[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 39 (Tuesday, March 2, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S977-S985]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Coronavirus

  Mr. President, I also rise to join my colleagues to discuss the 
Democrats' so-called COVID-19 relief package.
  Prior to this past round, Congress has been delivering much needed 
relief, as you know--five times since the beginning of this pandemic--
with bipartisan support.
  In this last month, my Republican colleagues and I put forth a 
targeted proposal, presented to President Biden in the Oval Office. He 
invited 10 of us over, and we had a great discussion. It wasn't just a 
plan, but it was a plan to work together, to be united and move forward 
in an area that we have had great bipartisan consensus.
  Let's be clear. We don't disagree on the need for continued relief 
and resources, but it needs to be done in a targeted way. Throwing 
money randomly will not fix it, especially when some of these funds 
that are still being spent--that we speak of right now haven't been 
spent yet. And taking the opportunity to spend on favorite projects is 
not the intention of a COVID relief package.
  In December of 2020--that wasn't that long ago, 2 months ago--we 
passed the most recent recovery efforts, which amounted to 
approximately $900 billion in relief funds. President Biden's relief 
plan takes none of that into consideration. They don't take into full 
account a sufficient understanding that the impacts of that bill from 
just 2 months ago have yet to be felt. Instead, it force-feeds funds 
and radical

[[Page S978]]

policy ideas into a framework under the guise of COVID relief.
  Let's just take our schools, for example. Everybody is frustrated 
because our schools aren't open and our students are falling behind. 
Congress last year appropriated $68 billion for K-12 schools, but of 
this amount, only $5 billion of that--5 billion of the 68--has been 
spent so far. According to the Congressional Budget Office, of the 
almost $129 billion for K-12 schools included in this Biden COVID 
relief plan, only $6.4 billion of that is planned to be distributed 
through September of this year. The remaining $122 billion will not go 
to schools until the fiscal years 2022 through 2028. Now, we are being 
sold this program because it is an emergency. Well, I don't know how 
you predict an emergency in the year 2028. This cannot possibly qualify 
as emergency spending.
  Here are some of the other areas where funds have yet to be spent:
  Of the $13 billion provided in our December plan for our agriculture 
community, only $11.5 billion--no, excuse me, $11.5 billion of the $13 
billion has yet to be obligated. That is not even spent; that is 
obligated.
  Roughly $14 billion in appropriated funding for COVID testing has not 
yet been obligated, and that is an extremely important part, and that 
is--less than 10 percent of this plan are things like testing, 
vaccines, and therapeutics.
  Twenty-one States have actually experienced revenue growth compared 
to 2019, 2020. Yet this bill expends $350 billion to States. This money 
needs to be targeted. The parameters created in this category alone 
reward States that were more restrictive in their economic decisions 
and heavily weighted towards highly populated States. That is not my 
State. My friend here from Montana, that is not his State. And the 
parameters of this are so loose that I can't imagine what projects will 
be dreamed up to be spent on.
  As of January 19, none of the $27 billion provided by the Department 
of Transportation in December, 2 months ago, under the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act has been obligated. Yet there is more money in there 
for this as well.
  Also important to note is that the President's plan includes many 
provisions that really have nothing to do with COVID relief--nothing--
but this is a COVID relief package. From an $86 billion bailout of 
union pensions to $100 million--over $100 million, actually--for a 
subway project in California, to funds provided to advance portions of 
President Biden's recent climate Executive order and environmental 
justice priorities, these are some of the items in here that have 
nothing to do with coronavirus relief. These extra wish list items make 
his plan more expensive and more partisan.
  To make matters worse, my friends on the other side of the aisle have 
decided to do this in the most partisan way possible: reconciliation. 
Using this process risks wasting millions of dollars without the 
standard procedures that we go through on the Appropriations Committee 
and other committees. This bill hasn't even touched a committee over 
here in the Senate. But it goes without the standard policy guardrails 
and provisions that, when we work together, we ensure that the money is 
put to its intended use. We are creating slush funds in the name of 
COVID relief.
  Bottom line: This will be a fiscally wasteful product.
