May 20, 2020 - Issue: Vol. 166, No. 95 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 2nd Session

[Pages S2544-S2547]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              CORONAVIRUS

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am here on the floor to talk about how 
Congress can do a better job in responding to the coronavirus pandemic 
that has gripped our country.
  I just thought that debate was great, something we just heard a 
moment ago about what we should do going forward.
  This crisis is unlike anything we have ever seen. I mean, it has 
devastated so many families. It has turned our lives upside down. It 
has put an enormous strain on our healthcare system; and our frontline 
healthcare workers, our researchers, our first responders are working 
around the clock to help patients and look for treatments. For the past 
couple of months, every American has been asked to do his or her part 
through social distancing, through doing smart things like wearing 
masks, like being sure that we are doing all we can within our home, 
within our workplace, and out in public to stop the spread of the 
dangerous virus.
  I think these have helped. I think these measures have made a 
difference, and I think we are in a better place by most metrics on the 
public health danger. I just saw the numbers from Ohio a moment ago 
here, and we have fewer new positive cases today than we have had over 
the past week or the past few weeks on average, and so we are beginning 
to make progress, but it has come at an enormous cost to our economy, 
and I would say even at an enormous cost to our culture and our 
society.
  Since the crisis began a couple of months ago, more than 36 million 
Americans have lost their jobs or filed for unemployment. Some 
estimates show that we could potentially hit a 25-percent unemployment 
rate before this is over. I think we probably will. By the way, that 
would match the worst of our country's unemployment that we have ever 
seen, and that would be during the Great Depression. That is where we 
are headed.
  Some small businesses have had to close their doors; others are 
teetering right on the brink of bankruptcy. Hospitals have been closed 
for needed procedures like mammograms and cancer screenings. More are 
being missed every day, and basic healthcare is at risk. So that is one 
consequence that we don't always focus on, but our healthcare system 
has had to respond to the coronavirus appropriately.
  But there is a balance here, and the result has been we have had 
other healthcare needs that have gone unmet.
  Without that revenue, by the way, from surgeries--so-called elective 
surgeries, although some aren't very elective, like they are necessary 
surgeries for a back or a knee or something like that--many hospitals 
now are in very deep financial trouble because that is how they make 
most of their money.
  Colleges and universities, of course, are losing revenue, and 
children are out of school, which is not a good thing because our kids, 
many of whom are not able to get the same help at home that they can 
get at school are falling behind.
  We have also got to acknowledge the impacts of isolation on people's 
mental health, on substance abuse. I talked to an individual earlier 
today who focuses a lot on human trafficking, an area I have worked a 
lot in, and he is talking about the increase he has seen in domestic 
violence and human trafficking and the calls that have increased, the 
number of suicides.
  This is all troubling. This kind of a crisis, therefore, requires 
swift and decisive action to ensure that we have got the resources and 
the help to be able to respond to both the healthcare crisis, which we 
have to address on the coronavirus front, but also on the economic and 
the broader societal issues we talked about here and how it impacts us 
and the rest of our lives. It is a tough balance.
  I think, for the most part, Congress and the Trump administration 
have done that. They have responded swiftly and correctly with major 
new legislation. We came together here in Congress, on a bipartisan 
basis, to pass legislation already that has addressed the healthcare 
crisis the virus has caused. We have also passed legislation that has 
helped the economic crisis caused by government at all levels 
effectively pumping the brakes on the economy.
  The legislation that has been enacted, of course, isn't perfect. It 
is thousands of pages, and it is now four different bills that have 
been passed already. I think it was necessary for us to act quickly, in 
a unified manner, and on a bipartisan basis to get stuff done around 
here. By the way, that bipartisanship has been a welcome change because 
that is not typical for this place.
  So far, on each of the 4 pieces of legislation we passed to respond 
to the challenges of this pandemic, an average of 500 of the 535 
Members of both the House and Senate have voted in favor of passage. 
That is how bipartisan it has been. Five hundred of the 535, on 
average, have voted yes on these 4 pieces of legislation.
  These are not small bills. Combined, the funds provided by these 
first four rescue packages total about $2.8 trillion. That is $2.8 
trillion--$2,800 billion. Phase 3 of the CARES Act alone--the most 
recent one we passed--is about $2.2 trillion in resources. That is an 
unprecedented amount of spending. It has never been done before. It has 
certainly never been done in such a short period of time.
  Now Congress is talking about a fifth rescue package. The fifth 
rescue package that is being talked about--it has already passed the 
House of Representatives. It is being talked about even though--and 
this might surprise you--only about half of the $2.8 trillion in the 
first four packages has actually been disbursed. Think about that. Only 
about half of the money in the first four legislative projects that we 
have undertaken here has actually gone out the door to the intended 
recipients. Yet we are talking about another package.
  For example, the Paycheck Protection Program to help small businesses 
stay afloat still has about 25 percent of its original capacity that 
hasn't gone out, about $160 billion. Well below half

