[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 91 (Thursday, May 14, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2461-S2463]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              CORONAVIRUS

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, since the Senate returned to Washington 2 
weeks ago after about a 6-week hiatus, we have accomplished quite a bit 
on a bipartisan basis. We have confirmed national security nominees; we 
have held hearings to examine liability limitations, coronavirus 
testing, safely getting back to work and school, and the impact of the 
pandemic on broadband. In short, the Senate has been working, on a 
bipartisan basis, to understand the challenges that this virus has 
created so we can provide targeted reforms.
  It certainly seems to be a different approach than the one taken by 
the House. Earlier this week, House Democrats released a so-called 
coronavirus relief bill. You might say they kind of mailed it in 
because they haven't been here for the last 2 weeks, but it has an 
absolutely staggering pricetag--$3 trillion, with a ``t.'' That is more 
than we spent in the first four coronavirus response bills combined.
  I tell my constituents, when I am talking to them on a 
videoconference call or teleconference, that 2 months ago, I never 
would have imagined that the Senate would be voting on trillion-dollar 
bills, but now apparently the House wants to make this a routine way to 
do business and particularly without much debate.
  As astounding as that figure is, the biggest issue with that bill 
isn't the cost or the fact that Speaker Pelosi and her party drafted it 
in secret but that they released the 1,800-page bill text on Tuesday, 
and they plan to vote on it tomorrow. Unbelievable.
  It would be an understatement to say there are concerns with this 
kind of legislating. I would call it legislative malpractice, to be 
kind. It is not just from Republicans or the administration or the 
American people; the Speaker's own Members are begging for additional 
time to review this massive bill. Unlike the previous coronavirus 
response bills passed here in Congress, there have been no bipartisan 
discussions in the production of that bill from the House--not with 
House Republicans, not with the administration, and certainly not with 
us. I can assure you that this legislation looks just like the kind of 
product that you would expect from that type of flawed process. It is 
partisan; it is unaffordable; it is unrealistic; and it stands 
absolutely no chance of becoming law.
  We all know that legislation drafted in a vacuum by one political 
party in one Chamber isn't a good-faith effort to try to survive, much 
less address, this pandemic crisis. It is a political statement as much 
as anything else, a liberal wish list which, if passed--which it will 
not be--would sink us further in debt without the benefit of addressing 
the problems we are actually facing.
  When this legislation was announced, Speaker Pelosi said:

       We all know we must put more money in the pockets of the 
     American people. This is not only necessary for their 
     survival, but it is also a stimulus to the economy.

  But the ones set to reap the biggest benefits from this bill aren't 
the ones struggling to make ends meet. Actually, what Speaker Pelosi is 
apparently trying to do is help some of the wealthiest people in 
America.
  This legislation would reinstate the so-called SALT deduction--the 
State and local tax deduction--and thrust that burden of subsidizing 
the wealthiest people in the bluest parts of the country on the rest of 
us. We were able to cap that in a fair and realistic way in the Tax 
Cuts and Jobs Act.

[[Page S2462]]

