{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "rows": [["CREC-2020-12-30-pt1-PgS7976", "2020-12-30", 116, 2, null, null, "CORONAVIRUS", "SENATE", "SENATE", "ALLOTHER", "S7976", "S7977", "[{\"name\": \"Richard J. Durbin\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"John Cornyn\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Bernard Sanders\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "166 Cong. Rec. S7976", "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 S7976-S7977]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n                              CORONAVIRUS\n\n  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I listened carefully and watched three\noccasions on the floor this afternoon where Senators Schumer, Sanders,\nand Markey have tried to create an opportunity where the Senate would\nactually come together and vote, where the Senate might make a decision\nbased on the merits of this issue, rather than to keep talking around\nthe issue.\n  What is at stake is a substantial sum of money for families who are\nin the midst of the struggle of their lives--$2,000--characterized a\nfew moments ago by my friend from Texas as ``Speaker Pelosi's idea.''\nWell, I might remind him that it is also Donald Trump's idea and still\nis. The President has told us this morning that we should move on this\nas quickly as possible, and although I don't often come to the floor to\nagree with the President, he is right. In this instance he is clearly\nright.\n  What are we doing now? We are calling Senators back to Washington\nfrom the far reaches across the United States. This morning, I received\nsome email and text messages from some of my colleagues hopping on\nairplanes at 6 a.m. on the west coast to face a vote. What is this vote\nall about? Well, first, it is to override the veto of the President\nwhen it comes to the Defense authorization bill. This was certainly\nsomething that was occasioned by one Senator, the junior Senator from\nKentucky, who forced us into a position where that vote needed to be\ntaken here. It could have been handled much more efficiently and to the\nbenefit of all Members if it was scheduled for the weekend when we were\nassuming a new session of Congress. But he insisted, and we are\nreturning and, frankly, putting in peril again, in the midst of a\npandemic, Members of the Senate who are traveling from all the far\nreaches of this country to be part of this action in Washington\n  But it isn't just the junior Senator from Kentucky who is having us\nsit here in Washington and wait for things that could be taken care of\nwith dispatch. It is the senior Senator from Kentucky as well. He has\ndecided that we will not get a vote on the House measure to increase\nthe payments to $2,000. Make no mistake, there is only one way to bring\nthis relief to the families of America. It is to pass the bill already\nenacted by the House of Representatives--a bill which received 44\nRepublican votes in addition to a substantial number of Democrats, with\nonly 2 voting no. Forty-four Republican votes joined with the Democrats\nto call for this measure which many have been decrying on the floor\nhere as a class struggle or whatever their argument might be. There is\nno other measure, including Senator McConnell's alternative, which has\nany ghost of a chance to help the families in this country with this\n$2,000 benefit. The only thing that will do it--the only one thing that\nwill do it--is this bill that has already passed the House of\nRepresentatives.\n  The House has recessed. When they are going to return is uncertain.\nThey certainly don't have the time to work through the regular order of\nbusiness to consider any new legislation even if we could send it in\ntime, which I believe is very doubtful. So it is up to Senator\nMcConnell to decide right here and now, are we going to come together\nas a Senate this afternoon at 5 o'clock, when we are supposed to be\nback and voting, and get this matter done?\n  Bring it to the Senate for a vote. Let's have this vote up or down,\nand let the Democrats and Republicans express their will on behalf of\nthe families in this country.\n  I couldn't agree more with the Senator from Massachusetts and his\ncharacterization of what families face across this country and,\ncertainly, in my home State of Illinois.\n  I just wonder if any of the Republican Senators who are downplaying\nthis economic crisis facing these families have really looked into the\nissue. This morning, in the Senator's home State of Texas, they showed\nan early morning television show and the cars that were lining up for\nfood banks--long lines of people waiting for food banks. They\ninterviewed some of them in Texas who told heartbreaking stories of how\nthey once were volunteers at this same food bank and are now dependent\nfor a helping hand if they were going to be able to feed their\nfamilies.