Take a closer look at the professionals sharing their knowledge:

	Brian Wild Brian is a former White House and congressional staffer who has spent his career helping organizations navigate federal policymaking and advance strategic priorities. Known for building coalitions and aligning diverse stakeholders, he works to amplify industry voices and drive policy momentum.
	Michael Adelberg Michael is the Executive Director of the National Association of Dental Plans and brings more than 30 years of experience in health benefits policy. His work has focused on Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance markets, and he has contributed research to several leading healthcare journals and media outlets.
	Sarah Short Sarah serves as Director for Industrial Trade Policy at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, where she leads industrial trade and market access initiatives. She has more than a decade of federal experience in trade, regulatory, and international public service roles.

The Washington Policy Summit is designed to provide attendees with the insights, connections, and confidence needed to advocate effectively for the issues that are most important to our industry.
 
Whether you are a seasoned advocate or new to policy engagement, your participation helps strengthen our shared voice and collective impact.

Register for Washington Policy Summit

We look forward to welcoming these outstanding speakers and continuing the important conversations shaping our industry.

Phoenix Park Hotel | 520 N. Capitol Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001

May 5–7, 2026, industry leaders from across the country will gather in Washington, D.C. for the DTA 2026 Washington Policy Summit, three days dedicated to advocacy, insight, and meaningful engagement with federal policymakers.

This is your opportunity to move beyond conversation and into action.

Register for Washington Policy Summit

What to Expect

	Congressional Meetings    Direct engagement with Members of Congress and their staff on Capitol Hill.
	Legislative Briefings    Insights on laws and regulations impacting dental companies.
	Industry Advocacy    Collaborate with peers to strengthen the industry’s collective voice.
	Networking & Reception    Connect with fellow leaders during the opening reception and dinner.

Event Agenda

Tuesday, May 5 (arrival)
5:30 pm: Welcome and Networking Reception with heavy hors d'oeuvres

Wednesday, May 6th
8:00 am - 1:00 pm: Breakfast, Agency and Policy Briefings with Guest Speakers
1:00 - 5:00 pm: Congressional Appointments
6:00 pm: Dinner followed by DC Monuments at Night Tour

Thursday, May 7th
8:00 am: Breakfast with Congressional Speaker
9:00 am - 1:00 pm: Congressional Appointments
Afternoon Departures

The Washington Policy Summit equips attendees with the knowledge, access, and confidence to advocate effectively for the issues that matter most to our industry.

Whether you are experienced in advocacy or attending for the first time, your voice strengthens our collective impact.

Join Us in D.C.

Participation in the Washington Policy Summit ensures our industry remains informed, engaged, and influential at the federal level.

Click here to download the full document. 

If you have any questions about this alert or the topic, please contact Rick Van Arnam, DTA’s regulatory affairs counsel, at rvanarnam@barnesrichardson.com.

• For detailed information please visit the following FTC link: https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/federal-register-notices/non-compete-clause-rulemaking
•  Any questions about this issue can be directed to Rick Van Arnam, DTA regulatory affairs counsel, at rvanarnam@barnesrichardson.com.

Submit a Comment to the Federal Trade Commission
Should a member choose to provide public comments, DTA Regulatory Counsel, Rick Van Arnam, has prepared two model letters, a letter in opposition to this proposed change and a letter in favor of this proposed change.  To access these letters please visit the links below.

1. Letter In Favor of Proposed Rule
2. Letter Opposing the Proposed Rule

Please click the button below to submit your comments to Regulations.gov.  The FTC will review the comments and may make changes, in a final rule, based on the comments and on the FTC’s further analysis of this issue. The comment period is open through April 19, 2023.

CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS, or visit https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FTC-2023-0007/document.

Overview of the Proposed Rule
A non-compete clause is a contractual agreement between an employer and an employee that blocks the employee from working for a competitor of the employer, or from starting a competing business within a specific geographic area and/or until after a certain period after employment has ended. The FTC’s proposed rule concludes that non-compete clauses are an unfair method of competition, and if the final rule is promulgated, employers will be: 

1. prohibited from incorporating non-compete clauses in employment contracts; and, 
2. required to rescind all non-compete clauses in existing employment contracts no later than the final rule’s compliance date.

The proposed rule will apply to anyone who works for an employer pursuant to an employment contract, including independent contractors, and makes no distinction between employment contracts with executives, or with rank and file workers.
 
