[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 10, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1439-S1440]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          Tribute to Roy Blunt

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, before I begin, I want to take a moment to 
express my sadness about Senator Blunt's announcement that he will not 
seek reelection in 2022.
  He has been a leader within our conference ever since he came over to 
the Senate, and he will be sorely missed. I will especially miss having 
him as a Member of the whip team here in the Senate.
  I came to the House of Representatives with Senator Blunt back in the 
election of 1996. We began our service in January of 1997, and he 
quickly rose up through the ranks in the House and became the 
Republican whip in the House of Representatives. He has always been 
involved in leadership wherever he has been, and his list of 
achievements is long.
  All Americans have benefited over the past year from his tremendous 
efforts to accelerate coronavirus testing and vaccine development. And 
less than 2 months ago, in his role as chairman of Rules Committee, he 
oversaw a very successful inauguration at a particularly challenging 
time.
  The one good thing is that Roy is not leaving us immediately. He will 
be here for 2 more years, and I look forward to continuing to work with 
him and to seeing everything that he will accomplish


                    American Rescue Plan Act of 2021

  Mr. President, it has been quoted that ``[t]he Senate works best when 
we work together. . . . The challenges we face are great. The divisions 
in the country are real. We have no choice but to try to work together 
every day to reward the faith the American people have placed in us.''
  Those are not my words. Those are the words of the Democratic leader 
on Inauguration Day. But I agree with him. The Senate does indeed work 
best when we work together. And, for proof, look no further than last 
week's debacle--a good example of what happens when, instead of working 
together, one party tries to strong-arm its legislation through the 
Senate.
  Last Friday was perhaps most notable for its 11-plus-hour vote on an 
amendment. Democrats held a 15-minute vote open for almost 12 hours--
making it the longest vote in modern Senate history--because it had 
become clear that they were in danger of losing the support of one of 
their Members.
  It turns out that when you force a massive, liberal piece of 
legislation through the Senate without committee review and without any 
attempt at soliciting input from the Senate as a whole, you start to 
lose support even from Members of your own party. It was an 
embarrassing moment for the Democrat leadership and a sad moment for 
the rest of the Senate.
  In that same speech on Inauguration Day, the Democratic leader 
pledged:

       [The] Senate will legislate. . . . And to my Republican 
     colleagues, when and where we can, the Democratic majority 
     will strive to make this important work bipartisan.

  There was no evidence of that here. Democrats didn't try to make this 
bill bipartisan. In fact, they actively tried to make sure Republicans 
didn't have a voice in this legislation.
  Remember that almost 12-hour amendment vote? Democrats held that vote 
open for nearly 12 hours solely because they were afraid that a 
Republican amendment might pass. Republicans were more than willing to 
work with Democrats on COVID relief, as we did last year on five 
separate COVID bills, but Democrats didn't want Republicans interfering 
with their legislation.
  I want to talk about those previous COVID bills for just a minute. 
Prior to Democrats taking control of the Senate, COVID relief was a 
bipartisan process. Under Republican control, the Senate passed five 
COVID relief bills with overwhelming bipartisan majorities. Because 
both Democrats and Republicans had a voice in the legislation, there 
was no need to keep any of those votes open to engage in partisan arm-
twisting. ``The Senate works best when it works together.''
  The bipartisan process on those other COVID bills didn't just 
guarantee a bipartisan vote in the Senate; it also guaranteed that 
those other COVID bills were actually about COVID. Because both parties 
had to work together to get a result, neither party was able to hijack 
the bill for partisan purposes.
  Contrast that with the bill the Senate passed on Saturday. While 
Democrats have tried to sell their legislation as a COVID relief bill, 
the truth is it isn't one. Just 1 percent--1 percent--of this bill 
actually goes to our top COVID priority--vaccinations--and less than 10 
percent of this bill is directly related to combating the virus.
  There has been a lot of talk about how this bill is a liberal wish 
list, which it is, but that is almost being too generous. A liberal 
wish list at least suggests some grand policy schemes. This bill is 
mostly just a collection of payoffs to Democrat interest groups in 
Democrat States.
  For the extreme abortion wing of the Democratic Party, this bill 
omits longstanding Federal restriction on using taxpayer dollars to pay 
for abortion. It makes labor unions eligible for loans designed to 
rescue Main Street small businesses. It bails out failing union 
pensions--a bailout even the New York Times describes as having 
``nothing to do with the pandemic'' and as an ``almost unheard-of'' use 
of taxpayer dollars. That is from the New York Times.
  It provides nearly $129 billion for K-12 schools--despite the fact 
that these schools have spent just $5 billion of the $68 billion 
already given to them--while keeping teachers unions happy by making 
sure funding isn't tied to any requirement to actually get back to in-
person instruction.
  Then, of course, there is the money for the States. The bill 
appropriates a staggering $350 billion for States, despite the fact 
that a majority of States already have the resources they need to 
weather the rest of the pandemic.
  On top of that, the distribution formula for that $350 billion is 
heavily weighted in favor of blue States, like California, which stands 
to see $27 billion under this legislation, despite the fact that 
California's revenues are up by $15 billion. Now, imagine the outcry if 
Republicans were directing funding to States that voted Republican in 
the last election.

