valley and ben tarnoff's book is terms of disservice. a pleasure to speak with all of you and the books are really important and i'm so grateful you wrote them and joining us today at the book festival. >> as the year comes to a close congress continues in session debating whether to add more dollars to covid-19 relief and to vote on overwriting the president's veto funding defense programs. a new congress, convenes on sunday at noon. join us as they swearing 60 new members with the house selects a speaker in both bodies begin their work live coverage sunday at noon eastern time. watch the house on c-span and the senate on c-span2. watch online, c-span.org or listen on the c-span radio apps.

>> we are breaking away from booktv to fulfill our 40 plus commitment to bring you the senate. the senate is about to gavel in, more debate on overwriting donald trump's veto to the 2021 defense bill, it will take place at 1:00 pm eastern today. now live to the senate floor 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. sovereign lord, we thank you for

the dawning of a new year, for the promise of fresh starts and fertile opportunities. we sing your praises and will not keep silent for you are god forever. we see changes and decay all around us, but you are god forever. although the wrong so often seems strong, you are god forever. mighty one, aside in this chamber to inspire and empower our law may to protect -- lawmakers to protect and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies. may our senators strive to

permit their thoughts, words, and actions to please you. o god, our refuge and redeemer, you are god forever. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting 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: i move to

proceed to calendar number 480, s. 3985. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar 480, s. 3985, a bill to reform and improve policing practices and accountability. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: first i want to wish all of my fellow senators and our staff colleagues here in the capitol a happy and healthy new year. in particular i'd like to extend our gratitude to the capitol police, officers of the secretary of the senate and sergeant at arms and many other staff who have gone above and beyond to help us attend to important business this holiday season. today by the grace of god, the genesus of science and the

resilience of the american people we appear to have a great 2021 on the horizon. we should defeat the pandemic through effective vaccines. the pace of the economic recovery has already beaten expectations and predictions. thanks to the ingenuity of our citizens overall personal income and our country is already higher now than they were prior to the pandemic. now the country needs more support and the significant remaining pain is not, i repeat, not evenly distributed. far from it. so swee just enacted another -- we just enacted another historic rescue package to get vaccines, to keep small businesses alive and to give support to struggling people who actually need it. from multiple kinds of

unemployment benefits to nutrition assistance, rental assistance, direct cash, and beyond. this latest huge historic package was just signed into law less than one week ago. it is beginning to take affect right now. many households have already received the latest round of cash or will receive it very soon. to help them turn the page into this brand-new year. and while this huge new aid package takes effect, a bipartisan caucus in both chambers is not keen to let speaker pelosi and senator sanders to have universal cash giveaways regardless of needs. a huge chunk would be socialism for rich people, money going to households well into six figures who did not lose any jobs or income last year. the house democrat bill is just simply not right approach.

that's what editorial pages across the political spectrum say, that's what even liberal economists say and that's what common sense tells us. here's what the senate is focused on, completing the an yalg defense legislation that looks after our brave men and women who volunteer to wear the uniform. we passed this legislation 59 years in a row and one way or another we're going to complete the 60th annual ndaa and pass it into law before this congress concludes on sunday. it's a serious responsibility. but it's also a tremendous opportunity to direct our national security priorities to reflect the resolve of the american people and the evolving threats to their safety at home and abroad. it's our chance to recommit to research and development so that our 2 #st century military is equipped to outmatch any adversary. it is to ensure that we keep pace with competitors like russia and china.

it's our chance to remind brave service members and their families that we have their backs with facilities, resources and support benefiting the finest fighting forces in the world. over the past year our colleagues on the armed services committee have made sure that the legislation delivers for our troops and for our nation. now it's time for us to deliver this bill.

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. well, i can't remember the last time the senate convened on new year's day so i want to take this opportunity to wish all of my colleagues a happy new year. i want to thank the staff for having to come in and work on new year's day and i want to bid a good riddens to 2020. there can be no question that last year was a rocial year -- a horrible year as they said in britain, but we must begin the new year -- but as we begin the first year of this new decade preparing to inaugurate a new

president and inoculate people against the virus, we have hope. the senate can add to that sense of hope by sending $2,000 checks to struggling american families. the senate can start off 2021 by really helping the american people. we can start off 2021 by sending $2,000 checks to struggling american families to carry them through the darkest and final days of this pandemic. the votes today on this uncommon new year's day session could be the last of the 116th congress. that means that today is the last chance to take up and pass the house bill to provide $2,000 checks to the american people. if the senate does not take action today, 2,000 checks will not become law before the end of congress and they will know that leader mcconnell and the

