>> is there objection? >> i object. >> objection is heard. >> i want to concur with senator schumer for what he said and what he said goes beyond economics. it goes beyond the desperation that tens of millions of working families are thinking. he goes beyond the struggles of the people of vermont or kentucky and let me jeff: it clear for the majority leader that 10 out of the 25 counties in the united states of america are located in kentucky. so many of my colleagues the majority leader might want to get on the phone and start talking to working families in kentucky and find out how they feel about the need for immediate help in terms of the 2000-dollar checks for adults. they have a strong feeling that the people of kentucky will respond differently than the people of vermont. this i last poll that i saw it, 70% of the american people say that they wanted and needed that type of help. this discussion frankly is not just about the economic struggling of working families in this country and instant not just the massive levels of income and wealth inequality, it's about democracy. what we have to do here on the floor with senators schumer and senator mcconnell we have to talk in legalese the united states senate language and count -- sounds compensated the average person but all that senator schumer and i are asking of thejo majority leader is a vy simple request, allow the members of the united states senate to cast a vote. if you want to vote against 2000-dollar checks for people than vote against it. senator toomey has been clear about it. i suspect he will vote against it and i respect his opinion but all that we are asking for is a vote. what is the problem? in the house over at two-thirds of the members of the body include 44 republicans voted to say that at this time of economic desperation working families deserve help and they deserve the 2000-dollar check. as senator schumer just indicated we have a very unlikely ally in president trump. nobody here will disagree with trump more time than i haven't yet here is what the leader of the republican party says. he says $2000 asap. enen on this issue 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 or myself in 78% of then american people or you agree with senator mcconnell and i suspect senator toomey. that's fine. we have differences of opinion. all that i am asking is give us a vote. what's the problem? about the united states senate to cast a vote as to whether or not they are for the 2000-dollar check or they are against it. we will need as they understand that 60 votes. i don't know that we are going to win. their number for republicans to their credit who are ready to vote for it. i suspect there may be more and when given the opportunity wolf vote for it. maybe i'm wrong. maybe we will lose and i think that would be unfortunate. all i'm asking for right now is give us the opportunity to vote. what is the problem with that? so 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 proceeded to the immediate consideration of h.r. 9051 to provide a 2-dollar direct payment to the working class that the bill be considered read a third time and vote on passage of the bill without intervening action or debate it further that if passed a motion to reconsider would be laid upon the table 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 passagepa of the bill and objection to the president of the contrary notwithstanding with no intervening actionng or debate. >> is there objection? >> mr. president. >> the senator from pennsylvania. >> reserving the right m to objt let me start by pointing out, we are not in the same place that we were and back in march. our economy is 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, financials jamila spill however you characterize it, and the history of the world, by far. we had close 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 have about the nature of the covid-19 threat it was deemed to be the right thing to do so we are on the verge of having no connie. that is never happened before in our history. 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 lossing, on a massive unprecedented scale. and we dideg it, almost $3 trillion we approved of that legislation. at the time we included $1200. person. you can make the argument that was an extremely inefficient use of those $1200. person but at the time given the circumstances, i understood why we didn't have many good options and that was something we decided to do. so where are we now? we are in a very different place.fr our economy is not in a freefall. our economy is in recovery mode. we are not back to where we want to end up. we are not back to where we were before march but we have taken big steps in that direction. economy grew at 33% last quarter, 33%. that's a tremendous recovery that is underway. more than half of all the people who lost their jobs earlier this year have regained their jobs so we are not finished yet but that's a huge step along the way. and now we are being told after passing another o extraordinary bill, this one almost a trillion dollars and including $600. person, but that is not enough. we need to do $2000. 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 have no loss of 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 are going to send them not $600, not $1200 to $2000. think about this. a married couple who both are working and have two kids, maybe they work for the federal government like to money and other people do. maybe they work for a large company the vast majority do not have large numbers of layoffs so this two child, to income couple would make six figures had no interruptions, no diminishment of their income whatsoever are going to get $8000 of money we don't have that is going to be borrowed or. 