September 23, 2020 - Issue: Vol. 166, No. 165 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 2nd Session

[Pages S5803-S5805]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Coronavirus

  Mr. President, on a completely different subject--but related--we 
have lost 200,000 Americans to coronavirus. The predictions are that by 
election day there could be 300,000 deaths and by the first of next 
year, 400,000 deaths.
  My heart goes out to the families affected. I listened as 
spokespeople for the administration talked about the wonderful job that 
they have done in defending America from the coronavirus. The numbers 
don't back them up at all.
  The United States of America has 4.5 percent of the global 
population, and yet as of this morning, we have 20 percent of the 
COVID-19 deaths in the world--4.5 percent of the population, 20 percent 
of the COVID-19 deaths. This great and powerful Nation, with the best 
doctors and hospitals and researchers and pharmaceutical companies in 
the world, has one of the worst records in fighting this virus in the 
world. It is sad to think that you are five times more likely to be 
infected by COVID-19 in the United States than if you were living in 
Germany; twice as likely to be infected by COVID-19 in the United 
States than if you were living in Canada. Canada, just across the 
border, has an infection rate half of what the United States has. What 
is it that they did that we didn't do?
  Well, they came together as a nation with a national policy, and it 
worked. We didn't. This President basically said to the Governors: You 
are on your own. As a consequence, there was a mad scramble to get 
protective equipment. There was a mad scramble for ventilators. It was 
a free-for-all when it should have been a coordinated national policy.
  Then, when the public health experts told us the obvious, that we 
ought to use these masks, and we should practice social distancing, 
washing our hands, and avoiding crowds, the President of the United 
States said just the opposite. One day he wore a mask--I saw on 
television--when he visited a veterans hospital. I don't know if he has 
ever worn one before or since. When the message from the public health 
experts who insisted that it was the best way to break the back of this 
pandemic, this President mocked them by holding rallies across the 
United States with all of his loyal fans pointedly not wearing masks to 
show they really didn't care--didn't care about any of the public 
health advice, and we are paying the price for it.
  More people are infected in this country than Canada. We have double 
the rate here over Canada, five times the rate over Germany. So many 
more have died in this country who should be living today. The 
President, at various times, has said, when asked about the deaths: 
``It is what it is.'' That is an off-the-cuff dismissal of the issue, 
which is beneath the dignity of any leader of either political party.
  Despite the urgent needs of families, businesses, workers, and 
unemployed Americans across the country, we haven't followed through on 
the original CARES Act, which passed in this Chamber on March 26. It 
was that date, by a vote of 96 to 0, that Republicans and Democrats 
said: We take this seriously, March 26, and we are going to

[[Page S5804]]

dedicate $3 trillion to make sure that we fight this virus and that we 
do everything in our power to cushion the shock of the economic impact 
of this virus on America.
  I went home after that, and people said: I can't believe 96 to 
nothing. Democrats and Republicans agreed? Well, we did. There were 
some proposals in there that were brandnew, such as the Paycheck 
Protection Program that Senators Rubio and Cardin constructed. I think 
I have been told they spent perhaps 2 weeks in writing this important 
program. Was it perfect? By no means. We realized, after a few weeks, 
it needed to be changed, and we changed it several times, but the 
concept was sound to give money to small businesses so they could keep 
people on the payroll, pay the mortgage, pay the rent, pay the 
utilities. These are the fundamentals that a business needed so that it 
might reopen and put people back to work. It was a great program. It 
should be extended even further. I think there should be a second 
round.
  I also think there should be a second round when it comes to 
unemployment benefits. The $600 a week, which we provided--which is 
incidentally subject to taxation, people should remember--but the $600 
a week which we provided over and above State benefits made a dramatic 
difference in the lives of Americans. Critics from the outset said: It 
is going to make people lazy. Folks will just sit at home watching 
Netflix and eating bonbons.
  I don't believe that. In fact, when you look at the reality of the 
situation, 70 percent of the people who have gone back to work in 
America--70 percent of them--were earning less money at work then they 
did with unemployment benefits, and yet they went back to work. Why 
would they do that if it were just about whether you are going to 
be lazy or thrifty? It is because they want to be back to work for the 
benefits, to do the work that they do and enjoy doing, and they knew 
that unemployment was a temporary thing, as it should be, as people had 
an opportunity to return.

