John Thune

Mr. THUNE

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

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 joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds). 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), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds). Further, if present and voting the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, the minority leader just got up and attacked the Senate for not doing anything and then proceeded to announce that we are going to be voting today on the Director of National Intelligence. It seems like a pretty important position--the person who is in charge of all the intelligence activities that we conduct around the world to make sure that we keep our country safe. So if the Senate is here and not doing anything, it seems like a real contradiction to suggest that we are actually going to vote today on a position that is important to America's national security interests. It is just one of many that we are going to be voting on and have been voting on over the past several weeks. The other thing the Democrat leader forgot to acknowledge is that last week we passed reforms to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a piece of legislation that is also important to national security, that authorizes and funds all our intelligence activities and also included reforms--reforms that many in this body on both sides of the aisle wanted to see adopted. That was an important piece of legislation and one that I think has tremendous consequences--I would add grave consequences--for the United States of America and our national security interests. The Senate has also been very involved--I would suspect maybe to the Democratic leader's chagrin--in examining and looking at all the coronavirus legislation that we have already passed and the impact it is having and whether it is being effective and where we need to do more and where we need to fix things or refine or tweak things in a way to make those programs that we funded and authorized work better. But to suggest that the Senate hasn't done anything on the coronavirus--really? Really? My gosh, we passed four bills--four bills--totaling almost $3 trillion through the U.S. Senate, through the House of Representatives, on the President's desk, and signed into law--$3 trillion, four pieces of legislation, and it was done in a bipartisan way. Democrats and Republicans cooperated because it is important to our country to make sure that we are responding to an enormous crisis, an extraordinary crisis that required an extraordinary response, and the response, I would argue, has been extraordinary. Never in my lifetime or certainly my time in the Senate--or, for that matter, I would argue anybody else's time in the Senate--has the U.S. Senate done anything of that scale, scope, or consequence. And in many of those programs that we authorized and funded, those four pieces of legislation which passed as recently as a couple of months ago, the dollars are still getting out there. They are in the pipeline. They are going out to State and local governments. They are going out to healthcare providers, hospitals, nursing homes. They are going out to small businesses. They are going out to workers, employees, people who have been unemployed through the unemployment insurance program. There are a lot of dollars in the pipeline, a lot of resources that have been expended by the U.S. Senate, the House of Representatives, and signed into law by the President. So it seems logical, I would think, for us, as stewards of the tax dollars, as representatives of the people of this country, as policymakers, to make sure that the policies we are putting into place are having the desired effect and are actually working. So what has the Senate been doing for the past 3 weeks? Well, exactly that--taking a look on a committee-by-committee basis at whether some of the things we have already done are being effective. The Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee had in the head of the CDC, the head of the NIH--two critical agencies when it comes to fighting the health emergency of this country--to determine and to ask them questions about what is working, what is not working, what have we done, what should we be doing differently, what can we do. That was a hearing the Health Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee had last week, widely participated in by Members on both sides of the aisle. I sit on the Senate Commerce Committee. We have had several hearings. We had a markup yesterday. We marked up 14 bills yesterday, but we also have been looking at the impact of coronavirus legislation on those constituencies that are under the jurisdiction of the Senate Commerce Committee, one of which is the airline industry. We had a hearing examining the impact of the coronavirus on aviation, the airline industry in this country, and on things that we have done to help assist and support the airline industry in this country. That was another thing that the Commerce Committee did. Then, more recently than that, we had a hearing on broadband, connectivity, and the way in which people, through the coronavirus, are able to stay connected, the way business is conducted, and actually, frankly, for that matter, the way government is conducted because, obviously, we are doing a lot of things through connectivity as well. We looked at what is working, what is not working, and are there areas, in terms of making sure that parts of the country that don't have high-speed internet services and that don't have broadband services could be better