Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to someone many of my colleagues knew and admired, Lorne Craner, who passed away on July 2 at the too young age of 61, a victim of cancer. Lorne dedicated his professional life to advancing freedom and justice in the world. He served that cause faithfully as the longest tenured president of the International Republican Institute, IRI, as the Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor in the George W. Bush administration, as Director of Asian Affairs on President George H.W. Bush's National Security Council, and as an advisor to Members of Congress, including his service as foreign affairs aide to a newly elected Senator from Arizona, our late colleague, John McCain. He continued to advance American values abroad as president of the American Councils for International Education, as a board member of several distinguished organizations, including the Millennium Challenge Corporation. I got to know Lorne when Senator McCain, who was IRI's chairman, asked me to serve on its board. I saw the Institute thrive in size and reach under Lorne's leadership, becoming one of the world's most effective agencies for democratic development, respected by human rights advocates around the world and in both U.S. political parties. Like John, Lorne was a tireless defender of the dignity of all human beings, the bedrock value that democracies are instituted to respect. Like John, Lorne fought the bad guys to defend the little guys. Toward that end, he usually exercised a little more skill at diplomacy than John sometimes possessed, but they shared an equal devotion to mankind's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Secretary of State Colin Powell awarded Lorne the Distinguished Service Medal, the State Department's highest decoration. Lorne and John shared, too, a dedication to the peaceful conduct of international relations. Both knew that our interests and values sometimes had to be defended by force of arms, but they were both so personally familiar with the costs of war that they worked hard to resolve international conflicts peacefully where possible and to make new friends of former enemies. Lorne went to work for John in his last term as a Member of the House and his first term in the Senate, but their relationship began earlier than that. Lorne's father, Air Force Colonel Bob Craner, resided for more than 2 years in the cell next to John's in a Hanoi prison the POWs called, ``the Plantation.'' John described Colonel Craner to me as one of the finest officers he had ever served with and ``probably the person I was closest too in my life that I wasn't related to.'' John was held in solitary confinement at the time, the hardest period of his imprisonment, and he credited Bob Craner, whom he constantly communicated with by tap code, ``with keeping me sane.'' Despite the mistreatment of the POWS, John resolved early in his Senate career to help America reconcile with Vietnam, recognizing that the U.S. and Vietnam had shared interests in Southeast Asia, and that the cause of human dignity in the country where he had resided involuntarily for over 5 years could be served through friendly rather than hostile relations. The normalization of relations between the U.S. and Vietnam wouldn't have happened when it did if not for John's efforts to help bring it about. I think it is one of his greatest achievements. And Lorne Craner, the son who was deprived of his father for 5 years by the Vietnam war, provided invaluable help in that effort. Lorne travelled to Vietnam with John in 1990, where he helped John build productive partnerships with Vietnamese officials who would help resolve issues that were in the way of better relations. And from his positions in government and at the IRI, he continued to advance American interests and ideals in Southeast Asia. Today, growing security and commercial ties between the two former enemies, symbolized by the port calls in Vietnam by U.S. Navy ships, including the USS John S. McCain, are a testament to both John and Lorne's vision and effectiveness. They imagined a better future out of the resentments and rubble of war, and, with others, made it a reality. They were both men who believed to do good in the world was why we were put on this earth. Lorne was deeply committed to his cause, a cause he never strayed from, for a day in his life, and we are all better for it. He was, too, as all who knew him will testify, a devoted father and husband, and his family's loss is the most profound. He was a hard man to lose at such a young age, for his family and friends, and for the country and the world. Lorne Craner, son of Robert and Audrey Craner, husband of Anne Craner, father to three beloved children, Isabelle, Alexander, and Charles, brother of Charys, an American patriot, a man of justice, a peacemaker, and a friend to many, is gone. But his memory is a blessing to all who had the good fortune to have known him. To his wife and children, the people who loved him most, as much as you hurt today, time will assuage your grief, and you will still feel his presence in your hearts. I lost my parents when I was a young man. I can say with confidence that the day will come when you will recall, without heartache, the good and honorable man who loved you so and with whom you will one day be reunited. God bless you. Thank you.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, for one, I would like to say something about Senator Scott. I know how hard it is to work on this, and it has not been an easy enterprise for Tim. He is a conservative Republican, who happens to be African-American, and he has decided to take the lead on something that is very important to the country. He has had experiences that I don't have. He has been stopped multiple times on Capitol Hill. I have never been stopped. One year, he was stopped seven times for lane changes. The point is that Tim believes--and every African-American male I have talked to in the last couple of weeks is told early on, if you are stopped by the cops, watch what you do; keep your hands on the wheel and don't go toward the dash because that could end badly. I don't know how that happened, but it is real. For us not to realize that would be a huge mistake. Let me be on record as saying I understand that if you are an African-American male, your experience with the police is different than mine. It is unacceptable, and it needs to stop. So how do you stop it? You bring about change. So what kind of change are we looking