Ron Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, this deserves a response. The pandemic is an act of God. Maybe--maybe--and we don't know. We don't know what complicity China had in--the chance that it was developed in a lab in this. We just don't know. But we certainly know that China controlled the spread in China while they allowed their citizens to go all over the world and spread the pandemic. It is an act of God. It is certainly nobody's fault in the United States. As chairman of Homeland Security, we have had before our committee the men and women in charge of these agencies who are trying to respond to an incredibly difficult situation. I never criticized President Obama or Vice President Biden during H1N1. It was a contagious disease, and 60 million Americans were infected by it. I am not sure there is anything you really can do to prevent infections. Now, I think we have actually been pretty successful in flattening the curve, people taking responsibility, becoming germophobes. We shut down our economy. Now, I never thought we should shut it down to the extent that we have because I have always tried to keep things in perspective, the human toll of the economic devastation of those shutdowns. But again, I find it galling when I know people like Pete Gaynor, General Giroir--the men and women--Dr. Birx, Dr. Hahn, the men and women in this administration who have been working 24/7 to respond as effectively as they can to an act of God, a pandemic. Now, I have been on the conference calls. This administration has been as transparent as any I have seen. To accuse this administration of hiding the truth--I don't know where you were during the early months of this, but I was watching the hour- and 2-hour-long press conferences where the truth was being laid out in all its gory detail. Any American who watched that that wasn't concerned about COVID, I don't know what they were looking at. There was no hiding the ball here. President Trump and his administration made it very obvious what was at stake. I am also aware of the fact that because of this act of God, because of this pandemic, there was an enormous demand for products that should have been in the national stockpile but wasn't there because the previous administration had run the stockpile down, and then we, all of us collectively, took our eye off the ball and didn't restore it. So the product just wasn't there. But I do know, in a very difficult situation, when demand outstrips supply by two or three times, the men and women in this administration, again, working tirelessly, allocated that PPE. I am not aware that anybody ran out. Now, I know that everybody didn't get everything they wanted because some tough decisions had to be made. We had to surge PPE product to those hotspots, and where the pandemic wasn't raging, people didn't get everything they needed I am not aware of anybody who wanted to get placed on a ventilator who didn't get one because they used the war production act. We did extraordinary things in terms of ramping up production. Now we are supplying ventilators to the world. You can overlook all these things, and you can say the administration wasn't honest with the American public, but I think the actual facts refute those charges. Maybe in other people's world there is perfection, and in this pandemic you can stop it in its tracks. You can prevent further infections. But that didn't happen with H1N1, even though they tried. Sixty-million Americans got it. Fortunately, it was not as deadly as the coronavirus and COVID-19. Again, among many things that are galling, the false allegations--to me, to politicize a pandemic, to politicize a virus that is killing Americans, to denigrate the efforts of the men and women in these agencies who have worked 24/7 is just simply wrong. This is not something that should divide us; that we should politicize. It is something that should unite us as prior crises in this country have. So, again, there are so many more other things I can say, but I see the Senator from Alaska is here, and I don't want to take any more time on the floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Reserving the right to object, when the COVID crisis first hit, this body, all of Congress, recognized how serious the situation was, and we acted. We acted in a very bipartisan fashion. We acted in a massive fashion, as a matter of fact. We understood that the American people, through no fault of their own--businesses were shutting down, people were unemployed--and we needed to provide a massive level of relief, and we did that in a bipartisan, almost unanimous fashion. All the needs have not been met. Republicans completely understand that, which is why we spent the August recess in daily calls, talking amongst ourselves, trying to focus and target where the relief is best directed. What we understood when we passed the more than $3 trillion of COVID relief in the early parts of this pandemic was that our efforts were going to be far from perfect, but they needed relief and, again, we supported it. One of the things we were trying to focus on, when we are already $27 trillion in debt, was recognizing the fact that we don't have an unlimited credit card; that we had to really take the time and hone the next relief package. We did that over the August recess, and we came together with a very targeted, very appropriate, and still a very expensive package, over $600 billion when you add up the plus-up for unemployment benefits, $300 per week, a level that is sufficient but not so high that it actually provides incentive for people to stay on the sidelines and not enter the workforce. In my State of Wisconsin, one of the biggest problems employers have is they simply don't have the ability to track people off the sidelines when you have a $600 plus-up. We provided additional funding for PPP, particularly for small businesses that have been devastated. Owners have seen their life savings wiped out. That additional over $200 plus- up in relief