Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. That is factually inaccurate.

Mr. SANDERS. Reclaiming my time

Mr. SANDERS. And all that I am saying is that, according to a very reputable tax center organization--people who do this for a living-- less than 1 percent of the benefits of the entire program go to the wealthiest people in this country. So when you are talking about trying to say: Oh my God, all of this money is going to the rich, that ain't really true. But I would also ask my friend: When did you suddenly become a religious adherent about concerns of socialism for the rich, when you gave 83 percent of the benefits for the rich and large corporations in the tax bill that you supported? Where was your concern about socialism for the rich when Amazon--owned by the richest guy in the world--got a $129 million tax rebate? I didn't hear much about socialism for the rich during that debate.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me say to my friend, Senator Thune, that I certainly concur with you as to what a pleasure it is to be spending New Year's Day with you and our colleagues. It is exactly what I, I know, and every other Member here wanted to do, but here we are because we have to be here. We are here because, back home in my State and all over this country, millions and millions of families are struggling to put food on the table. They are struggling to pay their rent. They are struggling to come up with the money they need to go to the doctor. This hits me, in a sense, in a personal way. The other day, I received a letter from a colleague of mine in Burlington, VT, where I live--the largest city in the State of Vermont, all of 40,000 people. He wrote to me, reporting on a food drive in Burlington, VT, where I live: Over 30 volunteers showed up to the Champlain School to help bag groceries and to hand them out to those who came out. Unfortunately, there was not nearly enough donated food to provide a bag to everyone who showed up despite us planning on an increased need. The line of cars filled the parking lot, wrapped around the school, and went out onto the main road for half a mile. This represented a major up-tick for the October event that we were involved in. This was in Burlington, VT, with hundreds of cars lining up for emergency food and the volunteers not having enough food to distribute. They had to say to the families who were trying to feed their kids: Sorry. We do not have enough food. So what we are doing today is very simple, and that is that Senator Thune, Senator McConnell, and others have raised objection to the House-passed bill. In the U.S. Senate, when we have differences of opinion, what we should be doing is debating that bill. So all that Senator Schumer is asking and all that I am asking is simple: Bring the bill to the floor. We are not even asking you to vote for it. Bring the bill to the floor. On top of everything else, we need 60 votes to pass it--60 votes. Can we get 60 votes? I don't know. I think virtually all of the 48 Democrats will vote for it. It means, Senator Thune, that we need 12 Republicans. I gather we have one right here who indicated he would vote for it, and five or six others have been public about saying they will vote for it. Will we get the rest? I don't know. You don't know. What is the problem with giving Members of the U.S. Senate the opportunity to vote on the legislation? When we have that debate, you can come up and raise all of your objections, and we can debate it. Now, I heard Senator Thune and Senator McConnell before him talk about this bill being socialism for the rich, which I have to tell you I find somewhat hysterical because that is an issue I have been talking about for many, many years. I am very delighted that my conservative Republican friends now recognize that we do have socialism for the rich. To paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., he said we live in a society where we have socialism for the rich and rugged individualism for the poor. King was right. Despite what my Republican colleagues are saying, the truth is that, according to the Tax Policy Center, the top 5 percent of Americans--the wealthiest people in our country--would receive less than 1 percent of the benefits of these direct payments--less than 1 percent. It doesn't sound, to me, like too much socialism for the rich. While we are on the subject of socialism for the rich, which my Republican friends have suddenly become very concerned about, let me talk about the Trump tax proposal that was pushed very hard by Senator McConnell and the Republican leadership and that, I think, every Republican voted for. Do you want to talk about socialism for the rich? It is not the bill that puts $2,000 into working-class hands all over this country. That isn't socialism for the rich. This is socialism for the rich. In that bill, Amazon--oh, by the way, I must say this, if I may: We were quoting the liberal Washington Post, owned by Jeff Bezos-- the wealthiest guy in the world. So here is Jeff Bezos' company, Amazon, and they received a tax rebate. They paid nothing in 2018 in Federal taxes. That is a corrupt tax system to begin with, but then, on top of that, they received $129 million as a tax rebate. That, Senator Thune, is socialism for the rich. In fact, this particular company is owned by the richest guy in the world, and you gave him a $129 million rebate, but it is not just Amazon. Delta Air Lines also paid nothing in Federal taxes in 2018; yet they received a $187 million rebate from that particular bill. Chevron, in helping to destroy our planet with their carbon emissions, received $181 million in a rebate. That, my friends, is what socialism for the rich is about. Socialism for the rich is not--in the midst of this terrible pandemic--putting $2,000 checks into the hands of working families. The truth of the matter is, as a result of this pandemic, we are living through the worst and most difficult economic period since the Great Depression. Tens of millions of families are facing eviction all over this country--in the wealthiest Nation on Earth. Moms are struggling to feed their kids, keep the electricity on, and be able to go to the doctor. Now, I hear from my Republican friends that the economy is doing better, but I would like to just read to them a few of the stories that I have received in my office. We asked people a simple question: How are you doing out there, and what is going on in your lives? We received many, many thousands of responses from people in every State in this country. I will read a few just to bring some dose of reality here to the U.S. Senate, which often, in the midst of all of the campaign contributions coming in from the rich, does not know what is going on in the real world. Here is the real world. A gentleman in Texas wrote: $2,000 is the difference between keeping our apartment and being evicted. A mother in Virginia wrote: $2,000 means I can afford to feed my three kids. Now, maybe we should give her a long lecture on macroeconomics and how well the stock market is doing, but all she is worried about is feeding her three children. A woman in Wisconsin wrote: $2,000 would mean not having to choose between rent and groceries and not having to ration my partner's meds. A woman in Nevada wrote: [It means] paying my rent and getting lifesaving treatment because I can't afford the $50 co-pay through my work insurance just to see my neurologist right now. A father in Florida wrote: It would mean I could pay my bills. My electricity and phone are about to get shut off. I didn't have money for my son on Christmas, and I won't have money for his birthday on January 2. A father in New Jersey wrote: It would mean I could pay off credit card debt accumulated during this pandemic, feed my children, and pay my bills. A parent in Massachusetts wrote: It would mean that I could pay my rent and electricity and put food on the table. A woman in Missouri wrote: It would mean getting out of crushing debt. It would mean survival without daily fear. Someone in Texas wrote: It would mean I could actually put food in the fridge. A man in Maryland wrote: It would mean I don't have to beg or go without food, shelter, and medicine. It would mean my family stays warm another couple of months and my dad gets proper treatment.

