[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 20, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2544-S2547]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CORONAVIRUS
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am here on the floor to talk about how
Congress can do a better job in responding to the coronavirus pandemic
that has gripped our country.
I just thought that debate was great, something we just heard a
moment ago about what we should do going forward.
This crisis is unlike anything we have ever seen. I mean, it has
devastated so many families. It has turned our lives upside down. It
has put an enormous strain on our healthcare system; and our frontline
healthcare workers, our researchers, our first responders are working
around the clock to help patients and look for treatments. For the past
couple of months, every American has been asked to do his or her part
through social distancing, through doing smart things like wearing
masks, like being sure that we are doing all we can within our home,
within our workplace, and out in public to stop the spread of the
dangerous virus.
I think these have helped. I think these measures have made a
difference, and I think we are in a better place by most metrics on the
public health danger. I just saw the numbers from Ohio a moment ago
here, and we have fewer new positive cases today than we have had over
the past week or the past few weeks on average, and so we are beginning
to make progress, but it has come at an enormous cost to our economy,
and I would say even at an enormous cost to our culture and our
society.
Since the crisis began a couple of months ago, more than 36 million
Americans have lost their jobs or filed for unemployment. Some
estimates show that we could potentially hit a 25-percent unemployment
rate before this is over. I think we probably will. By the way, that
would match the worst of our country's unemployment that we have ever
seen, and that would be during the Great Depression. That is where we
are headed.
Some small businesses have had to close their doors; others are
teetering right on the brink of bankruptcy. Hospitals have been closed
for needed procedures like mammograms and cancer screenings. More are
being missed every day, and basic healthcare is at risk. So that is one
consequence that we don't always focus on, but our healthcare system
has had to respond to the coronavirus appropriately.
But there is a balance here, and the result has been we have had
other healthcare needs that have gone unmet.
Without that revenue, by the way, from surgeries--so-called elective
surgeries, although some aren't very elective, like they are necessary
surgeries for a back or a knee or something like that--many hospitals
now are in very deep financial trouble because that is how they make
most of their money.
Colleges and universities, of course, are losing revenue, and
children are out of school, which is not a good thing because our kids,
many of whom are not able to get the same help at home that they can
get at school are falling behind.
We have also got to acknowledge the impacts of isolation on people's
mental health, on substance abuse. I talked to an individual earlier
today who focuses a lot on human trafficking, an area I have worked a
lot in, and he is talking about the increase he has seen in domestic
violence and human trafficking and the calls that have increased, the
number of suicides.
This is all troubling. This kind of a crisis, therefore, requires
swift and decisive action to ensure that we have got the resources and
the help to be able to respond to both the healthcare crisis, which we
have to address on the coronavirus front, but also on the economic and
the broader societal issues we talked about here and how it impacts us
and the rest of our lives. It is a tough balance.
I think, for the most part, Congress and the Trump administration
have done that. They have responded swiftly and correctly with major
new legislation. We came together here in Congress, on a bipartisan
basis, to pass legislation already that has addressed the healthcare
crisis the virus has caused. We have also passed legislation that has
helped the economic crisis caused by government at all levels
effectively pumping the brakes on the economy.
The legislation that has been enacted, of course, isn't perfect. It
is thousands of pages, and it is now four different bills that have
been passed already. I think it was necessary for us to act quickly, in
a unified manner, and on a bipartisan basis to get stuff done around
here. By the way, that bipartisanship has been a welcome change because
that is not typical for this place.
So far, on each of the 4 pieces of legislation we passed to respond
to the challenges of this pandemic, an average of 500 of the 535
Members of both the House and Senate have voted in favor of passage.
That is how bipartisan it has been. Five hundred of the 535, on
average, have voted yes on these 4 pieces of legislation.
These are not small bills. Combined, the funds provided by these
first four rescue packages total about $2.8 trillion. That is $2.8
trillion--$2,800 billion. Phase 3 of the CARES Act alone--the most
recent one we passed--is about $2.2 trillion in resources. That is an
unprecedented amount of spending. It has never been done before. It has
certainly never been done in such a short period of time.
