Coronavirus

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, starting this week and tomorrow, there will be a vote on a coronavirus relief bill, and it is a bill that is targeted to the areas that really need it, it is fiscally responsible, and it is rooted in reality. In other words, it is a realistic approach to dealing with the coronavirus challenges that we, as a nation, are facing.

The Democratic leader and the Democratic assistant leader have been down here just now talking about the Democratic bill, a bill which passed the House of Representatives and a bill that was $3\1/2\ trillion in terms of its pricetag and a bill that was filled with goodies for special-interest groups and lots of leftwing priorities, many of which have nothing to do at all with the coronavirus.

In fact, $3\1/2\ trillion is a number that I think was pulled out of thin air. I have no idea how they came up with it. I don't think it was based on any feedback or input that they got from States or businesses around the country. I think it was let's just make up as many things as we can and let's just throw a lot of money out there and see what it does.

Well, unfortunately, I think people have come to the realization-- people around the country, at least--that every dollar that we spend now is a borrowed dollar. So the $3\1/2\ trillion that was allocated by the House Democrats and which has been supported just in the last few minutes here by the Democratic leader and the Democratic whip is borrowed money. It should come as no surprise to anybody in this country that our country already is deeply in debt. We added about $3 trillion earlier this year when we passed the CARES package--at the time, something that was needed. We needed to be big and bold and move quickly, which we did.

We have a much better sense now, I think, about this disease, what the needs are, and we ought to be targeting our assistance to those areas of greatest need, whether it is small businesses that need assistance, that haven't been able to reopen; whether it is in the area of healthcare, our hospitals and nursing homes, the provider community; or whether it is supporting the efforts that are being made to come up with vaccines and therapeutics, the money that is going into testing. Those are all things I think that there was pretty broad agreement on at the time. We still believe those are things that are essential, in addition to supporting our schools as they try to safely reopen.

There are a number of priorities out there that I do think we have learned, gotten more information about, and determined where the dollars made the most difference, what could be changed and modified in these programs to make them more workable, and that is what has led to the discussion we are having now and the bill that we will vote on tomorrow.

What the Democrats, in their bill--the $3\1/2\ trillion bill--did was they just decided that money is no object and evidently without, again, much consideration about how those dollars are spent or in any way making sure that they are targeted to the right area, to those areas of greatest need, just basically decided to kind of throw caution to the wind and throw $3\1/2\ trillion out there at the economy.

The ironic thing about it, in many respects, is that, without having feedback or input, for example, from State and local governments about how much they needed, they put another $1 trillion into that bill--$1 trillion for State and local governments--at a time when very little of the $150 billion that we had already done in direct assistance, not to mention the additional assistance to States, to education, to colleges and universities, elementary and secondary education, healthcare providers--a lot of additional dollars have gone through the States, to the tune of about a half a trillion dollars already, much of which hasn't been spent. In fact, of the $150 billion in direct assistance that went out to State and local governments--the latest numbers I had as recently as about a week ago--only about a quarter of that, about 25 percent of that money had been spent. Yet they were asking for another trillion dollars, every single dollar of which is borrowed.

It was just reported recently that, in 2021, the United States will exceed 100 percent debt to GDP. That puts us in the elite and rare company of Italy, Greece, Japan, countries around the world that have gotten dramatically overextended when it comes to their sovereign debt. When you get to the debt to GDP which is in excess of 100 percent, that is pretty dangerous territory.

Everybody says we are the best economy in the world, we are the world's reserve currency, and people are going to continue to want to invest here in the United States. Well, at some point there are consequences. The chickens do come home to roost. You cannot continue to borrow without eventual consequence. At some point, interest rates will start to normalize, at which time these countries that invest in the United States are going to demand a higher return. Interest rates-- when they go up, it means the amount we have to pay to borrow money goes up, and when our interest gets north of $1 trillion, it will exceed every other item in our budget, including the amount that we spend for national security.

So that is the other part of the debate which the other side never references; that is, what are we doing to the long-term future of this country, to our children and grandchildren, all of whom are going to be responsible for this debt? We are essentially doing everything we do right now--putting it on the credit card and handing the bill to our children and grandchildren--which is to say that the Republicans believe that we ought to do coronavirus relief and help those who need it. I am going to talk in just a moment about all the things that this bill does to help those who really need the help, but it ought to be targeted. It ought to be with some thought toward what is the greatest need? where can we make the biggest difference? where can we help the people who are really struggling and really hurting as a result of the virus, the pandemic? And we ought to do it in a fiscally responsible way. We ought to do it in a realistic way. We ought to have a bill that is, frankly, rooted in reality.