  There are good things in here that we all agreed on that the 10 who 
went to the White House to talk about and many of us have provided in 
the last five bills.
  Many Americans will be getting checks, and while I agree with this, 
all of this would be better in a bill that we agreed on and that we 
negotiated.
  We are risking a potential economic recovery with continued massive 
spending. As I have said time and again in my 5-minute speech all over 
the State of West Virginia, we all agree on continued COVID relief. 
However, we need to do this in a targeted, fiscally responsible--and 
working together, like we have the last five times. Doing so allows us 
to effectively help individuals, families, and businesses that need 
help the most--and there are many out there that do, and they need it 
yesterday; we know that--while also considering what other impacts 
might be happening as we throw over a trillion extra dollars to 
unrelated COVID relief items.
  With that, I am in opposition to the bill, in case you couldn't tell
  Now I see my friend from Montana is here, but I want to thank you, 
Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, well, I want to thank my colleague from 
West Virginia, Senator Capito, for clearly laying out her concerns with 
this COVID package.
  I think about where we were a year ago. We were right here in this 
Chamber. It was March of 2020, and we were debating, working together 
in a bipartisan fashion to come up with a major--over $2 trillion--
COVID relief package.
  In fact, if we look back over the course of the last 12 months, 
Congress passed five bipartisan COVID-19 relief packages--five of them. 
During that time, as we know, the Republicans were in the majority in 
the Senate, and we believed it was very important--we were dealing with 
COVID challenges in our country--that we come together in a bipartisan 
way to address this horrible pandemic. It didn't stop us from working 
with our colleagues across the aisle to reach a compromise in order to 
get needed relief for Montanans and the American people who were 
struggling because of the pandemic.
  Bipartisanship--it takes work. It takes both sides coming together. 
It takes a little more time as well. But for the good of Montanans and 
for the good of the American people, they expect that of us here in the 
Senate.
  Unfortunately, what we are witnessing today is that 
``bipartisanship'' is no longer in the vocabulary of President Biden 
and the Democrats. They have taken this bipartisan process that we have 
had over the course of the last 12 months and they have taken it 
hostage. It has become their way or the highway. Take it or leave it. 
They are trying to jam through a hyperpartisan--not a bipartisan but a 
hyperpartisan $1.9 trillion COVID-19 package.
  We shouldn't even call this a COVID-19 relief package, and here is 
why: Ninety percent of what is in it has nothing to do with the core 
health needs of combating COVID-19. Nothing. This nearly $2 trillion 
package is nothing more than a Pelosi payoff, a liberal wish list that 
gives President Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer billions of 
dollars for these partisan pet projects.
  This COVID-19 relief package includes a laundry list of liberal 
priorities. Now, I am not making this up. What I am about to share was 
actually included in the most recently passed package of this COVID 
legislation out of the U.S. House, which, by the way, passed in the wee 
hours of the morning this past weekend, on Saturday, when the American 
people were asleep, and it was not supported by a single Republican 
Member.
  By the way, contrast that to where we were a year ago. We passed a 
huge COVID package here in the U.S. Senate 96 to zero. You can't get 
any more bipartisan than that. Yet, when they jammed this package in 
the House Saturday morning, not a single Republican supported it. In 
fact, a couple Democrats opposed it.
  Here is what is in that so-called relief package for COVID-19:
  One hundred million dollars for Nancy Pelosi's train to nowhere. It 
is a Silicon Valley underground rail project to help Big Tech. You tell 
me what that has to do with COVID-19.
  Three hundred fifty billion dollars to bail out blue States that had 
financial problems before the pandemic. Now, Montana should not be 
footing the bill to bail out States like New York, California, and 
Illinois, especially when we have seen reports that States are actually 
doing much better than projected when we look at revenues coming in in 
2020. In fact, listen to this, California is projecting a $25 billion 
surplus in 2020.
  There is $50 million in this package for ``climate justice.''
  There are millions in bailouts for Planned Parenthood. It also makes 
Planned Parenthood eligible for taxpayer dollars through the Paycheck 
Protection Program.
  Now, there is $130 billion in there for schools. Now hear this: 95 
percent of it won't be spent this year. In fact, 95 percent of it is 
spent in years 2022 through