[[Page S2545]]

of the funding--the $175 billion that Congress provided to hospitals 
has yet to be sent out under the Provider Relief Fund. Less than half 
of the healthcare dollars have even gone out the door.
  Of the roughly $450 billion that the CARES Act gave to Treasury to 
unlock the Federal Reserve lending facilities, less than $40 billion of 
that has been operational. That is right--less than 10 percent of the 
money designated to provide direct lending to businesses of all sizes 
so they can stay in business and hire people has been sent out.
  So even though about half the money from the CARES Act hasn't even 
been spent--and we still don't have a good handle, of course, on how 
the money that has been sent out is being spent--Democrats in the House 
have gone ahead and passed a new rescue package.
  In many respects, it is a wish list of Democratic priorities that has 
been talked about here on the floor. Some are related to the 
coronavirus, and some are not. It passed by a near-party line vote. I 
think one Republican voted yes and more than a dozen Democrats--more 
moderate Democrats--voted no. Again, this is a $3 trillion package--
$3,000 billion. That is more than the total spending of all four of the 
previous coronavirus bills. So all four of the previous combined are 
less than the spending that the House is recommending for the fifth 
coronavirus bill.
  It is actually also a lot more money than Congress would normally 
appropriate in an entire fiscal year. It is about half of what we just 
appropriated from the fiscal year we are in, in one bill--in one bill. 
I am sorry; it is twice as much as Congress appropriated for the 
current 12-month period we are in. So the appropriations for this 
fiscal year, 2020, are less than half of what the House is now 
proposing to spend in one bill.
  I think, you know, we have to be very cautious, and we have to be 
sure it is the right amount of money going out because it is a huge and 
unprecedented spending package. Our annual deficit here in the Congress 
is already projected to be over $1 trillion. We were already running a 
large deficit.
  By the way, it has only been at that level four times in the history 
of our country. So the $1 trillion was already viewed by many of us, 
including me, to be an unacceptably high number for our annual deficit. 
Now the estimate is that this year's annual deficit will be between 
$3.7 trillion and $4.2 trillion--mind-boggling. We have just never had 
deficits like these before. Of course, that adds to the $23 trillion 
national debt, which is already at record levels.
  We are entering dangerous, unchartered waters here from a fiscal 
point of view. Most economists agree that this increases the chance of 
a fiscal and therefore a financial crisis that would follow.
  Of course, we have to respond to this immediate crisis. Again, I 
voted for the first four bills. I believe it was necessary to act and 
act quickly, but I also believe there are real limits as to how much 
financial risk we should take beyond the, again, $2.8 trillion we have 
already spent in the first four bills. We have to be sure, at a 
minimum, that every new dollar is spent as wisely as possible, so it is 
as targeted as possible.
  Even overlooking the massive $3 trillion price tag, by the way, the 
House bill also focuses on some things that just seem unrelated to this 
crisis. For example, the House spends $136 billion on repealing the cap 
on the State and local tax deduction. There is a deduction, but it is 
capped right now.
  By the way, this $136 billion policy they have in their bill would 
deliver half of its benefits--50 percent of its tax benefits to the top 
1 percent of taxpayers. Tell me how that is related to the coronavirus. 
To put that in some context, we can use that same amount of money--the 
$136 billion--to provide almost 2 million more PPP loans to small 
businesses that need it most: movie theaters, bowling alleys, 
restaurants, bars.
  There are also provisions that would force States to adopt broad 
changes in their election laws regardless of whether they want to. 
Election law has always been in the province of the States, but that is 
in this legislation.
  They also want to raise taxes on employers. Bad time to raise taxes. 
