[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 215 (Friday, December 18, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7683-S7686]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                     EXECUTIVE CALENDAR--Continued

  Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 4999

  Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I am here on behalf of the millions of 
working people in this country who are out of time, who are out of 
luck, and who are just about out of hope. I am here on behalf of the 
millions of working people who have borne the worst of this pandemic, 
the people who got sent home back in March and April and May, when 
other businesses got to stay open, and when companies like Amazon and 
Facebook were making billions of dollars. These are the workers who 
lost their jobs, the workers who lost their pay, the workers who were 
told: Too bad for you.
  These are people who right now are missing shifts at work to try to 
care for kids who are distance learning because of COVID, who are 
trying to care for a relative who may be sick. These are the people who 
are always asked to make it work, who are always asked to hold it 
together and, you know what, they do.
  These are proud people, the working people of our Nation. These are 
strong people. These are the people who have rallied to this Nation's 
defense in every hour of need, in every moment of danger, who have sent 
their sons and daughters to go fight our wars, who have given their 
time and their talents and their treasure at every opportunity for this 
Nation.
  And now they are in need. They are the backbone of this Nation, and 
they are in crisis. I am talking about the 8 million Americans who have 
fallen into poverty since this summer; 12 million families--working 
families--who are now behind on their rent; the 35 percent of working 
families in America who have had to go ask for food assistance in the 
last couple of months because of this pandemic. Those are the people I 
am talking about.
  I am talking about people like Susan, who is a single mother, a 
working mother, from my State in Northeast Missouri, where she lives. 
She wrote to me the other day, and she is trying to home school her 
kids who are home because of COVID. She doesn't have internet because 
she is in a rural part of the State. She doesn't have broadband. She is 
trying to feed her family. She is trying to stay up with her job, but 
she has to miss shifts at work because she has got kids at home whom 
she is trying to home school and supervise. Now she has fallen behind 
on her rent. She told me, and these are her words:

       I am not asking for handouts. I am just asking for a chance 
     to get back on my feet.

  Earlier this week, a friend of mine down in Southeast Missouri, the 
boot heel of Missouri, in a town called Charleston, was helping to 
distribute food to families in need. He said that there were 30 church 
groups--30--who lined up to come get food for their congregations, and 
over 60 families--this is a small town--there were over 60 families who 
stood in line, and as they were loading food into the trunks of 
people's cars, many of them were crying.
  What these people ask for, what these Americans ask for is not for 
government to solve all their problems. It is not for government to 
give them a handout. It is a chance to get back on their feet, a chance 
to provide for themselves, a chance to recover when they have been 
asked, again, to sacrifice so much.
  That is why the least this body can do is to provide direct relief to 
every working American who needs it. That is what we did back in March 
that every Senator voted for: $1,200 for every working individual, 
$2,400 for working couples, 500 bucks for kids and dependents. It is 
the least that we can do. It should be the first thing that we could 
do.
  As these negotiations drag on and on, fixated and focused and hung up 
on who knows what issues, let's start with this. Let's send a message 
to working families that they are first, not last; that they are the 
most important consideration, not some afterthought. Let's send that 
message today.
  Surely, we can agree that the working people of this country deserve 
relief, and if we are going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on 
bailing

[[Page S7684]]