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 terrible covid crisis, no question about it. we know that 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 praise somebody those people are still out of work and the prospect of getting the old jobs back are not good in the short-run. i sure hope they will be good in the medium term drawn if not sooner and are bill address that.on dressed how we can do that with a new round of ppp loan's which are grants to small businesses if they will keep their workforce intact. expansion of unemployment insurance benefits to people who have starkly been ineligible remain legible soem they can continue to collect unemployment benefits and the increase in amount of employment and if it's a three under dollar a week overlay on top of whatever their state program is to $600. person regardless of whether they lost income. all of that would pass just ase few days ago and now we are told we need to come back immediately right now and make sure we are sending 2000-dollar checks to people who had no loss of income. for that reason mr. president i object. >> objection is heard. the senator from massachusetts. >> thankuc you mr. president vey much and i rise to echo the sentiments of the senator from vermont. heth is right. the republicans are wrong on this issue on every single part of this debate. senatorto sanders is right, the republicans are wrong. we are in the middle of an unprecedented crisis in our country. weea have a health care 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 he responding to the needs, to the desperation of families in our country at this time. it's a crisis of faith that the american people have in its governments ability to respond to human suffering. while this institution has been created to respond to human suffering. that is our job. tony fauci is made very clear that the worst of the pandemic is ahead of us, not behind us. we knoww what is 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 republicans have refused to fund the public health system of our country at the state and local level we have operations nail speed to put the vaccinations in the arms of the american people. it was anticipated bowl. tony fauci and others were warning us in may june and july that there would be a second wave in the 2nd wave could be bigger. we got the warning they republicans refused to heed that warning. and here h we are now with the public health infrastructure to deal with the overflow capacity in emergency rooms and icu's all across the country while simultaneously asking state medicals institutions to put vaccinations into 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 youyo don't want to help you don't want to hurt, deal with benign neglect. what's happenedd with the republicans is a program designed neglect it's a plan not to provide the funding and not to provide help for those families in those communities and those institutions that are now being overwhelmed and on top of that to put this extra burden of putting vaccinations in people's arms but without the extra resources. what did do they do on the republican side? they throw out these red herrings, so many red herrings you need to build an aquarium for the welfare to deal with all of them that gets away from the central issue. yes and no, up or down, will you provide $2000 to americans who are going to need it for what tony fauci is saying will be the worst part of this pandemic. guests are now -- yes or no, up or down on this issue. here's what we do know. republicans seem more focused on funding theef defense department than they do to funding the defense left in our country. americans are becoming more defenseless as each day goes by. the headline are screaming that this panic is absolutely understandable and based upon fact is sweeping our country. there is protections but the federal government should be providing to these families. they are hungry. they could be without their homes. the addiction crisis is rising. they need help and their families. from my perspective we have a moment in time and donald trump happens to agree with us even if the broken clock is right twice a day. 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 are having to make impossible decisions to whether to put food on the table or keep the heat onto on through the cold winter months and the united states government has a navigation to help working people who through no fault of their own seeing all the things that they care about in all the success that they have worked for and all the financial security being washed away and get the republicans want to put another operations nail speed in place. .. 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 prepare. let us help families prepare for what is about to arrive. just in massachusetts alone, 21000 new people applied for unemployment insurance in the week before christmas. food banks across massachusetts, across the country are seeing double digit increases in demands with families who never pasted food insecurity before. people are literally starving, cold, and without homes. republican leadership would rather and ignore the financial and health crises that are taking a toll on our families, for millions of americans this'll be a new year's holiday will they will not know whether there'll be food onon the table that night. republicans are claiming that giving $2000 in direct cash payments to americans would be too expensive. that it would inflate our national deficit. that our budgets are already bloated. wi have to ask go, where was this outrage when republicans blew up the national deficit when they gave the trillion dollar tax cut to billionaires and corporations? from the right as americans are shedding a real tears thinking about where their next meal will come from. the eviction notice on the front door, losing healthcare in the midst of this crisis. and americans are actually tired of being told that $600 is sufficient. 