John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, starting this week and tomorrow, there will be a vote on a coronavirus relief bill, and it is a bill that is targeted to the areas that really need it, it is fiscally responsible, and it is rooted in reality. In other words, it is a realistic approach to dealing with the coronavirus challenges that we, as a nation, are facing. The Democratic leader and the Democratic assistant leader have been down here just now talking about the Democratic bill, a bill which passed the House of Representatives and a bill that was $3\1/2\ trillion in terms of its pricetag and a bill that was filled with goodies for special-interest groups and lots of leftwing priorities, many of which have nothing to do at all with the coronavirus. In fact, $3\1/2\ trillion is a number that I think was pulled out of thin air. I have no idea how they came up with it. I don't think it was based on any feedback or input that they got from States or businesses around the country. I think it was let's just make up as many things as we can and let's just throw a lot of money out there and see what it does. Well, unfortunately, I think people have come to the realization-- people around the country, at least--that every dollar that we spend now is a borrowed dollar. So the $3\1/2\ trillion that was allocated by the House Democrats and which has been supported just in the last few minutes here by the Democratic leader and the Democratic whip is borrowed money. It should come as no surprise to anybody in this country that our country already is deeply in debt. We added about $3 trillion earlier this year when we passed the CARES package--at the time, something that was needed. We needed to be big and bold and move quickly, which we did. We have a much better sense now, I think, about this disease, what the needs are, and we ought to be targeting our assistance to those areas of greatest need, whether it is small businesses that need assistance, that haven't been able to reopen; whether it is in the area of healthcare, our hospitals and nursing homes, the provider community; or whether it is supporting the efforts that are being made to come up with vaccines and therapeutics, the money that is going into testing. Those are all things I think that there was pretty broad agreement on at the time. We still believe those are things that are essential, in addition to supporting our schools as they try to safely reopen. There are a number of priorities out there that I do think we have learned, gotten more information about, and determined where the dollars made the most difference, what could be changed and modified in these programs to make them more workable, and that is what has led to the discussion we are having now and the bill that we will vote on tomorrow. What the Democrats, in their bill--the $3\1/2\ trillion bill--did was they just decided that money is no object and evidently without, again, much consideration about how those dollars are spent or in any way making sure that they are targeted to the right area, to those areas of greatest need, just basically decided to kind of throw caution to the wind and throw $3\1/2\ trillion out there at the economy. The ironic thing about it, in many respects, is that, without having feedback or input, for example, from State and local governments about how much they needed, they put another $1 trillion into that bill--$1 trillion for State and local governments--at a time when very little of the $150 billion that we had already done in direct assistance, not to mention the additional assistance to States, to education, to colleges and universities, elementary and secondary education, healthcare providers--a lot of additional dollars have gone through the States, to the tune of about a half a trillion dollars already, much of which hasn't been spent. In fact, of the $150 billion in direct assistance that went out to State and local governments--the latest numbers I had as recently as about a week ago--only about a quarter of that, about 25 percent of that money had been spent. Yet they were asking for another trillion dollars, every single dollar of which is borrowed. It was just reported recently that, in 2021, the United States will exceed 100 percent debt to GDP. That puts us in the elite and rare company of Italy, Greece, Japan, countries around the world that have gotten dramatically overextended when it comes to their sovereign debt. When you get to the debt to GDP which is in excess of 100 percent, that is pretty dangerous territory. Everybody says we are the best economy in the world, we are the world's reserve currency, and people are going to continue to want to invest here in the United States. Well, at some point there are consequences. The chickens do come home to roost. You cannot continue to borrow without eventual consequence. At some point, interest rates will start to normalize, at which time these countries that invest in the United States are going to demand a higher return. Interest rates-- when they go up, it means the amount we have to pay to borrow money goes up, and when our interest gets north of $1 trillion, it will exceed every other item in our budget, including the amount that we spend for national security. So that is the other part of the debate which the other side never references; that is, what are we doing to the long-term future of this country, to our children and grandchildren, all of whom are going to be responsible for this debt? We are essentially doing everything we do right now--putting it on the credit card and handing the bill to our children and grandchildren--which is to say that the Republicans believe that we ought to do coronavirus relief and help those who need it. I am going to talk in just a moment about all the things that this bill does to help those who really need the help, but it ought to be targeted. It ought to be with some thought toward what is the greatest need? where can we make the biggest difference? where can we help the people who are really struggling and really hurting as a result of the virus, the pandemic? And we ought to do it in a fiscally responsible way. We ought to do it in a realistic way. We ought to have a bill that is, frankly, rooted in reality. The reason I say that the Democratic bill isn't rooted in reality is because of many of the things that it contained. In fact, there were more mentions of the word ``cannabis'' in the Democratic bill than there were mentions of the word ``jobs''--more mentions of the word ``cannabis,'' a synonym for marijuana, than mentions of the word ``jobs.'' So if you think about that, the 58 mentions in the Democratic $3\1/2\ trillion