republican majority have prevented them from getting the checks, plain and simple. this is the last chance for a mother in nashville $4,000 behind on the rent whose water was shut off earlier this month. this is the last chance for the medical receptionist in macomb, $2,100 behind on the rent, whose electric was shut off in september on the virtual third day of her son's kindergarten. this is the last chance for 12 million americans who have fallen nearly $6,000 behind on rent and utility or the 26,000 americans who had trouble putting food on the table. the last chance. make no mistake about it, $600 has never been enough for them. this is the last chance to

deliver $2,000 before a new congress is sworn in and the legislative process must start all over again. for once we have progressive democrats, conservative republicans, the president himself, and not to mention, of course, the majority, the vast majority of the american people singing from the same song book in support of these checks. we have a bill that's already passed the house. all we are asking for is a simple vote in the senate. i, for one, am confident it would pass if given the chance and that may be the real reason that leader mcconnell and the republicans don't want to bring it up. we have had many opportunities this week to vote on the measure. senator mcconnell has blocked every one of them. we have offered to vote on whatever unrelated issues the republican leader says he wants to vote on so long as we can get a clean vote on the house bill

to provide $2,000 checks, the only way to actually make it happen in this year -- this session of congress. that offer still stands. that offer still stands, but give us a vote. give us a vote on the house bill. it's okay if the republican leader opposes checks, it's okay if the majority of republican senators oppose the checks. they can make their case to the american people and oppose the bill but let us vote. it's okay if the republican leader wants to call direct assistance to people directly targeted even though he drove passage of $2,000 across the board reduction in corporate taxes, but give us a vote. make the argument. let the senate work its will. to me, it seems like the republican leader is afraid to schedule a vote on $2,000 checks

because he's afraid it will pass. what a terrifying thought that struggling americans would get some money to feed their families, pay the rent, and get on with their lives, pay the utility bill of that kindergarten kid or third grade kid who can't even go to school because his family can't afford electricity. we have a chance -- a chance at the end of this painful year and at the beginning of a new one to give americans reason for nope in 202 -- hope in 2021. the only thing standing in the way right now is leader mcconnell and the republican senate majority. in a moment, i'll ask consent for the final time that the senate set a time for a vote on the house bill to provide 2,000 checks. i've done it every day this week. this is it, the last chance for

the 116th congress to pass $2,000 checks and to say to regular americans help is on the way. let's have a vote -- let's have a vote. pass this bill. there is no better way to usher in the new year. and so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 645, h.r. 9051, a bill to increase recovery rebate amounts for $2,000, that it be read a third time and if passed, 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? a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the assistant majority leader. mr. thune: mr. president, reserving the right to object and let me just say, through the chair, thank you to the senator

from new york and the senator from vermont and the senator from illinois and others here for the opportunity to spend new year's with them. i know that's something that has always been on my bucket list, maybe not on top of the bucket list, nevertheless, thank you for that opportunity. it does feel like a long time ago, but it was actually only, if you can believe this, the beginning of last week when both sides of the aisle and both sides of the capitol came together to pass a targeted, responsible, and necessary relief package which became law with overwhelming bipartisan support. it passed here in the senate 92-6. members on both sides of the aisle, myself included, have demonstrated that we are willing to dedicate resources to those struggling during this pandemic. the problem with what is being put forward, the house-passed cash act, is it is not targeted to help those who are most in need. now, just as a -- to point that

out, it's not just us saying that, mr. president. even "the washington post" editorial board, "the washington post" editorial board called it one last bad idea for 2020. they singled it out as especially wrong-headed, the efforts of the progressive left to depict this, and i quote, as aid to desperate americans despite the huge amounts of their term -- this is "the washington post" term, their term destined for perfectly comfortable families, end quote. as others here on the floor have noted, the bill would provide a payment to a family of five making up to $350,000. a family of five making $250,000 would receive a $5,000 benefit. now, just to put that in perspective, mr. president, that's more than was paid to a middle-class family of five under the cares act that we passed back in march. in addition, the bill would add

an additional $463 billion, nearly half a trillion dollars, to the annual debt. and again, it's all money we have to borrow. all this is money we have to borrow. and that's just the -- more than the first two economic impact payments combined. so put that in perspective, mr. president, you think of other ways that you could use that amount of money. the truth is that those types of sums could potentially be spent in many more targeted ways. but our colleagues on the democrat side don't even want to debate some of those alternatives. allowing small businesses as a second draw, the paycheck protection program where it costs approximately $285 billion. for the cost of the cash act, we could do another round of assistance to help small businesses keep their employees on the payroll and still, still have almost $200 billion left over. the expanded unemployment benefit signed into law last week cost approximately