for? Our Democratic friends have a list of changes. I think it is Justice in Policing. The House is marking it up. Here is what I would say to my Democratic colleagues: Stop lecturing me. You had 8 years under President Obama to do the things in the Justice in Policing Act, and 90 percent of it you never brought up. I am not saying we are blameless, but there has not been this sense of urgency to deal with these problems institutionally like there is today. Why? Because of Mr. Floyd and a few other things all happening together. Tim said in 2016 we had our chance. These episodes come and they go. The question for the country is, Will anything ever change? The only way it is going to change is to find common ground. So the proposal Senator Scott has collected, along with other colleagues, has bipartisan support, but if it is not enough, I am willing to listen regarding doing more. Senator Sasse was with me yesterday. We had a 5-hour hearing, and I learned a lot. I learned that a police department looking like the community is important, Senator Lankford, but, more importantly, is that you live where you police. I asked a gentleman from New Jersey: What is more important, race or community attachment? He said: Community attachment. You are less likely to hurt somebody in a community you feel a part of. Now, having said that, we need more African-American police personnel. We need more women. Apparently, women do their jobs a lot better than men. I haven't heard one person come forward and say: I had a bad experience with a policewoman. More women would be helpful. But the main thing is, we need people from the community being in charge of policing that community with a system that is more accountable. So Cory Booker and I have worked together on a lot of things--great guy. Tim and Cory are good friends, and I admire the heck out of Tim Scott. I am not going to take any more time. He is one of the most decent people I have ever met, and we are lucky to have him in South Carolina and the country is lucky. The bottom line, as Cory said, there are two issues that have to be addressed or everything else doesn't matter--242 and qualified immunity. I wrote them down. For those who are not conversant in 242 or qualified immunity, there is nothing wrong with you. This is a very archaic area of the law. Qualified immunity is a judicial doctrine that has developed over time that relates to the 1983 civil rights statute that allows people to sue governmental entities for abuse of force, for excessive force. There is nothing in the statute about an objective standard where the reasonably prudent police officer in the same circumstances acted accordingly. There is nothing about good faith. Justice Thomas is a pretty conservative guy. He wanted to revisit qualified immunity. I don't know how he would substantively come out on the issue, but in his dissent denying certiorari of the concept, he explains how this judicial concept has exploded beyond every attachment of common law analysis. This is Clarence Thomas. If you presented to me qualified immunity in its current form as a legislative proposal, I would vote hell, no. Police officers need not worry about losing their house or being sued if they act in good faith in performing duties that are hard on any good day, but when police departments time and again fail to do the things necessary to instill good policing, I think they should be subject and accountable like any other business. There is common ground here. Not one Democrat has suggested to me to make the individual officer civilly liable under 242, but I had Democrats suggest to me that the standard has become almost absolute immunity. The Presiding Officer has run all kinds of businesses. Being in the policing business is not your normal business. There needs to be a filter when it comes to lawsuits. It can't be about outcome. But it is now time, in my view, to look at the development of the qualified immunity doctrine as it relates to the 1983 underlying statute and see if we could make it better, not gut it. To my Democratic friends, if you want to eliminate qualified immunity, it will be a very short conversation. If you want to reform it so that municipalities and agencies and organizations running police departments will have some protection but not absolute immunity, let's talk. Maybe we can get there if it is that important. Let's at least try. That is what the legislative process is all about. Section 242 allows the Federal Government to bring charges against an individual for denying another American their constitutional rights. This is about policing but not exclusive to policing. The Presiding Officer is from Georgia. I am from South Carolina. There was a time in the South where juries would nullify all the evidence in front of them because the victim was a Black man and the perpetrator was White. A mountain of evidence could be presented, and there would be an acquittal in like 15 minutes. So we came up with a concept to allow the Federal Government to intervene in cases like that and hold somebody liable for violating the constitutional rights of another American under law Federal law. The standard to prosecute is ``willful.'' You have to prove that the police officer willfully understood the constitutional right and violated it. My friends on the other side want to lower the standard to ``reckless.'' What I would say is, this is not 1965. The police officer involved in Mr. Floyd's death is going to be prosecuted. So while it is important to talk about section 242, most States where these events have occurred have acted responsibly. We don't need the Federal Government sitting in judgment of every cop in the country. What we do need is a system of accountability. I will talk to you about 242, but I think that is not the issue. What is the issue? It is that police departments that are immune from liability when they engage in abusive conduct over and over are unlikely to change until that changes. You can throw all the money you want to at training and improving best practices, and they will gladly accept your money. If they don't do it right, they don't get the money. Add one thing to the mix. By the way, if you shoot a dog and you wind up killing a kid--your police officer shouldn't have shot the dog anyway in a fashion to kill the kid who was right by the dog--you are going to wind up having your ass in court. That will change things. I have been a lawyer, and I know how people feel about this. If you are exposed, in terms of your conduct being subject