Mr. SANDERS. All that I am saying--all that I am saying--this is a great debate, John. We should have this debate, and in 2 minutes--in 2 minutes, John, I am going to give you the opportunity to say you support what we are doing, and then we will have this debate. That is your opportunity. But I want to get back--the Senator from South Dakota did not answer the question that it was not, apparently, a huge concern about socialism for the rich in the bill that they supported or worried about the debt that would incur. So I see, if I may say so, a bit of hypocrisy here. Senator Thune and the Republican leadership want to debate this issue, and so do I. I think it is a great debate--great debate. Now, as everybody knows, Senator McConnell proposed an idea. I don't agree with it, but it is an idea that is worthy of debate and discussion, and he said: Let's combine three elements together. Let's incorporate the bill passed in the House by two-thirds of the House, including 44 Republicans; let's add to that the repeal of section 230 of the Telecommunications Act; and let's also add to that, at President Trump's request, an issue about voter integrity, et cetera, et cetera. OK. That is what Senator McConnell proposed. And in one moment, I am going to bring--because I know Republicans think I don't do much for them and I am not concerned about them--but, Senator Thune, I am going to bring your bill to the floor. Show you what a nice guy I am. New year, I am going to bring Senator McConnell's bill right to the floor and give you an opportunity to vote for it. All that I am asking, while I bring Senator McConnell's Republican bill to the floor, we are going to bring the bill that passed the House, with 44 Republicans, to the floor as well. We will have two votes: One vote on Senator McConnell's bill, which needs 60 votes to pass; one vote on the House bill, 60 votes to pass. That is it. So it is hard for me to imagine how Senator Thune will object to us bringing forward the Republican bill. Here it goes. This is the legalese that I need to say and I am going to bring it forth and I am sure that Senator Thune will support me in my effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that if cloture is invoked on the veto message on H.R. 6395, National Defense Authorization Act, that notwithstanding rule XXII, at 3 p.m. today--short period of time--3 p.m. today, Friday, January 1, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 645, H.R. 9051, to provide a $2,000 direct payment to the working class; that the bill be considered read a third time and the Senate vote on passage of the bill; and that if passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; further, that following the vote on H.R. 9051, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 644, S. 5085; that the bill be considered read a third time; that there be 1 hour of debate on the bill, equally divided and controlled by myself or my designee and Senator McConnell or his designee; that following the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on passage of the bill; and that if passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all without intervening action or debate.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, let me briefly respond to some of the points that Majority Leader McConnell has made, to his inaccurate statements. Now, I am delighted that, after years of talking on the floor of the Senate about socialism for the rich, apparently, that has gotten across to my Republican friends. Of course, that is what we do every single day. That is why we have the incredible level of income and wealth inequality that exists in this country, because, decade after decade, we have used this body to provide massive tax breaks to the rich and provide corporate welfare to corporations that don't need it. That is socialism for the rich. The majority leader is right, but let's talk about, in fact, what is in this bill. According to the Tax Policy Center, fewer than 1 percent of the benefits of the direct payments--that is the $2,000 per working-class adult that Senator Schumer and I are talking about--would go to the top 5 percent of Americans. Virtually nothing would go to the very, very rich. The overwhelming majority of those funds would go to the middle class, the working class, low-income people, who in the midst of this pandemic are in desperate economic condition. Again, I am delighted to hear the majority leader talking about socialism for the rich, and I hope we will continue that discussion in the next session. Let me talk about the socialism for the rich that the majority leader is enthusiastically supportive of as the majority leader helped to lead this body to pass Trump's tax bill. Now, do you want to talk about socialism for the rich, Mr. Majority Leader? Under that bill, Charles Koch--one of the very richest people in America, who has a net worth of $113 billion--received a $1.4 billion tax break. Mr. Majority Leader, that sounds, to me, like socialism for the rich. Ah, but that is not all. In Nevada, you have a gentleman named Sheldon Adelson, who is a major contributor to the Republican Party and a big funder for Donald Trump. Under that same tax bill led by the majority leader, Sheldon Adelson received a $560 million tax break. A guy who is worth $34 billion desperately needed that tax break of $560 million. Do you want more tax breaks for the rich? Do you want to talk about socialism for the rich? Senator McConnell had no problem giving a $104 million tax refund to Amazon over the past 3 years despite the fact that the company made $30 billion in profits. So the argument that this bill, in any significant way, benefits the rich is just not accurate, but let us talk about whom this bill does benefit. This bill benefits tens of millions of Americans who, as a result of this pandemic, have lost their jobs and have lost their incomes. Some, in fact, have lost their lives. These are people who are going hungry today. We are seeing today a recordbreaking level of hunger in America--the richest country in the history of the world. All over this country--and I receive emails from people all over this country--people are frightened to death that they are going to be evicted from their homes. Think about what a $4,000 check or a $5,000 check would mean to those struggling families--husband, wife, kids. In fact, let me give you an example. This is a problem taking place all over this country. It is taking place in Vermont. It is taking place in Senator Schumer's State. It is taking place in Kentucky. In fact, the State of Kentucky--a very beautiful State; I have had the pleasure of being there a number of times--a beautiful State--is the State in which 10 out of the 25 poorest counties in America exist. I am sure Senator McConnell is aware that, throughout his State, you have thousands and tens of thousands of people living in economic desperation. I am talking about counties where 30 to 40 percent of people are living in poverty and where many thousands of residents are trying to survive on less than $20,000 a year. I am just using Kentucky as an example because that is the State Senator McConnell represents, but it is true all over this country. In Kentucky, over 22 percent of the children