of my income was altered by any of this. i received a 1200-dollar check and i cashed it and i wasn't really -- covid-19 did not alter my life in any way financially although my son and daughter just had covid over the holidays and their 29 and 30 years old and thank goodness they are fine and they survived it and we will move on but i think they should target money to people that are really affected and hurt by this. thank you for listening. >> host: romeo, what did you do with that $1200? to do spend it or save it? >> caller: i spent it. i gave some of it to my childr children. i mean, it wasn't necessary. the way i look at it. >> we break away from this washington journal program. the senate is about to gavel in as you saw there. general speeches will be up

first and the couple hours from now at 5:00 p.m. allied quorum call between senators to the floor. after that we expect work on an override president trump's defense bill veto and we expect that work to begin. it does look likely, as you saw at washington journal, lawmakers will be in session new year's eve and new year's day and this coming saturday to finish up their work. live to the senate floor now here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. black, will open the senate with prayer. the chaplain: let us pray.

almighty god, our gracious king, you are the one clear power of love in the midst of lesser powers. thank you for giving us the confidence that you hear and answer prayers. lord, use the members of this body as ambassadors of reconciliation. help them to bring wholeness, healing, and unity to a fragmented nation and world. inspire them to discover your love in each other and to see your image in all

creation. lord, settle our senators down into a contemplative stillness that will make them yearn for righteousness, justice, and peace. may they speak wise words from a reservoir of wisdom that will transform discord into harmony. we pray in your loving name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: today the senate was supposed to finish legislation securing critical tools, training, and support for america's armed forces. but the junior senator from vermont had other ideas. remember, senator sanders spent last summer literally trying to defund our military. not my words, mr. president, by the title of a piece he published, defund the pentagon, the liberal case. our colleague authored an amendment to strip 10% of funding from our service members and decimate our defense budget.

the russians aren't cutting military funding. china isn't cutting funding. but last summer senator sanders and fellow democrats, including the democratic leader voted to make america unilaterally disarmed and cut ours. the left took a break from trying to defund the police to try to defund our armed forces. the amendment went down in a landslide. but now our colleague from vermont is again putting political stunts before the needs of our men and women in uniform. our colleague says he will slow down in vital bill unless he gets to muscle through another stand alone proposal from speaker pelosi that would add roughly half a trillion dollars to the national debt. which does not align with what president trump has suggested which has no realistic path to quickly pass the senate. as i've said the senate will not let our national security be shoved off course, certainly not by senators who have spent years, literally years trying to gut america's capabilities while

our adversaries continue ramping up. the senate will stay on this important bill until we complete it one way or another. now let's talk about covid-19 relief. four days ago president trump signed the second largest rescue package in american history. the largest one was the cares act back in march. due to this pandemic and our massive response, we now have a national debt far larger than our entire economy for the first time since world war ii. but we knew our people needed more help so congress just passed another nearly $900 billion in emergency relief targeted to those who need it most. a second round of payroll support to save small business jobs, more unemployment aid, vaccine distribution money, funding for safe schools, and much more. in addition to historic amounts of targeted help at the request

of president trump and his team, the package also included another round of direct checks to households. whether or not each household needs the help, whether or not their finances have changed dramatically this past year. yesterday secretary mnuchin announced households should begin receiving these payments as early as today and this week. that is more good news to a lot of people. after congress and the administration finalized the bipartisan bill, the president expressed interest in further expanding nontargeted direct payment. so to ensure the president was comfortable signing the bill into law, the senate committed to beginning one process that would combine three of the president's priorities. larger direct checks, a repeal of section 230 of the communications decency act, and further efforts to review the integrity of our democracy. three of the president's priorities in one senate

process. that was the commitment and that's what happened yesterday when i introduced text reflecting just what the president had in fact requested. now, mr. president, house and senate democrats want something very different. as they try to do countless times in the past four years, speaker pelosi and leader schumer are trying to pull a fast one on the president and the american people. first of all they're hoping everyone just forgets about election integrity and big tech. they're desperate to ignore those two parts of president trump's request and you can draw your own conclusions. adds even on the question of larger checks, the democrats have tried to wharp what president trump actually laid out. it's no secret republicans have a diversity of views about the wisdom of borrowing hundreds of billions more to spend out -- to send out more nontargeted money, including to many households that have suffered no loss of

income during the crisis. covid-19 has not affected all households equally. not even close. it's hardly clear that the federal government's top priorities should be sending thousands of dollars to, for example, a childless couple well making into six figures who have been comfortably working teleworking all year. our duty is to get help to the people who actually need help. like we did to historic -- to a historic degree just four days ago. but above and beyond that discussion, the democratic leaders have broken from what president trump proposed. they quietly changed this proposal in an attempt to let wealthy households suck up even more money. speaker pelosi structured her bill so that a family of four would have to earn more than $300,000 in order not, not to qualify for more cash. a family of three could pull in $250,000 per year, a quarter of

a million dollars and still qualify for some money. and democratic leaders want to call this scheme, quote, survival checks. only my friends, speaker pelosi and democratic leader could look at households in new york and california who make $300,000 and households where nobody has been laid off where earnings do not even drop during the past year and conclude these rich constituents of theirs need, quote, survival checks, financed by taxpayer dollars and borrowed money. everyone sees the game here. these are the same democrats who proudly blocked the entire aid package for months because they tried to hold out for special tax cuts for rich people in blue states. now they say it's a matter of survival to send another boat load of cash to people making $300,000 regardless of whether they've experienced any disruption at all this past year. even the liberal "washington

post" today is laughing at the political left for demanding more huge giveaways with no relationship to actual need. here's what "the washington post" wrote. especially wrongheaded is the progressive left's spear heeded by senator bernie sanders who depicts the $2,000 as aid to desperate americans despite huge amounts destined for perfectly comfortable families. that's from the editors of "the washington post." "the wall street journal" usually they're an opposite number actually agrees. these checks are unnecessary and struggling households ask access targeted support like expanded jobless benefits, subsidies and much more. the liberal economist larry summers, president clinton's treasury secretary and president obama's director says, quote, there's no good economic argument for universal $2,000 checks at this moment.

he pointed out the cares act and the brand new law will already have boosted household income relative to the economy back to its prepandemic levels if not higher. it's specific struggling households need still more help after the huge historic package that was just signed into law four days ago has taken effect, then what they will need is smart, smart targeted aid, not another fire hose of borrowed money that encompasses other people who are doing just fine. so in my view, colleagues like senator cornyn and senator toomey have pointed this out persuasively but more broadly here's the deal. the senate is not going to split apart the three issues that president trump linked together just because democrats are afraid to address two of them. the senate is not going to be bullied into rushing out more borrowed money into the hands of

democrat rich friends who don't need the help. we just approved almost a trillion dollars in aid a few days ago. it struck a balance between broad support for all kinds of households and a lot more targeted relief for those who need help the most. we're going to stay smart. we're going to stay focused, and we're going to continue delivering on the needs for our nation. now, mr. president, i move to proceed to calendar number 480, s. 3985. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 480, s. 3985, a bill to improve and reform policing practices accountability and transparency. mr. mcconnell: i understand that there are two bills at the desk due a second reading en bloc. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the titles of

the bills for the second time. the clerk: s. 5885 -- 5085, a bill to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to increase the additional 2020 recovery rebates, to repeal section 230 of the communications act of 1934, and for other purposes. h.r. 9051, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to increase recovery rebate amounts to $2,000 for individuals and for other purposes. mr. mcconnell: in order to place the bills on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i'd object to further proceeding en bloc. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bills will be placed on the calendar. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: now, mr. president, i was prepared this afternoon to speak about the business the senate must address, and i will do that.