out this, that, and the other, surely, surely, we could start with 
reasonable, modest relief to the working people in need in this Nation.
  What I am proposing is what every Senator has supported already this 
year. What I am proposing is modest compared to the scope of the need. 
What I am proposing will give working folks in my State and across this 
country a shot--a shot--here before Christmas at getting back up on 
their feet, getting back to work, and getting back in a position to be 
able to provide for themselves, these folks who are the backbone of 
this Nation.
  I am here today to ask that this body take up and pass this relief 
measure: $1,200 for individuals, $2,400 for couples, $500 for kids.
  Mr. President, as in legislative session, I now ask unanimous consent 
that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill at 
the desk; I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time 
and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and 
laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President. First of 
all, I want to say to my colleague from Missouri that I certainly share 
and I think every Senator in this Chamber shares his concern for people 
who are hurting because of this COVID pandemic. Businesses have closed. 
People are on unemployment. People are in need through no fault of 
their own.
  This is an act of God, and that is one of the reasons why I certainly 
supported the CARES Act. That was over $2 trillion. In total, this body 
has passed well over $3 trillion, 15 percent to 16 percent of last 
year's GDP in terms of financial relief.
  My comments here are really not directed specifically at the proposal 
of the Senator from Missouri because he makes many good points. We do 
have working men and women, we have households that--again, through no 
fault of their own--are struggling, and we need to provide financial 
support. I think my comments are, in some respect, more general from 
the standpoint of how we have done that.
  As I have explained to my colleagues in conference, by and large, the 
initial need packages here were a shotgun approach. We had to move 
fast. We had to do something big. We had to make sure that markets 
wouldn't seize, that financial relief could be sent to people very 
quickly, and so we passed over $3 trillion in financial relief. I knew 
it would be far from perfect. It was far from perfect.
  But now we have had a lot more time, and anything we consider for 
this additional package that we are considering now that is being 
debated, that is being discussed, that is being negotiated, ought to be 
far more targeted.
  One of the reasons we are currently $27.4 trillion in debt, which is 
about 128 percent of last year's GDP--if we do this bipartisan deal, 
another trillion dollars, we will be $28.4 trillion in debt in the next 
3 or 4 months. That is 132 percent of GDP.
  When I came to the Senate, we were a little over $14 trillion and our 
GDP was over $15 trillion, and we were actually below 100 percent of 
GDP.
  I know I am using a lot of numbers right now, and I am going to use 
more because that is part of the problem.
  One of the reasons we are $27.4 trillion in debt is, we only speak 
about need; we only talk in terms of compassion. We all have 
compassion. We all want to fulfill those needs. We just don't talk in 
numbers very often. We don't analyze the data. We don't take a look at 
what we did in the past and see, did it work or didn't it work? What 
was spent well? What was wasted?
  So I didn't have enough time to do charts. It would be a little bit 
easier. But let me go through numbers, and I will go through slowly so 
that people can understand at least my perspective of why I am so 
concerned about our Nation's debt and the fact that we are mortgaging 
our children's future. I think we need to be very careful about 
mortgaging it further when we aren't doing it in a targeted fashion
  So, again, before the COVID recession hit, in December 2019, we hit a 
record number of people employed in this country. There were 158.8 
million people employed. That was a record. Our economy was humming. 
Because of President Trump's administration, they put forward a 
reasonable level of regulation and competitive taxes. That brought back 
the entrepreneurial spirit that supercharged the economy. We were at 
3.5 percent unemployment. When I took econ, 5 percent was considered 
full employment. We were at 3.5 percent unemployment.
  Then, COVID hit and, by April, we had gone from almost 159 million 
people employed in this country to just a little over 133 million 
people, so that was a reduction in employment of a little more than 25 
million people--again, from 159 million to 133 million, 25 million 
fewer people employed in this Nation.
  Now, the good news: Even though the pandemic is still not over and 
the vaccine is being delivered, and it is being administrated--I think 
the end is in sight--we have already gained 16 million people employed, 
so now employment stands at 149.7 million people; 150 million people 
are employed--down about 9 million jobs--9 million.
  I want you to keep those numbers in mind because they are important. 
Our unemployment rate stands at 6.7 percent. By the way, the number of 
people unemployed, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which 
has a little bit different calculation, is about 10.7. So, in this, 
somewhere between 9 million and 11 million people are currently 
unemployed.
  Now, in the CARES Act--again, which I supported because we had to 
provide relief--we did provide economic impact payments, which Senator 
Hawley wants to just duplicate--no changes, no modifications, no 
further targeting. Those economic impact payments were about $275 
billion to 166 million people. Remember, 25 million people lost their 
jobs, but we sent our checks to 166 million people, averaging about 
$1,673 per person. What may be a more relevant figure is how many 
households we sent those checks to. We sent them out to about 115 
million households at about $2,400 per household.
  So, again, $275 billion to 115 million households--that was about 4.5 
more households than the number of jobs lost. Today, with only 9 
million jobs lost, not only--I mean, that is a big number, a big 
number. I am not minimizing that. With 9 million jobs lost, if we just 
repeat it--send out to another 115 million households--that is 12.6 
times the number of jobs lost. And if we double it, it goes from $275 
billion to $550 billion. That is half a trillion dollars.
  I know a trillion doesn't sound like much anymore. It seems like 
hundreds of billions seem more, but now that we are dealing in $1 
trillion or $2 trillion, it is pocket change apparently.
  I think it is important to ask: Well, how was that money spent? Did 
it really--was it really spent on essentials? Was this money really 
needed? Was there any hope, actually, of that money being stimulative 
to our economy?
  Well, we have one study from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. 
They issued it on October 13 of 2020. What they did is, since 2013, 
they have been sending out in the internet a national survey to 1,300 
households called the Survey of Consumer Expectations, and with COVID, 
they decided to send out two special surveys--one in June and one in 
August.
  Here is what those survey results said. Of the $2,400 per household 
in the June survey, 18 percent of that $275 billion was spent on 
essential items; 8 percent was spent on nonessential; 3 percent, on 
donations, for a total of 29 percent spent. This is what they call the 
marginal propensity to consume, 29 percent. Of the other 71 percent, 
equally divided, 36 percent of that was saved, so our Nation's savings 
rate increased, and 35 percent went to pay off debt--credit card debt.
  They also asked the same question about what happened to the 
unemployment payments. Very similar results: 24 percent of those 
unemployment payments--the plus-up to $600 per week to stay on 
unemployment benefits--24 percent was spent on essential consumption, 4 
percent on nonessential, 1 percent on donations for, again, the same 
percent: 29 percent was the marginal propensity to consume from the 
unemployment payments; 71 percent, for savings and for debt repayment.
  They also looked ahead, assuming that we are going to do another 
round

