican proposal for a little over 24 hours. Yet I can tell you that as soon as it was received, active negotiations were undertaken at all levels. I sat through many of them yesterday. They were done in good faith. There are differences, clearly, in policy. We are really writing these bills as we travel down this path-- this dangerous path. It is important that we do it in a timely way but also exercise good judgment. My concern now is that we get this done and done this weekend because if we can finish this bill in a satisfactory way to both Republicans and Democrats and report it to the House when they return next week, they will be able to take it up and move on it quickly. There are so many Americans who are desperately waiting for word from Washington as to what their future will be--first in terms of medical care but second in terms of keeping their families together in difficult times. I am not opposed, nor have I heard anyone opposed to providing financial assistance to individuals and families who really need it. We want to do that. I know the Presiding Officer has been a leader on this issue as well. But we also were hoping that we can include in this some guarantee that it won't be one-and-done, that it isn't just a matter of providing this one check, stepping back, and waiting for the consequences. We know many people are facing long-term challenges and need an immediate and long-term commitment from us to make sure their families can stay together during this difficult time. I believe we can and should. Let me close by saying this is an exceptional time. We are isolated in one respect but closer in another. I think we all have come together in ways unanticipated. I have been on two--FaceTime and Zoom--apps this morning with members of my family, and we are doing this now almost on a daily basis. I feel more connected now in one respect than usually is the case. It is because we all care for one another. It goes beyond families; I believe that sentiment is shared across America. We have to keep it alive despite our political differences, despite all the things that separate us. There is so much more that brings us together and so much more that unites this country. We have to depend on that strength now more than ever. This is a challenge the likes of which we have never seen in our modern history. We can rise to this challenge, as we have so often in the past. I know we can do it in a unified way, bringing this Nation together. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to clarify a statement I made earlier. I said that, because of problems at the control tower at Midway, Southwest Airlines had suspended its flights. It turns out it has substantially curtailed its flights, but it has not suspended all of its flights. I want to put that on the record because, in this moment of great national challenge, we should all take care that our remarks are accurate. The earlier press report has been amended by the newspapers, and I wanted to make my statement on the floor clear. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.