[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 223 (Thursday, December 31, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7987-S7990]
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--MOTION TO PROCEED--Resumed
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of the veto message on H.R. 6395,
which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Veto message, a bill (H.R. 6395) to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2021 for military activities
of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and
for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to
prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year,
and for other purposes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont
Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 9051 and H.R. 6395
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, let me briefly respond to some of the
points that Majority Leader McConnell has made, to his inaccurate
statements.
Now, I am delighted that, after years of talking on the floor of the
Senate about socialism for the rich, apparently, that has gotten across
to my Republican friends. Of course, that is what we do every single
day. That is why we have the incredible level of income and wealth
inequality that exists in this country, because, decade after decade,
we have used this body to provide massive tax breaks to the rich and
provide corporate welfare to corporations that don't need it. That is
socialism for the rich. The majority leader is right, but let's talk
about, in fact, what is in this bill.
According to the Tax Policy Center, fewer than 1 percent of the
benefits of the direct payments--that is the $2,000 per working-class
adult that Senator Schumer and I are talking about--would go to the top
5 percent of Americans. Virtually nothing would go to the very, very
rich. The overwhelming majority of those funds would go to the middle
class, the working class, low-income people, who in the midst of this
pandemic are in desperate economic condition.
Again, I am delighted to hear the majority leader talking about
socialism for the rich, and I hope we will continue that discussion in
the next session. Let me talk about the socialism for the rich that the
majority leader is enthusiastically supportive of as the majority
leader helped to lead this body to pass Trump's tax bill.
Now, do you want to talk about socialism for the rich, Mr. Majority
Leader?
Under that bill, Charles Koch--one of the very richest people in
America, who has a net worth of $113 billion--received a $1.4 billion
tax break.
Mr. Majority Leader, that sounds, to me, like socialism for the rich.
Ah, but that is not all.
In Nevada, you have a gentleman named Sheldon Adelson, who is a major
contributor to the Republican Party and a big funder for Donald Trump.
Under that same tax bill led by the majority leader, Sheldon Adelson
received a $560 million tax break. A guy who is worth $34 billion
desperately needed that tax break of $560 million.
Do you want more tax breaks for the rich? Do you want to talk about
socialism for the rich?
Senator McConnell had no problem giving a $104 million tax refund to
Amazon over the past 3 years despite the fact that the company made $30
billion in profits. So the argument that this bill, in any significant
way, benefits the rich is just not accurate, but let us talk about whom
this bill does benefit.
This bill benefits tens of millions of Americans who, as a result of
this pandemic, have lost their jobs and have lost their incomes. Some,
in fact, have lost their lives. These are people who are going hungry
today. We are seeing today a recordbreaking level of hunger in
America--the richest country in the history of the world. All over this
country--and I receive emails from people all over this country--people
are frightened to death that they are going to be evicted from their
homes. Think about what a $4,000 check or a $5,000 check would mean to
those struggling families--husband, wife, kids. In fact, let me give
you an example.
This is a problem taking place all over this country. It is taking
place in Vermont. It is taking place in Senator Schumer's State. It is
taking place in Kentucky. In fact, the State of Kentucky--a very
beautiful State; I have had the pleasure of being there a number of
times--a beautiful State--is the State in which 10 out of the 25
poorest counties in America exist. I am sure Senator McConnell is aware
that, throughout his State, you have thousands and tens of thousands of
people living in economic desperation. I am talking about counties
where 30 to 40 percent of people are living in poverty and where many
thousands of residents are trying to survive on less than $20,000 a
year.
I am just using Kentucky as an example because that is the State
Senator McConnell represents, but it is true all over this country.
In Kentucky, over 22 percent of the children are living in poverty.
Do you think they might need a little bit of help?
In the State of Kentucky, more than 190,000 workers are making
extremely low wages, and over a half a million people earn less than
$15 an hour. Somebody might want to ask those people what a $2,000
check per adult would mean. I am talking about Kentucky, and I will
never forget this because I visited Kentucky and talked to some of the
people there. Kentucky has suffered from a particular opioid crisis. I
will never forget talking to a football coach who told me that a bunch
of the kids on his football team were living with their grandparents or
on couches because of the opioid epidemic.
In other words, the people in Kentucky, the people in New York, and
the people in Vermont are hurting. They need help.
So I say today to Senator McConnell, the leader here, let us address
the horrendous economic crisis facing tens of millions of Americans.
The pandemic today is worse than it has ever been. Hopefully,
hopefully, the vaccine will make a profound difference, but, right now,
people are hurting, and they are looking to this institution. They are
looking to Congress. The House did the right thing. They are now
looking to the Senate. They are looking to Senator McConnell.
