[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 215 (Friday, December 18, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7695-S7700]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Coronavirus

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, we truly don't have any time to waste. 
The American people are in desperate need of help. And I want to start 
by thanking all of my colleagues who have been working so hard together 
across the aisle to bring us to a point where we can actually provide 
some help, albeit temporary, to the American people. So, thank you, and 
I am pleased to have been involved in elements of that negotiation and 
appreciate it.
  But we are stuck right now, and I just want to remind people of a few 
numbers. More than one in three American adults in a recent survey said 
they are struggling to pay household expenses, including rent and 
mortgage. If we don't get something done in the next hours or days, we 
are going to see thousands of people in Michigan lose their homes in 
the middle of the winter.
  There are 7.8 million Americans who have fallen into poverty since 
June--7.8 million people have fallen into poverty since June. The 
number of people applying for unemployment keeps rising. There were 
885,000 people who filed initial claims last week, and thousands and 
thousands and thousands of people who are self-employed, who are 
contract workers, and others, will find themselves with zero support 
right after Christmas, unless we take action.
  A recent survey found that one in four small businesses are in danger 
of closing if the economic conditions don't improve--one out of four. I 
have talked to so many friends, so many people in Michigan, vibrant 
small businesses--they put it all on the line for that business they 
always wanted to have--and now they are barely holding on. They need 
help, and they needed help before now. They need help now. They are 
waiting and waiting and waiting and holding their breath.
  Up to 50 million Americans are struggling to feed their families 
right now. One out of four American households have experienced food 
insecurity in this last year--so one out of four households. People who 
volunteer at the food bank and people who have always contributed to 
the food bank now find themselves waiting in their car for hours and 
hours for a box of food in the United States of America. We not only 
have a health pandemic; we have a hunger crisis going on, and people 
need help now.
  On top of that, this past Wednesday, 3,638 Americans died in 1 day of 
coronavirus, and we are now looking at government services shutting 
down in less than 12 hours--the backdrop of everything that is 
happening for Americans. And despite all the good work that has been 
going on, on a bipartisan basis, we are now looking at less than 12 
hours of services for people and to our country shutting down.
  And why? Because my colleague, the Republican Senator from 
Pennsylvania, thinks it is more important to take away the Federal 
Government's ability to help people and help businesses and create jobs 
than it is to actually help people. Now, I want to say, Senator Toomey 
and I had a wonderful hearing this week in our HELP Subcommittee on 
Finance, of which he chairs, and we have been working together doing 
really important, meaningful things on Alzheimer's disease, and I very 
much enjoyed doing that. But on this issue--on this issue, at this 
time, with so many people in pain and so much hardship at this moment--
I don't understand when he said that preventing the next Treasury 
Secretary and the Federal Reserve from relaunching the emergency credit 
facilities that support manufacturers and other job providers is ``the 
most important thing'' in this COVID-19 package. Really? Really? The 
most important thing in this package is to take away the tools of the 
Treasury and the Federal Reserve that have been used when we are in 
crisis, and we need to be a backstop for our businesses in the credit 
market, when we need to be supporting job providers and jobs? Really? 
Really? That is the most important thing?
  Tell that to a mom who is afraid her kids will end up on the street 
because she can't pay her rent in January, which is what, 2 weeks away. 
Tell that to the small business owner who is having to lay off their 
entire staff a week before Christmas. Tell that to a senior citizen who 
is risking his health by waiting in an hours-long line to get a box of 
food. Tell that to the healthcare workers who are literally putting 
their lives on the line right now fighting this pandemic.
  Really? Taking away economic tools from the Treasury and the Fed are 
more important than people in our country? Small businesses? Farmers, 
who have been hanging on? Really?
  Tell that to the thousands of American families who are preparing for 
their first holiday without loved ones who have been lost to the virus. 
Just yesterday, another loss in Michigan--so many losses, thousands of 
losses--but a dear friend, a sheriff of Wayne County, Benny Napoleon, 
his family, today, a funeral for a friend as well in Detroit
  So the most important thing is not supporting families, is not 
helping people at least get through the winter, at least get through 
the next several months to put food on the table and a roof over their 
heads and help their businesses and make sure the vaccines can be 
distributed and support our healthcare workers and put money into 
education and all the other things that are needed right now--the most 
important thing is to have a fight with the

