{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "rows": [["CREC-2020-12-30-pt1-PgS7973-2", "2020-12-30", 116, 2, null, null, "UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUESTS--H.R. 9051 AND H.R. 6395", "SENATE", "SENATE", "SCONSENTREQUEST", "S7973", "S7974", "[{\"name\": \"Bernard Sanders\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Patrick J. Toomey\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"116\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"6395\"}, {\"congress\": \"116\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"6395\"}, {\"congress\": \"116\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"9051\"}, {\"congress\": \"116\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"9051\"}]", "166 Cong. Rec. S7973", "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 S7973-S7974]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n          UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUESTS--H.R. 9051 AND H.R. 6395\n\n  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I want to concur with what Senator\nSchumer said. What he said goes beyond economics. It goes beyond the\ndesperation that tens of millions of working families are facing. It\ngoes beyond the struggles of the people of Vermont or Kentucky.\n  Let me just make it clear for the majority leader that 10 out of the\npoorest 25 counties in the United States of America are located in\nKentucky. So my colleague the majority leader might want to get on the\nphone and start talking to working families in Kentucky and find out\nhow they feel about the need for immediate help in terms of a $2,000\ncheck per adult. I have the strong feeling that the people of Kentucky\nwill respond no differently than the people of Vermont or New York. The\nlast poll that I saw had 78 percent of the American people saying they\nwanted and needed that type of help.\n  This discussion, frankly, is not just about the economic struggling\nof working families in this country. It is not just about the massive\nlevels of income and wealth inequality. It is about basic democracy.\n  Now, what we have to do here on the floor, whether it is Senator\nSchumer or Senator McConnell or I, is to talk in legalese. That is the\nlanguage of the U.S. Senate. The stuff sounds pretty complicated to the\naverage person, but all that Senator Schumer and I are asking of the\nmajority leader is very simple: Allow the Members of the U.S. Senate to\ncast a vote. If you want to\n\n[[Page S7974]]\n\nvote against $2,000 checks for people in your State, vote against it. I\nsee Senator Toomey here. He has been clear about it. I suspect he will\nvote against it. I respect his opinion, but all that we are asking for\nis a vote. What is the problem? In the House, over two-thirds of the\nMembers of that body, including 44 Republicans, voted to say, in this\ntime of economic desperation, working families deserve help, and they\ndeserve a $2,000 check.\n  As Senator Schumer just indicated, we have a very unlikely ally in\nPresident Trump. Nobody here has disagreed with Trump more times than I\nhave; yet here is what the leader of the Republican Party writes:\n``$2000 ASAP!'' So, even on this issue, amazingly enough, the President\nof the United States is right.\n  What all of this comes down to, my fellow Americans, is not even\nwhether you agree with Senator Schumer and myself and 78 percent of the\nAmerican people or whether you agree with Senator McConnell and, I\nsuspect, Senator Toomey. That is fine. It is called democracy. We have\ndifferences of opinion. All that I am asking is to give us a vote. What\nis the problem? Allow the U.S. Senators to cast a vote as to whether\nthey are for the $2,000 check or whether they are against it.\n  We will need, as I understand it, 60 votes to win. That is a big\nhurdle. I don't know that we are going to win. There are a number of\nRepublicans, to their credit, who have said they are ready to vote for\nit. I suspect there may be more, when given the opportunity, who will\nvote for it. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe we will lose. I think that would\nbe unfortunate. All that I am asking for right now is to give us the\nopportunity to vote. What is the problem with that?\n  I will now go to Senate legalese.\n  I ask unanimous consent that at 11:30 a.m. on Thursday, December 31,\nthe Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 9051, a bill\nto provide a $2,000 direct payment to the working class; that the bill\nbe considered read a third time; and that the Senate vote on the\npassage of the bill, without intervening action or debate; further,\nthat if passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid\nupon the table; further, that immediately following the vote on H.R.\n9051, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the veto\nmessage on H.R. 6395 and that the Senate immediately vote on the\npassage of the bill, the objections of the President to the contrary\nnotwithstanding, with no intervening action or debate.