  Prior to that tax reform, taxpayers who itemized their returns could 
deduct the amount of State and local taxes they paid with no limit. So, 
if you lived in a high-tax State like New York, there was no limit to 
your ability to deduct those State and local taxes. You know who paid 
for it? The people of Indiana, the people of Alaska, the people of 
Texas, and the people of other States who more responsibly dealt with 
their fiscal affairs.
  Now, for the average American, this change hasn't even been a blip on 
the radar screen. For the millionaires and billionaires, though, the 
ones Speaker Pelosi's bill would benefit most directly, this was a huge 
blow.
  People say, well, the wealthy ought to pay more. Well, OK. Here is a 
way for them to do it in the right way, but it is also a way to hold 
your State and local jurisdictions accountable for the high taxes they 
pass, only to previously allow those taxes to be deducted from the 
Federal income tax, so this is a matter of political accountability for 
them, too.
  I am sure the wealthiest Americans were delighted to see that the 
Democrats' response to what Speaker Pelosi called the biggest 
catastrophe in our Nation's history would allow them, once again, to 
reap the benefits of this no-limit deduction. If the SALT cap were 
removed, they would receive an average tax cut of nearly $60,000. That 
is higher than the household income for many Texans and many Americans. 
To make matters worse, this would sink our country further in debt.
  The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Tax estimates that doing away with 
the SALT cap would cost about $700 billion over the next 7 years, with 
almost 95 percent of the benefit going to those making at least 
$200,000 and more than half going to those making more than $1 million 
a year.
  Now, we have spent a lot of money in the last couple of months, but 
we have done so in the face of an emergency--kind of like the civilian 
equivalent of World War II--fighting this virus, both the public health 
and the economic consequences, so we are already looking at staggering 
debt that we are going to have to deal with at some point because it is 
immoral to expect our kids and grandkids to pay that money back after 
we have already cashed those checks.
  But this just adds insult to injury, what Speaker Pelosi and House 
Democrats are trying to do. Even the liberal Tax Policy Center reported 
that one-third of the SALT deduction went to the top 1 percent. We hear 
our Democrat friends talk about income inequality and the top 1 percent 
needing to pay more. Well, then, their actions are directly contrary to 
their rhetoric. We know 80 percent of the benefit went to the top 20 
percent income earners.
  Now, we are not trying to start a civil war here between people who 
are doing well and people who are not doing well, but this just makes 
absolutely no sense, particularly in the face of a crisis like the 
coronavirus. This isn't an attempt to support those who are struggling 
to make ends meet. That is who we ought to be focusing on: the people 
who are not getting a paycheck because their business has been shut 
down, their restaurant, their bar, their sports stadium. This is a get-
out-of-jail-free card for millionaires and billionaires who don't want 
to pay their fair share of taxes and would foist that unfairly onto 
others.
  Now, I realize that is only a small portion of the bill. After all, 
it is a $3 trillion bill. So let's dive into a couple of other things--
changes, for example, they would make in unemployment insurance. The 
CARES Act we passed--I think it was March 25--expanded unemployment 
benefits to include workers who would not typically be eligible for 
those benefits, the self-employed and independent contractors. It also 
provided an additional $600 of Federal benefit on top of the State's 
unemployment benefit through the end of July, for 4 months.
  The theory behind that was to provide workers who lost their jobs 
with the money they needed to pay for the necessities of life until the 
economy could reopen and they could go back to work.
  Slowly but surely, businesses across this country are starting to 
reopen their doors--safely and gradually reopen their doors--and many 
are facing an unlikely burden, which is now getting people to come back 
to work. Over the last several weeks, I have heard Texas businesses 
struggling to rehire their employees because they are making more from 
unemployment than they would if they worked.
  And it is not an isolated issue. According to the Texas Workforce 
Commission that administers our unemployment insurance program, 80 
percent of the people are making more money on unemployment than they 
were when previously employed--80 percent.
  Now, that clearly was a mistake in the underlying bill. It is true 
that, when you do something that big and that fast, you are going to 
make some mistakes, but nobody can think this is sound public policy: 
to pay people more for not working than when they do work.
  Here is what House Democrats do. They extend that mistake through 
next January, providing even less of an incentive for workers to find 
new jobs. The United States can't be the successful economy that we 
are capable of being or have been by encouraging people not to work. At 
a certain point, these benefits are going to do more harm than good, 
and I would say they are already starting to do that. So, extending 
unemployment benefits to next year would deter people from trying to 
return to work because, why would they? Why would someone choose to do 
more work for less money?

