The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“CORONAVIRUS” mentioning Robert P. Casey, Jr. and Patrick J. Toomey was published in the Senate section on pages S1008-S1010 on March 3.
Of the 100 senators in 117th Congress, 24 percent were women, and 76 percent were men, according to the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress.
Senators' salaries are historically higher than the median US income.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
CORONAVIRUS
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, this Saturday will mark 1 year since Congress passed our first response to the COVID-19 virus.
That legislation, you will recall, received overwhelming support. It passed by a vote of 96 to 1 here in the Senate and 415 to 2 in the House, and we know that it was not just a one-off. Each of the five pandemic relief bills that were signed into law last year received overwhelming bipartisan support.
That is not to say that everybody was in perfect agreement about the size and shape of the bills. We had more than our fair share of disagreements along the way, but both sides of the aisle understood the most pressing challenges facing our country and the types of support that were needed to sustain that fight both when it came to public health and when it came to the economic fallout and recession that resulted: resources for hospitals and healthcare workers, support for the hardest hit families, assistance for small businesses, and, of course, the development, manufacturing, and distribution of vaccines. Not only did we agree on what should be in the bills, but we, actually, also agreed on what should not be in the bills.
We were all guided, I believe, by an understanding that the focus should remain on COVID-19 and that pandemic relief bills were no place to inject unrelated or partisan preferences, but now that our Democratic friends control the House and the Senate and the White House, they have tossed that principle in the trash.
The Democrats have drafted their so-called COVID-19 relief bill without the input, the ideas, or the support of a single Republican. Now, that is not because folks on this side of the aisle were unwilling. As I remember, there were 10 Republican Senators who met with President Biden at the White House and offered a $600 billion alternative that would enjoy broad bipartisan support. This partisan legislation was a choice, not a necessity--a choice, a conscious choice.
Last year, the House majority whip referred to this crisis as a
``tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.'' That was Mr. Clyburn. The Democrats knew that a bipartisan bill would limit the scope of discussions of policies that were actually relevant to the pandemic. So, rather than maintain that relevance to the pandemic, they chose to go it alone. This opportunity to restructure, as Mr. Clyburn said, has been months in the making, and now that the Democrats have the numbers they need to make the law without having the support of anybody but their own party, they have tacked on an entire liberal wish list and tried to call it COVID-19 relief, but nobody believes it or should believe it.
You see, these are some of the things that are in the so-called COVID-19 relief bill of $1.9 trillion when hundreds of billions of dollars of money that we appropriated just in December haven't even been spent yet. Here is what is in the Trojan horse, otherwise known as the Democrats' COVID-19 relief bill: funding for climate justice. At a time when many Americans are asking ``When can I get the vaccine?'' and
``How long until my children can safely return to school?'' our Democratic colleagues are pushing funding to support President Biden's unilateral climate Executive orders.
And then there is the funding--the backdoor funding--for Planned Parenthood. It is responsible for the most abortions of any other organization in America. Now, that is a personal choice for people to make, but asking taxpayers to fund Planned Parenthood so it can perform more abortions is simply irrelevant to COVID-19 relief. It is exploiting another emergency for special interest purposes.
This bill expands the criteria for the Paycheck Protection Program, one of the most successful parts of the CARES Act that we passed last March. It was designed specifically to keep small businesses afloat, but now Planned Parenthood can take advantage of the funding--something they were precluding from doing under bipartisan agreement previously.
There is another big political ally for our Democratic friends that would be newly eligible for these small business loans--the labor unions. So now labor unions can apply for and receive money that was otherwise previously directed toward mom-and-pop businesses so they could keep their doors open, so they could keep their employees on the payroll. But now it includes labor unions.
Many of the labor unions' pension plans in particular have been in dire financial straits for years, long before COVID-19 even existed. Up until now, our Democratic colleagues have not been able to find a way to bail out these mismanaged pension funds. As you can imagine, using taxpayer dollars to cover the mistakes of union bosses is incredibly unpopular, and that is because it is wrong. But the authors of this bill have found a couple of workarounds which they have tucked into this so-called pandemic relief bill.
In addition to making labor unions eligible for the paycheck protection loans, the COVID-19 relief bill also creates a taxpayer fund to bail out underfunded union pension funds. That is not to help the public generally; that is to help labor union members, which is certainly their issue. I understand why it is important, but I don't understand why my taxpayers in Texas should have to bail out underfunded labor pension funds in other States. Union bosses who have mismanaged these funds and made bad choices will be rewarded with a taxpayer-funded check.
While there is a range of provisions to line the pockets of our friends on the other side of the aisle across the country, the authors of this bill also tried to sneak in more localized fixes, two of which have already been dropped from this bill.
In one of the most audacious examples of tone-deaf Washington politics, one of these was an underground rail system in the Speaker's home State of California--an underground rail system. That has nothing to do with COVID-19.
The Bay Area Rapid Transit expansion has been in the works for years, and Californians have raised concerns over the rising cost. In 2018, it was projected to cost nearly $4.7 billion, and that estimate has already jumped to $6.9 billion from $4.7 billion.
