[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 39 (Tuesday, March 2, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S967-S969]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Coronavirus

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I have come to the floor, on several 
occasions now, to talk about this $1.9 trillion spending bill that will 
be soon before this body.
  I have talked about different parts of the bill on different 
occasions. I have talked about the mandates, the bailouts, and the 
billions and billions of dollars of spending completely unrelated to 
coronavirus. Now, these are all reasons enough to oppose this piece of 
legislation.
  Today, I would like to talk about another problem that I see with the 
bill,

[[Page S968]]

and that is that this bill would now subsidize health insurance far 
beyond what was ever imagined when the House and the Senate passed the 
Obama healthcare law--way beyond the subsidies ever envisioned in that.
  One analysis shows that this bill would give a family of four making 
close to a quarter million dollars a year--family of four making close 
to a quarter million dollars a year--up to $9,000 in free subsidies for 
healthcare.
  Now, that is not four times the poverty level; that is almost four 
times the average income of a household in the United States.
  You know, government aid is supposed to be for those who need it, 
people who can't make it on their own, but that has not been the focus 
of the Democrats with this legislation.
  This legislation is not about coronavirus, not about coronavirus 
testing and vaccinations. They have already been paid for, so that 
someone who wants to get a test or get the vaccine, they get it. It was 
paid for previously. The vaccines are free. We don't need additional 
money to pay for the shot. We voted on that last year. It is the law of 
the land.
  This new proposal, with these additional subsidies, is just going to 
get us this much closer to one-size-fits-all, socialized medicine.
  Now, Democrats have realized for many years that the Obama healthcare 
law has failed America. They know it is unaffordable for working 
families. People understand that the copays are so high, the 
deductibles are so high that people who have been mandated to buy it 
found that they didn't really get any value for their money.
  Many people I have talked to said, with ObamaCare, the premiums were 
so high it was actually higher than their mortgage at home.
  Well, Republicans want to lower healthcare costs, actually the cost 
of care. Democrats seem to just want to raise what government pays.
  And Democrats are also trying to pressure States to expand Medicaid. 
There are about a dozen States that have chosen not to expand Medicaid.
  Now, I am a doctor. I know the importance of Medicaid. I know the 
importance of providing care for people who cannot care for themselves. 
Often, that is families, low-income families, pregnant women, patients 
with disabilities. You look at the original intent of Medicaid--huge 
value for the American people but not what they have seen with the 
ObamaCare expansion.
  We should work together for these most vulnerable of individuals so 
that they can get the care that they need. Yet it is not what Democrats 
are doing with this proposal, not with the additional subsidies, not 
with the additional expansion of Medicaid. They are trying to bribe 
States--bribe States to give free care to able-bodied, working adults; 
not to people who were originally intended to be helped by Medicaid but 
for able-bodied, working adults.
  Those are people who ought to be getting their health insurance 
through their job, through work. That is the best way this works for 
them, insurance that they can use without these extraordinarily high 
deductibles and copays that we see with ObamaCare. The contrast could 
not be clearer.
  Republicans are offering the American people a stronger economy and 
opening schools. That is what we ought to be focusing on. Democrats and 
the healthcare law are subsidizing health insurance for the rich. It is 
astonishing. You wouldn't think it would be that way. It doesn't make 
sense. It is not coronavirus relief.
  People need relief now. They want their kids back in school. They 
want to get back to work. They want to put the virus behind them. That 
is not what I see in this $1.9 trillion bill that the Senate will soon 
be considering.
  I think only 1 dollar out of 11 of this $1.9 trillion bill actually 
goes to help get people back to work, kids back to school, focuses on 
the healthcare components of coronavirus.
  The kids-back-to-school component, you say: Well, there is money to 
put kids back to school, but 95 percent of that money doesn't even 
start to get spent until 2022. The coronavirus crisis is going to be 
behind us by 2022.
  We should be working together, targeting support for the American 
people who need it the most, not subsidizing people who don't actually 
need the subsidies.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Republican whip.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, Democrats continue to push forward with 
their partisan COVID legislation. The House of Representatives passed 
the Democrats' $1.9 trillion partisan wish list on Saturday, and the 
Senate is expected to take it up later this week.
  Just weeks after the President expressed his commitment to unity at 
his inauguration, he and his party are forcing through exclusively 
partisan legislation despite Republicans' clear willingness to 
negotiate. When it comes to Democrats' COVID bill, President Biden 
keeps asking, ``What would you have me cut?''--as if there is no way 
anyone could dispute the necessity of anything in this legislation.
  Well, as I said last week, I have some suggestions because this bill 
is rife with unnecessary and problematic provisions. Democrats are 
presenting this as a COVID relief bill, but a lot of this bill has 
little to do with responding to the pandemic. In fact, less than 10 
percent of the bill is directly related to combating the COVID health 
crisis.
  If President Biden would like to know what to cut, let me suggest 
starting with the bill's $350 billion slush fund for States. Now, there 
is no question that COVID has placed additional pressure on States, 
which is why Republicans supported targeted funding for States in 
previous COVID legislation. But at this point, the vast majority of 
States are not in crisis.
  A number of States actually saw higher tax revenues in 2020. The 
majority of States, including my home State of South Dakota, have the 
resources they need to weather the rest of the pandemic. Even if the 
Federal Government bailed out those States that are still struggling--
some, at least partially, because of their own mismanagement--$350 
billion far exceeds the amount that would be needed. Democrats are 
simply providing a large and unnecessary giveaway to States with the 
distribution formula heavily weighted in favor of blue States.
  Then there is the bill's funding for schools. Now, Republicans are 
committed to getting schools reopened so our kids can get back to the 
in-person learning that they need. It is why we voted for $68 billion 
in COVID funding for K-12 schools last year. But right now, schools 
don't need additional funding. So far K-12 schools have spent just $5 
billion of the $68 billion that we provided them. Yet the Democrats' 
bill would provide nearly $129 billion in additional funding. And 
despite all that additional and unnecessary money, nothing--nothing--in 
the bill would require schools to actually reopen. Schools could 
collect this money while still depriving students of the benefits of 
in-person learning.
  And another thing, Democrats are billing this legislation as a COVID 
relief bill and suggesting that it is providing urgently needed 
funding. Yet 95 percent of the funding for schools--95 percent--would 
be spent after this year. That is right. Just 5 percent of this 
``emergency funding'' would be spent in 2021. The rest would be spent 
between 2022 and 2028. Are we really supposed to believe that money 
that would be spent in 2028--years after the pandemic is likely to be 
over--is somehow urgently needed COVID relief funding?
  Well, I could go on for a while here with suggestions for what to cut 
in this bill. I am pretty sure that $100 million for a Silicon Valley 
underground rail project doesn't have a lot to do with getting our 
country out of the COVID crisis. Or how about the $1.5 million for a 
bridge in the Democratic leader's home State?
  And then there is the $86 billion bailout for multiemployer pension 
plans, billions--billions--for environmental policies, and a provision 
to ensure that Planned Parenthood and labor unions can apply for 
Paycheck Protection Program loans designed to help small businesses--I 
am not sure how far that will go toward helping our economy,

