[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 224 (Friday, January 1, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7997-S8000]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--H.R. 9051 AND S. 5085

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me say to my friend, Senator Thune, 
that I certainly concur with you as to what a pleasure it is to be 
spending New Year's Day with you and our colleagues. It is exactly what 
I, I know, and every other Member here wanted to do, but here we are 
because we have to be here. We are here because, back home in my State 
and all over this country, millions and millions of families are 
struggling to put food on the table. They are struggling to pay their 
rent. They are struggling to come up with the money they need to go to 
the doctor.
  This hits me, in a sense, in a personal way. The other day, I 
received a letter from a colleague of mine in Burlington, VT, where I 
live--the largest city in the State of Vermont, all of 40,000 people. 
He wrote to me, reporting on a food drive in Burlington, VT, where I 
live:

       Over 30 volunteers showed up to the Champlain School to 
     help bag groceries and to hand them out to those who came 
     out. Unfortunately, there was not nearly enough donated food 
     to provide a bag to everyone who showed up despite us 
     planning on an increased need. The line of cars filled the 
     parking lot, wrapped around the school, and went out onto the 
     main road for half a mile. This represented a major up-tick 
     for the October event that we were involved in.

  This was in Burlington, VT, with hundreds of cars lining up for 
emergency food and the volunteers not having enough food to distribute. 
They had to say to the families who were trying to feed their kids: 
Sorry. We do not have enough food.
  So what we are doing today is very simple, and that is that Senator 
Thune, Senator McConnell, and others have raised objection to the 
House-passed bill. In the U.S. Senate, when we have differences of 
opinion, what we should be doing is debating that bill. So all that 
Senator Schumer is asking and all that I am asking is simple: Bring the 
bill to the floor. We are not even asking you to vote for it. Bring the 
bill to the floor. On top of everything else, we need 60 votes to pass 
it--60 votes. Can we get 60 votes? I don't know. I think virtually all 
of the 48 Democrats will vote for it.
  It means, Senator Thune, that we need 12 Republicans. I gather we 
have one right here who indicated he would vote for it, and five or six 
others have been public about saying they will vote for it. Will we get 
the rest? I don't know. You don't know. What is the problem with giving 
Members of the U.S. Senate the opportunity to vote on the legislation? 
When we have that debate, you can come up and raise all of your 
objections, and we can debate it.
  Now, I heard Senator Thune and Senator McConnell before him talk 
about this bill being socialism for the rich, which I have to tell you 
I find somewhat hysterical because that is an issue I have been talking 
about for many, many years. I am very delighted that my conservative 
Republican friends now recognize that we do have socialism for the 
rich. To paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., he said we live in a 
society where we have socialism for the rich and rugged individualism 
for the poor. King was right.
  Despite what my Republican colleagues are saying, the truth is that, 
according to the Tax Policy Center, the top 5 percent of Americans--the 
wealthiest people in our country--would receive less than 1 percent of 
the benefits of these direct payments--less than 1 percent. It doesn't 
sound, to me, like too much socialism for the rich.
  While we are on the subject of socialism for the rich, which my 
Republican friends have suddenly become very concerned about, let me 
talk about the Trump tax proposal that was pushed very hard by Senator 
McConnell and the Republican leadership and that, I think, every 
Republican voted for. Do you want to talk about socialism for the rich? 
It is not the bill that puts $2,000 into working-class hands all over 
this country. That isn't socialism for the rich. This is socialism for 
the rich. In that bill, Amazon--oh, by the way, I must say this, if I 
may: We were quoting the liberal Washington Post, owned by Jeff Bezos--
the wealthiest guy in the world. So here is Jeff Bezos' company, 
Amazon, and they received a tax rebate. They paid nothing in 2018 in 
Federal taxes. That is a corrupt tax system to begin with, but then, on 
top of that, they received $129 million as a tax rebate.
  That, Senator Thune, is socialism for the rich. In fact, this 
particular company is owned by the richest guy in the world, and you 
gave him a $129 million rebate, but it is not just Amazon.