bill had to do, for example, with diversity training. This was a study that was requested--I shouldn't say ``diversity training'' but a diversity study in the access to financing for people who are in the marijuana business. That was something that was determined a priority and funded in the Democratic-passed bill. Now, that is just one of many examples of why that bill wasn't taken seriously by anyone. When I say ``anyone,'' I am talking about the New York Times. The New York Times called it a messaging document and not a viable piece of legislation. The New York Times called it a messaging document and not a viable piece of legislation. National Public Radio said that it was a wish list--a Democratic wish list--of favored policies. POLITICO called it a long wish list of Democratic policies. Nobody--nobody took the Democratic bill seriously. When you can't get the New York Times to speak favorably about a Democratic coronavirus relief bill, it tells me that it was completely out of step and out of touch with what is really needed in this country and, certainly, by the people in this country who do want to see us respond but respond in a way--again, as I said--that is targeted and is fiscally responsible and doesn't throw any kind of fiscal caution to the wind, that just throws money out there at a lot of favored pet causes and ideological agenda items on the Democratic wish list. That is essentially what that bill did. So as we decided to put together a bill, we listened carefully. We listened to small businesses. We listened to healthcare providers. We listened to schools, to school administrators. We listened to those folks who are impacted on a daily basis by the effects of this pandemic and what is really needed, where are those greatest needs, where can we make the biggest difference. This is, again, the focus of the Republican bill that we will be voting on tomorrow, which, contrary to the assertions that were made by the Democratic leader, does include a lot of bipartisan policy and bipartisan cooperation. Many of the provisions in the bill are provisions that share Democratic cosponsorship. In fact, I would point out that the changes we made to the PPP program--the PPP program, which is an acronym for the Paycheck Protection Program, is one of the most successful of all the programs in the CARES Act that passed earlier this year. It was a very bipartisan effort shared with people like Marco Rubio and Susan Collins on our side and Ben Cardin and Jeanne Shaheen on the Democratic side and others involved in shaping that program, making it effective. Subsequent to that, changes made it work even better, and this will include some changes that we think will make it work even better. There are some in here that I, frankly, was very supportive of because they will help people who, under the last Paycheck Protection Program, didn't receive help because, for one reason or another, they were excluded from the qualifications to make them eligible for it. It makes changes in the Paycheck Protection Program, many of which-- again, this is a bipartisan program--will be bipartisan in nature. There were a number of things that the leader mentioned over here this morning earlier when he was on the floor in which he talked about some of the provisions that Senator Alexander had added. There are things in that space that, again, share bipartisan support. So if you look at this bill, in many respects the Democrats are also saying that we need to do more to help our schools open safely, and this legislation does that. There is significant funding in here that actually helps out-- makes sure that our schools, our administrators, our school boards, our students, our parents are assisted in a way that would see that our schools open safely and get our children back to where they can be learning again at the fastest rate possible. Those are, again, some of the priorities that were in this legislation. I would add, because I think it is really worthwhile noting, that one of the provisions in this bill does take dollars from the CARES Act that have not been spent and, frankly, may not be spent and repurposes them so that the cost of this particular piece of legislation is reduced--something, again, that I think is important. I think it is important to the American people and it is important to our kids and grandkids as we look at the pricetags we have been talking about--the $3 trillion that was done earlier this year, and what we might do here--that we do it in a way that is fiscally responsible, with consideration and an eye toward ensuring that the taxpayers are getting the best return on their dollars and that we are being good stewards of the American tax dollars and spending in a way that makes sense and doesn't just throw money out there, which, again, is what I would argue the $3.5 trillion bill proposed by the House Democrats did--a bill which, again, was roundly denounced not just by Republicans or conservatives but by entities like the New York Times. I want to speak very briefly about what is happening out there--why I think this bill and this vote is important and why I believe it addresses the real needs, based on the input that we have received from the people out there who have been adversely impacted by this. The good news is we are hearing continually improving numbers on the economy--as recently as last Friday. The economy added 1.4 million jobs in August, and the unemployment rate fell again to 8.4 percent. Let me just be clear: 8.4 percent is not where we want to be. But it is a tremendous improvement from where we were just 4 months ago, near the beginning of the pandemic when the unemployment rate was at 14.7 percent. It is very encouraging to see the economy rebounding so quickly. The last time America went through a really tough time economically-- during the first few years of the Obama-Biden administration-- unemployment stayed high for years. In fact, during the Obama-Biden administration, America went through 2 solid years of unemployment that was above 9 percent. It has been great to see the economy rebounding at a rapid pace. Again, we are still a long way from where we need to be and where we want to be; 8.4 percent is not an acceptable unemployment rate. But we are definitely on the right track. One of the reasons our economy is rebounding quickly is that the economy was thriving before COVID came along. Republican tax reform and pro-growth policies had driven unemployment below 4 percent and created jobs and opportunities for millions of Americans. Having the economy in a healthy position pre-COVID laid the groundwork for a strong recovery. The policies we put in place during the early