Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Executive Calendar Nos. 845 through 853, 869, 870, and all nominations on the Secretary's desk in the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Space Force; that the nominations be confirmed; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the senior Senator from North Dakota and the majority leader be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions on Wednesday, September 30.

Mr. PORTMAN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I would like to talk tonight about the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett for the vacant Supreme Court Associate Justice seat. I think the President made a great pick. From all indications, she is an impressive lawyer, judge, and person. We have already begun the process of looking at Judge Barrett. She has been meeting with Members of the Senate, and I look forward to my meeting with her. The precedent for moving forward with this nomination at this time is crystal clear. During an election year, when one party holds the Presidency and the Senate, in the entire history of our country, the Senate has confirmed the nominee in every single case except one. That one exception, by the way, was somebody who withdrew because of ethics concerns that both Republicans and Democrats had. So the precedent is very clear. When you have the President and the Senate of the same party, we confirm. In contrast, when power is divided and a Supreme Court vacancy arises during an election year, Senate precedent is not to confirm the nominee. In fact, the last time a confirmation occurred with the President and the Senate of different parties was in the 1880s. That distinction is what separates now from 2016. Back then, I wrote an op-ed: Some argue that the American people have already spoken. And I agree they have. Both the president and the Senate majority were fairly and legitimately elected. The last time we spoke as a nation, two years ago, the American people elected a Republican majority in the U.S. Senate in an election that was widely viewed as an expression that people wanted a check on the power of the president. The president has every right to nominate a Supreme Court Justice. . . . But the founders also gave the Senate the exclusive right to decide whether to move forward on that nominee. In other words, in keeping with the precedent that I laid out earlier, the Republican Senate did what Democratic Senates had traditionally done with a Republican President's nominee. The comments I made in 2016 were all in that context of divided government. In fact, in that same op-ed, I warned that divided government is not ``the time to go through what would be a highly contentious process with a very high likelihood the nominee would not be confirmed.'' I did not believe that Judge Garland would have been confirmed. I thought it was not a good result to have that kind of highly contentious process for the institution of the Supreme Court or for the Senate. Now, of course, we have a very different situation. We have a President and a Senate of the same party. In fact, we have a Republican Senate that was elected in 2016 and reelected in 2018, in part, to support well-qualified judges nominated by the President. No one can disagree that Judge Barrett has an impressive legal background. As I have looked into her background both as a law professor at Notre Dame, where three times she won the Distinguished Teaching Award and, of course, in her record as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Judge Barrett has been highly regarded for her work in the legal world. By the way, she has been highly regarded from folks across a wide variety of legal philosophies. They say she is smart. They say she understands the law. They say she is well qualified. In fact, the American Bar Association said that about her when she was nominated and successfully confirmed here in the U.S. Senate to the circuit court, which, of course, is the second level, right below the Supreme Court. So she has already gone through the process here. She has been confirmed here. The American Bar Association looked at her and said she is well qualified, which is their highest rating. So my hope is that there will not be any argument about whether she is well qualified or not, because she clearly is. She has an impressive legal background. To me, though, her personal story is as impressive as her legal career. After earning a full ride to Notre Dame Law and graduating first in her class, she earned a prestigious clerkship on the Supreme Court for Justice Antonin Scalia. She then married Jesse Barrett, a classmate of hers at Notre Dame, and is raising seven wonderful children--two adopted from Haiti--all while advancing her own extraordinary career in the law. Frankly, I think she is a great model for working parents everywhere. As we heard during her last confirmation to the circuit court, when we talked about her right here on the floor of the U.S. Senate, she was admired as a good person. Colleagues at Notre Dame, her students at Notre Dame, and others from across the political spectrum have called her fair. They have called her compassionate. They have said she is a good person. Apart from those legal qualifications and the character, I think it is fair for the Senate to insist on knowing a judge's judicial philosophy. My view is that it is the role of Supreme Court Justices to fairly and impartially apply the law and protect our rights guaranteed by the Constitution but not to advance their personal preferences or even their policy goals. That is not the job of judges. They are not supposed to be like us, legislators. They are not supposed to legislate from the bench. They are supposed to follow the Constitution, follow precedent. It is no understatement to say