[[Page S979]]

2028. You tell me what that has to do with this immediate rush to get 
this package passed when most of the spending is in the years out to 
2028. This is ironic, as President Biden and the Democrats are bowing 
to political pressure from the teachers unions to keep kids out of the 
classroom.
  I cannot tell you how many parents we are hearing from who want to 
see the schools opened up and want to see the kids back in school, back 
in the classroom.
  They support opening the southern border for illegal immigrants over 
opening schools for American students.
  As I have laid out, President Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck 
Schumer's COVID-19 package is not about COVID-19 relief at all. In 
fact, the White House Chief of Staff, Ron Klain, said this: ``This is 
the most progressive domestic legislation in a generation.''
  I believe that. This is all about political favors for Democrats. It 
is about cashing in on campaign promises, and it is outrageous. While 
Democrats are trying to further their liberal agenda under the guise of 
passing COVID-19 relief, we are sitting on $1 trillion of unspent, 
already allocated COVID-19 relief dollars from the prior five packages.
  In fact, of the last package we passed in December of $900 billion, 
only about 50 percent of that--allocated dollars--is out the door.
  So shoveling out almost $2 trillion--and how much is $2 trillion? The 
entire annual Federal discretionary budget of the U.S. Government is 
about $1.4 trillion--the entire discretionary budget.
  The Democrats want to push another $2 trillion into this economy that 
is poised to rebound as businesses reopen. It is deeply irresponsible. 
It will needlessly cause our debt to soar to new heights and could harm 
our economic recovery by sparking inflation. Its partisanship is 
exceeded only by its recklessness.
  The American comeback is well underway. Our economy is rebounding. 
GDP is expected to grow 10 percent by the end of the first quarter. 
Personal saving rates are way up--20.5 percent this past January, 
compared to 7.6 percent in prepandemic January 2020. Manufacturing is 
at its highest growth level since August of 2018.
  Vaccines are being distributed and hospitalizations are going down. 
In fact, hospitalizations are down nearly 20 percent this week versus 
last week, looking across the country. In fact, more than 40 percent of 
those over the age of 65 are vaccinated with at least one dose. That is 
good news.
  On vaccines, I want to recognize our Governor back home in Montana, 
Governor Gianforte, for his outstanding leadership on getting vaccines 
distributed across Montana. I also want to thank Montana's healthcare 
heroes for their dedication to getting the vaccines out and keeping our 
communities and our families safe.
  In fact, just last week, Montana was recognized as the most efficient 
State in the Nation--No. 1 out of 50--for administering vaccines 
received from the Federal Government. But in Montana, we are in need of 
more vaccines. That is why I joined forces with the Governor and 
Congressman Rosendale, requesting them from President Biden. I am 
pleased to see that it was announced just this week that Montana will 
be receiving 8,000 doses of the J&J vaccine in the coming days.
  Vaccines and vaccine distribution are what we should be focusing on 
now. They are what will help us get life back to normal. They are what 
will end this pandemic. Yet, sadly, only 1 percent of Biden and 
Pelosi's COVID-19 package goes to vaccines. That is unacceptable. It is 
unacceptable that the partisan Pelosi-Schumer bill lacks foresight and 
badly misdiagnoses what America needs now, because we are seeing the 
light at the end of this tunnel. We must keep moving in this direction. 
Any future relief must be targeted and focused on vaccine distribution.
  Let's just start by retargeting the $1 trillion that is not even yet 
out the door. Why don't we start there? But, instead, the Democrats 
continue to go their own way in a purely partisan piece of legislation 
to spend another $1.9 trillion, most of which does not address anything 
related to the COVID-19 pandemic. It must be directed instead toward 
ending the pandemic, helping the American people, not supporting the 
liberal dreams of Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the $1.9 trillion 
spending bill that we expect we will be considering probably starting 
tomorrow.
  The COVID-19 pandemic has deeply impacted our communities, causing 
heartbreak and grief for hundreds of thousands of families who have 
lost loved ones. At the same time, it has turned our economy upside 
down, and it has shuttered small business, as well as schools and 
churches.
  Without a doubt, it is during a pandemic that we here in Congress 
should be coming together and working to provide relief for those who 
are struggling, and it is for that very reason that I am proud that 
Republicans and Democrats have worked together. We worked together over 
the past year on a very bipartisan basis--a bipartisan basis--to pass 
five different pieces of legislation to address the pandemic.
  In March of 2020, we passed the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response 
Supplemental Appropriations Act by a vote of 96 to 1. We passed the 
Families First Coronavirus Response Act by a vote of 90 to 8, and the 
landmark Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or the 
CARES Act, which is the one I think most people are very familiar with. 
That provided $2.2 trillion in relief, and it passed the Senate 
unanimously. It got every Republican and every Democratic vote.
  Last summer, we unanimously passed legislation making adjustments to 
the Paycheck Protection Program, providing further support for our 
small businesses and additional funding for hospitals, for healthcare 
providers, as well as for COVID-19 testing. We passed it unanimously.
  In late December, just over 2 months ago, we provided an additional 
$900 billion in relief, including direct payments to individuals, $120 
billion in additional unemployment insurance, $25 billion in rental 
assistance, $25 billion in nutrition and ag assistance for our farmers, 
and $325 billion in additional support for small businesses--again, 
with an overwhelming bipartisan vote--bipartisan. All five of these 
were passed with big bipartisan votes--some of them unanimously--and 
much of that money has yet to be spent.
  Now Democrats in Congress and the administration want to pass, on a 
partisan basis with only Democratic votes, a massive $1.9 trillion bill 
with no input from Republicans, unlike the previous COVID-19 relief 
bills that we worked together on to pass to respond to this COVID 
epidemic.
  In the House, the bill passed. It didn't get any Republican votes, 
and it didn't even get all the Democratic votes. It was passed solely 
with Democratic votes, no Republican votes, and some Democrats voting 
against it as well. And, again, we haven't even spent the $900 billion 
we just passed on a bipartisan basis in December.
  Also, the bill includes billions in spending for nonpandemic-related 
programs, including $480 million for the National Endowment for the 
Arts, the National Endowment for Humanities, and the Institute of 
Museum and Library Services.
  As a matter of fact, here is just some of the things in here that 
don't relate to COVID: $50 million for ``climate justice,'' $50 million 
for family planning funding without the Hyde protections, $112 million 
for Speaker Pelosi's Silicon Valley subway, $135 million for the 
National Endowment for the Humanities, $135 million for the National 
Endowment for the Arts, $200 million for the Institute of Museum and 
Library Services, $12 billion in foreign aid, and $30 billion for 
public transit, of which $4.5 billion is for New York City's subway 
system. How does that relate to addressing COVID?
  Again, like I said, we just passed $900 billion in December, which 
has yet to be spent, that does address COVID. So we need to focus on 
spending the money that we have already provided. We need to make sure 
that it gets to the needs. We need to get our economy opened up. We 
need to get our kids back in school. Those are the priorities right 
now.
  And then, when we look at this bill, in addition to spending on 
things that aren't related to COVID, let's also look at how the funding 
is allocated. The bill provides $350 billion in funding to States, 
Territories, and localities. But