connected, and is that something that ought to be a part of any future legislation that we look at. This week, the Banking Committee had the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board and had the Secretary of the Treasury in front of that committee to ask them questions about what is happening in the financial services industry and what is the effect of all the money that we spent, that we put out the door, how is that working out there, and, again, what can we be doing differently, how can we improve, and how can we do this better as we look to the future. Those are just three committees, off the top of my head, not to mention the fact that the Banking Committee is also reporting out the nominee to be the inspector general for the pandemic--a very important position, I might add. So they have been very active and very busy doing oversight work with respect to this pandemic. What the Democratic leader just said is not true. It is not true; it is not accurate; and, frankly, I would think, in the eyes of the American people, it is illogical to say that we have spent $3 trillion and we wouldn't want to take a look to see how that $3 trillion is being spent and whether it is being effective and whether it is being efficient and then look at where do we need to do more before we rush headlong in there and just push another $3 trillion out the door. I think that is a rational way of looking at things. I think most of the American people would accept and believe that these are--this is what we were elected to do. They want to make sure we are taking their tax dollars and spending them as wisely and well as possible and in an efficient and effective way. By the way, just as a reminder to my colleagues, every dollar--every dollar that we spend is borrowed from our children and grandchildren. This doesn't just magically appear out of thin air. We are borrowing money. Now, granted, it is money we needed to borrow, particularly with what we have already done. Everybody acknowledges we had a crisis. We had to put out the fire, and we have been doing that. Every dollar, prospectively, every dollar we have already spent is a borrowed dollar, borrowed from future generations of Americans, and they are dollars that someday we are going to have to repay. Wouldn't it be prudent, wouldn't it be logical, and wouldn't it be rational for this body, the custodians, the stewards of the American people's tax dollars, to take a hard look at what is working and what is not working before rushing headlong into spending another $3 trillion--which the Democratic leader got up here and lauded and applauded the House of Representatives for blowing into town for 24 hours last Friday, cobbling together an ideological wish list. Now, granted, there are some things in there that are probably good ideas, and may be things that, in the end, could end up in a piece of legislation, but it didn't get a single Republican vote, and it didn't have a single consultation with Republicans in the House of Representatives about how to put it together. Do you know what? In the end, they couldn't keep all the Democrats. There were 14 Democrats who voted against that in the House of Representatives. There was not a single Republican, which makes sense, if you are Republican. You never get asked. You are never at the table. You have no input whatsoever. They come in and put this thing together--1,800 pages, $3 trillion-- and what does it have in it? Crazy stuff. Crazy stuff like studies-- studies as to whether there is diversity and inclusion in the marketing of marijuana. There are 68 references in the House bill to cannabis. There are 68 references. There are only 52 references to jobs, which is what I would think the American people are a lot more concerned about. The House of Representatives, evidently, waited, and, in the balance, thought: Well, my gosh, studies on the diversity and inclusiveness of the marketing of cannabis was more important and weighed more heavily on the scale than the jobs that have been lost to the American people. That is what it looks like. I mean, they threw everything in there. They threw in a tax cut for millionaires and billionaires. These guys get up here every single day and talk about Republicans, you know, helping out millionaires and billionaires, and what did the House bill have in it? A tax cut for millionaires and billionaires. Now, 56 percent of the tax cut proceeds will go to the 1 percent top wage earners in America. Just think about that. Does that make sense? Does that make sense when you are fighting a pandemic? Probably not. They actually have tax increases on small businesses. No big surprise there. Tax increases are always something they are quick to do. I just had to take issue with what the Democratic leader was down here saying and his characterization of what is going on here. This place, when you are responding to a crisis, needs to act in a bipartisan and a constructive way, not in a partisan, ideological way, and I would also think in a thoughtful way, giving a lot of consideration to what we are doing here with those borrowed dollars, borrowed from our kids and grandkids, and are we making the best use of them. That, to me, seems like maybe the great divide here and the great debate that we have, not only in this but a lot of other issues. It just seems like the natural, instinctive solution, from my friends on the other side of the aisle, is we can just solve this by throwing a lot of money out there. I have to tell you, I don't think that is the way the American people view it because they are sitting down and making hard