$120 billion for 11 additional weeks. that means that we could provide more than additional 40 weeks, ten months of enhanced unemployment insurance benefits for those who have lost their jobs for the same cost as this proposal. mr. president, this is simply not targeted relief for the people who need it the most. those who say that we should just vote on this house bill conveniently leave out the fact that they do not want us to amend it to make it better to deliver more assistance to people who are hurting the most. so, mr. president, for all those reasons, and again, let me point out one last time, it has been less than a week really now since the senate voted and the president signed into law a proposal negotiated literally over months, literally over

months. every fine point of that proposal negotiated, signed into law to provide targeted fiscally responsible assistance to the people in this country who need it the most. this proposal, this proposal is a shotgun approach, a shotgun approach where a rifle makes a lot more sense. if you really want to help people who need this the most, at a time when we are running a $26 trillion debt, borrowing every penny that we're making available to do this, we ought to sit down and figure out how to do it in a most efficient, effective, targeted way possible. this absolutely does not do that. when you have a family that is making $350,000 a year in this country getting up to thousands of dollars of payments and $250,000 a year in this country getting under this proposal a $5,000 check, i would argue, mr. president, that is not

targeted, that is not fiscally responsible, that is not efficient, that is not an effective way to spend the american taxpayer's dollars. let's help the people who need it the most. we just passed a proposal, signed into law that does that. i think many of us on this side of the aisle are willing to look at other ideas and things we can do that would help those people more, but this certainly is not it, so i object. the presiding officer: objection is noted. the majority -- excuse me. the democratic leader. mr. schumer: someday soon. mr. president, the only thing i would say through the chair to my friend from south dakota is many of the proposals he proposed as throrns to our proposal the republican majority objected to when we had our negotiations on the cares bill. we believe this can be in addition to the expansion of unemployment insurance and other things. given the state of the economy, that is what's needed. and i thank you for that and

yield the floor. mr. sanders: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: thank you. and let me say to my friend, senator thune, certainly i concur with you. what a pleasure it is to be spending new year's day with you and our colleagues. it's exactly what i -- not what i and every other member wanted to do. but here we are because we have to be here, and we are here because back home in my state and all over this country, millions and millions of families are struggling to put food on the table, they are struggling to pay their rent, they are struggling to come up with the money they need to go to the doctor. and it hits me in a sense in a personal way. i just received the other day from a colleague of mine in burlington, vermont, where i live. burlington, vermont, largest city in the state of vermont.

over 40,000 people. and what a volunteer wrote to me, they said -- this is the quote, reporting on a food drive in burlington, vermont, where i live. quote, over 30 volunteers showed up at the champlain school to help bag groceries and to hand them out to those who came out. unfortunately, there was not nearly enough donateed food to provide a bag to everyone who showed up, despite us planning on increased need. the line of cars filled the parking lot, wrapped around the school, and went out onto the main road for half a mile. this represented a major uptick from the october event that we were involved in. this is burlington, vermont. hundreds of cars lining up for emergency food, and the

volunteers did not have enough food to distribute. they have to say to families who are trying to feed their kids, sorry, we do not have enough food. so what we are doing today is very simple. and that is senator thune and senator mcconnell and others have raised objection to the house-passed bill, and in the united states senate when we have differences of opinion, what we should be doing is debating that bill. so all that senator schumer is asking, all that i am asking is a simple request. bring the bill to the floor. i'm not even asking you to vote for it. bring the bill to the floor. and on top of everything else, we need 60 votes to pass.

60 votes. can we get 60 votes? i don't know. i think virtually all of the 48 democrats will vote for it. it means, senator thune, that we need 12 republicans. i gather we have got one right here who indicated he would vote for it. five or six others have been public about saying they will vote for it. will we get the rest? i don't know. you don't know. but what is the problem with giving members of the united states senate the opportunity to vote on the legislation? and when we have that debate, you can come up and you can raise all of your objections, we can debate it. now, i hear senator thune and senator mcconnell before him talk about this bill being socialism for the rich, which i have got to tell you i find, mr. president, somewhat hysterical because that's an