We want employers to stay in business because they are the ones who 
create the jobs.
  They also want to help cannabis growers, which I think is 
interesting. Cannabis is mentioned dozens of times in the legislation.
  They also want $50 million, as an example, for environmental justice 
grants. What does that have to do with the coronavirus
  Once more of the existing funds are delivered--in other words, as I 
said earlier, of the first four bills, only about half of it has even 
gone to the intended recipients. Once more of these existing funds are 
delivered and we know more about what is working, what is not working, 
and where the needs are, I suspect more funds will be needed. They will 
probably be needed for the healthcare side of this--for testing, as an 
example--and that is probably money well spent.
  There probably needs to be more flexibility, as the Senator from 
Louisiana just talked about. I believe there does need to be more 
flexibility. I also believe we need to find out, once the money goes to 
the local communities, what their budgets look like. Do they need more 
money to be able to continue to provide police protection, 
firefighters' salaries, and EMS services? We don't know that yet. How 
can we know it when the money hasn't even gone down yet? In Ohio, not 
one penny is gone except for the amount that went directly to the 
largest five counties and the one large city. But the part that went to 
the State hasn't even gone down to the local communities, and that is 
happening all over the country.
  We need more information to be able to know how much of this new 
spending is necessary. But again, even with all the new spending, this 
new $3 trillion House bill does very little to do something else really 
important in the next bill, which is help get the economy moving. 
Again, it raises taxes on businesses. It does some other things that 
have nothing to do with the coronavirus. What it doesn't do is it 
doesn't provide the stimulus you would hope would be in the next bill 
we are going to pass because that is what everybody is looking for 
right now. How do you do something here in Washington to make it easier 
to create jobs, make it easier to invest, make it easier for small 
businesses to get back on their feet?
  Much of what we did in the first four bills was really a rescue 
package, and it was necessary. People had lost their jobs for no reason 
that they could do anything about. It wasn't their fault--36 million 
Americans. We had to do something to shore that up--the direct 
payments, unemployment insurance, and other things. We had to help 
small businesses with the PPP program to ensure they weren't going to 
close their doors, some forever.
  Those were more rescue packages to get us through the storm, to 
weather the storm. Now we have to figure out how we do something to 
actually get this economy moving. That ought to be the goal because 
there is a limit to how much Federal tax dollars can be relied on to 
subsidize the economy. The better way is to get the economy moving, get 
revenues flowing again, and reopen, therefore, our hospitals and 
schools. Hospitals can get more revenue if they can reopen and do more 
procedures, and they can keep from either shutting their doors or 
relying on the Federal taxpayer for more and more subsidies. Getting 
back to work is critical, and we have to do it in a safe way, and we 
can.
  We have to use social distancing smart practices. We have to be sure 
we have the testing. I agree with all that. But any new legislation 
that Congress considers has to include measures that are going to help 
get people back into the workforce safely and get this economy moving 
again. I think that should include some tax incentives for investment 
and jobs. I think it should include some targeted infrastructure 
investments to create good jobs and also economic benefits that come 
from the right kind of infrastructure.
  I think one place to start is Federal highway projects. We need to 
pass that bill around here. Also, there are a bunch of State highway 
projects that would normally be funded by the State gas tax. Because we 
aren't driving nearly as much, the State gas tax has plummeted. In the 
State of Ohio, for instance, there are a lot of great