that Judge Barrett is being interviewed for one of the most important jobs in the country. That is why it is important we do get a fair and accurate picture of her judicial philosophy. Do you know what? Her judicial philosophy lines up with what I think is right for the Court but, more importantly, what most Americans think is right for the Court. As an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal put it recently, Judge Barrett's body of work puts her ``at the center of the mainstream consensus on the judge's role as an arbiter, not a lawmaker, who abides by the duty to enforce the law as written.'' That is her record. That is the philosophy she talked about as she was confirmed by this body just a couple of years ago. While I know that judicial nominations have become incredibly partisan around here, my hope is that Judge Barrett will be given a thorough and a fair evaluation from both sides of the aisle. To that end, I hope my Democratic colleagues will at least meet with Judge Barrett and engage with her on any concerns they might have rather than dismiss her nomination out of hand, and I hope that those who end up opposing her will be able to do so without resorting to the kind of character assassination we saw with Judge Kavanaugh. I look forward to the 4 days of Judiciary Committee hearings that have already been announced by Chairman Graham. This will give all members of the committee plenty of time to ask questions, to express their views, and to have the dialogue that they are looking for. I will be joining millions of Americans in watching those proceedings. I will also look forward to my one-on-one meeting with her. This will give me a chance to further assess Judge Barrett's character, temperament, and legal philosophy. My hope is that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will also take the opportunity to fairly review her character, her judicial temperament, and her legal qualifications, which are so impressive, and do so in a respectful manner. I yield the floor.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following Senate resolutions, which were submitted earlier today: S. Res. 730 through S. Res. 741.

Mr. PORTMAN. I know of no further debate on the resolutions.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute be withdrawn; that the Wicker amendment at the desk be agreed to; and that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time.

Mr. PORTMAN. I know of no further debate on the bill, as amended.

Mr. PORTMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third timed and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be discharged from further consideration of S. 4403 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 508, S. 3681.

Mr. PORTMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be withdrawn; that the Markey substituted amendment at the desk be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; that the committee-reported title amendment be agreed to; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. PORTMAN

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am on the floor today to talk about what the Senate and the House ought to be doing before we leave town for the election, and that is helping people who are in need because of the impact of the coronavirus. I know this is the week when we are focused on the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and that is appropriate. There is a lot of discussion also about filling her seat. We should, of course, all take time to mourn our Nation's loss, but we are also in the middle of an unprecedented healthcare and economic crisis. I think we have a responsibility to continue working on COVID- 19 legislation to respond to those challenges. Since this crisis began, Congress has actually come together repeatedly, as Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate, and working with the White House, to pass five coronavirus relief bills-- legislation to address both the healthcare crisis and the economic free fall that was caused by the virus and the shutdowns. The biggest of these bills was the one you hear about the most--the roughly $2 trillion CARES Act that was passed by a vote of 96 to 0. Again, these have been bipartisan efforts up until now. Unfortunately, since May, when the last of these five bills was enacted, partisanship has prevailed over good policy, and Washington has been paralyzed, unable to come together for the public good. Last week I came to the floor to highlight how this dynamic has played out with regard to a single issue that has become strictly important for so many people in my home State of Ohio and around the country. That is the expanded Federal unemployment insurance supplement included in the CARES Act back in March. I had a tele-townhall last night. I am trying to do a tele-townhall or a Facebook Live townhall every week during the pandemic, in part just to stay in touch with people because it is so hard back home now to visit with people in person. Again last night, I had two callers call in, both of whom are taking advantage of the current $300-per-week Federal supplement provided really by the Trump administration, and they talked to me about how they are going to plan for the future. These are individuals who don't have a job to go back to. One, by the way, is a musician who makes his living playing music--the piano and singing and so on--at long-term care facilities, nursing homes, and each one of his previous clients has said that he is not welcome to come back now, for good reason. But that makes his life pretty tough because that is what he does for a living. So his question to me was this: You know, look, I really appreciate the 300 bucks. I need it to get by. And I got my rent, I got my car payment, and what are you guys going to do about that? Well, the