are living in poverty. Do you think they might need a little bit of help? In the State of Kentucky, more than 190,000 workers are making extremely low wages, and over a half a million people earn less than $15 an hour. Somebody might want to ask those people what a $2,000 check per adult would mean. I am talking about Kentucky, and I will never forget this because I visited Kentucky and talked to some of the people there. Kentucky has suffered from a particular opioid crisis. I will never forget talking to a football coach who told me that a bunch of the kids on his football team were living with their grandparents or on couches because of the opioid epidemic. In other words, the people in Kentucky, the people in New York, and the people in Vermont are hurting. They need help. So I say today to Senator McConnell, the leader here, let us address the horrendous economic crisis facing tens of millions of Americans. The pandemic today is worse than it has ever been. Hopefully, hopefully, the vaccine will make a profound difference, but, right now, people are hurting, and they are looking to this institution. They are looking to Congress. The House did the right thing. They are now looking to the Senate. They are looking to Senator McConnell. After all is said and done and after all of the legalese--and I am going to be introducing some legalese in a moment--it comes down to one thing: Senator McConnell disagrees with the proposal that Senator Schumer and I are making. I got it. That is fine. This is a democracy. He has the right to his point of view. I would love to have the debate on the floor with Senator McConnell about this legislation. All that we are asking is to give us the opportunity to vote up or down on whether or not working families in this country should be able to receive a $2,000 check. Senator McConnell disagrees. Come to the floor. Tell us why you disagree. Then we will do what this institution is supposed to do. We will have a vote. The truth is, in the House, Senator McConnell knows that 44 Republicans voted for the House bill, which won, by the way, by a 2-to- 1 majority. Two-thirds of the House voted to make sure that working Americans would get a $2,000 check. Right here in the Senate, there are a number of Republicans--it is not clear how many--who have already gone public in saying they think it is a good idea that we go forward with the House bill. So all that I am asking Senator McConnell is to give us a vote. What is the problem? You can vote no. By the way, we need 60 votes--a majority. There is no question in my mind that a majority of the Senators will vote yes, but because of house rules, we need 60 votes. So we are going to have to get 48 Democrats--that is what we have--plus 12 Republicans. Can we get 12 Republicans? I don't know--maybe we can; maybe we can't--but give us a vote. What is the problem? What is the problem with having the American people see how their Senators vote on this issue of such enormous importance? As Senator Schumer indicated, Senator McConnell has some other concerns. He is concerned about section 230 of the 1996 Federal Telecommunications Act. I am sure that this is absolutely on the minds of everybody in Vermont, in New York, and in Kentucky. It is probably all that they are talking about, the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Fine. If he wants a vote on that, bring it to the floor. Let's vote on it as a separate bill. Do you want to talk about election security? Senator Schumer is right. There are a lot of issues out there. I am concerned about voter suppression. I am concerned about people waiting online for 5 hours to cast a vote. I am concerned about voter intimidation. Senator McConnell has different points of view. Let's have that discussion. Put together a commission. No problem. Bring that bill to the floor. Yet everybody understands that, when you combine all three elements, this is a poison pill designed to kill that legislation. After everything is said and done, all of this comes down to one simple fact: Will Senator McConnell, the Republican leader of the U.S. Senate, allow this body to vote on a bill which will provide $2,000 per person to working-class families all across this country? That is what this whole debate is about. It is not whether you like the bill or you don't like it. We can have that debate. We have 3 days left in this Congress. The House did the right thing. It is now time for the Senate to have that vote. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 3 p.m. today, Thursday, December 31, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 645, H.R. 9051, to provide a $2,000 direct payment to the working class; that the bill be considered read a third time and the Senate vote on the passage of the bill; and that if passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; further, that following the vote on H.R. 9051, the Senate resume consideration of the veto message on H.R. 6395, the National Defense Authorization Act, and the Senate vote on the passage of the bill, the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding, all with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I took you literally.

Mr. SANDERS. Then vote against it.

Mr. SANDERS. Did the Senator from Texas ask me a question?

Mr. SANDERS. That is a good question. And then I will have to explain that to the people of the State of Vermont.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me concur with my friend from Illinois on the issue. I have a question for my colleague from Texas. It is a very simple question. You have concerns about the issue of corporate liability. I get that. I happen not to 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. It is a good discussion as well. But I have a strong feeling, Senator Cornyn, that in Texas, as in Vermont--you know what--people are not really talking about corporate liability. It is a good issue. It is an important issue. I don't believe they are talking about section 230. What I think they are talking about, as the Senator from Illinois just said, is how they are going to feed their kids today. That is the issue. And what I would ask my friend from Texas is, What is your problem with allowing the Senate to vote on whether or not we are going to allow Americans, working-class people to get a $2,000 check? Now I gather that when that vote comes to the floor--and I hope it comes immediately--you will vote no, and you will explain to the people of Texas why you voted that way. That is called democracy. I respect that. But what is your problem with allowing the Senate to have a free standing vote? There are a number of people on your side, Republicans, who have already come forward and said yes, they want to vote for this $2,000 check. Now, if you want to deal with corporate liability, that is fine. Let's deal with it at some point. Bring forward a bill, and we can vote on it up or down. All that we are asking for is a simple, up-or-down vote on the issue that tens of millions of people are talking about right now: Will they survive economically in the midst of this terrible pandemic? I ask my colleague from Texas: What is the problem with allowing the U.S. Senate to vote on the bill passed by the House? I yield to my colleague from Texas.