  Well, I understand the need to support the American people until they 
are able to get back on their feet, but I am afraid this move would 
stunt--would retard--any hope of economic recovery, and it would deepen 
the hiring struggle businesses are already facing--and I am glad that 
they are hiring--and ensure that the ``Sorry, we're closed'' sign 
remains on the door of Main Street businesses throughout the country.
  As we begin to recover from the economic crisis that this virus has 
caused, our country will need a lot more from Congress than a blank 
check written in a back room. Rushing to appear to do something while 
doing absolutely nothing, which is what House Democrats have done, will 
not do any good unless we are taking the time to find out what 
America's healthcare professionals, small businesses, and workers 
actually need.
  That is what we are doing every day: listening. How is what we have 
already done working? What are the mistakes that need to be corrected? 
Where are the gaps that need to be filled--at a time when about a half-
trillion dollars of that money from the CARES Act isn't even out the 
door yet from the Main Street lending facility that is being set up 
through the Federal Reserve.
  I am not blaming Treasury. I am just saying, they are covered up, and 
they are working 24/7, but let's see how what we have already done 
works before we continue to shovel more money aimlessly out the door.
  Earlier this week, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing to examine 
liability around the coronavirus pandemic. One of our witnesses was 
Kevin Smartt, a Texan from Bonham, TX--the home of Sam Rayburn--who is 
CEO and President of Kwik Chek food stores. I think he has 47 fast-food 
stores. In his opening statement, he outlined the steps that Kwik Chek 
took to protect the safety of its employees and customers while 
continuing to provide access to essential items like food and fuel.
  They followed the constantly shifting guidelines from the CDC and 
other Federal, State, and local government agencies and adjusted and 
adapted accordingly. Like millions of businesses across the country, 
Kwik Chek implemented strict cleaning protocols. They installed sneeze 
guards in their stores, they put markers on the floor to help customers 
maintain social distancing, and they made every effort to obtain masks 
and hand sanitizer, but have often struggled to overcome supply 
disruptions.
  In his testimony, Kevin said:

       Unfortunately, despite trying to do everything we can to 
     protect the health and safety of our customers and employees 
     during this pandemic, my companies now have targets on our 
     back because our doors have remained open. That's just not 
     right. We are all in this together, and my businesses 
     shouldn't become targets for liability threats just because 
     they serve their communities.

  I found this is a common fear for businesses small and large alike, 
as

[[Page S2463]]

well as for our dedicated healthcare professionals. Can you imagine 
serving on the frontline of this fight against the pandemic, doing 
everything you can possibly do to help people who are sick and injured, 
and, despite acting in good faith to protect employees, customers, or 
patients, we know that a certain element of the bar are lining up to 
file opportunistic lawsuits against these hard-working men and women, 
people who I think we all consider to be heroes.
  Across the country, lawsuits have already begun rolling in by the 
hundreds. Unless we take action, we are going to wake up from this 
pandemic only to find ourselves in a legal nightmare.
  Now, I want to be clear. Bad actors don't deserve blanket immunity. 
We are all in agreement on that point, but hard-working Americans who 
are trying to do the best thing and follow, in good faith, the guidance 
that their government gives them deserve a safe harbor from frivolous 
litigation and nuisance lawsuits. This Chamber is full of lawyers--
Democrat lawyers, Republican lawyers--who are well aware of just how 
damaging this unlimited litigation that will ensue will be on our 
economic recovery.
  While House Democrats have been crafting their dead-on-arrival 
liberal wish list, we have been working on legislation which can and 
should gain bipartisan support and protect our frontline workers in the 
process.
  We are working on legislation to provide liability protections for 
the men and women who have supported us through this crisis and who 
will be the key to our recovery from this crisis. We simply must 
protect those who have acted in good faith from having to defend costly 
legal battles--only to win--only to lose their business because they 
can't survive that additional burden--going through the pandemic, the 
shutdown, only to find, just when you think you are coming out of it, 
that you are being drowned with litigation costs.
  I believe we should continue to provide an opportunity to seek legal 
recourse for those who act willfully or exercise reckless disregard for 
the health and safety of others. Those are the kinds of cases that 
deserve, in my opinion, access to compensation.
  Make no mistake, our country's road to recovery isn't going to be 
easy, and we have already caught a glimpse of the next epidemic, the 
lawsuit epidemic, that is waiting around the corner.
  Unlike House Democrats, who are moving full-speed ahead, the Senate 
has chosen to tap the brakes and figure out the best way to avoid 
hitting the brakes, economically and from a public health perspective.

                          ____________________