for small businesses would be targeted, would be appropriate, and it is necessary. There is over $100 billion for schools, tens of billions of dollars for additional testing and vaccines, billions of dollars for childcare and agriculture. In total, on top of $3 trillion, which is 14 percent of our GDP--by the way, a fair amount of that is still unspent and unobligated. We took a little bit of that which was unspent and unobligated and repurposed it for this new targeted package. Fifty-two Republican Senators voted for that bill twice. Rather than take yes for an answer, rather than saying: Thank you, we will support this level of relief for the American people, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle just said no. An analogy I have been using would be, Mr. President, if I said: Mr. President, give me $200. The Presiding Officer would look at me in shock, but because he is a generous individual, he would say: Maybe not $200, but I will give you $100. But just because the Presiding Officer didn't give me the full $200, I would go stomping off, and I don't even take the $100. That is, in effect, what the Senators on the other side of the aisle are doing. We are offering and we supported $600 billion on top of $3 trillion in relief--necessary relief, needed relief for unemployment benefits, for small businesses, for vaccines, for testing, for education, for childcare. It is there for the taking. All they have to do is say yes. Yet they say no because they would rather have an issue rather than result. Are they serious about helping the American public or do they just want to play politics? I think the answer is quite obvious. I object.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I just found out about this bill a couple of hours ago. I have been busy. I haven't really been able to really research it, and that is part of the problem with what our Democratic colleagues are trying to do here in just quickly rushing it through the U.S. Senate. Maybe this has had a full vetting in the House of Representatives, but here, in the U.S. Senate, it hasn't gone through any committee process whatsoever. Unfortunately, I also have to make the point--because I am sure they are trying to make a political point as opposed to trying to make law today--that I am opposed to all forms of domestic terrorism, including White supremacists. I think I speak for all of my Republican colleagues, and I think I speak for every U.S. Senator: We all abhor domestic violence and terror, including White supremacists. Again, I don't have much knowledge about this even though I am chairman of the committee of jurisdiction of one of the Departments that would be subject to this piece of legislation. I know that the Department was not consulted on this piece of legislation. I have been given notice here that the Department of Justice does not support this piece of legislation because it says it would seriously impede its ability to work in the domestic terrorism space. Again, I am not exactly sure why the Department of Justice does not like this piece of legislation. Suffice it to say that it doesn't. The Department of Homeland Security was not even consulted on this. As chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, I don't know anything about this bill. This is not the way to pass a serious piece of legislation that deals with a serious issue. If it is a good piece of legislation, the sponsors should have no problem running it through the normal committee of jurisdiction process. In this case, apparently, it is with the Judiciary Committee, but I would think my committee would also have some pretty strong equities in this space, not to mention the fact that I have been working with my ranking member on precisely these types of issues. Instead of just trying to make a political point, what I have always tried to do is get a result and make law, but that has to go through a thoughtful process that uses the full committee process, which is not the case here. So I object.

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

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call be waived.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, a quick response because in my other paper here, I did not have the full quote from John Ratcliffe. I would like to read it now. This is referring to the intelligence product that senior Democratic leaders created, leaked to the press, accusing Senator Grassley and I, falsely, of receiving information from Andriy Derkach. John Ratcliffe, Director of National Intelligence, wrote: I can confirm the IC did not create the classified addendum to the 13 July letter, nor did we authorize its creation. The IC was not consulted prior to its creation and subsequent release to the entire membership of the U.S. House of Representatives. Then, referring to that addendum, he said it ``by no means reflects the full and complete analysis of the IC.'' I would ask unanimous consent to enter into the Record an article that was published today by John Solomon talking about the extensive-- extensive--contacts by members of the Obama administration in terms of the NSC and the State Department and the Ambassador with Andriy Telizhenko. It is right here. We have a nice picture of House Member Elliot Engel as well.

Mr. JOHNSON. The same person they are saying is just this dangerous Russian agent, they were using extensively throughout the Obama administration to set up contacts. He actually had the ability to go to meetings in the White House, and he attended those. This is the person whom now they are saying, because we spoke to him and got a little bit of information from him, we are dealing in Russian disinformation. If they had that level of concern, why did Democratic lobbying firm Blue Star Strategies employ him for over a year, and why did Democrats deal with him so frequently during the Obama administration? I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON. I appreciate the warning. I don't think I did that.

