[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 3, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1008-S1010]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              CORONAVIRUS

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, this Saturday will mark 1 year since 
Congress passed our first response to the COVID-19 virus.
  That legislation, you will recall, received overwhelming support. It 
passed by a vote of 96 to 1 here in the Senate and 415 to 2 in the 
House, and we know that it was not just a one-off. Each of the five 
pandemic relief bills that were

[[Page S1009]]

signed into law last year received overwhelming bipartisan support.
  That is not to say that everybody was in perfect agreement about the 
size and shape of the bills. We had more than our fair share of 
disagreements along the way, but both sides of the aisle understood the 
most pressing challenges facing our country and the types of support 
that were needed to sustain that fight both when it came to public 
health and when it came to the economic fallout and recession that 
resulted: resources for hospitals and healthcare workers, support for 
the hardest hit families, assistance for small businesses, and, of 
course, the development, manufacturing, and distribution of vaccines. 
Not only did we agree on what should be in the bills, but we, actually, 
also agreed on what should not be in the bills.
  We were all guided, I believe, by an understanding that the focus 
should remain on COVID-19 and that pandemic relief bills were no place 
to inject unrelated or partisan preferences, but now that our 
Democratic friends control the House and the Senate and the White 
House, they have tossed that principle in the trash.
  The Democrats have drafted their so-called COVID-19 relief bill 
without the input, the ideas, or the support of a single Republican. 
Now, that is not because folks on this side of the aisle were 
unwilling. As I remember, there were 10 Republican Senators who met 
with President Biden at the White House and offered a $600 billion 
alternative that would enjoy broad bipartisan support. This partisan 
legislation was a choice, not a necessity--a choice, a conscious 
choice.
  Last year, the House majority whip referred to this crisis as a 
``tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.'' 
That was Mr. Clyburn. The Democrats knew that a bipartisan bill would 
limit the scope of discussions of policies that were actually relevant 
to the pandemic. So, rather than maintain that relevance to the 
pandemic, they chose to go it alone. This opportunity to restructure, 
as Mr. Clyburn said, has been months in the making, and now that the 
Democrats have the numbers they need to make the law without having the 
support of anybody but their own party, they have tacked on an entire 
liberal wish list and tried to call it COVID-19 relief, but nobody 
believes it or should believe it.
  You see, these are some of the things that are in the so-called 
COVID-19 relief bill of $1.9 trillion when hundreds of billions of 
dollars of money that we appropriated just in December haven't even 
been spent yet. Here is what is in the Trojan horse, otherwise known as 
the Democrats' COVID-19 relief bill: funding for climate justice. At a 
time when many Americans are asking ``When can I get the vaccine?'' and 
``How long until my children can safely return to school?'' our 
Democratic colleagues are pushing funding to support President Biden's 
unilateral climate Executive orders.
  And then there is the funding--the backdoor funding--for Planned 
Parenthood. It is responsible for the most abortions of any other 
organization in America. Now, that is a personal choice for people to 
make, but asking taxpayers to fund Planned Parenthood so it can perform 
more abortions is simply irrelevant to COVID-19 relief. It is 
exploiting another emergency for special interest purposes.
  This bill expands the criteria for the Paycheck Protection Program, 
one of the most successful parts of the CARES Act that we passed last 
March. It was designed specifically to keep small businesses afloat, 
but now Planned Parenthood can take advantage of the funding--something 
they were precluding from doing under bipartisan agreement previously.
  There is another big political ally for our Democratic friends that 
would be newly eligible for these small business loans--the labor 
unions. So now labor unions can apply for and receive money that was 
otherwise previously directed toward mom-and-pop businesses so they 
could keep their doors open, so they could keep their employees on the 
payroll. But now it includes labor unions.
  Many of the labor unions' pension plans in particular have been in 
dire financial straits for years, long before COVID-19 even existed. Up 
until now, our Democratic colleagues have not been able to find a way 
to bail out these mismanaged pension funds. As you can imagine, using 
taxpayer dollars to cover the mistakes of union bosses is incredibly 
unpopular, and that is because it is wrong. But the authors of this 
bill have found a couple of workarounds which they have tucked into 
this so-called pandemic relief bill.
  In addition to making labor unions eligible for the paycheck 
protection loans, the COVID-19 relief bill also creates a taxpayer fund 
to bail out underfunded union pension funds. That is not to help the 
public generally; that is to help labor union members, which is 
certainly their issue. I understand why it is important, but I don't 
understand why my taxpayers in Texas should have to bail out 
underfunded labor pension funds in other States. Union bosses who have 
mismanaged these funds and made bad choices will be rewarded with a 
taxpayer-funded check.
  While there is a range of provisions to line the pockets of our 
friends on the other side of the aisle across the country, the authors 
of this bill also tried to sneak in more localized fixes, two of which 
have already been dropped from this bill.
  In one of the most audacious examples of tone-deaf Washington 
politics, one of these was an underground rail system in the Speaker's 
home State of California--an underground rail system. That has nothing 
to do with COVID-19.
  The Bay Area Rapid Transit expansion has been in the works for years, 
and Californians have raised concerns over the rising cost. In 2018, it 
was projected to cost nearly $4.7 billion, and that estimate has 
already jumped to $6.9 billion from $4.7 billion.
  Despite the fact that this rail system has absolutely nothing to do 
with the pandemic and would serve only the people of one of the 
wealthiest areas in the country, our Democratic friends provided more 
than $100 million for this project in their so-called COVID-19 relief 
bill. Well, fortunately, not any thanks to our Democratic friends who 
wrote the bill, this completely unrelated project has now been removed 
from the bill because it violates Senate rules. You are not supposed to 
be able to appropriate money and authorize transportation projects in a 
budget reconciliation bill. That is why it is gone, not because our 
Democratic friends were embarrassed or had second thoughts after it was 
pointed out to them the hypocrisy of including that in the bill but 
because it violates the Senate rules.
  Another portion of the bill would have provided money for a bridge 
from New York to Canada. Let me think for a minute which Senator would 
have stuck money for a bridge from New York to Canada in the bill. 
Well, there are two Senators, one of whom is the majority leader from 
the State of New York. Well, that has now been struck by our colleagues 
because it received so much blowback. It was such an embarrassing, 
irresponsible money grab that it is no longer in the bill.
  Well, we will see if this trend continues and more of the completely 
unrelated partisan projects are eliminated because the long list of 
unnecessary spending does not end there.
  This legislation also establishes a bureaucrat bailout, an exclusive 
paid leave fund just for Federal employees. If their kids aren't in 
school full time because of the pandemic, these employees could take 
home up to $1,400 a week in paid leave. That is roughly equivalent to 
$70,000 a year, all to stay home and not work. And these benefits would 
last for months. Federal employees could take home up to 600 hours of 
paid leave until September 30 even though President Biden said every 
adult who wants to get vaccinated will be vaccinated by the end of May. 
This benefit, this ridiculous money grab, would last until the end of 
September, long after people had gained antibodies and immunity from 
COVID-19 as a result of having been vaccinated.
  Across the country, only about 35 percent of school districts have 
returned to fully in-person instruction. If the parents of children at 
the other 65 percent of school districts happen to work for the Federal 
Government, they can claim these benefits. Even if a school offers in-
person instruction but maintains the option to learn virtually, the 
parent can still get paid to stay home and not perform any work. Well, 
parents in my State who don't work for the Federal Government