The reason I say that the Democratic bill isn't rooted in reality is because of many of the things that it contained. In fact, there were more mentions of the word ``cannabis'' in the Democratic bill than there were mentions of the word ``jobs''--more mentions of the word ``cannabis,'' a synonym for marijuana, than mentions of the word ``jobs.''

So if you think about that, the 58 mentions in the Democratic $3\1/2\ trillion bill had to do, for example, with diversity training. This was a study that was requested--I shouldn't say ``diversity training'' but a diversity study in the access to financing for people who are in the marijuana business. That was something that was determined a priority and funded in the Democratic-passed bill.

Now, that is just one of many examples of why that bill wasn't taken seriously by anyone. When I say ``anyone,'' I am talking about the New York Times. The New York Times called it a messaging document and not a viable piece of legislation. The New York Times called it a messaging document and not a viable piece of legislation. National Public Radio said that it was a wish list--a Democratic wish list--of favored policies. POLITICO called it a long wish list of Democratic policies. Nobody--nobody took the Democratic bill seriously. When you can't get the New York Times to speak favorably about a Democratic coronavirus relief bill, it tells me that it was completely out of step and out of touch with what is really needed in this country and, certainly, by the people in this country who do want to see us respond but respond in a way--again, as I said--that is targeted and is fiscally responsible and doesn't throw any kind of fiscal caution to the wind, that just throws money out there at a lot of favored pet causes and ideological agenda items on the Democratic wish list. That is essentially what that bill did.

So as we decided to put together a bill, we listened carefully. We listened to small businesses. We listened to healthcare providers. We listened to schools, to school administrators. We listened to those folks who are impacted on a daily basis by the effects of this pandemic and what is really needed, where are those greatest needs, where can we make the biggest difference.

This is, again, the focus of the Republican bill that we will be voting on tomorrow, which, contrary to the assertions that were made by the Democratic leader, does include a lot of bipartisan policy and bipartisan cooperation. Many of the provisions in the bill are provisions that share Democratic cosponsorship. In fact, I would point out that the changes we made to the PPP program--the PPP program, which is an acronym for the Paycheck Protection Program, is one of the most successful of all the programs in the CARES Act that passed earlier this year. It was a very bipartisan effort shared with people like Marco Rubio and Susan Collins on our side and Ben Cardin and Jeanne Shaheen on the Democratic side and others involved in shaping that program, making it effective. Subsequent to that, changes made it work even better, and this will include some changes that we think will make it work even better.

There are some in here that I, frankly, was very supportive of because they will help people who, under the last Paycheck Protection Program, didn't receive help because, for one reason or another, they were excluded from the qualifications to make them eligible for it.

It makes changes in the Paycheck Protection Program, many of which-- again, this is a bipartisan program--will be bipartisan in nature. There were a number of things that the leader mentioned over here this morning earlier when he was on the floor in which he talked about some of the provisions that Senator Alexander had added. There are things in that space that, again, share bipartisan support. So if you look at this bill, in many respects the Democrats are also saying that we need to do more to help our schools open safely, and this legislation does that. There is significant funding in here that actually helps out-- makes sure that our schools, our administrators, our school boards, our students, our parents are assisted in a way that would see that our schools open safely and get our children back to where they can be learning again at the fastest rate possible.

Those are, again, some of the priorities that were in this legislation. I would add, because I think it is really worthwhile noting, that one of the provisions in this bill does take dollars from the CARES Act that have not been spent and, frankly, may not be spent and repurposes them so that the cost of this particular piece of legislation is reduced--something, again, that I think is important. I think it is important to the American people and it is important to our kids and grandkids as we look at the pricetags we have been talking about--the $3 trillion that was done earlier this year, and what we might do here--that we do it in a way that is fiscally responsible, with consideration and an eye toward ensuring that the taxpayers are getting the best return on their dollars and that we are being good stewards of the American tax dollars and spending in a way that makes sense and doesn't just throw money out there, which, again, is what I would argue the $3.5 trillion bill proposed by the House Democrats did--a bill which, again, was roundly denounced not just by Republicans or conservatives but by entities like the New York Times.

I want to speak very briefly about what is happening out there--why I think this bill and this vote is important and why I believe it addresses the real needs, based on the input that we have received from the people out there who have been adversely impacted by this.

The good news is we are hearing continually improving numbers on the economy--as recently as last Friday. The economy added 1.4 million jobs in August, and the unemployment rate fell again to 8.4 percent.

