[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 23, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S795-S796]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              CORONAVIRUS

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, in his inaugural address, President Biden 
spoke about his desire to unify.
  He said this:

       Today, on this January day, my whole soul is in this: 
     bringing America together, uniting our people, uniting our 
     nation.

  Admirable words, but words have to be met with action, and, right 
now, we are not seeing much of an attempt to unify from the President 
or his party. In fact, we are seeing pretty much the opposite. The 
Democrats have made it very clear they are determined to pass another 
COVID bill on a purely partisan basis, which is particularly 
disappointing because, up until now, COVID relief has been a bipartisan 
process. That is right. To date, Congress has passed five COVID relief 
bills, and every single one of those bills has been overwhelmingly 
bipartisan.
  I might add, last year, when we were in the majority, Senate 
Democrats made it very clear that they thought the minority should have 
a voice in COVID relief and that any legislation should reflect the 
thoughts of both parties. The Democratic leader filibustered the CARES 
Act--our largest COVID relief bill--multiple times until he got a 
version that he was satisfied with, but now that the Democrats are in 
the majority, apparently, they have decided that it is their way or the 
highway. Forget the fact that the Senate is evenly divided between 
Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats are determined to ensure that 
the Republicans and the Americans they represent don't have a voice in 
this bill.
  The Democrats' move to use reconciliation to force through a purely 
partisan COVID bill might be understandable--and I add ``might''--if 
the Republicans had made it clear that we opposed doing anything else 
on COVID, but that couldn't be further from the truth. The Republicans 
have made it very clear that we are willing to work with the Democrats 
on additional targeted relief. Just weeks ago, 10 Republican Senators 
put together a plan and met with President Biden for 2 hours to discuss 
a bipartisan agreement, but while the President certainly listened to 
them graciously, it quickly became clear that their efforts didn't 
matter. It didn't matter how willing the Republicans were to negotiate; 
the Democrats had no intention of reaching an agreement. They wanted to 
go it alone, and they were not going to let the Republicans stop them.
  In a speech a few days ago, President Biden acknowledged that people 
have criticized his $1.9 trillion plan but asked:

       What would they have me cut? What would they have me leave 
     out?


[[Page S796]]


  Well, let me offer a few ideas.
  For starters, it might be a good idea to cut out the sections of the 
Democrats' bill that have nothing to do with combating COVID. The 
Democrats are calling this a COVID relief bill, but in actual fact, 
much of this bill has little to do with the coronavirus. In fact, less 
than 10 percent of the bill is directly related to combating COVID.
  If President Biden wants to know what sections of the bill to cut, I 
might suggest starting with the bill's minimum wage hike. The 
Democratic bill would more than double the Federal minimum wage at a 
cost of an estimated 1.4 million jobs--that according to the 
Congressional Budget Office. That would be problematic enough at a time 
when we are already dealing with substantial job losses, but it is even 
worse when you realize that the people most likely to lose their jobs 
as a result of this hike would be lower income workers.
  I would also suggest that the President cut his $86 billion bailout 
of multiemployer pension plans, which has nothing to do with emergency 
COVID relief.
  The President could also consider cutting his $350 billion slush fund 
for States and localities, which would be used mostly to reward States 
that shut down their businesses for extended periods and, therefore, 
have higher unemployment rates.
  It has become clear the majority of States are doing OK financially 
despite the pandemic. A number of States actually saw higher tax 
revenues in 2020, and a majority of States have the resources needed to 
weather the rest of this crisis. Three hundred fifty billion dollars 
far exceeds projected State need.

  And while we are on that topic, the economic stimulus provided by 
President Biden's bill, in general, far exceeds the economic need and 
may actually harm the economy.
  Even without a dollar more of stimulus spending, our economy is 
expected to grow at a robust 3.7 percent in 2021.
  The massive amount of spending that the President is proposing to 
inject into the economy runs the very real risk of overheating the 
economy and driving up inflation, and you don't have to take my word 
for it. Even some liberal economists have expressed their concern over 
the size of the Democrats' coronavirus legislation and the damage that 
it could do to the economy.
  Then, of course, there is the money the bill includes for schools. 
Now, while children in some places, like South Dakota, are in school, 
we need to get all kids back to in-person learning. In-person learning 
is important for kids' academic, social, and emotional health, and as 
Republicans have demonstrated, we want to ensure that schools have the 
resources they need to get back into the classroom safely.
  Our previous coronavirus bills contained more than $100 billion for 
education, and I think it is safe to say that every Republican would 
support additional dollars, if needed, but the fact of the matter is, 
schools still have billions of dollars from previous coronavirus 
legislation that remains unspent. And the Biden bill would appropriate 
an additional $129 billion for schools that schools would get--they 
would get--whether or not they get kids back into the classroom.
  On top of that, most of that money would go to schools beginning next 
year and stretching all the way to 2028; in other words, long after the 
pandemic will be over. In fact, less--if you can believe this, less 
than 5 percent of the education spending would occur this year.
  Ultimately, the Biden bill's school funding ends up looking less like 
a plan to get our kids back in schools and more like caving in to the 
teachers' unions.
  So if President Biden would like to know what to cut, I would suggest 
he start with some of the things I have highlighted. And I would ask--I 
would ask that he and the Democratic leadership abandon their plan to 
shove through a bloated, partisan bill, paid for with all borrowed 
money--every single dollar goes on the debt--and to start trying for 
the unity that the President has talked about.
  The President could show that he really meant what he said in his 
inaugural address by sitting down, in a serious way, with Republicans 
to develop targeted relief legislation.
  We are ready to come to the table. The ball is in the President's 
court.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of 
Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield to be the United States Ambassador 
to the United Nations.
  Our next U.N. Ambassador will inherit the monumental task of 
rebuilding our frayed alliances after four years of isolation and 
division, in which the United States retreated from our leadership role 
in promoting democracy, freedom, human rights, and the rule of law. 
There is no person better suited to this task than Ambassador Linda 
Thomas-Greenfield.
  In a Foreign Service career spanning more than three decades, 
Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield served with distinction both in Washington 
and around the globe, including at the U.S. Mission to the United 
Nations that she will now lead.
  As the son of a Foreign Service Officer and cochair of the Senate 
Foreign Service Caucus, I am also acutely aware of the significance of 
President Biden selecting a career Foreign Service Officer for this 
position. For 4 years, members of the Foreign Service have been 
maligned, demeaned, and marginalized by the people trusted to lead 
them. The selection of a career Foreign Service Officer to represent 
the United States at the United Nations marks a sharp turn away from 
that shameful chapter.
  I look forward to working with Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield as we 
take on the difficult work of restoring our standing in the world, 
rebuilding our alliances, and investing in the men and women of our 
Foreign Service. I am proud to support her nomination.