[[Page S7696]]

Treasury and the Fed because you want to limit what they can do in 
terms of their powers to help people and to help businesses in a 
crisis.
  Our Nation is in a crisis, and we would be in an even deeper crisis 
right now if it weren't for the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve 
stepped in early during the crisis. Under the current administration, I 
might add, where nobody was suggesting that we provide these kinds of 
amendments or restrictions then--under the current administration, 
under the Trump administration, I didn't hear that debate. Maybe I 
missed it, but I didn't hear that debate. But thank goodness we didn't 
have a debate because they stepped in early, taking extraordinary 
measures to keep credit from freezing up for our businesses. This is 
the money that businesses use to provide services and keep people 
employed.
  And I have to say, as someone coming from a major manufacturing State 
like Pennsylvania, like Ohio, like Indiana, like Wisconsin, that having 
the capacity for the Fed to step in and provide some confidence in the 
marketplace so that our auto suppliers and our other manufacturers 
could get what they needed in terms of the credit, it was critical to 
jobs--thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of jobs.
  The emergency powers that the Federal Reserve passed were put in 
place during the 2008 financial crisis so that the Fed could respond 
quickly to the next crisis. Well, here we are in the next crisis. The 
crisis is all around us, and yet some are laser-focused on taking away 
the Fed's ability to respond in the future with a new President--not 
the current sitting President but a future President. This is like a 
fire department selling off their fire trucks while houses down the 
street are burning.
  Now, 2020 has been brutal--really brutal--on families and businesses 
and communities across the country. And this crisis is not over. I 
really wish it was. I mean, we have hope because of the vaccines and 
more effective testing and so on, but this isn't over, and things could 
get worse in 2021 if we sabotage the very things that helped us this 
year. If this is how you are setting up a new President to not have the 
tools to make the economy better, what does that say about what people 
care about--the people we represent? Because, ultimately, it is about 
people losing their jobs; it is about businesses. This is more than 
just about cross-partisan politics.
  My friend Senator Schatz, who has a way with words, on Twitter, put 
it this way:

       We almost have a bipartisan COVID package, but at the last 
     minute Republicans are making a demand that WAS NEVER 
     MENTIONED AS KEY TO THE NEGOTIATIONS. They want to block the 
     FED from helping the economy under Biden. It's the reason we 
     don't have a deal.

  Is that really the reason we don't have a deal to help people in our 
country right now? Just cross-partisan politics wanting to set up a way 
for the next President to fail? Because when colleagues take away tools 
that a President--any President--and the Federal Reserve have to boost 
the economy and prevent economic collapses, they are saying they care 
more about that cross-political fight--make sure somebody looks bad and 
make sure somebody fails--rather than caring about the people we 
represent who create the jobs, the businesses, large and small, and the 
people who have those jobs and the people who need those jobs.
  Michigan is the proud home to so many small- and medium-sized 
manufacturing businesses that employ thousands of people. I know there 
are those same businesses across the country, including the State of 
Pennsylvania, where my colleague is advocating for this.
  I would urge--strongly urge--at this moment in time, at the end of 
what has been such a horrible, difficult year for Americans, I would 
urge my colleague from Pennsylvania and any others supporting him to 
try stop trying to undermine American jobs and our ability as a country 
to respond to the economic crisis that is still happening. Let's stop 
stalling. We need to do our jobs to keep our military going and 
healthcare and education and transportation and all the other critical 
services that the Federal Government funds. And we need to pass this 
critical COVID legislation today and give the American people the help 
they need and the help they deserve to survive the next few months of 
this health and economic crisis.
  A wonderful bipartisan effort brought us to this moment where we can 
provide a critical lifeline to Americans across our country.
  It would be a tragedy and an outrage if efforts to undermine our 
economy and the success of our incoming President stop this urgent help 
from being passed. We need to get this done now.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 5063

