[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 221 (Tuesday, December 29, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7955-S7958]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

  WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR 
                         FISCAL YEAR 2021--VETO

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the veto 
message on H.R. 6395 received from the House be considered as having 
been read, spread in full upon the Journal, and be printed in the 
Record.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The veto message was ordered to be printed in the Record as follows:

To the House of Representatives:
  I am returning, without my approval, H.R. 6395, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (the ``Act''). My Administration 
recognizes the importance of the Act to our national security. 
Unfortunately, the Act fails to include critical national security 
measures, includes provisions that fail to respect our veterans and our 
military's history, and contradicts efforts by my Administration to put 
America first in our national security and foreign policy actions. It 
is a ``gift'' to China and Russia.
  No one has worked harder, or approved more money for the military, 
than I have--over $2 trillion. During my 4 years, with the support of 
many others, we have almost entirely rebuilt the United States 
military, which was totally depleted when I took office.

[[Page S7956]]

Your failure to terminate the very dangerous national security risk of 
Section 230 will make our intelligence virtually impossible to conduct 
without everyone knowing what we are doing at every step.
  The Act fails even to make any meaningful changes to Section 230 of 
the Communications Decency Act, despite bipartisan calls for repealing 
that provision. Section 230 facilitates the spread of foreign 
disinformation online, which is a serious threat to our national 
security and election integrity. It must be repealed.
  Additionally, the Act includes language that would require the 
renaming of certain military installations. Over the course of United 
States history, these locations have taken on significance to the 
American story and those who have helped write it that far transcends 
their namesakes. My Administration respects the legacy of the millions 
of American servicemen and women who have served with honor at these 
military bases, and who, from these locations, have fought, bled, and 
died for their country. From these facilities, we have won two World 
Wars. I have been clear in my opposition to politically motivated 
attempts like this to wash away history and to dishonor the immense 
progress our country has fought for in realizing our founding 
principles.
  The Act also restricts the President's ability to preserve our 
Nation's security by arbitrarily limiting the amount of military 
construction funds that can be used to respond to a national emergency. 
In a time when adversaries have the means to directly attack the 
homeland, the President must be able to safeguard the American people 
without having to wait for congressional authorization. The Act also 
contains an amendment that would slow down the rollout of nationwide 
5G, especially in rural areas.
  Numerous provisions of the Act directly contradict my 
Administration's foreign policy, particularly my efforts to bring our 
troops home. I oppose endless wars, as does the American public. Over 
bipartisan objections, however, this Act purports to restrict the 
President's ability to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, Germany, and 
South Korea. Not only is this bad policy, but it is unconstitutional. 
Article II of the Constitution makes the President the Commander in 
Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States and vests in him the 
executive power. Therefore, the decision regarding how many troops to 
deploy and where, including in Afghanistan, Germany, and South Korea, 
rests with him. The Congress may not arrogate this authority to itself 
directly or indirectly as purported spending restrictions.
  For all of these reasons, I cannot support this bill. My 
Administration has taken strong actions to help keep our Nation safe 
and support our service members. I will not approve this bill, which 
would put the interests of the Washington, D.C. establishment over 
those of the American people. It is my duty to return H.R. 6395 to the 
House of Representatives without my approval.
                                                     Donald J. Trump.  
                                    The White House, December 23, 2020.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, Congress has returned to work this 
week to enact the 60th annual National Defense Authorization Act into 
law. Yesterday, a bipartisan supermajority in the House voted to 
reapprove the conference report of this must-pass legislation. Today, 
the Senate will set up a final vote for tomorrow, Wednesday, for this 
Chamber to follow suit. Soon, this important legislation will be passed 
into law.
  President Trump has rightly noted this year's Defense bill does not 
contain every provision we Republicans would have wanted. I am 
confident our Democrat colleagues feel the same way, but that is the 
case every year.
  Yet for 59 consecutive years and counting, Washington has put our 
differences aside, found common ground, and passed the annual Defense 
bill. Not once in six decades has a Congress let its differences 
prevent it from completing this work for our national security and our 
men and women who wear the uniform.
  This year's NDAA will continue our momentum in rebuilding and 
modernizing our Armed Forces. It will authorize the personnel, 
equipment, tools, and training we need to reinforce the national 
defense strategy and to deter great-power rivals like China and Russia. 
It will cement our advantage on the seas, on land, in the air, in cyber 
space, and in space. The bill will help us continue to recruit, retain, 
and support the men and women who keep us safe. It provides a pay raise 
for the troops, improvements for military housing, childcare, and more.
  For the brave men and women of the United States and our Armed 
Forces, failure is simply not an option. So when it is our turn in 
Congress to have their backs, failure is not an option either.
  I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation one more time 
when we vote tomorrow.