[[Page S7998]]

  Delta Air Lines also paid nothing in Federal taxes in 2018; yet they 
received a $187 million rebate from that particular bill. Chevron, in 
helping to destroy our planet with their carbon emissions, received 
$181 million in a rebate.
  That, my friends, is what socialism for the rich is about. Socialism 
for the rich is not--in the midst of this terrible pandemic--putting 
$2,000 checks into the hands of working families.
  The truth of the matter is, as a result of this pandemic, we are 
living through the worst and most difficult economic period since the 
Great Depression. Tens of millions of families are facing eviction all 
over this country--in the wealthiest Nation on Earth. Moms are 
struggling to feed their kids, keep the electricity on, and be able to 
go to the doctor.
  Now, I hear from my Republican friends that the economy is doing 
better, but I would like to just read to them a few of the stories that 
I have received in my office. We asked people a simple question: How 
are you doing out there, and what is going on in your lives? We 
received many, many thousands of responses from people in every State 
in this country. I will read a few just to bring some dose of reality 
here to the U.S. Senate, which often, in the midst of all of the 
campaign contributions coming in from the rich, does not know what is 
going on in the real world.
  Here is the real world.
  A gentleman in Texas wrote:

       $2,000 is the difference between keeping our apartment and 
     being evicted.

  A mother in Virginia wrote:

       $2,000 means I can afford to feed my three kids.

  Now, maybe we should give her a long lecture on macroeconomics and 
how well the stock market is doing, but all she is worried about is 
feeding her three children.
  A woman in Wisconsin wrote:

       $2,000 would mean not having to choose between rent and 
     groceries and not having to ration my partner's meds.

  A woman in Nevada wrote:

       [It means] paying my rent and getting lifesaving treatment 
     because I can't afford the $50 co-pay through my work 
     insurance just to see my neurologist right now.
  A father in Florida wrote:

       It would mean I could pay my bills. My electricity and 
     phone are about to get shut off. I didn't have money for my 
     son on Christmas, and I won't have money for his birthday on 
     January 2.

  A father in New Jersey wrote:

       It would mean I could pay off credit card debt accumulated 
     during this pandemic, feed my children, and pay my bills.

  A parent in Massachusetts wrote:

       It would mean that I could pay my rent and electricity and 
     put food on the table.

  A woman in Missouri wrote:

       It would mean getting out of crushing debt. It would mean 
     survival without daily fear.

  Someone in Texas wrote:

       It would mean I could actually put food in the fridge.

  A man in Maryland wrote:

       It would mean I don't have to beg or go without food, 
     shelter, and medicine. It would mean my family stays warm 
     another couple of months and my dad gets proper treatment.

  Mr. DURBIN. Would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SANDERS. I would.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask a question of the Senator from 
Vermont through the Chair.
  I have listened to the Republican analysis of the bill, which you and 
Senator Schumer are asking for a vote on. It is a bill which passed the 
House and would give $2,000, basically, in allotments or payments to 
families across America, with certain income restrictions.
  And I have heard from the other side of the aisle, repeatedly, that 
this is socialism for the rich, that this is fundamentally unfair, and 
that we should do things in a targeted way. That is the argument that 
is made over and over again.
  And reference has been made repeatedly to the COVID-19 bill that 
passed last week with 92 votes, including many of the Republicans--
virtually all of them. Not all of them but virtually all of them.
  And so that bill, if I remember correctly, had a $600 payment 
