[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 222 (Wednesday, December 30, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7976-S7977]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              CORONAVIRUS

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I listened carefully and watched three 
occasions on the floor this afternoon where Senators Schumer, Sanders, 
and Markey have tried to create an opportunity where the Senate would 
actually come together and vote, where the Senate might make a decision 
based on the merits of this issue, rather than to keep talking around 
the issue.
  What is at stake is a substantial sum of money for families who are 
in the midst of the struggle of their lives--$2,000--characterized a 
few moments ago by my friend from Texas as ``Speaker Pelosi's idea.'' 
Well, I might remind him that it is also Donald Trump's idea and still 
is. The President has told us this morning that we should move on this 
as quickly as possible, and although I don't often come to the floor to 
agree with the President, he is right. In this instance he is clearly 
right.
  What are we doing now? We are calling Senators back to Washington 
from the far reaches across the United States. This morning, I received 
some email and text messages from some of my colleagues hopping on 
airplanes at 6 a.m. on the west coast to face a vote. What is this vote 
all about? Well, first, it is to override the veto of the President 
when it comes to the Defense authorization bill. This was certainly 
something that was occasioned by one Senator, the junior Senator from 
Kentucky, who forced us into a position where that vote needed to be 
taken here. It could have been handled much more efficiently and to the 
benefit of all Members if it was scheduled for the weekend when we were 
assuming a new session of Congress. But he insisted, and we are 
returning and, frankly, putting in peril again, in the midst of a 
pandemic, Members of the Senate who are traveling from all the far 
reaches of this country to be part of this action in Washington
  But it isn't just the junior Senator from Kentucky who is having us 
sit here in Washington and wait for things that could be taken care of 
with dispatch. It is the senior Senator from Kentucky as well. He has 
decided that we will not get a vote on the House measure to increase 
the payments to $2,000. Make no mistake, there is only one way to bring 
this relief to the families of America. It is to pass the bill already 
enacted by the House of Representatives--a bill which received 44 
Republican votes in addition to a substantial number of Democrats, with 
only 2 voting no. Forty-four Republican votes joined with the Democrats 
to call for this measure which many have been decrying on the floor 
here as a class struggle or whatever their argument might be. There is 
no other measure, including Senator McConnell's alternative, which has 
any ghost of a chance to help the families in this country with this 
$2,000 benefit. The only thing that will do it--the only one thing that 
will do it--is this bill that has already passed the House of 
Representatives.
  The House has recessed. When they are going to return is uncertain. 
They certainly don't have the time to work through the regular order of 
business to consider any new legislation even if we could send it in 
time, which I believe is very doubtful. So it is up to Senator 
McConnell to decide right here and now, are we going to come together 
as a Senate this afternoon at 5 o'clock, when we are supposed to be 
back and voting, and get this matter done?
  Bring it to the Senate for a vote. Let's have this vote up or down, 
and let the Democrats and Republicans express their will on behalf of 
the families in this country.
  I couldn't agree more with the Senator from Massachusetts and his 
characterization of what families face across this country and, 
certainly, in my home State of Illinois.
  I just wonder if any of the Republican Senators who are downplaying 
this economic crisis facing these families have really looked into the 
issue. This morning, in the Senator's home State of Texas, they showed 
an early morning television show and the cars that were lining up for 
food banks--long lines of people waiting for food banks. They 
interviewed some of them in Texas who told heartbreaking stories of how 
they once were volunteers at this same food bank and are now dependent 
for a helping hand if they were going to be able to feed their 
families.
  These are people who are not lazy at all. Misfortune has come their 
way, and the question is, Will we help? This is our opportunity--today. 
It is a measure that has passed the House of Representatives, not some 
theory of some legislation that might be considered tomorrow--today. 
Let's have this vote today, this evening. When the Senators have 
returned, let's determine whether or not this House-passed measure of 
$2,000 is going to be enacted into law, since the President is clearly 
anxious to sign it.
  That to me is the reasonable thing to do. In fact, it might even 
sound like the U.S. Senate is taking a vote on a timely issue after a 
debate. We do it so seldom around here that I think we have lost our 
muscle memory when it comes to this activity in the Senate. It is time 
to return to it.