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this country faces the worst set of 
public health and economic crises that we have faced in over 100 years.
  As a result of the pandemic, more people than ever before are 
becoming infected, right now. Hospitalization is higher than it has 
ever been before, right now. And more people are dying than ever 
before, literally day after day.
  Now, we all hope and pray that the new vaccine will be distributed as 
quickly as possible and that it will put an end to this nightmare. But, 
today, the truth is that millions of low-income and middle-class 
families are suffering in a way that they have not suffered since the 
Great Depression of the 1930s.
  Today, the reality is that over half of our workers are living 
paycheck to paycheck, trying to survive on a starvation wage of 10 or 
12 bucks an hour. The reality is that millions of our senior citizens 
are trapped in their homes, unable to see their kids or their 
grandchildren, unable to go to a grocery store, and many of them are 
trying to get by on $12,000-, $14,000-a-year Social Security and scared 
that they may come down with the virus and die.
  In addition, millions more with disabilities are suffering. Further, 
in our country today, one out of four workers is either unemployed or 
makes less than $20,000 a year. And in the midst of this pandemic, 
because we are the only major country on Earth not to guarantee 
healthcare to all people as a right--in the midst of this pandemic, the 
worst healthcare crisis in 100 years, over 90 million Americans are 
uninsured or underinsured and unable to go to a doctor when they need 
to.
  Further, we have the worst eviction crisis in modern history. Some 30 
million families worry that because they cannot pay their rent, they 
may end up out on the street.
  That is where we are today economically, and if this country means 
anything--if democracy means anything, if the U.S. Government means 
anything--it means that we cannot turn our backs on this suffering, not 
in Vermont, not in Wisconsin, not in New York, not in any State in this 
country where people are hurting in an unprecedented way.
  It means that we cannot leave Washington, as Senators, for the 
holidays to go back to our families unless we address the pain and 
anxiety of other families throughout this country.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Would my colleague from Vermont yield for some support 
for his amendment?
  Mr. SANDERS. I would be happy to yield to the minority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I will speak briefly. And I thank my colleague.
  I join my friend Senator Sanders to support his amendment to give 
$1,200 in direct financial support to the American people in the 
yearend emergency relief bill.
  Now, this effort should not subtract from any other program already 
in the bill, like enhanced unemployment, aid to small businesses, 
education, healthcare, or any other provision. We don't need to offset 
the cost or cut from elsewhere in the bill to make sure the stimulus 
checks are $1,200 for each adult and then money for children and 
others, as he will elaborate. Much of the money will go back into the 
economy anyway.
  The reason for the amendment is simple. Over the course of this 
pandemic, working Americans have taken it on the chin. Millions have 
lost their jobs through no fault of their own. Twenty-six million have 
had trouble putting food on the table in the last 5 weeks, bread lines 
stretching down American highways. Twelve million Americans will owe an 
average of $6,000 in rent and mortgage payments. So we have an 
opportunity in this emergency

[[Page S7697]]