                              Coronavirus

  Mr. McCONNELL. On Sunday, President Trump signed into law another 
bipartisan rescue package that will provide major support to American 
families through what we hope will be the home stretch of our fight 
with the coronavirus.
  Congressional Republicans and congressional Democrats and President 
Trump's senior team had all worked together to pass hundreds of 
billions more dollars of urgent assistance to the people who need it 
most.
  This new law will set up a targeted second round of the Paycheck 
Protection Program to save jobs. It will renew and continue Federal 
programs that helped laid-off workers endure this crisis. It will send 
more cash to households. It will invest billions in vaccine 
distribution so the success of Operation Warp Speed kills this pandemic 
as fast as possible, and much more.
  This bipartisan compromise was our shot at getting help to working 
families on the urgent timeline that they need.
  Once again, I want to applaud President Trump for signing the bill 
and getting this much needed assistance into the pipeline.
  During this process, the President highlighted three additional 
issues of national significance, which he would like to see Congress 
tackle together. First, as he explained, the President would like 
further direct financial support for American households. Second is the 
growing willingness on both sides of the aisle to at least reexamine 
the special legal protections afforded to technology companies under 
section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, including the ways that 
benefit some of the most prosperous, most powerful ``Big Tech'' firms. 
And the third subject--since every American, regardless of their 
politics, should feel the integrity of our democracy beyond reproach--
is exploring further ways to protect the sanctity of America's ballots, 
while continuing to respect the Federal Government's limited role in 
standing behind State and local elections authorities who actually run 
elections.
  Those are the three important subjects the President has linked 
together.
  This week, the Senate will begin a process to bring these three 
priorities into focus


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3985

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 
480, S. 3985.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the bill by 
title.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 3985) to improve and reform policing practices, 
     accountability and transparency.


                           Order of Business

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that following leader remarks 
on Wednesday, December 30, the time until 1:15 be equally divided 
between proponents and opponents of the bill, with opponent time being 
controlled by Senator Paul or his designee; further, that upon the use 
or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on passage of the bill, 
the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding; 
finally, if passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and 
laid upon

[[Page S7957]]

the table with no intervening action or debate.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?


                   Recognition Of The Minority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Reserving the right to object, the Senate is here this 
week for a rare holiday session to address two major issues: the 
President's veto of the annual Defense bill and the effort to send 
$2,000 survival checks to millions and millions of American families, 
something Senate Democrats strongly support.
  The Senate should be in session to address both issues. There are 
only a few days left in this session. We should not adjourn until the 
Senate holds a vote on both measures--the NDAA veto override and the 
House bill to provide $2,000 checks for the American people.
  As we all know, the majority leader controls the schedule on the 
floor. So Leader McConnell holds the key to unlocking this dilemma. The 
solution is a simple one: Put both bills up for a simple up-or-down 
vote and then let the chips fall where they may. I believe both 
measures will pass, as they should. But Leader McConnell must allow the 
Senate to vote on both pieces of legislation, the Defense bill and the 
$2,000 checks, before we go home. We will start the process on 
overriding the President's veto of the Defense bill tomorrow.
  Today, at the end of my remarks, I will ask the Senate's consent to 
take up the House-passed bill to provide the American people immediate 
survival checks of $2,000 a person.
  Throughout this pandemic, working Americans have taken it on the 
chin. Right now, they are facing their hardest and their darkest days. 
Tens of millions have lost their jobs. Tens of millions are struggling 
to put food on the table, to keep a roof over their heads. In the 
wealthiest Nation on Earth, modern-day breadlines stretch for miles 
down American highways.
  The fastest way to get money into Americans' pockets is to send some 
of their tax dollars right back from where they came. And $2,000 
stimulus checks could mean the difference between American families 
having groceries for a few extra weeks or going hungry, the difference 
between paying the rent or being kicked out of your home that you have 
lived in for years. It would buy precious time for tens of millions of 
people as the vaccine thankfully makes its way across the country. Of 
course, we could have taken up this issue weeks ago.

