[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 184 (Sunday, October 25, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6468-S6471]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Coronavirus

  Mr. President, the economy is still struggling. As I said, we are not 
out of the woods yet, particularly in the areas of hospitality, travel, 
and entertainment. We are not out of the woods on the virus yet, 
either, with many States seeing a third wave right now. That is what I 
would describe is happening in Ohio, my home State. I have watched the 
numbers every single day this week. Not only are the number of cases 
increasing, but the hospitalizations went up this week. The number of 
people in ICU went up and fatalities went up.
  It is critical that this Congress provide additional relief to help 
the American people get through this healthcare crisis and economic 
fallout we have seen. We have done it before. Five times Republicans 
and Democrats on this floor and over in the House and working with the 
White House have passed coronavirus legislation--five times. In fact, 
most of the votes have been unanimous. It is unbelievable because here 
we are in this partisan atmosphere, but most of the votes have been 
unanimous.

[[Page S6469]]

  These laws have helped address both the healthcare crisis and the 
economic free fall that were caused by the virus and the government-
imposed shutdowns. And for some of my colleagues who are concerned 
about the cost, I would just say again--government-imposed shutdowns. 
Many of these businesses in my home State that are struggling, you 
know, they were told to shut down, and they do need our help. They 
deserve our help. The same government that insisted that they not be in 
business ought to help them now to get back in business and stay in 
business.
  The biggest of these bills that this body and the House and the White 
House worked hard on and passed is called the CARES Act. A lot of 
people have heard about it. It is a piece of legislation that was very 
important at the time but needs to be extended, in essence, now. It was 
passed by a vote in this Chamber of 96 to nothing.
  Unfortunately, since May of this year, when the last of these 
bipartisan bills was enacted, partisanship has prevailed over good 
policy, and Washington has been paralyzed, unable to repeat the coming 
together for the good of all of us.
  For months, Democrats insisted that the only way forward was a bill 
called the $3.5 trillion Heroes Act, which passed the House of 
Representatives 4 months ago along partisan lines. It included things 
unrelated to COVID-19, and you can argue about those things. The SALT--
the State and local tax deduction--is in there, as an example. That has 
nothing to do with COVID-19. It is a tax break, frankly, for wealthier 
individuals. Most of that tax break would go to people who are wealthy, 
and about half of it goes to people in the top 1 percent. There are 
immigration law changes in that legislation that are very 
controversial. Should we have a debate separately? Of course, but not 
in a COVID-19 bill. There are other policies in terms of election law 
and how States would handle their elections that had nothing to do with 
COVID-19.
  Also, it was $3.5 trillion. Now, we are facing this year not just the 
largest deficit in the history of our country but also a debt as a 
percentage of the economy, which is how most economists look at our 
fiscal problems--what is the debt as a percentage of the economy? It is 
as high as it has ever been, with the possible exception of World War 
II--a year when we had huge military expenditures, but pretty quickly 
the economy grew, and we didn't have this big overhang of the 
entitlement spending that already has us in a structural debt.
  So $3.5 trillion is a lot of money. When it passed the House, it was 
the most expensive legislation ever to pass the House of 
Representatives by far. When it did pass, by the way, POLITICO and 
others in the media accurately called it a messaging bill that they 
thought had no chance of becoming law. There is a good reason for 
that--$3.5 trillion and, again, the items there that did not relate to 
the coronavirus crisis.
  Since that time, Senate Republicans have provided some reasonable 
alternatives to this partisan proposal with targeted coronavirus 
response legislation--bills that help us directly address the 
healthcare and the economic crisis by investing in bipartisan 
approaches that we know work.
  The last legislation that was offered here on Wednesday was about 
$500 billion. That used to be a lot of money. Again, Democrats probably 
objected to some specific elements of it, like liability protection, 
but we should have had the opportunity to debate that and have a 
discussion. But on Wednesday, Democrats blocked it.
  Their position has been very clear, as I see it. They are going to 