[[Page S980]]

it is not based on population. Instead, it is based on unemployment. 
Well, that unfairly awards the States that shut down over those that 
stayed open. And the reality is that what we really need to do is get 
the vaccine out so, again, we can open up our businesses and make sure 
we get our kids in school. That has got to be the priority now. But how 
do you go forward with that kind of a formula that isn't fairly 
delivered as well?
  Under this flawed methodology, in this bill the city of New York 
would receive about $4.3 billion. That is actually more than 36 States 
would get. Also, the city of Chicago would receive $1.98 billion. There 
are 20 States that wouldn't get that amount. Los Angeles would receive 
$1.35 billion, which is more than 13 different States would receive. In 
addition, L.A. County would receive $1.95 billion, bringing that 
valley's total to $3.3 billion. Why is that the allocation formula?
  Republicans stand ready to work with our Democratic colleagues to 
provide the necessary support to fill in any remaining gaps and provide 
targeted COVID-19 relief to our healthcare workers, continue vaccine 
distribution, safely reopen our schools, and provide help for those in 
our communities who are struggling the most. But we cannot support this 
$1.9 trillion partisan bill which will add to our national debt on the 
backs of hard-working Americans
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, I rise today to keep fighting for those 
who are still hurting from this plague. I am fighting for those who 
have yet to receive the vaccine, and I am fighting for those who are 
not back to work. I am fighting to protect Medicare dollars.
  But do you know who I am really here to speak for today? My three 
grandsons. I actually received a phone call this morning from two of 
them--actually, a FaceTime--and they wanted to share a story with me of 
a fish they caught last night. I am here to protect their future and to 
make sure that someday their grandkids will be able to call them and 
talk about a great moment in their lives.
  Certainly, I am here to fight to get our children back to school, but 
do you know what I believe is the largest threat to their future, to 
their dreams, and to their success? It is the national debt. It is not 
just a threat to their education. It is a threat to the infrastructure 
they will be using for the next 20 years of their life, as well as a 
threat to the national security of their families.
  Now, without question, I am here to fight for those who need the help 
now, but I am also called to help the future of our country, and our 
children and our grandchildren are the future of this country.
  As everybody in this room knows, we have already borrowed $4 
trillion--$4 trillion--from our grandchildren to fight this virus. But 
over $1 trillion remains on the sideline and is yet to be spent. Now, 
my suggestion is, Why don't we start by repurposing those dollars and 
target them where they are needed the most, which is exactly what we 
would do in the business world from which I came very recently?
  Look, this great American economy is coming back. The long, dark, 
cold winter is almost over. Unemployment is under 4 percent in Kansas 
and many other States, and it looks like we are going to have a strong 
first-quarter GDP number.
  Now, as an aside, I have to highlight, though, the way this partisan 
bill is written, it rewards those States that overreacted and totally 
shut down their economies and their schools. Bailing out mismanaged 
States at the expense of taxpayers is simply not American.
  If this administration and our Governors do their job, we can have 
nationwide herd immunity by April or May, and, by summer, our economy 
can be back to prepandemic levels, all without borrowing another $2 
trillion from our grandchildren. That comes out to $6,000 to each child 
and to each one of your grandchildren--$6,000 we want to borrow. So 
walk up to your children or to your grandchildren and say: Hey, we want 
to borrow $6,000 from you to help bail out some mismanaged governments.
  So, listen, we truly want to help those who need the help. And I ask 
my colleagues across the aisle: Why do you want to borrow another $2 
trillion from our grandchildren and only spend 9 percent--only 9 
percent--on direct COVID relief? We simply cannot print enough money up 
here to solve these problems long term unless we lock in on the real, 
most pressing challenges.
  This is what we need to do to defeat the virus, and it is very 
simple: get shots into arms, get people back to work, and get our kids 
in school. If we do these three things, our economy and Republic will 
come booming back.
  Call this bill in front of us what you want: a boondoggle, a 
Christmas tree--a Christmas tree decorated with earmarks as ornaments 
and full of so much pork, it is dripping grease.
  My friends across the aisle focused 91 percent of their attention in 
this bill to pay for things like a bridge from New York to Canada and 
an underground railroad project in Silicon Valley, money for Planned 
Parenthood, and stimulus checks for illegal immigrants and violent 
criminals.
  Now, you can argue for this loan from our grandchildren, if you would 
like and if you don't care about their future, but at the end of the 
day, we are trying to borrow $2 trillion from our grandchildren to 
spend on partisan pet projects, and I will never agree to that.
  Let me stress once more what I am for: getting vaccines into arms, 
getting people back to work, and getting kids back to school.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina
  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in the discussion 
over the relief package we are going to be voting on later this week.
  We need to go back to last year and recognize what happened in this 
Chamber on five different occasions. I have been in the Senate now for 
6 years, and very seldom do we see both parties come together and 
recognize we have a problem and we have to relieve the American people.
  We had a historic pandemic, first of its kind, in 100 years. COVID 
hit our shores. What did we do? We spent days and weeks, but over the 
course of those days and weeks, we came together with five bipartisan 
packages that really address the root problems and the challenges 
created by COVID.
  We passed the Paycheck Protection Program, something that I think was 
extraordinary. The banking community got together even before we had 
the rules on how the loan should be underwritten and how they would be 
forgiven, and they decided to mobilize and provide desperately needed 
capital and liquidity to businesses, and they saved many, many 
businesses in North Carolina.
  We passed Operation Warp Speed, a program that for the first time in 
this Nation's history, or any nation's history, we went from a known 
virus to two multiple vaccines with high degrees of efficacy that are 
now being put into the arms of Americans at a rate of almost 2 million 
a day. We did that because we focused on a problem and we fixed it and 
we continue to evolve it--five different bipartisan bills.
  Now the sixth one is before us. It is called a COVID relief package, 
but we all know that much of what is in this bill has nothing to do 
with the COVID impacts and nothing to do with the immediate spending in 
this coming year.
  Now, I understand elections have consequences. It has been said by 
President Obama and others, and we have a change of leadership here in 
the Senate and change of leadership in the White House. But I really 
hate that we are going to leave a mark. Probably, and hopefully, the 
last COVID--the last bill that would have some COVID relief in it is 
going to go down as one of the most probably partisan fights that we 
are going to have this year on this floor later this week.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle decided to go it alone. 
That is exactly what you are going to see in full display come Thursday 
this week when we go into what we call vote-arama.
  I feel like we have to be intellectually honest with the American 
people. We know that we have to provide more relief. We know that 
people are struggling, businesses are struggling, individuals are 
struggling, and I get all that, and that is why I wish so much that we 
were going to have another bill

