September 10, 2020 - Issue: Vol. 166, No. 156 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 2nd Session

[Pages S5527-S5529]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Coronavirus

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, once again this week, Republicans are 
bringing forward a proposal to provide additional coronavirus relief to 
help protect jobs, to get kids and teachers back in the classroom 
safely, and to provide funding for the treatments and vaccines we need 
to defeat this virus, and once again, Democrats are objecting. It is 
the same old song: Republicans' bill doesn't spend enough. Well, let's 
talk about that for a minute.
  First of all, Republicans are not claiming that the bill we put on 
the floor this week contains the last dollars we will need to spend in 
response to the coronavirus. We may need to spend more. This bill is 
simply an attempt to direct relief funds to some of the biggest 
priorities right now, like helping the hardest hit small businesses 
weather this crisis and providing more resources for testing, 
treatment, and vaccines. These are areas we should all agree on.
  Second of all, Democrats' coronavirus proposal--the $3 trillion bill 
they proposed--is both unrealistic and irresponsible.
  Our Nation is deeply, deeply in debt right now. Next year, our 
country will owe more than we produce for the first time since the end 
of World War II. That is a very bad place to be. That is getting toward 
the kind of debt-to-GDP ratio that helped bring about financial 
disaster in Greece. While the United States is not Greece, if we grow 
our debt enough, what happened to the Greek economy could happen here.
  Being the United States of America does not exempt us from financial 
realities. In times of crisis, sometimes you have to borrow money, and 
that is what we had to do earlier this year with the CARES Act and 
other coronavirus relief legislation. But we have an absolute 
responsibility to every American, to every hard-working individual in 
this country to ensure that we are only borrowing what is absolutely 
necessary.
  Democrats' proposal doesn't even come close to meeting the definition 
of ``necessary spending.'' To give just one example, Democrats have 
proposed appropriating a staggering $1 trillion for States even though 
the States still--still--haven't spent the money we provided for them 
in the original CARES Act. Now, it is certainly possible that at some 
point, we will have to provide some kind of additional assistance to 
States, but to create a trillion-dollar slush fund for States before 
they have even spent the money they have already been given would be an 
incredibly irresponsible use of taxpayer dollars. At least some of that 
money could be used for coronavirus relief.
  Other money in the Democrats' bill would go to measures that have 
nothing--absolutely nothing--to do with the virus, things like 
diversity studies in the cannabis industry, a soil health study, 
federalizing elections, and tax cuts for millionaires in States like 
New York and California.
  One of the biggest priorities in the wake of the coronavirus is 
helping Americans keep their jobs or to find new ones. It should be 
front and center in any relief bill. Yet Democrats' massive bill--over 
$3 trillion in the Democrats' bill--manages to mention the word 
``cannabis'' more often than the word ``job.'' Diversity studies for 
marijuana are more important, evidently, than jobs--at least if you 
look at the Democrats' bill. That should tell you all you need to know 
about the seriousness of the Democrats' proposal. I would love for the 
Democratic leader to come down to the floor and explain how a bill that 
mentions the word ``cannabis'' more often than the word ``job'' is a 
serious coronavirus bill.
  Of course, despite the unseriousness of the Democrats' proposal, 
Republicans have been willing to compromise on a coronavirus bill from 
the very beginning. We understand how negotiation works, and we knew 
that we would have to give some ground and that Democrats would have to 
give some ground. We were and are willing to do just that. But from the 
beginning, Democrats have rejected serious negotiation. Sure, they sat 
in meetings, and they talked about a bill, but at the end of the day, 
Democrats refused to compromise. It was their bill or no bill, which 
means that so far, they have chosen no bill.
  The only way to get a bill through the Senate and to the President's 
desk is to develop a compromise bill. Even if the majority leader puts 
Democrats' exact bill on the floor today, there is no way--no way--it 
would make it through the Senate, much less be signed into law by the 
President. So if the Democrats really want a bill, they are going to 
have to compromise, and that is something they have continued to refuse 
to do, which leads to the logical conclusion that Democrats don't want 
a bill at all.
  If Democrats really wanted to get relief to Americans, they would 
work with Republicans to pass a compromise bill even if it didn't 
contain all the money Democrats want, because even if it were true that 
the Republican legislation is inadequate, some money is better than no 
money. If you can't get someone in need all the money you think they 
should have, you should get them what money you can.
  If Democrats really thought it was of overwhelming importance that we 
deliver relief to Americans right now, they would be working with 
Republicans to get as much relief as they could through Congress. But, 
for Democrats, delivering relief to Americans is not really of 
overwhelming importance. What is of overwhelming importance to 
Democrats is keeping coronavirus alive as a political issue, and if 
that means no bill, well then Democrats are OK with that. They would 
rather have no bill, zero funding, and a political weapon than to have 
a bill and allow Republicans to say that we helped Americans. So all 
indications are that when we have a vote later today, they plan to 
filibuster this bill.
  This is not the first time we have seen this. Think back to the end 
of June. In the wake of George Floyd's death at the knee of a police 
officer, Americans of all parties came together to push for police 
reform. Republicans put a police reform bill on the floor of the Senate 
for debate and amendment--a substantial bill that included 75 to 80 
percent of what both Democrats and Republicans said they wanted, the 
product of years of research and work by Senator Tim Scott, who has 
personal experience on this issue.
  And Democrats? Well, Democrats filibustered. That is right. In the 
face of a nationwide call for police reform legislation, Democrats 
refused to even move forward to debate the legislation. Why? Because 
agreeing to work with Republicans on legislation would have taken away 
much of Democrats' ability to exploit police reform as a political 
issue. So Democrats filibustered even though, remarkably, they were 
offered by Senator Scott and other supporters