relief bill to give financial aid directly--directly to those 
Americans. It could mean the difference between Americans paying the 
rent or not, affording groceries or not, the difference between hanging 
on until the vaccine helps our country get back to normal.
  Now, the only objection we have heard is that this will add too much 
to the deficit. That is why a Republican Senator rejected a similar 
request earlier today--to push a baseless agenda of austerity. Please.
  By now, Republican objections over the debt and deficit are comical. 
They added $2 trillion to the debt with a massive tax cut for 
corporations and the wealthy, and that was during a steady economy. But 
now the economy is on life support. Americans are queuing up on bread 
lines and filing for unemployment. Just as a Democratic President is 
about to take office, all of the sudden the deficit scolds are back
  It is ludicrous. Chairman Powell--hardly a big liberal--of the 
Federal Reserve insisted: ``The risk of overdoing it is less than the 
risk of underdoing it.''
  The quickest way to get money into the pockets of the American people 
is to send some of their tax dollars right back where they came from. 
So let's step up to the plate and deliver the $1,200 survival checks to 
millions of Americans before the holidays.
  I support Senator Sanders' request fully and hope the Senate will 
consent.
  I yield back.
  Mr. SANDERS. Let me thank the senior Senator from New York, the 
Democratic leader, for his strong statement. He is exactly right. In 
this kind of crisis, it is comical that suddenly our Republican 
friends, once again, discover that we have a deficit. This is a moment 
of emergency--of emergency--and we have to respond to the needs of 
working families. And I thank Senator Schumer for his strong support 
for this legislation.
  Members of Congress should also be aware that we are far behind other 
major countries in terms of protecting working families during this 
pandemic. Not only does every other wealthy country guarantee 
healthcare to all people as a human right, almost all of them are 
providing far more generous benefits to the unemployed and the 
struggling in their countries than we are doing in our country.
  Several months ago, I introduced legislation, along with Senator 
Kamala Harris--now our Vice President-elect--and Senator Markey that 
would, during the course of this economic crisis, provide $2,000 a 
month--$2,000 a month--to every working-class person in this country. 
And, frankly, that is exactly what we should be doing. But, 
unfortunately, given the conservative nature of the Senate, I 
understand that is not going to happen.
  Yet, at a time of massive income and wealth inequality, as Senator 
Schumer just indicated, at a time when huge corporations were making 
recordbreaking profits, the Republican leadership here in the Senate 
was able to provide over $1 trillion in tax breaks to the 1 percent and 
large corporations.
  Yes, at a time when climate change--yes, climate change is real--
threatens the entire planet, this Congress was able to provide hundreds 
of billions of dollars in corporate welfare to the oil companies and 
the gas companies and the coal companies that are exacerbating the 
climate crisis.
  Yes, just the other day, here in the Senate and in the House, 
legislation was passed which would provide $740 billion to the 
military--the largest military budget in history, more than the next 10 
nations combined. We spend more on the military than the next 10 
nations combined.
  So we could do all of those things--tax breaks for billionaires, 
massive corporate welfare, huge military expenditures--but in the midst 
of the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression, somehow 
Congress is unable to respond effectively to the needs of working 
families.
  As the Presiding Officer may know, I have recently introduced 
legislation to provide every working-class American an emergency 
payment of at least $1,200, which is $2,400 for a couple and $500 for 
each of their children.
  This is not a radical idea. This is an idea that is supported by 
President Donald Trump. It is an idea that is supported by President-
Elect Joe Biden. It is an idea, by the way, that according to a recent 
poll, is supported by 75 percent of all Americans, including 77 percent 
of Democrats and 72 percent of Republicans.
  Further, importantly, this amount of direct payment is exactly what 
Congress passed unanimously 9 months ago as part of the $2.2 trillion 
CARES Act. Let me repeat. In March, every Member of the House and 
Senate, appropriately, including myself, voted to provide a direct 
payment of $1,200 for working-class adults, $2,400 for couples, and 
$500 for their kids.
  That was the right thing to do 9 months ago. And given the fact that 
the crisis today is, in many respects, worse than it was 9 months ago, 
that is exactly what we should be doing right now.
  As a result of the pandemic, the government told restaurants, bars, 
retail stores, movie theaters, schools, malls, small businesses all 
over this country: Shut your doors. It is too dangerous for you to be 
open now. And they did that because that is what the public health 
experts said was the right thing to do in order to control this 
horrific pandemic.
  But what the government has not done is provide the workers who lost 
their jobs and lost their incomes as a result of those shutdowns with 
the help that they need in order to pay their bills and to survive 
economically.
  The $600 a week in supplemental unemployment benefits that Congress 
passed unanimously in March expired in July--over 5 months ago--and 
during that time, the Republican Senate has done nothing to help 
working families pay their rent, feed their children, go to a doctor, 
or pay for the lifesaving prescription drugs they need. And the Senate 
has not done anywhere near enough to provide help for the struggling 
small businesses in Vermont and all across this country that are 
desperately trying to stay afloat.
  Further, as bad as the economy has been in general, it has been far 
worse for African Americans and Latinos. During the pandemic, nearly 60 
percent of Latino families and 55 percent of African-American families 
have either experienced a job loss or a cut in pay.