issue i have been talking about for many, many years. i am very delighted that my conservative republican friends now recognize that we do have socialism for the rich, to paraphrase dr.dr. martin luther king jr. who said that we live in a society where we have socialism for the rich and rugged individualism for the poor. king was right. but despite what my republican colleagues are saying, the truth is that according to the tax policy center, the top 5% of americans, the wealthiest people in our country, would receive less than 1% of the benefits of these direct payments. less than 1%. it doesn't sound to me like too much socialism for the rich. but while we are on the subject of socialism for the rich, which my republican friends have

suddenly become very concerned about, let me talk about the trump tax proposal that was pushed very hard by senator mcconnell and the republican leadership where i think every republican voted for it. do you want to talk about socialism for the rich? it is not the bill that puts $2,000 into working class hands all over this country. that isn't socialism for the rich. this is socialism for the rich. in that bill, amazon -- oh, by the way, i must say this, if i may, we were quoting the liberal "washington post" owned by jeff bezos, the wealthiest guy in the world. so here is jeff bezos's company, amazon, and they receive a tax rebate -- they paid nothing in 2018 in federal taxes. that's a corrupt tax system to begin with. but then on top of that, they

received $129 million as a tax rebate. that, senator thune, is what socialism for the rich -- in fact, this particular company is owned by the richest guy in the world. you gave him a $129 million rebate. but it's not just amazon. delta airlines also -- delta air lines also paid nothing in taxes in 2018, and yet they received a $187 million rebate from that particular bill. chevron, helping to destroy our planet with their carbon emissions, $181 million in a rebate. that, my friends, is what socialism for the rich is about. socialism for the rich is not in the midst of this terrible pandemic putting a $2,000 check into the hands of working

families. mr. president, the truth of the matter is that as a result of this pandemic, we are living through the worst and most difficult economic period since the great depression. tens of millions of families are facing eviction all over this country, in the wealthiest nation on earth. moms are struggling to feed their kids, keep the electricity on, and be able to go to the doctor. now, i hear from my republican friends that the economy is doing better, but i would like to just read to them a few of the stories that i have received in my office. i got -- we asked people the

simple question, how are you doing out there, what's going on in your life? and we received many, many thousands of spons from people in every state in this country. just a few, just to bring some dose of reality here to the united states senate, which often in the midst of all of the campaign contributions coming in here from the rich does not know what's going on in the real world. here's the real world. a gentleman in texas wrote $2,000 is the difference between keeping our apartment and being evicted. a mother in virginia wrote $2,000 means i can afford to feed my three kids. now, maybe we should give her a long lecture on macroeconomics and how well the stock market is doing. all she is worried about is feeding her three children. a woman in wisconsin wrote $2,000 would mean not having to

choose between rent and groceries and not having to ration my partner's meds. a woman in nevada wrote it means paying my rent and getting lifesaving treatment because i can't afford the 50-dollar co-pay through my work insurance just to see my neurologist right now. a father in florida wrote, it means i could pay my bills. our electricity and phone are about to get shut off. i didn't have money for my son on christmas, and i won't have money for his birthday on january 2. a father in new jersey wrote, it would mean i could pay off credit card debt accumulated during this pandemic, feed my children, and pay my bills. a parent in massachusetts wrote it would mean that i could pay my rent and electricity and put food on the table. a woman in missouri wrote, it would minette going out of crushing debt -- it would mean getting out of crushing debt. it would mean survival without daily fear. someone in texas wrote, it would

mean i could actually put food in the fridge. a man in a maryland wrote, i it would mean i don't have to beg or go without food, shelter and medicine. it would mean my family stays warm another couple of months and my dad gets proper treatment. mr. durbin: will the senator yield for a a question? mr. sanders: i would. mr. durbin: i would like to ask the senator from vermont a question through the chair. ill i have listened to the republican analysis of the bill which you and senator schumer and you are asking for a vote on. it is a bill which pass the house and would give $2,000 to families across the country with certain income restrictions. and i've heard from the other side of the aisle repeatedly that the this is socialism for the rich, that this is fundamentally unfair, and that we should do things in a targeted way. that's the argument that's made over and over again. and reference has been made repeatedly to the covid-19 bill that passed last week with 92

votes, including many of the republicans, virtually all of them -- not all of them, but virtually all of them. and so that bill, if i remember correctly, had a $600 payment included in the bill. and i ask my staff, would you please analyze the formula for distributing the $00 and compare it to the formula for the $2,000 which is part of our boil. and lo and behold, they discovered it's the same formula. so if there is some fundamental moral injustice in the distribution of these funds, then i'm afraid all but six of the republicans are guilty of the same immorality because they all voted for that formula last week when it was $600 and now are scandalized by the notion that the same formula that they voted for would be used for a $2,000 payment. i'm sure i missed something in the translation here. i'd like to ask the senator from

