[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 67 (Tuesday, April 7, 2020)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E352-E354]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ABOUT THE CARES ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. ANDY BIGGS

                               of arizona

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, April 7, 2020

  Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, The vote we took on March 27, 2020, may be 
the most monumental vote during our tenure in Congress. The amount of 
money we committed our nation to is, in itself, epic. The causes of 
this legislation--the coronavirus and government reaction to the 
threat, which has placed our economy into a recession--are equally 
momentous.
  The President has wisely acted to limit the spread of the outbreak, 
and he and Senate Majority Leader McConnell tried to negotiate in good 
faith with House Democrats. Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi and Minority 
Leader Schumer chose instead to derail the process. As a result, we 
have a bill before us that is loaded down with more negative provisions 
than positive ones.
  I have spent the past few days imagining what could have been, had 
the Democrats decided to act as honest brokers.
  Could we have provided the liquidity and necessary interim relief for 
the families and businesses of Main Street USA for less than $2 
trillion?
  Most certainly. And we should have found ways to help them because 
these businesses needed our support, because state and local 
governments have shuttered them and placed many Americans in economic 
peril.
  Could we have acted more swiftly?
  Without a doubt.
  Could we have taken the time to repair the unemployment compensation 
portion of the bill that Senators Scott, Sasse, and Graham noted will 
incentivize people not to work, because the compensation for 
unemployment will be superior to their wages?
  Might we have produced a bill that didn't spend millions of dollars 
for non-essential, non-emergency-related funding to institutions such 
as the Kennedy Center, NPR, Smithsonian, Institute of Museum and 
Library Services, and the National Endowments for the Arts and 
Humanities?
  Could we have done this without strengthening the hands of unions in 
the private sector?
  These are all painful hypotheticals to think about as we look at the 
enormous sums of unnecessary spending in this bill.
  To offer merely a few examples, we gave $88 million to the Peace 
Corps, which fired over seven thousand volunteers in March. We spent 
millions more for refugee assistance, election security, and the 
Department of Education. Some of these efforts may be worth funding, 
but they certainly have no place in an economic relief package.

[[Page E353]]

