This week, lawmakers on Capitol Hill are debating an emergency spending bill to combat the coronavirus epidemic. While Congressional leaders hash out the topline spending number, and reports indicate it will be somewhere in the $7 billion to $8 billion range, there are concerning talks about attaching a number of unrelated policy provisions to the bill.
It is relatively common for Representatives and Senators to try and attach these provisions, often called policy ‘riders,’ to large spending or authorizing bills. This frequently happens with spending packages that Congress debates right before a potential government shutdown, and the practice occurs every year with the consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act that sets spending levels for the nation’s military.
An emergency spending package to combat a global health crisis is no time for policy riders, though. Here a few troubling policy fights that may be holding up the expeditious passage of this supplemental spending bill:
Drug pricing measures: Roll Call reported that Democratic negotiators have called for measures in the spending package that would control the price of coronavirus vaccines and medications. While taxpayers should not write a blank check to the drugmakers working quickly to develop a coronavirus cure, overly restrictive drug pricing measures could adversely impact the public-private partnerships that will ultimately help solve the crisis. Democratic leaders should not exploit a crisis to implement measures similar to what’s in H.R. 3, Speaker Pelosi’s far-reaching and harmful drug pricing bill.
Surprise medical billing: Some lawmakers have apparently talked about tackling the surprise medical billing issue in the coronavirus package. On the one hand, it is reasonable to protect coronavirus patients from exorbitant out-of-network bills if they are forced into quarantine after contracting the virus. On the other hand, this legislative package is not the time to seek a broad, far-reaching resolution to the surprise billing issue, which remains one of fierce contention on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers should operate with a light touch that focuses on protections for coronavirus patients only.
A payroll tax cut: On Monday, President Trump called on Democrats to propose a one-year payroll tax cut, in part to boost an economy that is weakening under the threat of coronavirus. While fiscal stimulus may prove necessary, a payroll tax cut would reduce revenue collections by tens of billions of dollars, and should not be included in an emergency spending package that already costs $7 billion to $8 billion.
FISA reauthorization: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) shared Monday that he’s “hearing rumors” lawmakers may try to include reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in a coronavirus package. Regardless of one’s position on various provisions of FISA, or the legislation as a whole, it should absolutely not hitch a ride on a coronavirus deal. Congress has the time to consider both an emergency spending package and FISA reauthorization in the coming days and weeks, and mixing the two would be irresponsible to taxpayers.
In short, now is not the time for games. An increasing number of Americans are contracting the virus, and the illness is having a clear impact on global commerce. While Congress would immediately offset emergency spending in an ideal world, and have a rainy day fund for just these occasions in a perfect world, it is far more likely that lawmakers will increase the deficit to fund the supplemental package. Even worse than fiscal mismanagement is if stakeholders take advantage of a legitimate national emergency by trying to set new policy precedents. Congress needs to move quickly, and one way to do so is to stop the policy riders.