vermont to explain this full outrage from the republican side of the aisle. mr. sanders: well, i think my friend from illinois missed nothing in the translation. he's exactly right. but i also -- mr. thune: the senator from illinois makes a good point. will the senator yield for a question. mr. sanders: yes. mr. thune: so if the same formula is used and you're increasing the amount by $1,400 per person, so you're going from basically for a family of four what would be $2,400 payment to $8,000 payment, and you phase that down using the same formula, does the senator from illinois understand the math and why that's skewed towards people who make a lot more money than under the other formula? mr. durbin: it's a question directed towards me. mr. thune: you are making a point and a statement that's not accurate. because you're saying the formula is the same. it is the same but the input is change add. somebody who makes $350,000 gets

a payment under the sanders sanders-hawley proposal that they wouldn't -- no, and it phases out a lot sooner, as you know. so let's be clear about how that formula works. because you are misrepresenting the way that formula works. mr. sanders: then i ask my -- the presiding officer: the senator from vermont has the floor. mr. sanders: thank you very much, mr. president. i would ask my friend from south dakota, do you disagree with the tax policy center which says that the top 5% of americans -- the wealthiest people in our country -- would receive less than one percent of the total benefits being dispersed? mr. thune: i have not seen the tax policy center, but i know math and i know as a basic principle that when you apply, when you stick bigger numbers in there and you're using the same formula to phase something out, you're going to make it

available to people who make a lot more money. that is a mathematical fact. and what you are saying when you talk about the same formula, it skews entirely different in the income scale, you know that. and all many a. saying is don't misrepresent the facts. mr. mr. sanders: all ill i am saying is that according to a very reputable tax organization center, people who do this for a living, less than one percent of the benefits of the entire program go to the wealthiest people in this country. so when you're talking about, oh, my god, all this money is going to the rich, that ain't really true. but i would also ask my friend, where did you suddenly become a religious adherent about concern of socialism for the rich when you gave 83% of the benefits to the rich and large corporations in the tax bill that you supported? where was your concern about socialism for the rich when amazon, owned by the richest guy

in the world, got $129 million tax rebate? i didn't hear much about socialism for the rich in that debate. mr. thune: very simply, what you are suggesting -- so what you're saying here is the owner of "the washington post," who said this is really bad policy and shouldn't be done in this way at the end of this year, is that what where you're saying, is that because he is a wealthy person that somehow that's why he's making that statement in i think "the washington post" editorial board in most cases would be very sympathetic to the senator's argument. because they take a liberal point of view on the one hand almost every issue. my point is that we have lib rat amount of resource. this is borrowed money. when we spent months, literally months, and you asked why can't you guys just come down here, why can't you just come down here and debate this, we tried for months to get the democrats down here to debate a bill. we've put a bill on the floor in

september, we put a bill on the floor in october. a coronavirus relief bill. and you guys blocked it. you didn't even want to talk about it. you didn't want to have an opportunity to amend it. west been working on it for months and we finally u.a.e.rrived after months at a proposal that includes nutrition assistance, rental assistance, and including checks to people, $2,400 per person. and including unemployment -- mr. sanders: reclaiming my time. all that i'm saying -- this is a great debate. john, we should have this debate. in two minutes i'm going to give you the opportunity to say you support what we're doing and then we will have this debate. that's your opportunity. but i want to get back -- the senator from south dakota did not answer the question that there was not apparently huge concern about socialism for the rich in the bill that they

supported or worried about the debt that would incur. so i see if i say say so a bit of hypocrisy here. senator thune and the republican leadership wants to debate this issue. so do i. i think it is a great debate, a great debate. now, as everybody knows, senator mcconnell proposed an idea -- i don't agree with it, but it is an idea that's worthy of debate and discussion -- and he said, let's combine three elements together. let's incorporate the bill passed in the house by two-thirds of the house, including 44 republicans. let's add to that the repeal of section 230 of the telecommunications act. and let's also add to that at president trump's request an issue about voter integrity, et

cetera, et cetera. okay? that is what senator mcconnell proposed. and in one moment i am going to bring -- because i know republicans think i don't do much for them, that i'm not concerned about them. but, senator thune, i am going to bring your bill to the floor. show you what a nice guy i am. i am going to bring senator mcconnell's bill right to the floor and give you an opportunity to vote for it. all that i am asking while i bring senator mcconnell's republican bill to the floor, we are going to bring the bill that passed the house with 44 republicans to the floor as well. we'll have two votes, one vote on senator mcconnell's bill, needs 60 votes to pass; one vote on the house -- one vote on the house bill, 60 votes to pass. that's it. so it's hard for me to imagine how senator thune will object to us bringing forward the