years in the pandemic to help businesses--particularly small businesses--survive the pandemic and keep workers on the payroll have gone a long way toward helping our economy rebound. Republicans are committed to building on those policies, but as everyone knows, Democrats have so far blocked our efforts. Despite weeks of negotiating efforts from Republicans, Democrats refused to budge from their demands for a giant bill that would spend an irresponsible amount of taxpayer money and include a bunch of measures with no relation to the coronavirus crisis. This week, Republicans are trying again. We have introduced a targeted bill focused on a few key coronavirus priorities--like helping the hardest hit small businesses, getting kids and college students back to school, and providing additional healthcare resources to fight the virus. As I mentioned earlier, the Paycheck Protection Program, a program Congress passed as part of the CARES Act back in March, has played a key role in helping small businesses survive the pandemic The legislation we have introduced would authorize a second round of forgivable Paycheck Protection Program loans for the hardest hit small businesses but would also simplify the loan forgiveness process for small businesses with Paycheck Protection Program loans of $150,000 or less. Again, I would point out that this program, these changes, share bipartisan support. The virus has highlighted how much we rely on our Nation's farmers and ranchers, and I am pleased our legislation includes an additional $20 billion in funding to allow the Department of Agriculture to continue to assist ag producers--again, a bipartisan priority. Our legislation would also provide for an additional $300 per week-- over and above unemployment benefits--for those who have lost their jobs as a result of the pandemic. Our bill contains another important measure to help keep our recovery going and to protect jobs, and that is liability protection. No matter how many precautions schools, hospitals, and businesses take, there is no way--no way--for them to completely eliminate all risk of employees, students, or customers contracting the virus. But that doesn't matter to the army of trial lawyers itching to levy lawsuits against even the most careful schools and businesses. I don't need to tell anybody that saddling businesses large and small with a bunch of frivolous lawsuits could seriously hamstring our economic recovery. There is no question that schools and businesses should be liable for gross negligence or for intentional misconduct. But businesses and schools that are taking every reasonable precaution to protect employees and students should not have to worry about facing lawsuits for virus transmission that they could not have prevented. In addition to providing schools with liability protections, our bill focuses on providing schools with the resources they need to get kids and teachers back in classrooms safely. Our bill would help expand the educational options that parents have for their children. And it would provide increased funding for childcare during this crisis so that parents who are trying to get back to work have a safe place to send their kids. Finally, our bill would provide more money for coronavirus testing and tracing and for the development of the therapies and vaccines we need to defeat this virus. And it would focus on building up State and national stockpiles of the medical resources needed for public health emergencies like the coronavirus. I would like to think that Democrats would work with us to get a version of our legislation passed this week. While this bill may not address every current or future coronavirus need, it would go a long way toward helping with our most pressing needs--supporting jobs, getting kids and teachers back to school, and ensuring that we have the medical resources necessary to fight the virus. Unfortunately, it has become very clear that Democrats are more interested in keeping the coronavirus as a political issue than in actually fighting the virus. If Democrats were serious about coronavirus relief, they would be willing to negotiate with Republicans to arrive at a bill that both sides could agree to and that could actually pass Congress. But they have made it very clear that reasonable negotiations are off the table. Instead, they are content to see Americans suffer or our economic recovery slow in the hopes that they will be able to use the coronavirus as a political issue in the November elections. It is disappointing, but it is not going to stop Republicans from continuing to try to pass coronavirus relief legislation. The American people are depending on us, and we are going to do everything we can not to let them down. I hope that at least some Democrats will decide that they should join us. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Perdue), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) and the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) and the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, last week Senate Republicans did introduce a new coronavirus relief bill called the Health, Economic Assistance, Liability Protection, and Schools Act. This bill is a $1 trillion piece of legislation focused on getting Americans back to work, getting kids and college students back to school, and providing healthcare resources to help defeat the virus. As the title says--the Health, Economic Assistance, Liability Protection, and Schools Act--it does have liability protections in there. I just listened to the Senator from Illinois attack the idea of including those types of protections in the legislation, but I think it is really important to point out that those type of protections are critical if we are going to get the economy reopened again. Businesses that are doing all the right things--following the CDC guidelines, adhering to all the laws, all the guidelines and restrictions that are out there--shouldn't have to worry about lawyering up and spending thousands and, in some cases, millions of dollars to try and defend themselves against frivolous lawsuits, which are being filed as we speak by the thousands. The implication given by the Senator from Illinois that somehow this is all about big corporations or big businesses is just not consistent with the facts on the ground. In fact, I had a conversation 2 days ago with the school administrators in my State of South Dakota, all of whom are very interested in getting their schools opened up and getting kids back in school, which, again, is one of the priorities of our legislation and should be, I think, one of the priorities of the country as we head into the fall. One