congressional_record: CREC-2020-12-30-pt1-PgS7971-8
This data as json
| granule_id | date | congress | session | volume | issue | title | chamber | granule_class | sub_granule_class | page_start | page_end | speakers | bills | citation | full_text |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CREC-2020-12-30-pt1-PgS7971-8 | 2020-12-30 | 116 | 2 | CORONAVIRUS | SENATE | SENATE | ALLOTHER | S7971 | S7972 | [{"name": "Mitch McConnell", "role": "speaking"}] | 166 Cong. Rec. S7971 | Congressional Record, Volume 166 Issue 222 (Wednesday, December 30, 2020) [Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 222 (Wednesday, December 30, 2020)] [Senate] [Pages S7971-S7972] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] CORONAVIRUS Mr. McCONNELL. Now let's talk about COVID-19 relief. Four days ago, President Trump signed the second largest rescue package in American history. The largest one was the CARES Act back in March. Due to this pandemic and our massive response, we now have a national debt far larger than our entire economy for the first time since World War II, but we knew our people needed more help, so Congress just passed another nearly $900 billion in emergency relief targeted to those who need it most, a second round of payroll support to save small business jobs, more unemployment aid, vaccine distribution money, funding for safe schools, and much more. In addition to historic amounts of targeted help at the request of President Trump and his team, the package also included another round of direct checks to households, whether or not each household needs the help, whether or not their finances have changed dramatically this past year. Yesterday, Secretary Mnuchin announced households should begin receiving these payments as early as today and this week. That is more good news to a lot of people. After Congress and the administration finalized the bipartisan bill, the President expressed interest in further [[Page S7972]] expanding nontargeted direct payments. So to ensure the President was comfortable signing the bill into law, the Senate committed to beginning one process that would combine three of the President's priorities: larger direct checks, a repeal of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and further efforts to review the integrity of our democracy--three of the President's priorities in one Senate process. That was the commitment, and that is what happened yesterday when I introduced text reflecting just what the President had, in fact, requested. Now House and Senate Democrats want something very different. As they tried to do countless times in the past 4 years, Speaker Pelosi and Leader Schumer are trying to pull a fast one on the President and the American people. First of all, they are hoping everyone just forgets about election integrity and Big Tech. They are desperate to ignore those two parts of President Trump's requests, and you can draw your own conclusions. Even on the question of larger checks, the Democrats have tried to warp what President Trump actually laid out. Look, it is no secret that Republicans have a diversity of views about the wisdom of borrowing hundreds of billions more to send out more nontargeted money, including to many households that have suffered no loss of income during the crisis. COVID-19 has not affected all households equally--not even close. It is hardly clear that the Federal Government's top priority should be sending thousands of dollars to, for example, a childless couple making well into six figures who have been comfortably teleworking all year. Our duty is to help get help to the people who actually need help, like we did, to a historic degree, just 4 days ago. But above and beyond that discussion, the Democratic leaders have broken from what President Trump proposed. They quietly changed this proposal in an attempt to let wealthy households suck up even more money. Speaker Pelosi structured her bill so that a family of four would have to earn more than $300,000 in order not--not to qualify for more cash. A family of three could pull in $250,000 per year--a quarter of a million dollars--and still qualify for some money. Democratic leaders want to call this scheme ``survival checks.'' Only my friends Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leader could look at households in New York and California who make $300,000, in households where nobody has been laid off, where earnings have not even dropped during the past year, and conclude these rich constituents of theirs need ``survival checks'' financed by taxpayer dollars and borrowed money Everyone sees the game here. These are the same Democrats who proudly blocked the entire aid package for months because they tried to hold out their special tax cuts for rich people in rich States. Now they say it is a matter of survival to send another boatload of cash to people making $300,000, regardless of whether they have experienced any disruption at all this past year. Even the liberal Washington Post today is laughing at the political left for demanding more huge giveaways with no relationship to actual need. Here is what the Washington Post wrote: ``Especially wrongheaded . . . is the progressive left, spearheaded by Sen. Bernie Sanders . . . who depicts the $2,000 as aid to `desperate' Americans despite the huge amounts destined for perfectly comfortable families.'' That is from the editors of the Washington Post. The Wall Street Journal, usually their opposite number, actually agrees. These nontargeted ``checks are unnecessary,'' and struggling households can access targeted support like ``expanded jobless benefits, food stamps, child-care subsidies and much more.'' The liberal economist Larry Summers, President Clinton's Treasury Secretary and President Obama's NEC Director, says: ``There is no good economic argument'' for universal $2,000 checks at this moment. He points out the CARES Act and the brandnew law will already have boosted overall household income, relative to the economy, back to its prepandemic levels, if not higher. If specific struggling households need still more help after the huge, historic package that was just signed into law 4 days ago has taken effect, then what they will need is smart, targeted aid, not another firehose of borrowed money that encompasses other people who are doing just fine. So, in my view, colleagues like Senator Cornyn and Senator Toomey have pointed this out persuasively. But, more broadly, here is the deal. The Senate is not going to split apart the three issues that President Trump linked together just because Democrats are afraid to address two of them. The Senate is not going to be bullied into rushing out more borrowed money into the hands of the Democrats' rich friends who don't need the help. We just approved almost a trillion dollars in aid a few days ago. It struck a balance between broad support for all kinds of households and a lot more targeted relief for those who need help the most. We are going to stay smart; we are going to stay focused; and we are going to continue delivering on the needs for our Nation. ____________________ |