to a review by a court and a jury, you are all of a sudden going to think differently. Don't misconstrue what I am saying. I am not for abolishing qualified immunity; I am for revisiting the concept because I think it has grown too much from judicially created fiat. It is time for the legislative body--for us to speak as to what we would like to have happen to the statute that we create that now has a component to it that was never envisioned when it was originally passed. That is what Clarence Thomas is telling us as a nation we need to do. To my friends on the other side, if it is about qualified immunity, let's talk. If it is about 242, let's talk. If it is about keeping this issue alive, don't waste my time. We have all had plenty of time around here to do better. Now we have a chance to actually do some good. The only way we are going to do some good is talk. The only way you get a law passed is to engage in debate. If you don't want to debate the topic, if you don't want to have amendments about the topic, that tells me all I need to know about where you are coming from. I yield to the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, 5 years have passed, and it still feels like a bad dream, but we know it actually happened. The senseless murder of nine parishioners at Mother Emanuel hit South Carolina like a ton of bricks. It remains hard to understand how anyone could have so much hate in their heart. To be welcomed into a church, worship with the parishioners, and then turn around and shoot them in cold blood remains one of the most horrific acts ever recorded. Then just days after this horrible tragedy, the people at Mother Emanuel showed a level of love and forgiveness that was truly unimaginable. It was an act that is rarely seen. I personally cannot imagine turning to the person who killed my family members saying, I forgive you. I know that type of grace can only come from God. Of all the things that I have seen in public life, the words from the family members continue to amaze me to this day. You must truly have the love of the Lord in your heart to be able to muster that kind of forgiveness. On the 5-year anniversary, we think of those who lost their lives and the families left behind, the Christmases without loved ones, the birthdays missed. Our hearts are still broken, and our prayers remain with the parishioners at Mother Emanuel.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I think we probably can get there if we talk. We just got this thing at 5:30 last night. It is a grant program to try to strive for better policing, less bias. I get that. Count me in for that concept. There is a civilian review process about prosecutorial decisions that I don't quite understand. Senator Lee came up and asked me questions about the bill. So with no animosity, I object at this time. I hope we can get it as part of a broader agenda. On June 16, we are going to have a hearing about all things related to police and race, and we will try to make this part of a package. So at this time, I do object, and let it go through the committee.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I want to compliment my colleagues Senators Rick Scott, Tim Scott, and Senator Sasse. Today, when we were getting briefed about the bill, something hit me like a ton of bricks. And there are a lot of good things in here. There is money for healthcare providers, nurses, doctors, and hospitals. There are so many good things. The country is under siege. I was one of the first Republicans to join my Democratic colleagues. I think I talked to Senator Durbin. We need to do something more on unemployment insurance because the Collins-Rubio construct, I think, will help, but some people are going to fall through the cracks. Never in my wildest dreams, Senator Durbin, did I believe that what we have done is to pay people more not to work than to work. Under this bill, the $600 payment on top of State benefits actually allows people to have their income almost doubled in certain circumstances. I want to help people. I want to make sure that if you lose your job, we cover your wages. But under this bill, you get $23.15 an hour based on a 40- hour workweek not to work. If you are trying to hire somebody in South Carolina the next 4 months, you have got to compete with that wage. If you are working in a restaurant--probably not now--but if you are working anywhere for $15 an hour, somebody is making $23 an hour, and you are working. It is just not fair. It is going to hurt the Rubio-Collins construct. For restaurants that are out of business, we want them to be able to borrow money to pay the payroll to keep people connected to their employer. Now, what do you do when you make $23 an hour being on unemployment? How do you keep that waitress or bartender at $15 or $17? You made it a nightmare for small businesses. They are being pitted against their own employees. So to Senator Durbin and everybody else, the reason we are doing this is because they tell me it takes 6 to 8 months for unemployment commissions at the State level to figure this out. What are we asking you to do? To get unemployment, you have to tell us where you work and how much you make. And what we want to do is fill in the difference between the State unemployment benefit and your actual wages and stop there. We don't do that under this bill. There are people getting paid more not to work than they were in the workforce. It is going to be hard to not incentivize people to leave their jobs. You can be unemployed at $23 an hour in South Carolina. That is a lot more than people make. So I am urging my colleagues, we need to fix this now. No matter how well-intentioned, you are going to make the next 4 months impossible for small businesses to hire. I can promise you this: If you pay somebody $23 an hour not to work, they are probably going to find a way to get there rather than staying in the workforce, where I am sure they would rather be. We have created a perverse incentive not to help the unemployed person but to destroy the ability to stay employed. With that, I would just say to my colleagues, thank you for trying to bring common sense back to this body. I am very much for this bill that does help a lot of people. But we have created a Pandora's box for our economy, and I wish we could fix it tonight, and if we don't, we need to keep trying and trying and trying. With that, I will yield to my colleagues.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my good friend Senator Daines from Montana.