of their big issues was ensuring that they had protections against liability--a liability shield, if you will, not against gross negligence, not against intentional misconduct--those types of things would not be covered--but protections if, in fact, they are doing all the right things, consistent with the guidelines, following the rules that have been put in place, that they should have at least some protections. That is going to be true not just of schools and small businesses, but it is also going to be true of healthcare providers. We have people on the frontlines who are sacrificing every day to try and get people better, to heal those who have contracted the virus, and also protect those who are on the frontlines from getting it. They, too, are going to need those very types of protections that are called for in our legislation. So this is not something that was put in there on a whim just because we knew that the Democrats wouldn't like it. It was put in there because of feedback we received from States, local governments, school districts, healthcare providers, hospitals, nursing homes, and, yes, some small businesses, all of whom are going to be essential if we are going to get the economy up and going again and get people back to work, kids back to school, and Americans back on their feet. So it is an essential part of the legislation, one which, so far, the Democrats have demonstrated no interest in including and, frankly, no interest in even having a conversation about, which is unfortunate because it is a critical element, feature, of any bill that we should be working on right now to provide coronavirus relief. When we introduced this bill, we knew this version wouldn't be the final draft. I think everybody conceded that. We knew we would need to negotiate with our Democratic colleagues just like we did with the CARES Act, which was our largest coronavirus relief bill, back in March. Back in March, the model that was used was having committee chairmen and ranking members get together in compromise and work out differences and end up with a strong, bipartisan bill. Was it a perfect bill? Well, no, of course not. No bill is. Did everyone get everything that he or she wanted? No, but it was a strong, bipartisan bill that was praised by Democrats and Republicans alike--in fact, reflected by the unanimous vote. I would like to say that we are engaging in those same types of negotiations right now, but unfortunately I can't say that. I can't say, in fact, what is happening right now is even negotiations. Negotiations involve both sides being willing to give something up to compromise and to try and move toward a solution. While Republicans are willing to make compromises to ensure that we can deliver another coronavirus relief bill to the American people, Democrats apparently aren't willing to make any. Back in May, House Democrats proposed and passed a massive $3.4 trillion piece of legislation that they called a coronavirus relief bill. Subsequently, it has been endorsed by Senate Democrats who have gone so far as to offer up unanimous consent requests here on the Senate floor to adopt the House-passed bill. In reality, that House- passed bill, $3.4 trillion bill, was a lengthy liberal wish list which even Members of the Democrats' own party dismissed as dead on arrival. In fact, Democrats had some work to do to persuade Members of their own caucus in the House to vote for the bill. As POLITICO put it at the time: ``As of late Thursday evening, the House Democratic leadership was engaged in what a few senior aides and lawmakers described as the most difficult arm-twisting of the entire Congress: convincing their rank and file to vote for a $3 trillion stimulus bill that will never become law.'' That is from POLITICO. The House bill includes various ``coronavirus priorities'' like funding for diversity and inclusion studies in the marijuana industry, tax cuts for blue-State millionaires, federalizing elections. Those are just a few of the items that were included in the House-passed bill that it is very hard to argue have anything to do with defeating the coronavirus. In fact, the House bill mentions the word ``cannabis'' more often than it mentions the word ``job,'' which tells you all you need to know about the seriousness of that proposal. Despite all that, Democratic leaders have taken the House bill as their starting and, yes, their ending point for negotiations. They are insisting that Republicans sign off on pretty much everything in their bill, from the tax cuts for wealthy Americans to major changes in election law. And they are not budging on the pricetag either. As I said, Republicans have proposed a $1 trillion piece of legislation, and I can tell you--from being a Member of the Republican conference and the discussions that we have--what a stretch it is for a lot of Republicans, who already have voted for multiple coronavirus relief bills to the pricetag of about $3 trillion so far, to do another trillion dollars, knowing that every one of those dollars is a borrowed dollar, every one of those dollars is going on a Federal debt which is already upward of $25 billion and will ultimately have to be paid back by our children and grandchildren. Well, that said, the trillion-dollar legislation that was put forward by Republicans is nowhere close to the pricetag for the Democrats' bill, which is $3.4 trillion, as I said. Now, I think even an elementary school student would realize that compromise lies somewhere between those two numbers, more than, perhaps, the Republicans' bill and less than the Democrats' bill, but apparently that is not something Democrats are willing to entertain. A senior correspondent for CNN talked to Speaker Pelosi yesterday, who claimed she wanted to reach agreement on a bill this week. The correspondent asked the Speaker what pricetag she was willing to agree to. Her answer: $3.4 trillion. In other words, after more than a week of negotiations, the Speaker of the House hasn't budged from her original position. She hasn't budged, nor have the Senate Democrats, who every time something has come up on our side to try and address this crisis have answered with: Well, let's just pass the Heroes Act of the House, the $3.4 trillion boondoggle. Well, that is not a compromise. That is not a negotiation. And if we emerge from this process without a coronavirus relief bill, the responsibility rests squarely on the shoulders of the Democratic leadership. Let's suppose, for a moment, that Republican negotiators agreed to every single thing that Democrats are insisting on: tax cuts for millionaires, diversity studies for the marijuana industry, a trillion- dollar pot of money