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 sufferingf. they have 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 the companies that are actually laying off workers. and b americans are tired of being let down by the 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 government and they need $2000 and now. so that is the issue. yes or no, up or down, on providing $2000 to americans to help them make it through the worst part of this crisis. mr. president i ask unanimous consent thatsd at 12:30 p.m. on thursday, december 31, the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of hr 9051, a bill to provide $2000, direct payment to the working class. that the bill be considered read a third time in the senate vote on passage of that bill without intervening action or debates. and further that if passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made inlaid from the table. and that immediately found the vote on hr 9051, the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the veto message on hr 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 debates. >> is their objection? >> is to present a prospectus editor for texas. >> observingbj the right to objec object. policy second bite at the apple just after we voted on a 900-dollar bill that is 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 three hunter $50000 would receive a stimulus check. this is reminiscent of the heroes act that the house speaker passed which cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires. this is not about helping the people who needed the most. this is about helping millionaires and billionaires. and people who frankly if not suffered the hardship economically that others have during this pandemic. median household in my state's $60000. and the speaker wants to send tax payer funded assisted to folks earning six times that much. even the "washington post" editorial board agrees this is bad policy. and it does not differentiate between people who have been receiving a paycheck during this pandemic like a government employees, i'm people who simply by virtue of their job have been put out of work and not receiving any income or may be at best an employment compensation. the speakers bill is not about targeting folks of lost their jobs or seeing their financial income reduced. it is a far cry from the additional assistance president trump request 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 is what our covid-19 relief bill that was just recently signed into law is designed to do. i daresay this is not going to be the last time we visit this topic. if there d is more we need to do, i am confident we will do it. but today, and this way is not the right way to do it. i object. >> objection is heard brace back the senator for illinois prince back as a present i have list carefully watch three occasions on the floor the send this afternoon or 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 keep talking around the issue. what is at stake is a substantial sum of money for families which are in the midst of the struggle of their lives. $2000, characterized a few moments ago by my friend from texas as speaker pelosi's idea, while i might remind him it was also donald trump's idea, and still is. and the president told us this morningug we should move on this as quickly as possible. and though i don't often come to the floor to group the president, he is right. in this instance he isli clearly right. and what will we do now? we are calling senators back together in washington from far reaches across the unitedng state 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 about all about? first is to override the veto of the president when it comes to 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 taking emhere. it could've been handled much more efficiently into the benefit of all members if it was scheduled for the weekend and resuming the new session ofan congress. but he insisted and we are returning. and frankly putting imperil again and the midst of the pandemic members of the senate who are traveling from all far-flung reaches of this country to be part of this action in washington. it's not just the junior senator from kentucky he is having a sit here in washington and wait for things that could be taken care of, it is a senior senator from kentucky as well per he has decided we will not getse to vote on the house measure to increase the payments to $2000 a year. make no mistake, there's only one way to bring this relief to the families of america. it is to pass the bill already enacted by the house speaker of representatives. a bill whichad received 44 republican votes in addition to a substantial number of democrats, only to voting no. forty-four republican votes are joined with the democrats to call for this measure which in many are decrying on the floor here as class struggle or whatever their argument might b be. there is no other measure including senator mcconnell'ste alternative which goes to the chance to help the families in this countryha with this 2000-dollar benefit. the onlyt thing that will do it, the only one thing that will do it is a bill that is already passed the house speaker of representatives. the house has recessed it. when