decisions right now about how to take care of their families and how to get through this economic crisis. I would think the decisions they are making are along the same lines of the decisions we ought to be making; that is, how are we going to spend our dollars wisely and well? How are we going to be efficient and effective? This isn't our money. This is the American people's money. This is a crisis that needs a response. We have responded in a massive way relative to anything that has happened probably in history, for sure in history--$2 trillion, $3 trillion. I mean, I can't think of a single time--when we pass annual appropriations bills, they never get up to that level. We are talking about dollars on a scale like nothing we have ever seen before because that is what was required. This institution demonstrated that notwithstanding our differences, we could work together in a constructive way and a bipartisan way to do what was necessary to deliver for the American people, and we will do what is necessary to get the American people through this crisis. Please, please, can we do that in a thoughtful, constructive, and bipartisan way? Can we do that in a way that says: Wow. Let's actually sit down and think about what makes the most sense here. Let's see what is out there and what has actually worked. The Paycheck Protection Program, arguably, has worked really well. We put $660 billion into that particular program, and I think it has gotten pretty big dividends and pretty big results. A lot of businesses are still functioning and still operating and a lot of workers are still working. That was what that was all about, which was to keep those jobs and keep those workers working. Now, there have been some hiccups, and there have been some things that need to be fixed. We ought to look at what we can do to refine it and make it work better and make it work more efficiently. The same thing is true for the dollars that go out to State and local governments. We have $150 billion in the pipeline that have gone out to State and local governments, many of which, I might add, are probably going to need help, particularly with revenue replacement. There are a lot of dollars in the pipeline out already, in addition to the $150 billion that we have done for State and local governments that went out in previous versions, in previous legislation. Of the four bills that we passed, the total sum of dollars that have gone to State governments is about $500 billion, or half a trillion dollars. It is not just $150 billion that we put out. A lot of that is still in the pipeline. A lot of it--before we put more out there and before we say, oh, let's put another trillion out there, which is what the House is proposing, maybe we ought to look at what the need is. Maybe we ought to find out what the revenue loss actually is because those numbers are just coming in. This thing really hit us hard a couple of months ago, so the real impact of this is going to be felt April, May, and into the summer. But as things start to open up again, hopefully, we will gradually climb out of this, and those numbers will start to improve. May those horrible unemployment numbers and those horrible revenue numbers on the State level, may those start to come--may we start to see the economy get going back in a more normal direction. Before we rush out there with another several trillion--and who knows at what point you hit the wall when it comes to borrowing? I mean, we think that the Federal Reserve thinks it has lots of levers and they can leverage their balance sheet and they can still do things, and they think that, fiscally, we have some headroom that we can maneuver within, but if you think about this, before this all started, our debt- to-GDP ratio was 79 percent--79 percent. You know what, for 2020, our debt-to-GDP ratio is going to be? And that doesn't include anything that we do from here on. It just captures what has already been done. Our debt-to-GDP ratio will be 101--1 to 1. That was always the level when we saw the Greeces of the world and all these countries that were just completely in this downward spiral, this quagmire of debt. That was always the metric, 1 to 1, 100 percent debt to GDP. That is the breakpoint. That is when you start entering into that really dangerous territory. Well, imagine if we add another $3 trillion on top of that. The $3 trillion that we have already done, taken the debt to GDP from 79 percent to 101 percent, is the biggest increase--the biggest increase in debt to GDP that we have seen since 1943 when we were powering up for World War II. Now, granted, this is like a war. This is a fight that we have to win, and we need to do whatever it takes to win it, but let's do it in a smart way, in a thoughtful way, and in a way that gives consideration to the future generations whose liability everything that we spend today will become, because everything that we do is borrowed money, and we have to remember that. I came down here to talk about the internet, and I guess it is a speech I can save for another day. I was going to talk about China and the things that we need to be doing with China when it comes to protecting our cyber security, but I see my colleague from Illinois here is waiting to speak. I just thought it was important that we take a moment and pause and think about where we are and what we have done, and as we think about what we are going to do next, make sure we are doing it in a thoughtful, smart, conscientious, right way and efficient and effective way on behalf of the American people and the American taxpayer. 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. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds). 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), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, the internet has been a part of our daily lives for quite a while now: Netflix, Twitter, and Amazon. The internet has taken on new importance during the coronavirus pandemic. It has become the main source of connection with friends and family. It has enabled many people to work from home to help reduce the spread of the virus. It is the main reason that schools and colleges have been able to continue teaching students. It has drastically expanded nascent services, like telehealth, which has allowed doctors and other medical professionals to provide patient care remotely. With all of this new internet traffic, of course, has come a much greater load on networks. Not all countries' networks have held up to the strain. In Europe, networks have had to slow streaming and ask providers like Netflix to diminish the quality of their videos. Here in the United States, our networks have faced very few problems, and there is a reason for that. Europe and the United States have very different regulatory regimes for the internet. In Europe, the internet has been regulated using outdated communications rules designed for telephone monopolies. This has resulted in heavyhanded regulation, which has discouraged companies from investing in communications infrastructure and broadband expansion. The resulting lack of reliable infrastructure is the primary reason internet performance in Europe has suffered during the pandemic. The regulatory situation in the United States, on the other hand, has been much different. With a few exceptions, like the brief imposition of so- called net neutrality regulations in 2015, our country has taken a light-touch approach to internet regulation. This has encouraged companies to invest in the latest communications infrastructure and new technologies to make more efficient use of spectrum. Thanks to that investment, when coronavirus hit and internet usage soared, American networks were ready. Despite the additional burden on networks during the pandemic, Americans have been able to enjoy the same high speeds and streaming quality that they typically enjoy. Right now, most Americans are using 4G networks. The next generation of internet, 5G, is here. 5G networks are starting to be deployed, including in my home State of South Dakota. If we want the United States to handle 5G the way that we handled 4G and if we want our 5G networks to be as successful as our 4G networks, we still have some work to do. One thing that is absolutely essential is maintaining the light-touch regulatory approach that has produced so much U.S. investment and innovation. Despite the success of light-touch regulation, there is always a segment of the Democratic Party pushing for greater government regulation of the internet, and that would chill American broadband investment. When Democrats briefly succeeded in forcing through heavier government regulations in the latter part of the Obama Presidency, broadband infrastructure investment by U.S. companies dropped significantly, and it only rebounded when the Federal Communications Commission, under Chairman Pai, rolled back these heavyhanded regulations. Second, the United States still has more work to do to deploy the infrastructure necessary for 5G. While 4G relies on traditional cell phone towers, 5G technology will also require small antennas called ``small cells'' that can often be attached to existing infrastructure, like utility poles or buildings. Last year, I introduced legislation, the STREAMLINE Act, to make it easier for companies to deploy these small cells so that we can get the infrastructure in place for 5G technology. We also need to update Federal regulations to ensure that it doesn't take months or years to get permits for wireless infrastructure. Infrastructure is a key part of the 5G equation. The other key part is spectrum. Like all internet technology, 5G relies on radio spectrum--what we commonly call the airwaves. Radio spectrum is divided into bands--low band, mid band, and high band. 5G will rely upon all three. The United States has done a good job freeing up high-band spectrum for 5G, but we still need to free up more mid-band spectrum to see full-scale 55 deployment. In 2018, Congress passed my MOBILE NOW Act, which helped lay the groundwork for freeing up more mid-band spectrum. This past November, Senator Wicker and I introduced the 5G Spectrum Act to require the Federal Communications Commission to free up a critical portion of mid-band spectrum, commonly referred to as the C- band for 5G use. While Congress did not enact our legislation at the end of February, the Federal Communications Commission announced that it would adopt a framework similar to that outlined in our bill to make 280 megahertz of C-band spectrum available for 5G. Finally, we need to ensure that we have the workforce in place to handle the demands of installing and maintaining 5G technology. It is estimated that deploying the necessary infrastructure for 5G will create approximately 50,000 new construction jobs each year over the build-out period, and that is just for construction. Right now, there simply aren't enough workers with the necessary training to meet the needs of nationwide 5G. Earlier this year, I introduced the Telecommunications Skilled Workforce Act. My bill would help to increase the number of workers enrolled in 5G training programs and identify ways to grow the telecommunications workforce to meet the demands of 5G. The coronavirus has shown us the result of robust investment in 4G infrastructure and spectrum--strong networks that can handle steep surge in internet traffic. We need to make sure that we are putting in the necessary work and investment to ensure that our 5G networks are just as strong. The 5G future is here. Let's make sure that the United States is ready