for States, which, I might add, haven't even come close to spending the coronavirus money the government has already given them. Let's suppose Republican negotiators agreed to everything. What would happen then? Well, the bill would never pass the Senate. In the Senate, you need 60 votes to pass a bill, and there simply aren't 60 votes in the Senate for the Democrats' liberal fantasies. In fact, it would be lovely if, as Democrats seem to think, the government drew its funding from a magical pot of gold that never runs out, but it doesn't. Every dollar of the coronavirus relief that we already provided has been borrowed money, which continues to drive up our national debt. Now, arguably, it was money that needed to be borrowed, but there has to be a limit. The higher we drive our national debt, the greater the danger to the health of our economy. Democrats may be fine with jeopardizing our economic health to pay for diversity studies in the marijuana industry, but I can tell you the Republicans are not. Republicans know we are going to have to borrow some additional money to meet the demands of the coronavirus crisis--and we have offered legislation to do just that--but we are not going to further endanger our already battered economy by signing off on every unnecessary spending item on the Democrats' liberal fantasy list. Now, are Republicans going to have to agree to some of the things that we are not crazy about? Of course we are. But Democrats are going to have to accept that they can't dictate every word of the bill. The bill which passed the House, I might add, was 1,800 pages long. The bill that we have proposed in the Senate is 165 pages. The ball is in the Democrats' court. Republicans want to pass a coronavirus relief bill, and we are ready to negotiate. The Democrats are going to have to decide they want to come to the table. ``Our way or the highway'' is not a negotiating position, and if Democrats continue to insist on getting everything that they want, they are going to be responsible for Congress's failure to deliver additional relief. I hope--I really hope the Democratic leadership will remember what it means to negotiate and that it will work with Republicans to arrive at a compromise bill that can make it through both Houses of Congress and actually become law. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would just say that the fact that the Senator from Oregon is down here right now instead of the Democratic leader I would characterize as movement in the right direction. And the fact that he is making a proposal that is based upon legislation that, as he mentioned, he has introduced that actually has a trigger, if you will, or a way of phasing down unemployment benefits, I think, is a step in the right direction because, up until now, every time that the Senator from Arizona has come down here to offer up a 1-week extension of unemployment benefits--and, by the way, I think it is very reasonable and, to the Senator from Oregon's point, I find it hard to believe that any State and any computer system which is already paying out the $600 bonus wouldn't be able to continue that. It strikes me as just really unexplainable that you would have problems adjusting a computer system that is already programmed to pay $600 to continue to do that for an additional week. That defies logic to me. So I think that is a very reasonable request. It would allow us additional time to work on proposals like what the Senator from Oregon has suggested. And there are others out there. The Senator from Utah, Senator Romney, has a proposal that would ramp down the unemployment benefits over time. It seems to me, at least, we might be able to find some common ground there between what the Senator from Oregon has proposed and what the Senator from Utah or other Members on our side have proposed. I do believe that what the Senator from Oregon is suggesting--that is, to lock in the $600 bonus indefinitely--one, puts it on autopilot; two, sort of takes Congress out of the equation; and, three, it continues to offer a benefit that, for five out of the six people who are receiving unemployment benefits, offers them more in terms of a benefit than what they were making when they were working. That, to me, is something that I think needs to be addressed. And if you talk to any small business across this country right now, they will tell you one of the big challenges they have is trying to find workers and to compete with an unemployment payment that actually pays them more than when they were working. Trying to get those employees back, I think, has been a real challenge for a lot of the employers across the country. So I think that is an issue that has to be addressed, and I have heard people on this side of the aisle, both House and Senate, say the same thing. There have been Democratic Governors who say the same thing, that the $600 benefit needs to be modified in a way that more reflects what people were actually making when they were working. So I think there is some common ground that we can find, but, again, the idea that has been advanced by the other side prior to the Senator from Oregon coming down here, which has been put forward by the Democratic leader, is that the Heroes Act should be taken up and passed by unanimous consent. That has been the unanimous consent request now on multiple occasions when Senator McSally or others have come down here to try and get action on this unemployment issue, which is to come over and offer unanimous consent to pick up and pass the Heroes Act, which, as we all know, is not a serious piece of legislation. In fact, the Democratic leader's paper of record in New York, the New York Times, said: ``The bill was more a messaging document than a viable piece of legislation.'' That comes from the New York Times. Many of the proposals in that legislation had nothing to do with the coronavirus and, in fact, addressed a lot of other what I would call extraneous items on the policy agenda of the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, to include mentioning ``cannabis'' more times than it mentioned the word ``jobs'' in that legislation. There are studies authorized in the Heroes Act that look at diversity--diversity--in the cannabis industry--more mentions of that than mention of the word ``jobs,'' which I think right there tells you that it wasn't a serious piece of legislation. It, furthermore, included--if you can imagine this--tax cuts, tax cuts for Manhattan millionaires. Tax cuts for Manhattan millionaires is included in the Heroes Act--again, not something that has anything to do with helping the people who are hurting as a result of the pandemic or get at