[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 215 (Friday, December 18, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7696-S7700]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
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.