Let me just be clear: 8.4 percent is not where we want to be. But it is a tremendous improvement from where we were just 4 months ago, near the beginning of the pandemic when the unemployment rate was at 14.7 percent. It is very encouraging to see the economy rebounding so quickly.

The last time America went through a really tough time economically-- during the first few years of the Obama-Biden administration-- unemployment stayed high for years. In fact, during the Obama-Biden administration, America went through 2 solid years of unemployment that was above 9 percent.

It has been great to see the economy rebounding at a rapid pace. Again, we are still a long way from where we need to be and where we want to be; 8.4 percent is not an acceptable unemployment rate. But we are definitely on the right track.

One of the reasons our economy is rebounding quickly is that the economy was thriving before COVID came along. Republican tax reform and pro-growth policies had driven unemployment below 4 percent and created jobs and opportunities for millions of Americans. Having the economy in a healthy position pre-COVID laid the groundwork for a strong recovery. The policies we put in place during the early years in the pandemic to help businesses--particularly small businesses--survive the pandemic and keep workers on the payroll have gone a long way toward helping our economy rebound.

Republicans are committed to building on those policies, but as everyone knows, Democrats have so far blocked our efforts. Despite weeks of negotiating efforts from Republicans, Democrats refused to budge from their demands for a giant bill that would spend an irresponsible amount of taxpayer money and include a bunch of measures with no relation to the coronavirus crisis.

This week, Republicans are trying again. We have introduced a targeted bill focused on a few key coronavirus priorities--like helping the hardest hit small businesses, getting kids and college students back to school, and providing additional healthcare resources to fight the virus.

As I mentioned earlier, the Paycheck Protection Program, a program Congress passed as part of the CARES Act back in March, has played a key role in helping small businesses survive the pandemic

The legislation we have introduced would authorize a second round of forgivable Paycheck Protection Program loans for the hardest hit small businesses but would also simplify the loan forgiveness process for small businesses with Paycheck Protection Program loans of $150,000 or less. Again, I would point out that this program, these changes, share bipartisan support.

The virus has highlighted how much we rely on our Nation's farmers and ranchers, and I am pleased our legislation includes an additional $20 billion in funding to allow the Department of Agriculture to continue to assist ag producers--again, a bipartisan priority.

Our legislation would also provide for an additional $300 per week-- over and above unemployment benefits--for those who have lost their jobs as a result of the pandemic.

Our bill contains another important measure to help keep our recovery going and to protect jobs, and that is liability protection.

No matter how many precautions schools, hospitals, and businesses take, there is no way--no way--for them to completely eliminate all risk of employees, students, or customers contracting the virus. But that doesn't matter to the army of trial lawyers itching to levy lawsuits against even the most careful schools and businesses. I don't need to tell anybody that saddling businesses large and small with a bunch of frivolous lawsuits could seriously hamstring our economic recovery.

There is no question that schools and businesses should be liable for gross negligence or for intentional misconduct. But businesses and schools that are taking every reasonable precaution to protect employees and students should not have to worry about facing lawsuits for virus transmission that they could not have prevented.

In addition to providing schools with liability protections, our bill focuses on providing schools with the resources they need to get kids and teachers back in classrooms safely. Our bill would help expand the educational options that parents have for their children. And it would provide increased funding for childcare during this crisis so that parents who are trying to get back to work have a safe place to send their kids.

Finally, our bill would provide more money for coronavirus testing and tracing and for the development of the therapies and vaccines we need to defeat this virus. And it would focus on building up State and national stockpiles of the medical resources needed for public health emergencies like the coronavirus.

I would like to think that Democrats would work with us to get a version of our legislation passed this week. While this bill may not address every current or future coronavirus need, it would go a long way toward helping with our most pressing needs--supporting jobs, getting kids and teachers back to school, and ensuring that we have the medical resources necessary to fight the virus.

Unfortunately, it has become very clear that Democrats are more interested in keeping the coronavirus as a political issue than in actually fighting the virus. If Democrats were serious about coronavirus relief, they would be willing to negotiate with Republicans to arrive at a bill that both sides could agree to and that could actually pass Congress. But they have made it very clear that reasonable negotiations are off the table. Instead, they are content to see Americans suffer or our economic recovery slow in the hopes that they will be able to use the coronavirus as a political issue in the November elections.

It is disappointing, but it is not going to stop Republicans from continuing to try to pass coronavirus relief legislation. The American people are depending on us, and we are going to do everything we can not to let them down.

I hope that at least some Democrats will decide that they should join us.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source