[[Page S2546]]

projects out there that have gone through all the process. They have 
been vetted, and they have gone through a merit-based process. They are 
ready to go. In other words, they are shovel-ready. Yet the State is 
not going to have enough money to pay for them.
  So rather than sending the money to the States, how about sending 
some money directly to these infrastructure projects? Good jobs. 
Economic benefits. The analysis is, in the right kind of infrastructure 
investments, you spend a dollar and you get back more than a dollar in 
terms of revenue from the economic benefit. That is the sort of thing I 
think should be in this next package to help get the economy back on 
its feet.
  Right now, I am told by small businesses that one of the biggest 
barriers to getting the economy going is the unemployment insurance 
provisions that were passed as part of the CARES Act back in March. 
This is what I am hearing from small business owners all around Ohio--
that the additional unemployment insurance benefits in the CARES Act, 
which allow individuals at or below the average income to receive more 
in unemployment than they could get at work, is a disincentive to work
  Of course, again, we needed to act to make sure people who lost their 
jobs through no fault of they own could get by while government at 
every level effectively pumped the brakes on the economy to better 
withstand the health crisis. In other words, people lost their jobs 
because the government said: You can't go to work.
  At the same time, it was not the best solution to provide a flat $600 
increase in benefits to everybody, which is on top of the State 
unemployment insurance benefits, and that is what we did. That was the 
proposal here that was passed. That continues, by the way, until July 
31.
  Wage replacement for people making at or below the average income 
level would have been a good and generous approach--in other words, 
saying: If you make up to whatever the wage average is in your State--
$52,000 a year, $48,000 a year, or $58,000 a year--you get full wage 
replacement. But that is not what this is. The $600 on top of the State 
benefit, which is, on average, $360 probably, puts you up near $1,000 a 
week. That is more than wage replacement for people who make less than 
the average wage.
  Regardless of how you feel about the $600-per-week Federal increase, 
we are in a very different situation now than we were 2 months ago when 
we passed it. Back then, remember, we were encouraging people to stay 
home and not to go to work because that was the time period when we 
were shutting things down and we were giving stay-at-home orders. So it 
made much more sense to have an unemployment insurance system that 
actually would encourage people to stay home. Now we are reopening all 
around the country, and, small business people are telling me: I would 
like to get started again, but I can't get the employees.
  Some say: Well, you can go to that unemployment insurance office and 
say ``I have a job,'' and then, under the State's rules, they have to 
tell these people ``You are no longer under UI, and you have to go back 
to work.'' That is true, but, one, the unemployment insurance systems 
are overwhelmed. They tell me that really is not something they have 
the capability of doing right now. They are overwhelmed. They have 
never seen these kinds of numbers ever.
  Secondly, a lot of employers don't want to do that, and I get it. 
Their employees are making a lot more money, in some cases, on 
unemployment insurance than they can in their place of business, and 
they are just hesitant to tell them to come back and make less money. I 
do think there is a role for us to help make that happen and do it in a 
smart way.
  Things are different in other respects too. Not only is the economy 
starting to reopen around the country, but it is being done in a much 
safer manner. Why? Because we have a lot more testing, and that is 
good.
  We need to do a lot more, by the way. Ohio has gone from about 3,700 
tests per day a few weeks ago to over 10,000 tests a day now. Soon it 
will be over 20,000 tests a day in a couple of weeks, they say. That is 
good.
  We also have more PPE, personal protective gear, and that is 
important because if you reopen--say you run a factory. You want people 
to have the protective gear they need to keep them safe.
  Also, we finally have some anti-viral medications coming online, 
thank goodness. Remdesivir is the first one approved by the FDA. It is 
now in Ohio, my own State, and other States. People are using it. That 
is great. That gives people more comfort in being able to go back to 
work more safely.
  It is time to start to transition from thinking about helping people 
get by and helping to encourage them to stay home through unemployment 
to thinking about how we can get people back into the workforce safely 
so we can get this economy, our small businesses, our hospitals, our 
colleges and universities, back on track.
  We should also want to help people get back to work because that is 
good for everybody. It is where most people get their healthcare--from 
work, from their employer. We want to get them back to that. It is 
where most people get their retirement, their 401(k). Not everybody 
offers it, but if you have one, you are probably getting it from work.
  It is good to get people back to work and connected with their 
benefits. It is also good to get people returning to a safe workplace 
because that is what most people want to do. They want to go back to 
work. They don't want to stay on unemployment insurance. Yes, it pays 
more for many Americans, but they would rather be at work. The dignity 
and self-respect for work is real. It gives meaning to your life.
  I think we need to take a hard look at this flat $600 increase in the 
unemployment benefits and ask ourselves whether it is really in the 
best interest of those workers, of our businesses. Is it really the 
best system to have it in place when we are trying to get people to get 
back to work? Again, this additional $600 benefit on top of the $360 
average the States have means that unless you are making more than 
$50,000--or in some States, $60,000 a year--it is more advantageous to 
be on unemployment insurance than to go back to work.
  A recent study by the American Action Forum and the University of 
Chicago says that between 60 and 70 percent of individuals on 
unemployment are making more than they did in their prior job--60 to 70 
percent. Further, for about 20 percent of wage earners, they say, on 
average, they are making double on unemployment insurance what they 
made in the workforce. So they say that for the bottom 20 percent of 
wage earners, on average, they are making double on unemployment 
insurance.
  Again, people needed the help. They needed direct payments, and they 
needed the UI help. A lot of people lost their jobs and had no income 
coming in just to put food on the table, pay the rent, and pay their 
car payment. Some people used this UI, even though it was more than 
they were making before, to help with healthcare. That is important. 
But isn't the best thing to do is to get people back to work?
  We need to continue to help people during this time who have lost 
their jobs, no question. Not every business is ready to reopen, by the 
way, and the employees who had to be let go by some businesses 
certainly shouldn't be punished for that.
  At the same time, we have to ask ourselves whether there is a way we 
can combine that need with the need to actually get people back to work 
as we reopen. I think there is. Specifically, I would propose that 
instead of keeping in place the additional $600 of the Federal benefit 
for people on unemployment between now and July 31, let's shift some of 
those Federal dollars to a back-to-work bonus--a program where you let 
people take some of that $600 with them to work. I propose $450 a week. 
Others have different numbers, probably. They think that is too much, 
or they think it is too little. I chose $450 per week because that 
represents the amount that would be needed to make a person making the 
average minimum wage better off in the workforce than on unemployment. 
When you take the minimum wages around the country, on average, you 
take $450 a week with you to work. That means that you would be making 
a little bit more in the workforce than you would be on unemployment.