stick with Speaker Pelosi no matter what, and I understand that from a 
negotiating position. They think she is the one negotiating with the 
White House; therefore, they are not going to get involved. I have 
talked to some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have 
expressed the same frustration I am expressing right now. Gosh, why 
can't we get together between Republicans and Democrats and support 
something that is a compromise? But I think they have been told by 
their leadership: No discussion; no debate; we are going to stick with 
whatever the Speaker wants.
  Again, coming up to the election, it is my sense that what the 
Speaker wants is not to have a result. That is my sense. You have heard 
the President say very clearly he is willing to spend even more than 
the Speaker wants to spend. I am not suggesting that is the position 
that every Senate Republican has because many believe we spent a lot of 
money and we need to be very careful and be much more targeted given 
the fiscal situation we talked about earlier.
  Steven Mnuchin, Secretary of the Treasury, has been very interested 
in getting a result and has, in good faith, been negotiating. But, 
again, we have not been able to make any progress because the notion is 
that we are going to stick with the Speaker's position no matter what. 
So instead of a compromise, we have zero relief. Instead of $3.5 
trillion or $2.4 trillion--whatever the number is and whatever the 
Republican number is--we have zero relief that has been provided in the 
last several months. There has been sort of an all-or-none attitude--
either we do it her way, or we get nothing.
  Three separate times on this floor, Democrats have even blocked 
proposals to temporarily extend the Federal unemployment insurance 
supplement that expired in August so that folks who were relying on 
that money could continue to make ends meet while we negotiated a long-
term solution. This week, they blocked a reasonable approach on 
unemployment insurance, I believe. It was $300 per week Federal 
supplement on top of the State unemployment, and they blocked it, 
saying that wasn't enough and we need to stick with $600. So, again, it 
is either $600 or nothing.
  I will say that the $600 benefit is pretty generous. The 
Congressional Budget Office has told us that 80 percent of the people 
who are on unemployment insurance going forward--if we continued $600, 
80 percent would be making more on unemployment insurance than they 
would be making at work. Talk to your businesses back home, and what 
they will tell you is that this has been a problem in getting people 
back to work when they can make more--sometimes significantly more--on 
unemployment insurance.
  But how about $300? How about a compromise? Some people will make 
more. In fact, a lot of people will make more on unemployment insurance 
than they do at work at $300 but not 80 percent of the people. Some 
will make more; some will make less.
  Last week, I finally thought we had a breaking point because the 
Speaker of the House had Members of her own caucus calling her to work 
with the White House to pass at that time what was a $1.8 trillion 
package, but my understanding is, that wasn't good enough.
  Let's get back to the commonsense ideas we can all agree on. By the 
way, many of these are in this targeted legislation that the majority 
of Senators voted on this past week, on Wednesday--again, a majority 
but not the supermajority needed to get it passed.
  First is on the healthcare response, particularly on testing, and in 
Ohio, we need it right now. We need more money for testing. Republicans 
and Democrats alike know that is critical to stopping the spread of the 
disease and getting people more comfortable going back to work, going 
back to school, and going back to their local businesses to buy things. 
We need the Federal help on testing.
  We also need help to continue investing in developing treatments, 
and, of course, we need to invest in a vaccine to get a vaccine as 
quickly as possible. The targeted bill that came to the House this past 
week did just that--provided $16 billion for increased testing and 
contact tracing and an additional $31 billion for vaccine development. 
That is the kind of support we need right now
  Second, we agreed that Congress shouldn't continue to have this 
situation where small businesses are being forced to close their doors. 
We all want to help small businesses. That was in the targeted bill 
also.
  One way we have agreed across the aisle is to have this PPP program--
the paycheck protection program--be in effect, and the targeted 
legislation did just that. It restarted the Paycheck Protection 
Program, which was included in the CARES Act but expired on August 8. 
So since August 8, we haven't had it. This was a smart program that 
provided low-interest loans

[[Page S6470]]