Mr. JOHNSON. Let me continue. The most recent example is a letter and classified addendum created by senior Democratic leaders that accused Senator Grassley and me of relying on foreign disinformation. This ``intelligence product,'' which was full of false allegations, was produced, classified, and then leaked to the press more than a week before Senator Grassley or I were given access to it. Many in the media dutifully reported this hot tip. Democrats then used those media reports to repeat, distort, and embellish the false charges. This coordinated smear--and that is what you have to call it. It is a coordinated smear which continues today on the floor of the Senate--culminated in an August 7 opinion piece in the Washington Post submitted by Senator Richard Blumenthal. But John Ratcliffe, the Director of National Intelligence, wrote: I can confirm the IC did not create the classified addendum to the 13 July letter, nor did we authorize its [release]. The foreign information we were falsely accused of receiving--we have a misprint here. The foreign information we were falsely accused of receiving utilized--purportedly comes from a Ukrainian named Andriy Derkach, who has since been sanctioned by the Treasury Department. Although neither Senator Grassley nor I ever sought, received, or used any information from Mr. Derkach, the media has continued to report otherwise for weeks, despite our repeated and unequivocal denials. But it is true that a chart produced by Mr. Derkach is now part of our investigatory record, not because of me or Senator Grassley but because Senator Peters' staff introduced it into the record. So as was the case in the 2016 election, the only foreign disinformation being used to interfere in this investigation has been introduced by Democrats against Republicans and not by Republicans. Given all the concerns expressed by Democrats over foreign disinformation, it is notable that we have not heard the same concern over disclosure of the Steele dossier containing Russian disinformation. We are aware of this fact because, during the course of this investigation, my chief counsel uncovered it buried in four classified footnotes to the Department of Justice inspector general FISA report. We also know the FBI was aware of this as early as 2016. Think about that. The FBI knew that Russian disinformation was contained in the Steele dossier as early as August of 2016. Yet they continued the investigation, and that investigation spilled over into a special counsel and disrupted America's Government and politics for years. We also note that the Steele dossier was bought and paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign. Apparently, Democrats are willing to look the other way when they pay for or use disinformation against Republicans. That is what I read in my opening statement at our business meeting earlier today. As I look at this resolution, the last ``whereas'' talks about a congressional investigation that alleges the same discredited claims by Derkach. I don't know who Derkach is. As I said earlier, Senator Grassley and I have repeatedly, unequivocally, denied we did not solicit; we did not accept; we did not receive any information from Mr. Derkach whatsoever. Yet Democrats persist in pushing this false allegation. As a matter of fact, I am not sure our committee has alleged anything yet. About the only thing that I have alleged is the glaring and obvious conflict of interest. I have to step back here. I just have to give a little history about Ukraine. In February of 2014, Ukrainians, courageous Ukrainians-- basically two factions: one that wanted to integrate closer to the West and the younger Ukrainians who wanted to rid themselves of the corruption of the Soviet legacy--joined together in massive protest on the Maidan. Approximately, February 20, 21, over 80 Ukrainians were slaughtered by snipers protesting to rid Ukraine of corruption and increase their ties to the West. Less than 2 months later--and I have asked my colleagues: Is there any disinformation here? Is this anything from Russian sources? Two months later, here are the series of events that occurred. On April 16, 2014, Vice President Biden met with his son's business partner, Devon Archer, at the White House. That is kind of a big deal-- anybody meeting with the Vice President at the White House. Hunter Biden's business partner got to do that. Five days later, Vice President Biden visited Ukraine. The media described him as the public face of the administration's handling of Ukraine. The next day, April 22, Archer joined the board of Burisma. Again, Burisma is this company that is owned by what George Kent from the State Department called an ``odious oligarch,'' Mykola Zlochevsky. It is hard to say Ukrainian names. Six days later, after Archer joined the board, British officials seized $23 million from the London bank accounts of Burisma's owner, Mykola Zlochevsky. Fifteen days later, on May 13, Hunter Biden joined the board of Burisma. And over the course of the next, approximately, 4 to 5 years, Hunter and his firms were paid more than $3 million for his and Archer's board participation. Again, Ukraine had just gone through a revolution. Their leadership was desperate for U.S. support. We all have to believe that Mr. Zlochevsky, an odious oligarch, would have made those Ukrainian officials well aware of the fact that the son of the Vice President of the United States, the public face of the administration's handling of Ukraine, was sitting on his board. So what kind of signal did that send to Ukrainians who were trying to stand up and were being pressured by U.S. officials to rid their country of corruption? It basically said: If you want U.S. support, don't touch Burisma The fact is, when all was said and done, Burisma and Mykola Zlochevsky were never held to account. The investigation, the prosecution of him was ceased. It never occurred. In terms of Russian disinformation, these false charges, these wild claims against me and Senator Grassley--I was way ahead of the curve when it came to Russian disinformation. Back in 2015, as chairman of the European Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I held three hearings focusing on what Russia does to destabilize the politics in countries--an attempted coup in Montenegro and other places in Eastern Europe. So I am well aware of what Russia is doing--well aware. I don't condone it. I condemn it. I am not having any part of pushing it. But I have to say, for all the crocodile tears the Democrats shed in terms of Russian disinformation, the effects on our politics, I would argue that the Russian disinformation that has been perpetrated on our politics and the effect it has on the election pales in comparison to the false allegations, for example, that Russia colluded with the Trump campaign. It was promoted by Democrats for years, culminating in a special counsel and finally an impeachment. But how Democrats have used and how the media has promoted and carried the water for Democrats all this time has had a far greater effect, by orders of magnitude, in terms of destabilization and affecting the politics and affecting the elections. That is basically the truth. I would just ask my colleagues and I would ask the American public to take a look at what has really been happening here. The false allegations, the basic playbook the Democrats engage in, time and again, create a false narrative, create a false intelligence product, accuse the other side of things that you are doing tenfold. That is what is happening here. I, personally, am tired of it. As a result, I object.