[[Page S981]]

laid down on the floor that was going to get strong bipartisan support. 
But to call this bill that is coming before us this week a COVID relief 
package, I think, is being dishonest with the American people.
  This chart probably best illustrates what the American people need to 
understand. That is how much is in this bill that is legitimately 
focused on the crisis that we are trying to continue to manage through 
very targeted, focused dollars--American taxpayer dollars--that in this 
case, as some of my colleagues have said, they are not even dollars we 
have collected yet. We are going to collect them from my two 
granddaughters and future generations: a $1.9 trillion package with 
about 9 percent going to something that you could reasonably argue has 
a nexus with the impact of COVID, whether it is on individuals, whether 
it is people out of work, or whether it is businesses that are trying 
to make payroll. That is a fact, 9 percent.
  Now, I feel like at some point we need to get back to what we did on 
five different occasions before. We knew businesses were failing. They 
needed relief. We gave them the Paycheck Protection Program. We knew 
that people were out of work because of business closures. Maybe you 
had to take off work because you didn't have daycare because your 
school was closed. All of those are legitimate reasons to provide 
additional relief. That is what we should be voting on this week, and 
in small part we are, but in large part we are not.
  I think it was someone in the Obama administration who was famously 
quoted for saying: ``Never waste a crisis.'' And it looks like, to me, 
that this crisis is being used to advance policy discussions that we 
should have a debate on the floor, but we are not going to have that. 
We are going to have a vote with a simple majority, not rising to the 
gold standard in this institution for 60 votes, and we are going to 
pass things that have virtually nothing and, in most cases, absolutely 
nothing to do with COVID.
  How on Earth can you provide education funding and say that you are 
doing it for COVID impacts, and much of that money--the majority of the 
money--is not even going to be spent until beginning in 2022 and then 
playing out in 2028? How can you say that has anything to do with the 
immediate crisis of getting these kids back in school, making sure that 
teachers are safe, and making sure that we can recover from what I 
think will be irreparable damage for a number of students who have 
never been allowed to go back into school?
  When we talk about the economic stimulus payments, there are a lot of 
people who need help. There are a lot of people who need a check. But 
the proposal that I have seen, the proposal we are going to vote on 
this week, is giving money to people who would like it.
  I can understand why it is very popular. Who wouldn't, in this 
Chamber, want to think that they are going to get a $3,000 or $4,000 
check in the mail--whether you were out of work at all, whether your 
combined household income is $150,000, and you are still working. You 
weren't impacted by it. I understand why it is popular. But is it 
really fair?
  You know, there is a trailer park in Antioch, TN, on Richards Road. I 
grew up in it, and I ride there when I go visit my family. I go back 
and visit with people who live in that trailer park. My guess is almost 
every single one of them need help, and my guess is many of them who 
work in the service industry have been out of work for the better part 
of the last year. We should tell them: You are going to get some help, 
but that neighborhood that is about a mile down the road from that 
trailer park I grew up in, where you have got combined household 
incomes of $150,000, both the husband and wife are working, both of the 
kids have daycare options, they are going to get it too. Is it really 
fair for the people who are struggling the most? Is it really fair to 
say that we are providing education relief, and it is not going to be 
spent until I would have to run for reelection again in 2028?
  I think we need to be honest with the American people. If we want to 
have a debate about all of the red, all of the money that is going to 
be committed this week that has nothing to do with COVID relief, let's 
be honest with the American people. What we are doing this week, I 
think, is dishonest
  What we are doing this week is bailing out States like my State of 
North Carolina, a $4 billion surplus this year; bailing out the States 
of North Carolina, New York, Illinois, California, instead of trying to 
use that money, which we don't have--but if we need to spend it, let's 
spend it on those folks who grew up like I did. Let's spend it on the 
businesses that may shutter their doors. Let's do that. Let's let that 
be the sixth bipartisan COVID-relief package that we put together, not 
what we are going to be forced to vote on this week.
  I hope the American people know we recognize--we Republicans 
recognize people are hurting, and we want to give them help. We have 
proven that because we voted in five different instances, on a 
bipartisan basis, to do that. What the leadership of this Chamber is 
doing this week is taking us down a course to where we will probably 
never have a chance to come back together and have that kind of 
bipartisan result for this crisis or future ones.
  So I am going to work hard on amendments to potentially tailor and 
remove some of the red. In the meantime, I think anybody who supports 
the bill that is coming over from the House should seriously consider 
whether they are being honest with the American people and their 
constituents.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, with a one-party monopoly of Washington, 
DC, Democrats are back to their old spending habits. Most of the $1.9 
trillion within the Democrats' ``COVID'' package has absolutely nothing 
to do with COVID.
  Unlike the previous five pandemic relief bills that were approved 
with overwhelming bipartisan support, Democrats have shown no interest 
in working with Republicans and are instead fast-tracking this highly 
partisan bill through Congress.
  Now, the bulk of this budget-busting bill is devoted to fulfilling a 
wish list of longtime liberal priorities, including billion-dollar 
bailouts, progressive program expansions, and pricey partisan pet 
projects.
  And let's talk about a few of those. Look at this right here, a New 
York bridge to Canada. That is $1.5 million for a bridge connecting the 
State of New York to, yes, another country, Canada.
  What about this one: the cleverly worded provision that earmarks--
yes, I said it, folks. Earmarking is already happening right here--$140 
million to a subway in Silicon Valley in California. What does that 
have to do with COVID?
  And a whopping $350 billion blue-State bailout that rewards the 
States that have imposed the strictest lockdowns. Folks, we should be 
rewarding the States that demonstrated leadership by finding ways to 
safely stay open, not those that shut down our schools, closed our 
businesses, and killed our American jobs.
  But, most importantly, COVID relief should stay focused on COVID. 
There is still about $1 trillion of COVID funding that Congress 
previously approved that hasn't even been spent yet. Yes, folks, $1 
trillion. So why in the world are we looking at spending yet another $2 
trillion, of course, on things that are not even related to COVID?