Mr. GRAHAM. He is on the way. Here is the state of play, folks. If you are at home and you are a nurse or you are a doctor and you are running out of supplies, there is a lot of money in this bill that will help you. We just need to pass the damn bill. What is going on here? Endless negotiations. Mr. President, in case you are watching, tell Steven Mnuchin to come back to the White House and end negotiations. I am all for negotiating. I try to make deals. I understand the give- and-take of life and the give-and-take of politics, but I have been called by two good friends on the Democratic side in the last 5 or 6 hours wanting more money. End the negotiations. This bill is $2 trillion. There is a ton of money in this bill for people who need it. But what we are doing now is every special interest group in town is trying to get a little bit more--nickel-and diming--at a time when people are dying--literally dying. Businesses are having to make a decision: Do I send my employees on unemployment or do I hope that Congress can act so that I can keep them on the payroll? I tried to do my part in terms of bipartisanship, but this is ridiculous. Steven Mnuchin has done a good job. I appreciate his efforts to negotiate a bill that will help America. Senator McConnell says we are on the 2-yard line. I believe it. The problem is that there are 20 people playing defense, and we need to take some people off the field. What bothers me is that at this late hour, I am still getting calls from people wanting more money. This is not the last bill we will do, but this is the last chance we have to save some lives in realtime. I am encouraging the President-- begging the President--to end negotiations now. Write what we have done, and let's vote. If it is not perfect, we will try to fix it later, but it is damn good. There is money in here to help people in small business who have had to close because they have no customers. Maybe we can change the containment policies, but it needs to be based on science. States now are sheltering in place. Anything the President does to try to open up the economy, count me in if it is based on sound science. It needs to be conditions-based. I want to leave Afghanistan like everybody else, but it has to be conditions-based. I think we are a long way from beating this disease. I want to bomb it; I want to starve it; and I want to kill it. But right now, I want to get money, paychecks up and running that have been shut down--no fault of your own. If you own a bar or a restaurant in Arizona or South Carolina, if we can pass this bill, you can go to a bank, a credit union, and you can borrow money, which we will forgive. It will not be a loan. It will be a grant for your employees, up to $80,000 per employee. You can borrow money, which will become a grant to pay the rent. We just need to pass the bill. If you are on unemployment in South Carolina, the most you can get is $326 a week. We add $600 to that--if we can pass this bill. To the hospitals on the frontline, there is a ton of money to help you with supply shortages on the medical side. To the nurses and doctors, there is money there for you. Elective surgery has been banned in some States. We need to help hospitals which are losing revenue. It is all in the bill. If you have student loan debt, we defer all payments, I think, until October. I can't remember. It is in there. That is good for you. It takes one rock out of your sack that you have to carry. It relieves your burden. Pass the damn bill. Stop negotiating. Enough is enough. This has been going on for 2 days. Like everybody else in the country, I have lost my patience with the political process. We are being nickel-and-dimed now. The big stuff we have pretty well right. If it is not perfect, we can fix it later, but we need to vote tonight. The reason I am on the floor is because I have been called by two Democratic colleagues in the last 5 or 6 hours wanting more money. The store is closed. Mr. President, end negotiations. Require us to vote. Draft the bill. Do it tonight. There is $10 billion in this bill--a $2 trillion bill--that may do more good than any $10 billion in the bill in terms of defeating the coronavirus. Everybody says we are at war. Senator Daines, do you agree we are at war with this virus