truth is, nothing at this point, and that is too bad because that $300 supplement has now ended. In effect, what the President did to continue some help at the Federal level had limits because he did it under the only choice he had, really, which was the Disaster Relief Fund, and that has now run out. So that is where we are. Early on in the pandemic, both Republicans and Democrats recognized the need to bolster the State-run unemployment insurance programs to help offset the massive job losses we saw in March and April. The initial amount was $600 per week, and it was provided by the CARES Act. It came at a big cost to taxpayers. It also provided an income source that made the difference for a lot of folks in the State of Ohio and around the country. During those early months, you remember the government was actually shutting down a lot of businesses, and workers were losing their jobs through no fault of their own, like this individual last night--through no fault of his own not having a job. As the year has gone on, we have made progress. We slowed the spread of the coronavirus in most States. We have added more testing and personal protective gear. More and more parts of our economy have been able to reopen in a safe and sustainable manner, and that is great. With the reopening, hiring has picked back up, and we now have far fewer people on unemployment insurance than we did at the beginning of this pandemic. Unemployment is now about 8.4 percent. That was the number for August--down from over 15 percent back in the spring. That is a big change. Over 4 million jobs have been added. At the same time, 8.4 percent is still high--very high. Remember, we were at about 3.5 percent in February of this year. By the way, February was the 19th straight month of wage increases of over 3 percent. We had record-low unemployment for many sectors of our economy, and here we are at 8.4 percent. So we are not out of the woods yet. We still have a way to go. Ohio's unemployment number just came out the day before yesterday. For August, it was 8.9 percent. So 10 percent unemployment is something we are now under. In fact, we are under 9 percent, which is way, way faster than the projections. But still, 8.9 percent unemployment in Ohio is something that we need to focus on. I will say that overall, we are going in the right direction and that unemployment claims, I think, are now either steadily dropping or holding level in almost every State. That is certainly true in Ohio. So it is fair that Congress wanted to take another look at that original unemployment insurance supplement, which was set to expire at the beginning of August, and it did expire, and we wanted to look at it to see what the new supplement ought to be given the changing economy and given some of the improvements that we saw and also given the need for more workers as more businesses were reopening Now, $600 per week was a relatively generous benefit--to the point that the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan group around here that gives us advice, said: If you kept that $600 until next year-- which is what the Democrats proposed in their Heroes Act--8 out of 10 people getting 600 bucks a week would be paid more on unemployment insurance than they would be at their jobs. In other words, you would be making more money unemployed than you would if you were working. That is not the way unemployment insurance is supposed to work. That is not good for an economy that is trying to reopen. I have been all over my State and talked to employers--small, mid, large-size employers. I have talked to the nonprofits. I have talked to people who are working hard to try to provide care to people in the healthcare sector. They all tell me the same thing: That $600 is a problem because some people were not coming back to work because, again, for most of those people, they could make more on unemployment than they could working. So we needed to adjust it. Yet Democrats insisted 600 or nothing--or nothing--and so we got nothing. Some of us had proposed $300. In that case, some people would be getting paid more on unemployment, but most would not. In fact, most of them would be getting less than some percentage of their salaries. But, again, if you lose your job through no fault of your own, particularly because of a government decision to shut down your sector--say a movie theater or a bowling alley or a bar--it seems to me that we ought to be helping. So the $300 that we proposed was to go until toward the end of the year, but Democrats said no--kind of a ``my way or the highway'' approach, like it is going to be $600 or we are going to give these people nothing. We gave people nothing. To me, that was a big mistake. A number of us came to the floor and actually said: Let's continue $600 for a week so we can negotiate something. Democrats said: No. We want to end it. We don't even want to have it temporarily at $600 to be able to negotiate something between Republicans and Democrats. That is too bad. When Congress failed to act, President Trump and his administration stepped in, and they said: $300 is about the right number. We will provide the States a $300 supplement through what is called the Disaster Relief Fund. Now, in the CARES legislation we talked about earlier, which was the $2 trillion legislation that passed 96 to 0 around here, a lot of money went out for various causes--for our hospitals, for our schools, and for our families through unemployment insurance. But it also provided some funding for what is called the Disaster Relief Fund for COVID-19 purposes. So the President took some of that money for COVID-19 purposes out of the Disaster Relief Fund and said: We are going to, for 6 weeks, allow the States to use this $300 supplement if they choose to do so. They also encouraged