Exceptions to the Proposed Rule
Certain types of restrictive employment covenants, such as non-disclosure agreements and client or customer non-solicitation agreements, will be allowed. The proposed rule also includes a limited exception for non-compete clauses between the seller and buyer of a business. This exception would apply where the party restricted is selling or disposing of all or substantially all a business.
 
Timetable
The comment period ends on April 19, 2023. Thereafter, the FTC will consider the comments, but there is no deadline for such action. If the FTC finalizes the proposed rule into a final rule, the final rule will establish an effective date of 60 days, and a compliance date of 180 days, after its publication in the Federal Register. Before being published, however, the rule would undergo Congressional review, which could disapprove it. The process, therefore, could take more than twelve months to finalize.

Any questions about this issue can be directed to Rick Van Arnam, DTA regulatory affairs counsel, at rvanarnam@barnesrichardson.com.

Federal Law

The Salary Transparency Act, H.R. 68501, is a bill that was introduced on February 25, 2022, where it was referred to the House Education and Labor Committee. No action on this bill is expected during the 117th Session of Congress. If passed into law as drafted, H.R. 6850 will require an employer providing an employment opportunity to disclose the wage range for the job to employees and other applicants. It will apply to any public or internal posting for employment. It will make it unlawful for employers to fail or refuse to post the wage or wage range, or to fail or refuse to disclose the wage or wage range before discussing compensation with the applicant. Furthermore, it will require employers to provide annually, and upon an employee’s request, its employees wage range information. Finally, it will be unlawful for an employer to refuse to hire or promote an individual in retaliation for their exercising their rights under this section.

The bill sets out civil penalties ranging from $5,000 to $10,000. It also creates statutory damages for the complainant ranging from $1,000 and $10,000, or actual damages (whichever are greater), plus attorney’s fees.

California

California was the first state to legally require employers to provide a salary range for jobs listed, if candidates asked for it after an interview. The California Equal Pay Act was passed in 2016 and is updated annually. Not only does the law prevent employers from asking about a candidate’s prior salary history, but it also prohibits an employer from paying its employees less than employees of the opposite sex, race or ethnicity for equal work. Under the Equal Pay Act, as amended effective January 1, 2019, an employer may not justify any pay difference between employees of the opposite sex, or employees of different race or ethnicity based on an employee’s prior salary.

The Equal Pay Act (EPA) applies to all employers regardless of their size. Under the EPA, an employee must file a claim within two years from the date of the violation, three years if the violation was willful. Each paycheck that reflects unequal pay is considered a violation for the purpose of calculating filing deadlines. An employee who has experienced an Equal Pay Act violation can file a claim with the Labor Commissioner’s Office or file an action in court.

Colorado

Colorado’s Equal Pay for Equal Work Act took effect in January 2021 and requires employers to list the pay range and benefits for every job opening, notify employees of promotional opportunities, and to keep job description and wage rate records. This Act covers individuals and entity “employers,” public or private, that employs at least one (1) person in Colorado.

The Act requires disclosing compensation and benefits “in each posting for each job which must include (1) the rate of compensation, including salary and hourly, piece, or day rate compensation; (2) a general description of any bonuses, commissions, or other compensation; and (3) a general description of all benefits the employer is offering for the position. An employer must also keep records of each employee’s job description and compensation. Actions may be commenced by a person filing a complaint with the state, or by the state if it receives information that an employer may have violated or retaliated against an employee for exercising rights under the law. In turn, the state can order the employer to undertake actions to bring itself into compliance and remedy the violation, and/or issue fines of $500 to $10,000 for each violation of the law.

Connecticut

The Connecticut law took effect in October 2021 and prohibits employers from failing or refusing to provide a job applicant with the wage range of the position for which the applicant is applying. The employer must provide the wage range before or when offering the job to the applicant, or when the applicant requests it during the application process, whichever is earlier.

Under the act, an employee or prospective employee has two years to bring an action in court for a violation. A successful employee or prospective employee can obtain compensatory damages, attorney's fees and costs and even punitive damages. The law allows an employer accused of wage discrimination to defend itself by showing that a pay difference is based on a (1) seniority system; (2) merit system; (3) system that measures earnings by production quantity or quality; or (4) differential system based on a bona fide factor other than sex, such as education, training, or experience.

Delaware

The Delaware law, which took effect in December 2017, made it unlawful for an employer or employer’s agent to screen applicants based on their compensation history or seek compensation history from applicant or current or former employer. An employer or employer’s agent who violates or fails to comply with the requirements could be subject to a civil penalty of no less than $1,000 to no more than $5,000 for the first offense and no less than $5,000 to no more than $10,000 for each subsequent violation.