  For 9 months, we have asked tens of millions of working people in 
this country to survive on one $1,200 check, with no help for 
healthcare, no support for hazard pay, no assistance for rent relief--
absolutely nothing. Meanwhile, I should mention that over the same 9-
month period, 651 billionaires in the United States became over $1 
trillion richer. A trillion dollars in increased wealth for the very 
richest people in our country and one $1,200 check for tens of millions 
of Americans desperately trying to survive. That is unconscionable, 
that is immoral, and that has to change.
  Now, let us recall that way back in May, the House of Representatives 
passed the $3.4 trillion Heroes Act, which, among other things, 
included $600 a week in supplemental unemployment benefits; another 
direct payment of $1,200 for working-class adults and $500 for their 
kids; and generous support for small businesses, hospitals, education 
facilities, and State and local government. In other words, the House 
passed a $3.4 trillion bill that was, in fact, a very serious effort to 
address the enormous crises facing our country.
  I should also add that in July, several months later, the House 
passed another version of the bill, so-called Heroes 2, and this 
legislation was for $2.2 trillion.
  That same month, in July, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell 
proposed a $1.1 trillion bill that also provided a $1,200 direct 
payment for working-class adults and $500 for their kids. Then, in 
October, Secretary Mnuchin, in negotiations with Speaker Pelosi, 
proposed a COVID relief plan for $1.8 trillion. That is Mnuchin 
representing the Trump administration.
  So in the last number of months, we have had major proposals of $3.4 
trillion, $2.2 trillion, $1.8 trillion, and from Majority Leader 
McConnell, $1.1 trillion. Yet today, right now, after months of 
negotiating by the so-called Gang of 8, we are now down to just $908 
billion in legislation, and that includes $560 billion in offsets, in 
unused money, from the CARES Act.
  So what we are talking about now is going from an original House bill 
passed in May calling for $3.4 trillion in new money, down to today 
$348 billion

[[Page S7698]]