republican bill. here it goes. this is the legalese that i need to say and i'm going to bring it and i'm sure that senator thune will support me in my effort. i ask unanimous consent that if cloture is invoked on the veto message obstruction of justicen on h.r. 3695 national defense authorization act that notwithstanding rule 22 at 3:00 p.m. today -- a short period of time -- 3:00 p.m. today, friday, january 1, the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number 645, h.r. 9051 to provide a $2,000 direct payment to the working class. that the bill be considered read a third time and the senate vote on passage of the bill. and that if passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. further, that following the vote on h.r. 9551, the senate proceed

to consideration of calendar number 644, s. 5085, that the bill be considered read a third time, that there be one hour of debate on bill equally divided and controlled by myself or my designee, and senator mcconnell or his designee. that following the use or yielding back of that time or, the senate vote on passage of the bill and that if passed, the the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all without intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from from missouri. mr. hawley: reserving the right to object, i want to say that i can't for the life of me figure out why it is so difficult to get a vote on the bills that senator sanders has just referenced when by my count the president of the united states, the speaker of the house, a large majority of the house of representatives, and i

think a supermajority of this body are all in favor -- all in favor -- of $2,000 covid relief payments to working americans. now, we've had some back-and-forth on the floor today about how we got to the level of $2,000. we all know how we go to to that level. the president of the united states said that's the level he supported. the number originates with him. this is the number that he has asked for. and the house adopted it. and the majority of senators have said already publicly that they support it. and yet we can't seem to even get a vote on it. we can't even seem to have debate on it. with all due respect, this doesn't seem to be a republicans v. democrats issue. this seems to be the senate v. the united states of america. and i don't understand it t appeared i'm -- and i'm willing to bet that the american people don't understand it either. here we are in the throes of the worst pandemic in a century that working people have borne the

brunt of and all that we're asking is that those working people be first in line for relief. and that they be given meaningful relief that is only approximately commensurate with the hardships that they and their families have borne. now i hear a the talk about how we can't afford it. i do notice that we seem to be able a ford all kinds of other thank you. money to other of the goes, we can afford to send tax deduction breaks and bailouts to big corporations. we can afford to spend enormous sums of money on pork, hundreds of billions of dollars in that last bill on pork. hundreds of billions. but we can't seem to find the money for relief for working people that the president and the house and the senate all support, and yet we can't seem to get onto the floor. let me just share three stories that i've heard just this week alone -- this week alone -- from my home state, from missouri.

daniel from st. louis county called my office. she said her utilities are about to be shut off. she was desperate for help. she said a $2,000 payment would go a long way to help keep the lights on and her house warm. i heard from a mother in southeast missouri. that's the boot heel of my state. she wrote that her son had lost pay because of his company cutting back hours because of covid. and that he himself contracted the virus and so he had a to be home and was missing work and shifts. his family can't make it paycheck to paycheck. his husband -- her daughter-in-law is donating plasma in order to help earn some extra grocery money. donating plasma in order to get some money to pay for groceries. -- to feed their family. richard that st. louis wrote to me that any extra help that he could get would go to directly paying his rent and his utilities.

he had a job that he lost in the retail business, retail sector and he is desperately struggling. these people -- these are not people who are nature do always. these are proud people. all that they ask for is, as i've said many times on this floor of about, is a chance to get back you up on their feet and to be ail to provide for their families. and i can't for the life of me understand why we cannot get a vote on these bills. for that reason, mr. president, i do not object. i support the measures that senator sanders is trying to bring to the floor. i would support both if we were given the opportunity. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, reserving the right to object. i know that senator toomey is delayed coming to the floor. on his behalf i object.

the presiding officer: objection is heard. morning business is closed. and under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the veto message on h.r. 6395, which the clerk will report. the clerk: message to accompany h.r. 6395, an act to appropriate funds for the department of defense and so forth and for other purposes.

