[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 3, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1011-S1012]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              CORONAVIRUS

  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I worked with my colleague from 
Pennsylvania on some of these home care options, and I think it is a 
very positive thing. In fact, it saves a lot of cost for the system, 
but the question is, What is it doing in a COVID relief bill?
  You know, I just have to say, having been involved in a bipartisan 
way on five different COVID relief packages over the last year, I am 
just so discouraged that we can't sit down, Republicans and Democrats 
alike, and work out a targeted, focused bill on COVID, and, by the way, 
then move on to other things, including healthcare reform, including 
issues that traditionally have also been bipartisan, like 
infrastructure and broadband expansion, like retirement security or 
dealing with China and supply chain issues.
  But this is not the way to start. We are looking at a $1.9 trillion 
package, the second largest ever written by Congress. The first one 
went through last year. And there was no input--virtually no input--
from anybody on our side of the aisle because the administration 
decided they didn't want it. They wanted to jam this thing through 
without our participation. And it is too bad, because they will end up 
with a product that is not going to be as focused and targeted, but, 
also, it is just getting off on the wrong foot and making it more 
difficult for us to figure out how to come together on other issues.
  It is really the opposite. This process is really the opposite of 
what President Biden talked about. He talked about it in his campaign. 
I mean, he won a campaign, including in his primary, saying he wanted 
to work across the aisle; he wanted to change the tone in Washington. 
That was pretty brave of him to say, really.
  And, then, in his inaugural address, he did the same thing; didn't 
he? He talked about the need for unity. He talked about wanting to get 
people together and to work with Democrats and Republicans alike and 
kind of get back to that. This is exactly the opposite of that. I just 
don't get it. I have to tell you, I am mystified why they want to start 
off this way.
  I was one of the 10 Republicans who went down to the White House to 
meet with President Biden about this a few weeks ago, and we offered 
our own proposal and said we would like to work with you and negotiate 
with you. And, you know, there has been no interest, to be honest, and 
I wish it weren't the case.
  And $4 trillion has already been allocated to the COVID-19 issue, and 
it was needed. It is a crisis. It still is. It is not over yet, 
although things are getting a lot better, both in terms of the 
healthcare crisis and in terms of the economy. But we did that, again, 
five different times--over $4 trillion, five different times in a 
bipartisan way.
  So we know we can do it. It is hard for us to do it on other issues--
let's face it--like taxes or even healthcare, but it is not with regard 
to COVID-19. At least it hasn't been until now.
  The most recent $900 billion COVID relief package passed at the end 
of December by a 92 to 6 vote--92 to 6. I came out to the floor to give 
speeches on this Senate floor over 20 times in the months prior to that 
legislation finally being passed, urging Congress to come out of our 
partisan corners, Democrats and Republicans alike, and to come up with 
a COVID relief package, because I saw so much middle ground. And we 
found it by the end of December. I was part of a group of five 
Democrats and five Republicans who sat down over a month-long period or 
so. We actually wrote a bill. The ``908 Coalition,'' we called 
ourselves because we wrote a bill for $900 billion that was the basis 
for that $900 billion legislation that eventually passed. So I have 
been there. I have done it. We have done it. We can do it. Yet we are 
looking here at an entirely different process and, unfortunately, a 
product that is not targeted, not focused.
  It is interesting to note that of the $900 billion that we 
appropriated just a couple of months ago, at the end of the year, more 
than half of that, we are told, has not been spent yet. So while we are 
starting a $1.9 trillion new spending project, about half of what we 
just did has yet to be spent. So how do we know how much is needed? It 
is very hard to know.
  I will say that it is troubling to me that this bill is loaded up 
with provisions that don't relate to addressing the COVID-19 pandemic, 
because we should be targeted and focused like a laser on that issue 
and not on other things. In fact, when you look at the healthcare part 
of this, most people would think: OK, what would you do with a COVID-19 
bill? You would focus on the coronavirus. You would focus on the 
testing and the tracing. You would focus on the vaccine development and 
distribution. You would focus on the healthcare side, including 
healthcare providers.
  Unfortunately, that is a very small part of the funding of this bill. 
It is $160 billion out of $1.9 trillion, so less than 10 percent of the 
bill is focused on that. And, by the way, the alternative I mentioned 
that we offered to President Biden--$160 billion. We totally believe in 
that part of the bill, and that we should put all of that in there, 
particularly with regard to the vaccines.
  So it is frustrating because not only is the process not what we have 
done in the past and is best for this country, but also the substance 
of this bill is just not targeted on COVID-19. How do I tell hard-
working families in my State of Ohio that there is a provision in the 
bill that asks Medicare to spend more money in New Jersey, Delaware, 
and Rhode Island but not in Ohio and other States? How do I explain 
that we need to set aside hundreds of millions of dollars that are in 
this bill in additional Federal funds for the arts? We can have that 
debate on the arts, but it has nothing to do with COVID-19. We have the 
highest deficit, as a share of GDP, since World War II--the highest 
debt as a share of GDP. You know, I don't think we should be spending 
that kind of money on things that don't relate to COVID-19.
  Beyond these kinds of unrelated provisions, there are also proposals 
in this stimulus that are directed at important issues, but, based on 
what is needed to respond to the current challenges, are simply 
unnecessary and add up to more wasteful spending.