[[Page S7685]]

of stimulus checks. This time they asked their respondents: How would 
you spend $1,500 if you got a check? This time respondents said that 
they would spend about 14 percent on essential consumption, 7 percent 
on nonessential, 3 percent on donations, for a total of 24 percent that 
would be the marginal propensity to consume--24 percent--and 76 
percent, again, on savings and debt repayment.
  So I don't think you can take a look at these direct payments to 
individuals as stimulative. Obviously, 18 to 24 percent was spent on 
essential items. We ought to figure out how to provide that money so 
that people can spend it on essentials. Again, that is only 18 to 24 
percent maximum.
  I do want to talk a little bit about past stimuli. I personally don't 
believe they do much to stimulate the economy. I think the best way to 
stimulate the economy is, again, what this administration has done: 
Lower regulation to a reasonable level--nobody argues for no 
regulation; we need a reasonable level--and have a competitive tax 
system.
  I fear, in the next administration, we may just repeat the mistakes 
of the Obama-Biden administration, and here is the proof of their 
mistakes. Again, remember those employment numbers: a record of about 
159 million, currently 150 million people, being employed. Well, back 
during the great recession, prior to that, we did have employment of 
about 146 million people in January 2008. By December 2009, that had 
dropped to 138 million people employed. But when President Obama took 
office, he had total control of Congress--a filibuster-proof majority 
here in the Senate--and, within a month, they enacted the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act--$787 billion of proposed spending. In 
February of 2009, there were 141.6 million Americans working--141.6--
and the unemployment rate was 8.3 percent. Again, it continued to dip 
to December 2009 when it got down to 138 million. It took us 3 years 
from February 2009 to get back to 141.6 million Americans working, and 
that is with an $800 billion--roughly, $800 billion--stimulus package 
that did not work, but it further mortgaged our children's future by 
another $800 billion.
  I wish these things worked. A quick aside: Part of that American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act--again, Democrats had total control, with 
a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Do you know how much they 
plussed-up State unemployment benefits to help the unemployed, those 
8.3 percent of Americans? They plussed it up by a whopping $25 per 
week, and now they are arguing that $300 per week, which I believe is 
the current proposal, isn't enough. It kind of makes you wonder, 
doesn't it?