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded, and I ask unanimous consent that I be able to conclude my remarks before the 11 o'clock vote.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds). 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), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to complete my remarks before the vote.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, as we continue our work here in the Senate, COVID-19 continues to be at the top of our agenda. We are monitoring implementation of the $2.4 trillion of the coronavirus funding that we provided, and we are talking to experts about what is needed to help our country reopen. Our committees, where so much of our key legislative work is done, have held a number of coronavirus hearings over the past 2 weeks, and there are more on the agenda. This week, the Committee on Aging will hold a hearing on caring for seniors during the coronavirus crisis. The Senate Banking Committee will hold a hearing with Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell to discuss implementation of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act--the CARES Act-- which was our largest coronavirus relief bill. The Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee will hold a hearing to consider the nomination of Brian D. Miller to be special inspector general for pandemic recovery at the Treasury Department. With just an ounce of cooperation from Democrats, we could confirm this important watchdog yet this week. Finally, the Commerce Committee, of which I am a member, will be in executive session to consider legislation and nominations, including two coronavirus bills. Of course, while coronavirus remains our top priority, we are also focused on doing the other business the American people expect us to do, from funding our government to protecting our Nation. Last week, the Senate voted to reauthorize three expired provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that provide essential tools to our law enforcement and intelligence communities, as well as a number of reforms to strengthen privacy protections and guard against abuses. We have also been considering nominations for key administration posts, including Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of the Navy. This week, we expect to confirm a nominee to reestablish a quorum at the Federal Election Commission, as well as a number of nominees to fill vacancies on Federal district courts. So that is what the Senate has been doing. What has the House of Representatives been up to? Well, until last Friday, the answer was not much. But on Friday, the House brought its Members back to Washington to vote on a massive, $3 trillion piece of legislation the Democratic leaders billed as coronavirus relief. In reality, as one House Democrat pointed out, the legislation is nothing more than a messaging bill-- that from a House Democrat. Under the guise of coronavirus relief, House leaders put together a massive package of liberal priorities that they well knew would be dead on arrival here in the U.S. Senate. How unserious is their bill? Well, the Democrats' legislation mentions the word ``cannabis''-- ``cannabis''--more often than the word ``jobs.'' Let me repeat that. House Democrats' legislation mentions the word ``cannabis'' more often than the word ``jobs.'' In case Democrats didn't realize, Americans are not suffering from lack of cannabis right now. They are suffering from a lack of employment. Let me mention some other highlights of the Democrats' legislation: a tax cut for millionaires and billionaires; stimulus checks for illegal immigrants and deadbeat dads; environmental justice grants to study pollution; significant changes to election law--that is really related to the coronavirus--a ban on sharing information about lower cost health insurance options; and more. I could go on. The list literally goes on and on. Unfortunately, while Democrats were focused on federalizing election law and requiring studies on diversity in the cannabis industry, they forgot about a few basics. Their bill does not include any meaningful plan to get Americans back to work. It provides hardly any relief or support for small businesses. It doesn't touch the issue of liability reform--even though preventing frivolous coronavirus lawsuits will be key to getting our economy going again--and it doesn't do anything to hold China accountable. The Democrats' bill is a fundamentally unserious bill at an incredibly serious time. Democratic leaders knew from the beginning that there was no chance of this legislation getting through the Senate or being signed by the President. In fact, Democrats had some work to do to persuade members of their own caucus to vote for the bill. As POLITICO put it, ``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.'' Unfortunately, Democratic leaders were successful in their arm- twisting, and the bill did pass the House, albeit with some Democratic defections. I have talked about the liberal wish list in this bill, but I haven't mentioned the other aspect of this proposal, and that is the enormous pricetag, a portion of which, of course, wouldn't even go to anything coronavirus-related. My friends across the