After all is said and done and after all of the legalese--and I am
going to be introducing some legalese in a moment--it comes down to one
thing: Senator McConnell disagrees with the proposal that Senator
Schumer and I are making. I got it. That is fine. This is a democracy.
He has the right to his point of view. I would love to have the debate
on the floor with Senator McConnell about this legislation. All that we
are asking is to give us the opportunity to vote up or down on whether
or not working families in this country should be able to receive a
$2,000 check. Senator McConnell disagrees.
Come to the floor. Tell us why you disagree. Then we will do what
this institution is supposed to do. We will have a vote.
[[Page S7988]]
The truth is, in the House, Senator McConnell knows that 44
Republicans voted for the House bill, which won, by the way, by a 2-to-
1 majority. Two-thirds of the House voted to make sure that working
Americans would get a $2,000 check. Right here in the Senate, there are
a number of Republicans--it is not clear how many--who have already
gone public in saying they think it is a good idea that we go forward
with the House bill.
So all that I am asking Senator McConnell is to give us a vote. What
is the problem? You can vote no. By the way, we need 60 votes--a
majority. There is no question in my mind that a majority of the
Senators will vote yes, but because of house rules, we need 60 votes.
So we are going to have to get 48 Democrats--that is what we have--plus
12 Republicans. Can we get 12 Republicans? I don't know--maybe we can;
maybe we can't--but give us a vote. What is the problem? What is the
problem with having the American people see how their Senators vote on
this issue of such enormous importance?
As Senator Schumer indicated, Senator McConnell has some other
concerns.
He is concerned about section 230 of the 1996 Federal
Telecommunications Act. I am sure that this is absolutely on the minds
of everybody in Vermont, in New York, and in Kentucky. It is probably
all that they are talking about, the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Fine.
If he wants a vote on that, bring it to the floor. Let's vote on it as
a separate bill.
Do you want to talk about election security? Senator Schumer is
right. There are a lot of issues out there. I am concerned about voter
suppression. I am concerned about people waiting online for 5 hours to
cast a vote. I am concerned about voter intimidation. Senator McConnell
has different points of view. Let's have that discussion. Put together
a commission. No problem. Bring that bill to the floor. Yet everybody
understands that, when you combine all three elements, this is a poison
pill designed to kill that legislation.
After everything is said and done, all of this comes down to one
simple fact: Will Senator McConnell, the Republican leader of the U.S.
Senate, allow this body to vote on a bill which will provide $2,000 per
person to working-class families all across this country? That is what
this whole debate is about. It is not whether you like the bill or you
don't like it. We can have that debate. We have 3 days left in this
Congress. The House did the right thing. It is now time for the Senate
to have that vote.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 3 p.m. today,
Thursday, December 31, the Senate proceed to the consideration of
Calendar No. 645, H.R. 9051, to provide a $2,000 direct payment to the
working class; that the bill be considered read a third time and the
Senate vote on the passage of the bill; and that if passed, the motion
to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; further, that
following the vote on H.R. 9051, the Senate resume consideration of the
veto message on H.R. 6395, the National Defense Authorization Act, and
the Senate vote on the passage of the bill, the objections of the
President to the contrary notwithstanding, all with no intervening
action or debate.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I object.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, 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. DURBIN. 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. DURBIN. Madam President, I would like to for a moment just
reflect on where we are at this session of the U.S. Senate and the
choices that have been made.
I want to thank Senator Sanders and Senator Schumer for bringing
this, with clarity, to the floor of the Senate.
We support $2,000 as a helping hand to people across the United
States. There is a limitation on the amount that individuals receive if
they make more than $75,000 or if their family makes more than
$150,000, but we are following the template that has been employed both
with the CARES Act and with our own COVID relief act of just a few days
ago.
We have been told by the Department of the Treasury that if you want
to put money into the hands of Americans who desperately need it, this
is the best way to do it, the quickest way to do it. There are better
ways, I am sure, but in a time of crisis, we need to respond and
respond in a timely way.
So Senator Sanders and Senator Schumer have brought to the floor for
consideration, we hope, a bill that has already passed the House of
Representatives. The significance of this is that the House is now in
recess and not scheduled to return in this congressional session. So
whatever happens over here cannot be a new bill--there is no House to
send it to and no time to pass it--but, rather, has to be an up-or-down
vote on a bill that has passed the House as is. That is what they have
come to the floor now for 3 straight days asking.