included in the bill, and I asked my staff: Would you please analyze 
the formula for distributing the $600 and compare to it the formula for 
the $2,000, which is part of our bill.
  And lo and behold, they discovered it is the same formula. So if 
there is some fundamental, moral injustice in the distribution of these 
funds, then I am afraid all but six of the Republicans are guilty of 
the same immorality because they all voted for that formula last week 
when it was $600 and now are scandalized by the notion that the same 
formula they voted for would be used for a $2,000 payment.
  I am sure I have missed something in the translation here. I would 
like to ask the Senator from Vermont to explain this faux outrage from 
the Republican side of the aisle.
  Mr. SANDERS. Well, I think my friend from Illinois missed nothing in 
the translation. He is exactly right.
  But I also--
  Mr. THUNE. The Senator from Illinois makes a good point.
  Would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SANDERS. Yes.
  Mr. THUNE. So if the same formula is used, and you are increasing the 
amount by $1,400 per person--so you are going from, basically, for a 
family of four, what would be a $2,400 payment to an $8,000 payment, 
and you phase that down using the same formula, does the Senator from 
Illinois understand the math and why that skews toward people who make 
a lot more money than they would under the other formula?
  Mr. DURBIN. If the question is directed toward me, I will answer it.
  Mr. THUNE. Well, I just think that you are making a point in the 
statement which is not accurate because you are saying the formula is 
the same. The formula is the same, but the inputs change, and so the 
way it ramps down means that somebody who makes $350,000 gets a payment 
under the Sanders-Hawley proposal that they wouldn't--but they 
wouldn't--no, and it phases out a lot sooner, as you know.
  So let's be clear about how that formula works. You are 
misrepresenting the way that formula works.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has the floor.
  Mr. SANDERS. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  I would ask my friend from South Dakota: Do you disagree with the Tax 
Policy Center, which says that the top 5 percent of Americans--the 
wealthiest people in our country--would receive less than 1 percent of 
the total benefits being disbursed?
  Mr. THUNE. I have not seen the Tax Policy Center, but I know math, 
and I know as a basic principle that when you stick bigger numbers in 
there and you are using the same formula to phase something out, you 
are going to make it available to people who make a lot more money. 
That is a mathematical fact.
  And what you are saying, when you talk about the same formula, it 
skews entirely different in the income scale, and you know that.
  And all I am saying is don't misrepresent the facts.
  Mr. SANDERS. And all that I am saying is that, according to a very 
reputable tax center organization--people who do this for a living--
less than 1 percent of the benefits of the entire program go to the 
wealthiest people in this country.
  So when you are talking about trying to say: Oh my God, all of this 
money is going to the rich, that ain't really true.
  But I would also ask my friend: When did you suddenly become a 
religious adherent about concerns of socialism for the rich, when you 
gave 83 percent of the benefits for the rich and large corporations in 
the tax bill that you supported? Where was your concern about socialism 
for the rich when Amazon--owned by the richest guy in the world--got a 
$129 million tax rebate? I didn't hear much about socialism for the 
rich during that debate.
  Mr. THUNE. Will the Senator from Vermont allow me to respond to that 
question?
  Mr. SANDERS. Yes.
  Mr. THUNE. Well, very simply, what you are suggesting--what you are 
saying here is that the owner of the Washington Post, who said this is 
really bad policy and shouldn't be done in this way at the end of this 
year--is that what you are saying? That because he is a wealthy person, 
that somehow that is why he is making that statement?