the States to provide their own match. What happened was, every State but two took the government up on that. So the vast majority of States said: Yes, we will do it. They didn't add their match, by the way, but they did take the 300 bucks, and a lot of people have been helped by that because over the past 6 weeks, that funding has been available. Unfortunately, sometimes it got paid as a lump sum because by the time the State systems figured out how to administer it, you know, we were close to the end of the 6 weeks. But people knew that was coming. They knew they had 300 bucks for paying their rent, paying their car payment, paying their mortgage, and that was helpful. That was helpful. Now we are at a point where President Trump's emergency Lost Wages Assistance Program, which is what that was called--the Lost Wages Assistance Program under the Disaster Relief Fund--has tapped out. Forty-four billion dollars was made available to the States, leaving $25 billion in that Disaster Relief Fund because that $25 billion was what was projected to be necessary to deal with the natural disasters. So that is where we are today. Forty-four billion has been depleted. People who have had unemployment insurance since this disaster began are not going to have it now. It is going to end. For many people, it ended this week; for some, next week; for some, the week before. The point is, we as a Congress need to act. My view is, let's provide some more funding for the Disaster Relief Fund, at least. If we can't come together with a big COVID-19 package that helps the schools, that helps small businesses with the Paycheck Protection Program, which I support extending, that helps with regard to getting more money for testing and getting our vaccine more quickly and getting the therapies up, let's at least provide the administration with some funding in the Disaster Relief Fund so they can continue to respond to need. Let's also provide them that funding because they need it for natural disasters. What do I mean by that? Well, the other thing that has happened in the last 6 weeks, as you probably noticed, is that we have had a lot of natural disasters in the West with fires and in the South with hurricanes. So that funding left in the Disaster Relief Fund ought to be supplemented for that purpose as well. This is a temporary program meant to provide a bridge while Congress acts. And it would be great if Congress were to act, but, frankly, I am getting kind of discouraged about Congress's ability to come together again on a bipartisan basis, as much as I wish we would. I have spoken on the floor about what I think I can see as the points of compromise and the overlap between our two approaches because there is a lot of it. Every single Republican save 1, 52 Members--a majority of the Senate--voted for a proposal a couple weeks ago that was viewed as a targeted proposal that did provide help for COVID-19 for families, for small businesses, and for healthcare. Democrats had their own idea, which is the $3.5 trillion that they wanted. Ours was about $500 billion. There is something in between there. We could come together with something that is sensible, but it looks like that is unlikely. So at a minimum, let's move forward with these unemployment insurance supplements that we have been doing. Let's give the administration the ability to do it again through the Disaster Relief Fund. This funding shortage would be easy for us to put into the legislation that is likely to come before this Chamber in the next 24 hours, which is the continuing resolution. That is the funding that is going to pay for government to continue operating. You know, Congress is supposed to pass individual appropriations bills. There are 12 of them. We didn't do them this year because of the partisan gridlock around here, so once again we are turning to a continuing resolution to provide the funding going forward. The House is acting this week, and we are going to act this week or early next week, as I understand it. It would be the perfect place to put more funding into this Disaster Relief Fund for us to be able to provide that $300 benefit that the administration has been providing to all States but two and to also provide for more help for the natural disasters that are upon us. Senator Thom Tillis and I have proposed legislation to do just that. We have a bill out there that we hope Congress will be willing to pass, and we are also interested in adding it as an amendment to the continuing resolution, to the appropriations bill that is on its way through here. With Congress deadlocked on how to come up with a broader solution for COVID-19, let's at least do this. Let's say to the administration: We want you to continue this program that is now in place. The States know how it operates. The States have been implementing it. My home State of Ohio has provided funding to people through this. We are appreciative of it. Our proposal is very straightforward. It simply appropriates $86.6 billion to replenish the Disaster Relief Fund, first to give FEMA the resources it needs to fully and effectively respond to the natural disasters that are hitting parts of our country hard right now and those that are yet to come. The money won't be wasted; it will be spent for appropriate things. Second, it would allow the $300 per week for the Lost Wages Assistance Program to continue through November 21, giving Congress what I hope would be more than enough time to come up with a broader solution to the COVID-19 issue. But at least through the period of time between now and just before Thanksgiving, people would be able to know they will continue to get this $300-per-week supplement to be able to put food on the table, pay the rent, or pay the car payment or the mortgage, and we as a Congress will be able to say to the people we represent: We haven't forgotten about you. You lost your jobs through no fault of your own. We ought to be able to continue providing some help through this interim period. This isn't about political wins and losses; this is about lives and livelihoods that are at stake. I hope my colleagues will join me in a bipartisan effort to support this important, commonsense legislation so we can bolster our response to the COVID-19 unemployment crisis and to the natural disasters that are currently facing our country. I yield back my time.