in new money--roughly 10 percent of what Democrats thought was 
originally needed. In my view, the $348 billion in new money that is 
included in the proposal now being discussed is totally inadequate 
given the nature of the unprecedented crises that we face.
  The American people cannot wait any longer. They need economic relief 
right now. Their kids are going hungry. They are being evicted from 
their homes. They can't go to the doctor. They need help, and they need 
it now. Every working-class American needs $1,200 at least, $2,400 for 
couples, and $500 for children.
  Let me be clear to emphasize a point that Senator Schumer made, and 
that is, what I am talking about now is money that must not be taken 
from other important priorities like 16 weeks of supplemental 
unemployment benefits; aid for small business, nutrition, housing, 
education; and the other important provisions in this bill. We need 
adequate funding to address the unprecedented crises that we face. We 
should not and cannot and must not take from Peter to pay Paul. We 
cannot cut unemployment benefits in order to help small business. We 
have to do it all, right now.
  So, Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous 
consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 
5063, which I introduced earlier today, which would provide a $1,200 
direct payment to every working-class adult, $2,400 for couples, and 
$500 for their children; and that the bill be considered read three 
times and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and 
laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). Is there objection?
  The Senator from Wisconsin
  Mr. JOHNSON. Reserving the right to object, the Senator from Vermont 
made a couple of statements that I would just like to repeat the words: 
that we are in a crisis; this is an emergency; we can't turn our backs 
on the suffering.
  I agree. I have agreed for months. But he also said something that is 
completely incorrect. You might call it a lie. He said that Republicans 
have done nothing. That is not true.
  I was on daily calls during the August recess after we had attempted 
and were debating internally a trillion-dollar package at the tail end 
of July before the August recess, recognizing--and I was one of the 
ones pointing out--the fact that we had already passed, as the good 
Senator from Vermont said, over $3 trillion in four different COVID 
relief financial packages early in the pandemic. At that point in time, 
there was $1.2 trillion of that unspent. A big chunk of that wasn't 
even obligated. Today, as we stand here debating this now, we still 
have a little under $600 billion unspent and unobligated.
  So the point I was making to my Republican colleagues during those 
last few weeks in July and those conference calls in August was, before 
we authorize any more money, before we further mortgage our children's 
future, why don't we first repurpose and redirect what we already 
passed because what we passed, we passed very quickly because we had 
to. We had to do something massively, and we did something massively so 
that markets wouldn't seize, so that the people--the individuals who 
were out of work through no fault of their own and the businesses that 
were shut down through no fault of their own could get financial 
relief.
  So we came together unanimously, and we did that, but doing it fast, 
doing it massively--I certainly knew it was going to be far from 
perfect. We found out the Federal Government actually has a hard time 
spending $3 trillion because, over the course of a number of months, 
they didn't spend it all. They couldn't even obligate it.
  So what Republicans did during the August recess--because we couldn't 
come to an agreement by the end of July--was we worked long and hard on 
a targeted bill, more than $600 billion, $300-plus of it for people on 
unemployment, $260 billion for small businesses, $100 billion for 
education, and tens of billions of dollars for vaccines and testing and 
agriculture and childcare. We offered that on the floor, and 52 
Republicans voted to proceed to that bill. Democrats just said no.
  I felt it was a crisis, an emergency, and we shouldn't have been 
turning our backs on these people who are suffering in September. 
Democrats said no. All they had to do was say yes. They couldn't take 
yes for an answer.
  Madam President, I often use this analogy: I go up to you, because I 
know you are a generous person, and say: Madam President, give me 200 
bucks. And you kind of look at me with a little shock and say: Well, I 
won't give you 200, but I will give you 100. Then I go stomping off and 
say: No; it is $200 or nothing.
  That is what the Democrats did to over $600 billion in needed and 
necessary relief for the crisis, for the emergency, for the people we 
don't want to turn our backs on because they are suffering. If they 
were really serious and they actually wanted a result, if they wanted 
to relieve the suffering, wouldn't the logical thing have been to say 
yes, take $600 billion, pocket it, get that relief flowing in 
September, and then come back and argue for more? But they said no. 
They were cynical. They played politics with it. And that is what they 
are doing here today.
  I am sure, to paraphrase a widely known saying, that the road to 
total national bankruptcy is paved with good intentions. I am sure that 
is true. I don't question the good intentions of any Member of this 
body. We all want to provide the relief. We all want to relieve 
suffering. We all want to help fellow Americans who are hurting through 
no fault of their own.
  But we talk about suffering. We use words. We don't look at numbers 
very often. The Senator from Vermont has offered a few numbers, but let 
me quote a couple. Let me just kind of lay it out. I didn't have enough 
time to do a chart, so I will try and go through this slowly, but I 
think it is important to put this all in perspective.
  Prior to the COVID recession, we had a record number of Americans 
employed at the end of December 2019. Just under 159 million Americans 
were employed. By April, 2 months into the pandemic, 3 months into the 
pandemic, employment had dropped to 133 million. That is a loss of over 
25 million jobs--25 million--which is why we acted, why we acted in a 
bipartisan fashion to provide relief for those people--25 million--who 
had lost their jobs.
  Now, the good news: It is hard to keep the American economy down when 
you don't overtax, when you don't overregulate. So in November--the 
latest figures we have--there are now just shy of 150 million Americans 
employed again. I realize some are underemployed, but still you have 
150 million Americans employed--down about 9 million jobs from that 
record high when unemployment was only 3.5 percent. We had a record 
economy because we stopped overregulating and we had a competitive tax 
system. Now the unemployment rate is 6.7 percent.
  In the CARES Act, which I supported because I want to help people, 
part of that was the economic impact payments--basically what the 
Senator from Vermont is proposing here in this bill he wants to pass by 
unanimous consent. It spent $274 billion. It was paid to just under 166 
million Americans, for an average check of about $1,673 per person.
  You can break that down into households because, according to the 
Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the average check per household was 
$2,400. That is 115 million households that got a check--115 million. 
Now, remember, at the low point, 25 million Americans had lost their 
jobs. We sent checks to 115 million households--4\1/2\ times the number 
of people who had lost their jobs.
  My problem with the CARES Act, with the first four packages, is it 
was a shotgun approach. We just spent money. We just opened up the 
spigot, and we just sent it all over the place. We didn't have time to 
target it to those who really needed it. As a result--and we are seeing 
today--businesses that needed it, business owners, small business 
owners, have been wiped out of their life savings. They didn't get 
relief.
  It wasn't well designed. It wasn't well targeted. And we probably 
spent hundreds of billions of dollars and sent it to people who didn't 
need it.
  We are $27.4 trillion in debt today. That is 128 percent of the size 
of last year's economy. If this bipartisan deal goes through, about $1 
trillion, we will be at $28.4 trillion in debt--132 percent of our GDP.