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object. I want to first point out--I want to thank the previous Presiding Officer for pointing out the fact that if this is not a violation of rule XIX, it is coming pretty darn close. What you just witnessed here is this: We have witnessed Democrats doing what Democrats do so well, accusing the other side of doing exactly what they do--only 10 times or 100 times worse. Earlier today, I chaired a business meeting of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, precipitated, created, made necessary by the fact that the ranking member of my committee presented an absurd, ridiculous interpretation of our rules. Based on the subpoena authority I received earlier on June 4, the ranking member said, in order to actually schedule a subpoena or schedule a meeting--a deposition--I could come back for another vote. During my opening statement of that business meeting, having just described that level of meddling--which, by the way, the ranking member also provided that ridiculous interpretation to our witness, the witness, Jonathan Winer, an individual, by the way, who decided not to cooperate with the Department of Justice inspector general in his report on the FISA abuse. He decided not to show up for his deposition that had been previously scheduled. Having just explained that in my opening statement, I would like to read the next part, which describes the duplicity and the hypocrisy of the Democrats. I said: The most recent example of this hypocrisy was a letter and classified addendum created by senior Democratic leaders that accused Senator Grassley and me--

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, it is my privilege to recommend the Honorable Brett H. Ludwig to be the U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Judge Ludwig passed the Senate Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support. I look forward to the full Senate voting to confirm him today. Since 2017, Judge Ludwig has served the people of Wisconsin on the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts for both the Eastern and Western Districts of Wisconsin. Judge Ludwig was born in rural north central Wisconsin and spent his childhood in the city of Colby, the birthplace of the cheese that bears its name. His grandparents and great-grandparents were dairy farmers, instilling in their children and grandchildren the values of hard work and dedication that Wisconsin's farm families are known for. Brett's father, Duane Ludwig, worked nearly 40 years at a factory making corrugated container boxes. His mother, Connie, worked as a receptionist, secretary, and medical records clerk. They raised him to have a strong work ethic and to appreciate the importance of education. Judge Ludwig graduated from Colby High School in 1987. He attended the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, graduating with the highest honors. He then attended the University of Minnesota Law School on a merit-based scholarship. He excelled in his class work, ``grading on'' to the Minnesota Law Review. He ultimately graduated magna cum laude, was named to the Order of the Coif, and then clerked for the Honorable George G. Fagg on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Following his clerkship, Brett returned to Wisconsin to practice at Foley & Lardner in Milwaukee, the largest law firm in Wisconsin and one of the oldest law firms in the United States. In 2003, Foley & Lardner made him a partner, and he spent the next 14 years building a successful commercial litigation practice. In addition to trying more than a dozen complex, multimillion-dollar cases through judgment, he played a crucial role in firm management, chairing the Milwaukee office's recruiting and pro bono committees. Brett's leadership and contribution to his field extended far beyond his firm. He was hired by the Marquette University Law School to serve as an adjunct professor teaching insurance law. He served a term on the State Bar Board of Governors and was active in the Eastern District of Milwaukee Bar Association. He was also active in marshaling the efforts of Milwaukee's largest law firms to commit time and lawyers to pro bono representations in the district court. In 2017, Brett left private practice when he was selected to serve as a bankruptcy judge, where he presided over more than 12,500 bankruptcy cases, issued more than 20,000 orders, and adjudicated dozens of evidentiary hearings and trials--all while earning the respect of debtors, creditors, and their lawyers through his strong judicial temperament, empathy, and compassion. Judge Ludwig has also shown a strong and clear commitment to the rule of law. His written decisions reflect that he is a judge who is committed to faithfully applying the Bankruptcy Code and rules as they are written. He has demonstrated that he is not and will not be an activist judge. Judge Ludwig lives just outside Milwaukee with his wife, Melissa Bleidorn; their children, Madeleine and Ryan; and a black lab, Chloe. I would like to thank Senator Baldwin for her support of our bipartisan nomination commission that has once again selected an excellent jurist. I would like to thank the hard-working members of this commission for their time and dedication in finding and recommending Judge Brett Ludwig, who will serve our Nation and the people of Wisconsin in the Eastern District with distinction and honor. Judge Ludwig has my full support, and I urge all my colleagues to vote yes on his confirmation. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON

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