Illinois

Illinois recently enacted SB 14805, which amends several laws including the Illinois Business Corporation Act and the Illinois Equal Pay Act. Based on the express terms of the statute, these new reporting requirements will begin on or after January 1, 2023. While employers have time to begin their compliance efforts, SB 1480 will render employers’ diversity efforts more transparent by making public the content of their EEO-1 reports which will be published on a state website beginning in early 2023. Illinois employers will also need to begin reviewing and potentially modifying their compensation practices immediately to obtain an equal pay registration certificate, which will be required as of March 24, 2024.

Maryland

In 2020, Maryland updated its 2016 Equal Pay for Equal Work law to now require all employers to provide the wage range for a given position to a job applicant upon request. It also bans employers from asking candidates about their salary history. Employers are prohibited from requiring an employee to sign a waiver that would deny the employee the right to disclose or discuss their wages, and from taking any adverse employment action against an employee for inquiring about the employee’s own wages.

If an employee thinks their rights have been violated under the Equal Pay for Equal Work law, they may bring an action against the employer for injunctive relief, to recover actual damages and for an additional equal amount as liquidated damages. Actions under this law are commenced by the written request to the Commissioner by an aggrieved employee, which request is then forwarded to the state’s attorney general to bring an action against the employer for such violation.

Nevada

As of October 2021, private employers and certain public employers in Nevada are no longer allowed to request or rely upon a job applicant’s wage history to determine the applicant’s pay rate. Senate Bill 293 was enacted to promote equal pay within the State of Nevada and can require employers to make immediate changes to their hiring process. This law prohibits private employers in Nevada from seeking the wage or salary history of an applicant. Nor can an employer rely on wage or salary history to determine whether to offer employment or the rate of pay. Furthermore, the employer cannot refuse to interview, hire, promote, employ or otherwise discriminate against an applicant if the applicant does not provide a wage or salary history.

The law also requires employers to provide applicants with wage or salary range for the position once an applicant has interviewed for the position. This also includes employees who have applied for promotions or to transfer within the company. Employers who violate the law may be subject to civil penalties, including attorney costs, for violations.

New Jersey – Jersey City

The City of Jersey City adopted the Pay Transparency Ordinance on March 23, 2022. The Ordinance requires employers in the city to post in job offerings minimum and maximum salary and/or hourly wage, and benefits. This also applies to promotion and transfers within the company.

New York – Ithaca

The City of Ithaca issued an Ordinance amending its city code to make it unlawful discriminatory practice for an employment agency, employer, employee, or agent to advertise a job, promotion, or transfer opportunity without stating the minimum and maximum salary or hourly wage compensation. The Ordinance will take effect on September 1, 2022. The law does not apply to employers who employ fewer than four employees, or who advertise for temporary employment.

New York – New York City

On May 12, 2022, New York City enacted a Salary Disclosure Law requiring employers to post minimum and maximum salary information. This law applies to employees who are paid hourly or through an annual salary, and it does not apply to positions that cannot or will not be performed in New York City. A person would not be able to bring a lawsuit against an employer based on this law unless that individual is a current employee who is bringing an action against their employer for advertising a job, promotion, or transfer without posting a minimum and maximum hourly wage or annual salary. Violations of this law would be subject to penalties provided under the NYC administrative code, but first-time offenders could cure any defects within thirty days of being served with a complaint.

New York – Westchester County

On May 9, 2022, the Board of Legislators amended the Westchester County law to prohibit employers from posting listings of job positions without minimum and maximum salary information. That law requires all employers in the county with four or more employees to disclose the minimum and maximum salary for each job, promotion, or transfer opportunity. The law does not cover advertisements for temporary employment at a temporary help firm but does cover any position that is required to be performed, in whole or in part, in the county, whether from an office, in the field or remotely. Violations of this amendment would be subject to any of the appropriate penalties listed in the country’ administrative code.