  So, in summary, kind of reviewing these numbers, we currently are at 
6.7 percent unemployment. I don't recall ever, in U.S. history, when we 
have even begun to think that we should even spend $100 billion to 
stimulate an economy at 6.7 percent unemployment.
  But this is different. We have underemployed; we have families in 
need. There is no doubt about it. I completely support some kind of 
program targeted for small businesses so they can reemploy and so they 
can reopen to restore capital. Their life savings have been wiped out. 
I have proposals. They have been ignored.
  So what I fear we are going to do with this bipartisan package and 
what the Senator from Missouri is talking about is the same thing--a 
shotgun approach. We will not have learned the lessons from our very 
hurried, very rushed, very massive earlier relief packages. We will 
just do more of the same--another trillion dollars. It takes our debt 
from $27.4 trillion to $28.4 trillion in a couple of months with doing 
virtually no revisions, no improvements and, similar to what the 
Senator from Missouri is talking about in terms of these economic 
impact payments, no revisions at all--just spend another $275 billion 
and send it out to 115 million households when we are currently at 
about 9 million fewer jobs than we were in a record economy before the 
COVID recession.
  So, for all those reasons, I not only object to what Senator Hawley 
is proposing here, but I am certainly lodging my objection to what is 
barreling through--the train has left the station--on the package being 
negotiated right now that is way too big, that authorizes more money, 
even though we have $600 billion there just for repurposing, no new 
authorization required. There are 52 Republicans who supported it, but 
that is not good enough. We have to throw another $300 to $400 billion 
on top, which is $300 to $400 billion more that we are mortgaging our 
children's future without reforms and without targeting. So I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wisconsin for his 
perspective, which I always appreciate, and, of course, I appreciate 
working with Senator Johnson on some of the issues.
  On this issue, I am afraid we are just going to have to differ, and I 
just want to say this: Nothing could be more targeted and no relief 
could be more important than relief for working people. The Senator is 
right; this body has spent trillions of dollars this year alone on 
COVID relief. We are getting ready to spend, apparently, another 
trillion dollars more. Yet working people are told they may be last--if 
they get relief at all.
  I don't think the American people understand that. I know people in 
Missouri don't understand it, and I would just urge Members of this 
body: Go home and try explaining that to the people of your State. Go 
ahead. Just try it. Try telling them why this body can bail out the 
banks. We bailed out the banks to such a tune that now they have money 
left over. Now we are going to take money back because we spent so much 
on Wall Street and the banks in the first part of this year. That is 
right.
  In fact, now I understand that my Democratic colleagues don't want to 
shut down all of the bank money. Who knows what we might be able to do 
with that in the future? Oh, they are fine. They are more than fine. 
They are doing great. Now Wall Street is doing great. Big tech, they 
are doing great; the big multinational corporations, fantastic. Working 
people--working people are living in their cars. Working people can't 
go to the doctor. Working people can't pay their rent. Working people 
can't feed their children. They should be first, not last.
  And it is no answer for this body to tell them: Go get in an 
unemployment line. Really? That is the response? Go get in an 
unemployment line.
  No, the working people of this country, frankly, deserve better. They 
deserve to be the top priority just like they have made this country 
the top priority in their lives and their families.
  This is not the end of this fight. I am here right now on this floor. 
Senator Sanders will be back in a matter of hours to ask again for the 
same measure. Again, I have been proud to partner with him on this 
effort, and I will keep working with whomever it takes for however long 
it takes until we get the working people of this country relief.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kennedy). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 4605

  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, 3 days ago, I came to the floor and spoke 
in honor of the life of Tyler Herndon, a Mount Holly, NC, police 
officer who lost his life just days before his 26th birthday last week. 
He was laid to rest this week.
  Now 5 days after his murder and 3 days after my remarks, I am 
devastated to report that another officer in North Carolina has lost 
his life in the line of duty. Wednesday night, the Concord Police 
Department received a call about a crashed, abandoned car on I-85 just 
outside of Charlotte. Responding officers were alerted that the suspect 
had attempted to steal a woman's car while she was still in it.
  Officers Jason Shuping and Kaleb Robinson tracked and identified the 
suspect on foot. As they approached the suspect, he pulled out a 
handgun,

[[Page S7686]]