but first i must respond to the recent announcement by the junior senator from missouri that he intends to contest the certified votes of the electoral college when congress meets to count those votes next week. the process for electing american presidents is provided for in our constitution and laws. the process has been followed fully, fairly. the results have been dually certified by the governors of the states and they have been reviewed an confirmed by the courts many times over. the result is that joe biden and kamala harris won the election by overwhelming margins in both the popular vote and electoral vote. the biden-harris ticket received more than 81 million votes, more than any ticket in american history. that was over seven million more votes than trump-pence. the biden-harris ticket won the electoral college 306-332, the same president trump called a

landslide just four years ago. since the election process, president trump and his acolytes have lost more than 50 lawsuits, falsely claiming fraud or other irregularities in the conduct of the 2020 election. including a unanimous decision by the supreme court to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the attorney general of texas, and more than half the republican members of the house. and today we heard from the junior senator from missouri that he intends to object to election results, particularly in pennsylvania, a state where the trump campaign and its allies have brought more -- no fewer than 13 lawsuits and lost every single one. many with republican judges ruling. there have been only three individuals, three charged with voter fraud in pennsylvania. in each case, the person voted for trump. the effort by the sitting

president of the united states to overturn the results is patently undemocratic. the effort by others to amplify and burnish his ludicrous claims of fraud is equally revolting. this is america. we have elections. we have results. we make arguments based on the fact and reason, not conspiracy and fantasy. on january 6, the congress will meet to formally recognize the electoral college results. there is a very clear process to handle and dispense with objections from members of congress to the counting of the result, and that's just what we will do, dispense with them. the congress will ratify the electoral college's decision that joe biden will be president and kamala harris will be vice president on january 6, and make no mistake about it, joe biden and kamala harris will be sworn

in as president and vice president on january 20. now, let me return to the matters at hand. today the senate will begin the process of overriding the president's veto on the annual defense bill. the house has already overridden the veto by a comfortable margin. i expect the senate to follow suit and enact the ndaa into law over president trump's evolving and ridiculous objections. congress has passed the annual defense bill for 59 years in a row. it's an important opportunity to ensure our defense insecurity policies reflect the evolving challenges of our world and provide our service members and their families as well as the defense department civilians the support, resource, and training they need. the particular legislation includes a pay raise for troops, provisions that will allow the executive branch to -- to be better postured and identify breaches to american

cybersecurity, and in the wake of the solar winds hack, that might be a good policy to enact. nonetheless, president trump vetoed this legislation because it provides for renaming military installations that honor confederate military leaders. or maybe because it doesn't address an unrelated social media issue. think about it for a moment. the president vetoed a pay raise to living american soldiers in order to defend the honor of dead confederate traders. well, the senate will soon have an opportunity to override the president's objection and do right by those brave americans who wear the uniform. now, as i said yesterday, there are two, two major issues before the senate right now. the annual defense bill and the vital and important effort to send $2,000 stimulus checks to american families. there are only a few days left

in this session, and the senate should consider both issues before adjourning. there is a very simple solution to this dilemma. leader mcconnell should bring both measures up for a vote and let the chips fall where they may. i believe both measures, the defense override, and the $2,000 checks to american families will both pass, but at the very least, the senate deserves the opportunity for an up-or-down vote on increasing the individual payments to the american people. so at the end of my remarks, i will ask the senate to set a time tonight for a vote on the house bill to provide $2,000 checks. the republican leader objected to a similar request i made yesterday, and it appears he may be considering a different bill that packages stimulus checks with other unrelated and

partisan policies. so i want to be very clear about one thing. there is no other game in town beside the house bill. the only way, the only way to get to the american people the $2,000 checks they deserve and need is to pass the house bill and pass it now. the house has recessed for the year. any modification or addition to the house bill cannot become law before the end of this congress. it's a way to kill, to kill the bill. make no mistake about it. either the senate takes up and passes the house bill or struggling american families will not get $2,000 checks during the worst economic crisis in 75 years. over the past few days, the idea of increasing direct payments to the american people has united

folks from all points of the political spectrum, and i salute the senator from vermont for the good job he has done in bringing this forward to the american people's attention. an overwhelming bipartisan majority in the house supports the $2,000 checks. senate democrats strongly support these $2,000 checks. and our unlikely ally, president trump, this morning treated $2,000 asap. for once, democrats agree with something on president trump's twitter feed. let's send $2,000 asap to working americans who are facing the hardest and darkest days of the pandemic. after all the insanity that senate republicans have tolerated from president trump, his attacks on the rule of law and independent judiciary, the conduct that led to his

impeachment, is this where senate republicans are going to draw the line? $2,000 checks to the american people? that is a bridge too far? please. for the awareness of my colleagues, we can have this vote tonight and send the bill directly to the president's desk for signature. we can vote on the ndaa bill tonight and finish the senate's business before the end of the year. all it takes is our republican colleagues consenting to a simple vote on the house bill to provide $2,000 checks to the american people. yes or no. up or down. do you support sending $2,000 to the american people or not? let's have the vote. and so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate

consideration of h.r. 9051, a bill received from the house to increase recovery rebate amounts to $2,000 for individuals, 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 objection? mr. mcconnell: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. mr. sanders: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for vermont. mr. sanders: thank you very much, mr. president. i want to concur with what senator schumer said. and what he said goes beyond economics. it goes beyond the desperation that tens of millions of working

families are facing. it goes beyond the struggles of the people of vermont or kentucky. and let me just make it clear for the majority leader that ten out of the poorest 25 counties in the united states of america are located in kentucky. so many of my colleagues -- so maybe my colleague, the majority leader, might want to get on the phone and start talking to the working families in kentucky and find out how they feel about the need for immediate help in terms of a $2,000 check per adult. and i have the strong feeling that the people of kentucky will respond no differently than the people of vermont or new york. this last poll that i saw had 78% of the american people saying that they wanted and

needed that type of help. but this discussion, frankly, is not just about the economic struggling of working families in this country. it's not just the massive levels of income and wealth and equality. it's about basic democracy. now, what we have to do here on the floor, whether it's senator schumer or senator mcconnell or me, we have got to talk in legalese. that's the language of the united states senate. and it does sound pretty complicated to the average person, but all that senator schumer and i are asking of the majority leader is a very simple request. allow the members of the united states senate to cast a vote. if you want to vote against $2,000 checks for people in your state, vote against it.

i see senator toomey here. he has been clear about it. i suspect he will vote against it. i respect his opinion. but all that we are asking for is a vote. what is the problem? in the house, over two-thirds of the members of that body, including 44 republicans, voted to say that at this time of economic desperation, working families deserve help and they deserve a $2,000 checks. and as senator schumer just indicated, we have a very unlikely ally in president trump. nobody here has disagreed with trump more times than i have, and yet here is what the leader of the republican party says. he says $2,000 asap.