Mr. SANDERS. He asked me a question, as I understood it.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, if you listened carefully, you understood that my friend from Texas did not answer my question. He has a concern about corporate liability. It is a legitimate debate. Do you know what? Bring it to the floor. Let's vote it up or down. I will vote against it. You will vote for it. But I asked you a very simple question, not about linking things together--nobody in the real world understands that stuff. That is inside-the-beltway stuff. What people in the real world know--and I want to take a moment to read some of these statements. We have a lot of people on our social media, and we asked the American people, just the other day: Tell me; what would a $2,000 check mean to you? What is going on in your life? And in just over 24 hours, I would say to my friend from Texas, nearly 6,000 people responded. Here is just what a few of them had to say. This is Twitter stuff. So I don't have their names here, and I wouldn't use them publicly, anyhow. But this is what they say. One person writes: ``$2,000 is the difference between keeping our apartment and being evicted.'' Here is another one: ``$2,000 means I can afford to feed my three kids.'' Another response: ``It would mean not having to choose between rent and groceries and not having to ration my partner's meds.'' Another response: ``I am raising my grandson with medical needs. I am $4,000 behind on utilities. We need electricity to run his medical equipment.'' Here is another response: ``$2,000 would mean I wouldn't have to worry about making my mortgage payment this month, and I could get my medication.'' Another response: ``$2,000 would mean paying my rent and getting lifesaving treatment because I can't afford the $50 copay through my work insurance just to see my neurologist right now''--and on and on and on. Thousands of people responded. So, I want to get back to the point. I want to again say to my friend from Texas: If you have a concern about corporate liability--good issue--bring it to the floor. Let's vote on corporate liability. I would yield for a question from my friend from Illinois.

Mr. SANDERS. That is my understanding. And I think, you know, as Republicans do, they are going to let it be. But I get back to my friend--my friend from Texas, Senator Cornyn. We are asking a simple question. If you want to bring up corporate liability, bring it up. If you want to bring up section 230, bring it up. If you want to bring up the man in the Moon, bring it up. But what the American people want now is an up-or-down vote. Look, you are going to vote against it if it comes to the floor. That is fine. It is your right. Explain it to the people of Texas. I will vote for it. But all that I am asking for is the right, as a U.S. Senator, to have the vote. Again I ask you: What is your problem with Members of the U.S. Senate, including a number of Republicans, who have already indicated they would like to vote for this? What is your 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. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I want to concur with what Senator Schumer said. What he said goes beyond economics. It goes beyond the desperation that tens of millions of working families are facing. It goes beyond the struggles of the people of Vermont or Kentucky. Let me just make it clear for the majority leader that 10 out of the poorest 25 counties in the United States of America are located in Kentucky. So my colleague 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 a $2,000 check per adult. I have the strong feeling that the people of Kentucky will respond no differently than the people of Vermont or New York. The last poll that I saw had 78 percent of the American people saying they wanted and needed that type of help. This discussion, frankly, is not just about the economic struggling of working families in this country. It is not just about the massive levels of income and wealth inequality. It is about basic democracy. Now, what we have to do here on the floor, whether it is Senator Schumer or Senator McConnell or I, is to talk in legalese. That is the language of the U.S. Senate. The stuff sounds pretty complicated to the average person, but all that Senator Schumer and I are asking of the majority leader is very simple: Allow the Members of the U.S. Senate to cast a vote. If you want to vote against $2,000 checks for people in your State, vote against it. I see Senator Toomey here. He has been clear about it. I suspect he will vote against it. I respect his opinion, but all that we are asking for is a vote. What is the problem? In the House, over two-thirds of the Members of that body, including 44 Republicans, voted to say, in this time of economic desperation, working families deserve help, and they deserve a $2,000 check. As Senator Schumer just indicated, we have a very unlikely ally in President Trump. Nobody here has disagreed with Trump more times than I have; yet here is what the leader of the Republican Party writes: ``$2000 ASAP!'' So, even on this issue, amazingly enough, the President of the United States is right. What all of this comes down to, my fellow Americans, is not even whether you agree with Senator Schumer and myself and 78 percent of the American people or whether you agree with Senator McConnell and, I suspect, Senator Toomey. That is fine. It is called democracy. We have differences of opinion. All that I am asking is to give us a vote. What is the problem? Allow the U.S. Senators to cast a vote as to whether they are for the $2,000 check or whether they are against it. We will need, as I understand it, 60 votes to win. That is a big hurdle. I don't know that we are going to win. There are a number of Republicans, to their credit, who have said they are ready to vote for it. I suspect there may be more, when given the opportunity, who will vote for it. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe we will lose. I think that would be unfortunate. All that I am asking for right now is to give us the opportunity to vote. What is the problem with that? I will now go to Senate legalese. I ask unanimous consent that at 11:30 a.m. on Thursday, December 31, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 9051, a bill to provide a $2,000 direct payment to the working class; that the bill be considered read a third time; and that the Senate vote on the passage of the bill, without intervening action or debate; further, that if passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; further, that immediately following the vote on H.R. 9051, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the veto message on H.R. 6395 and that the Senate immediately vote on the passage of the bill, the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, reserving the right to object, we should all be very, very clear. The working class of this country today faces more economic desperation than at any time since the Great Depression of the 1930s, and working families need help now--not next year but right now. Last night, the House of Representatives, with a two-thirds majority--275 to 134, a two-thirds bipartisan vote--moved to increase the direct payment going to working families from $600 per adult to $2,000 per adult. The House did the right thing; I congratulate them. Now it is time for the Senate to step up to the plate and do what the working families of