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, back in February 2020, before the COVID recession, there were 158.8 million Americans employed. We have gone through a lot. COVID is probably the most significant event--certainly in my lifetime--affecting people's lives, the tragedies we have seen, affecting our economy, affecting the Federal budget. At the end of June, there were 142 million Americans employed. That is a reduction of 16.6 million Americans or 10.5 percent. I want people to remember that 10.5 percent. Over the last month or so, there have been a number of respected economists who made forecasts of how much our economy is going to shrink. These are folks from the IMF and CBO and the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, economists at Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. The range of what they are predicting our economy will shrink to is somewhere between 4.6 percent and 8 percent. This is causing economic devastation--a real human toll on real people. As a result of that, Congress acted. We acted fast. We acted swiftly. We acted massively. We wanted to provide financial help to individuals who were unemployed all of a sudden through no fault of their own. We wanted to help provide financial need to businesses that were viable, that can hopefully survive and rehire and help us recover from this COVID recession. We also wanted to make sure we provided enough liquidity in the market so we wouldn't see any kind of seizing up and see real financial devastation. The result of all that was that within a very short period of time, by the end of April, we had already passed four different financial relief packages totaling $2.9 trillion. We just held an oversight hearing in my committee 2 days ago. There is even dispute on that number. Some witnesses said it is close to $3.6 trillion. I am going to use $2.9 trillion as a minimum. To relate that to what I just talked about, that represents about 13.5 percent of our economy. Again, employment is down 10.5 percent. Economists are predicting our economy will shrink somewhere between 4.6 percent and 8 percent. But we acted swiftly and massively. We knew what we were going to enact was far from perfect. We all understood that. It was far from perfect, but it worked, and we had to do it. We passed an amount equal to 13.5 percent of last year's GDP. Less than a month later, Speaker Pelosi and her House Democrats passed a fifth package out of the House worth $3 trillion--$3 trillion. I am sorry. That is not a serious attempt at financial relief. If we add that to the $2.9 trillion, that would represent 27.5 percent of last year's economy. Again, employment is down 10.5 percent. Our economy will probably shrink by no more than 8 percent. Yet Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats wanted to increase the amount of debt burden on our children by passing a package that would bring the total relief package up to 27.5 percent of our GDP. It is not serious. It should surprise no one when Leader McConnell and Chief of Staff Meadows and Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, as they tried to forge a deal with Speaker of the House Pelosi and Minority Leader Schumer, that they couldn't reach a deal; that there was probably no goalpost that they will not move to make sure that doesn't happen. But the problem with that approach--and I would call it a very cynical, political approach, really playing with people's lives and livelihood--is that tomorrow the Federal unemployment extension that we passed as part of the CARES Act--because we realized we wanted to try to help everybody who was unemployed because of the COVID recession-- expires. As I said, the CARES Act was far from perfect. I certainly did not want one of the provisions. I voted against it. I actually supported the amendment of the Senator from Florida to reduce the $600 flat payment. That is a real problem because it represents something like 134 percent of average wages, and we are creating a very perverse incentive for people to remain unemployed when our economy is calling for more workers. I want to quote an economic adviser to both Presidents Clinton and President Obama, Larry Summers. He once stated: The second way government assistance programs contribute to long-term unemployment is by providing an incentive, and the means, not to work. Each unemployed person has a ``reservation wage''--the minimum wage he or she insists on getting before accepting a job. Unemployment insurance and other social assistance programs increase the reservation wage, causing an unemployed person to remain unemployed longer. We want to avoid that situation. We want to help workers, but we want to avoid the situation where we prolong unemployment or create a sense for people to stay on unemployment insurance. The fact is that, according to a University of Chicago study, 68 percent of people collecting unemployment are making more on unemployment than they made when they were working. CBO estimates something between five out of six people currently collecting unemployment are making more not working than working. The Bureau of Labor statistics at the end of May said there were 5.4 million jobs open--not being filled. We have a problem. We have two problems. We can't do a deal because I don't believe our friends on the other side of the aisle are serious about doing a deal. But we have unemployment expiring, and the current provision was too generous to create a perverse incentive. I have introduced a piece of legislation that I have cosponsored with the Senator from Indiana and the Senator from Florida, who would also like to speak to this. It is called the Coronavirus Relief Fair Unemployment Compensation Act. There is no fancy acronym. It describes what the bill does. It extends Federal plus-up for unemployment to the end of the year. The COVID recession is not ending any time soon. Rather than having to come back and do this over and over again and increase the anxiety on Americans who are unemployed, let's extend this to the end of December. Our bill gives States the option of either a $200 flat plus- up or a plus-up equal to no more than two-thirds of an individual's average wage, not to exceed $500. The States have the option. If they can't handle the two-thirds plus-up, they can accept the $200 flat plus-up. In case our Democratic colleagues are going to complain about that as not being generous enough, two-thirds of weekly wages is exactly what the House passed in phase 2 of the COVID relief package. Two-thirds of average wages is what they set as the amount of money for paid sick and family leave. I also want to point out that $200 a week is eight times the amount the Democrats, back in 2008 and 2009--I think 2009--passed as part of the great recession relief package. They passed $25 per week plus-up, so $200 per week plus-up is eight times that. Again, we, as Republicans, are trying to meet them already more than halfway to do a deal on unemployment. Again, those individuals who are without a job through no fault of their own have the comfort and relief that they will have assistance from the Federal Government. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Indiana for acting quickly in cosponsoring this piece of legislation. I now yield to the Senator from Florida.

