[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 223 (Thursday, December 31, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7985-S7986]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, yesterday, the Senate was finally 
able to proceed to this year's National Defense Authorization Act. A 
few of our Democratic colleagues have pulled out all the stops to hold 
back this crucial bill, but last night, a big bipartisan majority of 80 
Senators voted to proceed.
  There should be nothing controversial about giving our brave men and 
women in uniform the tools and training they need to stay safe. There 
should be nothing controversial about continuing the work of rebuilding 
and modernizing our capabilities. It should be a nonpartisan 
proposition that America should keep pace with Russia and China rather 
than slip behind.
  We have enacted an annual NDAA for 59 straight years and counting. In 
the next few days, the easy way or the hard way, we are going to do our 
job once again. This body will fulfill our responsibility to the men 
and women who protect our country. The Senate will be here until we 
finish this bipartisan legislation.
  Now, for several days, we heard some Senators say Congress must send 
more cash to high-earning households that haven't seen any income 
disruption during COVID-19. Our colleagues who purport to be the 
champions of vulnerable Americans now say that what struggling people 
really need is for Congress to stop focusing on targeted relief for 
them specifically and, instead, to send thousands of dollars to people 
who don't need the help.
  Experts from across the political spectrum agree that our colleague 
from Vermont is dead wrong on this. Socialism for rich people is a 
terrible way to help the American families who are actually struggling. 
Let me say that again. Borrowing from our grandkids to do socialism for 
rich people is a terrible way to get help for families who actually 
need it.
  Washington Democrats took President Trump's suggestion and skewed it 
so the checks would benefit even more high-earning households.
  Imagine a family of five where the parents earn $250,000 per year and 
have not seen any income loss this past year. Speaker Pelosi and 
Senator Sanders want to send them $5,000 from Uncle Sam. They make a 
quarter of a million dollars, nobody is out of work, but our so-called 
progressive friends say the household needs ``survival

[[Page S7986]]

checks.'' In fact, they believe a family of five should have to earn 
$350,000 before the spigot of government money would stop entirely.
  Socialism for rich people. That is what Speaker Pelosi and Senator 
Sanders have sketched out. A terrible way to help those who need it, 
and experts across the political spectrum agree.
  The liberal editors of the Washington Post have blasted so-called 
progressives demanding a nontargeted giveaway that would give ``huge 
amounts'' to ``perfectly comfortable families.''
  Larry Summers, who ran the Treasury Department for President Clinton 
and the National Economic Council for President Obama, says there is 
``no good economic argument'' for more nontargeted checks with no 
linkage to need.
  The liberal New York Times reported this morning that a majority of 
the households that get nontargeted checks do not end up spending them 
on urgent needs but rather just add it to their savings. ``We know 
where the pockets of need are,'' said one economist, and ``putting 
[money] there would be a much more efficient use.''
  Fortunately, though some of our colleagues seem to have forgotten, 
that is exactly what we did only a week ago. It has been less than 5 
days since President Trump signed into law another historic bipartisan 
rescue package targeted to Americans who actually need the help.
  We passed an entire second round of PPP loans to save small business 
jobs, targeted to the hardest hit. We renewed multiple kinds of 
additional benefits for unemployed workers, including an extra $300 
supplement every week. There are billions for targeted food assistance, 
billions for targeted rental assistance, and many billions of dollars 
for vaccine distribution so we can finally beat this virus and reopen 
the economy in full.
  These are the kinds of targeted emergency programs that directly help 
the most vulnerable, and we just poured almost another trillion dollars 
into them, less than 5 days ago, along with more direct checks that are 
already arriving in households' accounts. That is what we did just 5 
days ago.
  This crisis has not affected everyone equally. The data show that 
many upper middle-class Americans have kept their jobs, worked 
remotely, and remained totally financially comfortable. On the other 
hand, some of our fellow citizens had their entire existence turned 
upside down and continue to suffer terribly.
  We do not need to let the Speaker of the House do socialism for rich 
people in order to help those who need help. Our duty, both to 
struggling Americans and to taxpayers, is to focus on targeted relief 
that will have the maximum impact and help the people who need it the 
most. That is what the experts say we should do. That is where there is 
broad bipartisan support, and that is exactly what we did less than 1 
week ago, when nearly $900 billion in more targeted relief was signed 
into law for our people

                          ____________________