Mr. GRAHAM. How do you win a war? I want to starve the virus, starve the enemy. If we will practice good containment policy and stop going to the beaches and interacting with each other in an irresponsible way, we will starve the virus because it needs human transmission to survive. Containment policies well-practiced will starve the virus. Therapies, bomb the virus. The anti-malaria drugs--I hope they work, but therapies are in the pipeline that can take the virus from a 10 to a 1 or 2 so it is not so fatal. Bombing the virus is therapeutic drugs that lessen the mortality rates. Killing it is a vaccine or an antibody that will get to the underlying problem. Senator Daines has been a one-man band to try to accelerate the ability to produce a virus that is the nuclear bomb to kill this damn thing. We have $10 billion in this bill--thanks to Senator Daines--that will tell the drug companies that are in the business of creating vaccines and antibodies: Do your trials. But if there is any promise, start production, and we will cover you. If it is a dry hole, we will pay the cost; but if we strike oil, we will all benefit. That $10 billion is going to allow drug companies that are in the virus-destruction business, creating vaccines and antibodies, money to start production of anything that is promising--a dual system. Here is when we turn the corner: When infections go down, not up; when therapies begin to degrade the virus; and when a vaccine is on the horizon. That is when we have turned the corner. The money in this bill will accelerate turning the corner. I want to thank Senator Daines and my good friend from South Dakota presiding, who has been a Governor, who understands give-and-take, getting to yes. Nobody does a better job of getting to yes than our Presiding Officer. Both of you come from the part of the world--the Big Sky Country--where you have to live off the land, where neighbor helps neighbor. We need that attitude in this body. The store needs to close. Mr. President, end negotiations, write the bill, and let's vote. The reason we need to vote is because people are suffering and literally dying. Senator Daines, can you tell me what it is like in Montana right now?