  We currently have a structural deficit of approximately $1.2 
trillion--which, coincidentally, is about equal to the discretionary 
spending of Congress. This proposal dwarfs in spending, in one day, 
what we spend on discretionary projects in one year.
  Some economists forecast tough times ahead for GDP growth. If our 
amazing economy, structurally sound just a few weeks ago, has slower 
growth while we are more than doubling our structural deficit for the 
current fiscal year--not counting the input of the Phase 1 and 2 relief 
packages, and excluding the proposed Phase 4 and 5 packages--we could 
move into an upside-down position in the ratio of national debt to GDP. 
Such a situation would likely precipitate a sovereign debt crisis.
  The President is highly concerned about whether our economic cure may 
be worse than the sickness. I suggest that the temporary gains this 
bill provides are outweighed by the acceleration of our already 
unimaginable national debt, which even before the spending package 
exceeded $23 trillion.
  Lastly, I am disappointed that the bill:
  Grants checks to millions of Americans who do not immediately need 
them and likely will not spend them.
  Does not expand Health Savings Accounts.
  Does not go nearly far enough to deregulate the healthcare industry 
or the rest of the economy.
  Grants far too much discretion to the federal bureaucrats to pick-
and-choose which companies outside of the airline industry warrant 
relief, allowing for government to pick economic winners and losers.
  Places so many strings on small business assistance that the 
resulting ``loans'' are better categorized as mandates.
  President Trump asked us all to come together during this national 
emergency to pass relief that would truly help our country return to 
prosperity. It's a shame that Democrats chose to leverage the outbreak 
to include their agenda instead of focusing on the need of the nation.
  Congress failed to consider historical examples of relief proffered 
to American citizens. We can learn of the ineffectiveness of direct 
payments by examining the record of direct stimulus payments on 
behavior.
  The federal government has sent direct stimulus payments to 
individuals or households on three separate occasions, in 2001, 2008, 
and 2009. The 2001 and 2008 direct stimulus payments were tax rebates 
of varying sizes offered to the overwhelming majority of individuals or 
households filing an IRS tax return in 2000 or 2007, respectively 
(which accounts for approximately 86 percent of the population, both in 
2008).
  In 2008, the year for which we have the best data, $96 billion was 
distributed to 83 percent of filers (individuals or households at the 
highest income levels were not eligible for a rebate).
  The 2009 direct stimulus payments, unlike the 2001 and 2008 payments, 
were not meant to be nearly universal; instead, they were directed 
primarily to the predominantly poor or elderly populations who may not 
have filed taxes in 2007 (or 2008).
  Stimulus checks in 2009 were paid directly out of various Social 
Security, Supplemental Security Income, Railroad Retirement, and VA 
accounts, instead of from the Treasury. 55 million individuals received 
$14 billion from this stimulus.
  The maximum tax rebate in 2008 was $1,200 for joint filers, $600 for 
others, and an additional $300 per dependent. The 2009 stimulus 
payments were $250 per recipient.
  A 2010 National Bureau of Economic Research survey (Sahm, Shapiro, 
and Slemrod) found that only 23 percent of individuals or households 
receiving a 2008 stimulus check indicated they would ``mostly spend'' 
it. 24 percent of those surveyed indicated they would ``mostly save'' 
the money, and 53 percent said they would ``mostly pay off debt'' with 
the funds.
  The study also found that about 26 percent of families with incomes 
above $75,000 planned to spend the 2008 rebate, as compared to about 19 
percent of lower-income families.
  Congress did not even discuss the ramifications of the direct payment 
program, ``Economic Impact Payments.'' The advocates for direct 
payments exhibited hope and ignored the economic reality revealed in 
past efforts.
  A number of my colleagues and I put forward a number of alternatives 
to the boundless spending package that would have provided immediate 
and lasting relief without causing potentially long-term harm to our 
economy.
  Only a few of the following proposals were incorporated into the 
CARES Act. All of them have advantages and disadvantages, but they all 
warranted far more consideration than they received:
  Payroll tax holiday: This is the original Trump administration plan. 
The advantage is that it helps individuals who are the biggest 
aggregate contributors to the economy. On the other hand, it does less 
to (directly) help poorer workers, workers in tip-dependent industries, 
and retirees.
  Temporary deregulation ``Require every agency within one month to 
identify and suspend significant regulations that will reduce cost in 
the American economy--both compliance costs and economic social costs. 
Upon approval by the President, such regulations (except those needed 
to protect human health and safety) shall be suspended until the 
President (or Congress) determines that the suspension is no longer 
needed to provide relief of the economic crisis. Notice and Comment and 
other APA provisions shall not apply to the suspension of the 
regulations, but shall apply to the re-establishment of the 
regulations. (This will reestablish the President's goal of eliminating 
two regulations for every new regulation.)''