to small businesses--loans that effectively became grants if they used 
them for certain purposes, like payroll to keep people employed but 
also their rent and their mortgages and utilities.
  At least 140,000 Ohio businesses in my State of Ohio--140,000 
businesses--small businesses, have benefited from the PPP, saving what 
we think are at least 1.9 million jobs. Wow. We all know we need to 
extend that program. I think everybody agrees on that. I don't know a 
Senator in this Chamber, Republican or Democrat, who hasn't had the 
experience back home of a small business saying: I couldn't have stayed 
open without this. I have had that conversation dozens of times. A lot 
of these businesses were able to use this PPP loan to weather the 
storm. Some have seen their businesses now pick back up, and they are 
hiring again, and that is great.
  I recently had a virtual roundtable with manufacturers all over 
Northeast Ohio--the Cleveland area and the Akron area. They were hit 
hard by the early shutdowns. They put their businesses at risk, but 
thanks to the PPP loans they received, they were able to keep their 
employees on payroll and keep the doors open. Do you know what most of 
them did? They did something related to helping. Some made ventilators. 
Some made masks. Some made gowns. So they were able, during this slow 
time, to actually help to push back against the coronavirus. Now they 
are back in business. Now they are able to employ people, to hire 
people, and to pay taxes and provide revenue to the government. That is 
what we want.
  There are others, however, who desperately need continued PPP just to 
stay in business. I mentioned the hospitality industry earlier, the 
entertainment business, and the travel business. They have to have the 
PPP loans now--now--or they may close. Some have already closed because 
the program has been shut down since August 8 because we can't seem to 
get our act together to provide the help. That was in the targeted 
bill.
  By the way, it makes PPP more targeted and more focused because we 
don't want to waste money; we want to focus it on companies that really 
need it. That is bipartisan also. Let's do it.
  Beyond PPP, Congress should help invest in businesses to reopen 
safely and effectively. Small business owners I have spoken to during 
this pandemic and especially in recent weeks have told me that they are 
eager to reopen but they want to open in a safe manner. That is the 
sweet spot here. We don't want to close down the economy, but we do 
want the economy to be reopened and stay open safely.
  There are examples of how we can do that that this Congress should 
pass on a bipartisan basis. One is an expanded tax credit to 
incentivize new hiring through the work opportunity tax credit and the 
employee retention tax credit. We also have a new tax credit called the 
healthy workplace tax credit. It is very simple. It helps businesses 
pay for protective equipment like plexiglass, hand sanitizer, and face 
coverings. These are credits against payroll tax that will help 
businesses rehire workers, reopen safely, and take these critical steps 
to let our economy recover.
  I will continue to push this in every coronavirus package. You know 
what, it has total bipartisan appeal because it is exactly what we 
ought to be doing--reopening, yes, but doing it safely. Let's give 
businesses the incentives to do that.
  It is expensive to purchase PPE, particularly when you have tight 
revenues, which a lot of businesses do right now. They want the help to 
be able to do it and do it right.
  Third, of course, we agree we need to invest in our schools and our 
State and local governments. With colleges and K-12 education trying to 
reopen around the country, it is critical that students don't lose any 
more progress in the classroom. We need to make sure schools have these 
resources to reopen and to stay open with adequate protective gear and 
social distancing policies and, again, plexiglass and other things to 
make it safe.
  The $105 billion that was in this legislation on Wednesday that was 
voted down--$105 billion for ensuring that schools are safe--is 
actually more than was in the original House-passed Heroes Act. So, 
let's find a compromise here, but you can't say that helping the 
schools is a reason to vote no.
  State and local governments need support and more flexibility too. 
Ohio cities have been hit particularly hard because they rely on 
revenue from income taxes more than other cities around the country, 
and that income tax revenue has been lower than any of their 
projections.
  The targeted bill would have helped by extending the timeline in 
which CARES funding could be spent beyond the end of this year. I have 
heard this repeatedly from our Governor in Ohio, Mike DeWine, and also 
from local officials in Ohio: Don't make us spend all the money by 
yearend. We can spend it more effectively if you give us some 
flexibility on that.
  None of us should want to do that. We always complain about the 
Federal rule where you are telling an agency ``You have to spend the 
money by yearend; use it or lose it'' because it encourages them to go 
ahead and spend it, even though they don't need to, so they can have 
the same budget next year. Let's let them have the flexibility to spend 
the money as they need it.
  We all know now that this virus isn't going away in calendar year 
2020. It is going to be around in 2021. Let's give them that 
flexibility.
  With this extended timeline, we should also provide flexibility so 
they can be certain that they can spend the money where they need it, 
including for public safety--police, fire, EMS.
  Fourth, we all agree we have to make sure Americans have adequate 
access to telehealth and telehealth medicine. Most of us in this 
Chamber have probably utilized telehealth services during this 
pandemic, and we know that they work.
  Telehealth has been a lifeline for millions of Americans, 
particularly for those fighting addiction, for those who have 
behavioral health issues, mental health issues, who can't currently 
receive in-person care to help in their recovery.
  I have worked with the Trump administration to expand telehealth and 
delivery options for opioid treatment, which, in some instances, has 
even allowed addiction specialists to reach new patients. I love 
hearing that--that in this dark cloud, one silver lining is that 
telehealth has actually been successful and helped people, including 
mental health providers and drug treatment providers, to reach new 
people whom they couldn't reach previously.
  However, the reforms that we have in place now, based on the previous 
legislation I talked about, are only temporary. The bipartisan 
legislation we have introduced, along with my colleague Sheldon 
Whitehouse, is to make these telehealth options permanent. It is called 
the TREATS Act. That should be in any coronavirus package, and it would 
be.
  Finally, we need to chart a path forward on the issue of expanded 
unemployment insurance. Unemployment is down from the highest we saw in 
the spring, and it has been very encouraging to see how many new jobs 
have come back. It exceeded all expectations, everybody's--OMB's, 
CBO's, outside projections.
  But unemployment is still way too high. We are still at 8.9 percent 
in Ohio, and it is probably about 8 percent nationally. Think of this. 
We went from the lowest unemployment we have seen in decades just 
before this virus, more like 3.5 percent--record lows for Blacks, 
Hispanics, disabled, women--and now we have about 8 percent 
unemployment--more than double that.
  I said earlier that Congress allowed the original unemployment 
insurance supplement to expire without a replacement. When that 
happened, the Trump administration stepped in and used $44 billion from 
FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund, which had received funding from the CARES 
Act to temporarily add a $300-per-week Federal supplement called the 
Lost Wage Assistance Program. This program funded 6 weeks of expanded 
unemployment insurance and also encouraged States to provide their own 
match.
  What happened was that every State but two took the government up on 
that. They didn't add their match, but they did take the 300 bucks, and 
a lot of people who had lost their jobs through no fault of their own 
were able to be helped through this Executive action.

