[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.
____________________