they're going to return is uncertain. they certainly don't have the time to work to the regular order of business and consider any new legislation even if we could send it to them in time very i believe is doubtful. and so it is up to senator mcconnell to decide right hereer and now, are we going to come together as a senate this afternoon at 5:00 o'clock we are supposed to back and get this matter done? ring it to the senate for a vote. that's have this vote up or down. let the democrats and republicans express their will on behalf of the families of this country. i could not 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 the center's home state of texas, they showed an show of 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 were once volunteers at the same food bank in an hour dependent on it for a helping hand if they're going to be able to feed their families. these are people who are not lazy at all. misfortune us come our way and the question is will be helped? this is our opportunity, today the measure to pass the house speaker of representatives. not some theory of some legislation might be considered tomorrow. today. let's have this vote today, this evening. when the senators returned let's determine whether or nots this house measure for $2000ly is going to be enacted into law and sent to the president was clearly anxious to sign it. that to me is the reasonable thing to do. in fact it may even sound like the senate taking a vote on a timely issue after debates. we do it so seldom around here think we lost her muscle memory. it's time to return to it. he think the senator from vermont, the senator from massachusetts and of course the democratic leader for bringing this e issue before us this afternoon. but it should not end with our great speeches. talk to and with. [inaudible] respect with the senator yield for question? student senator from texas brace back i wanted senator from illinois would consider pairing their request for 200 -- 2000-dollar direct payment with a liability shield provision that would guard businesses that are been yoperating 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 for the rights of others. when they consider pairing this to together? >> i would say in response to my colleague i know his passionate defense he has introduced a lengthy bill on the subject i don't believe that is consistent with keeping the nation safe and certainly not responsive to any slot of lawsuits. any malpractice filed the name of covid-19 since the onset of the current pandemic, is slightly higher than the total number of lawsuits filed by donald trump and protesting the results ofsu the november 3 election. this is not a sue nami of lawsuits. di believe we can take reasonable measures to support and defend the corporations and companies that are making a good-faith effort to comply with health standards and the replies of customers, i'm afraid his bill goes way too far. >> is toco president. >> the senator for vermont. [inaudible] i have a question for my colleague very simple question. you are concerned about the issue of corporate liability, i get that i happen to not agree with you. you are entitled to your opinion. you may or may not be concerned about section 230 of the 1996 federal telecommunications bill, that is fine too. we might have a discussion about how we protect american democracy, that is a good discussion as well. but i have a strong feeling, center that texas and vermont, people are not really talk about corporate liability. i don't think they are talking about section 230. what i think they are talking about is the senator from illinois just said how they're going to feed their kids today. that is the issue. and i would ask my friend from texas, what is your problem with allowing the senate to vote on whether or not we are going to allow americans, working class people when that vote comes to the floor, and hope it comes immediately you vote no. you explained to the people of texas why you voted that way. that is called democracy. i respect that. but what is your problem with allowing there senate to have a free standing votes. asco a number people on your side but republicans have already come forward and say they want to vote for the 2000-dollar check. you and to deal corporate liability that is fine. bring for the bill we can vote on up-and-down. all we are asking for is a simple up or down vote on the issue who tens of millions of people are talking about right now. will they survive economically in the midst of this terrible pandemic virus? 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. president, senator from texas. >> mr. president said to mike colleague from vermont, i have no problem with providing assistance, whether it is to public health officials who are trying to struggle with this pandemic or to provide money for the research for therapeutics for a vaccine which being distributed around the country. two individuals who i voted forin the 1200-dollar direct payment contain the cares expert i voted for the additional money that's provided for in the most recent covid-19 legislation. but this legislation the senator from vermont is advocating, would benefit households with annual income over $350,000. they w would get this money. and i would say in one way to deal with this because of course we negotiate 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 once an additional financial benefit to people making up thepl three to $50000, why not couplet with liability protection for people who are acting in good faith? this is not just about corporations and her colleagues across i'll know it. this is abouthe schools, synagogues, mosques, every