and he shot both of these brave officers. Tragically, Officer Shuping 
died at the scene. Thankfully, Officer Robinson is recovering at the 
hospital. Officer Shuping was just 25 years old--the same age as the 
officer we memorialized this week, Tyler Herndon.
  I am just devastated by this. These brave officers had begun their 
careers in law enforcement and had nowhere to go but up. They were 
serving our community, and they were doing it with honor.
  We talk a lot about the sacrifice given by law enforcement officers 
who day in and day out are serving our communities and putting 
themselves in harm's way, and it is dispiriting to think that these 
fallen officers, at the very beginning of their careers, have already 
made the ultimate sacrifice in the name of public safety and community 
safety.
  Families in North Carolina and in each of our States are about to 
endure their first Christmas without their loved ones. We owe so much 
to these families whose parents, spouses, siblings, children, and 
grandchildren have given everything in the line of duty.
  On Tuesday, when I spoke on Officer Herndon, I said that in the next 
Congress, I would be moving forward with the Protect and Serve Act 
again. This act increases penalties for people who murder or assault 
police officers. But in light of another police officer's death--the 
second one in a week in North Carolina, in the suburbs, just around the 
corner from where I live, 10 or 15 minutes away--I think we have to 
elevate the discussion now and send a very clear message to those who 
would harm police officers that if you do, then there are going to be 
dire consequences to pay for it. We owe it to the police officers to 
let them know that Congress cares about them. We should send this 
message.
  This is a simple bill. It only focuses on those who are so brazen 
that they would murder a police officer in the line of duty, assault 
them, ambush them--all the things you have seen; now 48 murders in this 
year alone.
  The best thing we can do is to pass this commonsense legislation and 
send a message to these people who are taking away the men and women 
serving our communities.
  Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration 
of S. 4605 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; 
further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and 
that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Illinois
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the Protect 
and Serving Act of 2020 that has been offered by my colleague and 
friend Senator Tillis creates a new Federal crime that would punish 
assaults on law enforcement officers, including State and local 
officers, by up to 10 years and up to life if death results from the 
offense or the offense involves kidnapping, attempted kidnapping, or 
attempt to kill.
  Let me say at the outset that I had a few seconds to communicate with 
my colleague before this official colloquy on the floor.
  I say to the Senator, I sensed in your voice and what you told me how 
personal this is to you. This just isn't the killing of a law 
enforcement officer, which is a tragedy all of itself. It is your 
neighborhood. It is your community. As you said, some of these 
officers, you know their families, and it is very personal.
  I want to say first, I offer my condolences to the families and 
colleagues of Officer Jason Shuping, who lost his life in Concord, NC, 
and Officer Tyler Avery Herndon, who lost his life in Mount Holly in 
the line of duty in North Carolina in the last few weeks. These are 
terrible tragedies.
  We had a similar situation, of all places, in the Loop in Chicago 
just a couple of years ago--Commander Paul Bauer. What a spectacular 
man he was in service to the city of Chicago and the State of Illinois. 
He was murdered in the Loop. Unfortunately, his poor young family had 
to go through the ordeal not only of the funeral but also, then, of the 
trial of the suspect. I raise that only because Paul Bauer's assailant 
was successfully prosecuted by the State of Illinois and was given a 
life sentence just recently.
  As is the case in most of these situations, to my knowledge, I would 
say to the Senator from North Carolina, every State, including his own, 
takes this very seriously and prosecutes cases of harm involving law 
enforcement officers.
  The individual responsible for shooting Officer Shuping is dead. If 
he had lived, he would have been prosecuted for a capital offense in 
North Carolina. The individual who allegedly shot Officer Herndon has 
been indicted for first-degree murder in North Carolina.
  So it raises the question, why is it necessary to create a Federal 
crime for something already being successfully prosecuted in every 
State in the Nation? Assaults on police officers are already 
criminalized with enhanced penalties, as they should be, and assaults 
on Federal officers are already Federal offenses. I have a lengthy list 
here, which I will not read to you, of all of the Federal statutes that 
already provide for punishment up to death and a life sentence for 
those Federal officers who would be shot or harmed in any way.
  So let me say this to my friend and colleague from North Carolina: I 
thank you for standing up on the floor and bringing this matter to our 
attention. We should never overlook the fact that these men and women 
serve us selflessly and risk their lives in the process. It has 
happened here in the Capitol. It happens in every corner of America, 
sadly. But let's save this for another day. Let's take this up in the 
new Congress, which is about to start in just a few days. Let's address 
this issue, as well as the issue of how to make the plight of our law 
enforcement officers safer and more effective. To deal with issues 
involving that, I think, would be a balanced approach to this, which 
would serve justice.
  For those reasons, I will object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I am obviously disappointed in the 
objection from my friend and colleague from Illinois, but I do believe 
that we have to start recognizing that something bad is happening--48 
murders, hundreds of assaults, ambushes, premeditated attacks.
  I do understand the idea that maybe you could prosecute it through 
existing law, your Federal or State law, but we have an epidemic of 
``abolish the police, defund the police,'' marginalizing the police, 
that suggests to me that even if there are pathways now to properly 
prosecute these brazen criminals, we have to cut through some of the 
rhetoric that, honestly, I believe is the responsibility for some of 
these unprecedented numbers of murders and assaults.
  So although I am disappointed with the objection today, I look 
forward to working with my colleague on the Judiciary and others to do 
everything we can to pass the Protect and Serve Act and to send a very 
clear message to these increasingly less safe communities and more 
threatened law enforcement officers that we are going to do everything 
we can to make our communities safe and to make a police officer's job 
as safe as it can be.
  Thank you.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.