       From Club for Growth's Policy Options for the Senate in 
     Replacing the Pelosi/Mnuchin Coronavirus Stimulus with 
     Economic Freedom that protects the American Economy:
       Prepayment of tax refunds: Give every household a refund of 
     $5,000--roughly equal to the average refund for the 2019 and 
     2020 tax years combined. This refund could gradually be 
     recouped through the withholding of future refunds or by 
     setting surcharges once the economy improves (perhaps after 
     2022).
       Idea from the American Enterprise Institute:
       Reduction of the pass-through tax rate: The businesses that 
     are going to be hit hardest during the corona virus crisis 
     are small firms of fifty or fewer employees, which make up a 
     majority of businesses in the East Valley and most other 
     parts of the country. We could advocate for your ``Small 
     Business Prosperity Act'' (H.R. 4947) or even more aggressive 
     measures.
       Modification of the net operating loss (NOL) assessment: 
     The TCJA eliminated ``carrybacks'' and permitted unlimited 
     ``carryforwards'' of NOLs instead. New policy could once 
     again allow businesses to carryback to more profitable times, 
     or, alternatively, it could allow firms to draw down NOLs by 
     making them refundable.
       Elimination of paid-leave mandates: Senator Johnson tried 
     unsuccessfully to amend the second coronavirus relief bill to 
     strip its paid-leave mandates. His argument was that most 
     small business owners are primarily concerned with preserving 
     liquidity and guaranteeing their future solvency. Paid-leave 
     mandates could inadvertently force some of these rattled 
     small businesses to lay off workers permanently. Most 
     senators who opposed the second coronavirus package did so on 
     these grounds.
       Protection of industries from regulatory takings: Allow 
     businesses forced to close or pare back operations (i.e. 
     airline companies, restaurants) due to government mandates a 
     reprieve from regulatory takings via temporary, interest-free 
     loans provided by the Treasury.
       Expansion of tax deductions and/or credits for individuals 
     who work from home: The coronavirus may spur more permanent 
     changes in workforce behavior. In addition to expanding 
     existing tax deductions for individuals who work from home, 
     policymakers could make them more flexible to account for any 
     ``gig'' work that individuals may be forced to take on in the 
     short-term.
       Expansion of tax deductions and/or credits for individuals 
     who start a business: Some entrepreneurial individuals may 
     see the current crisis as an opportunity to leave their 
     current jobs entirely and start their own businesses.
       Pausing of foreclosures/evictions/repossessions for 
     homeowners, business owners, and car owners: State 
     governments are already starting to take the lead on this 
     issue in many places, and the Trump administration has 
     started to act at the federal level through executive order.
       Expansion and streamlining of the SBA disaster loan 
     program: ``The Small Business Administration (SBA) disaster 
     loan program for those impacted by the coronavirus should be 
     immediately made available nationwide, eliminating the 
     complex and time-consuming local certification processes. The 
     SBA also should be given the authority to streamline its 
     disaster-loan approval process for amounts below $350,000 in 
     order to provide emergency capital more quickly. This should 
     include removing the requirement that small businesses 
     demonstrate that they cannot access credit elsewhere before 
     turning to the SBA. These loans may be used to pay fixed 
     debts, payroll, accounts payable, and other bills that can't 
     be paid because of the virus's impact. The interest rate is 
     3.75 percent for small businesses and 2.75 percent for non-
     profits.''
       From the U.S. Chamber of Commerce:
       Additionally, because the relief packages, Phases 1, 2, and 
     3, all were ostensibly passed to provide relief due to the 
     impacts of the COVID-19 outbreak, I and my colleagues 
     recommended some of the following measures dealing with 
     health policy. Be forewarned that my Democrat colleagues will 
     attempt to reinstate Obamacare and its plethora of 
     regulations. The policies set faith would be helpful in 
     addressing the virus outbreak and would make the entire 
     medical system more favorable to consumers and providers:
       Expansion of Health Savings Accounts: We should make it 
     even easier for consumers to use pre-tax dollars on a wide 
     range of services. Some new guidance has already been 
     released by the IRS in the wake of the coronavirus outbreak.

[[Page E354]]

       Reduction or elimination of FDA regulations on non-invasive 
     medical devices: This reform should already be implemented 
     for smart devices (such as Fitbits), glucose kits, and other 
     comparable items. It could be expanded to include DIY COVID 
     test kits.
       Clarification and codification of Trump administration 
     efforts to ease telehealth restrictions: President Trump has 
     already begun to lift restrictions for Medicare patients, but 
     not for other populations.
       Waiving out-of-state medical licensing requirements: This 
     reform is already happening slowly on a state-by-state level, 
     but could be more aggressively championed--or mandated--at 
     the federal level.

                          ____________________