Senator Schumer has asked repeatedly of Senator McConnell, the
Republican leader, a simple request: Whether you are for the House bill
or against the House bill, allow the Senate to be the Senate. Allow us
to vote on the bill--for those of us who support it, to vote on it.
It isn't a lock; it isn't guaranteed that we are going to win and
prevail with that vote. There are 48 Democratic Senators, and you need
60 votes. We need help from the other side. Four or five Republican
Senators say they support it as well, but we don't know if we have the
12, if all of our Members can be here. In this era of COVID-19, sadly,
even some of our Senators have illnesses in the family, which may make
it impossible for them to be here. So there is no guarantee we win, but
there will be a guarantee that we are recorded and our positions are
known to the voters across America. That is a simple request. Yet, time
and again, the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, has said no.
I am worried about what is happening to this institution, not just in
this instance but with what we have seen over the past several years.
We will conclude this calendar year having voted on the floor of this
U.S. Senate 29 times on amendments--29 in the course of a year in what
is supposedly the world's greatest deliberative body. I guess I
shouldn't complain--it is a 30-percent increase over last year, when we
voted on 22 amendments in the entire calendar year. The Senate is out
of business and out to lunch when it comes to legislating, and that is
a fact.
All we are asking for is the chance to legislate a $2,000 helping
hand to families across America. I have heard over and over again that
we are just trying to featherbed the rich, that we are trying to give
big checks to rich people. Well, Senator Sanders made a point on that
earlier. Less than 1 percent of the money we are asking for is going to
go to the top 5 percent.
When it came time for tax policy and tax breaks, many of the people
complaining the loudest about $2,000 were giving away millions of
dollars to the richest people in America without any hesitation. Well,
today is another day, and today is a different America. Today, we are
facing a country that is in the depths of the crisis created by COVID-
19. The numbers coming back to us every night on the news are
heartbreaking numbers.
I understand--and most of us do--that those wonderful women and men
who are in the healthcare business usually are very stoic and calm in
reporting the reality of their lives. Not so anymore. More and more
doctors and nurses are breaking down on television as they describe the
scenes in emergency rooms across this country. They describe the
reality of telling families that they cannot be by the bedside of one
of their loved ones who is about to die, and they break down in tears
and tell us they don't know how much more of this they can take.
That is the reality of America. It is not an America of vastly rich
people sitting by the swimming pool hoping Congress sends them more
money; it is an America of those patients and their families and the
people who are out of
[[Page S7989]]
work and the business men and women who have lost everything, who need
a hand from this government.
If there is one thing about America, I hope it is clear, no matter
what your political persuasion, we are a caring people. If a hurricane
hits Florida, I care about it. If a tornado hits the State of Nebraska,
I care about it. And we come together on a bipartisan basis to help
those families. Now more than ever, those families need us to do
something significant in their lives. How can you see the scenes on
television every night of the parade of cars lined up in Texas, in
Kentucky, in Illinois, hoping they can get some food to give to their
families? Are those grifters and chiselers who are just trying to get a
free meal? I don't think so. Would you sit in your car for an hour or
two for food unless you really needed it? I think those people really
need it. Many of them are heartbroken that they are in this situation.
Some are even embarrassed--and they shouldn't be--that they have been
the victims of this economy.
So all we are asking, Senator McConnell, is, give us a chance to
vote. You can vote no if you wish. Give us a chance to vote for the
$2,000 that can make a difference in a person's life; $4,000 for a
husband and wife who are struggling to get by--rent checks, mortgage
payments, car payments, utility bills, things that really are basic to
families' survival. We are trying to help, and I think we should be
given that chance.
We have tried time and again. We have the support of President Trump
in this effort, and I am glad to have it. I think we have enough
support in this Chamber to come up with 60 votes. I pray that we will,
if we are given that chance, and I hope the Senate Republican leader is
not afraid of that outcome. He shouldn't be.
He has two of his incumbent Republican Senators in a runoff election
who have both publicly said they want to vote for this, and yet he
stops them. He is the one who has put an end to their opportunity. Why?
Shouldn't he give them the opportunity to vote yes? He even refuses, in
this situation, with this looming election, to bring this matter to the
floor for an honest up-or-down, bipartisan vote.
I listened to the stories that were told by Senator Sanders and
others about the plight of people in this country and how much they
count on us and, frankly, how many of them have given up on us. They
just don't believe the Congress of the United States is in touch with
the reality of America.
If we are in touch with the reality in our home States, in our home
towns, we should do something--something significant--to end this year
on the right note.