the point that the Senator from Oregon is talking about; that is, addressing the unemployment issue. So I view this as progress. I view this as movement in the right direction, the fact that the Senator, not the Democratic leader, is down here offering an unemployment proposal, not the Heroes Act. I hope we can build on that and find that common ground that would enable us to address clearly what are serious needs among lots of Americans who are, through no fault of their own, unemployed as a result of this pandemic. Having said that, I will object to the request of the Senator from Oregon right now but suggest to him that he and Democrats other than the leader--and I think there are a number of Democrats on this side of the aisle, including those who lead committees like the Senator from Oregon, who is the ranking member on the Finance Committee, a committee on which I serve and with whom I have worked on a lot of issues--can sit down and find common ground. But as long as rank-and-file members and leaders of relevant committees are sort of locked out and the leaders continue to try and do this behind closed doors, it is going to be very hard, I think, to find those types of practical, real-world, commonsense solutions. I object.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize and pay tribute to Mr. Eugene F. Coyle, a patriot who served in the U.S. Army during the Korean war. At the age of 23, Sergeant Eugene F. Coyle enlisted in the U.S. Army, just 3 months after the war started in Korea. As a rifleman and machinegunner assigned to the 24st Infantry Division, 21st Regiment, 2nd Battalion, F Company, Eugene was quickly put into the fight, experiencing a number of combat engagements with the enemy. One such engagement occurred in April 1951 near the Hwacheon Reservoir, South Korea, where Eugene exhibited composure under fire. As squad leader, Eugene led an advance against the enemy until his position was hit by mortar fire. Despite sustaining injuries from the shelling, he continued to provide covering fire for his unit. During another combat engagement in early July 1951, in the vicinity of Sabanggo-ri, North Korea, an enemy mortar round threw Eugene from his fighting position. Eugene, though injured by shrapnel, would not leave the fight. He regained his footing and ran to aid a severely injured soldier, getting him to cover. Eugene was later sent to the hospital ship USS Repose for his own injuries. Eugene, deserving of commendation for his courage under fire, as well as for his wounds resulting from close engagement with enemy forces, would unfortunately wait decades before the Nation properly recognized him for his service and sacrifice, even as he carried a piece of shrapnel embedded within his body for over 60 years. On November 15, 2017, Eugene F. Coyle was awarded the Purple Heart in addition to the United Nations Service Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Korean War Service Medal, and the Combat Infantry Badge. Like many veterans of his generation have experienced, poor or lost records have made it difficult to meet stringent administrative requirements for certain military awards. This challenge does not diminish their courage, nor our gratitude, for their actions in defense of freedom. The gallantry of Eugene F. Coyle reminds us what we owe heroes like him for the sacrifices, often unrecognized and unrequited, that they have made. I am honored to pay tribute to Eugene F. Coyle and thank him for his exemplary service to our county.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Perdue), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Jacob Walth, an intern in my Aberdeen, SD, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks. Jacob is a graduate of Aberdeen Central High School in Aberdeen, SD. Currently, he is attending St. Cloud State University in St. Cloud, MN, where he is majoring in finance and real estate. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Jacob for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come. (At the request of Mr. Durbin, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Perdue). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I intend to talk about section 230 here in just a moment. I just want to react to what the Democratic leader said and also make some observations generally about where I think we are with respect to a coronavirus relief bill. The Democratic leader indicated that the Republican bill wasn't a serious bill. Frankly, I think it could be argued that the bill he has endorsed, passed by the House of Representatives, was not a serious bill. It was about $3.5 trillion, which would make it about $1 trillion larger than the massive coronavirus relief bill we passed unanimously in the Senate back in March. That bill, at the time, for a lot of people, represented something unlike anything they had ever seen before, both in terms of scale and scope, the expanse of all the issues that it addressed. I think in many respects it was a bill that most Members believed at the time that we needed to get as much assistance out there as quickly as we could, and as a consequence of that, there was broad support for that. We are at a different point now, obviously, several months later, and have some perspective that enables us to look at what might be effective, what has worked, and what hasn't worked. We have gotten a lot of input from State and community leaders, from businesses, schools, hospitals, and healthcare providers who have been impacted by the virus, and have been able to respond to what has already been done by the Congress in terms of assistance. So I think at this point, as we look at what the greatest needs are, it is pretty clear that we have to do something to provide safety net assistance for those who have lost jobs in the form of unemployment insurance. I think there is a commitment on both sides to address that. I would argue that the proposal advanced by the Democrats, which would just be a continuation of the existing program, is not one that I think most people across this country think is wise policy, and certainly to the degree that it provides an incentive for people to stay home and not go back to work, it does provide a disincentive to work. I think that is something this legislation ought to address, and that is pretty much a widely held view, not just by Republicans but by Democrats. There are Democrats here in the Senate, Democrats in the House, and Democratic Governors who have said that the existing unemployment benefit needs to be modified, needs to be reformed, needs to be revised. The question has been raised: What level? It strikes me, at least, that we ought not be putting