[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 29, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4553-S4554]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              CORONAVIRUS

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, when the Senate passed the CARES Act 
back in March, we were trying to prepare the Nation for economic 
paralysis and the medical battle of the century at the very same time. 
Hospitals, healthcare providers, small businesses, and working families 
needed help fast, and the Senate stepped up in historic fashion.
  For months, our legislation has helped cushion the pain of this 
crisis from coast to coast, but our Nation is not finished with this 
fight. More Americans are dying every day. Millions and millions are 
unemployed. And the institutions of American life cannot stay totally 
shut down until our race for a vaccine hits the finish line.
  Our Nation needs to smartly and safely reopen while keeping up the 
medical battle. We need to get kids safely back to school and adults 
safely back to work without losing ground in the healthcare fight.
  The coronavirus does not care that we are divided. The coronavirus 
will not care if Washington Democrats decide it suits their partisan 
goals to let relief run dry. The American people are hurting, and 
Congress should have their backs.
  On Monday, I laid down a marker to shape the bipartisan conversations 
that need to happen now--not a loony, ideological fantasy like the 
House Democrats bill from a few months ago, which would have cut taxes 
for rich people, raised taxes on small business, and provided no 
additional round for the Paycheck Protection Program. No, serious talks 
actually require a serious starting point.
  That is why we wrote a serious bill containing largely bipartisan 
policies. It has another round of cash for households--more than $3,000 
for an eligible family of four, with even more support for adult 
dependents; another round of additional Federal unemployment benefits 
assistance, which would otherwise simply expire; and another targeted 
round of the Paycheck Protection Program to prevent even more layoffs 
and keep paychecks coming to American workers. It has powerful new 
incentives to jump-start rehiring, bring down unemployment, and create 
safe workplaces for workers and customers. It has more support for 
hospitals and health providers; more support for testing, PPE, and 
diagnostics; and more resources for the sprint toward a vaccine. It has 
historic support for schools to reopen--a higher dollar amount than 
House Democrats managed to propose in their bill, which costs three 
times as much as ours.

[[Page S4554]]

  And--uniting all three pillars of kids, jobs, and healthcare--we have 
legal protection for medical workers, schools, nonprofits, and 
businesses so that well-connected trial lawyers can't get even richer 
off of stopping the recovery in its tracks.
  This is a more-than-fair, more-than-bipartisan framework for 
Democrats to engage with. The only reason I can see that Speaker Pelosi 
and the Democratic leader would sabotage negotiations is if, as some 
concluded when they killed police reform in June, they actually think 
bipartisan progress for the country would hurt their own political 
chances. That is why I said a few days ago that we would quickly learn 
whether the American people would be getting the responsible Democratic 
Party from March or the cynical, obstructionist Democratic Party from 
June that blocked police reform. So let's review the early going.
  Almost the instant we put out this proposal--which would send 
thousands of dollars in cash to families and even more cash to 
unemployed people--the Democratic leader proclaimed that ``those 
Republican, hard-right money people . . . don't want the Federal 
Government to help anybody.''
  A trillion dollar proposal for kids, jobs, and healthcare just proves 
Republicans don't want to help anyone.
  Yesterday, after meeting with the administration, the Speaker of the 
House said this ``isn't a negotiation.'
  So here we go again. It is the script from police reform all over 
again.
  We have had weeks of talk from Democrats about the urgency of the 
issue, weeks of Democrats thundering that people will be hurt if we 
don't act. But then, when it is time to actually make a law, Democrats 
would rather keep political issues alive than find a bipartisan way to 
resolve them.
  Take the issue of additional Federal unemployment insurance. For 
weeks now, it has been clear to a majority of Americans that we should 
not pay people more to stay home than we pay people who continue 
working.
  Should we have generous unemployment insurance in this crisis? Of 
course. Republicans want to continue the Federal supplement at eight 
times the level that Democrats themselves put in place during the last 
recession.
  But, obviously, we should not be taxing the essential workers who 
have kept working so the government can pay their neighbors a higher 
salary to stay home.
  Let me say that again. We should not be taxing the essential workers 
who have kept working so the government can pay their neighbors a 
higher salary to stay home.
  Until about 5 minutes ago, this was not a controversial opinion. 
Democrats shared it with us. The House Democrat majority leader said 
yesterday: ``That's an argument that . . . has some validity to it. . . 
. It's not $600 or bust.''
  A few days earlier, our Democratic colleague Senator Coons said he 
thought we would be ``finding some path forward'' with a different 
dollar figure.
  The day before yesterday, our colleague Senator Cardin said: ``What 
is the right number? Well, we certainly understand we don't want 
someone to have higher benefits than what someone can make working.''
  At the State level, the Democratic Governor of Connecticut agrees. 
This is what he said: ``I think sometimes it discourages work. . . . I 
would put off this extra $600 true-up they're talking about. . . . I 
don't think we need that.''
  That is the Democratic Governor of Connecticut.
  Like I said, it is not controversial. The Congressional Budget Office 
says that five out of six recipients of this aid--83 percent--receive 
more to stay home than they made on the job.
  Let me say that one more time. The Congressional Budget Office says 
that five out of six recipients of this aid--83 percent--receive more 
to stay home than they made on the job. We all know that is not fair, 
and it is not workable in a reopening job market. We have already heard 
from small business owners who had trouble reopening because it would 
be financially irrational for their employees to come back.
  This is why Republicans propose to continue providing Federal aid--
continue providing hundreds of dollars per week--but do it in a more 
targeted way while providing even more incentives for rehiring.
  But now the Speaker of the House apparently signals she rejects this 
bipartisan consensus and will not let a package go forward unless we 
continue paying people more not to work. That is apparently the 
Speaker's position--that she will not let a package go forward unless 
we continue paying people more not to work. That is what Speaker Pelosi 
apparently signaled yesterday: No money for schools, no money for 
households, no second round of the PPP, no more money for hospitals or 
testing, nothing at all unless we continue to pay people more not to 
work.
  If the Democrats don't get to continue taxing essential workers to 
pay other people more to stay home, then nobody gets a dime.
  To put it gently, that is a completely unhinged position. Sixty-two 
percent of Americans say that paying people extra to remain unemployed 
creates the wrong incentive. A Democratic Governor says he doesn't want 
that continuing. Her own deputy, the House Democratic majority leader, 
said yesterday that there should be room to negotiate.
  But Speaker Pelosi is literally moving the goalposts so fast that 
even Democrats can't keep up, and now she apparently feels that any 
rescue package will have to be to the political left of her own 
Democratic majority leader, to the political left of the Democratic 
Governor of Connecticut or she will not even consider it. She will just 
refuse to legislate until the election and wish the American families 
good luck in dealing with the pandemic.
  These are not the positions of people who are putting the common good 
above politics. These are not the positions of people who actually want 
to reach an agreement to save Federal unemployment insurance from 
completely expiring.
  The American people deserve better than this. The American people 
cannot afford for Democrats in Congress to have decided in June that 
they are finished legislating until November--not during a crisis like 
this. The country needs help. The country needs action. If Democratic 
leaders decide they will not negotiate, they will answer to the 
American people.

                          ____________________