I plead with the Republican leader, who has the power. The sole
Member of Congress of 100 Members--he has the power to bring this
matter to a vote and to do it immediately, within the hour. We could
call the Members who returned to Washington yesterday together, take a
vote soon, in a matter of minutes, and know once and for all whether we
have the 60 votes that are necessary to pass this measure. Then we can
pass the override of the President's veto of the Defense authorization
bill--a critical piece of legislation.
That would be the right way to end this year. Let us not end it in
suspense as to whether or not we are going to come to the aid and
assistance of American families who rely on us time and again to be
there when America needs a helping hand. Let's do our job. Let's fill
this Chamber with Senators who will actually vote on an issue that
makes a difference in the lives of Americans. That is what we were
elected to do. We have no excuse if we fail.
I yield the floor.
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. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cramer). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, we are here in the waning hours of
2020, expectant and hopeful about the coming year, and I want to wish
all of my colleagues a very healthy and happy new year in the hope that
we will fulfill the promise of our constituents, our country, our
Constitution in moving forward to meet and conquer the pandemic that
still ravages our Nation and to renew our economy that still is
failing.
We are the greatest Nation in the history of the world, and Americans
are hurting. This body has taken positive and important steps toward
meeting this public health and economic crisis, as well as the hurt and
harm that continue to plague Americans.
In a number of important relief packages, we have helped to meet
those needs and enabled the Nation to bridge the gap created by this
pandemic--an economic gap that has become a chasm, a cliff that seems
without end and, for many of our fellow citizens, a time of
unparalleled and unanticipated pain.
The relief package that we passed most recently--I think we can be
proud to say--is the second largest in our Nation's history, and it
will provide a second round of paycheck protection loans, forgivable,
becoming grants, so that small businesses can keep their doors open;
more aid for our transportation and education systems; money to
distribute the vaccine that will be a lifesaver for so many Americans;
and other important aid, including a $600 stimulus payment for every
American who is making less than $75,000. That is real assistance for a
family of four--$2,400--because every child, as well as adult, will
receive that money.
But all of that $906 billion is only a downpayment. It is a life
raft, and it has to be followed by an even more robust, bigger, bolder
package to provide real relief and sustenance for the survival of our
economy and, literally, the survival of Americans who are struggling to
put food on the table and to buy medicine, pay rent and mortgages,
clothe their children.
We have all told our stories on the floor of the Senate during 2020
about constituents waiting in food lines, hurting for the funds needed
to stay in their home or apartment and to pay for the medicine that is
literally a matter of life and death.
We have told those stories. We have talked about Americans who are
struggling. We have the opportunity now to do something about it, so I
appeal to my Republican colleague very bluntly and simply: Give us a
vote on the CASH Act. Let us vote on a stand-alone $2,000 stimulus
payment bill. Allow every one of us to go on record on that $2,000
stimulus payment bill that would add $1,400 to that $600 already
provided--not to minimize the importance of $600, but it is
inadequate. It is insufficient. It is unacceptable because it fails to
provide the basic needs to meet the desperate and dire straits of so
many Americans.
We are talking about families who need that money to buy bread and
milk, paper towels and toilet paper, goods and services that are
necessary to the survival of their families. Six hundred dollars is
simply not enough, and that is why I call on my fellow colleagues to
persuade their leaders that we should be permitted this vote, because I
believe that if there is a vote, it will pass. Having spoken to
Republican colleagues here, I have no doubt--none--that the stand-alone
$2,000 stimulus payment measure would pass overwhelmingly, just as did
the $600 payment as part of the larger bill.
The simple fact is, that measure is the only viable vehicle. Any
other measure loaded with other provisions, whether it is the section
230 reform or a commission to investigate the last election on
fictitious fraud, is doomed. It is doomed logistically. It is doomed
legally and physically. There is no way for the House to pass it.
Only the House bill, if passed, can provide Americans with the $2,000
stimulus payment that they so desperately need. Only the House bill
provides that relief. Any other measure will be doomed because the
House cannot come back to pass it in the time we have left in this
session. So the majority leader is essentially blocking a step that
will literally save lives, supported by the vast majority of the
American people, a significant part of his own conference, and every
Democrat.
Have no doubt--every Democrat will vote for it. We clamored for a
higher stimulus payment for months when the majority leader refused to
come to the table and then when the President of the United States
failed to lift a finger--he was on the golf course--when it
[[Page S7990]]
might have made a difference in raising that $600 amount higher during
the negotiating.
Looking forward, there is a way to provide this relief to Americans
without leaving here in a contest of blame but in a new year of mutual
congratulation. Pass the $2,000 stimulus payment plan as a stand-alone,
clean bill.