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 100th birthday of the National Football League. On September 17, 1920, 15 people who shared a love of football met in an automobile showroom in Canton, OH, to form what would become the National Football League. From these humble beginnings, the NFL has grown into a preeminent American sports league and become a fixture in American life. Today's NFL is an American institution that brings together millions of individuals of all ages, races, and backgrounds through a shared love for the game of football. In fact, last season, the NFL concluded the celebration of its 100th season with a stunning Super Bowl championship that was viewed by over 100 million Americans. At the same time, the NFL has never forgotten its roots in Ohio. Every year, millions of football fans travel to Canton, which now hosts the Pro Football Hall of Fame and the accompanying Hall of Fame game that rings in every new NFL season. Today, in an effort to commemorate the League's 100th birthday, Canton and the Cleveland Browns will host my hometown Cincinnati Bengals in a classic rivalry game, known as the Battle of Ohio. The game will highlight the formation of the league and its origins in Canton, honor the more than 25,000 players who have played in the league, and showcase the work the NFL is doing to ensure its second century is just as successful as the first. I wish the league all the best as it embarks into its second century as the foremost steward of ``America's Game.''

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, at 11:30 a.m. tomorrow, the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Valderrama nomination; that if cloture is invoked on the Valderrama nomination, the postcloture time be expired and the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination; I further ask that following the disposition of the Valderrama nomination, the Senate resume consideration of the Johnston nomination; finally, I ask that the postcloture time on the Johnston nomination expire at 1:30 p.m. tomorrow and the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination; that if any of the nominations are confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of our Democratic colleagues.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following Senate resolutions, which were submitted earlier today: S. Res. 698, S. Res. 699, and S. Res. 700.

Mr. PORTMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc. The resolutions were agreed to. The preambles were agreed to. (The resolutions, with their preambles, are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am here on the floor this evening to talk about what Congress needs to do right now to help the American people with regard to this coronavirus pandemic. We are not out of the woods yet. People are still struggling, with the economy being weak, and we still have a real healthcare crisis to deal with. Since this crisis began, Congress has come together as Republicans and Democrats both here in the Senate and over in the House, working with the White House, to pass five coronavirus bills--five. Legislation addressed both the healthcare crisis and the economic free-fall that were caused by the virus and also by the government-imposed shutdowns. The biggest of these bills was the one you hear most about; that is, the roughly $2 trillion in the CARES Act that was passed by a vote in this Chamber of 96 to 0--totally bipartisan. Unfortunately, since May, when the last of these bipartisan bills was enacted, partisanship has prevailed over policy, and Washington has been paralyzed, unable to repeat the coming together for the public good. Democrats in this Chamber have consistently insisted that the only way forward is a bill called the Heroes Act. This is a $3.5 trillion piece of legislation that passed the House of Representatives 4 months ago along partisan lines. By the way, $3.5 trillion would be the most expensive legislation ever to be enacted. When this bill passed the House 4 months ago, POLITICO and others in the media accurately called it a messaging bill that had no chance of becoming law. It is disappointing that Democrats have continued to push this ``my way or the highway'' approach because this bill is a nonstarter for a lot of reasons, including the price tag and the fact that it includes non-COVID-related provisions. To name one example, it repeals the State and local tax deduction cap. That is a $135 billion Tax Code change, and most of the benefit is going to go to the top 1 percent of wage earners. What does it have to do with COVID-19? Now is not the time to give tax breaks to the wealthy, to make changes to our immigration policy, or impose unprecedented mandates on State election procedures that are normally in the province of the States, not us--all of which are part of the Heroes Act. Instead, this should be a time where we focus on what the American people need right now and help them to handle this healthcare and economic challenge they are facing, but that hasn't happened. Last week I spoke on this floor about all the things in the targeted bill that was voted on last Thursday in this Chamber, where there is bipartisanship, where Democrats and Republican actually agree. I talked about the need