  And lest anyone thinks any of this was unintentional, Democrats 
doubled down on the partisanship when it came to amendments. They 
rejected an amendment that would have protected Americans from having 
their tax dollars used to pay for abortions, even though multiple 
Democrats broke ranks with their party to support this amendment.
  They rejected an amendment to tie funding for schools to schools that 
actually are reopening. They rejected an amendment to ensure seamless 
support to nonpublic schools serving low-income students. They rejected 
an amendment to stop labor unions from taking loan money intended for 
small businesses. They rejected an amendment to provide greater 
transparency on nursing home COVID deaths, presumably in an attempt to 
protect the Democratic Governor of New York, who is under fire for 
seemingly deliberate attempts to obscure reporting of these deaths.
  In a nod to the far-left environmental wing of the party, they 
rejected an amendment to reverse the President's cancellation of the 
Keystone XL Pipeline, which will cost thousands--thousands of American 
jobs.
  I could go on for a while on amendments because there are a lot more.
  Democrats passed an amendment that provides an incentive for some 
Americans to stay on unemployment by making more than $10,000 of their 
unemployment benefits nontaxable.

[[Page S1440]]

Think about that. More than $10,000 of their unemployment benefits is 
untaxable without regard to income.
  Working Americans still have to pay their taxes, even if they are 
making less money than they would on unemployment. If you are a hard-
working taxpayer in this country and you are not getting a tax break 
when the people who are on unemployment are getting a $10,000 tax 
break, nontaxable income that is costing the Federal Government 
somewhere on the order of $30 billion, you can imagine the average 
taxpayer in this country might find that to be highly objectionable 
when they find out about it. A substantial amount of unemployment 
benefits will be tax-free. That doesn't seem too fair, not to mention 
that the last thing we should be doing right now is discouraging people 
from going back to work.
  In that speech I referenced earlier that the Democratic leader gave 
on Inauguration Day, he said:

       As the majority changes in the Senate, the Senate will do 
     business differently.

  ``The Senate will do business differently.'' Well, now we have a 
glimpse of what that looks like. And, apparently, it looks like 
ruthless partisanship in an attempt to completely silence the minority 
and the Americans they represent. It is deeply disappointing that 
Democrats have turned a bipartisan process into a totally partisan 
exercise.
  As I mentioned, pandemic relief ought to be bipartisan, and it was 
last year, five times. Five times here in the U.S. Senate, we passed 
pandemic relief, coronavirus relief legislation, with overwhelming 
bipartisan majorities under regular order, where 60 votes are required, 
instead of under the procedure that was used by the Democrats last week 
to shut Republicans out of that process.
  We could have passed a bill last week again with overwhelming 
bipartisan support, but that would have required Democrats to be 
willing to genuinely collaborate with Republicans. And, unfortunately, 
it is becoming clear that collaboration is not part of the new way of 
doing business in the Democratic-led Senate.
  I hope my Democratic colleagues will change course in the days ahead 
and work with Republicans to unite our country. As the Democratic 
leader suggested on Inauguration Day, they owe the American people 
nothing less.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.