aisle think that all problems can be solved with more money or a new government program, but they can't. And spending too much money can actually hurt rather than help Americans. So far, we have spent $2.4 trillion to fight the coronavirus. That is a tremendous amount of money, but these are extraordinary circumstances, and they call for an extraordinary response. We may very well have to spend more before this pandemic is over, and if we need to, we will. But we have an absolute obligation to make sure we are spending only what is needed. Every dollar we have spent so far on this pandemic is borrowed money--every single dollar. It is money we needed to borrow, and we were glad to do it, but we do need to remember that it is borrowed money, and the younger workers and our children and grandchildren are going to be paying for it. We have an obligation to them to borrow only what is absolutely necessary to fight and beat this virus. Diversity studies for the cannabis industry should not be making that cut. Some of the Democrats' proposals might be acceptable at another time, and I emphasize the word ``some.'' But no matter how worthy the proposal, there is a limit to what we can responsibly spend, and we have to prioritize measures that will directly fight the virus and get Americans back to work. Republicans are also focused on developing measures that will help fight the virus and get our economy going again without spending trillions of dollars--something I might recommend to my Democratic colleagues. We are currently working on a package of liability protections. Personal injury lawyers are already filing coronavirus- related cases, and we need to ensure that frivolous lawsuits don't hamstring our economic recovery while ensuring that real cases of gross negligence and misconduct are punished. We are considering a lot of other measures to provide relief while driving up the national debt as little as possible, such as regulatory reform and tax protection for healthcare workers who cross State lines to provide their services. I am pushing for approval of my Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act, which I introduced last year, along with Senator Sherrod Brown. Our legislation would create an across-the-board tax standard for mobile employees who spend a short period of time working across State lines. It would ensure that States receive fair tax payments while substantially simplifying tax requirements for employees and employers. This legislation has particular relevance in the age of coronavirus, with doctors and nurses crossing State lines to voluntarily work in States that have been hit hard by the pandemic. The Governor of New York is looking to cash in on the pandemic and has already threatened to subject these medical professionals to New York's income tax. We need to make sure that doctors and nurses who travel to other States to help fight the coronavirus aren't rewarded with big tax bills. Partisan messaging bills, such as the one the House Democrats passed last week, are a waste of Democrats' time but, more importantly, do nothing to serve the American people. How many hours did the Democrats spend on their massive liberal wish list--hours that could have been spent working with Republicans to come up with real relief measures? But that is pretty much par for the course for Democrats these days. They are intent on remaking America according to their ever more extreme leftist agenda. They are certainly not going to let a national crisis get in the way. In fact, more than one leader of the Democratic Party has spoken with pleasure of the opportunity the pandemic presents to remake America in their far-left image. It is deeply disappointing that Democrats are more focused on their pet projects than on addressing this pandemic and its consequences, but that will not stop the Republican-led Senate from moving forward with the business of the American people, and I hope that Democrats will eventually decide to join us. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. THUNE. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I have 3 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Select Committee on Intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety The Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety of the Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, at 3 p.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Beth Harwell and Brian Noland to be Members of the Board of Directors, and Katherine Crytzer to be Inspector General of the Tennessee Valley Authority.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds). 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), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds). 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), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea,'' the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) would have voted ``yea,'' and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, as the majority leader just pointed out, the Senate has been and will be focused on responding to the coronavirus crisis in this country in a way that hopefully will enable the American people to recover and that will restore our economy--that will get things back to normal. As he pointed out, that requires dealing with the health emergency as well as with the economic emergency crisis that has been created by this. With respect to the health emergency, the leader pointed out that there are literally tens of billions of dollars being spent now on vaccine research, on anti-viral therapeutics, and on testing. We believe