business that is worried that a game of got to is going to take place and we are going to end up paying the price. even if they win the lawsuit, they will not be able to -- there still would have to pay for the cost of defense. potentially losing the businessas out record direct the center from texas hasgu a floor price but clearly our colleagues across the aisle care more about trial lawyers and being litigation against businesses that tried to do their best. struggle during the evolving public health guidance provided by the cdc and other authoritie authorities. clearly if they are not interested in engaging in a negotiation where people who through no fault of their own find themselves victimized by frivolous litigation, we would have no alternative but to continue to object to this request. >> president. >> center from vermont. >> if you listen carefully you understood that my friend from texas did not answer my questio question. he has a concern about corporate liability. that is a legitimate debate. you know what? ringing to the floor. voted up or down i will vote against that you will vote for. but i ask you a very simple question. not leaking know it in the real world understands that stuff. that is inside the beltway stuf stuff. what people in the real world know, and i want to take a moment to read some of the statements, because we sent out we have a lot of people under social media. and we asked of the american people just the other day we said tell me what would $2000 check mean to you what's going on in your lives? and just over 24 hours i would say to my friend from texas, nearly 6000 people responded. here's what a few of them had to say. this is twitter stuff so i don't have their names there and i would not use it publicly anyhow. this is what they say it one person writes $2000 is a difference between keeping our apartment and being evicted. here's another one, $2000 means i can afford to feed my three kids another response, it would mean not having to choose between rent and groceries are not having to ration my partner's meds. ". another response, i am raising my grandson with medical needs but i-4 thousand dollars behind on utilities. we need electricity to run would mean i would not have to worry about making my mortgage payment this month and i could get my medication". another response $2000 would mean paying my rent because i can't afford the co-pay for my work insurance to see my urologist right now. i want to get back to the point of its vote on corporate liability. i yield to my from illinois. >> i've listened to the figures that have menus on the floor or families that could qualify for the $2000. it is my understanding that individual with an income of $75000 or less could qualify for the 2000-dollar payments. a joint return, husband and wife, $2000 could be given to them if their income is under $150,000. is that your understanding? >> understanding. and i think, as republicans do , well let it be. let's get back to my friend, my friend from texas. i ask a simple question, you want to bring up corporate liability, bring it up. you and to bring up section 230, bring it up. you want to bring up the man it up.moon, bring but what the american people want now is an upward or down vote. you're going to vote against it that is fine. i will vote for it. but again i ask you what is the 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 is the problem with bringing that up as a single stand-alone bill? not merged with corporate liability or anything else. what is your problem with that? >> mr. president respect senator from texas. >> mr. president i was saved by calling from vermont this money is not targeted to people who suffered lawsuits. 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. others have suffered no financial loss during this pandemic, we've all suffered in different ways during the pandemic to be sure. dbut financially this money is designed to help the people who need it most. why would you send money to government employees have been receiving their full paycheck during this pandemic. >> that is a good question for it i'll have to explain that to the people of vermont. >> the center from texas has a floor prince becky asked me questions i understood it. >> senator from texas respect did you ask me question? select the center from texas. >> is more of a rhetorical question mr. president. >> senator from texas. >> present i wanted to come to the floor and talk about what strikes me akin to groundhog da day. groundhog day is not only the day i was born i feel like it isoi something we are living through as we debate the same points over, over, and over againea. forgetting what we have already done. the good things that we have done together on a bipartisan basis. we have already appropriated roughly $4 trillion in response to this pandemic. and it is appropriate that we have done so because this was a true public health crisis. and now we are seeing politics to creep back in, in an attempt for those who have suffered no financial loss in an untargeted and wasteful sortth of way. these relieve packages we pass together provided hundreds of dollars to w individuals to support healthcare workers who are the front lines. i voted for it and i think we so. right to do we have all businesses a life into the paycheck protection program. and we were right to do so. we have invested in research and development, therapeutics and vaccines that are currently being administered, thank goodness throughout the country and throughout theen world. we have unprecedented assistance to workers, families and individualse whose lively's have been upended by this