  That isn't to say that there aren't needs, because there are. We know 
that all across our country. But instead of bridges and bailouts, the 
money should be focused on immediate help to get our moms and dads back 
to work. And to do that, we need to do a few things: No. 1, let's 
safely reopen our schools. Let's, No. 2, expand access to quality, 
affordable childcare. And, No. 3, let's distribute the vaccine as 
quickly as possible.
  While the bill does actually provide some assistance for these 
purposes, even here, the Democrats show how out of touch they are with 
what is actually happening on the ground.
  For example, nearly $15 billion is included for the childcare and 
development block grant. You would think that is a good thing because 
it is needed. At a time when so many moms are being forced to choose 
between their careers and children as a result of school closures, the 
support is needed. But a loophole in the bill that is coming over from 
the House allows millionaires to use up this program, which

[[Page S982]]

was created to make quality childcare affordable for working parents 
who are struggling to make ends meet. Yes, millionaires qualify for 
this assistance, not just our struggling families. And while additional 
funding will certainly help many, expanding eligibility to those 
millionaires who have the financial means to afford their own nannies 
will not.
  While the bill also extends the unemployment benefit, and it does 
provide an extra $400 per week for those who are out of work because of 
the pandemic--there, again, another loophole--there is no limit placed 
on the eligibility. That means someone who may be out of work but is 
still earning $1 million or more qualifies for these bonus payments.
  Now, you might laugh--you might laugh--and ask: How many people would 
apply for unemployment assistance if they were making $1 million? Well, 
folks, the answer is thousands.
  During the great recession just a decade ago, more than 3,000 
individuals with adjusted gross incomes of $1 million collected 
unemployment benefits. Because this bill doesn't cap who may receive 
support, jobless millionaires may end up collecting as much as $1 
million in enhanced unemployment assistance every week. This is like a 
reverse millionaires' tax. The Democrats are paying millionaires not to 
work with taxes paid by lower income workers. How do you like that 
socialist scheme?
  So if you are a coastal elite living in California or New York and 
maybe making a million bucks despite being out of work, this bill is 
especially generous for you.
  But, folks, this isn't Monopoly money. This is the real deal, and 
someone has to eventually pick up the tab. Sadly, it is going to be 
paid out of the pockets of essential workers and others who are 
continuing to work, those who pay taxes and keep America running.
  Now, as an eternal optimist, I am hopeful that when this bill comes 
before the Senate, my Democratic colleagues will actually work with us 
to cut the pork and refocus the bill on what it should be focused on: 
the immediate needs of the COVID pandemic--not a fancy subway, not a 
bridge to Canada, and, certainly, not wealthy State bailouts. Focus on 
the immediate needs of the COVID pandemic.
  And if not, I am afraid the Democrats will just keep passing go and 
collecting hundreds of dollars from hard-working taxpayers across this 
country, only to pay for their pricey partisan pet projects and wish-
list items that have nothing to do with COVID.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana
  Mr. YOUNG. I don't rise today, Mr. President, in opposition to COVID 
relief, nor do I rise today to oppose money for vaccine distribution 
and testing, nor do I rise to oppose stimulus spending for those who 
really need it--our hard-hit businesses, rank-and-file fellow 
Americans--and I certainly don't rise to oppose additional grants and 
loans for other enterprises out there that just aren't going to be able 
to make it through this, like our not-for-profits that are essential to 
all of our communities. But I rise today, instead, to oppose this 
partisan, pork-filled American Rescue Plan.
  You know, I am not known for histrionics in this body, and I am not 
engaging in them. This is a partisan bill full of a liberal wish list 
of items that, frankly, aren't popular with Hoosiers, and they won't be 
popular with the American people the more they get to know about what 
is loaded up in this $1.9 trillion package of goodies.
  In the last year, during a time of political division and strife, 
this Congress came together around COVID relief. We rose to the 
challenge presented to us by this global pandemic. We didn't bring it 
on. By most accounts, it came from China. But we came together to 
address this foreign threat that came to our shores that has decimated 
our economy, that has threatened lives and livelihoods, and we passed 5 
relief measures with well more than 90 votes in every instance.
  The total, nearly $3.5 trillion--and I make no apologies for those 
investments. Those were investments in public health. Those were 
investments in our communities. Those were investments in our 
employers. Those were investments in our loved ones, to provide them 
safety and security and a measure of comfort but to save their very 
lives. These are investments in our frontline workers. We did all of 
that in a bipartisan fashion with very little opposition--very little 
opposition.
  Unity, that is what this country needs. I heard that coming from the 
lips of Republicans and Democrats alike at the highest levels weeks 
ago, and that is what I pine for. I want our country to be unified. I 
believe we can be unified. But this is not a step in the right 
direction.
  Even though much of the money that we have allocated to address the 
many consequences of this global pandemic has not been spent yet, we 
Republicans have tried to work with the Biden administration on a sixth 
relief package over the past month. In fact, I was 1 of 10 Republicans 
who--I say this commendably toward the Biden administration; 
specifically, I commend the President for inviting myself and nine 
other Republicans into the Oval Office to discuss our counterproposal.
  And I have to say, the $600 billion proposal that we were providing 
was, for this U.S. Senator, a bit of a stretch. You know, so much money 
was still in the pipeline, it wasn't even clear that that much was 
needed. But we certainly did not need $1.9 trillion, and we all agreed 
upon that.
  Unfortunately, we sort of left that meeting with a supposition that, 
unfortunately, has been substantiated, that there was an intention to 
move forward, regardless of the respectful and fact-based exchange we 
had about the wastefulness of the $1.9 trillion package and the extent 
to which the $600 billion package more than met the needs of getting 
people vaccinated, getting people back to work, and getting our kids 
back to school as safely and as quickly as possible.
  Here we are, though. Instead of a targeted relief package, we have 
seen our Democratic leaders load up a $1.9 trillion bill with wish-list 
items.
  And so here is what I am going to have to educate Hoosiers on in the 
coming months because I think they actually believe this is mostly 
about vaccination and getting kids back to school and getting people 
back to work--and I wish that were the case. But, no, it is about 
borrowing money so that we can pay for I think what can fairly be 
characterized as a Blue State bailout to the tune of $350 billion.
  You see, a lot of States aren't like the State of Indiana. The State 
of Indiana, over the years, has balanced our budget and come up with a 
rainy day fund. And we are criticized, oftentimes for not spending 
money out of that rainy day fund. But the rainiest of days hit, and 
Indiana was ready. Not every State did that. Many States have elected 
leaders who have made unfulfillable promises to their constituency over 
the years related to their retirements and so forth. So now, in this 
package, is $350 billion going toward those States to be used for 
purposes other than pandemic relief.
  Also in this bill, $1.9 trillion package, is a Silicon Valley subway. 
I am not sure how it got in there. I do know that Speaker Pelosi hails 
from the area.
  The National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the 
Humanities--I love arts; I love the humanities. We can debate the 
proper role of government in funding these public cultural goods, but 
let's do it some other time. Let's not do it in the course of pandemic 
relief legislation.
  Expansion of the Paycheck Protection Program to provide loans to 
Planned Parenthood, will force certain taxpayers, like myself, to 
violate our conscience--much, much more. It is full of waste. It is fat 
with waste.
  This body passed a $1.9 trillion CARES Act in March of 2020.
  One year later, Democrats, along party lines, are poised to jam 
through another $1.9 trillion package. To give you some sense of how 
much a trillion dollars is--these numbers can be abstract sometimes--
try to visualize $1 bills stacked from the ground halfway up to the 
moon. That is a trillion dollars, I was told earlier today. That is a 
lot of money, and we are borrowing every cent of it.
  I think it is important we consider the difference between what we 
passed a year ago and what we are now considering as likely to pass 
along party-line votes. When the CARES Act went into

[[Page S983]]

