[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 39 (Tuesday, March 2, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S970-S971]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Coronavirus

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this week our Democratic colleagues are 
striving to break Congress's perfect record of bipartisan pandemic 
relief. Last year, five relief packages were signed into law, each with 
overwhelming bipartisan support. No bill received fewer than 90 votes 
here in the Senate, and 1 even passed unanimously. The reason why these 
bills received such broad support is because they address the crisis at 
hand in a targeted manner; no controversial provisions or unrelated 
partisan priorities, just clear-cut relief for the American people.
  As I said, the perfect record of commonsense, bipartisan relief 
packages will apparently end this week.
  The bill our Democratic colleagues are preparing to bring to the 
Senate floor has been drafted by only one party. As you can imagine, 
that process lends itself to a sort of partisan Christmas tree 
decorating. Democrats have taken the framework of the COVID relief bill 
and added a range of liberal priorities that have absolutely nothing to 
do with COVID-19: a Silicon Valley subway system, a blank check for 
mismanaged union pension plans, a bridge from New York to Canada, and 
funding for climate justice.
  It is no surprise that this bill passed the House on a strict party-
line vote. But the COVID-19 relief label isn't fooling anybody. This is 
a partisan wish list that does more to advance a political agenda than 
to respond to the legitimate public health and economic needs of our 
country. That is why our Democratic colleagues have chosen to abuse the 
budget reconciliation process in order to make a law.
  Based on the pricetag of this bill, you would think it was March 2020 
all over again. Despite the fact that we have made serious headway in 
vaccinations, our economy is recovering by leaps and bounds, and all 
signs show we are moving toward that light at the end of the tunnel, 
our Democratic colleagues are prepared to spend another $1.9 trillion 
of borrowed money. That is about half as much as all previous bills 
combined.
  What is even more concerning than the cost is how the money is going 
to be spent. One great example is funding for education. So far, 
Congress has provided more than $110 billion for K-12 education, 
including $68 billion in the relief bill that was signed into law in 
December, just a couple of months ago. Schools in Texas have used this 
money to update air filtration systems, purchase personal protective 
equipment,

[[Page S971]]