  So that expired July 31. The President has tried to extend it by 
Executive order. There is question as to whether he has the authority 
to do that. The President is also trying to do something which I still 
don't understand how to explain to anyone when it comes to payroll tax. 
He is allowing employers to decide whether to suspend collection of the 
payroll tax to a later date. If that tax on your income of 6 percent or 
7 percent is suspended, but yet you have to pay it all back at the 
beginning of the year, are Americans prepared to have a double taxation 
from their payroll check after the first of the year? In the meantime, 
that payroll tax is supposed to be used to fund Social Security and 
Medicare. If the President is not funding Social Security and Medicare, 
what does that do to the solvency and longevity of those programs? It 
raises a question as to whether they are going to be hurt by this 
temporary measure. It is a very confusing proposal by the President, 
but he has put it on the table, and we are now trying to sort out the 
impact it is going to have.
  We need to do more. We shouldn't go home for this election empty 
handed when it comes to helping the families and businesses across 
America, and we need to start to help State and local governments.
  My State of Illinois has problems--plenty of them. When it comes to 
pensions, for example, just like Kentucky, we have problems funding our 
pensions in Illinois. But we have a second set of problems created by 
the pandemic--the downturn in revenue which is going to have a dramatic 
impact on State budgets in Illinois and other States. If we don't help 
these State and local governments get through this problem, they have 
no choice but to layoff important, vital employees--law enforcement, 
firefighters, healthcare--just to name a few.
  When people talk about defunding the police, I am afraid that if we 
don't give a helping hand to State and local governments, we are 
actually going to see the defunding of some law enforcement across this 
country. That is why those on this side of the aisle have been pushing 
for State and local assistance as part of any package of relief that we 
pass.
  The majority leader knows this needs to be done. The playbook was 
right in front of him for another relief bill. We did it back in March 
with the CARES Act. To negotiate a real package with real solutions for 
the American people, the majority leader needs to show up at the 
negotiating table. It is impossible to explain why Senator McConnell 
boycotted the negotiation sessions between the White House and the 
Democratic leaders in Congress. There was an empty chair waiting for 
him, but he never filled it.
  I am introducing legislation this week to help workers who have been 
furloughed or laid off through the pandemic from losing their health 
insurance. I can't imagine a worse situation than in the midst of a 
public health crisis to lose your health insurance coverage.
  If you have been laid off, your options are a few--but only a few. 
You may qualify for Medicaid. It is possible. You might go to the 
Affordable Care Act and go on the exchange and find an insurance policy 
that works for you and your family. There is also an option called 
COBRA, where you would take the health insurance offered in your 
workplace and decide to keep it but pay the employer's share as well as 
the employee's share on premiums. The problem, of course, is that it is 
very expensive.
  On average, COBRA costs $600 a month to keep the health insurance you 
had at work for an individual, $1,700 a month for a family. Six hundred 
dollars a week sounds like a lot of money--times 4 weeks, $2,400. But 
if $1,700 a month is going just to maintain your health insurance from 
where you worked, you can see there is virtually no benefit. It is 
estimated that 23 million workers can lose health coverage during the 
course of this pandemic. That happens to just about mirror the number 
who were given health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. Now they 
stand to lose--at least the same number stand to lose their health 
insurance because of the pandemic. Are we going to sit still for this 
or are we going to help these families?
  My bill, which I will be introducing with Senator Cortez Masto and 
others, will fully cover the cost of COBRA, enabling newly unemployed 
Americans to keep their healthcare coverage during this difficult time. 
The legislation mirrors what passed in the Heroes Act in the House in 
May--in May, 4 months ago--and it is vital to help those whose jobs 
have been taken away by the pandemic. We have waited 4 months to do 
something here in the Senate, and we have done nothing.
  So McConnell brought a bill up 2 weeks ago that is so thin and so 
wanting that it really didn't address the problems that this Nation 
faces
  There is a new report from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation that 
half of Chicago households report having lost their jobs. Some of those 
who lost their job are head of household, have been furloughed or are 
seeing reductions in wages or hours since the start of the pandemic. 
Half--half--of Chicago's households reported facing serious financial 
problems during the pandemic and have trouble caring for their 
children. Thirty-five percent reported that they used up all or most of 
their savings. This is a terrible situation--a challenging situation. 
We owe it to this country and the people we represent not to ignore it.
  As we know, the pandemic has disproportionately affected our minority 
communities, with nearly 70 percent of Black families and 63 percent of 
Latinx families in Chicago reporting they are having serious financial 
problems--70 percent of Black families, 63 percent of Latinx families.
  While those statistics reflect the reality of many in Chicago, there 
is no doubt that this is also the story in many other cities across 
this Nation.
  That is why we need a Federal response. We need to do what is 
necessary to help these families, businesses, cities, and States get 
back on their feet. But instead, the Senate Republicans proposed an 
inadequate, partisan bill, with no negotiations with the other side of 
the aisle. They failed to prioritize the needs of struggling families.
  The bill has failed to provide another round of economic impact pay 
for families or hazard pay for essential workers. They fail to provide 
relief to States and local governments to help teachers, EMTs, 
firefighters, and police.

[[Page S5805]]

  A week from Thursday is October 1, which means another month's rent 
will be due, and many families know they will not be able to pay it. We 
need help on a bipartisan basis. I agree with Federal Reserve Chairman 
Jerome Powell, if we don't move and move quickly to address this issue, 
the economy can sink even deeper, and recovery would be further in the 
distance. In the meantime, the death numbers in the United States would 
be even worse.
  I yield the floor.