effect, the Nation was shut down. Only so-called essential businesses, 
businesses that could operate safely, were open.
  Indiana's unemployment rate then was 17.5 percent. We have done a 
great job managing this crisis in the State of Indiana. Most businesses 
are reopened. The unemployment rate is 3.4 percent in our State. We 
don't have the same public health challenges of other places that have 
shut everything down. I will let others try and define why that is.
  When the CARES Act became law, not a single school in Indiana was 
open, and in Indiana today most schools are open to in-person learning, 
in-person instruction, many full time. And let me take this opportunity 
to commend our administrators and our teachers in the State of Indiana 
for showing up for work. We don't see that all around the country. Last 
week, in more than 2,000 schools in Indiana, there were only 62 teacher 
cases. I told you basically all the schools have opened up. Only 62 
teacher cases in Indiana. That is one case for every 33 schools. I 
would say we are doing a pretty good job managing the risk, following 
the science.
  When the CARES Act became law, a vaccine was a far-off dream. I can 
remember President Trump indicating there would be a vaccine by year's 
end. People laughed. Democrats scoffed, mocked. Members of the media 
mocked him. Not only do we have one vaccine, but then comes vaccine 
number two and vaccine number three, all in the pipeline because of 
Operation Warp Speed that the Trump administration implemented to, at 
once, streamline the regulatory process for approval and also begin 
manufacturing in parallel. It is good that the Biden administration is 
building on those successes.
  So, look, there is no doubt that some Hoosiers and many Americans are 
still hurting. We can and we will and we must help those people, but 
President Biden and the national Democrats' so-called American Rescue 
Plan is not the way to do it. It just is not responsible. We are better 
than that.
  So we who oppose this, we who happen to be Republican U.S. Senators 
who oppose this partisan effort to use this crisis to advance 
initiatives like arts funding and a subway next to Speaker Pelosi's 
district, along partisan lines, we are not going to just let this pass 
and allow the national Democrats to cram unrelated policies into what 
should be a bill squarely targeted at this crisis. We need a bill just 
like the five bills that we passed in a strongly bipartisan fashion 
just last year.
  So today we have more than a million Hoosiers who have received their 
first dose of vaccine, including more than 70 percent of Hoosiers age 
70 and older. There is no doubt that some Hoosiers are still hurting. 
Again, we will be helping those folks.
  So this is really quite simple. We need to work together, Republicans 
and Democrats, for the good of the country. This does indeed remain a 
national crisis. We had negative economic growth last year because a 
global pandemic interrupted the greatest period of economic growth in 
my lifetime.
  We need to recover. We are poised for a recovery this year, but we 
need to do it in a targeted and in a fiscally responsible way and in a 
fashion that doesn't undermine trust among one another and one that 
doesn't break trust with the American people by spending their money 
irresponsibly. I regret that that probably won't happen in the next few 
days, but I resolve to continue fighting for Hoosiers, for fiscal 
responsibility, and to constructively work with this administration 
however we can moving forward.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). The Senator from Oklahoma
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, last week we paused as a Congress to 
recognize half a million people who have died in the United States due 
to COVID. Unfortunately, that number is still climbing. Half a million. 
That is a lot of families that are affected. Those are a lot of lives 
lost. That is a lot of pain that we have experienced as a nation, and 
obviously that is a global pain that is being experienced.
  Over the last now 11 months, this Congress has gathered in a 
bipartisan way five times, with wide bipartisan majorities, to be able 
to address the issue of COVID-19. We have allocated $4 trillion, all of 
it borrowed, all of it--none of this was budgeted money--all of that 
borrowed money, with a common agreement that this is a pandemic and a 
crisis and that to be able to stabilize the American economy, we have 
to do what we have to do, but we should not do more than we have to, 
knowing that every dollar we are spending is borrowed.
  Last year, at almost this exact same date, this Congress gathered 
together and put together a $2 trillion CARES Act package. It was an 
aggressive package because we saw the shutdown of the American economy. 
Quite frankly, we saw the shutdown of the world's economy at that time 
period. Literally, the world seemed to stop by the end of March, and we 
all went into seclusion. We saw dramatic spikes in unemployment and 
desperate need around the country, but we all knew this was a crisis 
moment and we would get through it and we would get out of it.
  Now, almost a year later, where we saw unemployment soaring to 15 
percent-plus across the country, we are now at 6.7 percent 
unemployment. Every State is opened at some stage, and some States 
completely opened. Many schools are open. Some schools continue to stay 
closed and say they are afraid and that they are not going to reengage, 
while thousands and thousands of other schools around the country are 
open and taking care of their kids in person.
  We have seen this patchwork of response, but one thing is very true 
about right now versus 11 months ago. We are in a very different place 
now, as an economy and as a nation, than what we were 11 months ago. 
But the strange thing is, now, 11 months later, my Democratic 
colleagues are putting forward a $1.9 trillion package, almost the 
exact same size of what we had getting into the beginning of this. They 
are doing it. As just about everyone sees we are at the end, they want 
to borrow another $2 trillion.
  It is not just $2 trillion to be able to spend toward COVID. I wish 
that were so. One percent of this package actually goes toward 
vaccines. Five percent of this package actually goes toward public 
health. In the school funding portion of it, 95 percent of the funding 
in the school funding portion of it, which is $170 billion for school 
funding, won't even be spent this year at all--at all.
  Let me run that past you again. Ninety-five percent of the $170 
billion allocated for funding for schools won't be spent in the year of 
the pandemic at all. It is future spending. To give you a picture of 
how big $170 billion is toward education, the total U.S. education 
budget for the entire Department of Education this year is $66 billion. 
For the entire year, for all of education in the whole country, it is 
$66 billion, and my Democratic colleagues say: But we need to spend 
$170 billion just for COVID, which, by the way, we are not going to 
even start spending until next year.
  Do you know why? Because this bill is not about COVID. I wish it 
were, because there is real need out there. I wish it were. This is for 
things like $350 billion to go to cities and States, to be able to bail 
out some of their pension funds and other things that are there.
  Why do I say that? Because when you look at the statistics of the 
revenue loss for the States--across the entire United States, the 
revenue loss for all States is .1 percent from last year--.1 percent--
not 1 percent, .1 percent change, because almost every State is 
dependent on property tax, and as people who pay property tax know, you 
are still going to have to pay your property tax. So the revenues, 
quite frankly, continue to stay strong.

  In many of the cities that I have in Oklahoma--in fact, one of the 
cities in my State just last week reported their revenue for sales tax 
revenue is up 20 percent--20 percent, in their revenue--because people 
are staying home and shopping more. They are doing more shopping 
online, so the tax revenue is actually coming back into their States 
and their cities even more in many of these communities.
  But there is $350 billion allocated to these cities. You would think, 
well, there will be some fair distribution. Actually, that would be 
nice, but it is not true. They set up an unemployment formula that is 
based on, those States that shut down the longest and

[[Page S984]]