  I thank the Senator from Vermont, the Senator from Massachusetts, 
and, of course, the Democratic leader for bringing this issue before us 
this afternoon. But it shouldn't end with our great speeches. It ought 
to end with an important vote for the people of this country.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, would the Senator from Illinois yield for 
a question?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Illinois 
would consider pairing their request for a $2,000 direct payment with a 
liability shield provision that would guard businesses that have been 
operating in good faith and following the guidelines put out by public 
health and government institutions, and preserve a right to sue for 
reckless and willful disregard of the rights for others? Would the 
Senator consider pairing those two together?
  Mr. DURBIN. I would say in response to my colleague, I know his 
passionate defense of the notion for immunity from liability for 
corporations in America. He has introduced a lengthy bill on the 
subject. I don't believe that is consistent with keeping this Nation 
safe during a pandemic, and it certainly is not responsive to any 
onslaught of lawsuits.
  The Senator might be interested to know that the number of medical 
malpractice cases filed in the name of COVID-19 since the onset of this 
current pandemic is slightly higher than the total number of lawsuits 
filed by Donald Trump in protesting the results of the November 3 
election. This is not a tsunami of lawsuits.
  I believe we can take reasonable measures to support and defend those 
corporations and companies that are making a good-faith effort to 
comply with public health standards and protect their employees and 
customers. His bill, I am afraid, goes way too far
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me concur with my friend from 
Illinois on the issue.
  I have a question for my colleague from Texas. It is a very simple 
question. You have concerns about the issue of corporate liability. I 
get that. I happen not to agree with you. You are entitled to your 
opinion. You may or may not be concerned about section 230 of the 1996 
Federal telecommunications bill. That is fine too. We might have a 
discussion about how we protect American democracy. It is a good 
discussion as well. But I have a strong feeling, Senator Cornyn, that 
in Texas, as in Vermont--you know what--people are not really talking 
about corporate liability. It is a good issue. It is an important 
issue. I don't believe they are talking about section 230. What I think 
they are talking about, as the Senator from Illinois just said, is how 
they are going to feed their kids today. That is the issue. And what I 
would ask my friend from Texas is, What is your problem with allowing 
the Senate to vote on whether or not we are going to allow Americans, 
working-class people to get a $2,000 check?
  Now I gather that when that vote comes to the floor--and I hope it 
comes

[[Page S7977]]

immediately--you will vote no, and you will explain to the people of 
Texas why you voted that way. That is called democracy. I respect that. 
But what is your problem with allowing the Senate to have a free 
standing vote?
  There are a number of people on your side, Republicans, who have 
already come forward and said yes, they want to vote for this $2,000 
check.
  Now, if you want to deal with corporate liability, that is fine. 
Let's deal with it at some point. Bring forward a bill, and we can vote 
on it up or down. All that we are asking for is a simple, up-or-down 
vote on the issue that tens of millions of people are talking about 
right now: Will they survive economically in the midst of this terrible 
pandemic?
  I ask my colleague from Texas: What is the problem with allowing the 
U.S. Senate to vote on the bill passed by the House?
  I yield to my colleague from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would say to our colleague from Vermont, 
I have no problem with providing assistance, whether it is to public 
health officials who are trying to struggle with this pandemic or to 
provide money for research for the therapeutics or vaccines which, 
fortunately, are now being distributed around the country. I have no 
objection to direct payments to individuals. I voted for the $1,200 
direct payments contained in the CARES Act. I voted for the additional 
money that is provided for in the most recent COVID-19 legislation. But 
this legislation that the Senator from Vermont is advocating would 
benefit households with annual incomes of over $350,000. They would get 
this money.
  I would say that one way to deal with this--because, of course, we 
negotiated back and forth on the last COVID-19 bill, and nobody got 
everything they wanted--but if our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle want an additional financial benefit for people making up to 
$350,000, why not couple it with liability protection for people who 
are acting in good faith?
  This isn't just about corporations, and our colleagues across the 
aisle know it. This is about schools. This is about churches, 
synagogues, and mosques. This is about every business that is worried 
that a game of ``gotcha'' is going to take place and they are going to 
end up paying the price. Even if they win the lawsuit, they will still 
have to pay for the cost of defense, potentially losing their 
businesses outright.