so even on this issue, amazingly enough, the president of the united states is right. so what all of this comes down to, my fellow americans, is not even whether you agree with senator schumer and myself and 78% of the american people. or you agree with senator mcconnell, i suspect senator toomey, that's fine. it's called democracy. we have differences of opinion. all that i am asking is give us a vote. what's the problem? allow the united states senators to cast a vote as to whether or not they are for the $2,000 check or whether they're against it. we will need, as i understand it, 60 votes to win. that's a big hurdle. i don't know that we're going to win. there are a number of republicans, to their credit, who have said they are ready to vote for it. i suspect there may be more when

given the opportunity who will vote for it. maybe i'm wrong. maybe we will lose. i think that would be unfortunate. but all that i am asking for right now is give us the opportunity to vote. what is the problem with that? mr. president, with that, i will now go to senate legalese and say, quote, i ask unanimous consent that at 11:30 a.m. on thursday, december 31, the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 9051 to provide a $2,000 direct payment to to the working class, that the bill be considered read a third time and the senate vote on passage of the bill, without intervening action or debate. further, that if passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. further, that immediately following the vote on h.r. 9051,

the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the veto message on h.r. 6395, that the senate immediately vote on passage of the bill, the objections of the president to the contrary notwithstanding, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. toomey: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for pennsylvania. mr. toomey: mr. president, reserving the right to object, let me start by pointing out we are not in the same place that we were in back in march. our economy is in nothing like the situation we faced during a moment in march when this body came together and voted unanimously, i believe, for the most extraordinary aid package, financial stimulus bill, however you would care to characterize it, in the history of the world, by far.

remember where we were was we had closed down the economy. to a very large degree, the american economy had stopped functioning because state governments around the country decided they had to close it down. we can discuss, we can argue about whether that was a good decision or not, but given the limited knowledge we had about the nature of the covid-19 threat, it was deemed to be the right thing to do. so we were on the verge of having no economy. that's never happened before in our history. so what did we do? we decided this calls for extraordinary measures, and we would try to use federal dollars as a substitute for the economy, just replace lost income on a massive, unprecedented scale. and we did. almost $3 trillion we approved in that legislation. at the time, we included $1,2 a

per person. you can make an argument that that was an extremely inefficient use of that money. but at the time, given the circumstances, i understand why we didn't have many good options, and that was something we decided to do. so where are we now? we're in a very different place. our economy is not in a freefall. our economy is in recovery mode. we're not back to where we want to end up? but we've taken big steps in that direction. the economy grew at 33% last month. that's a tremendous recovery that's under way. more than half of all the people who lost their jobs earlier this year have regained their jobs, so we're not finished yet. but that's a huge step along the way. and now we're being told, after

passing another extraordinary bill -- this one almost a trillion dollars and including $600 per person -- that that's not enough. we need to do $2,000 per person, despite the fact that we know for sure -- we know for a fact that the large majority of those checks are going to go to people who had no lost income. how does that make any sense at all, mr. president? we know for sure that the majority of these people had no lost income. they didn't lose their jobs. and yet we're going to send them not $00, not the $1,200, but $2,000. so think about this. a married couple who both are working and have two i had cans, maybe they work now d. and have two kids, maybe they work for the federal government. maybe they work for a large company, the vast majority of which did not have large numbers of layoffs. so this two-child, two-income

couple that makes six figures had no interruption, no diminishment of their income whatsoever, they're going to get $8,000 of money we don't have that is going to be either borrowed or printed. that's what it's all going to come down to. mr. president, there are people who are still suffering from the economic fallout of this the terrible covid crisis. there's no question about it. we know there are people who are concentrated in a handful of industry for the most part -- not exclusively, but people who have worked in the restaurant industry, people who work for hotels, travel, entertainment. so many of those people are still out of work and their prospects of getting their old jobs back are not good in the short run. i sure hope they'll be good in the medium-term run, if not sooner. and our bill addressed that. how do we do that? with a new round of p.p.p.

loans, which are really grants. expansion of unemployment insurance benefits so people who have historically been ineligible remain eligible so they can continue to collectening employment benefits. an increase in the amount of unemployment benefits, a $300-a-week overlay of federal money over whatever their state program is. $600 per person regardless of whether they lost income. all of that was passed why us a few days ago -- pass $just a few days ago and now we're told we need to come back immediately right now and make sure we're sending $2,000 checks to people who had no lost income. so for that reason, mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator for massachusetts. mr. markey: thank you, mr. president, very much. i rise to echo the sentiments of the senator from vermont. he is right. the republicans are wrong on

this issue, on every single part of this debate. senator sanderses is right, the republicans are wrong. we are in the middle of an unprecedented crisis in our country. we have a health care crisis. we have an unemployment crisis. we have a hunger crisis. we have a housing crisis. we have an addiction crisis. we have a moral crisis in this country. the united states government should be responding to the needs, to the desperation of families in our country at this time. there's a crisis of faith that the american people have in its government's ability to respond to human suffering. well, this institution has been

created to respond to human suffering. that's our job. tony fauci has made it very clear that the worst of the pandemic is ahead of us, not behind us. we know what's coming, and yet we are not responding. we know this is not going away soon, and yet we are not responding. a program, operation warp speed, was created to create a vaccine. but because for seven months the republicans have refused to fund the public health system of our country at the state and local level, we have operation snail speed to put the vaccinations in the arms of the american people. it was anticipatable.

tony fauci and others were warning us back in may and june and july there would be a second wave and the second wave could be bigger. we got the warning. the republicans refused to heed that warning. and here we are now without the public health infrastructure to deal with the overflow capacity in emergency rooms, in i.c.u.'s all across the country, while simultaneously asking those same medical institutions to put vaccinations in the arms of healthy people, without the resources provided by the federal government. -- to help those states and local communities to deal with that crisis. sometimes daniel patrick moynihan would say that when you deal with an issue, you deal with it with benign neglect if you don't want to help or you don't want to hurt.

you deal with benign neglect. what's happened with the republicans this year is they created a program which is designed neglect. it's an actual plan not to provide the funding, not to provide the help for those families, for those communities, for those institutions that are now being overwhelmed and asked on top of that to put this extra burden of putting vaccinations in people's arms but without the extra resources. and what do they do on the republican side? they throw out these red herrings, so many that you'd need a build an aquarium in the well of the senate in order to deal with all of them that gets away from the central issue -- yes or no, up or down, will you provide $2,000 to americans who are going to need it through what tony fauci is saying will be the worst part of this

pandemic? yes or no, up or down, where do they stand on this issue? here's what we do know -- republicans seem more focused on funding the defense department than they do funding the defenseless in our country. and americans are becoming more defenseless as each day goes by. the headlines are screaming that there's panic that is absolutely understandable and based upon fact is sweeping our country. there is protection which the federal government should be providing to these families. we hear it. they're hungry. they could be without their homes. the addiction crisis is rising. they need help in their families.