this country overwhelmingly want us to do. Madam President, as a result of the pandemic, tens of millions of Americans have lost their jobs and their incomes. These families, in the middle of the winter, now face the threat of eviction and the possibility of being thrown out in the streets. Hunger in America is at the highest level that it has been for decades, with moms and dads struggling to feed their kids and working families lining up mile after mile to get emergency food packages. We are even seeing an increase in grocery store shoplifting as desperate Americans try to keep their families from going hungry. All of this is taking place in the wealthiest country in the history of the world. Over the last number of years, as I think everybody in America knows, Congress has provided massive tax breaks for the very wealthiest people in our country, which is one of the reasons why today we have more income and wealth inequality than any time since the 1920s. In fact, in the midst of this pandemic, this terrible pandemic, inequality has grown worse, with many in the billionaire class seeing their wealth increase by hundreds of billions of dollars while average Americans struggle to put food on the table. Congress has given huge tax breaks to large corporations so that some of the most profitable and largest corporations in America today pay zero in Federal income taxes. We have just passed the largest military budget in the history of our country--$740 billion, more than the next 10 nations combined. By the way, there was almost no debate about the size of that huge budget. Trump's veto dealt with other issues. Meanwhile, over half a million Americans are homeless, half of our working families are struggling to survive paycheck to paycheck, and in the midst of this terrible, unprecedented pandemic, over 90 million Americans are uninsured or underinsured. In the midst of a pandemic, they are not sure whether they can afford to go to a doctor. We are coming to the close of one of the most terrible and painful years in American history. That is a tragic fact. Over 330,000 of our people have died of COVID-19, and, as we speak, we are seeing recordbreaking numbers of new cases, and hospitals around the country are being overwhelmed with new admissions. During the last year, the education and well-being of tens of millions of our young people, from childcare to graduate school, has been disrupted. The terrible emotional isolation this pandemic has caused, where people are unable to spend time with their families and friends, has resulted in a huge increase in mental illness, drug addiction, and even suicide. As I mentioned, the House has done the right thing. By an overwhelming vote, Democrats and Republicans voted to increase that $600 direct payment to $2,000. A recent poll came out, and 78 percent of the American people think that was the right decision. They are hurting. They want help. The leaders of our country--President Trump, President-Elect Biden, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi--are all in agreement: We have to raise that direct payment to $2,000. So that is where we are right now in this historic moment. Do we turn our backs on struggling working families, or do we respond to their pain So, Madam President, would the Senator modify his request that immediately following the vote on the veto override, the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 9051; that the bill be considered read a third time and the Senate vote on passage of the bill with no intervening action or debate; further, that, if passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table?

Mr. SANDERS. I object.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, last week I indicated that it would be unacceptable for the Senate to recess for the Christmas holidays without providing substantial direct payments to the working families of our country and to their children. Majority Leader McConnell and I do not agree on much, but as I understand it, we are in agreement on at least one point, and that is that the Senate cannot go home until the COVID emergency relief bill is passed. The fact that the majority leader intends to keep the Senate in session this weekend to continue work on the COVID relief package is the correct decision. But let me, at this time, be as clear as I can be. Senator Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, and I have been working together to make certain that the working families of this country have a direct payment of $1,200 for adults and $2,400 for couples and $500 for each of their children. Let me also be absolutely clear that I will object to any attempt by the Senate to pass an omnibus appropriations bill and leave town before passing a COVID relief bill with substantial direct payments going to working people. The truth is that the working families of this country today are probably in a worse economic condition than at any time since the Great Depression. Millions of people are unable to pay their rent, and they are worried about being evicted. Hunger is, literally, at the highest level that it has been in several decades. And in the midst of this terrible, terrible pandemic, we have tens of millions of people who cannot afford to go to a doctor. That is unacceptable. I would say to my colleagues, let's get this package passed. Let's make certain that we have direct payments to working families of this country, and with that I would withdraw my objection.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Let me thank the senior Senator from New York, the Democratic leader, for his strong statement. He is exactly right. In this kind of crisis, it is comical that suddenly our Republican friends, once again, discover that we have a deficit. This is a moment of emergency--of emergency--and we have to respond to the needs of working families. And I thank Senator Schumer for his strong support for this legislation. Members of Congress should also be aware that we are far behind other major countries in terms of protecting working families during this pandemic. Not only does every other wealthy country guarantee healthcare to all people as a human right, almost all of them are providing far more generous benefits to the unemployed and the struggling in their countries than we are doing in our country. Several months ago, I introduced legislation, along with Senator Kamala Harris--now our Vice President-elect--and Senator Markey that would, during the course of this economic crisis, provide $2,000 a month--$2,000 a month--to every working-class person in this country. And, frankly, that is exactly what we should be doing. But, unfortunately, given the conservative nature of the Senate, I understand that is not going to happen. Yet, at a time of massive income and wealth inequality, as Senator Schumer just indicated, at a time when huge corporations were making recordbreaking profits, the Republican leadership here in the Senate was able to provide over $1 trillion in tax breaks to the 1 percent and large corporations. Yes, at a time when climate change--yes, climate change is real-- threatens the entire planet, this Congress was able to provide hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate welfare to the oil companies and the gas companies and the coal companies that are exacerbating the climate crisis. Yes, just the other day, here in the Senate and in the House, legislation was passed which would