Mr. GRAHAM. Would you yield for a question?

Mr. GRAHAM. Have you gotten phone calls from Democratic colleagues wanting more money?

Mr. GRAHAM. That makes it appear to me that negotiations are not on the 1-yard line.

Mr. GRAHAM. Would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. GRAHAM. I would like to ask a question. I don't know how many employees the gentleman has, but do you agree with me that if you have 500 or less employees, you are a small business, and under this bill, instead of laying off your employees, you can go to a bank or credit union and get an SBA loan that will eventually become a grant to pay your employees up to $80,000 per employee; you can also pay the rent that is coming due? Do you agree that is in this bill?

Mr. GRAHAM. Hire back the people.

Mr. GRAHAM. Everybody knows that. You don't need to tell us stuff we already know.

Mr. GRAHAM. If the Senator would yield for a second, all of the people who are negotiating are my friends. I have been in tough negotiations, and it is hard to get to yes, but we have never faced a problem like this since World War II and 9/11. This is not any time. This is not any bill. This is not just another legislative endeavor. This is life. It is death. It is the difference between bankruptcy and having economic hope. It is the difference between having the supplies you need to save lives and not getting them. To my colleagues who are doing the negotiations, stop. It is over. Write the bill. Let's vote. Every time I hear it is close, that means we are just a couple of hundred billion dollars away. The reason I am so agitated is not to try to be cheap--the bill is $2 trillion. It is that, like Senator Daines, I have been called in the last few hours by people who are wanting more money for this and that. All of them may be very worthy projects, but we need to stop negotiating at this very moment, write the bill, and vote tonight or no later than tomorrow. Senator Daines, I have a proposition for you. If we cannot do that as the U.S. Senate, don't you agree with me that we should stop getting paid? Now, legally, maybe we can't stop our salaries, for it will take a future Congress to do that, but we can all voluntarily give up our money. I have a hard time with my continuing to get paid when we can't solve the problem. We have been doing this for days now, and enough is enough. Senator Daines, do you believe it is time for there to be consequences for the body in our failing to deliver for the American people?

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, I can.

Mr. GRAHAM. If I may, I think the Senator is speaking for most Montanans. I know he is speaking for South Carolinians. Let's go back to the 14,000 people in Montana who are on unemployment. I don't know what kind of spike that is. I have been to Montana--a great place, a lot of land, not that many people, hardy folks. They don't want to be unemployed; they want to be working. I know the Senator's people pretty well. They are probably pissed off that they have been laid off, but there is nothing we can do about it until we control this virus, and we will. Do you realize, Senator, that in this bill, every unemployed person in Montana will get $600 on top of the State unemployment benefit? In South Carolina, the maximum benefit is $326. This bill will take it up $600. Doesn't the Senator think that will matter to the people in Montana?

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.

Mr. GRAHAM. If I may, we keep talking about being at war. I have made 50-something trips to Afghanistan and Iraq. We are at war with a virus, not with radical Islam, and we need to destroy this virus before it destroys our economy and kills thousands of Americans. The Senator's legislation--his proposal--of $10 billion to accelerate our finding an antibody or a vaccine is the ultimate nuclear weapon, and that is the best $10 billion in this entire package--to kill the virus. Yet the people in Montana, South Carolina, and South Dakota are out of work today because of containment policies. We have had to make a decision to stop the spread of the virus. It is probably one of the most draconian decisions we have made since World War II, when we rationed goods and couldn't have the lights on at night. Everybody says we are going to get through it, and they are right, but I want you to know it will not be easy. It is going to take a while until we find the therapies and the vaccines to kill this virus. Until then, we need to act in Congress to get help to those who need it. They are the people the Senator has just described--the business owner and the unemployed person. There is a lot of help. You can call this bill whatever you would like, but the two Senators who are here with me tonight are from out West. This is the cavalry coming over the hill. You are under attack; you are under siege. If we can pass this bill, the cavalry will be there for your businesses, and it will be there for your families. The only way we are going to pass this bill, Senator Daines, is to stop negotiations and write the bill. Do you agree?

Mr. GRAHAM. How do you kill it?

Mr. GRAHAM. How do you kill this virus?

Mr. GRAHAM. We will end where we began. The reason I am here with Senator Daines is that I have been getting phone calls over the last several hours from people who want to add more money. It is not that it is a bad idea as much as it is we need to get this bill done. It will not be the last time we get to address this problem. It rattles me to no end to know that people are still asking for billions of dollars at 8:30 at night or 8 o'clock at night. That tells me that we haven't sent the right signal, which is that this is a good bill. It is time to write it, and it is time to vote on it. It is time to end the negotiations. Mr. President, you have done a very good job today. That news conference with you and Dr. Fauci was the most encouraging I have seen. We are going to listen to good science, and we are going to turn on the economy in a smart way with conditions being faced. You have encouraged Congress. You have been very nice to Congress. The reason we are here tonight is that we are both upset that people are still talking about adding to the bill 48 hours after having been on the 5-yard line. We may be on the 1-yard line, but, apparently, there are 20 people on defense when we need to get the ball in the end zone. I am just begging of my colleagues who have worked very hard--and I am not being critical as much as I am being insistent--because enough is enough. You have done a good job for the Democratic causes. We have done a good job for the Republican causes. The cause is the country. If you are out of work, we are going to keep you on the payroll so you don't have to go on unemployment if your employer decides to go that route. If you are on unemployment, we are going to give you $600 more so you can actually survive better than you would have without this bill. If you are a nurse or a doctor and you are running out of supplies, this bill has a tremendous supply chain in it. So our message is simple: No more negotiations. It is over. Let's vote.