so from my perspective, we have a moment in time. and donald trump happens to agree with us. even a broken clock is right twice a day, and we do agree with him. he is right. we do need this help, which we should be providing to these families. and as we watch more and more of our american loved ones fall sick and die, families are facing a new and unprecedented hardship. they're having to make impossible decisions as to whether to put food on the table or keep the heat on through the cold winter months. and the united states government has an obligation to help working people who through no fault of their own are seeing all of the things that they care about, all of the success that they have worked for, and all of the financial security they have earned be washed away. and yet the republicans want to

put another operation snail speed in place. the damage to these families is anticipatable. we can see what is unfolding. dr. phoie is telling us we're -- dr. phoie is telling us we're -- dr. fauci is telling us we're at the worst part of the pandemic and it's going to continue. so let us act in anticipation. louis pastuer used to tell us the chance the prepared mind. let us prepare. let us help families prepare for what is for what is about to arrive. just in massachusetts alone, 21,000 new people applied for unemployment insurance in the week before christmas. food banks across massachusetts, across the country are seeing double-digit increases in demand

with families who never faced food insecurity before. people are literally starving, cold, and without homes. and meanwhile, the majority leader and the republican leadership would rather head home on the new year and ignore otohealth and financial crises. this will be a new year where they won't know if they can put food on the table that night. preexisting conditions are claiming that giving -- republicans are claiming that giving $2,000 would be too expensive, that is it would inflate our national deficit, that our budgets are already bloated. i have to ask, where was this outrage when republicans blew up our national deficit to give a $1.5 trillion tax cut to corporations and wealthy individuals? these are the crocodile tears on

the right while americans are shedding real tears. they're losing health care in the midst of this the crisis and americans are actually tired of being told that $600 is, quote, sufficient as an amount of money as relief, as billionaires receive their tax breaks and grow their wealth by the trillions of dollars during this crisis. the rich get richer and the rest are there left suffering. they've had enough of being told that there just isn't the money for support for the well-being of their communities when they can see tax breaks going to companies that are actually laying off workers. americans are tired of being let down by their government time and time again, as donald trump and his republican allies have abandoned them during this response to the pandemic. americans need support. they need to be able to trust

their governmenters and they need $2,000 now. so that's the issue. yes or no, up or down on providing $2,000 to americans to help them make it through the worst part of this crisis. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that at 12:30 p.m. on thursday, december 31, the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 9051, a bill to provide $2,000 direct payment to the working class, that the bill be considered read a third time and the senate vote on passage of that bill without intervening action or debate. and, further, that if passed, the the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and that immediately following the vote on h.r. 9051, the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the veto message on h.r. 9395, that

the senate immediately vote on passage of the bill, the objections of the president to the contrary notwithstanding, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: reserving the right to object, mr. president. speaker pelosi's second bite at the apple just after we voted on a $900 billion bill that's now been signed into law by the president of the united states is not the way to send relief to the hardest hit americans. under this legislation, a family of five with an annual income of $350,000 would receive a stimulus check. this is reminiscent of the here's row act that the house passed -- heroes act that the house passed which cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires. this is not about helping people who need it the most. this is about helping millionaires and billionaires and people who, frankly, have not suffered the hardship

economically that others have during this pandemic. the median household in my state is $60,000. and the speaker wants to send taxpayer funded assistance to folks earning nearly six times that much. even "the washington post" editorial board agrees this is bad policy. and it doesn't differentiate between people who have been receiving a paycheck during this pandemic like government employees and people who simply by virtue of their job have been put out of work and not receiving any income or maybe at best unemployment compensation. the speaker's bill isn't about targeting folks who have lost their jobs or seeing their financial -- their income reduced. it's a far cry from the additional assistance president trump requested for the hardest hit americans. the reality is this bill would spend roughly $300 billion more on folks who aren't even experiencing a financial strain from the pandemic.

we need to focus on the people who have been hurt. that's what our covid-19 relief bill that was just recently signed into law is designed to do. i dare say this is not going to be the last time we visit this topic. if there's more we need to do, i'm confident we will do it, but today and this way is not the right way to do it. i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the senator for illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, i have listened carefully and watched three occasions on the floor of the senate this afternoon where senator schumer, senator sanders, and senator 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 which are in the midst of a 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 it was also donald trump's idea and still is. and the president has told us this morning that we should move on this as quickly as possible and though i don't often come to the floor to agree with the president, he's right. in this instance he's clearly right. and what will we do now? we are calling senators back together in washington from far reaches across the united states. this morning i received some e-mail and text messages from some of our colleagues hopping on airplanes at 6:00 a.m. on the west coast heading out here to face a vote. what is this vote all about? well, first it's 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 are resuming the new session of congress. but he insisted and we're returning and frankly putting in peril again in the midst of a pandemic members of the senate who are traveling from all four-flung reac 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 a year. 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, only two voting no. 44 republican votes joined with

the democrats to call for this measure which many are decrying on the floor here as 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 of 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're going to return is uncertain. they certainly don't have the time to work through the regular order of business and consider any new legislation, even if we can send it to them in time, which i believe is very doubtful. and so it's up to senator mcconnell to decide right here and now are we going to come together as a senate this afternoon, 5:00, when we're 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. let the democrats and republicans express their will on behalf of the families of 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, 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 the same food bank and now were dependent on it for a helping hand if they were going to be able to feed their families. these were people who were not lazy at all. misfortune has come their way and the question is, will we help? this is our opportunity, today, with the measure that passed the house of representatives, not some theory of some legislation 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 for $2,000 is going to be enacted into law and sent to the president who is clearly anxious to sign it. that to me is the reasonable thing to do. in fact, it may even sound like the united states senate. taking a vote on a timely issue after a debate. we do it so seldom around here. i think we've lost our muscle memory when it comes to this activity in the senate. it's 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. a senator: would the senator from illinois yield for a question? mr. durbin: i would be happy to yld. mr. cornyn: i wonder if the senator from illinois would consider pairing their request for $2,000 direct payment with the 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 certainly is not responsive to any onslaught of lawsuits. the senator might be gd to know that the number -- be interested to know that the number of malpractice faces 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 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

which are making a good-faith effort to comply with public health standards and protect their employees and customers. his bill i'm afraid goes way too far. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator for vermont. mr. sanders: let me concur with my friend from illinois on the issue. i have a question of my colleague from texas. very simple question. you are concerned about the issue of corporate liability. i get that. i happen not agree with you. you're entitled to your opinion. you may or may not be concerned about section 230 of the 1996 federal telecommunications bill. that's fine too. we may have a discussion about how we protect american democracy. it's a good discussion as well. but i have the strong feeling, senator cornyn, that in texas as in vermont, you know what? people are really not talking about corporate liability. it's a good issue. it's an important issue. i don't think they're talking about section 230.

what i think they are talking about is the senator from illinois just said how are they 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 immediately -- you'll vote no and you'll explain to the people of texas why you voted that way. that's 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 say yeah, they want to vote for this $2,000 check. now, if you want to deal with corporate liability, that's fine. let's deal with it at some

point. bring forth the bill. 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? so 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 and i yield to my colleague from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator for texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i would say to our colleague from vermont i have no problem with providing assistance, whether it's to public health officials who are trying to struggle with this pandemic or to provide money for the research, for therapeutics or vaccines which fortunately is now being distributed around the country. i have no objection to direct payments to individuals. i voted for the $1,200 direct

payment contained in the cares act. i voted for the additional money provided for in the most recent covid-19 legislation. but this legislation that the senator from vermont is advocating would benefit households with annual income over $350,000. they would get this money. and i would say that one way to deal with this because, of course, we negotiated back and forth on the last covid-19 bill, nobody got everything they wanted, but if our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want an additional financial benefit to 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, churches, synagogue, mosques. this is about every business that's worried that a game of gotsche cla is going to take place -- gotcha is going to take place and they'll end up paying

the price. even if they win the lawsuit, they will not be able -- they're still going to have to pay for the cost of defense, potentially losing their business outright. the presiding officer: the senator from texas has the floor. mr. cornyn: 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 but have struggled dealing with the evolving public health guidance provided by the c.d.c. and other authorities. clearly if they're not interested in engaging in negotiation where people who through no fault of their own find themselves victimized by frivolous litigation, then we'd have no alternative but to continue to object to this request. mr. sanders: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator for vermont. mr. sanders: if you listen carefully, you understood that my friend from texas did not answer my question. he has the concern about corporate liability. it's a legitimate debate. you know what? bring it to the floor.