Mr. JOHNSON. I thank the Senator from Florida for his words of support. Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill at the desk. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, a quick response. The Democratic leader states this is not adequate. Again, I would remind the Senate that in 2009, when they passed a Federal plus-up for unemployment benefits-- total Democratic control--they passed $25 a week. So the $200 a week is eight times what they passed in 2009. Apparently, they felt that was adequate back then. There was also a study out of the University of Chicago that a $200 plus-up on State unemployment benefits coming from the Federal Government replaces more than 100 percent of wages for 20 percent of the workers currently unemployed. The other 80 percent get replacement that ranges up to 100 percent. Again, this is a very generous proposal. And, of course, the option of two-thirds is exactly what the House passed in phase 2 of the coronavirus relief packages--two-thirds of weekly wages for paid sick and paid family leave. Now, all of a sudden, it is inadequate. And of course their solution--what they are going to offer--is another $3 trillion, further mortgaging our children's future when we haven't spent about $1.2 trillion of the $2.9 trillion we have already authorized. It is not a serious proposal, which is why Leader McConnell could not negotiate, because they weren't negotiating in good faith. The Democrats are being cynical. This is not a serious offer. This is a very serious and, quite honestly, more than generous offer to help Americans and alleviate the anxiety they are going to be feeling if the Democrats just simply decide to reject this. It is very unfortunate, but that is the state of play in the Senate. It is very sad.

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I would like to first respond to the Senator from Oregon about the economic news: yes, on an annualized rate from the downturn in the second quarter, 9.5 percent. But again, I pointed out, respectfully, that economists are predicting a shrinkage of GDP 4.6 and 8 percent because we are in recovery. The employment has dropped by 10.5 percent. We have already passed $2.9 trillion. We haven't spent $1.2 trillion of that at least. So we haven't spent $1.2 trillion. Yet our Democratic colleagues want to pass a bill that costs $3 trillion. We are already $26.5 trillion in debt by the end of this fiscal year. That would be approaching $28 trillion. They want to pass a bill by unanimous consent for $3 trillion when we haven't spent $1.2 trillion of the $2.9 trillion we have already passed. That massive amount would represent 27.5 percent of our economy, when economists are saying it will shrink by probably no more than 7 percent or 8 percent. We don't need to authorize more money. What we need to do is help the American people who are unemployed. I know the minority leader called that stingy. The offer we are making--the $200 flat payment--does not provide an incentive to stay unemployed. It replaces more than 100 percent of people's wages for 20 percent of the people currently unemployed--a 100-percent wage replacement for 20 percent. That is according to a study by the University of Chicago. For the other 80 percent, it replaces up to 100 percent. What is stingy about that? Why do our Democratic colleagues want to propose continuing the $600 per-week plus-up that is preventing people-- incentivizing people not to reengage in the economy so that our economy can recover. It makes no sense. Again, I will point out that the two-thirds option is the exact same amount that the House passed--the Democratic-controlled House passed in phase 2 of the COVID-19 relief packages for paid sick and family leave. So, again, we tried to tailor this to protect those American workers. We tried to tailor this based on what Democrats themselves have proposed and passed. Yet they would rather play politics. They would rather be cynical and object to my unanimous consent request because time is running out--I acknowledge that. So we are responding, but as in so many other debates--whether it is gun control or immigration--it is their way or the highway. They simply will not take yes for an answer. It is very unfortunate they are taking this position that they want to indebt our children for another $3 trillion, and they will not say yes to a very reasonable proposal structured on things they proposed and passed in the past. Madam President, It is very unfortunate, but I have to object to $3 trillion of additional debt on our children.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me first state and make perfectly clear that I think the emancipation of slaves is a day worth celebrating. I have no argument whatsoever with the fact that we should probably celebrate it better than we have in the past. But there are other ways of celebrating it--a resolution in the Senate creating a national day of celebration without declaring it a national holiday. The effect of declaring it a national holiday is primarily one thing: It gives Federal workers a paid day off. Now, Federal workers are compensated quite well, and I want to quickly go through this again, as we did last week. I have some charts up here. If you take a look at just their wage, Federal workers, on average, make about a little over $94,000 per year. In the private sector, the average wage is $63,000, which is 67 percent of what Federal workers make. If you also include benefits--total compensation--Federal workers make, on average, about $135,000, almost $136,000 per year. In the private sector, it is about $75,000, which is 55 percent of what Federal workers make. So if you strip out only the benefits, which is what we are talking