and implement regular disinfecting so students and teachers can safely 
return to the classroom. After all, we know in-person instruction is 
best for our children.
  I have had sections of my State where at least a third of the lower 
income students don't have dependable access to broadband, much less 
the kind of supervision that they would need in order to continue their 
learning. Study after study has shown that kids have fallen behind 
while learning virtually, especially in foundational subjects like math 
and reading.
  The learning deficit is even greater for students of color and those 
in high-poverty communities. One study found that, for math, White 
students began the school year about 1 to 3 months behind in learning 
while students of color were more likely to be 3 to 5 months behind. 
And the impact on our students isn't purely academic. As we know, there 
are serious mental, social, and emotional tolls to be paid as well.
  We need our schools to open, and, of course, we need to do so safely. 
The experts tell us that not only is that possible, but it has already 
been done in States across the country. The Centers for Disease Control 
published a report in January that found: ``There has been little 
evidence that schools have contributed meaningfully to increased 
community transmission.'' The lead author of that report affirmed that 
even in places with high infection rates, there is no evidence that 
schools will transmit the virus at a higher rate than the general 
community. In short, schools are not a breeding ground for COVID-19 as 
long as appropriate precautions are taken, and they can reopen safely.
  The good news is there is already plenty of funding to make that 
happen. In December, the Centers for Disease Control estimated schools 
would need about $22 billion to open safely. As of February 9, of the 
$68 billion that was provided for K-12 schools in the combined relief 
packages, only about $5 billion has been spent. So $68 billion has been 
provided, and only $5 billion has been spent.
  Despite clear evidence that, one, kids are struggling with virtual 
learning; two, schools can safely reopen with the right precautions; 
and, three, that there is plenty of funding to help schools implement 
these measures, our Democratic colleagues are prepared to spend another 
$130 billion for K-12 education without any sort of incentive or 
requirement for children to return safely to the classroom.
  Sadly, many of our schoolchildren are coming up on the 1-year 
anniversary of their virtual learning. Unfortunately, there seems to be 
very little momentum for letting those students return to the 
classroom, and, unfortunately, by default, they are falling further 
behind.
  Since most of the existing funds remain to be spent, the nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bulk of spending of this 
new proposed funding would occur next year and beyond. In other words, 
this isn't an emergency relief bill designed to deal with the present 
need; this is about spending money in 2021, after which, hopefully, 
virtually everybody in the United States is vaccinated and we have 
established herd immunity.
  Only $6.4 billion would be distributed through September of this 
year, and the remaining $122 billion would trickle out the door through 
not just 2021 but through 2028. That is, the majority of the education 
funding in the so-called and misnamed COVID-19 relief bill wouldn't 
even be touched until the pandemic has been put in the rearview mirror.
  Now, I have advocated for funding to help schools prepare for a safe 
return to the classroom, and, of course, the experts, as I said, have 
told us that more than enough funding is already available to make that 
happen. So I ask: What is the rationale for asking the taxpayers to 
foot another $130 billion bill if there is no need for that funding in 
the first place? And I would add to that, this is not money that 
actually exists. This will be money borrowed from future generations 
that is added to the deficit and to our debt. There is certainly no 
excuse to ram this and a range of other partisan priorities through 
Congress without the support of a single Republican.
  It was January 20 when I thought that President Biden gave a very 
eloquent and appropriate speech at his inauguration, talking about the 
need for the Nation to heal, for the divisions to heal, and for unity, 
but doing this partisan reconciliation bill when there is no 
demonstrated need for this deficit spending is not healing the 
divisions in our country or promoting unity.
  Saturday will mark 1 year since the first COVID-19 response bill was 
signed into law. Since then we have, tragically, lost more than a half 
million Americans; families have struggled with job losses; small 
businesses have closed their doors; and children have fallen further 
and further behind.
  The list of hardships endured over the past year is long indeed, but 
now our colleagues across the aisle are trying to capitalize on that 
pain by passing the so-called and misnamed COVID-19 relief bill that 
does more to advance partisan goals than to bring an end to this 
national nightmare. It does nothing to get our kids back in school or 
our American workers back on the job.
  It doles out taxpayer dollars for favored infrastructure projects--
these are colloquially called earmarks--like the bridge in the majority 
leader's home State of New York and a subway system in the Speaker's 
home State of California. What do those have to do with COVID-19? Where 
is the emergency there? Why should we borrow money from future 
generations to fund these infrastructure projects that have nothing to 
do with the pandemic?
  We can deal with infrastructure, and we should, going forward, but 
opportunistically exploiting the public's concern about COVID-19 in 
order to fund these infrastructure projects in New York and California 
is simply inexcusable.
  (Mr. LUJAN assumed the Chair.)
  Only 1 percent of the funding in this massive $1.9 trillion bill goes 
toward vaccination efforts. We all understand that vaccinating the 
American people is the key for ending this crisis. So far--and I am 
sure I am a day or so behind--a couple of days ago, we vaccinated 68 
million people--68 million vaccinations, perhaps. Some of them involved 
two shots. And we are vaccinating people at the rate of 3 million shots 
a day. That is really, really encouraging. But only 1 percent of the 
funding in this $1.9 trillion bill goes toward that eventual key to 
unlocking the future.
  As I said, every penny that is spent on pandemic response is borrowed 
from our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren. Somebody is going 
to have to pay the money back--not us, not now, apparently. We are 
going to borrow the money, add to deficits and debt.
  As Larry Summers and others have said, we are even risking inflation 
by throwing so much money into the economy so quickly, at a time when 
it is growing at more than 4 percent a year. And we are not, if this 
effort is successful, spending this money responsibly. Being 
responsible means doing what is needed--no more, no less--to bring this 
pandemic to an end and get this country back on its feet.
  I think this bill is a shameful waste of taxpayer dollars. And it is 
outrageous that it is entitled the COVID-19 relief bill when so little 
of this bill actually deals with the pandemic. As we say, where I come 
from, if you put lipstick on a pig, it is still a pig.