Now Congress is talking about a fifth rescue package. The fifth
rescue package that is being talked about--it has already passed the
House of Representatives. It is being talked about even though--and
this might surprise you--only about half of the $2.8 trillion in the
first four packages has actually been disbursed. Think about that. Only
about half of the money in the first four legislative projects that we
have undertaken here has actually gone out the door to the intended
recipients. Yet we are talking about another package.
For example, the Paycheck Protection Program to help small businesses
stay afloat still has about 25 percent of its original capacity that
hasn't gone out, about $160 billion. Well below half
[[Page S2545]]
of the funding--the $175 billion that Congress provided to hospitals
has yet to be sent out under the Provider Relief Fund. Less than half
of the healthcare dollars have even gone out the door.
Of the roughly $450 billion that the CARES Act gave to Treasury to
unlock the Federal Reserve lending facilities, less than $40 billion of
that has been operational. That is right--less than 10 percent of the
money designated to provide direct lending to businesses of all sizes
so they can stay in business and hire people has been sent out.
So even though about half the money from the CARES Act hasn't even
been spent--and we still don't have a good handle, of course, on how
the money that has been sent out is being spent--Democrats in the House
have gone ahead and passed a new rescue package.
In many respects, it is a wish list of Democratic priorities that has
been talked about here on the floor. Some are related to the
coronavirus, and some are not. It passed by a near-party line vote. I
think one Republican voted yes and more than a dozen Democrats--more
moderate Democrats--voted no. Again, this is a $3 trillion package--
$3,000 billion. That is more than the total spending of all four of the
previous coronavirus bills. So all four of the previous combined are
less than the spending that the House is recommending for the fifth
coronavirus bill.
It is actually also a lot more money than Congress would normally
appropriate in an entire fiscal year. It is about half of what we just
appropriated from the fiscal year we are in, in one bill--in one bill.
I am sorry; it is twice as much as Congress appropriated for the
current 12-month period we are in. So the appropriations for this
fiscal year, 2020, are less than half of what the House is now
proposing to spend in one bill.
I think, you know, we have to be very cautious, and we have to be
sure it is the right amount of money going out because it is a huge and
unprecedented spending package. Our annual deficit here in the Congress
is already projected to be over $1 trillion. We were already running a
large deficit.
By the way, it has only been at that level four times in the history
of our country. So the $1 trillion was already viewed by many of us,
including me, to be an unacceptably high number for our annual deficit.
Now the estimate is that this year's annual deficit will be between
$3.7 trillion and $4.2 trillion--mind-boggling. We have just never had
deficits like these before. Of course, that adds to the $23 trillion
national debt, which is already at record levels.
We are entering dangerous, unchartered waters here from a fiscal
point of view. Most economists agree that this increases the chance of
a fiscal and therefore a financial crisis that would follow.
Of course, we have to respond to this immediate crisis. Again, I
voted for the first four bills. I believe it was necessary to act and
act quickly, but I also believe there are real limits as to how much
financial risk we should take beyond the, again, $2.8 trillion we have
already spent in the first four bills. We have to be sure, at a
minimum, that every new dollar is spent as wisely as possible, so it is
as targeted as possible.
Even overlooking the massive $3 trillion price tag, by the way, the
House bill also focuses on some things that just seem unrelated to this
crisis. For example, the House spends $136 billion on repealing the cap
on the State and local tax deduction. There is a deduction, but it is
capped right now.
By the way, this $136 billion policy they have in their bill would
deliver half of its benefits--50 percent of its tax benefits to the top
1 percent of taxpayers. Tell me how that is related to the coronavirus.
To put that in some context, we can use that same amount of money--the
$136 billion--to provide almost 2 million more PPP loans to small
businesses that need it most: movie theaters, bowling alleys,
restaurants, bars.
There are also provisions that would force States to adopt broad
changes in their election laws regardless of whether they want to.
Election law has always been in the province of the States, but that is
in this legislation.
They also want to raise taxes on employers. Bad time to raise taxes.
We want employers to stay in business because they are the ones who
create the jobs.