  In the COVID bill Congress just passed, Democrats wanted generous 
direct payments to the American people. Speaker Pelosi and I repeatedly 
asked our Republican counterparts how much they could support. Their 
answer: $600. It was a compromise many of us were not happy about. I 
came to the floor myself with the Senator from Vermont to ask that we 
double at least the size of those checks. A Republican Senator 
objected. Six hundred dollars was the most Republicans would support.
  Well, my colleagues and my fellow Americans, $600 is not enough. It 
is not enough for the mother in Nashville $4,000 behind on the rent 
whose water was shut off earlier this month; not for the medical 
receptionist in Macomb $2,100 behind on the rent, whole electricity 
shut off in September on her son's third day of virtual kindergarten; 
not for the 12 million Americans who have fallen on average nearly 
$6,000 behind on their rent and their utilities or the 26 million 
Americans who have had trouble putting food on the table in the past 5 
days. Six hundred dollars? Nope. It is not enough.
  So in a moment, I will move to have the Senate take up the House bill 
to increase that number to $2,000, which, I might add, had broad 
bipartisan support. I don't want to hear that we can't afford it. I 
don't want to hear that it would add too much to the deficit. Senate 
Republicans added nearly $2 trillion to the deficit to give 
corporations a massive tax cut. Republicans just fought to include a 
tax break for three-martini lunches in the COVID relief bill. So I 
don't want to hear that it costs too much to help working families get 
a check when they are struggling to keep their jobs, pay their rent, 
feed their families, and live a halfway normal and decent life.
  Even in our deeply divided times, this issue has united Americans 
from coast to coast and bridged the massive political divide here in 
Washington. A vast majority of the public, Republican and Democrat, 
strongly supports $2,000 checks. An overwhelming bipartisan majority in 
the House supports $2,000 checks. Senate Democrats strongly support 
$2,000 checks. Even President Trump supports $2,000 checks.
  There is one question left today: Do Senate Republicans join with the 
rest of America in supporting $2,000 checks?
  Now, some of my Republican colleagues have said they support the 
checks, but there is a major difference in saying you support $2,000 
checks and fighting to put them into law. The House bill is the only 
way--the only way--to deliver these stimulus checks before the end of 
session.
  Will Senate Republicans fight for a vote on the House-passed CASH 
Act, or will they look some other way? Will Senate Republicans stand 
against the House of Representatives, the Democratic majority in the 
Senate, and the President of their own party to prevent these $2,000 
checks from going out the door? We are about to get the answers to 
these questions.
  So now, Madam President, would the Senator modify his request to 
include a unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of H.R. 9051, a bill received from the House to increase 
recovery rebate amounts to $2,000 per individual; that the bill be read 
a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made 
and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the 
modification?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I object
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Is there objection to the original request?
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, reserving the right to object, we 
should all be very, very clear. The working class of this country today 
faces more economic desperation than at any time since the Great 
Depression of the 1930s, and working families need help now--not next 
year but right now.
  Last night, the House of Representatives, with a two-thirds 
majority--275 to 134, a two-thirds bipartisan vote--moved to increase 
the direct payment going to working families from $600 per adult to 
$2,000 per adult. The House did the right thing; I congratulate them. 
Now it is time for the Senate to step up to the plate and do what the 
working families of this country overwhelmingly want us to do.
  Madam President, as a result of the pandemic, tens of millions of 
Americans have lost their jobs and their incomes. These families, in 
the middle of the winter, now face the threat of eviction and the 
possibility of being thrown out in the streets. Hunger in America is at 
the highest level that it has been for decades, with moms and dads 
struggling to feed their kids and working families lining up mile after 
mile to get emergency food packages. We are even seeing an increase in 
grocery store shoplifting as desperate Americans try to keep their 
families from going hungry. All of this is taking place in the 
wealthiest country in the history of the world.
  Over the last number of years, as I think everybody in America knows, 
Congress has provided massive tax breaks for the very wealthiest people 
in our country, which is one of the reasons why today we have more 
income and wealth inequality than any time since the 1920s. In fact, in 
the midst of this pandemic, this terrible pandemic, inequality has 
grown worse, with many in the billionaire class seeing their wealth 
increase by hundreds of billions of dollars while average Americans 
struggle to put food on the table.
  Congress has given huge tax breaks to large corporations so that some 
of the most profitable and largest corporations in America today pay 
zero in Federal income taxes.
  We have just passed the largest military budget in the history of our 
country--$740 billion, more than the next 10 nations combined. By the 
way, there was almost no debate about the size of that huge budget. 
Trump's veto dealt with other issues.
  Meanwhile, over half a million Americans are homeless, half of our 
working families are struggling to survive paycheck to paycheck, and in 
the midst of

[[Page S7958]]

this terrible, unprecedented pandemic, over 90 million Americans are 
uninsured or underinsured. In the midst of a pandemic, they are not 
sure whether they can afford to go to a doctor.
  We are coming to the close of one of the most terrible and painful 
years in American history. That is a tragic fact. Over 330,000 of our 
people have died of COVID-19, and, as we speak, we are seeing 
recordbreaking numbers of new cases, and hospitals around the country 
are being overwhelmed with new admissions.
  During the last year, the education and well-being of tens of 
millions of our young people, from childcare to graduate school, has 
been disrupted. The terrible emotional isolation this pandemic has 
caused, where people are unable to spend time with their families and 
friends, has resulted in a huge increase in mental illness, drug 
addiction, and even suicide.
  As I mentioned, the House has done the right thing. By an 
overwhelming vote, Democrats and Republicans voted to increase that 
$600 direct payment to $2,000. A recent poll came out, and 78 percent 
of the American people think that was the right decision. They are 
hurting. They want help. The leaders of our country--President Trump, 
President-Elect Biden, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, the Speaker of 
the House, Nancy Pelosi--are all in agreement: We have to raise that 
direct payment to $2,000.
  So that is where we are right now in this historic moment. Do we turn 
our backs on struggling working families, or do we respond to their 
pain
  So, Madam President, would the Senator modify his request that 
immediately following the vote on the veto override, the Senate proceed 
to the consideration of H.R. 9051; that the bill be considered read a 
third time and the Senate vote on passage of the bill with no 
intervening action or debate; further, that, if passed, the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the request 
for modification?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Is there objection to the original?
  Mr. SANDERS. I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.

                          ____________________