mr. inhofe: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are not, sir. mr. inhofe: all right. mr. president, these will will be the last few words senator reed and i will talk about before the vote, and i want to mention something i want to talk about as much as i probably should have. first of all, the cooperation of working with senator reed and his staff and this is -- sha long -- this is a long enduring

thing. this is hard for people to believe. we're started working on next year's bill now. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order, please. mr. inhofe: since i thought i would mention something that hasn't been talked about as much as it should have been talked about. since we suffered arguably the worst cyberattack in american history, this is the most significant piece of cyberlegislation in american -- history. it contains cyberrecommendations. 17 are in the ndaa, to include provisions to solar winds and will allow lotus to get to the cybersecurity division of h.h.s. to begin on dot government networks.

we have other in the ndaa, establishing a national cyber director in the ndaa, strengthening sizes and elevating its leadership, giving it more resources. i figure that the solar winds attack is a harbinger of things to come. i'm very proud of the work our commission has done and it is critical. the final thing i would say is that this is arguably the most serious piece of legislation when it comes to deterring china that we've had in decades, if not ever, including provisions such as the pacific deterrence initiative. this is a followup from last year's european deterrence initiative. we are concentrating more on russia. this is china, that's what the whole division of this bill is about, to enhance our presence and deterrent posture in the

of -- protecting against chinese espionage, reporting on chinese united front work department in the united states and abroad and the list goes on and on. it's a very serious piece of legislation when it comes to deterring china. that's one of the things we're concerned about. china is our number one threat and will be for perhaps regrettably decades to come. this bill brings us along where we should be. once again, i want to say the effort that has gone into this bill, the weekends, the hard work and liz king and john bonzo, i would have to say to my good friend jack reed, they have probably worked more weekends than they have not worked weekends it is a real effort, important, most significant piece of legislation that we will pass and this next vote is

a very critical vote. and i would yield to the -- senator reed for any comments that he would like to make about this. but i want to keep in mind that this is a real -- people are talking about -- the democrats and republicans don't do things together. this has been an example of what can happen in government. mr. reed: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. let me first begin by commending the chairman for his extraordinary effort. he led this process, let there be no mistake about it. he rose to the alcohol engs. -- to the challenges. this is the most challenging ndaa for so many reasons, because of the pandemic, the need for social distancing in terms of hearings, the whole scope of challenges that have arisen in the past few months

and the chairman has done a remarkable job. let me start by saying this is essential for our national security. this bill is not optional. if we want to continue to maintain our security for the united states, we have to pass this legislation. it's that simple. what does it do? well, it does things that we have to do every year. one, it provides for the support of -- for our service men and women. i know we're all celebrating new year's day here. and, you know, it's kind of disconcerting to be working when everyone else is partying, but if you feel a little bit sort of put upon, think about the soldiers in forward operating bases in afghanistan that are facing danger. think about the submarines -- the ballistic submarines protecting the united states,

think about the airmen who flew the b-52 bombers, think about them and their families and i think you will appreciate more what they do every day and what we do once in a while. one of the issues the chairman spoke about cybersecurity is essential. we based our efforts on an inciteful report by a commission, headed by congressman mike gallagher. i want to say gallagher, because i think he identified him with another irish name last week and also a key cybersecurity in the house. every day we are learning more about the russian penetration of our whole national security apparatus and civilian companies.

just today microsoft announced that they had been deeply penetrated by the russian incursion, and i suspect it's very serious. this legislation responds -- in fact, it was done remarkably before we knew of it, responds specifically to this type of attack on the united states. it gives agencies the authority to audit other agencies in terms of their cybersecurity and it's just a first step. but if we don't take this step, we'll be further behind. now, the other thing i want to point out too is echoing what the chairman said about the pacific defense initiative. we've identified $2 billion that can be used and we will focus upon how it's used to create a new strategy. this is really the first time that we have stepped back and said, let's set up a strategic posture that recognizes the true

threats that china is now presenting to us in the pacific. it's the first time we've done it and what it does is it builds on our close relationships with key allies, australia, japan, south korea. it does that by a series of steps. first, a command post exercises where we test our communication, second, real exercises. getting to a point where large-scale joint exercises involving not only our key allies but other countries become possible. that will set us up for the ability to deter china. when they see all of the nations of the pacific that have worked with us closely that are prepared to work with us, that will be a great deterrence and that's the goal of this effort. any suggestion that china is happy about this bill is completely baseless. and then, finally, again, i

must, like the chairman, thank the staff, john bonzo and the staff and all the members, but ultimately, again, congratulations to the chairman for his great work. i urge passage. again, i think this is essential. as i spoke before, there are thousands of soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, coast guardmen on the watch as we speak. it is up to us to give them the tools they need to protect us. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield the floor. mr. inhofe: i'd gole so far to -- i'd go so far to suggest -- the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: that this is the most significant of the bills that we passed every year for the past 59 years. and, mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent that the

mandatory quorum call be waived with respect to the motion to invoke cloture on a veto message on h.r. 6395, ndaa. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, it is so ordered.