Despite the fact that this rail system has absolutely nothing to do with the pandemic and would serve only the people of one of the wealthiest areas in the country, our Democratic friends provided more than $100 million for this project in their so-called COVID-19 relief bill. Well, fortunately, not any thanks to our Democratic friends who wrote the bill, this completely unrelated project has now been removed from the bill because it violates Senate rules. You are not supposed to be able to appropriate money and authorize transportation projects in a budget reconciliation bill. That is why it is gone, not because our Democratic friends were embarrassed or had second thoughts after it was pointed out to them the hypocrisy of including that in the bill but because it violates the Senate rules.
Another portion of the bill would have provided money for a bridge from New York to Canada. Let me think for a minute which Senator would have stuck money for a bridge from New York to Canada in the bill. Well, there are two Senators, one of whom is the majority leader from the State of New York. Well, that has now been struck by our colleagues because it received so much blowback. It was such an embarrassing, irresponsible money grab that it is no longer in the bill.
Well, we will see if this trend continues and more of the completely unrelated partisan projects are eliminated because the long list of unnecessary spending does not end there.
This legislation also establishes a bureaucrat bailout, an exclusive paid leave fund just for Federal employees. If their kids aren't in school full time because of the pandemic, these employees could take home up to $1,400 a week in paid leave. That is roughly equivalent to
$70,000 a year, all to stay home and not work. And these benefits would last for months. Federal employees could take home up to 600 hours of paid leave until September 30 even though President Biden said every adult who wants to get vaccinated will be vaccinated by the end of May. This benefit, this ridiculous money grab, would last until the end of September, long after people had gained antibodies and immunity from COVID-19 as a result of having been vaccinated.
Across the country, only about 35 percent of school districts have returned to fully in-person instruction. If the parents of children at the other 65 percent of school districts happen to work for the Federal Government, they can claim these benefits. Even if a school offers in-
person instruction but maintains the option to learn virtually, the parent can still get paid to stay home and not perform any work. Well, parents in my State who don't work for the Federal Government aren't receiving these same benefits. This is clearly cherry-picking to benefit Federal employees, to pay them not to work.
I respect the work that Federal employees do. I respect the work that all government employees do. But to give them preferential treatment in the midst of this pandemic by paying them not to work and using tax dollars from other States and other places that don't enjoy that benefit is simply grossly unfair.
Over the last year, countless numbers of parents have balanced the impossible: work and remote learning for their children. It has been hard. I understand that. Many parents turned their kitchen tables into makeshift offices and classroom spaces until their children were able to physically return to school. Today, less than 7 percent of the school districts in Texas are fully remote. Seven percent are fully remote, and two-thirds are fully in-person in my State. They have found a way to safely return to the classroom. There is no reason why the Texans who have made that tough juggling act, working and learning remotely, should now have to pay Federal employees who have not had to make that tough choice.
It is simply false advertising to call this a COVID-19 relief bill. It is deceptive and outrageously so. Only $160 billion dollars--8 percent of the total cost--is directly related to combating COVID-19. Eight percent. The rest of the bill, as I have tried to point out, is a variety of--it is a grab bag, really, of partisan priorities, wasteful spending, and counterproductive policy.
What is worse, this restructuring, according to Mr. Clyburn's language, to fit the vision of the Democratic Party will cost taxpayers nearly $2 trillion. That is on top of the $4 trillion we already spent last year. Two trillion more.
Well, somebody is going to have to pay that money back, and I fear it will not be us because we will be long gone. It will be our children and grandchildren, and at this rate of reckless spending, our great-
grandchildren will have to be the ones to pay the money back.
This bill is not the answer to the real challenges that face our country posed by the pandemic. We have shown our willingness to work together in a bipartisan way to enthusiastically support the need to provide real relief both from the public health consequences and the economic fallout associated with the virus, but this bill doesn't even attempt to do that.
Fortunately, as a result of the work we did last year, including last December--and by the way, only about 20 percent of the money that we appropriated just a few weeks ago--actually, a couple of months ago in December--has actually been spent. Only about 20 percent has been spent, and here we are being asked to appropriate $1.9 trillion more.
But the good news is, the money we spent last year is having real results. The money we invested in treatments and research and development of vaccines and now the distribution of vaccines--it is actually making a real difference. We are vaccinating roughly 3 million people a day in America. More than 70 million people have had shots in arms, and we are doing our best to try to get it in people's arms as fast as we safely can. President Biden said we will get that job done by the end of May. That is wonderful news.
The other wonderful news is that unemployment rates are going down and State revenue is going back up. School districts across the country have safely resumed in-person learning. One in five adults in America has now received a dose of the vaccine, and a third vaccine has now been approved, so that number will climb faster and faster and faster.
Every day we are moving closer to the light at the end of the tunnel, and now is not the time to squander the good will and trust that the American people have had in us to be good stewards of the public health and our economy by engaging in this sort of embarrassing partisan exercise.
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. CASEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Without objection, it is so ordered.
The senior Senator from Pennsylvania.
____________________
Alerts Sign-up