to extend the PPP program--Paycheck Protection Program--which is helping small businesses keep their doors open, but it expired on August 8. A lot of small businesses are saying to me back home in Ohio: I am barely holding on. When is this coming? I need an extension to this program. Yet we can't seem to get our act together here even though it is totally nonpartisan, as far as I can tell. The bill we voted on last Thursday also has more funding for something desperately needed in my home State of Ohio and other States around the country, which is more money for testing. It also has more money, by the way, for developing a vaccine more quickly and effectively and for getting these anti-viral therapies up and going. All of this is stuff we should be able to agree on, right? No, we haven't been able to. Another thing that was in that bill last Thursday was providing funding for the schools so they can reopen--K-12 but also for our colleges and universities. These schools are starting to reopen, and they need the help badly. Actually, it had enough funding in there that it was slightly more than the funding that was in the Heroes Act, the Democrats' proposal, for the same purpose--$105 billion. Why couldn't we get together? What else did it have? It had something very important for a lot of people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own. It had an extension of the current Federal supplement for unemployment insurance in the States. It had a $300-per-week, Federal-taxpayer-paid additional supplement on top of the roughly $350 that States already provide on average for unemployment. Yet that was rejected. We couldn't even have a good vote to proceed on the bill, to have a debate on the bill so we could have an honest debate and say, oh, $300 is too much, or it is not enough, or maybe the PPP program needs to be slightly changed this way or that way, or maybe there is less money for schools needed or more money for schools. We couldn't even get on the bill because you need 60 votes to do that, and we only had 52, which is a majority of this Chamber, but it is not the 60-vote supermajority. Fifty-two Republicans supported it. Unfortunately, no Democrats were able to support it. I don't get that because all we were saying was, let's get on this bill and have a debate, and if later on in the process you don't like where we ended up, there is another 60-vote margin, and you can filibuster it again. We couldn't even get on the bill to have a debate. To me, that is really sad because the American people weren't given the opportunity to get some help, but also they weren't given the opportunity to see what the differences are and have this out in the open. That is legislation that 52 Republicans supported. We are ready to go. Let's have the discussion. Let's have the debate. The Federal funds to help the unemployed get by was a particular concern of mine, and I want to focus on that tonight. That unemployment benefit is a classic example of where Senate Democrats have blocked what I think is a reasonable compromise--I will explain why I think that--and instead have decided to provide nothing. Nothing. What we should do instead is we should embrace a compromise together for these families who continue to struggle to make ends meet because some people can't go back to work still because their movie theater or their bowling alley or their motor coach company can't hire them. Either they are shut down or they simply can't hire them back. There are people who are unemployed who still need our help. Early on in this pandemic, both Republicans and Democrats recognized this. We recognized the need to bolster the State-run unemployment insurance programs to help offset the massive job losses we saw in March and April. That is why the CARES Act we talked about earlier-- this bipartisan bill--contained an unprecedented $600-per-week additional Federal supplement on top of the State supplement for 4 months. By the way, the State benefit in Ohio on average is $360. The $600 was on top of $360, coming up to $960 per week. We did that for a period of 4 months. That provided an important income source for a lot of people. It made a huge difference in the lives of a lot of people who early on couldn't work because the government was actually closing down businesses, saying: You can't open. Some say that was too much. We will talk about why they say that. But it was a big help, and it was appropriate in a sense at the time to do something that big because the government itself was saying: You are going to lose your job through no fault of your own. We the government are saying you have to shut down, so we are going to provide you an unemployment benefit. It was also used for other things--to pay rent, to pay that car payment, to just get by. As the year has gone on, we have made progress now on slowing the spread of the coronavirus, adding testing, adding more personal protective gear, and so on. Many parts of our economy have been able to reopen in a safe and sustainable manner. And that is good. Without the help we provided in the legislation--the five bills we passed--we wouldn't be so far along. They helped. They helped keep the doors open at a lot of small businesses. They helped provide the money for our healthcare system, for testing. With that reopening around the country, hiring picked back up, and now we have far fewer people on unemployment than we did at the beginning of this pandemic. So there are fewer people who need unemployment insurance. Unemployment is at about 8.4 percent. That is what it was last month. That is down from over 15 percent in the spring. Now, 8.4 percent is still too high, particularly compared to the record lows we saw just before this pandemic. It is more than twice what it was then. But it is undoubtedly a step in the right