[[Page S7999]]

  

  Mr. SANDERS. The wealthiest in the world.
  Mr. THUNE. I think the Washington Post editorial board, in most 
cases, has been very sympathetic to the argument of the Senator from 
Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. That is factually inaccurate.
  Mr. THUNE. In fact, they take a liberal point of view on almost every 
issue.
  My point, very simply, is that we have a limited amount of resources. 
This is borrowed money, as the Senator from Vermont knows. And when we 
spent months--literally months--and you ask: Why can't you guys just 
come down here, why can't you just come down here and debate this, we 
tried for months to get the Democrats down here to debate a bill. We 
put a bill on the floor in September, we put a bill on the floor in 
October, a coronavirus relief bill, and you guys blocked it. You didn't 
even want to talk about it. You didn't want to have an opportunity to 
amend it.
  We have been working at this for months, and we finally arrived, 
after months, at a proposal that helps people who need it the most, 
including nutrition assistance, including rental assistance, and 
including checks to people--
  Mr. SANDERS. Reclaiming my time
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. All that I am saying--all that I am saying--this is a 
great debate, John. We should have this debate, and in 2 minutes--in 2 
minutes, John, I am going to give you the opportunity to say you 
support what we are doing, and then we will have this debate. That is 
your opportunity.
  But I want to get back--the Senator from South Dakota did not answer 
the question that it was not, apparently, a huge concern about 
socialism for the rich in the bill that they supported or worried about 
the debt that would incur.
  So I see, if I may say so, a bit of hypocrisy here. Senator Thune and 
the Republican leadership want to debate this issue, and so do I. I 
think it is a great debate--great debate.
  Now, as everybody knows, Senator McConnell proposed an idea. I don't 
agree with it, but it is an idea that is worthy of debate and 
discussion, and he said: Let's combine three elements together. Let's 
incorporate the bill passed in the House by two-thirds of the House, 
including 44 Republicans; let's add to that the repeal of section 230 
of the Telecommunications Act; and let's also add to that, at President 
Trump's request, an issue about voter integrity, et cetera, et cetera.
  OK. That is what Senator McConnell proposed.
  And in one moment, I am going to bring--because I know Republicans 
think I don't do much for them and I am not concerned about them--but, 
Senator Thune, I am going to bring your bill to the floor. Show you 
what a nice guy I am. New year, I am going to bring Senator McConnell's 
bill right to the floor and give you an opportunity to vote for it.
  All that I am asking, while I bring Senator McConnell's Republican 
bill to the floor, we are going to bring the bill that passed the 
House, with 44 Republicans, to the floor as well.
  We will have two votes: One vote on Senator McConnell's bill, which 
needs 60 votes to pass; one vote on the House bill, 60 votes to pass. 
That is it.
  So it is hard for me to imagine how Senator Thune will object to us 
bringing forward the Republican bill.
  Here it goes. This is the legalese that I need to say and I am going 
to bring it forth and I am sure that Senator Thune will support me in 
my effort.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that if cloture is invoked on 
the veto message on H.R. 6395, National Defense Authorization Act, that 
notwithstanding rule XXII, at 3 p.m. today--short period of time--3 
p.m. today, Friday, January 1, 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 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 proceed to the 
consideration of Calendar No. 644, S. 5085; that the bill be considered 
read a third time; that there be 1 hour of debate on the bill, equally 
divided and controlled by myself or my designee and Senator McConnell 
or his designee; that following the use or yielding back of that time, 
the Senate vote on passage of the bill; and that if passed, the motion 
to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all without 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I want to say that I can't, for the life 
of me, figure out why it is so difficult to get a vote on the bills 
that Senator Sanders has just referenced, when, by my count, the 
President of the United States, the Speaker of the House, a large 
majority of the House of Representatives, and I think a supermajority 
of this body are all in favor--all in favor--of $2,000 COVID relief 
payments to working Americans.
  Now, we have had some back-and-forth on the floor today about how we 
got to the level of $2,000. We all know how we got to that level. The 
President of the United States said that is the level he supported. The 
number originates with him. This is the number that he has asked for 
and the House adopted it and a majority of Senators have said already 
publicly that they support it.
  And yet we can't seem to even get a vote on it. We can't even seem to 
have debate on it.
  I mean, with all due respect, this doesn't seem, to me, to be a 
Republicans versus Democrats issue; this seems to be the Senate versus 
the United States of America and I just don't understand it and I am 
willing to bet--I am willing to bet that the American people don't 
understand it either.
  I mean, here we are, in the throes of the worst pandemic in a 
century, that working people have borne the brunt of, and all that we 
are asking is that those working people be first in line for relief and 
that they be given meaningful relief that is only approximately 
commensurate with the hardships that they and their families have 
borne.
  Now, I hear a lot of talk about how we can't afford it. I do notice, 
however, that we seem to be able to afford all kinds of other stuff. We 
can afford to send lots of money to other governments. We can afford to 
send all kinds of tax breaks and bailouts to big corporations. We can 
afford to spend enormous sums of money on pork--hundreds of billions of 
dollars in that last bill on pork--hundreds of billions. But we can't 
seem to find the money for relief for working people that the President 
and the House and the Senate all support, and yet we can't seem to get 
it onto the floor.
  Let me just share three stories that I have heard just this week 
alone--this week alone--from my home State, from Missouri.
  Danielle, from St. Louis County, called my office. She said her 
utilities are about to be shut off. She is desperate for help. She said 
a $2,000 payment would go a long way to help keep the lights on and her 
house warm.
  I heard from a mother in Southeast Missouri. That is the bootheel of 
my State. She wrote that her son had lost pay because of his company's 
cutting back hours because of COVID and that he himself had contracted 
the virus and so he had to be home and he was missing work, missing 
shifts. His family can't make it paycheck to paycheck. Her daughter-in-
law is donating plasma in order to help earn some extra grocery money--
donating plasma in order to get some money to pay for groceries to feed 
their family.
  Richard from St. Louis wrote to me and said any extra help that he 
could get would go directly to paying his rent and his utilities. He 
had a job that he lost, in the retail business, the retail sector, and 
he is desperately struggling.
  I would state to the Presiding Officer that these people are not 
ne'er-do-wells. These are working people. These are strong people. 
These are proud people. And all they ask for, as I have said many times 
on this floor before, is a chance to get back on their feet and to be 
able to provide for their families. And I can't for the life of me 
understand why we cannot get so much as a vote on these bills.
  For that reason, Mr. President, I do not object. In fact, I 
enthusiastically support the measures that Senator

[[Page S8000]]

Sanders is trying to bring to the floor, and I would vote for both if 
we were given the opportunity.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I know 
Senator Toomey is delayed coming to the floor, and on his behalf, I 
will object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

                          ____________________