[[Page S5528]]

of the bill numerous amendments--10 amendments, 20 amendments--votes, 
opportunities to improve the bill--at least improve the bill in their 
eyes into a form that they could pass it.
  It is hard not to wonder if some of the violence that we have seen in 
our cities across the country in recent months could have been avoided 
if Democrats had not decided to attempt to exploit this issue for 
political gain.
  There is not a lot Republicans can do if Democrats intend to keep 
prioritizing perceived political advantage over doing their jobs as 
legislators, but we are going to take this vote on the coronavirus 
relief bill this week, today, and we are going to keep offering 
opportunities for Democrats to work with Republicans to help the 
American people.
  Maybe some of the Democratic rank and file will decide that they have 
had enough of their leaders playing politics and will work with us to 
resolve and to get some things done for the American people.
  Republicans are ready to negotiate. We just need Democrats to come to 
the table.
  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. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, today the Senate will take a rather 
pointless vote on the latest highly partisan, Republican, emaciated 
COVID relief bill.
  Now, the Republican leader keeps claiming that his bill is an attempt 
at a bipartisan solution, but of course the bill was drafted solely by 
Republicans--no input from Democrats--and rushed to the floor.
  Mr. Leader, go look up in the dictionary what bipartisanship is. It 
is both parties working together, not your party doing a bill and then 
saying it is bipartisan.
  What the Republican leader has done is no one's idea of 
bipartisanship, not even his own Members'.
  Let's go over history. He has done this trick before: COVID 2, COVID 
3, COVID 3.5. In each case, Republicans came out--the leader came out 
saying he did his own bill, saying: This is the only bill that will 
pass. Democrats are blocking it.
  Democrats held strong, and what happened? We got much better bills 
with many of the things we wanted. We got truly bipartisan bills once 
the leader determined that he had to negotiate with Democrats to pass 
something. That will happen again. There is a decent chance that will 
happen again. But this bill is not going to happen because it is so 
emaciated, so filled with poison pills, so partisanly designed--it was 
designed to fail.
  Now, the Republican leader claims the vote this week will expose 
Democratic obstruction and delay--another one of these ``Alice in 
Wonderland"-type statements--but, of course, Democrats weren't the ones 
who said: Let's put the Senate on pause. Who said that? Democrats 
didn't say: Let's wait and see. Who said that? Democrats didn't delay 
for 4 months while the Nation suffered. In fact, the House passed a 
bill with the broad support of Senate Democrats.
  So while the President was lying to the American people about the 
coronavirus, Senate Republicans were following suit in spirit. The 
Republican leader himself talked about the lack of urgency in his 
caucus to address the problem. So the idea that Democrats, who passed a 
comprehensive relief package through the House nearly 4 months ago, are 
the cause of delay and obstruction is ridiculous. It has been the 
Republicans all along. The record shows it.
  From the beginning, from way back in March after the CARES Act 
passed, Democrats have insisted on continuing a program of assistance 
to the American people. We proposed legislation to give hazard pay to 
essential workers, rental assistance, housing assistance, nutrition 
assistance, legislation to extend the enhanced unemployment benefits 
that kept nearly 12 million Americans out of poverty, money for rural 
broadband, money to help our restaurants and our hotels. We have 
proposed many different things, none of which are in the Republican 
bill.
  House Democrats passed the Heroes Act through their Chamber. So far, 
it is the only major COVID relief bill since the CARES Act to pass 
either Chamber of Congress. Meanwhile, as the spring turned into summer 
and as summer approached fall, Republicans dithered and delayed. They 
pushed their chips in with President Trump's lie and hoped the virus 