I just want to say that I am probably the only Senator who has
supported two measures--one of them actually passed by the Congress and
signed by the President to reform section 230 and the other unanimously
voted out of the Judiciary Committee. They reformed section 230, and I
support reforming section 230. I have hardly been uncritical of section
230. There should be major reform of section 230, but it has to be done
in a careful, deliberate, and considered way as a separate measure, not
as a meat ax in a totally unrelated bill, the $2,000 payment bill that
provides real relief for the country.
Loading the CASH Act with poison pills is obstruction. It is not
constructive legislating, and it fails to meet the test of this moment.
It is vital that we move forward to provide struggling Americans with
this relief, and scuttling the $2,000 stimulus payment bill with a
half-baked, meat-ax evisceration of section 230 is cruel and downright
stupid. It betrays the mission and obligation that we have in these
waning days of 2020.
Americans need more help, and they need hope. Help and hope are
embodied in the vaccine. Unfortunately, the rollout of this vaccine,
despite the $8 billion contained in the latest pandemic relief bill,
has been hopelessly behind schedule. The number of doses distributed is
roughly one-tenth of what it should be even under the scaled-back
schedule that this administration has adopted. Twenty million
vaccinations were promised by the end of the year. That number was way
below the initial promise, and only about one-tenth of them--probably 2
million--will actually be provided.
Instead of taking responsibility or taking control, President Trump
is still tweeting; instead of action, more talk. Only action will save
lives, and either he doesn't care enough, or he doesn't really see what
is necessary to do in order to save these lives, because the
distribution of this vaccine is a matter of life and death.
Using the Defense Production Act, mobilizing America, making sure
States have the resources they need, providing money to hospitals, and
making sure there are the vials, syringes, training for workers, as
well as the facilities to transport, store, and distribute this
vaccine, are essential now. They are missing at this moment, and the
President is where the buck stops.
Now I look forward to a 2021 when a new President will expand the
stimulus payments to individuals and when many of the other gaps left
unfinished--action that still is necessary--will be fulfilled by
another, more robust, bigger, bolder pandemic relief program. I hope we
will have the same bipartisan support that we saw at the end of this
year for the latest. I hope we will overcome the divisions that
prevented us from doing what is really necessary and adding $1,400 to
the $600 already provided.
We need to do more for small businesses. Yes, there will be another
round of PPP payments, but this chasm faced by restaurants, retailers,
and small businesses struggling to keep their doors open, keep their
people on payroll during the holidays--we have seen them all and talked
to them. Their stories are riveting and heartbreaking. Businesspeople
have poured their hearts and souls and lives into these businesses,
only to see them threatened with extinction.
This crisis has a racial justice aspect that cannot be ignored
because disproportionately, the businesses that have failed are Black-
and Brown-owned. Disproportionately, the lives lost have been in Black
and Brown communities. Disproportionately, the jobs lost have been in
those same communities--Black and Brown communities that have suffered
more than any other as a result of this pandemic. So we need to make
sure that they receive the vaccine as well as the therapeutics and
testing that are necessary to save lives.
We are in the midst of a racial justice moment that affects policing
and criminal justice, but it also affects our schools, where the ZIP
Code of a child's residence can mean the difference between a quality
education or not; where Black and Brown communities suffer twice or
three times the death rate of others as a result of this pandemic;
where job discrimination still exists and where, in housing, redlining
still afflicts these communities; and where environmental quality--
rivers, lakes, air can still be disproportionately contaminated and
polluted in communities inhabited by Black and Brown people.
We are here in the last day of an unprecedented and catastrophic
year. More than 342,000 of our fellow Americans are dead as a result of
this insidious virus--over 342,000 gifts unwrapped, places at the table
left open, and many of them without a final goodbye. This past year
will go down as one of the hardest in our history.
I think we all hope for a better year, but it will come only if we
take the kind of action that apparently my Republican colleagues are
failing to provide today, which is to meet the need to match the moment
of the desperate and dire straits of so many Americans.
The failure to approve an additional $1,400 and pass the CASH Act is
a haunting omission. My hope is that the hopes of a hurting nation will
be met in this new year, that the calls for justice and relief will be
heard, and that the ailing and sick--not just physically but
emotionally--will be met. This crisis has been one of physical health
care but also mental health care, and the emotional strains can be seen
in the rising rates of domestic violence, substance abuse disorder and
addiction, and so many other areas where mental and emotional stress
and anxiety have taken a toll. The hopes of a fearful and grieving
nation rests on our shoulders, and we cannot let them down.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
____________________