[[Page S2547]]

  What is more, this return-to-work bonus would put additional cash in 
the hands of individuals who lost their jobs due to the health crisis, 
which would provide additional stimulus to the economy, which is 
experiencing historic declines in consumer spending. This incentive for 
people to get back into the workforce to get our economy running again 
is exactly the kind of policy we should all want. Instead, I will tell 
you that as for the $3 trillion House bill we talked about earlier, all 
it does is to propose extending the $600 per month from the end of its 
expiration at the end of July into the beginning of next year.

  We talked earlier about how the next package--whatever it is--ought 
to encourage the economy to get moving again, right? The House bill 
doesn't do that in a lot of respects we talked about. But, 
specifically, on unemployment insurance, what it says is, let's 
continue this policy of making it harder for people to get back to 
work. It will ensure that that 60 or 70 percent of the workforce that 
the study showed are making more on unemployment insurance would be 
better off staying on the unemployment rolls.
  By the way, it is also another $300 billion of taxpayer spending in 
this $3 trillion bill. I don't think it is going to move our country 
forward. It is going to make it even harder to get back on track.
  By the way, our back-to-work bonus also benefits taxpayers. So 
instead of $300 billion in additional funding that is going to go into 
the House bill for unemployment insurance, if we assume that States 
would have trouble enforcing their UI laws, which we talked about 
earlier, and that individuals would choose unemployment over returning 
to work, even if 25 percent of those who were on unemployment insurance 
today chose to take advantage of this $450 bonus--and I think a lot 
will; I think a lot more than that will, but let's be conservative, and 
let's say that just 25 percent take advantage of it--that will result 
in tens of billions of dollars of savings to the taxpayer.
  Think about it. For the State, they will not have the unemployment 
insurance benefit that they are providing because the person will be at 
work. That is good. And for the Federal Government, the $600 is reduced 
to $450. So that enables savings to the taxpayer. It enables people to 
get back to work. It allows our small businesses to be able to reopen.
  It is a solution that I think Republicans and Democrats alike can get 
behind. Let's continue to help the people who can't return to the 
workplace through no fault of their own, but let's also remember that 
the American people right now are looking to us here in Congress to 
come together on a bipartisan basis to put in place policies that will 
actually help move us forward in this crisis, get back to normalcy, get 
back to work safely, and get our economy back on the historically 
strong footing it had here only a few months ago.
  Back in February, we had the 19th straight month of wage increases of 
over 3 percent, most of which was going to lower income and middle-
income workers. We had unemployment tied with the 50-year low. 
Unemployment was low then. It is incredibly high now.
  To get back to that, we have to put some more policies in place, and 
I believe the back-to-work bonus is exactly that. It will not solve 
everything, but it will help people get back into jobs, and it will 
send a clear message that Congress is looking forward and providing a 
positive path forward for workers, for small businesses, and for 
taxpayers.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor

                          ____________________