[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 29, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4555-S4556]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Coronavirus
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I intend to talk about section 230 here
in just a moment. I just want to react to what the Democratic leader
said and also make some observations generally about where I think we
are with respect to a coronavirus relief bill.
The Democratic leader indicated that the Republican bill wasn't a
serious bill. Frankly, I think it could be argued that the bill he has
endorsed, passed by the House of Representatives, was not a serious
bill. It was about $3.5 trillion, which would make it about $1 trillion
larger than the massive coronavirus relief bill we passed unanimously
in the Senate back in March. That bill, at the time, for a lot of
people, represented something unlike anything they had ever seen
before, both in terms of scale and scope, the expanse of all the issues
that it addressed. I think in many respects it was a bill that most
Members believed at the time that we needed to get as much assistance
out there as quickly
[[Page S4556]]
as we could, and as a consequence of that, there was broad support for
that.
We are at a different point now, obviously, several months later, and
have some perspective that enables us to look at what might be
effective, what has worked, and what hasn't worked. We have gotten a
lot of input from State and community leaders, from businesses,
schools, hospitals, and healthcare providers who have been impacted by
the virus, and have been able to respond to what has already been done
by the Congress in terms of assistance.
So I think at this point, as we look at what the greatest needs are,
it is pretty clear that we have to do something to provide safety net
assistance for those who have lost jobs in the form of unemployment
insurance. I think there is a commitment on both sides to address that.
I would argue that the proposal advanced by the Democrats, which
would just be a continuation of the existing program, is not one that I
think most people across this country think is wise policy, and
certainly to the degree that it provides an incentive for people to
stay home and not go back to work, it does provide a disincentive to
work.
I think that is something this legislation ought to address, and that
is pretty much a widely held view, not just by Republicans but by
Democrats. There are Democrats here in the Senate, Democrats in the
House, and Democratic Governors who have said that the existing
unemployment benefit needs to be modified, needs to be reformed, needs
to be revised.
The question has been raised: What level? It strikes me, at least,
that we ought not be putting a benefit out there that exceeds the
amount that people would make if they were actually working, because
what that essentially says is that those who are working, those who
stayed in the workforce are basically paying benefits to those who did
not, when, in fact, if there weren't a benefit that exceeded the amount
that they made when they were working, they might get back in the
workforce if those jobs become available again. That is certainly
something we want to incentivize.
So I would hope that in any deal that is struck where we address
unemployment insurance, we can come up with a solution that does tailor
it to the need of the moment, and that is to get people back to work.
We want to have policies that create jobs. That is something I think
ought to be first and foremost in this bill.
We have indicated that this ought to be about kids, getting them back
to school in the fall. It ought to be about healthcare, about coming up
with therapeutics and more testing, better testing. It ought to be
about ultimately, hopefully, getting a vaccine and in the meantime
making sure that we are addressing the needs of our providers, those
doctors and nurses and nursing home caregivers who are on the
frontlines.
So those are the priorities that I think ought to be in this bill. It
seems to me there is plenty of room for bipartisan cooperation, and it
will take that. It also strikes me that this suggestion that you have
to do more dollar-wise isn't always necessarily a sound approach. In
fact, I would argue that anything we do right now ought to be targeted.
It ought to be focused on those who have needs. If it is assistance to
State and local governments, if it is assistance to small businesses
that are out there creating jobs--anything that we do at this point
ought to be based and predicated upon where the needs are, and we ought
to have accountability for the funds that are going out there.
My impression from the bill passed by the House Democrats and
supported by many Senate Democrats here is that the more we spend, the
better it is. I don't think the American people subscribe to that view.
I think they realize, like I do, that we are operating in an
environment where we have a $26 trillion debt, and we have already
added this year, because of the first coronavirus bill, about another
$3 trillion to that debt and increased our debt to GDP ratio up over
100 percent, which is pretty dangerous territory if you look at any
relevant metric in history.
So I would argue that the approach that we take right now ought to be
focused, it ought to be targeted, it ought to be measured, and it ought
to be directed to those who really have needs--by that, I mean people
who are unemployed--through unemployment insurance. It ought to be
small businesses that are trying to keep their employees employed and
trying to get back and going again and creating jobs. It ought to be
healthcare providers who are dealing with the frontline crisis and also
the heavy investment we need to make in the ultimate solution, which
will be the vaccine, and, of course, in terms of the fall, getting kids
back to school. That entails a whole lot more testing. Those are all
things that are included in the bill that was put forward by
Republicans.
Most of the Democratic objections to that bill are that it doesn't
spend enough, that it is just not generous enough. Well, again, I think
we have to be very, very careful, very thoughtful and aware and
conscience of the fact that we are operating at a time when we have $26
trillion in debt, where every dollar we spend is a borrowed dollar, and
we need to be effective, surgical, targeted, and wise about how we
spend the American people's hard-earned tax dollars.
I am hopeful these discussions will lead to a solution. We knew right
away that there wasn't going to be unanimous support for this. It is
not like the last time around, and I have said all along that I
wouldn't expect every Republican to support the bill that came out and
was released a couple of days ago. I think it is a starting point.
I hope the Democrats will negotiate in good faith and not simply try
to raise the ante because they have a bill that has already passed the
House at $3.5 trillion. That, to me--not to mention the size of it but
also the components of it--was a very irresponsible bill. That is not a
serious bill. And the fact that it mentions the word ``cannabis'' more
times than it mentions the word ``jobs'' I think gives you all you need
to know about how serious that effort was.
But there is a place that we can land that addresses those critical
elements that I mentioned, and I hope that, notwithstanding the
rhetoric we are hearing from the Democratic leader, the Democrats will
enter into good-faith discussions and play a constructive role in
trying to come up with a bipartisan solution to the challenges we face
because of an unprecedented and historic pandemic.