a benefit out there that exceeds the amount that people would make if they were actually working, because what that essentially says is that those who are working, those who stayed in the workforce are basically paying benefits to those who did not, when, in fact, if there weren't a benefit that exceeded the amount that they made when they were working, they might get back in the workforce if those jobs become available again. That is certainly something we want to incentivize. So I would hope that in any deal that is struck where we address unemployment insurance, we can come up with a solution that does tailor it to the need of the moment, and that is to get people back to work. We want to have policies that create jobs. That is something I think ought to be first and foremost in this bill. We have indicated that this ought to be about kids, getting them back to school in the fall. It ought to be about healthcare, about coming up with therapeutics and more testing, better testing. It ought to be about ultimately, hopefully, getting a vaccine and in the meantime making sure that we are addressing the needs of our providers, those doctors and nurses and nursing home caregivers who are on the frontlines. So those are the priorities that I think ought to be in this bill. It seems to me there is plenty of room for bipartisan cooperation, and it will take that. It also strikes me that this suggestion that you have to do more dollar-wise isn't always necessarily a sound approach. In fact, I would argue that anything we do right now ought to be targeted. It ought to be focused on those who have needs. If it is assistance to State and local governments, if it is assistance to small businesses that are out there creating jobs--anything that we do at this point ought to be based and predicated upon where the needs are, and we ought to have accountability for the funds that are going out there. My impression from the bill passed by the House Democrats and supported by many Senate Democrats here is that the more we spend, the better it is. I don't think the American people subscribe to that view. I think they realize, like I do, that we are operating in an environment where we have a $26 trillion debt, and we have already added this year, because of the first coronavirus bill, about another $3 trillion to that debt and increased our debt to GDP ratio up over 100 percent, which is pretty dangerous territory if you look at any relevant metric in history. So I would argue that the approach that we take right now ought to be focused, it ought to be targeted, it ought to be measured, and it ought to be directed to those who really have needs--by that, I mean people who are unemployed--through unemployment insurance. It ought to be small businesses that are trying to keep their employees employed and trying to get back and going again and creating jobs. It ought to be healthcare providers who are dealing with the frontline crisis and also the heavy investment we need to make in the ultimate solution, which will be the vaccine, and, of course, in terms of the fall, getting kids back to school. That entails a whole lot more testing. Those are all things that are included in the bill that was put forward by Republicans. Most of the Democratic objections to that bill are that it doesn't spend enough, that it is just not generous enough. Well, again, I think we have to be very, very careful, very thoughtful and aware and conscience of the fact that we are operating at a time when we have $26 trillion in debt, where every dollar we spend is a borrowed dollar, and we need to be effective, surgical, targeted, and wise about how we spend the American people's hard-earned tax dollars. I am hopeful these discussions will lead to a solution. We knew right away that there wasn't going to be unanimous support for this. It is not like the last time around, and I have said all along that I wouldn't expect every Republican to support the bill that came out and was released a couple of days ago. I think it is a starting point. I hope the Democrats will negotiate in good faith and not simply try to raise the ante because they have a bill that has already passed the House at $3.5 trillion. That, to me--not to mention the size of it but also the components of it--was a very irresponsible bill. That is not a serious bill. And the fact that it mentions the word ``cannabis'' more times than it mentions the word ``jobs'' I think gives you all you need to know about how serious that effort was. But there is a place that we can land that addresses those critical elements that I mentioned, and I hope that, notwithstanding the rhetoric we are hearing from the Democratic leader, the Democrats will enter into good-faith discussions and play a constructive role in trying to come up with a bipartisan solution to the challenges we face because of an unprecedented and historic pandemic.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, yesterday, Senate Republicans introduced the next phase of our coronavirus relief effort, the Health, Economic Assistance, Liability Protection, and Schools Act, or the HEALS Act. This bill has been carefully targeted to address the most pressing issues facing our Nation right now: getting kids back to school, getting workers back to work, and ensuring that we have the healthcare resources necessary to defeat the virus. The HEALS Act will provide economic incentives to help businesses retain workers. It will give additional support to hard-hit small businesses. It will provide checks to American families to help them weather the economic challenges that they are facing. It will give schools more than $100 billion to help them safely reopen so kids and college students aren't missing out on the academic, social, and emotional benefits of in-person learning. It will direct funds to diagnosis, vaccines, and treatments. It will ensure that medical professionals, small businesses, and school districts doing their best to protect Americans don't face frivolous lawsuits from predatory trial lawyers. It will provide incentives for manufacturing personal protective equipment in the United States to help ensure that we never again face the kinds of shortages we have seen with the coronavirus. And more. Now it is time for Democrats to come to the negotiating table so that we can arrive at a bipartisan bill and get this relief into the hands of Americans. I was disappointed to hear of the Democratic leader's partisan screeds yesterday and today on the Senate floor, although I did appreciate his ability to--with a straight face, I might add-- simultaneously characterize Republican relief efforts as insufficient while touting a House bill that mentions the word ``cannabis'' more often than the word ``job'' and actually contains less money for schools than the Republican bill. No one is going to get everything they want with this bill, and Democrats are not going to be able to implement their socialist wish list, but if we work together, we can get real relief into the hands of Americans. I hope the Democrats will join us.