provide $740 billion to the military--the largest military budget in history, more than the next 10 nations combined. We spend more on the military than the next 10 nations combined. So we could do all of those things--tax breaks for billionaires, massive corporate welfare, huge military expenditures--but in the midst of the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression, somehow Congress is unable to respond effectively to the needs of working families. As the Presiding Officer may know, I have recently introduced legislation to provide every working-class American an emergency payment of at least $1,200, which is $2,400 for a couple and $500 for each of their children. This is not a radical idea. This is an idea that is supported by President Donald Trump. It is an idea that is supported by President- Elect Joe Biden. It is an idea, by the way, that according to a recent poll, is supported by 75 percent of all Americans, including 77 percent of Democrats and 72 percent of Republicans. Further, importantly, this amount of direct payment is exactly what Congress passed unanimously 9 months ago as part of the $2.2 trillion CARES Act. Let me repeat. In March, every Member of the House and Senate, appropriately, including myself, voted to provide a direct payment of $1,200 for working-class adults, $2,400 for couples, and $500 for their kids. That was the right thing to do 9 months ago. And given the fact that the crisis today is, in many respects, worse than it was 9 months ago, that is exactly what we should be doing right now. As a result of the pandemic, the government told restaurants, bars, retail stores, movie theaters, schools, malls, small businesses all over this country: Shut your doors. It is too dangerous for you to be open now. And they did that because that is what the public health experts said was the right thing to do in order to control this horrific pandemic. But what the government has not done is provide the workers who lost their jobs and lost their incomes as a result of those shutdowns with the help that they need in order to pay their bills and to survive economically. The $600 a week in supplemental unemployment benefits that Congress passed unanimously in March expired in July--over 5 months ago--and during that time, the Republican Senate has done nothing to help working families pay their rent, feed their children, go to a doctor, or pay for the lifesaving prescription drugs they need. And the Senate has not done anywhere near enough to provide help for the struggling small businesses in Vermont and all across this country that are desperately trying to stay afloat. Further, as bad as the economy has been in general, it has been far worse for African Americans and Latinos. During the pandemic, nearly 60 percent of Latino families and 55 percent of African-American families have either experienced a job loss or a cut in pay. For 9 months, we have asked tens of millions of working people in this country to survive on one $1,200 check, with no help for healthcare, no support for hazard pay, no assistance for rent relief-- absolutely nothing. Meanwhile, I should mention that over the same 9- month period, 651 billionaires in the United States became over $1 trillion richer. A trillion dollars in increased wealth for the very richest people in our country and one $1,200 check for tens of millions of Americans desperately trying to survive. That is unconscionable, that is immoral, and that has to change. Now, let us recall that way back in May, the House of Representatives passed the $3.4 trillion Heroes Act, which, among other things, included $600 a week in supplemental unemployment benefits; another direct payment of $1,200 for working-class adults and $500 for their kids; and generous support for small businesses, hospitals, education facilities, and State and local government. In other words, the House passed a $3.4 trillion bill that was, in fact, a very serious effort to address the enormous crises facing our country. I should also add that in July, several months later, the House passed another version of the bill, so-called Heroes 2, and this legislation was for $2.2 trillion. That same month, in July, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell proposed a $1.1 trillion bill that also provided a $1,200 direct payment for working-class adults and $500 for their kids. Then, in October, Secretary Mnuchin, in negotiations with Speaker Pelosi, proposed a COVID relief plan for $1.8 trillion. That is Mnuchin representing the Trump administration. So in the last number of months, we have had major proposals of $3.4 trillion, $2.2 trillion, $1.8 trillion, and from Majority Leader McConnell, $1.1 trillion. Yet today, right now, after months of negotiating by the so-called Gang of 8, we are now down to just $908 billion in legislation, and that includes $560 billion in offsets, in unused money, from the CARES Act. So what we are talking about now is going from an original House bill passed in May calling for $3.4 trillion in new money, down to today $348 billion in new money--roughly 10 percent of what Democrats thought was originally needed. In my view, the $348 billion in new money that is included in the proposal now being discussed is totally inadequate given the nature of the unprecedented crises that we face. The American people cannot wait any longer. They need economic relief right now. Their kids are going hungry. They are being evicted from their homes. They can't go to the doctor. They need help, and they need it now. Every working-class American needs $1,200 at least, $2,400 for couples, and $500 for children. Let me be clear to emphasize a point that Senator Schumer made, and that is, what I am talking about now is money that must not be taken from other important priorities like 16 weeks of supplemental unemployment benefits; aid for small business, nutrition, housing, education; and the other important provisions in this bill. We need adequate funding to address the unprecedented crises that we face. We should not and cannot and must not take from Peter to pay Paul. We cannot cut unemployment benefits in order to help small business. We have to do it all, right now. So, Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 5063, which I introduced earlier today, which would provide a $1,200 direct payment to every working-class adult, $2,400 for couples, and $500 for their children; and that the bill be considered read three times and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, the Senator from Wisconsin talks about Democrats not taking yes for an answer. Let me tell you what we did not take for an answer. We did not take for an answer the Republican bill, which did not have a nickel for unemployment benefits. We did not take yes for an answer for a bill that did not have a nickel for direct payments. The Senator from Wisconsin talks about the deficit. Yet the Senator from Wisconsin voted for over $1 trillion in tax breaks for billionaires and large, profitable corporations. That is OK. The Senator from Wisconsin voted for a bloated military budget, $740 billion. That is OK. The Senator from Wisconsin supports hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate welfare. The Senator from Wisconsin threw out some numbers. Let me throw out some other numbers. Half of the people in this country are living paycheck to paycheck. Millions of workers are trying to survive on starvation wages