[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 51 (Thursday, March 18, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1631-S1632]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 823
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise in support of legislation developed
by our colleague, Senator Brown, and me to protect $1,400 relief
payments from being garnished by predatory private debt collectors.
We know that millions of American families are hanging on by a
thread. They are counting on these payments to make rent and pay for
groceries and medicines.
Now Senator Brown and I want to include these protections in the
American Rescue Plan. We wanted to include them, just like we had done
in the December relief bill, but the problem was that Senate rules
didn't allow Senator Brown and me to include these protections in the
American Rescue Plan, just like we had done earlier.
If the Senate doesn't pass this bill, predatory debt collectors will
continue to seize relief payments for everything from credit cards to
medical debt.
And as we talk about this right now, I would like to give an example
of what this really means. If you have two parents who have lost their
jobs, through no fault of their own, and they can't pay the rent
because their relief check has been seized to cover a child's
outstanding hospital bills--that is what is going to happen if you
don't pass the legislation Senator Brown and I are advocating.
So I think this one is cut and dry. The Senate will either stand
today for the working families who desperately need this help, like
that couple who are hurting, through no fault of their own, or the
Senate is with private debt collectors reaching their hands into those
families' pockets.
Now, these protections that we are talking about were included in the
December package, with Republicans fully supporting it. Families'
financial situations haven't changed so I hope that Republicans will
allow for the passage of this measure offered by Senator Brown and me.
It is just common sense.
And I am going to yield now--the minority is aware--to Senator Brown.
He, too, will have short remarks, and then we will engage with our
colleague on the other side.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Oregon, and
I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania too.
We passed the American Rescue Plan, as Senator Wyden said, to get
shots in people's arms, money in people's pockets, get kids back in
schools, and people back in jobs. Stimulus checks are already going out
the door in Hawaii, in Pennsylvania, in Oregon, and Ohio. More than 100
million checks are already in Americans' bank accounts. We promised in
campaigns, we promised in January we would do this and we would do this
quickly.
Five million Ohioans are going to get a check. We know predatory debt
collectors are already lining up to try to take a cut of those checks.
We know it costs more to be poor in this country. So often the debt
collectors come after you. Just to cash your check, there often is a
fee and all the bank fees that they have.
We passed the rescue plan to put money in people's pockets so they
can pay bills and buy groceries and spend money in local businesses.
They can buy a washer perhaps made by American workers in Clyde, OH, or
new tires for their cars made at Goodyear in Akron, OH. Maybe they are
looking forward to throwing a small high school graduation party in
their backyard--after they get their vaccines--with a cake and a
barbecue from a local restaurant.
That is why we passed these checks, to support families, to support
local economies, not to line the pockets of predatory private debt
collectors. That is why I appreciate Senator Wyden's work with us on
this bill to protect Americans' stimulus checks from financial
predators.
We know how aggressive private debt collectors are. They harass
people. They prey on workers trying to make ends meet, and now they
want to take this money before it even reaches Americans' bank
accounts.
Last year, as Senator Wyden said, we joined colleagues Grassley, a
Republican from Iowa, and Scott, a Republican from South Carolina, to
pass bipartisan legislation to protect people's money.
It shouldn't be different this time. We are still in a public health
crisis. Whether you voted for or against this American Recovery Act is
immaterial. We have a choice. Whose side are you on? Are you going to
protect workers and their families or are you going to side with debt
collectors?
I yield my time back to Senator Wyden.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous
consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S.
823 introduced earlier today. The bill would provide for protection of
recovery rebates. I further ask 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 PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, my friend,
the Senator from Oregon, suggested that the Senate rules precluded this
provision from being addressed in the recently passed bill.
It is actually a little bit more complicated than that. So let's
remember how we got here.
Last year, Republicans and Democrats worked together, and we passed
five bills, adding up to about $4 trillion, authorizing another several
trillion dollars of loans. It was an extraordinary reaction to an
extraordinary moment, and Republicans and Democrats came together time
and time again.
As the circumstances were changing, we passed new legislation to
reflect that--passing a big bill, a trillion-dollar bill nearly, in
December. But as soon as our Democratic colleagues had the ability,
they decided they weren't interested in any bipartisan legislation
[[Page S1632]]
anymore. It was going to be strictly Democrats using the reconciliation
process, and that is the only reason that this provision couldn't be
addressed because it can't be dealt with under the reconciliation
rules.