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, during New York's toughest moments during the pandemic, medical professionals from around the country came to hard-hit New York City to help. They formed an essential part of the city's medical response, and they undoubtedly saved lives. They are deserving of New York's profound gratitude--and apparently of something else: tax bills. That is right. In May, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced that New York would be levying income tax on any money these medical professionals made while they were there. Now, individuals can generally receive a tax credit in their home State for income tax paid to another State, thus avoiding double taxation of their income, but since New York has one of the highest income taxes in the country, a lot of these medical professionals will be facing a higher than normal tax bill on any money they earn in New York. The situation is even worse for residents of States without an income tax, like my home State of South Dakota. Medical professionals from those States will simply have to absorb the full cost of this unexpected bill. The healthcare workers who traveled to New York are not alone in facing a complicated tax situation. For Americans who regularly spend limited time working in different States throughout the year, the situation can be even worse. A traveling nurse, for example, or a corporate trainer might work in not just one but several additional States during a given year, and navigating the resulting income tax situation can be incredibly complicated. Some States, like New York, aggressively tax individuals they deem to have earned income within their borders, even if the income in question is just the salary they earned from their employer while attending a 2- day training conference in the State. Other States allow nonresidents to work for longer periods--as long as 60 days in some cases--before they require an individual to file an income tax return. Navigating different States' requirements can be a real burden for both employees and employers and can discourage interstate commerce. It is particularly challenging for small businesses, which frequently lack the in-house tax staff and tracking capabilities of larger organizations. This situation cries out for a solution. For the past four Congresses, I have introduced legislation--the Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act--to create a uniform standard for mobile workers. Under my bill, if you spent 30 days or fewer working in a different State, you would be taxed as normal by your home State. If you spent more than 30 days working in a different State, you would be subject to that other State's income tax in addition to the income tax in your home State. Having a universal rule like this would make life a lot easier for workers and for employers. In June I introduced an updated version of my mobile workforce bill-- the Remote and Mobile Worker Relief Act, which I am pleased to announce has been included in the HEALS Act, the phase 4 coronavirus relief package the Republicans introduced yesterday. Like my original mobile workforce bill, the Remote and Mobile Worker Relief Act would create a uniform, 30-day standard governing State income tax liability for mobile workers, but my new bill goes further and addresses some of the particular challenges faced by mobile and remote workers as a result of the coronavirus. The Remote and Mobile Worker Relief Act would establish a special 90- day standard for healthcare workers who travel to another State to help during the pandemic. This should ensure that no healthcare worker faces an unexpected tax bill for the contributions he or she makes to fighting the coronavirus. My new bill also addresses the possible tax complications that could face remote workers as a result of the pandemic. During the coronavirus crisis, many workers who usually travel to their offices every day have ended up working from home. This doesn't present a tax problem for most employees, but it does present a possible problem for workers who live in a different State than the one in which they work. Workers who live in a different State from the one in which they work are subject to income tax from both States, but under current State tax laws, they usually pay most or all of their State income taxes to the State in which they earn their income rather than their State of residence. However, now that some workers who usually work in a different State have been working from home, there is a risk that their State of residence could consider the resulting income as allocated to and taxable by it as well. That could mean a higher tax bill for a lot of workers. My bill would preempt this problem by codifying the pre-pandemic status quo. Under my bill, if you plan to work in North Carolina but had to work from home in South Carolina during the pandemic, your income would still be taxed as if you were going into the office in North Carolina every day, just as it would have been if the pandemic had never happened. Relief for mobile workers is a bipartisan idea. A version of my original mobile workforce bill has passed the House of Representatives multiple times, and the only reason it hasn't advanced so far in the Senate is because of the opposition of a handful of States that aggressively tax--you have got it--temporary workers. Now that the pandemic has highlighted the challenges facing mobile workers and the potential challenges facing remote workers, I am pleased that my legislation will be considered here in the Senate as part of the broader coronavirus relief package that we hope to pass in the next couple of weeks. I am grateful to Chairman Grassley for his support for this legislation. It is unconscionable--unconscionable--that we would allow healthcare workers who risked their own lives to care for individuals in coronavirus-stricken States to be punished with unexpected tax bills. We need to make sure that Americans who work from home to help slow the spread of the virus don't face a complicated tax situation or an unexpectedly high tax bill as a result. Americans have faced enough challenges over the past several months. Let's make sure tax problems are not among them. I yield the floor I suggest the absence of a quorum.