Ohio- Cincinnati

On March 13, 2020, the City of Cincinnati’s Ordinance No. 83 Prohibited Salary History and Use took effect. Under the ordinance, all employers located within the city with fifteen or more employee, including referral and employment agencies, are required to provide a wage range for given positions to job applicants upon request, provided the applicant has been given a conditional offer of employment for the position. The ordinance makes it unlawful for an employer or agent to inquire about salary history of job applicants, screen job applicants based on their current or prior wages, rely on the salary history of an applicant in deciding whether to offer employment, or refuse to hire an applicant for not disclosing their salary history. If an employer, employment agency, or employee or agent thereof fails to comply with any provision of the ordinance, the applicant could bring a cause of action against the employer, employment agency, or employee or agent within two years for compensatory damages, reasonable attorney's fees, the costs of the action, and such legal and equitable relief as the court deems just and proper

Ohio – Toledo

The City of Toledo’s law, “Pay Equity Act" to Prohibit the Inquiry and Use of Salary History in Hiring Practices took effect in June 2020. The law prohibits an employer from inquiring, screening, or relying on an applicant’s salary history for employment. All employers located within the city with fifteen or more employees fall under the law’s jurisdiction. Employers are required to provide a wage range for a given position to the job applicant. If an employer, employment agency, or employee or agent thereof fails to comply with any provision the law, the applicant could bring a cause of action against the employer, employment agency, or employee or agent within two years for compensatory damages, reasonable attorney's fees, the costs of the action, and such legal and equitable relief as the court deems just and proper.

Rhode Island

Rhode Island’s Pay Equity Act takes effect on January 1, 2023. The Act is intended to combat wage discrimination by requiring all employers to provide a pay range or rate for a given position to an applicant upon request. This must be done at the time of the employee’s hire, when an employee moves into a new position, and upon request throughout the course of employment. The Act will prohibit employers from inquiring about an applicant’s current or prior wage or salary history or rely upon an applicant’s current or prior wage or salary in making hiring decisions. The Department of Labor will carry out enforcement of this Act; and will not impose penalties for any violations identified prior to January 1, 2024. The Department of Labor will also make available a self-evaluation to employers for purposes of attempting to establish an affirmative defense to liability or reduction of liability.

Washington

Washington has amended its Equal Pay and Opportunities Act (EPOA) for the second time to require employers to include wage and benefit information in their job postings. This amendment is scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2023. The wage disclosure requirements apply to employers with fifteen or more employees. The employer will be required to disclose in each posting for each job position the wage scale or salary range, and a general description of all benefits and other compensation to be offered. This includes employees offered an internal transfer to a new position or promotion within a company.

An individual may either file a complaint with the Department of Labor or file a lawsuit if they believe a violation has occurred. The potential remedies include actual damages, double statutory damages (or $5,000, whichever is greater), interest of one percent per month, and payment of costs and attorneys’ fees. The Department of Labor may order payment of civil penalties in response to employee complaints, ranging from $500 for a first violation to $1,000 or 10% of damages (whichever is greater) for a repeat violation, in addition to recovery of wages and interest calculated back four years from the last violation.

Re: Written Comments
File Code CMS-1770-P Medicare and Medicaid Programs
CY 2023 Payment Policies Under the Physician
Fee Schedule and Other Changes to Part B Payment Policies

We respectfully submit on behalf of the Dental Trade Alliance (“DTA”) the following written comments in response to the proposed 2023 revisions to the Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee Schedule and Other Changes to Part B Payment Policies, (hereafter the “Payment Policies”) as published at 87 Fed. Reg. 45860 (July 29, 2022). For the following reasons, the DTA respectfully supports the goal of expanding the definition of dental care deemed “medically necessary,” and in doing so, advocates that a meaningful means of providing reimbursement for this broader definition be developed.

The DTA is a member supported trade association, consisting of suppliers and service providers to the oral health profession. Our main goal is to improve the state of oral health care in the United States, and toward that goal the organization provides resources, knowledge-sharing opportunities and advocacy that supports businesses throughout the United States, as well as the rest of the world. DTA members manufacture and distribute essential, and in some cases life-supporting, medical devices, and dental products, including personal protective equipment for fighting the COVID-19 pandemic.

The DTA believes that oral health is essential to overall health. If every American had a dental appointment every year, the overall health of the nation would improve. The importance of oral health is becoming clearer as studies establish links between oral health and overall health. Take for example certain chronic diseases. A growing body of research has linked periodontal disease to several chronic diseases, including diabetes and various cardiovascular diseases such as clogged arteries, stroke, and bacterial endocarditis. Also, gum disease has been linked to premature births. Even more common oral health issues, such as tooth decay and general poor oral hygiene, can negatively affect someone dealing with a more life-threatening condition by creating complications or other side effects. Research shows that preventing or treating these underlying oral health problems is an effective strategy for deterring these more chronic conditions.