  For example, we reached a point in this pandemic where the CDC, or 
the Centers for Disease Control, has said that schools can start to 
open safely with the right measures in place--thank goodness. We want 
to get our kids back to school. That should be a cause for celebration. 
But the plan here, the $1.9 trillion, doesn't reflect those findings. 
Last year, we appropriated $113 billion for schools to help navigate 
the pandemic, but, as of now, of that $113 billion, only $15 billion 
has been spent. So, roughly, $100 billion is left over from last year 
with regard to schools.
  If we are already opening classes safely with that amount, why does 
this $1.9 trillion plan instead call for an additional investment of 
$130 billion in our schools, but especially when we are told that most 
of that $130 billion will not be spent in this calendar year? Nobody 
thinks that next year, at this time, we are going to have the crisis we 
have now, and yet the $130 billion of new money will not be spent until 
the end of 2028.
  By the way, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates 
that about half of the funds in the entire proposal won't even be spent 
in this calendar year. That is their analysis--objective, nonpartisan. 
No one expects, again, that we will be in this crisis at that time. So 
it just doesn't seem to make sense to me.
  There are other provisions in this bill that seem to actually take 
solutions we have come up with in the past COVID-19 package and make 
them worse. Unemployment insurance is a good example. Republicans and 
Democrats alike believe there needs to be

[[Page S1012]]