of 10 or 12 bucks an hour. Ninety million people are uninsured or underinsured, can't afford to go to a doctor. Nineteen million families are spending half of their limited incomes on housing. Today, we have the most severe hunger crisis in America that we have had in decades. Children in this country are going hungry while half a million people are homeless and many millions more fear eviction. Today, as a result of the pandemic, not only do we have the worst healthcare crisis in 100 years but the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. I say to my colleague from Wisconsin, yes--I will not support proposals that do not provide a nickel in unemployment benefits, not a nickel in direct relief to tens of millions of low-income and middle- income families. I would hope very much that this Congress appreciates the pain that is out there and that instead of worrying about tax breaks for billionaires or corporate welfare, let's pay attention to the needs of working families, and let us pass legislation which includes $1,200 direct payments to working class families, as we did in the CARES Act, 500 bucks to their kids, and certainly not taking a nickel away from unemployment and the other important provisions that are currently being negotiated

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this country faces the worst set of public health and economic crises that we have faced in over 100 years. As a result of the pandemic, more people than ever before are becoming infected, right now. Hospitalization is higher than it has ever been before, right now. And more people are dying than ever before, literally day after day. Now, we all hope and pray that the new vaccine will be distributed as quickly as possible and that it will put an end to this nightmare. But, today, the truth is that millions of low-income and middle-class families are suffering in a way that they have not suffered since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Today, the reality is that over half of our workers are living paycheck to paycheck, trying to survive on a starvation wage of 10 or 12 bucks an hour. The reality is that millions of our senior citizens are trapped in their homes, unable to see their kids or their grandchildren, unable to go to a grocery store, and many of them are trying to get by on $12,000-, $14,000-a-year Social Security and scared that they may come down with the virus and die. In addition, millions more with disabilities are suffering. Further, in our country today, one out of four workers is either unemployed or makes less than $20,000 a year. And in the midst of this pandemic, because we are the only major country on Earth not to guarantee healthcare to all people as a right--in the midst of this pandemic, the worst healthcare crisis in 100 years, over 90 million Americans are uninsured or underinsured and unable to go to a doctor when they need to. Further, we have the worst eviction crisis in modern history. Some 30 million families worry that because they cannot pay their rent, they may end up out on the street. That is where we are today economically, and if this country means anything--if democracy means anything, if the U.S. Government means anything--it means that we cannot turn our backs on this suffering, not in Vermont, not in Wisconsin, not in New York, not in any State in this country where people are hurting in an unprecedented way. It means that we cannot leave Washington, as Senators, for the holidays to go back to our families unless we address the pain and anxiety of other families throughout this country.

Mr. SANDERS. I would be happy to yield to the minority leader.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me say a few words on the coronavirus relief package that is now being negotiated. In my view, this bill of roughly $900 billion has a number of enormously important provisions in it which will do a great deal of service and help for the American people. We are talking about funding for vaccine distribution, which is a no- brainer. We have got to get that vaccine out to every State in this country if we are going to finally put an end to this horrific pandemic. We are talking about, in this bill, in this proposal, increased funding for education, healthcare, childcare, nutrition, housing, transportation, and many other very important areas. I agree with all of that, but the problem is that, while this proposal addresses some of the major crises facing our country and the families of our country, there is simply not enough money in the proposal to deal with the unprecedented crises that we now face. It is no secret to anybody that right now, at this moment in America, we face the worst set of crises that this country has seen for perhaps a hundred years. The pandemic is surging throughout America. More and more people are being diagnosed with the virus. More and more people are ending up in hospital. More and more people are dying. But it is not just a public health crisis that we are addressing; we are dealing with a terrible, terrible economic meltdown, where many, many millions of people have lost their jobs; they have lost their healthcare. People are working, in many cases, for fewer hours. Rather than 40 hours a week, they are working 30 hours a week--less income coming in. So this bill has a lot in it that is good, but given the enormity of the crises that we face, it simply does not go anywhere far enough. As the Presiding Officer may well remember, in May, in response to the crisis, the Democratic House passed a Heroes bill calling for $3.4 trillion in new money to address the kind of crises that we are facing. And while that bill did not have everything that I wanted in it, it was a serious, serious step forward in addressing the multitude of crises facing our country. It was a $3.4 trillion bill, passed in the House in May. In July, the House came back and said: Well, we are not going to spend $3.4 trillion; we are going to reduce it to $2.2 trillion, and they passed what was called a Heroes 2 bill, which called for $2.2 trillion in new money. Again, it did not go as far as I would want but was a very serious effort. Among other things in that bill as well as the first Heroes bill, there was a provision to extend unemployment benefits for another 4 months and provide a $600 supplementary check. And there were provisions in it to provide a $1,200 direct payment to adults and $500 to their children. That was the Heroes 2 bill for $2.2 trillion. Just a few months ago, the Trump administration, represented by Secretary of the Treasury Mnuchin, proposed a $1.8 trillion bill--$1.8 trillion. Today, the bill that is being negotiated calls for all of $348 billion in new money. This is a $900 billion bill, but most of the funding is carried over from the CARES Act--$348 billion in new money. In other words, this is roughly 10 percent of what Democrats in the House passed in the first Heroes bill. Now, I was a mayor for 8 years. I know a little bit about negotiating. I, frankly, don't know how you negotiate from $3.4 trillion down to $348 billion. You got 10 percent of what you originally started with. This is not just numbers. What this is about is whether, in this moment of unprecedented crisis, when families are struggling to feed their children, when a half a million people are sleeping out on the street, when in the midst of this awful pandemic over 90 million Americans are uninsured or underinsured