direction. Unemployment claims are either holding steady or dropping now in most States. That is good. With this positive progress we were seeing, I think it was fair for Congress to want to take another look at the original unemployment insurance supplement, which expired at the end of July, and see whether there was a new supplement that we could continue to help those in need while better reflecting this improved economy and the need for workers rather than a situation where the government was actually imposing shutdowns of much of our economy. That is where things broke down. At the end of July, the $600 supplement ended. Everybody knew it was going to end then. But Republicans and Democrats couldn't agree on how to best structure an additional UI supplement. By the way, having differences isn't unusual around here. We have debates all the time. That debate was a big part of the negotiations in July and August. What is disappointing to me and to many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and to so many people we represent is that instead of taking us up on our offer that we offered--to extend the $600 per week to be able the negotiate something, for 2 weeks, which would have put a lot of pressure on the negotiations--think about it--the Democrats said no. I don't know why they said no, but Democrats would not even allow us to extend the $600 to put pressure on negotiations. Deliberately, they allowed these benefits to expire. It went from a $600 benefit on top of the State benefit to zero Federal benefit. Let me repeat that. Rather than work to agree on a weeklong extension of a lifeline for so many people to buy time to work something out, Democrats instead chose to let these benefits expire and allowed millions of Americans to go without benefits. When we hit this impasse on the UI issue that Congress just couldn't break, the Trump administration stepped in, and President Trump quickly signed an Executive order on August 8--so a week after the benefit expired--which authorized FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, to begin distributing an emergency lost wage assistance unemployment check. So the government stepped in at the executive branch and said: You guys in Congress can't figure this out. The $600 has gone to zero, so you just have the State benefit now, and you have a lot of people still unemployed through no fault of their own. It is tough to get by on 360 bucks a week. So President Trump and his administration stepped in and said: We will provide it temporarily--temporarily, because that is all the money they had through what is called the Wage Assistance Program. Under this program, $44 billion from the Disaster Relief Fund was made available to States to use as a supplement to their unemployment insurance programs--still leaving $25 billion, by the way, in that fund for natural disasters. I spoke to Labor Secretary Scalia on Friday. I asked him: Is there any money left in that fund? Remember, this was done on August 8, and they had a limited amount of money. He said: No, Rob. Actually, it was a temporary program, meant to be a bridge so Congress would get its act together between August 8 and now. So basically, in a month and a week, surely Congress would do something here, but we haven't. Now, that money has run out. Now, people who were getting the $600 benefit, down to zero, and then back up to $300, which most are getting in a lump sum because it takes a while to process this money--that $300 is now ending. No more $300-per- week Federal supplement. By the way, almost every State and territory except for two has applied for and received some of this funding from the Feds. Ohio was able to receive enough funding to cover 6 weeks of lost benefits, so basically from August 1 until now. Ohio got $1.4 billion from the fund. It is sending out its unemployment insurance benefits this week. Next week it ends because they have run out of money. They have used the Federal money. The $300 supplement has now ended. It is surely time for us to act. It would be timely this week and next week to now do something to provide for a supplement for people who lost their job through no fault of their own. We could have solved this last Thursday with the targeted relief bill that came to the floor for a vote that I talked about. The timing was perfect. We could have done that because part of the negotiations that we had among ourselves, Republicans, over this and with some Democrats, I suppose, was, what is the right level? What we came up with was $300. That was part of the bill that got 52 votes last Thursday but needed the 60 votes, and Democrats blocked it. Even though it got the majority of the Senate, it didn't get the supermajority of 60 that it needed. Again, we couldn't even get on the legislation to talk about it. That $600 supplement in this bill was changed to $300, which was consistent with where the administration has been over the last 5 or 6 weeks. That helps the vast majority of unemployed individuals make ends meet without driving our deficit even higher. The $600-a-week supplement was not sustainable over time, in part, because people were actually making more money on unemployment insurance than they were with their jobs. You were being paid more not to work than to work at $600 on top of the State benefit. In fact, under that supplement of $600, the median wage earner in America received 134 percent more of his or her previous wages, making it harder, therefore, to jump back into the workplace and get our economy moving again. By the way, I heard this all over Ohio, and I know every single one of my colleagues has. They heard it from businesses, particularly small businesses but also larger businesses. The Ford Motor Company told me they had a 25-percent absenteeism rate when I visited them over the