about with holiday pay and paid family leave and other things, Federal workers, on average, get compensated about $41,000 annually, versus the private sector's $12,000, which is only 29 percent of what Federal workers make. What we are talking about is a paid day off. Now, take a look at what Federal workers get in terms of the number of days off with pay. It is quite generous, particularly after last year's National Defense Authorization Act, in which we added paid parental leave. I have two charts here. Here is one: If a Federal worker gets paid parental leave--and I realize that only happens a few times during somebody's lifetime--but Federal workers get 10 paid holidays. That is probably the max anybody gets in the private sector. In terms of paid leave, minimum, they get 13 days off; maximum, they get 26; and by the way, 26 is more than 5 weeks off with pay--basically paid vacation. They get 4 weeks after only 3 years. That is virtually unheard of in the private sector--very generous paid vacation in the Federal workforce. Then, with paid parental leave, they get 60 days off maximum. So, a Federal worker taking advantage of paid parental leave will get 96 to 109 days off or, put a different way, for every 1.4 days a Federal worker works, they get a day off. Now, let's strip out paid parental leave. Let's look at people who aren't having a child or adopting a child--again, same basic numbers: 10 paid holidays, 13 to 26 paid leave days, 13 sick days, for a total of anywhere from 36 to 49 days of leave that is paid. For a more senior worker, for every 4.3 days they work, they get a day off, which is basically a 4-day workweek. By the way, if they don't take the paid leave days, they can carry them over. So, again, the private sector benefits aren't even close to this generous. I am not objecting to celebrating Juneteenth. What I am objecting to is the rest of America paying for another paid day off for Federal workers. By the way, it costs about $600 million per year. The CBO score is over 10 years; that is $6 billion. The sponsors of this bill want to just go ahead and incur that additional cost on the American economy and American taxpayers without a vote. They can't do it just by unanimous consent, which is really what I am objecting to in this process here. So, again, I have a different proposal. We could either declare it a national day of celebration. That would be fine. Or we can go ahead and declare it and make it a national holiday, but if we are going to do that, let's just take one of their paid days away. They come out whole. Last week, I was accused of taking something away from Federal workers. Not really--I am still leaving them with the same 36 to 49 or 96 to 109 days off. I am just saying that it strikes me as kind of strange that the only way we can properly celebrate Juneteenth is by giving Federal workers a paid day off, paid by every other American taxpayer, to the tune of $600 million a year. So, again, what I would recommend is that modification: Declare Juneteenth a national paid holiday but remove one of their paid sick leaves. So I ask the Senator to modify his request to include my amendment at the desk; that the amendment be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered and read a third time and passed; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. JOHNSON. I object.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and to quickly respond to the Senator from Massachusetts, I am not taking anything away from Federal workers. I am just not willing to give them an extra day paid. So if we create Juneteenth as a Federal paid holiday, they will get an extra day, and I am just saying let's keep them whole by removing a paid leave day, and then they will have the exact same number of days off as they have currently, and the American taxpayer will not be out an extra $600 million per year or $6 billion over 10 years. I object.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me say first that I appreciate my colleague from Wisconsin's work on this issue. It is an important issue. It is one that our committee has been working diligently on. Since the beginning of the COVID crisis, we have held five hearings and a roundtable on exactly this issue--exploring and doing oversight on the national stockpile and its supply chain vulnerability. Just today, we marked up five pieces of legislation very similar to what my colleague from Wisconsin is introducing here and trying to pass by unanimous consent. The five pieces are the Federal Emergency Pandemic Response Act, Securing Healthcare Response and Equipment Act, National Response Framework Improvement Act, National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center Pandemic Modeling Act, and finally--this one closest to my colleague's bill--the PPE Supply Chain Transparency Act, which is actually the piece of legislation we have had the most discussion on--two amendments, including a second-degree amendment to one amendment--before passing it unanimously. So our committee has done a lot of work. My concern about what my colleague is doing here--trying to pass this by unanimous consent--is by and large bypassing the committee process. It is true her staff reached out to my staff a couple of weeks ago. We asked, have you vetted it through the Department? Apparently, she has begun that process, but this piece of legislation has not been properly vetted. It has not gone through the proper and full committee process. Again, without expressing an opinion on a piece of legislation but also acknowledging the fact that our committee has done a lot of work-- passed five pieces of legislation on a nonpartisan basis today because we are concerned about this as well--I have to object.