So now our Democratic colleagues perceive a problem with this
legislation, and they would like the Republicans' consent to fix what
might have been resolved with some kind of compromise had they pursued
the path that we pursued when we were in control.
But let's talk about where we are and what we have done for
individuals and families. The unprecedented financial support from the
Federal Government has been really amazing. An average family of four
has, by now, received stimulus checks of $9,200 and child tax credit
checks of $6,000. That is $15,200. By the way, that has gone to people
who never lost a penny of income. And if they did lose their job, as in
the hypothetical that the Senator from Oregon suggests, then the
unemployment benefits, in more than half the cases, paid them more than
they made working because of the legislation that we passed. We
designed it so they would pay people more not to work than they would
make working, in addition to these stimulus checks that they got.
So the result of that is, in the aggregate, personal savings have
gone through the roof. It is up by over $1.6 trillion. Total consumer
credit is down. The fact is, we more than replaced lost income through
the series of bills that were passed.
Now my colleagues want to come here and block a valid, legal claim
from being honored with some of this money. And specifically, they want
to block these stimulus checks from being subject to garnishment.
So what is a garnishment? That is just when money is withheld from
someone because they owe something. They owe money that they haven't
paid to someone else, and that someone else has gone to court, made the
case, and it has been adjudicated that, yes, this is money that is
owed.
So they want to forbid this windfall--which in many, many cases this
is a windfall, let's be honest. They want to prevent it from being
available to be used for the conventional way that we collect money
that is owed. And whom might this affect?
Under this legislation, if it were to pass, it would forbid
garnishment of the alimony payment that a needy former spouse relies
on. That is a common expense for which garnishment applies. But in this
case, the deadbeat former husband who is not paying his alimony
payments, who forced his former wife to go to court to get a court
order, he has been so far behind, now he gets this big check from the
government, and she doesn't even get to catch up on the money that he
owes her?
How about the deadbeat dad who is not paying his child support? That
is another situation in which the mom, trying to struggle to support
those kids, had to go to court and get a court order that his future
income would be garnished because he just doesn't pay. Well, he gets
this check in the mail, compliments of the taxpayer, and he doesn't
have to give her any of that? That is so terribly unfair.
And, you know, in addition to all these direct payments, we have also
provided massive financial support in all kinds of ways to alleviate
expenses like nutrition assistance, $80 billion; housing assistance,
$65 billion; increase of Medicaid, $170 billion; not to mention almost
$1 trillion in payroll support so that people could continue to work.
When you pay for all of these things and you still give people money
on top of that, I don't think it is unreasonable to ask people to pay
their bills, especially their overdue bills to their former wife or to
support their kids.
Here is the other thing. At best, this is now a political statement
because, as one of many colleagues just alluded to, these payments have
already gone out the door--most of them have. The Treasury has already
issued probably over $250 billion in stimulus checks. And to the extent
that a person was subject to garnishment, the garnishment happens
automatically. So it has already happened.
So what does that mean if this bill passed? The legal chaos--I mean,
first of all, it would actually allow the deadbeat dad I am referring
to, to go back and claim that money back, to claw it back from the
account that is meant to support his kids. How is that even possibly
fair or reasonable?
This is a bad idea, and for these reasons, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, just briefly. I think the key kind of
question--and the checks are still going out, and we want them to get
out as quickly as possible, but the key issue here is the Republicans,
back in December, wanted to help that couple that I was talking about,
the person laid off, through no fault of their own. They wanted to help
those folks to make sure their relief check wouldn't be seized to cover
a child's outstanding hospital bills.
So what we heard are discussions about all kinds of, you know, other
issues, but the fact is, in December, just a few weeks ago--just a few
weeks ago--Republicans were supportive of the families Senator Brown
and I are seeking to help today. That is what the question is all
about. Will the Senate today help the folks who are hurting that
Senator Brown and I have been talking about?
In December, Republicans said: You bet we are going to be there. Now
it is a question, really, of whom the Senate is for. Senator Brown and
I are for those folks who are hurting, and they have been laid off
through no fault of their own, and Republicans, unfortunately, with
checks still going out--still going out--have decided they are for the
private debt collectors.
I think it really shows whose side you are on, and Senator Brown and
I and members of our caucus are on the side of the people who are
hurting, through no fault of their own, and we especially care about
them at this time when checks are still going out.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BROWN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King). Without objection, it is so
ordered.