[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 139 (Wednesday, August 5, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Page S4884]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               HEALS ACT

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, on an entirely different matter, stop 
me if the story I am about to tell sounds familiar.
  The Speaker of the House and the Democratic leader summon President 
Trump's representatives to the Capitol. They meet for a long while. The 
Democrats emerge, saying they have permitted a few millimeters of 
progress, but a deal is still far off, leaving millions of Americans in 
the lurch. Then they continue to push their $3 trillion wish list that 
even their own Democratic colleagues brush off as absurd. We have had 
variations on this theme daily for more than a week now.
  Yesterday, the Speaker of the House called their far-left proposal a 
``well-developed strategic plan,'' but even Members of her own caucus 
know that is not true.
  Back when the Speaker's wish list was rammed through the House, one 
Democratic Member came right out and said that the so-called Heroes Act 
``isn't a plan. It's a wish list.''
  Another said that Members of her caucus had taken the bill as ``an 
opportunity to make political statements . . . that goes far beyond 
pandemic relief and has no chance at becoming law.''
  Others said it was ``not focused'' and ``partisan gamesmanship.''
  These are Democrats I am quoting.
  Even the Speaker's own rank and file know it is comical to say your 
``strategic plan'' for COVID-19 involves sending taxpayer checks to 
people who are here illegally, paying people more not to work than 
essential workers earn by working, soil health programs--so-called 
``environmental justice'' grants--and a massive tax cut aimed directly 
at wealthy people in New York and California.
  That last point needs special attention.
  Now, in ordinary negotiations, Members of Congress like to bring 
things home for their core supporters, but it is a little too on the 
nose for the Speaker from San Francisco and the Democratic leader from 
New York City to be holding up $1 trillion in emergency aid for the 
entire country unless they get big tax breaks for millionaires in their 
hometowns.
  Economists across the political spectrum say this demand of theirs is 
a bad idea because 94 percent of the benefit would flow to people who 
make north of $200,000.
  In the words of one progressive economist, who ought to be on their 
side:

       This is not a good idea. . . . It would not help the 
     economy heal and would not benefit the people who need help.

  Yet my friends in the Democratic leadership are not deterred. More 
than a week into these talks, they are still threatening to block any 
and all relief for struggling people unless big city penthouses get 
these tax cuts. The Democratic leader said just yesterday that he is 
still holding out for this.
  Now, this isn't the only bad policy they are hung up on. The Speaker 
and the Democratic leader continue to insist that Federal unemployment 
assistance should pay people more not to work than the essential 
workers who have kept working. Let me say that again. The Democratic 
position has been that these millions of laid-off people should get 
nothing unless they get a higher salary than the people who are still 
working. This isn't just bad economics if you are trying to reopen a 
country; it is also just simply unfair in the simplest terms.
  The Republicans want to keep providing some supplemental Federal 
unemployment. We just don't think it is remotely fair for the Federal 
Government to tax essential workers who have kept working every day so 
Uncle Sam can pay their neighbors a higher salary to stay home. Let me 
say that again. We just don't think it is remotely fair for the Federal 
Government to tax essential workers who have kept working every day so 
Uncle Sam can pay their neighbors a higher salary to stay home.
  Outside of the Democratic leader and the Speaker of the House, even 
Democrats concede it is a bit upside down to pay people more not to 
work.
  Last week, the House Democratic majority leader said: ``It's not $600 
or bust.''
  Our colleague, the senior Senator from Maryland, has said: ``We 
certainly understand we don't want to have higher benefits than what 
someone can make working.''
  Just yesterday, the senior Senator from West Virginia stated plainly 
that Speaker Pelosi's position was untenable. ``I don't think we're 
going to stay at the $600.''
  Let's bear in mind, even $200 would be eight times what the Democrats 
put in place with unified control of the government during the last 
crisis in 2009. It is unthinkable they will hold every bit of relief 
hostage unless we land back at $600 and pay workers a bonus if they do 
not help to reopen our country. Maybe the Speaker and the Democratic 
leader will get the memo from their colleagues sometime soon.
  Then there is the Democrats' demand for $1 trillion more to hand out 
to State and local governments even though they have only spent a 
fourth of the money we sent them back in March.
  Yesterday, I received an urgent letter from the city of Malibu, CA--
and I promise I am not making this up--asking Congress for hundreds of 
billions of dollars for State and local governments because it has had 
to delay its ``conversion to an all-electric city fleet.''
  I guess that is an emergency in Malibu when they can't keep buying 
brandnew electric cars as quickly as they would like. Well, this 
emergency is hitting most of America very differently.
  My constituents in Kentucky have bigger problems. They need actual 
relief to go straight to struggling families, and, frankly, they needed 
it yesterday, not a $1 trillion slush fund for bureaucrats who haven't 
spent what we sent them back in March.
  Those are just some of the fantasy items that are in the Democrats' 
demands. I haven't even gotten to all of the important things they left 
out. Their bill costs three times as much as the Senate Republicans' 
HEALS Act, but they skip over major, serious things that we took care 
of.
  The Democrats proposed fewer resources than the Republicans for the 
fund to help schools reopen safely. The Democrats completely 
shortchanged the successful Collins-Rubio Paycheck Protection Program, 
wherein our bill would fund a whole second round. The Democrats have no 
real equivalent to our proposals to strengthen domestic supply chains 
for PPE and critical resources, and they propose no legal protections 
at all for the doctors and nurses who have fought this unknown enemy or 
for the schools, universities, churches, and businesses that are trying 
to reopen. Apparently, those soil health experiments and diversity 
initiatives didn't leave enough room for the critical policies that 
would actually help the country.
  But, remember, our Democratic colleagues told us from the beginning 
their goal was never a targeted plan for COVID-19.
  In March, one of the Speaker's top lieutenants said the Democrats 
should view this deadly disease and mass unemployment as a ``tremendous 
opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.'' Speaker Pelosi 
herself called this crisis a ``wonderful opportunity.'' It is clear 
they view it that way because, while Americans are struggling, the 
Democratic leaders have moved about 1 inch in 8 days.
  For the sake of the millions and millions who need more help, let's 
hope they decide to get serious soon.

                          ____________________