crisis. cothanks to president trump's leadership congress is stepped up and had the sun press and a challenge to the relief bill after relief bill to the american people. if you would've told me a year ago i would've voted this year alone for roughly $4 trillion worth of spending and this pandemic i would not have believed you. i believe this is a domestic equivalent to world war ii where we have to do everything humanly possible to help our human man, woman, and child during thisem pandemic. the latest round of relief came of course just this week when00 president trump signed a 900 billion-dollar rescue package into law. while i am glad congress was able to send more relief out the dork at the end of the year, i am s disappointed that it took so long to do so. it is amazing the sense of urgency or democratic acolleagues have today since three times maybe four times they blocked our attempts have trillion dollar relief bill in the course of the summer. just after trillion dollars in belief in the most recent relief bill. direct payments, unemployment benefits, vaccine and a host of other priorities. or 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 houses multitrillion dollar bill 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 it. star democratic colleagues dragged their feet, july, august, september, october, november, months went by and the cases sword. prd the economic squeeze tightened. in our democratic colleagues refused to accept any sort of compromise. that was until a few weeks ago and they finally change their tune. right after the election part i'm sure it comes as no surprise that once the holdout agrees to negotiate, things can move pretty quickly. and that is what happened here after the election. democrats, republicans of the administration agreed to a 900 billion-dollar package which looks very similar to the one they dubbed pathetic just a few months ago. and recent days the president has agreed 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 dramatically widen the pool of recipients. enabling wealthy households to qualify for relief checks. this is unacceptable and wasteful. when congress provided the first direct payments to the cares x we did so in a way that sent relief to the hardest hit americans. those receive the full $1200 for and the amounts gradually declined as income increasing completely phased out at $99000. i had the same for me for the 600-dollar payments provided for under the omnibus. and further relief. once again those who made up of any $5000 will receive the full amount. and the amount faces out completely at $87000. under the cares act, a family of four most recent rescue will the same family we have an additional $2400. to avoid sending tax payer dollars borrowed i might add new provide 2000-dollar payments does not have a similar structure to keep these payments targeted. this to become law person00 making $100,000 a year end have a seven or $50 check from the federal government. this isse not someone who used to make this much but laid off to had reduction in their income. someone having six-figure salary has additional $650 for the american taxpayers. for the family the income barrier goes higher as he mentioned a moment ago if you have a family of five with an annual household income of three to $50000 a year, that family would receive a stimulus check under the house speaker passed bill. that is not being d smart with taxpayer dollars. it's not targeted at the people who actually need it. it is a giveaway for those who have not suffered any financial losses during this pandemic. in clearly not targeted for those who need help. i mentioned a moment ago the median income in texas is $60000 a s year. and earn six times as much 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 of dust and for what call perfectly comfortable families". even though congress is already provided roughly $4 trillion of people to the american people part of democratic colleagues are acting as though this is the first and only way to help our country. they ignored everyone done in the past in act like this is the only thing we had or could do. it is just out trooper this debatere is not whether or not congress should help families who are struggling. we have an there is no question we will continue to do so as needed. the hardest hit americans, to the cares act the most recent relief bill. that is why they also bolstered state unemployment benefits and expanded them to include independent contractors and self-employed braid that is why congress passed legislation to provide food assistance to families. keep more hard-working americans on the payroll and make sure our economy is on track for strong d recovery. and by working together in a bipartisan way. countless taxes tell me on their businesses and their family. and you cannot lose sight of the progress it has already been made. future relief has been targeted s pruning to support those who need it and avoid sending hundreds of billions ofo dollars as this proposal would to those who don't need it. throughout the year, i've been advocate for an incremental approach to these relief bills. it isha hard to spend $3 trillion and exactly how that bill was going to work. and indeed we found up to the cares act at the main street lending facility which we funded at abruptly half of chilean dollars was not as useful as we would have hoped. conversely, the paycheck protection program was successful -- mike more successful than our wildest dreams. on so by seeing what works and what doesn't work, we could be better stewards of the taxpayer dollars using more efficiently in a targeted way. this is not like highway bills