Because the DTA recognizes the linkage between oral health and overall human health, we support the proposed revision of the Payment Policies to expand the meaning of “medically necessary” to capture certain dental procedures. Situations exist where medically necessary dental services and medically necessary procedures are inextricably linked so that the overall clinical success of the covered medical service cannot be accomplished without the provision of the related dental service. In these situations, the dental service should be considered covered as a medical necessity, so to address the needs of the Medicare population. The DTA supports CMS’ proposal to include such related and medically necessary dental procedures as covered procedures and to accomplish this by expanding its definition of “medically necessary” to include those dental services so integral to other covered medically necessary services, thus rendering those dental services outside the scope of the payment exclusions of section 1862 (a)(12) of the Act.

Furthermore, the DTA supports CMS ultimately expanding Medicare Parts A and B for additional circumstances where the performance of a comprehensive dental or oral health exam is considered standard care prior to the performance of a covered medically necessary service. The Payment Policies lists as examples of such procedures the following: 1) before certain treatments of head and neck cancer; 2) before the initiation of medically necessary immunosuppressant therapy; and 3) prior to joint replacement surgery. The DTA respectfully submits that these situations create the same type of “inextricable linkage” between the oral health care and the covered medical procedure that the current revision to the Payment Policies is contemplating. As such, Medicare payment for such dental services would be appropriate. CMS should also work with the various stakeholders to identify other examples of covered medical procedures where an oral health exam is a step in the ultimate course of treatment for a covered medical condition.

Finally, the DTA recognizes that the existing Medicare payment process will be impacted to cover the inclusion of medically necessary dental procedures. In making these changes, however, a fair and equitable reimbursement model must be created, and the opinions of all those impacted by the change should be solicited. CMS should take all necessary steps to ensure that a robust provider network is available to beneficiaries. Input from the various stakeholders and provider groups at this time will help ensure that the proposed changes result in a successful and sustainable new model. Toward this goal, DTA believes that it can play a role as a spokesperson for the medical device manufacturing and distributing side of the oral health profession and is willing to assist CMS if such input is desired.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. Please contact us via email should you have questions regarding these comments.

Karen Neiner
Chair Dental Trade Alliance Board of Directors
President, Palmero Health,
Vice President of Corporate Development and Professional Relations for the Hu-Friedy Group.

Greg Chavez
CEO
Dental Trade Alliance
GregChavez@dentaltradealliance.org

Rick Van Arnam
Regulatory Counsel
Dental Trade Alliance
rvanarnam@barnesrichardson.com

1. The extent to which the services rendered are an integral part of the principal's business.
2. The permanency of the relationship.
3. The amount of the alleged contractor's investment in facilities and equipment.
4. The nature and degree of control by the principal.
5. The alleged contractor's opportunities for profit and loss.
6. The amount of initiative, judgment, or foresight in open market competition with others required for the success of the claimed independent contractor.
7. The degree of independent business organization and operation.

• The amount of specialized training or skill required for the work that the potential employer does not provide;
• The degree of permanence of the working relationship, focusing on the continuity and duration of the relationship and weighing towards independent contractor status if the relationship is definite in duration or sporadic; and
• Whether the work performed is “part of an integrated unit of production.”

The public will have until October 26, 2020, to file comments on the proposed rule. Interested parties will be able to file comments electronically.

https://beta.regulations.gov/document/WHD-2020-0007-0001.

• Democrats pared their initial requests for hospitals and other health care providers and housing rental assistance by about $50 billion each.
• Aid to homeowners would be cut from $75 billion to $21 billion.
• An effort to temporarily lift a $10,000 cap on state and local tax deductions would be pared back from two years to one.
• Direct tax rebates to households would be scaled back by cutting the amount distributed to children and adult dependents to $500, although a three-person cap on the number of eligible dependents was removed.
• Child tax credits would be made refundable as in the May legislation, but Democrats now would limit the per-child benefit to $2,000, rather than $3,000 in the May bill, or $3,600 for children under age 6.
• The Paycheck Protection Program, which offers forgivable loans to small businesses that keep workers on the payroll, would lose $146 billion in previously appropriated money that went unspent. That money would be repurposed for other programs in the bill, such as $50 billion in grants to small businesses.
• A proposal to award hazard pay to front line workers would be scrapped to save $190 billion.

The purpose of the Order is meant to reduce dependence on foreign manufacturers, ensure sufficient and reliable long-term domestic production of these products, and minimize potential shortages in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic.  