kept everything closed the longest, they are the ones that actually get 
the most money.
  So, in other words, if you reopened your economy and you worked to 
get your schools opened and you worked to get jobs opened, you get a 
chance to have very little support. If you stayed closed and kept your 
schools closed and kept your businesses closed, well, then you will get 
additional dollars coming in, regardless of what your revenue is--even 
for big States like California that their revenue actually went up last 
year.
  Let me run that past you again. California's revenue went up last 
year. They get $27 billion out of this, after their revenue went up.
  Remember that, in the CARES Act last March, this Congress added $150 
billion to cities and States, $150 billion, and spread that around the 
country to be able to cover it because there was a panic to think there 
were going to be major losses, but at the end of it, .1 percent off of 
the previous year.
  This has additional funding for Planned Parenthood. I am not sure why 
abortion is needed for COVID relief, but they have additional money for 
Planned Parenthood included. They have a tunnel for San Francisco, 
which clearly is not COVID related, a bridge in New York State, $50 
million for climate justice grants. There are--on and on and on--all 
these additional things that are just stuck into the process.
  And I would say this Congress has been active to be able to do what 
it takes to be able to help in every moment, but we have also tried to 
be wise in the process to say let's spend what needs to be spent when 
it needs to be spent.
  Let me give you an example of that. As I mentioned, for vaccines in 
this particular bill, 1 percent is set aside for vaccines. That would 
be interesting except for the fact, in vaccines, the CDC has 
distributed only $3 billion of the almost $9 billion that Congress has 
allocated to the CDC for vaccine distribution. They still have almost 
$6 billion remaining for vaccines right now.
  They have spent only $20 billion of the $37 billion allocated for the 
vaccine treatment and development and testing--only $20 billion of the 
$37 billion for the actual development and treatment--still another $6 
billion remaining for distribution.
  And on top of all that, today the Biden administration said they have 
struck new deals with vaccine folks so they can get vaccines to every 
single American by the end of May. They already have all that they need 
for vaccine distribution, development, and purchasing, yet this 
particular bill asks for billions more in vaccine because that sounds 
like a good idea--except, when you check the facts, they already have 
all they need for the vaccine purchase, development, distribution.
  But it sounds good, kind of like, we need more money for education. 
It sounds good when you say you need more money for education, except 
for the vast majority of the education funds, like around $86 billion, 
is still unspent from the previous bills in education money that was 
sent.
  For the ag money that has been allocated, $26 billion for ag just 
done in December, only $24 billion remains of that $26 billion. In 
other words, ample funds are still sitting there for ag, for assistance 
for schools, for vaccines, for testing.
  There is $14 billion still remaining in the fund for testing, 
untapped. But my Democratic colleagues can go to the microphone and say 
we need money for schools and for vaccines and for testing. And 
everyone is like, ``Oh, my gosh, certainly, we do,'' until you check 
the facts and find out this is not about vaccine and testing and 
schools at all. It is about all the pet programs that go with it, and 
it is about allocating billions and billions and billions of dollars to 
agencies so they can hold them and use them for other things.
  That is what this is about, and it hides under the cloak of COVID, 
and it hides behind the pain of half a million Americans who have lost 
friends and family members.
  Don't use their pain to be able to amp up government. Let's have the 
debate about issues that we need to have on government, but don't abuse 
the pain of Americans and pretend you are trying to fix something that 
we are not trying to fix.
  I yield floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to join my friend and 
colleague from Oklahoma, as well as the Senator from Iowa, who has 
previously spoken, and the Senator from Indiana in opposing the 
Democrats' $1.9 trillion spending bill.
  The Democrats want to call it the sixth coronavirus bill. In fact, 
that is false. It is not a true statement because only about $1 out of 
every $11 being spent on this monstrosity is really focused on 
coronavirus health. The rest is a partisan liberal wish list that the 
Democrats have wanted to pass for a long, long time--long before the 
pandemic, long before anyone in this country had ever even heard of 
coronavirus.
  I remember President Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, famously 
said: ``Never let a good crisis go to waste.'' Well, that is what they 
did under President Obama. They saw a crisis. They passed laws that had 
nothing to do with what had caused it. And now here we are a dozen 
years later. President Biden is in the White House, and he is using 
that playbook once again.
  President Biden's Chief of Staff calls this bill, the one coming to 
the floor right now--he described this on MSNBC the other day as--``the 
most progressive domestic legislation in a generation''--``the most 
progressive domestic legislation in a generation.'' More progressive 
than ObamaCare, more progressive than the Obama-Biden stimulus--that 
doesn't sound like a coronavirus relief bill to me.
  The White House Chief of Staff admits this isn't mainstream. This is 
radical. And you know, he is absolutely right about that. In the House, 
not a single Republican voted for this bill. Actually, Democrats joined 
every Republican in opposing it.
  President Biden ran for President as being mainstream, as being a 
unifier. That is how he got to the Oval Office. But ever since then, it 
has been scorched-earth partisanship every day since that time.
  Last week, President Biden gave a speech about the bill. He talked 
about Senate Republicans, those of us who are on the floor today and 
coming up next. He said: ``What would they cut?''
  I am very glad he asked. President Biden can start by cutting $350 
billion of bailing out States and local governments. State tax revenues 
are down less than 0.1 of a percent, as we just heard from the Senator 
from Oklahoma. Most States actually have more tax revenue than before 
the pandemic. Actually, 44 States have more tax revenue than before the 
pandemic.
  President Biden could cut the $85 billion that is earmarked for union 
pension funds, to bail them out. This has nothing to do with 
coronavirus. Unions have been mismanaging their members' money for 
decades.
  President Biden can cut the $4.5 billion for the New York City subway 
system. He could cut $111 million for a subway system in Silicon Valley 
for Nancy Pelosi, $270 million in funding for the arts and humanities. 
He could cut $200 million from museums and libraries. That is not 
coronavirus. He could cut $12 billion in foreign aid. He could cut $36 
billion in subsidized health insurance for people making over $100,000 
a year. It is a lot of income to additionally get health insurance 
subsidies.
  We all know President Biden loves Amtrak. Well, he could cut $1.5 
billion in funding for Amtrak in this bill. That has nothing to do with 
coronavirus. He could cut $1.5 million for the funding for the bridge 
from New York to Canada. It is probably a pet project for the majority 
leader.
  To answer the President's question of what could we cut, we could cut 
a lot. Thankfully, the Senate Parliamentarian already cut $67 billion 
from the bill. That is how much Democrats' national wage mandate was 
going to cost. Yet there is still a lot we can cut.
  Here is the bottom line. The people of Wyoming, whom I visit with 
every weekend while I am at home, don't want to live with wish lists. 
They want to make sure they can stay at work, their kids can stay in 
school, and they get the virus behind them.
  When I say ``stay,'' that is because the kids in Wyoming have been in 
school since last August, in spite of the fact that it seems like only 
half the kids in America are back in school.

[[Page S985]]

  You can either get to yes or you can get to no. And the people in 
Wyoming wanted to get to yes when it came to getting kids back to 
school. What we see President Biden doing is saying yes to the teachers 
union. He has paid the ransom note, and this is the money being paid to 
them, not to get our kids to school but to keep the teachers unions 
happy.
  I believe teachers want to get kids back to school. Teachers want to 
teach, but not the unions who pull the strings and are certainly 
pulling the strings of Joe Biden in the White House.
  Working families don't want politicians to exploit a crisis for 
political gains. They want to protect their physical health and their 
financial health and well-being. So it is time to stop trying to 
exploit a crisis, which is what I see every Democrat doing. Let's give 
the American people what they really need all across the country--
getting back to work, getting kids back to school who aren't there 
already, and putting the disease behind us.
  I yield the floor
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before I speak, I ask unanimous consent 
that myself, Senator Braun, and Senator Hirono be able to complete our 
remarks before the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.