[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 It must be repealed.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.
____________________