[[Page S6471]]

  Unfortunately, we are now at a point where this program has been 
tapped out. Why? Because the $44 billion that was set aside in the 
Disaster Relief Fund is gone, leaving $25 billion to deal with natural 
disasters, which is what the Disaster Relief Fund is intended to do. 
And they need that money. We shouldn't use any more of that. So we are 
back to square one.
  People who have had unemployment insurance since the disaster began 
because they might work in hospitality, entertainment, travel, some 
businesses where they can't go back--a lot of those folks now are 
seeing just a State benefit or no benefit.
  The Republican proposal actually had a long-term solution by 
providing $300 per week through December 27--basically, through the end 
of the year. That was in the package that was just voted down. So 
Democrats, who say they want $600, voted down $300 because it wasn't 
enough. Well, somebody who is on unemployment is probably wondering: 
Why not just compromise and at least get me the $300 so that I can pay 
my rent, I can pay my car payment, I can make ends meet, even though I 
can't go back to my job?
  So if nothing else comes out of these coronavirus negotiations, let's 
at least provide more funding for the Disaster Relief Fund so that we 
can continue to respond at the executive branch level. If Congress 
can't get its act together, at least continue the $300 through the way 
the administration was doing it for 6 weeks. We have proposed 
legislation to do just that, replenishing the Disaster Relief Fund so 
that this vital unemployment insurance supplement can continue that the 
administration had in place.
  If we can't pass a bigger package, why can't we just pass that? Why 
can't we just pass PPP? Why can't we just pass something for testing? 
Why can't we just pass something to ensure that we are helping right 
now during this crisis?
  The bottom line is that there is still a lot for Congress to do to 
help lead the country through this coronavirus crisis we find ourselves 
in. Between bolstering our healthcare response, promoting a stronger 
and more equitable economic recovery, getting the necessary funding to 
our schools, providing that flexibility I talked about earlier to 
governments, ensuring that our constituents can make ends meet as they 
deal with sudden unemployment and other challenges, we have a lot of 
opportunities to help our country weather the storm of this pandemic.
  I hope things will change soon. Maybe it will change on the election. 
Maybe after the election there will be a different attitude. I hope so. 
I hope that at least in the lameduck session of Congress, if we can't 
get our act together this week, we can figure out how to recapture that 
spirit of bipartisanship we saw this spring, to negotiate in good 
faith, come to an agreement--and fast. Our constituents need it. Let's 
get it done.
  I yield back my time
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.