and can't go to the doctor in the midst of a pandemic, when they are sick, at a time when many, many millions of families are worried about getting evicted from their apartments or their homes because they no longer have the income to pay their rent or pay their mortgage--that is the crisis that we are in right now. And, unfortunately, this proposal does not address that crisis to the degree that it should. Now, that is the bad news. My hope--very sincere hope--is that when the Biden administration comes into office in late January, their very first priority will be to address the deficiencies and the inadequacies in this bill. The American people today, the working class of this country today, are struggling in a way that we have not seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s. People are desperate. I will never forget, in my State, in my community, in my neighborhood, a few months ago-- Burlington, VT--they shut down--the State shut down a highway, and hundreds and hundreds of automobiles lined up, one behind each other, in order to get emergency food distributed by Vermont National Guard-- in my community. That is going on all over this country, where States are in worse shape than the State of Vermont. People who have never, ever gone to an emergency food shelter are now lining up for emergency food packages in the United States of America, in the richest country in the history of the world, at a time, by the way, when a number of billionaires are doing phenomenally well. So this bill, in my view, does not go anywhere near far enough in terms of addressing our crises, and I hope that as soon as the Biden administration comes into office, they will address those deficiencies. Now, the good news--there is some good news, and I am happy, as we enter the holiday season, to say something that I think the American people are wanting to hear. And that is, when you ask the American people--and the pollsters do that. They say to the American people that we are in the midst of this terrible crisis; what do you think should happen? Overwhelmingly, some 80 percent of the American people-- overwhelmingly, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, they say that, in the midst of this emergency, we need the U.S. Government to respond to our pain because we don't want to get evicted; we don't want our kids to go hungry; we don't want to be saddled with incredible debt. The government has got to do something. Eighty percent of the American people--Democrats, Republicans, Independents--understand that. Then, when you ask them, ``What is the most important thing that can be done?''--there is a long list of things--what they say is the most important thing that can be done is, in this moment, help my family out. Get me some money so I can pay my bills, so I don't get evicted, so I can feed my kids, so I can go to the doctor when I get sick. Get me a direct payment. As you know, the CARES Act provided $1,200 for every working-class adult in this country; that is, for an individual earning less than $75,000 a year; for a couple, $150,000; plus $500 for their kids. That means, for a family of four--husband, wife, and two kids--that is $3,400. Now, you don't get rich with that, but when you get a check for $3,400 for a family of four, it means that maybe you can pay your bills; maybe you can breathe a little bit easier; maybe, come Christmastime, you might actually be able to buy your kids a few gifts; maybe the fear of eviction is lessened just a little bit. That is what we did in the CARES Act, and that is what I wanted in this bill. Now, a week ago, 10 days ago nobody here was talking about the need for direct payments, help for working families, despite the fact that that is the issue, the program that the American people most wanted. There are a lot of other important things that we are dealing with. That is what the American people wanted: Help us out. Let us make a decision. Get us some money in this time of need. I am happy to say, working with people like Senator Hawley of Missouri; working with the Progressive Caucus in the House of Representatives; working with Senators Gillibrand, Warren, Merkley, Markey, and Wyden; working with Pramila Jayapal and many others in the House, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Ro Khanna, and many others who have stood up in the House and said ``We have to have direct payments,'' I am happy to say that, as of now--and we are going to fight for more because this process is not over--the proposal, as I understand it, provides for a direct payment of $600 for every working-class adult and $600 for their kids. That means for a family of four, that would be $2,400. That is half of what I wanted, but it is a step forward. I am going do my best to make sure that we come as close to that $1,200 as we possibly can. Millions of our people today are living in desperation. Half of our workers are living paycheck to paycheck, while one out of four American workers today is either unemployed or making a starvation wage of less than $20,000 a year. During the holiday season, over one-third of Americans expect to lose income--one-third--and are having a difficult time paying for basic household expenses. In America today, hunger is at its highest level in decades. More than half a million Americans are homeless, and over 30 million of our people are on the brink of eviction. By January 1, 12 million Americans will owe an average of $5,800 in back rent. As bad as this crisis is for the whole population, from coast to coast, it is worse for the African-American and Latino and Native American communities. During this pandemic, nearly 60 percent of Latino families and 55 percent of African-American families and many, many, many Native American families have either experienced a job loss or a pay cut. All across this country, working families are standing up and saying: You know what, we have served in the military. We are doing our best to raise our kids in this unprecedented moment in history. We need help. I want to thank not only my friends in the Congressional Progressive Caucus in the House of Representatives--Jayapal, Tlaib, Omar, Ocasio- Cortez, Ro Khanna, and many, many others--I also want to thank the millions of Americans who have stood up and demanded that the government respond to the needs of working families. I want to thank the over 60 groups representing millions of working families, progressives, the elderly and young people, including Public Citizen, the Center for Popular Democracy, the Sunrise Movement, Social Security Works, Presente, and People's Action, for pushing a progressive agenda forward and for demanding that this government respond to the needs of our people. So here we are, as this proposal continues to be negotiated. As I said earlier, it is my hope that not only do we make sure that unemployment benefits are extended for another 16 weeks at $300 per week, it is my hope that we can see some light here and get to the $1,200 direct payment that adults in this country desperately need. I am going to do my best in the coming days to make sure that happens. I hope the American people will join with me and get on the phones and call up their Members of the House and Members of the Senate and say that in this unprecedented moment in American history, government has to respond to the needs of working families. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I withdraw my objection.