They also want to help cannabis growers, which I think is
interesting. Cannabis is mentioned dozens of times in the legislation.
They also want $50 million, as an example, for environmental justice
grants. What does that have to do with the coronavirus
Once more of the existing funds are delivered--in other words, as I
said earlier, of the first four bills, only about half of it has even
gone to the intended recipients. Once more of these existing funds are
delivered and we know more about what is working, what is not working,
and where the needs are, I suspect more funds will be needed. They will
probably be needed for the healthcare side of this--for testing, as an
example--and that is probably money well spent.
There probably needs to be more flexibility, as the Senator from
Louisiana just talked about. I believe there does need to be more
flexibility. I also believe we need to find out, once the money goes to
the local communities, what their budgets look like. Do they need more
money to be able to continue to provide police protection,
firefighters' salaries, and EMS services? We don't know that yet. How
can we know it when the money hasn't even gone down yet? In Ohio, not
one penny is gone except for the amount that went directly to the
largest five counties and the one large city. But the part that went to
the State hasn't even gone down to the local communities, and that is
happening all over the country.
We need more information to be able to know how much of this new
spending is necessary. But again, even with all the new spending, this
new $3 trillion House bill does very little to do something else really
important in the next bill, which is help get the economy moving.
Again, it raises taxes on businesses. It does some other things that
have nothing to do with the coronavirus. What it doesn't do is it
doesn't provide the stimulus you would hope would be in the next bill
we are going to pass because that is what everybody is looking for
right now. How do you do something here in Washington to make it easier
to create jobs, make it easier to invest, make it easier for small
businesses to get back on their feet?
Much of what we did in the first four bills was really a rescue
package, and it was necessary. People had lost their jobs for no reason
that they could do anything about. It wasn't their fault--36 million
Americans. We had to do something to shore that up--the direct
payments, unemployment insurance, and other things. We had to help
small businesses with the PPP program to ensure they weren't going to
close their doors, some forever.
Those were more rescue packages to get us through the storm, to
weather the storm. Now we have to figure out how we do something to
actually get this economy moving. That ought to be the goal because
there is a limit to how much Federal tax dollars can be relied on to
subsidize the economy. The better way is to get the economy moving, get
revenues flowing again, and reopen, therefore, our hospitals and
schools. Hospitals can get more revenue if they can reopen and do more
procedures, and they can keep from either shutting their doors or
relying on the Federal taxpayer for more and more subsidies. Getting
back to work is critical, and we have to do it in a safe way, and we
can.
We have to use social distancing smart practices. We have to be sure
we have the testing. I agree with all that. But any new legislation
that Congress considers has to include measures that are going to help
get people back into the workforce safely and get this economy moving
again. I think that should include some tax incentives for investment
and jobs. I think it should include some targeted infrastructure
investments to create good jobs and also economic benefits that come
from the right kind of infrastructure.
I think one place to start is Federal highway projects. We need to
pass that bill around here. Also, there are a bunch of State highway
projects that would normally be funded by the State gas tax. Because we
aren't driving nearly as much, the State gas tax has plummeted. In the
State of Ohio, for instance, there are a lot of great
[[Page S2546]]
projects out there that have gone through all the process. They have
been vetted, and they have gone through a merit-based process. They are
ready to go. In other words, they are shovel-ready. Yet the State is
not going to have enough money to pay for them.
So rather than sending the money to the States, how about sending
some money directly to these infrastructure projects? Good jobs.
Economic benefits. The analysis is, in the right kind of infrastructure
investments, you spend a dollar and you get back more than a dollar in
terms of revenue from the economic benefit. That is the sort of thing I
think should be in this next package to help get the economy back on
its feet.
Right now, I am told by small businesses that one of the biggest
barriers to getting the economy going is the unemployment insurance
provisions that were passed as part of the CARES Act back in March.
This is what I am hearing from small business owners all around Ohio--
that the additional unemployment insurance benefits in the CARES Act,
which allow individuals at or below the average income to receive more
in unemployment than they could get at work, is a disincentive to work
Of course, again, we needed to act to make sure people who lost their
jobs through no fault of they own could get by while government at
every level effectively pumped the brakes on the economy to better
withstand the health crisis. In other words, people lost their jobs
because the government said: You can't go to work.