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?\n  The Senator from Pennsylvania.\n  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, let me\nstart by pointing out that we are not in the same place that we were\nback in March. Our economy is in nothing like the situation we faced\nduring a moment in March when this body came together and voted\nunanimously, I believe, for the most extraordinary aid package--\nfinancial stimulus bill, however you care to characterize it--in the\nhistory of the world by far. Remember where we were. We had closed down\nthe economy. To a very large degree, the American economy had stopped\nfunctioning because State governments around the country decided they\nhad to close it down. We can discuss and we can argue about whether\nthat was a good decision or not, but given the limited knowledge we had\nabout the nature of the COVID-19 threat, it was deemed to be the right\nthing to do.\n  So we were on the verge of having no economy. That has never happened\nbefore in our history.\n  So what did we do? We decided this calls for extraordinary measures,\nand we would try to use Federal dollars as a substitute for the\neconomy--just replace lost income on a massive, unprecedented scale--\nand we did. We approved almost $3 trillion in that legislation.\n  At the time, we included $1,200 per person. You could make an\nargument that that was an extremely inefficient use of that $1,200 per\nperson, but at the time, given the circumstances, I understood why we\ndidn't have many good options, and that was something we decided to do.\n  So where are we now? We are in a very different place. Our economy is\nnot in a free fall. Our economy is in a recovery mode. We are not back\nto where we want to end up. We are not back to where we were before\nMarch, but we have taken big steps in that direction.\n  The economy grew at 33 percent last quarter--33 percent. That is a\ntremendous recovery that is underway. More than half of all the people\nwho lost their jobs earlier this year have regained their jobs. So we\nare not finished yet, but that is a huge step along the way.\n  And now we are being told, after passing another extraordinary bill--\nthis one almost $1 trillion and including $600 per person--that that is\nnot enough; we need to do $2,000 per person, despite the fact that we\nknow for sure, we know for a fact, that the large majority of those\nchecks are going to go to people who had no lost income.\n  How does that make any sense at all? We know for sure that the\nmajority of these people had no lost income. They didn't lose their\njobs, and yet we are going to send them not $600, not the $1,200, but\n$2,000.\n  So think about this. A married couple, who both are working and have\n2 kids, maybe they work for the Federal Government, like 2 million-odd\npeople do. Maybe they work for a large company, the vast majority of\nwhich did not have large numbers of layoffs. So this two-child, two-\nincome couple that makes six figures had no interruption, no\ndiminishment of their income whatsoever. They are going to get $8,000\nof money we don't have that is going to be either borrowed or printed.\nThat is what it is all going to come down to.\n  There are people who are still suffering from the economic fallout of\nthis terrible COVID crisis. There is no question about it. We know\nthere are people who are concentrated in a handful of industries, for\nthe most part--not exclusively--but people who have worked in the\nrestaurant industry, people who work for hotels, travel, entertainment.\nSo many of those people are still out of work and their prospects of\ngetting their old jobs back are not good in the short run. I sure hope\nthey will be good in the medium-term run, if not sooner.\n  And our bill addressed that. It addressed that problem. How did we do\nthat? With a new round of PPP loans, which are really grants to small\nbusinesses, if they will keep their workforce intact; expansion of\nunemployment insurance benefits, so that people who have historically\nbeen ineligible remain eligible so they can continue to collect\nunemployment benefits; an increase in the amount of unemployment\nbenefits, a $300-a-week overlay of Federal money on top of whatever\ntheir State program is; $600 per person, regardless of whether they\nlost income.\n  All of that was passed just a few days ago, and now we are told we\nneed to come back immediately, right now, and make sure that we are\nsending $2,000 checks to people who had no lost income.\n  So for that reason, I object.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.\n  The Senator from Massachusetts.\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-PgS7973-2"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 109.3188589438796, "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"}