  Clearly, our colleagues across the aisle care more about trial 
lawyers and being able to bring litigation against businesses that have 
tried to do their best and have struggled with the evolving public 
health guidance provided by the CDC and other authorities. Clearly, if 
they are not interested in engaging in a negotiation where people, who 
through no fault of their own, find themselves victimized by frivolous 
litigation, then, we have no alternative but to continue to object to 
this request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, if you listened carefully, you understood 
that my friend from Texas did not answer my question. He has a concern 
about corporate liability. It is a legitimate debate. Do you know what? 
Bring it to the floor. Let's vote it up or down. I will vote against 
it. You will vote for it. But I asked you a very simple question, not 
about linking things together--nobody in the real world understands 
that stuff. That is inside-the-beltway stuff.
  What people in the real world know--and I want to take a moment to 
read some of these statements. We have a lot of people on our social 
media, and we asked the American people, just the other day: Tell me; 
what would a $2,000 check mean to you? What is going on in your life?
  And in just over 24 hours, I would say to my friend from Texas, 
nearly 6,000 people responded. Here is just what a few of them had to 
say. This is Twitter stuff. So I don't have their names here, and I 
wouldn't use them publicly, anyhow. But this is what they say.
  One person writes: ``$2,000 is the difference between keeping our 
apartment and being evicted.'' Here is another one: ``$2,000 means I 
can afford to feed my three kids.'' Another response: ``It would mean 
not having to choose between rent and groceries and not having to 
ration my partner's meds.'' Another response: ``I am raising my 
grandson with medical needs. I am $4,000 behind on utilities. We need 
electricity to run his medical equipment.'' Here is another response: 
``$2,000 would mean I wouldn't have to worry about making my mortgage 
payment this month, and I could get my medication.'' Another response: 
``$2,000 would mean paying my rent and getting lifesaving treatment 
because I can't afford the $50 copay through my work insurance just to 
see my neurologist right now''--and on and on and on. Thousands of 
people responded.
  So, I want to get back to the point. I want to again say to my friend 
from Texas: If you have a concern about corporate liability--good 
issue--bring it to the floor. Let's vote on corporate liability.
  I would yield for a question from my friend from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I yield for a question through the Chair.
  I have listened to the figures used on the floor about families who 
would qualify for the $2,000. It is my understanding that an individual 
with an income of $75,000 or less could qualify for the $2,000 payment, 
and for a joint return--husband and wife--$2,000 could be given to them 
if their income is under $150,000. Is that your understanding?
  Mr. SANDERS. That is my understanding. And I think, you know, as 
Republicans do, they are going to let it be.
  But I get back to my friend--my friend from Texas, Senator Cornyn. We 
are asking a simple question. If you want to bring up corporate 
liability, bring it up. If you want to bring up section 230, bring it 
up. If you want to bring up the man in the Moon, bring it up. But what 
the American people want now is an up-or-down vote.
  Look, you are going to vote against it if it comes to the floor. That 
is fine. It is your right. Explain it to the people of Texas. I will 
vote for it. But all that I am asking for is the right, as a U.S. 
Senator, to have the vote.
  Again I ask you: What is your problem with Members of the U.S. 
Senate, including a number of Republicans, who have already indicated 
they would like to vote for this? What is your problem with bringing 
that up as a single stand-alone bill, not merged with corporate 
liability or anything else? What is your problem with that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would say to our colleague from Vermont: 
This money is not targeted to people who have suffered financially.
  Mr. SANDERS. Then vote against it.
  Mr. CORNYN. It is not targeted to people who have suffered financial 
losses. This money would go to members of your own staff if they meet 
the financial requirements and to other government employees who have 
suffered no financial loss during this pandemic.
  We have all suffered in different ways during the pandemic, to be 
sure, but, financially, this money is designed to help the people who 
need it the most. Why would you send money to government employees who 
have been receiving their full paycheck during this pandemic?
  Mr. SANDERS. That is a good question. And then I will have to explain 
that to the people of the State of Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has the floor.
  Mr. SANDERS. He asked me a question, as I understood it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. SANDERS. Did the Senator from Texas ask me a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. It was more of a rhetorical question.
  Mr. SANDERS. I took you literally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

                          ____________________