At the same time, it was not the best solution to provide a flat $600
increase in benefits to everybody, which is on top of the State
unemployment insurance benefits, and that is what we did. That was the
proposal here that was passed. That continues, by the way, until July
31.
Wage replacement for people making at or below the average income
level would have been a good and generous approach--in other words,
saying: If you make up to whatever the wage average is in your State--
$52,000 a year, $48,000 a year, or $58,000 a year--you get full wage
replacement. But that is not what this is. The $600 on top of the State
benefit, which is, on average, $360 probably, puts you up near $1,000 a
week. That is more than wage replacement for people who make less than
the average wage.
Regardless of how you feel about the $600-per-week Federal increase,
we are in a very different situation now than we were 2 months ago when
we passed it. Back then, remember, we were encouraging people to stay
home and not to go to work because that was the time period when we
were shutting things down and we were giving stay-at-home orders. So it
made much more sense to have an unemployment insurance system that
actually would encourage people to stay home. Now we are reopening all
around the country, and, small business people are telling me: I would
like to get started again, but I can't get the employees.
Some say: Well, you can go to that unemployment insurance office and
say ``I have a job,'' and then, under the State's rules, they have to
tell these people ``You are no longer under UI, and you have to go back
to work.'' That is true, but, one, the unemployment insurance systems
are overwhelmed. They tell me that really is not something they have
the capability of doing right now. They are overwhelmed. They have
never seen these kinds of numbers ever.
Secondly, a lot of employers don't want to do that, and I get it.
Their employees are making a lot more money, in some cases, on
unemployment insurance than they can in their place of business, and
they are just hesitant to tell them to come back and make less money. I
do think there is a role for us to help make that happen and do it in a
smart way.
Things are different in other respects too. Not only is the economy
starting to reopen around the country, but it is being done in a much
safer manner. Why? Because we have a lot more testing, and that is
good.
We need to do a lot more, by the way. Ohio has gone from about 3,700
tests per day a few weeks ago to over 10,000 tests a day now. Soon it
will be over 20,000 tests a day in a couple of weeks, they say. That is
good.
We also have more PPE, personal protective gear, and that is
important because if you reopen--say you run a factory. You want people
to have the protective gear they need to keep them safe.
Also, we finally have some anti-viral medications coming online,
thank goodness. Remdesivir is the first one approved by the FDA. It is
now in Ohio, my own State, and other States. People are using it. That
is great. That gives people more comfort in being able to go back to
work more safely.
It is time to start to transition from thinking about helping people
get by and helping to encourage them to stay home through unemployment
to thinking about how we can get people back into the workforce safely
so we can get this economy, our small businesses, our hospitals, our
colleges and universities, back on track.
We should also want to help people get back to work because that is
good for everybody. It is where most people get their healthcare--from
work, from their employer. We want to get them back to that. It is
where most people get their retirement, their 401(k). Not everybody
offers it, but if you have one, you are probably getting it from work.
It is good to get people back to work and connected with their
benefits. It is also good to get people returning to a safe workplace
because that is what most people want to do. They want to go back to
work. They don't want to stay on unemployment insurance. Yes, it pays
more for many Americans, but they would rather be at work. The dignity
and self-respect for work is real. It gives meaning to your life.
I think we need to take a hard look at this flat $600 increase in the
unemployment benefits and ask ourselves whether it is really in the
best interest of those workers, of our businesses. Is it really the
best system to have it in place when we are trying to get people to get
back to work? Again, this additional $600 benefit on top of the $360
average the States have means that unless you are making more than
$50,000--or in some States, $60,000 a year--it is more advantageous to
be on unemployment insurance than to go back to work.
A recent study by the American Action Forum and the University of
Chicago says that between 60 and 70 percent of individuals on
unemployment are making more than they did in their prior job--60 to 70
percent. Further, for about 20 percent of wage earners, they say, on
average, they are making double on unemployment insurance what they
made in the workforce. So they say that for the bottom 20 percent of
wage earners, on average, they are making double on unemployment
insurance.