[[Page S7699]]

  I remember the good old days when I first got here. I ran because we 
were mortgaging our kids' future. We were a little over $14 trillion in 
debt, and when the economy was over $15 trillion, we were under 100 
percent debt-to-GDP ratio.
  What the Senator from Vermont is proposing is basically duplicating, 
without any reforms that I know of, those economic impact payments from 
the CARES Act, another $275 billion, for a total of $550 billion--a 
half a trillion dollars sent out again to 115 million households when 
right now we have only--not ``only,'' this is tragic. Every job lost is 
a tragedy. But we have 9 million jobs less than we had when we had a 
record level of employment before the recession--9 million jobs lost, 
115 million households. That is 12.6 times the number of jobs that have 
been lost.
  I think the question needs to be, if we are going do this again, is 
there any sense, any information in terms of how the $275 billion is 
spent? Well, we have an answer from the Federal Reserve Bank of New 
York. They do a monthly internet-based survey called the Survey of 
Consumer Expectation. They did two special surveys, one in June and one 
in August. The June survey took a look at how those households spent 
the $2,400 checks. Here are the results: 18 percent of those checks 
were spent on essential consumption--essential; 8 percent was on 
nonessential, the fun stuff, I guess; 3 percent on donations--Americans 
are still generous--for a total of 29 percent spent on consumption. The 
marginal propensity to consume was 29 percent. For the remainder, 71 
percent, half of it was put to savings--spent on increasing savings--
and the other half was paying off debt.
  They also studied how the unemployment plus-up was spent. It had 
pretty similar results: 24 percent of those dollars went for essential 
consumer goods; 4 percent, non-essential; 1 percent, donations. Again, 
a total of 29 percent was consumed; 71 percent was either saved or used 
for debt reduction.
  They did another special survey in August, asking those same 1,300 
households that they surveyed: How would you spend a $1,500 check? Not 
$2,400--$1,500. The response was that 14 percent would be spent on 
essential items, 7 percent on nonessential, 3 percent on donations. But 
only 24 percent of a new check would actually be spent on consumption; 
76 percent would either be saved or pay off debt.
  That is not very good economic stimulus. Again, the numbers are 
without any reforms, without trying to target the dollars to people who 
really need it. I would want to do that. I would like to work with 
anybody to try and get that relief flowing as quickly as possible to 
get it to the individuals who need it. I am sure the need is still 
great. It is greater than 9 million. I understand that. But let's look 
at some figures.
  I do want to point out a past stimulus in terms of its effectiveness. 
In 2009, we had the great recession. Let me quote some employment 
figures from that.
  In January 2008, we had 146 million Americans employed. Remember, 
today we have 149 million. Our record was 159 million, but there were 
about 146 million before the great recession.
  By December 2009, it had dropped, hit the low point of 138 million 
people working; 8 million people had lost their jobs.
  In January, 2009, President Obama was inaugurated, had total control 
of government, a filibuster-proof Senate, control of the House. He 
could pass anything he wanted, and they did. They passed the $787 
billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. They did that 
in February 2009. At that point, there were 141.6 million Americans 
working--141.6 million Americans. The unemployment rate was 8.3 
percent. Again, throughout 2009, that stimulus didn't work too well 
because unemployment fell to 138 million Americans. It took 3 years--3 
years--until January 2012, because of overregulation and overtaxation, 
to return to February 2009 levels of 141.6 million Americans working--3 
years. That is what we call a slow, nonexistent recovery.
  Oh, a quick aside: The Senator from Vermont is talking about how we 
need the $600 plus-up for the unemployed because they are suffering. 
President Obama, with Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid, with a 
filibuster-proof Senate--they provided a $25-per-week plus-up to State 
unemployment when they had total control. Now they are demanding $600. 
I know that is not part of what the Senator from Vermont is asking for 
in terms of a unanimous consent request. I thought it was just somewhat 
noteworthy.
  Again, I am not heartless. I want to help people. I voted to help 
people. I voted for the $2.2 trillion CARES Act, but I also am 
concerned about our children's future and the fact that we are 
mortgaging it. We do not have an unlimited checking account. We have to 
be concerned about these things.
  My complaint about the Senator from Vermont's bill--and, quite 
honestly, the bipartisan effort--we have $600 billion unspent, 
unobligated. Let's work long and hard. Let's look at economic data. 
Let's target it properly. Let's not just shotgun it out to the economy 
again, wasting tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars. Let's 
focus on that. Let's pretend it is like real money--like it is our 
money--and spend it well. We don't need to mortgage our children's 
future by another $300 or $400 billion. We don't need to do that.
  We can alleviate suffering. We can help our fellow Americans. We 
could have done it in September, but the good Senator from Vermont and 
all of his colleagues on the Democratic side simply won't take yes for 
an answer, and my guess is, they are taking that same stance today. So, 
Madam President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, the Senator from Wisconsin talks about 
Democrats not taking yes for an answer. Let me tell you what we did not 
take for an answer. We did not take for an answer the Republican bill, 
which did not have a nickel for unemployment benefits. We did not take 
yes for an answer for a bill that did not have a nickel for direct 
payments.
  The Senator from Wisconsin talks about the deficit. Yet the Senator 
from Wisconsin voted for over $1 trillion in tax breaks for 
billionaires and large, profitable corporations. That is OK.
  The Senator from Wisconsin voted for a bloated military budget, $740 
billion. That is OK.
  The Senator from Wisconsin supports hundreds and hundreds of billions 
of dollars in corporate welfare. The Senator from Wisconsin threw out 
some numbers. Let me throw out some other numbers. Half of the people 
in this country are living paycheck to paycheck. Millions of workers 
are trying to survive on starvation wages of 10 or 12 bucks an hour. 
Ninety million people are uninsured or underinsured, can't afford to go 
to a doctor. Nineteen million families are spending half of their 
limited incomes on housing.
  Today, we have the most severe hunger crisis in America that we have 
had in decades. Children in this country are going hungry while half a 
million people are homeless and many millions more fear eviction.
  Today, as a result of the pandemic, not only do we have the worst 
healthcare crisis in 100 years but the worst economic crisis since the 
Great Depression.
  I say to my colleague from Wisconsin, yes--I will not support 
proposals that do not provide a nickel in unemployment benefits, not a 
nickel in direct relief to tens of millions of low-income and middle-
income families.
  I would hope very much that this Congress appreciates the pain that 
is out there and that instead of worrying about tax breaks for 
billionaires or corporate welfare, let's pay attention to the needs of 
working families, and let us pass legislation which includes $1,200 
direct payments to working class families, as we did in the CARES Act, 
500 bucks to their kids, and certainly not taking a nickel away from 
unemployment and the other important provisions that are currently 
being negotiated
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, to my colleague from Vermont, my 
understanding is that in a room somewhere near here right now, those 
negotiations are ongoing, and there certainly better be unemployment 
insurance. That was in our bipartisan framework that I worked with the 
Presiding Officer on. And there certainly better be not just an 
extension of the existing Federal assistance for self-employed workers 
and

