{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "rows": [["CREC-2020-12-30-pt1-PgS7971-8", "2020-12-30", 116, 2, null, null, "CORONAVIRUS", "SENATE", "SENATE", "ALLOTHER", "S7971", "S7972", "[{\"name\": \"Mitch McConnell\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "166 Cong. Rec. S7971", "Congressional Record, Volume 166 Issue 222 (Wednesday, December 30, 2020)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 222 (Wednesday, December 30, 2020)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S7971-S7972]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n                              CORONAVIRUS\n\n  Mr. McCONNELL. Now let's talk about COVID-19 relief. Four days ago,\nPresident Trump signed the second largest rescue package in American\nhistory. The largest one was the CARES Act back in March. Due to this\npandemic and our massive response, we now have a national debt far\nlarger than our entire economy for the first time since World War II,\nbut we knew our people needed more help, so Congress just passed\nanother nearly $900 billion in emergency relief targeted to those who\nneed it most, a second round of payroll support to save small business\njobs, more unemployment aid, vaccine distribution money, funding for\nsafe schools, and much more.\n  In addition to historic amounts of targeted help at the request of\nPresident Trump and his team, the package also included another round\nof direct checks to households, whether or not each household needs the\nhelp, whether or not their finances have changed dramatically this past\nyear.\n  Yesterday, Secretary Mnuchin announced households should begin\nreceiving these payments as early as today and this week. That is more\ngood news to a lot of people.\n  After Congress and the administration finalized the bipartisan bill,\nthe President expressed interest in further\n\n[[Page S7972]]\n\nexpanding nontargeted direct payments. So to ensure the President was\ncomfortable signing the bill into law, the Senate committed to\nbeginning one process that would combine three of the President's\npriorities: larger direct checks, a repeal of section 230 of the\nCommunications Decency Act, and further efforts to review the integrity\nof our democracy--three of the President's priorities in one Senate\nprocess. That was the commitment, and that is what happened yesterday\nwhen I introduced text reflecting just what the President had, in fact,\nrequested.\n  Now House and Senate Democrats want something very different. As they\ntried to do countless times in the past 4 years, Speaker Pelosi and\nLeader Schumer are trying to pull a fast one on the President and the\nAmerican people.\n  First of all, they are hoping everyone just forgets about election\nintegrity and Big Tech. They are desperate to ignore those two parts of\nPresident Trump's requests, and you can draw your own conclusions. Even\non the question of larger checks, the Democrats have tried to warp what\nPresident Trump actually laid out.\n  Look, it is no secret that Republicans have a diversity of views\nabout the wisdom of borrowing hundreds of billions more to send out\nmore nontargeted money, including to many households that have suffered\nno loss of income during the crisis. COVID-19 has not affected all\nhouseholds equally--not even close.\n  It is hardly clear that the Federal Government's top priority should\nbe sending thousands of dollars to, for example, a childless couple\nmaking well into six figures who have been comfortably teleworking all\nyear. Our duty is to help get help to the people who actually need\nhelp, like we did, to a historic degree, just 4 days ago.\n  But above and beyond that discussion, the Democratic leaders have\nbroken from what President Trump proposed. They quietly changed this\nproposal in an attempt to let wealthy households suck up even more\nmoney. Speaker Pelosi structured her bill so that a family of four\nwould have to earn more than $300,000 in order not--not to qualify for\nmore cash. A family of three could pull in $250,000 per year--a quarter\nof a million dollars--and still qualify for some money.\n  Democratic leaders want to call this scheme ``survival checks.'' Only\nmy friends Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leader could look at\nhouseholds in New York and California who make $300,000, in households\nwhere nobody has been laid off, where earnings have not even dropped\nduring the past year, and conclude these rich constituents of theirs\nneed ``survival checks'' financed by taxpayer dollars and borrowed\nmoney\n  Everyone sees the game here. These are the same Democrats who proudly\nblocked the entire aid package for months because they tried to hold\nout their special tax cuts for rich people in rich States. Now they say\nit is a matter of survival to send another boatload of cash to people\nmaking $300,000, regardless of whether they have experienced any\ndisruption at all this past year.\n  Even the liberal Washington Post today is laughing at the political\nleft for demanding more huge giveaways with no relationship to actual\nneed. Here is what the Washington Post wrote: ``Especially wrongheaded\n. . . is the progressive left, spearheaded by Sen. Bernie Sanders . . .\nwho depicts the $2,000 as aid to `desperate' Americans despite the huge\namounts destined for perfectly comfortable families.''\n  That is from the editors of the Washington Post.\n  The Wall Street Journal, usually their opposite number, actually\nagrees. These nontargeted ``checks are unnecessary,'' and struggling\nhouseholds can access targeted support like ``expanded jobless\nbenefits, food stamps, child-care subsidies and much more.''\n  The liberal economist Larry Summers, President Clinton's Treasury\nSecretary and President Obama's NEC Director, says: ``There is no good\neconomic argument'' for universal $2,000 checks at this moment. He\npoints out the CARES Act and the brandnew law will already have boosted\noverall household income, relative to the economy, back to its\nprepandemic levels, if not higher.\n  If specific struggling households need still more help after the\nhuge, historic package that was just signed into law 4 days ago has\ntaken effect, then what they will need is smart, targeted aid, not\nanother firehose of borrowed money that encompasses other people who\nare doing just fine.\n  So, in my view, colleagues like Senator Cornyn and Senator Toomey\nhave pointed this out persuasively. But, more broadly, here is the\ndeal. The Senate is not going to split apart the three issues that\nPresident Trump linked together just because Democrats are afraid to\naddress two of them. The Senate is not going to be bullied into rushing\nout more borrowed money into the hands of the Democrats' rich friends\nwho don't need the help.\n  We just approved almost a trillion dollars in aid a few days ago. It\nstruck a balance between broad support for all kinds of households and\na lot more targeted relief for those who need help the most.\n  We are going to stay smart; we are going to stay focused; and we are\ngoing to continue delivering on the needs for our Nation.\n\n                          ____________________"]], "columns": ["granule_id", "date", "congress", "session", "volume", "issue", "title", "chamber", "granule_class", "sub_granule_class", "page_start", "page_end", "speakers", "bills", "citation", "full_text"], "primary_keys": ["granule_id"], "primary_key_values": ["CREC-2020-12-30-pt1-PgS7971-8"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 19.799522822722793, "source": "Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API", "source_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/developers/api/v1", "license": "Public Domain (U.S. Government data)", "license_url": "https://www.regulations.gov/faq"}