August break because people weren't coming back to work because of the benefit that they had been getting of $600. So it was felt in small businesses, yes, but also midsize and larger businesses and also a lot of nonprofits. I heard it from hospitals. I heard it from people who provide addiction services, recovery services, treatment programs. Nonprofits are having a hard time getting people to come back because, again, the $600 on top of the State benefit average of the, say, $350--$950 a week was more than they were able to pay them. People were making more on unemployment insurance than they were at work. This was as the economy was starting to pick up. We needed jobs. We said: How about $300? Why did we pick $300? Well, again, $600 is so generous that it is paying people more. By the way, the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan group here in Congress, analyzes these things. They analyzed it and said, if you continue the $600 until next year, which is what the Democratic proposal is in their legislation, the Heroes Act--if you continue the $600 until next year, that would result in 8 out of 10 people on unemployment insurance getting paid more on unemployment insurance than they would at work, 80 percent. That is from the CBO. What is the right number instead of having 80 percent paid more by not working? Well, I think $300 is about the right number. Some could say that is too high, too, but the $300 on top of the State benefit was what was rejected last Thursday by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. By the way, when 80 percent of people are making more money by not working, it hurts everybody. It hurts these businesses. Small businesses and these nonprofits are not able to get people to come to work. Look at the ``Help Wanted'' signs you may see in your own community. It hurts the economy when you don't have this workforce and you don't have these jobs coming back. It also hurts the workers. I think all of us should want to reconnect people to work. That is where people get their healthcare. If they have it, they are likely to get it at work. That is where about 80 percent of us get it. It is where people get their retirement, if they have it. We want more people to have that, but a 401(K) is going to be through work. This is where people get the training they need to keep up with what is happening with their job. It is where people connect with other people. It is where people get self-respect and self-esteem by working. We should be encouraging work. Again, I think somewhere there is a number there where you are helping people who need the funds to be able to get by because they are unemployed through no fault of their own, yet you are not offering such a high benefit that it is more advantageous not to work. The $300-a-week amount offered last Thursday is generous compared to regular unemployment insurance. In Ohio, with the supplement, you go from $360 a week State benefit to $660 per week. It is a big change. It makes a big difference in people's lives. It would cover 90 percent of the lost wages for the median worker nationwide. The $300 per week covers 90 percent of the lost wages, helping particularly low- and middle-income wage earners get by without creating, again, this $600 disincentive to work. Even if $300 wasn't the perfect solution, it was certainly a starting point. It was a policy point that could have been debated and amended on the floor had we gone to the legislation. Again, we were blocked even to go to the bill to talk about it. Democrats blocked us from debating it, and so people got nothing. They don't get the $300, which, again, 90 percent of lost wages for the median-wage worker would have been replaced by that. But they get zero. All people are left with is the State benefit now. Again, unfortunately, in this place, politics was put ahead of the interest of struggling families who need extra help. It is stunning to me that this is the point we have reached in Congress's work to address this coronavirus pandemic. Early on, there were so many bipartisan victories we achieved because Republicans and Democrats alike said: This is a crisis. We have to address this not as our party might want to do but as Americans-- recognizing the severity of the challenge we were facing. It was encouraging to see us come together to craft the CARES Act, which passed 96 to 0 and made a big difference. I had hoped we would be able to recognize from that victory the importance of hashing out our disagreements and coming up with a solution, finding common ground to be able to help those we represent. Unfortunately, the opposite has happened. Politics seem to have taken over. On the other side of the aisle, the Speaker of the House and others may think this is good politics for them not to move forward with something. Maybe they are right. Maybe it is good politics somehow, but it is not what is best for the American people. By opposing a reasonable compromise on unemployment insurance, as an example, what this Congress is doing is leaving the American people high and dry at the exact time that funding for these benefits has run out. Again, the short-term bridge that the administration provided, $300 a week, is running out. It doesn't need to happen. Let's come to the negotiating table this week and next week. We are going to be here next week. We are supposed to vote on a continuing resolution, the funding program. We will be here. We know what the differences are. We know what the similarities are. We know how to put together a package. We know what it has to be and what the compromise is. For Republicans and Democrats alike, it is now on us to come up with that bipartisan solution on unemployment insurance and the other pressing issues we face as the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.