[[Page S7700]]

gig economy workers and for those who are now benefiting from the 
Federal extension, the 13-week extension, but also additional funding. 
My understanding is direct payments are also in the mix.
  I just wish they would get their work done. It has been 9 months 
since the CARES Act was done. I just hope we can figure out a way to 
get through the hurdles that remain. I have spent much of the day--as 
have my colleagues, I am sure--talking to colleagues, trying to figure 
out how to fix the last couple of issues that apparently are out there. 
But my hope is that even if it is not a perfect bill for me--and it 
won't be. I know it won't be. We spent 3 or 4 weeks working on 
legislation that is bipartisan that isn't what any of us would have 
crafted individually, but it provides that needed help right now. We 
need it both for the economic crisis that has been caused by this virus 
but also the healthcare crisis, which, unfortunately, is getting worse 
in my home State of Ohio and not better.
  The vaccine is on its way. That is very exciting. I believe that the 
vaccine development and now the distribution are actually quite 
impressive. I think the administration deserves credit for that, as do 
so many hard-working scientists who have been sleeping in their 
offices, making sure that we have this vaccine available. But there is 
going to be a bridge here. There is a time period between now and March 
and April when it is not going to be readily available to everybody we 
represent. During that time period, we need a bridge. We have needed it 
for a while, so my hope is we will get that done tonight.