Again, people needed the help. They needed direct payments, and they
needed the UI help. A lot of people lost their jobs and had no income
coming in just to put food on the table, pay the rent, and pay their
car payment. Some people used this UI, even though it was more than
they were making before, to help with healthcare. That is important.
But isn't the best thing to do is to get people back to work?
We need to continue to help people during this time who have lost
their jobs, no question. Not every business is ready to reopen, by the
way, and the employees who had to be let go by some businesses
certainly shouldn't be punished for that.
At the same time, we have to ask ourselves whether there is a way we
can combine that need with the need to actually get people back to work
as we reopen. I think there is. Specifically, I would propose that
instead of keeping in place the additional $600 of the Federal benefit
for people on unemployment between now and July 31, let's shift some of
those Federal dollars to a back-to-work bonus--a program where you let
people take some of that $600 with them to work. I propose $450 a week.
Others have different numbers, probably. They think that is too much,
or they think it is too little. I chose $450 per week because that
represents the amount that would be needed to make a person making the
average minimum wage better off in the workforce than on unemployment.
When you take the minimum wages around the country, on average, you
take $450 a week with you to work. That means that you would be making
a little bit more in the workforce than you would be on unemployment.
[[Page S2547]]
What is more, this return-to-work bonus would put additional cash in
the hands of individuals who lost their jobs due to the health crisis,
which would provide additional stimulus to the economy, which is
experiencing historic declines in consumer spending. This incentive for
people to get back into the workforce to get our economy running again
is exactly the kind of policy we should all want. Instead, I will tell
you that as for the $3 trillion House bill we talked about earlier, all
it does is to propose extending the $600 per month from the end of its
expiration at the end of July into the beginning of next year.
We talked earlier about how the next package--whatever it is--ought
to encourage the economy to get moving again, right? The House bill
doesn't do that in a lot of respects we talked about. But,
specifically, on unemployment insurance, what it says is, let's
continue this policy of making it harder for people to get back to
work. It will ensure that that 60 or 70 percent of the workforce that
the study showed are making more on unemployment insurance would be
better off staying on the unemployment rolls.
By the way, it is also another $300 billion of taxpayer spending in
this $3 trillion bill. I don't think it is going to move our country
forward. It is going to make it even harder to get back on track.
By the way, our back-to-work bonus also benefits taxpayers. So
instead of $300 billion in additional funding that is going to go into
the House bill for unemployment insurance, if we assume that States
would have trouble enforcing their UI laws, which we talked about
earlier, and that individuals would choose unemployment over returning
to work, even if 25 percent of those who were on unemployment insurance
today chose to take advantage of this $450 bonus--and I think a lot
will; I think a lot more than that will, but let's be conservative, and
let's say that just 25 percent take advantage of it--that will result
in tens of billions of dollars of savings to the taxpayer.
Think about it. For the State, they will not have the unemployment
insurance benefit that they are providing because the person will be at
work. That is good. And for the Federal Government, the $600 is reduced
to $450. So that enables savings to the taxpayer. It enables people to
get back to work. It allows our small businesses to be able to reopen.
It is a solution that I think Republicans and Democrats alike can get
behind. Let's continue to help the people who can't return to the
workplace through no fault of their own, but let's also remember that
the American people right now are looking to us here in Congress to
come together on a bipartisan basis to put in place policies that will
actually help move us forward in this crisis, get back to normalcy, get
back to work safely, and get our economy back on the historically
strong footing it had here only a few months ago.
Back in February, we had the 19th straight month of wage increases of
over 3 percent, most of which was going to lower income and middle-
income workers. We had unemployment tied with the 50-year low.
Unemployment was low then. It is incredibly high now.
To get back to that, we have to put some more policies in place, and
I believe the back-to-work bonus is exactly that. It will not solve
everything, but it will help people get back into jobs, and it will
send a clear message that Congress is looking forward and providing a
positive path forward for workers, for small businesses, and for
taxpayers.
Thank you.
I yield the floor
____________________