some expanded help in terms of those who have been hit hardest by the 
pandemic and have lost a job, and the last bipartisan spending 
agreement reflected that consensus. But now, after finally reaching an 
agreement on expanded unemployment insurance, one that got people the 
help they need without creating a disincentive to work, Democrats want 
to jam through another UI proposal that increases the $300 per week 
that we just agreed to in December to $400 a week. Now, again, that is 
in the context of the healthcare crisis getting better and the economy 
getting better and the unemployment numbers going down that we are 
going to put more into unemployment insurance.
  That creates a problem because it will mean if you go up to $400 a 
week, then more than half of the workers on unemployment insurance will 
be earning more on unemployment than they would staying employed. We 
want to get people back to work. That is what we all should want, at 
least. So why would you do that? We shouldn't want that. It is going to 
result in fewer people getting to work as unemployment continues to go 
down, as the vaccines are more widely available. That is the opposite 
of what we should want.
  At the same time, a new provision in this bill would allow employees 
who are Federal employees to take 600 hours of taxpayer-funded 
emergency leave this fiscal year. To put that in perspective, 600 hours 
is about half of the total number of working hours remaining in this 
fiscal year.
  There are plenty of problems with the way this plan is written. To 
give you one example, a Federal employee with children in school would 
be eligible for this leave program as long as the school is offering a 
remote learning option, even if the kids are going to the classroom 
every day for in-person learning. Federal employees would also be 
eligible for this leave if they are feeling unwell, even if they don't 
have COVID-19, and with no oversight, no doctor's note, and no 
supervisory approval.
  This is far beyond the responsible bipartisan family leave proposal 
we did include, because we should have, in the Family First Coronavirus 
Response Act, which offered 80 hours of sick leave, about one-seventh 
of the time off in this new proposal, and which applies to millions of 
private and public sector employees, in addition to the Federal 
employees who are only covered by this new proposal.
  When none of us knew exactly how long we would be faced with the 
COVID-19 crisis, we decided, on a bipartisan basis, that 80 hours was 
sufficient. But now that we have this new proposal, at seven times that 
leave with no test necessary, it is at a time when we are actually 
turning the tide on this virus, and we all acknowledge that. When more 
of us are being tested and vaccinated, our numbers are going down--
thank goodness--and we have a much better understanding of the dangers 
of COVID-19. So why does this make sense?
  Furthermore, Federal jobs are pretty secure. Why should taxpayers pay 
for Federal employees to get 600 hours of leave when private sector 
employees are suffering more job losses than the public sector? It 
hardly seems like a good use of taxpayer dollars. It is also 
disappointing in this bill, which all of us are expected to vote on 
here in the coming days, because the end result is so different than 
the last five. As I said, the last five times, we put it together in a 
bipartisan basis.
  The process has been frustrating, and I know many colleagues who were 
part of the group of five Republicans and five Democrats agree with 
that. We are, in effect, for the sake of expediency and partisan 
victory, forgetting about thoughtful policy and bipartisanship.
  We have to show that we have enough Republicans to work with 
Democrats to get this done. I understand that. That is why 10 of us 
went down to the White House, because along with 50 Democrats, that 
would be 60, which is the magic number needed. But there is more than 
10 Republicans who want to work with Democrats. There have been every 
time we have taken this up over the past year.
  We proposed the $618 billion counterproposal that shares a lot of 
common ground with the Biden plan--not $1.9 trillion but $618 billion. 
Again, we take care of all the healthcare response to the virus. This 
is in the Biden plan. We have a similar approach on stimulus checks: 
Make it a little more targeted, which everyone, I think, agrees is a 
good idea.
  Again, with regard to schools, we don't waste the money, which we 
talked about earlier, but we would be focused on getting kids back to 
school. The main difference in our bill is we take a more targeted 
approach to address the most urgent healthcare and economic needs.
  We heed the advice of prominent Democratic economist Larry Summers 
and so many others who have now said that the $1.9 trillion Biden 
stimulus is not just wasting taxpayer money; it risks overheating an 
already recovering economy, leading to higher inflation, hurting 
middle-class families, and threatening long-term growth.
  But rather than the counterproposal leading to this productive type 
of bipartisan negotiations we had last year, this time we have been 
told Democrats want to go it alone.
  We will keep talking to the President's people. We will keep talking 
to Democrats in Congress, hoping they will follow through on the 
campaign message and the inaugural promise because that is what we 
should be doing as a Congress, not just on this issue but so many other 
issues as well. We shouldn't be going it alone.
  Reconciliation has allowed Democrats to take what is essentially a 
``my way or the highway'' approach to a response package that would be 
among the most expensive pieces of legislation in our country's 
history. As a result, dozens of my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle are being shut out of providing their input on this bill, and we 
are going to be left with a partisan bill that fails to meet the most 
urgent and pressing needs.
  In fact, because all of these unrelated spending measures we talked 
about and others are directed toward traditional Democratic 
constituencies, I would argue that this bill has not just been my way 
or the highway, but it has been my way and the highway.
  The bottom line is, at the end of the road of this reconciliation 
process, we will have a bill that underdelivers in many respects and is 
overpriced, and that is sad to me. It didn't have to be this way. 
Again, we have done it before five times together, made it inclusive, 
listened to each other to come up with a bipartisan result. Let's put a 
stop to this runaway train that is going to add to the deficit 
unnecessarily and put a damper on the prospects for the bipartisanship 
promised by this new administration.
  Wanting to heal the wounds is something all of us should want. 
Wanting to work together is something all of us should want. Getting 
back to an era where we actually sit down, debate things, work them 
out, and help bring the country together is something all of us should 
want.
  I agree with what President Biden said in his campaign and the 
inaugural address about the need for unity. Let's do it. Let's not have 
rhetoric; let's have action.
  We can work together to get this done. We won't get there if we 
continue to operate like this. It hurts not just our new President and 
his hopes for getting things done; it hurts the country and the ability 
for us to continue to work together to deal with this crisis and get 
back to a more normal life.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Florida

                          ____________________