or farm bills or defense spending bills where we have an idea about what is needed for individual programs. there was no precedent for this pandemic. is no clear way to gauge how olong the crisis would go on what would be needed to sustain our response. after the cares act passed new made the most sense to hit the pause button and see what works well, what didn't and where more helppr was needed. as i said, they're certain programs like the paycheck u protection program that almost immediately dried up. if i am not mistaken in two weeks roughly three under $50 billion was obligated on the paycheck protection program. that is why we added more funding in april, another $320 billion. we extended the program in july and reinvested in the paycheck protection program again and the omnibus. as iey said there are other places for the money went unspent. but unfortunately the most recent bill we repurpose 100 millions of dollars in unspent funds targeted to her the need was greatest where it was needed the most. tens of millionsll of workers and their families died of this virus. i think we've all acted together by and large responsibly and 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 is directed u paymen, enhance unemployment benefits, incentives to their employers to maintain them on payroll, and now that we have the beginning of the distribution of the vaccine, my hope is in the coming months we will get back, if not the new normal whatever the next normal it will be. we are just a few days of kicking offel her congress. i have no reason to think the coronavirus relief work f is finished here today. as a matter fact vice president biden has additional request for help once he resumes office. once the legislationha we passed benefits the american people, we will see if more relief is needed. and then if it isn't needed we should absolutely do more. i still believe in the wisdom of the incremental approach. and i believe our democrat friends will join us responding to true needs of this crisis without month-long delays or irresponsible spending. countless texans have told me about the relief provided through direct payments, unemployed benefits, food hoassistance and other forms of support by the laws we have passed throughout this year. i was proud to support each of these policies which ease the financial strains on millions of texans and other americans. and will continue to work with my colleagues to provide assistance as a war uncovered 19 rages on. mr. president i yield the floor. >> mr. president bryce vick et cetera for ohio. >> thank you, mr. president. is a lot of history this afternoon. back in march when congress of the right thing, 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 direct payments made up of small business loans. but then this cent thought its work was done for the year. we begged et cetera 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 in the direct payments are not contained of course, those benefits expired in august. we have seen a million people drop into poverty in this country sense. and yet this congress, senator mcconnell refused and refused and refused. i heard that democrats just want to help people who in absolute give them more money. we'll remember back in march, the only amendments, the only an, amendment that senator mcconnell allowed on the floor of the senate to the cares act, the only amendment was to take away the $600 a week unemployment insurance pretty only place republicans bought was a $600 a week unemployment insurance. that more than any single thing we did is why people were kept out of poverty. now the best we could do was $300 a week unemployment insurance. the best we could do with senator mcconnell in spite of other comments, senator mcconnell waited, waited, waite waited. finally the present united states threatened to veto it causing millions of americans to fall off their unemployment insurance paidrt we know all of that is important to remember ndl that. but there is one simple question before the senate this week. are we going to put more money in people's pockets? the american people made it clear on election day they want a government that is on their side. this is our chance to deliver for him to show people we serve we can make a real difference in their lives. which we did back in march. it is pretty simple. the best way to help ohio workers and families to put more money in their pockets. not in theg bank accounts for the largest corporations and biggest banks hope it will trickle down for we know it never does breed the ceos pay themselves instead. we note mr. president, more good news for american ceos who are able again to do stock buybacks. more dividend distributions for a lot of corporations have made a lotuy of money, more power to them during this pandemic. but those of 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 make the bill that ejects money to the local economies that really need it. the mart many people have the more they spend in small businesses that are hurting. we know this works, it in the spring. we came together across the aisle, past the cares act, spared 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 $2000 a week, $2000 a person for adults and children. the call for that to be sent automatically throughout the year through the corridor. as long as we remained in a public health emergency. it's clear now what we could have done it should have done. no one could predict how long this crisis would last. today we still are not sure when everyone will be vaccinated. when the economy will return to full strength. we do not want to sit idly by. we don't want to wonder how bad it could