Implementation of the Order would require significant revisions to U.S. law, as well as the renegotiation of U.S. commitments under international trade agreements. But if implemented, the policies reflected in the Order could profoundly change the pharmaceutical and medical device industry supply chain.

The Order establishes ambitious timelines with deadlines for key, significant, and complex actions to occur in early November and early December. It is not clear that these deadlines can be met, given the significant nature of the action to be taken and the potential impact of the November election.  

The Order directs agencies to limit procurement to products “produced in the United States” to the “maximum extent permitted.” “Produced in the United States” requires that “the Critical Inputs” that are “used to produce the Essential Medicine or Medical Countermeasures are produced in the United States. Further, the finished product or device is required to be manufactured, prepared, propagated, compounded, or processed in the United States.

It is unclear how this might impact trade agreements but if it stands significant negotiations would be ahead for the U.S. Trade Representative.

A key provision of the Order, from which the timing of potentially the most significant procurement requirement flows, is the development by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner of a list of Essential Medicines, Medical Countermeasures, and Critical Inputs. This list must be developed within 90 days from the Order.  

Within 30 days of the FDA Commissioner’s developing the list of Essential Medicines, Medical Countermeasures, and Critical Inputs, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) is directed to modify the procurement coverage for these products. It is unlikely that this could be accomplished in accordance with the Order’s timelines. Importantly, though, this key requirement is subject to the broad exceptions described below. 

Finally, the Order directs the Department of Defense (DOD), within 60 days, to “restrict” such DOD procurements to domestic sources and to reject otherwise acceptable offers of such products” from countries with which the U.S. has a reciprocal defense procurement agreement. 

The Order includes some incremental steps to be taken to encourage greater procurement of such domestically manufactured products and components. These include directing agencies to limit such procurements to the greatest extent possible, dividing procurement opportunities among two or more U.S. manufacturers, and developing strategies for the longer term to encourage domestic production and strengthen the “Public Health Industrial Base.” Consistent with other Administration efforts to reduce regulations, the Order directs the FDA to identify regulations to be streamlined to reduce barriers to the domestic production of such products. 

Further, the Order encourages the use of the Defense Production Act to prioritize contracts for the production of Essential Medicines, Medical Countermeasures, and Critical Inputs over other contracts if needed for national defense reasons. In addition, the Order directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services, through the FDA Commissioner, to “issue guidance with recommendations regarding the development of Advanced Manufacturing techniques."

Read the full Executive Order on Domestic Manufacturing here.

The draft Republican bill would provide $300 in weekly unemployment insurance benefits through Dec. 27 and pump an estimated $158 billion more into the Small Business Administration’s Paycheck Protection Program for forgivable loans that lapsed August 8, 2020.

It would also:

• Extend liability protections to businesses, schools and health care professionals
• Provide $105 billion for K-12 schools and colleges and universities; $29 billion for COVID-19 vaccine and drug development and distribution; and $16 billion for testing and contact tracing

The draft bill leaves out numerous other measures introduced last month, including another round of $1,200 payments to individuals, employer tax credits and roughly half of a $306 billion emergency appropriations package. 

The small-business funding package will enable a "second draw" on the Paycheck Protection Program for eligible firms that have suffered a 35 percent revenue loss over the same period a year ago. That's more generous than the measure unveiled last month, which required a 50 percent revenue decline.

Unemployment insurance and state and local government aid are two of the thorniest sticking points dividing the parties on a broader relief bill.

Democrats are pushing to renew the $600 weekly federal unemployment insurance add-on that expired last month. Senate Republicans initially offered $200 a week for the first couple of months, while the White House expressed openness to go as high as $400.

On August 8, 2020, President Donald Trump moved to establish a system by which states could apply for up to $44 billion in Federal Emergency Management Agency funds to provide laid-off workers with a $300 weekly supplement.

FEMA guidance this week said that the earliest most states would be able to distribute benefits is August 29, 2020, and that the money will cover only three weeks of initial benefits to ensure other states can get funding for which they are approved. And the money will last only as long as FEMA has enough to contend with potential natural disasters. The Senate GOP bill would enable state unemployment agencies to keep paying $300 a week through the end of the year.

The Senate GOP offering wouldn't provide any additional direct state and local government aid. A House relief package that passed in May would provide almost $1 trillion in state and local aid, several times the $150 billion figure that the White House has said it would support. Republicans also argue that direct education funds for states and localities would help address one of their biggest budgetary holes.