let's vote it up or down. i will vote against t. you will vote for it. but i asked you a very simple question, not linking things together. nobody in the real world understands that stuff. that's inside the beltway stuff. what people in the real world know -- and i want to take a moment to read some of these statements because we sent out -- we have a lot of people on our social media. and we asked the american people -- just the other day we said tell me, what would a $2,000 check mean to you? what's going on in your lives? and in just over 24 hours, i would say to my friend from texas, nearly 6,000 people responded. and here is just what a few of them had to say. and i -- we don't have -- this is twitter stuff so i don't have their names here. i wouldn't use it publicly anyhow. this is what they say. one person writes, $2,000 is the

difference between keeping our apartment and being evicted. here's another. $2,000 means i can afford to feed my three kids. another response, quote, it would mean not having to choose between rent and groceries or not having to ration my partner's meds, end quote. another response, quote, i am raising my grandson with medical needs. i am $4,000 behind on utilities. we need electricity to run his medical equipment, end quote. here's another response. $2,000 would mean i wouldn't have to worry about making my mortgage payment this month and that i could get my medication, end quote. another response, $2,000 would mean paying my rent and getting lifesaving treatment because i can't afford the $50 co-pay for my work insurance just to see my neurologist right now, end of quote. and on and on and on.

thousands of people. i want to get back to the point. i want to again ask my friend from texas, you are concerned about corporate liability. good issue. let's bring it to the floor. let's vote on corporate liability. i would yield -- i would yield for a question from my friend from illinois. mr. durbin: i would like to ask a question through the chair. i have listened to the figures used on the floor about families that would qualify for the $2,000. it's my understanding that an individual with an income of $75,000 or less could qualify for the $2,000 payment, and 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: 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're asking the simple question.

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 on the moon, bring it up. but what the american people want now is an up-or-down vote. now, you're going to vote against it if it comes to the floor. that's fine, you're 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 united states senator, to have the vote, and again i ask you what is your problem with members of the united states senate, including a number of republicans who have already indicated they would like to vote for this, what's your problem with bringing that up as a single stand-alone bill, not merged with corporate liability or anything else? what's your problem with that? mr. cornyn: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i would say to our colleague from vermont, this money is not targeted to people who suffered

financial losses. it is not targeted to people who suffered financial losses. this money would go to members of your own staff if they meet the financial requirements. other government employees who have suffered no financial loss during this pandemic. we've 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 that have been receiving their full paycheck during this pandemic? mr. sanders: that's a good question, and then i will have to explain that to the people in the state of vermont. the presiding officer: the senator for texas has the floor. mr. sanders: he asked me a question, as i understood it. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. sanders: john, did you ask me a question? mr. cornyn: it was more of a rhetorical question, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i wanted to come to the floor and talk about what strikes me as something akin to groundhog day. groundhog day is only the day i was born. it's something i feel like we're

living through here as we debate the same points over and over and over again, forgetting what it is we have already done. the good things we've done together on a bipartisan basis. we've already appropriated roughly $4 trillion in response to this pandemic, and it's appropriate that we have done so because this was a true public health crisis. but now this is -- we're seeing -- we're seeing politics creep back in in an attempt to -- to send money to people who have suffered no financial loss in an untargetted and wasteful sort of way. these relief packages that we passed together have provided hundreds of billions of dollars to support our hospitals and health care workers who are on the front lines, and i voted for it, and i think we were right to do so. we have thrown small businesses and their employees a lifeline through the paycheck protection program, and we were right to do

so. we've invested in research and development manufacturing of therapeutics and vaccines that are currently being administered, thank goodness, throughout the country and indeed around the world. and we sent unprecedented assistance to families and individuals whose livelihoods have been upended by this crisis. thanks to president trump's leadership, congress has stepped up and met this unprecedented challenge to deliver relief bill after relief bill for the american people. if you had told me a year ago, i would have voted this year alone for roughly $4,000 worth of spending in this pandemic, i would not have believed you, but i do believe this is the domestic equivalent of world war ii where we have to do everything humanly possible to try to help our fellow man, woman, and child during this pandemic. the latest round of relief came, of course, just this week when president trump signed the $900 billion rescue package into

law. while i'm glad congress was able to send more relief out the door at the end of the year, i'm disappointed that it took so long to do so. it's amazing the sense of urgency our democratic colleagues have today since at least three times, maybe four times, they have blocked our attempts to pass half trillion-dollar relief bills during the course of the summer. in july, our colleagues introduced the heels act which would have provided just under a trillion dollars in relief covering the same types of policies included in the most recent relief bill. direct payments, unemployment benefits, funding for schools, vaccine and a host of other priorities. our democratic colleagues not only complained about the bill, they called it weak, little, pathetic, and unserious. but they refused to engage in the sort of negotiations that are customary around here when you actually want to solve a problem or consider anything

short of the house's multitrillion-dollar bill which they knew had no chance of passing in the senate because of things like tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires which had nothing to do with covid. so our democratic colleagues dragged their feet july, august, september, october, november. months went by and the cases soared and the economic squeeze tightened and our democratic colleagues refused to accept any sort of compromise. that was until a few weeks ago when they finally changed their tune right after the election. i'm sure it comes as no surprise that once the holdout agrees to negotiate, things can move pretty quickly, and that's what happened here after the election. democrats, republicans, and the administration agreed to a $900 billion package which looks very similar to the one they dubbed pathetic just a few

months ago. in recent days, the president has expressed an interest in doing more, and i have no doubt that we will do more in this area, but speaker pelosi's bill goes far beyond what the president is talking about. for one, it would widen -- it would dramatically widen the pool of recipients, enabling wealthy households to qualify for relief checks. this is unacceptable and wasteful. when congress provided the first round of direct payments through the cares act, we did so in a way that sent relief to the hardest hit americans. individuals who made up the $75,000 -- up to $75,000 received the full $1,200. and the amount gradually declined as income decreased and completely phased out at $99,000. we september the same formula for the $600 payments provided for underrer the omnibus -- under the omnibus and further targeted the relief. once again, those who made up to $75,000 will receive the full amount, and the amount phases out completely at $87,000.