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, in reserving the right to object, let me start out by saying that I agree with virtually everything my colleagues from both Massachusetts and Texas have said about celebrating the emancipation of the slaves. That was an important moment in U.S. history. It should be observed, and it should be celebrated. I have no disagreement whatsoever with that at all. The one area of disagreement is how the bill's sponsors have chosen to celebrate that holiday. As the Senator from Massachusetts pointed out, since 1865, it has been observed with celebrations and cookouts, which is the appropriate way of doing this. I object to the fact that, by naming it a national holiday--and what they are leaving out of their argument and its main impact--it will give Federal workers a paid day off that the rest of America will have to pay for. When I asked for a CBO score, the sponsors of the bill had not even obtained a score, and I still don't think they have obtained a score. The estimate, in terms of what it will cost American taxpayers in the private sector to pay for a paid holiday for Federal workers, is about $600 million per year. The CBO score would come in at $6 billion over 10. In terms of why I object, let me just put a couple of facts to that $600 million bill that hard-working taxpayers would have to foot in an era when we are $26.5 trillion in debt and when 17 million of our fellow Americans are currently unemployed. The first chart here--let's just talk about how many days off Federal workers get currently. I have two columns--minimum and maximum. For paid holidays, they get 10, which is pretty generous. Most people in the private sector get something similar--7, 8, 9, or 10. For paid leave days, there is a minimum of 13, up to 26; for paid sick days, 13, minimum and maximum. What we just added in last year's NDAA was paid parental leave, which allows an individual--either mother or father, with either a natural childbirth or an adoption--60 days of paid leave. So for a total, at a minimum, there are 96 days, up to 109 days if they take paid parental leave. Looked at a different way, as a ratio, if they take the maximum number of 109 days, that is, basically, for every 1.4 days you work, you get a day off. On a minimum basis with paid parental leave, for every 1.7 days you work, you get a day off. Now, again, I realize the paid parental leave is a ``just a few times in somebody's career'' phenomenon, so let's take a look at this without paid parental leave, and it will show that the number of days with pay that Federal workers get off is still quite generous. Again, paid holidays, they get 10; paid leave, 13, up to 26; paid sick leave, 13, for a total of 36 to 49. So, again, going back to that ratio, the maximum number of days without paid parental leave, a Federal worker can work 4.3 days and then get a day off--basically a 4-day workweek for the entire year. That is quite generous. So what I am objecting to is creating a national holiday that gives Federal workers another day off with pay, paid for by the American taxpayer, and we are collectively already $26.5 trillion in debt. Last slide. I would like to just, in general, talk about the private sector pay versus Federal worker pay. I know there are some disputes about this in terms of education and that type of thing, but still, this is pretty solid information. The 2018 average annual wage--just wages, salary or wages--for Federal workers is over $94,000. For private sector workers, the average is about $63,000 or about 67 percent of what a Federal worker makes. When you add in benefits, total compensation, the average total compensation for Federal workers in 2018 was $136,000, just shy of $136,000. In the private sector, the total cost of compensation is a little more than $75,000--55 percent of what Federal Government workers make. So if you strip out and just compare the benefits, again, we are talking about an extra paid day off, an extra paid holiday for only Federal workers to celebrate Juneteenth, paid for by American workers who make about $12,000, on average per benefit, compared to $41,000 in benefits for Federal workers. That is only 29 percent. So those are the facts. Again, that is what I object to. Again, I am happy to celebrate Juneteenth. I think we should celebrate the fact that we did remove that original sin by emancipating the slaves. That is a day of celebration. I agree with that. I simply don't believe we should make American taxpayers in the private sector pony up $600 million a year, $6 billion over 10 years, to give Federal workers, who already are paid quite generously and have quite a few days off one more paid day off. So what I am proposing--again, I don't object to Juneteenth and a celebration, but if we are going to make that a Federal holiday, the main impact of that is giving Federal workers a paid day off. I would just suggest this: Why don't we take away one of their days of paid leave? So I have an amendment at the desk, and I would ask that the Senator from Massachusetts modify his request to include my amendment at the desk; that the amendment be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Reserving the right to object. Mr. President, the fact is, the Senate has acted. We acted very generously. In the CARES Act, we passed $100 billion. In the CARES Act 3.5--phase 3.5--we passed $75 billion for a total of $175 billion for the Provider Relief Fund. That fund allowed reimbursement and financial assistance to skilled nursing facilities and nursing homes. To date, about $76.9 billion--44 percent of that $175 billion--has actually been expended, and $4.9 billion has been expended on skilled nursing facilities and nursing homes, which means we have $98.1 billion left. Fifty-six percent of that $175 billion has not been spent, and HHS has a great deal of latitude in terms of how to direct that. If more needs to go to skilled nursing facilities and nursing homes, HHS has $98.1 billion to spend. Before we authorize another $20 billion and try to pass that by unanimous consent, I say we need to take a very close look at what we have already spent--close to $77 billion--and then either redirect, repurpose, or just utilize it as was intended, the $98.1 billion that remains to be spent. I object.