[[Page S1010]]

aren't receiving these same benefits. This is clearly cherry-picking to 
benefit Federal employees, to pay them not to work.
  I respect the work that Federal employees do. I respect the work that 
all government employees do. But to give them preferential treatment in 
the midst of this pandemic by paying them not to work and using tax 
dollars from other States and other places that don't enjoy that 
benefit is simply grossly unfair.

  Over the last year, countless numbers of parents have balanced the 
impossible: work and remote learning for their children. It has been 
hard. I understand that. Many parents turned their kitchen tables into 
makeshift offices and classroom spaces until their children were able 
to physically return to school. Today, less than 7 percent of the 
school districts in Texas are fully remote. Seven percent are fully 
remote, and two-thirds are fully in-person in my State. They have found 
a way to safely return to the classroom. There is no reason why the 
Texans who have made that tough juggling act, working and learning 
remotely, should now have to pay Federal employees who have not had to 
make that tough choice.
  It is simply false advertising to call this a COVID-19 relief bill. 
It is deceptive and outrageously so. Only $160 billion dollars--8 
percent of the total cost--is directly related to combating COVID-19. 
Eight percent. The rest of the bill, as I have tried to point out, is a 
variety of--it is a grab bag, really, of partisan priorities, wasteful 
spending, and counterproductive policy.
  What is worse, this restructuring, according to Mr. Clyburn's 
language, to fit the vision of the Democratic Party will cost taxpayers 
nearly $2 trillion. That is on top of the $4 trillion we already spent 
last year. Two trillion more.
  Well, somebody is going to have to pay that money back, and I fear it 
will not be us because we will be long gone. It will be our children 
and grandchildren, and at this rate of reckless spending, our great-
grandchildren will have to be the ones to pay the money back.
  This bill is not the answer to the real challenges that face our 
country posed by the pandemic. We have shown our willingness to work 
together in a bipartisan way to enthusiastically support the need to 
provide real relief both from the public health consequences and the 
economic fallout associated with the virus, but this bill doesn't even 
attempt to do that.
  Fortunately, as a result of the work we did last year, including last 
December--and by the way, only about 20 percent of the money that we 
appropriated just a few weeks ago--actually, a couple of months ago in 
December--has actually been spent. Only about 20 percent has been 
spent, and here we are being asked to appropriate $1.9 trillion more.
  But the good news is, the money we spent last year is having real 
results. The money we invested in treatments and research and 
development of vaccines and now the distribution of vaccines--it is 
actually making a real difference. We are vaccinating roughly 3 million 
people a day in America. More than 70 million people have had shots in 
arms, and we are doing our best to try to get it in people's arms as 
fast as we safely can. President Biden said we will get that job done 
by the end of May. That is wonderful news.
  The other wonderful news is that unemployment rates are going down 
and State revenue is going back up. School districts across the country 
have safely resumed in-person learning. One in five adults in America 
has now received a dose of the vaccine, and a third vaccine has now 
been approved, so that number will climb faster and faster and faster.
  Every day we are moving closer to the light at the end of the tunnel, 
and now is not the time to squander the good will and trust that the 
American people have had in us to be good stewards of the public health 
and our economy by engaging in this sort of embarrassing partisan 
exercise.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The senior Senator from Pennsylvania.

                          ____________________