get with the strongest, richest country on earth. we have the resources to do something about it. we just need leadership willing to use every chill that we have. if they refuse to support this $2000 per person, if they refuse to support these direct payment payments, leader mcconnell and senate republicans will again make it clear to the american people whose side they are on. every time there's a fork in the road, senator o'connell and senate republicans have to make a decision. either go corporate interest to go with working families every single time they choose corporate interests. they have no more problem pouring money into corporate coffers with their tax cut employing up the deficit. i remember mr. president, this down the hall here et cetera mcconnell's office i remember lobbyist lining up looking for those tax cuts back three years ago. and they got those tax cuts. they did not say anything about government deficits back then. a truly get in a half dollars added to the deficit. they did not mind that it was money going into the contributors pockets.he into corporate coffers for the wealthiest people in this country. they were all too happy to let the government shovel loads the biggest banks and companies. but in the middle of the worst crisis where a lifetime pays with a chance to give money to ordinary americans, my colleague's claim we cannot afford it. that is just simply a lie. armor bill spriggs, economist at howard university told the banking and housing committee in september, we did not win world war ii by worrying whether or not we could afford it. we are in ad lower crisis we rise to meet it. we grew the economy for the middle-class out. we paid on the debt with class wages. if we learned anything from this crisis it should be we can do the same again. americans are tired of being told mccants. it is the only answer that senator mcconnell senate republicans ever have with most people's problems but we can't help you, we cannot solve your problem, you are on your own p let's aim higher part let's deliver for the people we2, serve. let's put $2000 into their pockets. money that will make such a mdifference for so many families. it will help a mother worried about how she will pay back ren rent. people laid off, restaurant worker from turning to a payday lender. it will allow a father to create -- by new computers as children can learn online for these are millions of real people. people we swore an oath to serve that we would breathe a little easier this new year's if we pass the spray let's be clearfo about the decision today and this week before the senate. are we going to give the people we serve $2000? or are you going to stand in the way? is that simple. let's come together, let's pass this, let's make a real difference in people's lives. >> the senate ambled out. earlier today members voted to begin debate on overwriting president trump's veto over the defense authorization bill which sends programs and policy for 2021. about two events that measured final passage could take place friday or saturday per the house speaker voted on monday to override the veto. and the senate also needs two thirds of its members voted in favor to override. several satirists came to the floor today to ask for a vote on the house speaker passed a bill that increases covid-19 relief payments from $600 to $2000 per all attempts however were blocked with the senate version of that bill calls for an investigation into alleged election regularities printmaking different from the house bill. that chamber has left washington for the year. it is still unclear whether the senate bill will be brought to the floor for consideration. follow the senate on cspan cspan2 would members return thursday at noon eastern. ♪ ♪ >> c-span's "washington journal", everyday we will take your call live on the air of the news of the day. and we discussed policy issues that impact you. coming up thursday morning, we open the phones all morning and take your calls and comments on the question how did 2020 change america? watch c-span's "washington journal", live at seven eastern, thursday morning. and be sure to join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text messages and tweets. >> as the year comes to a close, congress continues in session debating whether to add more dollars to covid relief and to vote on overwriting the president's veto of funding defense programs. a new congress, the 117th convened on sunday at noon. join us as a swear in more than 60 new members. the house elects a speaker. and both bodies begin their work, live coverage sunday at noon eastern time. watch the house on c-span. and the senate on cspan2. watch online at c-span.org. or listen on the c-span radio app. sue eck on tuesday, the balance of power in the senate will be decided by the winners of the two georgia runoffs. republican senators david perdue and kelly loeffler are defending their seeds in the gop's control the same or per the democrat challengers are jon ossoff and raphael warnock. follow the results and hear from the candidates in these final races of campaign 2020. live coverage on c-span, c-span.org and the free c-span radio app. >> nick turner is the president and director of the vera institute of justice. here to talk about criminal justice reform. let's begin with your group, what is your goal? >> first of all let me begin by saying thank you for having me on your show. my organization works nationally

Related Keywords

Georgia , United States , Texas , Massachusetts , Vermont , Washington , Kentucky , Illinois , Ohio , Texans , Americans , America , American , Bryce Vick , Nick Turner , Tony Fauci , Kelly Loeffler ,