under the cares act, a family of four earning up to $150,000 received $3,400. in the most recent rescue bill, the same family would receive an additional $2,400. this was the most effective and targeted way to ensure that assistance goes to those who actually need it while avoiding sending taxpayer dollars, borrowed, i might add, to those who don't. the house-passed legislation would provide $2,000 payments, but it doesn't have a similar structure to keep these payments targeted. let me give you an example. if this bill would become law, a person making $100,000 a year would receive a 750-dollar check from the federal government, whether or not they lost income during the pandemic. this isn't someone who used to make that much but was laid off or had reduction in their income, someone who's currently earning a six-figure salary would receive an additional $750

from american taxpayers. for families, the income barrier goes higher. as i mentioned a moment ago, if you have a family of five with an annual household income of $350,000 a year, that family would receive a stimulus check under the house-passed bill. now, that's not being smart with taxpayer dollars, and that's not targeted at the people who actually need it. that's a giveaway to people who have not suffered any financial losses during this pandemic and clearly not targeted at those who need the most help. i mentioned a moment ago that the median income for households in texas is $60,000 a year, so this family of five is earning nearly six times as much and would still receive a check from taxpayers. that defies all common sense. even "the washington post" editorial board dubbed this

policy as wasteful because of the huge amounts destined for what they call perfectly comfortable families, close quote. even though congress has already provided roughly $4 trillion in relief to the american people, our democratic colleagues are acting as though this is the first and only way to help our country. like i said, for them, every day is groundhog day. they ignored everything we've done in the past and act like this is the only thing we have or could do. it's just not true. this debate isn't about whether or not congress should help families who are struggling. we have, and there's no question we'll continue to do so where needed. that's why we have provided $1,200 in direct payments to the hardest hit americans through the cares act and an additional $600 through the most recent relief bill. that's why these bills also bolstered state unemployment benefits and expanded them to include independent contractors and self-employed. that's why congress has passed

legislation to provide food assistance to families, keep more hardworking americans on the payroll, and ensure our economy is on track for a strong recovery. again, we did this thanks to the leadership of president trump, and by working together in a bipartisan way. countless texans have told me about the impact of this relief on their businesses and their families, and we can't lose sight of the progress that has already been made, but future relief must be targeted. we need to support those who need it and avoid sending hundreds of billions of dollars as this proposal would to those who don't need it. throughout the year, i have been an advocate for an incremental approach to these relief bills because i think it's hard to spend $3 trillion and know exactly how that bill is going to work, and indeed we found out through the cares act that the main street lending facilities which we funded at roughly half

a trillion dollars wasn't as useful as we would have hoped. conversely, the paycheck protection program was more successful than our wildest dreams, and so i think by seeing what works and what doesn't work, we can be better stewards of the taxpayer dollars by spending the money more efficiently and in a more targeted way. this isn't like highway bills or farm bills or defense spending bills where we have an idea about what's needed for individual programs. there was no precedent for this pandemic, no handbook, no clear way to gauge how long this crisis would go on or what would be needed to sustain our response. after the cares act passed, we knew it made the most sense to hit the pause button and see what worked well, what didn't, and where more help was needed. as i said, there were certain programs like the paycheck protection program that almost immediately dried up. if i'm not mistaken, in two

weeks, roughly $350 billion was obligated under the paycheck protection program, a strong indication that we really hit the sweet spot when it came to helping those small businesses. and that's why we added more funding in april, another $320 billion, and we extended the program in july and reinvested in the paycheck protection program again in the omnibus. as i said, there were other places where the money went unspent, but fortunately in the most recent bill, we were able to repurpose hundreds of billions of dollars in unspent funds, again to target it to where the need was greatest, where it could help the most. there's no question that tens of millions of workers and their families have been hurt by this virus. we all know that, and i think we've all acted together by and large, responsibly in trying to respond to that. no one will be left out if we have a means and method of targeting this to those people,

whether it's direct payments, enhanced unemployment benefits, incentives to their employer to maintain them on payroll, and now that we have the beginning of the distribution of the vaccine, my hope is that in the coming months we will get back to, if not the new normal, whatever the next normal will be. but we're just a few days from kick off a new congress and i have no reason to believe that our coronavirus relief work is finished here today. as a matter of fact, vice president biden says he expects to send us an additional request for help once he assumes office. once the legislation we have passed has a chance to benefit the american people, we'll see if more relief is needed and if it is, we should absolutely do more. i believe our democratic end froms will join us in responding to true needs of this crisis

without month-long delays or irresponsible spending. countless texans have told me about the importance of relief we've provided through direct payments, unemployment benefits, food assistance, and other forms of support by the laws we pass throughout this year. i was proud to support each of these policies which have eased the financial strains on millions of texans and other americans and will continue to work with my colleagues to provide assistance as our war on covid-19 rages on. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: senator for 0 ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i have harder a lot of revisionist -- i've heard a lot of revisionist history this afternoon. the senate voted unanimously because of our efforts, 13 million people were kept out of poverty. we know that because we did --

we did relatively generous unemployment insurance, we did the direct payments, we helped with small business loans. but then this senate thought its work was done for the year. we begged senator mcconnell month after month after month to come back and help. as i said, 13 million people were kept out of poverty because of the work this congress did in march of this year, but now since many of these benefits, especially the unemployment benefit and the direct payments, were not continued of course, those benefits expired in august and we have seen 8 million people drop into poverty in this country since. yet this congress, senator mcconnell refused and refuse and refused. i hear this revisionist history that democrats just want to help people that are already affluent, give them more money. well, remember back in march, the only amendment that we considered, the only amendment that senator mcconnell allowed

on the floor of the senate to the cares act, the only amendment was to take away the $600 week unemployment insurance. the only place republicans fought was the $600-a-week unemployment insurance. that more thank any single thing we did -- that more than any single thing we did was the reason people are kept out of poverty. now the best we could do was $300 additional in unemployment insurance. and senator mcconnell, in spite of senator cornyn's and others comments, senator mcconnell waited, waited, waited. the president of the united states threatened to veto it, causing millions of americans to fall off their unemployment insurance. we know all that. it's just important to remember all that. but there's one simple question before the senate this week, and -- are we going to put more money in people's pockets. the american people made it clear on election day that they want a government on their side. this is our chance to make a real difference in their lived, which we did back in march.

it's pretty simple. the best way to help ohio workers and families is to put more money in their pockets, not in the bank accounts of the largest corporations and the biggest banks hoping it will trickle down. we know it never dis. the c.e.o. just pay themselves instead. i would know, more good news for america's c.e.o.'s, who are able to do more buybacks, but those are the corporations that continue to get the big tax breaks. we need instead to directly invest in people who make this country work. it helps people pay the bills and stay in their homes and get through this downturn. it injects money into local economies that really need it. the more money people have, the more they spend at small businesses that are hurting. we know this works. it did in the spring. we came together. we crossed the aisle, pass the cares act, expanded unemployment, did direct stimulus checks keeping 13

million people out of poverty. the bill we passed last week was a good step in that direction, but we should make it stronger. back in march, my original plan that i tried to negotiate as i sat with secretary mnuchin and a handful of other senators was a $2,000 per person, adults and children. we called for them to be sent every week, every month, every quart. no one could predict how this would last. today we're still not surety when the economy will return to full strength. we don't want to sit idly by. we don't want to wonder how bad it could get. we have the resources to do something about t we just need leadership willing to use every tool we have. if they refuse to support this $2,000 per person, if they refuse to support these direct