would miraculously disappear and everything would be all better. Rather 
than use the power of the Federal Government to help our citizens 
during a once-in-a-lifetime crisis, Senate Republicans closed their 
eyes and crossed their fingers, hoping they wouldn't have to do 
anything. Sound familiar? It is just what President Trump tried to do 
as well.
  Here now, in September, Republicans finally felt the public pressure 
to support a bill, but instead of working with Democrats on something 
that could pass, our friends on the other side tried to find the bare 
minimum that Senate Republicans could support. They had 20 Republican 
Senators--in the words of the leader--who wanted to spend no money. The 
greatest economic crisis since the Depression, the greatest health 
crisis since the Spanish flu just about a century ago, and 20 
Republicans want to spend nothing. They are the tail wagging the 
Republican dog.
  So the Republican leader didn't know what to do. He proposed a meager 
bill, a skinny bill of $1 trillion, but even that wasn't good enough 
for the hard right--the large hard right--in his caucus. So he put 
together, with spit and polish, an emaciated bill that hardly does a 
thing--that leaves out so many Americans, it doesn't come close to 
meeting the moment--so he might say he might be able to bring something 
on the floor with a modicum of support in his caucus.
  It is insufficient. It is completely inadequate. It does not help 
renters keep a roof over their heads or American families put food on 
the table. It shortchanges healthcare and education. It does not 
provide a dime to protect essential State and local services. It is 
laden with poison pills, provisions our colleagues know Democrats would 
never support, to guarantee the bill's failure.
  The truth is, the Republicans and the Republican leader don't want to 
pass a bill. Too many on the hard right--in the Senate and outside it--
would be angry if they actually put together a bill that could pass.
  So Leader McConnell, this morning, demanded that Democrats name 
exactly what we oppose in their bill, like it was some kind of 
challenge. How about the broad immunity provisions? From the day he 
announced them, he knew that it wouldn't get Democratic support. How 
about the Betsy DeVos school choice plan that would funnel money into 
private schools while he neglected the real needs of our public 
schools? Of course Democrats would oppose that. He knew that. He knows 
that.
  The truth is, this emaciated bill is not a serious attempt at 
legislation or solving the real problems in our country. It is a shame. 
It is one of the most cynical moves I have seen, a fairly transparent 
attempt to show that the Republicans are doing something, when, in 
fact, they want to do nothing, in reality.
  We are in the middle of a pandemic, historic unemployment, industries 
struggling from one end of America to the other, and Leader McConnell 
isn't searching for bipartisan progress; he seems to be looking for 
political cover. Once this bill goes down, we will be right where we 
started at the start of the week: waiting for our Republican colleagues 
to wake up to the size of the crisis in our country and work with us on 
a bill that actually makes sense.
  We want to work on a bipartisan bill. The Speaker and I have come 
down $1 trillion off our initial request, which was based on the real 
needs of the American people during this pandemic crisis. Our 
Republican colleagues--both the President's minions and the Republican 
Senate--have refused to budge.
  I still have some hope, once this bill is defeated. If past is 
prologue, there is actually a significant chance that the public heat 
on many Republican Senators, as they go back home, will have them come 
to their senses and they will start negotiating with us in a serious 
way. That happened on COVID 2. It

[[Page S5529]]

happened on COVID 3. It happened on COVID 3.5. I pray and plead, for 
the sake of our country and the people who are suffering, that it will 
happen again and that Republicans, once they see they can't pass this 
emaciated, terribly insufficient, and poison-pill-pocked proposal, will 
start negotiating in reality with us--something they have not done as 
of yet