that, in order for us to get our economy fully back, we have to deal with the health emergency in front of us, so dollars have been made available--hundreds of billions of dollars--to healthcare providers, hospitals, doctors, nursing homes, and providers who are on the frontlines of this crisis and trying to deal with the challenges it presents every single day. That is what we have focused on. In addition, we have focused on the economic crisis and the impact it has had on our small businesses and on our workers. Everything that has been included in the bills that have already been passed here in the U.S. Senate--now we have No. 4--and have been signed into law by the President have been singularly focused on trying to assist people and get them through this time as a bridge to hopefully get the worst of this behind us and get us to a time at which the economy begins to open up again. Clearly, the focus was on helping families directly, making sure those families who particularly needed the help the most got some additional financial assistance. So checks went out--$1,200 per individual, $2,400 per married couple, and $500 for each additional child--as direct assistance. It went into the pockets of families across this country Then, with respect to workers and small businesses, there was the Paycheck Protection Program, which by all accounts has been very, very successful. I think the reason for that is that businesses across this country recognize that they, too, want to keep their employees employed. They do want to keep those jobs, hopefully, until that time when the economy starts to open up again, so they heavily subscribe to this program. Interestingly enough, there has been a lot of talk on the other side, as there usually is--a demagoging of how this helps rich people and all of that. Yet the average loan in the most recent round of PPP funding is about $80,000 on a payroll of about $28,000. Businesses can use that principally for payroll. Seventy-five percent has to be used to be able to keep their employees employed, to keep their workers employed, to keep those jobs there, while 25 percent has to be used for some fixed cost, which might be utilities, which might be rent, which might be debt service, those types of things. The whole purpose of the program is to keep workers employed. It is a pro-worker program, and it has been from the very beginning. Then also, for those who through no fault of their own have lost jobs and have been laid off, there has been a significant plus-up in the unemployment insurance accounts--to the tune of $600 per person per week for individuals in this country--on top of what their States might already pay. There is a significant number of dollars being put out there for people who have lost jobs through no fault of their own. These are pro-worker pieces of legislation, pro-unemployed people legislation. These are pro-small business--keeping those small businesses working out there. Obviously, they are very much pro-health emergency--trying to drive dollars toward the solutions, the cures, the vaccines, the anti-viral therapeutics, and the testing that are necessary to help us get through this. That is what Republicans here in the Senate have been focused on for the past several months and will continue to be focused on in the future. As the leader pointed out, the House Democrats, who are not here but who, remarkably, from afar have evidently put together this fantasy wish list of things they would like to see accomplished--if you can imagine an 1,815-page bill, they mention ``cannabis'' way more times than they mention ``jobs.'' The amazing thing about this--and they will come here and argue that the Republicans' proposals benefit the wealthy, benefit the rich. As I just pointed out very clearly, it is the opposite that is true, for it has been directed directly at families and workers. Everything we have done has been designed to keep jobs, to be very pro-worker. Yet, in part of the 1,815-page proposal that the Democrats have out there, they have a couple of tax proposals, one of which would deliver 56 percent of that tax cut to the top 1 percent of the wage earners in the country. This is 56 percent of the benefit of a proposal under the House Democrats' fantasy wish list that would go to the top 1 percent of the earners in this country. Now, that doesn't sound to me like something that is very pro-worker or that is trying to help people who are in the lower income categories, who are suffering the most economically as a result of the coronavirus crisis. It seems, to me at least, like something that is sort of a payoff to some of their big donors and to the big blue States. Nonetheless, that is a feature of the 1,815-page bill that the leader just described and talked about. It is one of many features--part of the permanent agenda--that has nothing to do with solving the crisis in front of the American people right now but has entirely to do with an ideological wish list. They are all of the things that have been on their agenda for a really long time, none of which should ever be considered seriously in terms of dealing with the crisis that is in front of us right now. As I said, responding to this coronavirus crisis has been and will continue to be at the top of our agenda for the foreseeable future.

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Arizona (Ms. McSally), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``nay'' and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. McSally) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

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