payments, leader mcconnell and senate republicans will again make it perfectly clear for the american people whose side they're on. every time there is a fork in the road -- and senator mcconnell and senate republicans have to make a decision -- either go with corporate interests or go with working families, every single time they choose corporate interests. they had no problem pouring money into corporate coffers and blowing up the deficit. i remember, mr. president, just down the hall here to senator mcconnell's office, i remember lobbyists lining up looking for the tax cuts just three years ago. they got those tax cuts. they didn't say anything about deficits. they didn't mind that because that was money going into their contributors' pockets, into the coffers for the wealthiest people of this country. they were all too happy to let the government shovel money to the biggest corporations. but faced with the chance to

give money to ordinary americans, we my colleagues claim we can't do it. i remember bill spriggs, an economist at howard university, told the banking and housing committee in september, we did wint world war ii about -- by wondering whether or not we could afford it. we grew the economy for the middle class out, we paid down the debt with raising wages. if we've learned anything from this crisis, it should be that we can do the same again. americans are tired of being told we can't. it's the only answer that senator mcconnell and republicans have with most people's problems. you're on your own. let's deliver for the people we serve. let's put $2,000 in their pockets, money that will make such a difference for so many families. it will help a mother worried about how she'll pay back rent, keep a laid-off restaurant

worker from turning to a payday lender, it will allow a father to buy a computer for his kids. these are millions of real people, people we swore an oath to serve, who will breathe a little easier if we pass this. so let's be clear about the decision today and this week before the senate. are we going to give the people we serve $2,000 or are you going to stand in the way? it's that simple. let's come together. let's pass this. let's make a real difference in people's lives. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: , well, this is a -- mr. inhofe: mr. president, this is what i've considered to be and i've heard my friend from the democrat side, the minority side, say the same thing, it's the most significant bill that we pass every year. the ndaa, the national defense authorization act, is one that is -- this will be the 60th year. is it 60th or 61st year?

mr. reed: 60th. mr. inhofe: okay. 60th year. there were a few moments where i didn't think it would pass and we would set a record. we don't want to set a record. we want to get it done. the reason this is important, this is the blew print. this -- blueprint, this is going to tell us what we're going to do with our troops. it's an argument -- we -- we are in the most dangerous situation i think that we've been in before. i often talked about the good old days when we had the cold war with the two superpowers. we knew what the soviet union had and they knew what we had. but now it's different in a lot of respects because you have rogue countries out there that have weapons and have abilities to wipe out nations and that's

why it's so significant. anyway, we suffered through a little bit of a problem back during the obama administration during the last five years, which would have been from 2010 to 2015. in his budget he downgraded the military by 25% and that's the same time during that time frame that china increased theirs by 83%. so it's a scary world out there and it's one that, to me, i have no doubt that this is the important bill that we'll pass all year because we got our kids and they are out there right now. they are in the trenches and we have to support them and that's what it's all about. i do want to mention how many people were involved in this thing. we were actually starting right now we're starting on next year's ndaa. and so this started a year ago

and -- and, i mean, the ones working on this, they were working on, you had liz king and john bonzell, heading up the minority and majority part of the committee, doing a great job and working every weekend -- almost every weekend with a very large staff, all specialists in certain areas, and they've got a bill. so i'm very proud of the bill that we have this year. i think it passed -- had this in the senate 84 -- i think it was 84-14, i think it was. i think there were a couple of people who were not here. but that's the largest, it doesn't happen very often to pass a bill with those margins and it did. this is a long tradition, and we've got to support our troops.

they are doing the right thing. it's a joy, personally for me to be working with senator reed and we together kind of provided the leadership in this thing. we didn't work as hard as the staff did, i have to admit that, but we were there and -- and i'm very proud of this bill. so right now we have kids that are overseas and they deserve the pay that was increased that would be increased when this bill is passed. right now we have critical areas like pilots and engineers, doctors that are in short supply and because of the fact that we've had a -- up until the pandemic, we've had a good -- probably, i would argue, the best economy we've had in my lifetime. well, that's good news, of course, but it's bad news in one way because it's hard it to keep -- it's hard to keep the

people in those critical fields. pilots, for example, they have an opportunity to get out and do things that are -- that -- there's jobs out there that are paying a lot more, so we have to have them on the flight hours and if something happens and they are out -- a lot of jobs on the outside that are paying more and so we just have to make sure that we keep the resources in the right place to do the right job. and i think this is -- i know this procedure vote today that is going to bring us to the next couple of days to pass the defense authorization bill. it's all about the guys and the gals in the field and we owe it to them and this is going to be the 60th year because i anticipate that this is going to be the -- it's going to pass with -- with very large numbers. with that, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator for rhode island. mr. reed: thank you very much, mr. president. i would like to discuss the national defense authorization act. first i'd like to salute the chairman. he has done an extraordinary job. we have both served on the committee for many years. and this is probably the most challenging year we've had, many different factors, the pandemic, the virtual hearings, all those things. and this has been particularly challenging and the chairman at every point stood up to the challenge and led us and i want to thank him for that and it was a pleasure working with him. we all recognize that this legislation passed both chambers, the house and the senate, by overwhelming

bipartisan majorities. and it's very important legislation. that's why it earned this bipartisan support. it enhances our national security, it's strengthens our military readiness and defense capabilities, it protects our forces and families and protects the industrial base. despite all it does for our troops and families president trump waited until the tenth day after we received it and vetoed it the last day he could exercise his veto and that was december 23 which made quite a chris minors our military -- christmas for our military personnel and all of my colleagues who are here today to start the process of responding to that veto. the house already took the first step. it returned on monday and once again by an overwhelming vote, over 300 members of the house, it overrode the president's veto. now we face the same task in the

senate. it's my hope we can quickly and resoundingly override the president's veto and provide our troops with what they need. ly echo what the chairman -- i will echo what the chairman said. you can go through all the thousands of pages literally, but what is the most significant aspect of this legislation is keeping faith with the men and women who wear the uniform of the united states. and so if anyone has any thoughts about their vote, just think about those men and women who are all across the world putting their lives at risk while their families share that risk and that sense of danger and sacrifice. that is what i think has motivated the chairman and myself and all of our colleagues i must say on the committee and throughout this senate to work hard to get this bill passed. now, there are several reasons being advanced by the president for suggesting that this bill should be vetoed and the veto

should be upheld. one reason is that he claims the bill fails to include critical national security measures. yet this legislation provides critical tools and authorities for the department of homeland security to inform network hunting and federal networks, tools and authorities to counter the solar winds hack which is possibly the largest intrusion into our system we've ever seen by a foreign country. we do not yet know the extent and the degree of intrusion that we have suffered. in fact, we weren't aware of this intrusion for many, many months. and one of the disconcerting factors is that it was discovered by a private company that's one of the most if the most sophisticated cyber intrusion experts in the world. and yet they were penetrated. so we have a serious, serious situation on our hands.