[[Page S969]]

but it will certainly help build the coffers of some of Democrats' 
political allies.

  If Democrats were really just focused on COVID relief, this would be 
a much smaller and targeted bill, but Democrats' ambitions were much 
larger than just addressing the COVID crisis. As a Democrat political 
operative famously said, ``never allow a good crisis to go to waste.''
  Well, Democrats have taken that advice and are using the COVID crisis 
as cover for a whole list of partisan priorities with potentially very 
negative consequences. The Democrats' COVID bill runs a very real risk 
of overstimulating the economy, as evidenced by the large increase we 
have seen in money supply which could, among other things, drive up 
prices on the goods that Americans use every day--in other words, 
inflation. Even some liberal economists have sounded the alarm over the 
size of the Democrats' coronavirus legislation.
  And then, of course, there is the danger posed by driving up our 
debt. We had to borrow a lot of money last year to meet the demands of 
the coronavirus crisis, and while it was money we needed to borrow, we 
need to be very aware of the fact that we added a substantial--
substantial--amount to our already very large national debt. We need to 
be very careful about any additional borrowing and ensure that we are 
only borrowing what is absolutely necessary.
  I think it goes without saying that the more that we borrow, the more 
debt we have to retire. If something negative happened on interest 
rates and interest rates normalized--went back to a more normal 
setting--the interest itself on that amount of debt would literally 
dwarf anything else we do in our budget, including defending the 
country.
  And that, I believe, is a very, very real threat, because if you look 
at what is happening right now with the economy and with all the money 
that we have flooded out there so far and another $2 trillion, if the 
Democrats have their way in this particular proposal, and all that 
money out there starts pushing up those costs and we start seeing 
inflation in the economy, it doesn't take very long for interest rates 
to go with it. In fact, they already are. If those interest rates start 
pushing up very quickly on the amount of debt that we are piling up, 
financing that debt--the amount of interest, the cost of interest on 
that debt--would be absolutely overwhelming and devastating to this 
country.
  So we need to be very, very careful about any additional borrowing 
and ensure that we are only borrowing what is absolutely necessary. 
That means making sure that anything we do in terms of additional 
pandemic relief is targeted and fiscally responsible, and that does not 
include money for a bridge in New York or a taxpayer bailout for 
mismanaged States.
  It is deeply disappointing that Democrats chose to turn their backs 
on bipartisanship. Republicans were ready to work with Democrats on 
additional targeted relief.
  As I have pointed out before, the pandemic has been an issue on 
which, at least up until now, there has been very much bipartisan 
support. Last year, when Republicans were in the majority, we did 
five--five--coronavirus bills, all bipartisan, all done at the 60-vote 
threshold that governs most legislation that moves through the Senate 
in a cooperative way.
  In this case, the Democrats are plowing forward, pushing this 
legislation in a very partisan way, and I think that is unfortunate 
given our history on this issue of bipartisanship and the importance of 
making sure that we are doing the right things on behalf of the 
American people to help them get through this pandemic.
  Choosing to pursue a partisan process allows Democrats to stuff the 
bill with unnecessary spending and political payoffs, but that is not 
the way to help our country or our economy recover.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.