the presiding officer: motion to invoke 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 act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2021 for military activities of the department of defense, and so

forth and for other purposes, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the veto message on h.r. 6395, an act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2021 for military activities of the department of defense for military construction and for defense activities of the department of energy to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 80, the nays are 12. three fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.

mr. inhofe: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. will senators please take your conversations outside. the senate will come to order. the senator from rhode island. the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: thank you. thank you. we are going to go to final

passage, and i just wanted to -- wanted to comment that this is really a significant vote, not just because it's the ndaa and many of us -- the presiding officer: the senate will come to order, please. mr. inhofe: a lot of people contend, as i do, that every year the ndaa's the most significant vote that we have. this year especially so in light of all of the disruptions and problems that we've had. once again, i want to say how great it's been to work and show the american people that democrats and republicans can work together and get significant legislation passed. i'm very proud that we have this bill and i'm proud to have worked with senator reed and his staff. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president, this legislation is essential to the national security of the united states and to the welfare of the troops and families who defend us every day. i would urge all of my colleagues to vote to override

the veto. i want to thank senator inhofe for his leadership for his leadership, congratulate john bonzul on the democratic side and liz king on the republican side. i urge all my colleagues to vote for this bill. mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i know of no further debate. the presiding officer: is there any further debate? if not, the question is, shall the bill pass the objections of the president of the united states to the contrary notwithstanding? the yeas and nays are required and the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their votes? seeing none, the yeas are 81, the nays are 13. two-thirds of the senators voting, a quorum being presented, having voted in the affirmative, the bill on the consideration is passed, the objections of the president of the united states to the contrary notwithstanding.

mr. boozman: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. boozman: i ask contessa that the veto message on s. 906, the

driftnet modernization and bicatch reduction act, be considered as having been read and spread upon the journal in full and that the message be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. boozman: i ask unanimous consent that the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. boozman: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. 5086 introduced earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 5086, a bill to allow senators, senators-elect, committees of the senate, leadership offices, and other offices of the senate to share employees, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. boozman: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and

passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. boozman: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number 466, s. res. 406. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 466, s. res. 406, recognizing that for 50 years, the association of southeast asian nations and its ten members have worked with the united states towards stability, prosperity, and peace, and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. boozman: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the committee-reported substitute to be agreed to, the resolution as amended be agreed to, the

committee-reported amendment to the preamble be considered, the amendment at the desk be agreed to, the committee-reported amendment to the preamble be agreed to, the preamble as amended be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. boozman: i ask unanimous consent that the committee on foreign relations be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 2444 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 2444, an act to authorize the secretary of state to make direct loans under section 23 of the arms export control act, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection. the committee is discharged. the senate will proceed. mr. boozman: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the

motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. boozman: i ask unanimous consent that the foreign relations committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to s. res. 684. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 684, calling on the government of cameroon and separatist armed groups from the english-speaking northwest and southwest regions to end all violence, and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged. the senate will proceed. mr. boozman: i ask unanimous consent that the risch amendment to resolution be agreed to, the resolution as amended be agreed to, the risch amendment to the preamble be agreed to, the preamble as amended be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made

and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. boozman: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on foreign relations be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 4508 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 4508, an act to expand the number of scholarships available to pakistani women under the merit and needs-based scholarship program. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged. the senate will proceed. mr. boozman: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time. i know of no further debate. the presiding officer: if there is no further debate, the question is on passage. all those in favor say aye. opposed no. the ayes have it. mr. boozman: finally, i ask that the -- the presiding officer: the motion is passed. mr. boozman: i ask that the motion to reconsider be

considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. boozman: i ask unanimous consent that the majority leader be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions through sunday, january 3, 2021. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. boozman: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until sunday, january 3, at 11:45 a.m. for a pro forma session only with no business conducted. further, that when the senate adjourns after the pro forma, the senate then reconvene at 12:00 noon on sunday, january 3, pursuant to the constitution. further, following the prayer and the pledge, and following the presentation of the certificates of election and the swearing in of elected members

and the required live quorum, the morning business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. further, following leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. boozman: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until sunday at

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: first i want to wish all of my fellow senators and our staff colleagues here in the capitol a happy and healthy new year. in particular i'd like to extend our gratitude to the capitol police, officers of the secretary of the senate and sergeant at arms and many other staff who have gone