and this legislation start, giving basic tools allowing our cybersecurity experts to go into other departments to look at their procedures, their policies, their -- all of their cyber activities and recommend corrections. so in fact this bill has done more, i think, for cyber based on the work of the solarium committee which was chaired by angus king and congressman fitzpatrick of wisconsin and also aided significantly by my colleague jim of rhode island. we took a lot of work and put it in this bill. there's absolutely no credence to the issue that we have not dealt with national security and cyber intrusion in particular. then again the president, his message wrote that one of the reasons is the failure to essentially repeal section 230

of the communications decency act. but this issue has nothing to do with the military, nothing at all. it was designed years ago to provide legal protections to social media companies so that it could -- expanding and growing and frankly it's worked beyond, i think, our wildest imaginations and everyone recognizes it should be reformed. but reform requires thoughtful, responsible analysis of the legislation, the effects of the legislation. it should offer both sides the opportunity to explain positions. none of that was done and none of that can be done before we conclude this legislative session. so it's more, i think, a personal feud of the president, this section 230, than it is one of careful, deliberate,

thoughtful legislation by the senate. there's another reason the president has used and that is we have established a commission to make recommendations for the renaming and removal of symbols, displays, monuments, and paraphernalia that honor or commem rat confed -- commemorate confederates who served voluntarily with the confederacy. there's a clear exemption, by the way, for grave stones. that we will absolutely respect. but these individuals, many of them who are active service with our army, navy at the time decided to consciously fight against the united states of america. it's that simple. and yet we have bases that are named after them. the president said this is part of the american heritage and victory and freedom. but again these are named after men who took up arms against the united states.

and in some cases, in most cases, they weren't particularly exemplary generals. there are some exceptions. and it was done in a way that i think was not honor to the service of these individuals but to advance other causes. so it's time, i think, that this history be changed, that this chapter be closed, and the senior defense department officials have indicated they're open to these changes. there's bipartisan support and cooperation on this issue. it passed the committee. it passed the floor. passed the house. now it's in this legislation. when the president vetoed the bill, he also said it's a gift to china and russia. and i would strenuously disagree. this is one of the strongest bills yet on countering the threat that china poses to the united states and our partners,

including allies such as india, taiwan, and other countries in the regions. among the provisions of this legislation is the deterrence initiative. that's a new authority for the department of defense molgtdzed after the europe -- modeled after the european -- it authorizes additional $150 million in funding. this was the work -- and i was proud to collaborate -- but the lead was chairman inhofe. and i was his copilot on that one. but this is the first time we've really stepped back and said we have a new threat, significant threat to rising in the pacific. we have to take a holistic review of strategy, capabilities, equipment, and we have to make this top priority. so rather than doing nothing about china, i think we made one of the most significant steps forward in consciously recognizing the relationship

that has developed between china and the united states. now, with regard to russia and europe, the conference report enhances our ability to deter russian aggression, maintain strong support for the ie ukraie and reaffirms our commitment to the transatlantic partnership for calling for -- in germany. now, president trump also vetoed this legislation because he wants the ability to remove our military from far away and very unfresh tif lands -- unaappreciative lands in his words. particularly the concern about the situation in afghanistan. first -- and i've been to afghanistan somewhere close to 20 times over -- since the beginning. in fact, i was on the first congressional delegation to go in, in january after the invasion. so i've tried to pay attention to what's going on there. and one point is that the afghanees have struggled and

fought with us side by side. they have suffered greatly. i don't think it's right to say they're unappreciative. i think every day they've been suffering casualties, they've been fighting with our soldiers. in fact, in cases saving and helping our soldiers survive on the battlefield. second, essentially the provision allows the president to make the decision. in fact, he can weigh all the provisions we built in by simply declaring the national security of the united states and communicating that to the respective leaders in the house and senate. that's something that's almost pro forma. the notion that this seriously hampers his ability is misplayed. what it does, though, is signal that we have to be very careful of recognizing all of the equities that are involved in afghanistan. the fact that there are numerous terrorist groups there and we have to maintain a counterterrorism presence. the fact that, as i indicated

before, the government of afghanistan, the afghan people in many cases, have suffered more than we have in terms of the onslaught of the taliban and other forces. so again i don't think that reason measures up to the demands. so, mr. president, the national defense authorization act has passed for 59 years. we need to ensure that it will pass for 60 years by overriding the president's veto. the house, as i said, has already done that, 322-87. 322-87. i encourage my colleagues to show similar support to our military personnel and their families to override this veto. and i yield the floor. mr. inhofe: mr. president? let me elaborate a little bit on something that my friend from rhode island said about china. i think it's very, very significant that we realize that

this is the toughest bill on china that's ever been passed. that didn't come just from me. that came from the american enterprise institute which has all the credibility in the world. they talk about the serious things that are going on. and they actually said this bill is the most substantial and consequential china-related provisions since in probably history. now, that's significant because all of us remember -- i know that senator reed and i both spent time in the south china sea, the seven islands that they are doing that right now. china is -- it's illegal but they have taken over -- no, they've created seven islands in the south china sea. when you go down there, it looks as if on those islands they're preparing for world war iii. and they have a lot of our allies in that area are very much concerned because they are making a lot more noise than we are, and they've demonstrated

very clearly some of the things they do that we haven't done. hyper sonics is an example. that's kind of the state of the art, the thing that we do in modernizing our military equipment and abilities. and it's been very successful. but they're still ahead of us. so we're in catch-up mode. i would say this. when you go and you look and you see the buildups that they have, i can remember it wasn't long ago until -- that china, every time they got involved in any kind of an effort, they did it from their own city limits there. now they're doing -- they're all over? djibouti and tanzania and all over the world. so we made this bill to establish the pacific deterrence initiative. that's a $2.2 billion for

posture to put ourselves in the position where we are going to pass this bill. we'll pass china. and we're shifting the supply chains away from china, semiconductors, printed circuit boards, the pharmaceuticals, stimulating the u.s. economy and protecting weapons systems and our troops. it brings china's malign national security activities into light. to make sure everybody knows what they're doing there. we have a new report in this bill on the true china defense security spending, the new assessments of china industrial base, new list of chinese companies operating in the united states and making it more difficult for them to do that. so all -- it's all in this bill. a new report on the fishing fleets they have out there. it extends the successful china military power report, supports taiwan, a new plan against -- that is better than anything we've done or ever done before. i put this yesterday into the

record all the things that we are doing, just concentrating on the threat that is posed to the united states from the country of china. it's all in this bill. so this is something that we have taken great pride in because we recognize the threat that's posed to our country from the chinese. so this is a good bill. it's one that deserves an overwhelming support. i would say one more time, a lot of work went into this from both sides of the aisle. we are in agreement on it. it had huge margins of support in both chambers of the house and the senate. so we will have a chance to move procedurally toward that and make that a reality before the end of the week. so i thank the chair and i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator for oklahoma.

mr. inhofe: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: a quorum is now present. the senate will come to order. the majority leader is recognized. the senate will come to order. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i ask the chair to lay before the senate the detailed message on h.r. 6395, and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: has any senator not voted? does any senator wish to change their vote? the yeas are 80, the nays a 12. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report. the clerk: veto message to accompany h.r. 6395, an act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2021 for military activities of the department of defense and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: the question is, shall the bill pass, the objections to the president of the united states to the contrary notwithstanding? the question is debatable. the majority leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: i send -- the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the

veto message on h.r. 6395, an a act to authorize appropriation for fiscal year 2021 for military activities of the department of defense and so forth and for other purposes, signed by 17 senators as follows -- mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 12:00 noon thursday, december 31. following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, morning business be closed and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following leader remarks, the senate resume consideration of the veto message on h.r. 6395. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: so if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

..