\n  These are people who are not lazy at all. Misfortune has come their\nway, and the question is, Will we help? This is our opportunity--today.\nIt is a measure that has passed the House of Representatives, not some\ntheory of some legislation that might be considered tomorrow--today.\nLet's have this vote today, this evening. When the Senators have\nreturned, let's determine whether or not this House-passed measure of\n$2,000 is going to be enacted into law, since the President is clearly\nanxious to sign it.\n  That to me is the reasonable thing to do. In fact, it might even\nsound like the U.S. Senate is taking a vote on a timely issue after a\ndebate. We do it so seldom around here that I think we have lost our\nmuscle memory when it comes to this activity in the Senate. It is time\nto return to it.\n  I thank the Senator from Vermont, the Senator from Massachusetts,\nand, of course, the Democratic leader for bringing this issue before us\nthis afternoon. But it shouldn't end with our great speeches. It ought\nto end with an important vote for the people of this country.\n  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, would the Senator from Illinois yield for\na question?\n  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.\n  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Illinois\nwould consider pairing their request for a $2,000 direct payment with a\nliability shield provision that would guard businesses that have been\noperating in good faith and following the guidelines put out by public\nhealth and government institutions, and preserve a right to sue for\nreckless and willful disregard of the rights for others? Would the\nSenator consider pairing those two together?\n  Mr. DURBIN. I would say in response to my colleague, I know his\npassionate defense of the notion for immunity from liability for\ncorporations in America. He has introduced a lengthy bill on the\nsubject. I don't believe that is consistent with keeping this Nation\nsafe during a pandemic, and it certainly is not responsive to any\nonslaught of lawsuits.\n  The Senator might be interested to know that the number of medical\nmalpractice cases filed in the name of COVID-19 since the onset of this\ncurrent pandemic is slightly higher than the total number of lawsuits\nfiled by Donald Trump in protesting the results of the November 3\nelection. This is not a tsunami of lawsuits.\n  I believe we can take reasonable measures to support and defend those\ncorporations and companies that are making a good-faith effort to\ncomply with public health standards and protect their employees and\ncustomers. His bill, I am afraid, goes way too far\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.\n  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me concur with my friend from\nIllinois on the issue.\n  I have a question for my colleague from Texas. It is a very simple\nquestion. You have concerns about the issue of corporate liability. I\nget that. I happen not to agree with you. You are entitled to your\nopinion. You may or may not be concerned about section 230 of the 1996\nFederal telecommunications bill. That is fine too. We might have a\ndiscussion about how we protect American democracy. It is a good\ndiscussion as well. But I have a strong feeling, Senator Cornyn, that\nin Texas, as in Vermont--you know what--people are not really talking\nabout corporate liability. It is a good issue. It is an important\nissue. I don't believe they are talking about section 230. What I think\nthey are talking about, as the Senator from Illinois just said, is how\nthey are going to feed their kids today. That is the issue. And what I\nwould ask my friend from Texas is, What is your problem with allowing\nthe Senate to vote on whether or not we are going to allow Americans,\nworking-class people to get a $2,000 check?\n  Now I gather that when that vote comes to the floor--and I hope it\ncomes\n\n[[Page S7977]]\n\nimmediately--you will vote no, and you will explain to the people of\nTexas why you voted that way. That is called democracy. I respect that.\nBut what is your problem with allowing the Senate to have a free\nstanding vote?\n  There are a number of people on your side, Republicans, who have\nalready come forward and said yes, they want to vote for this $2,000\ncheck.\n  Now, if you want to deal with corporate liability, that is fine.\nLet's deal with it at some point. Bring forward a bill, and we can vote\non it up or down. All that we are asking for is a simple, up-or-down\nvote on the issue that tens of millions of people are talking about\nright now: Will they survive economically in the midst of this terrible\npandemic?\n  I ask my colleague from Texas: What is the problem with allowing the\nU.S. Senate to vote on the bill passed by the House?\n  I yield to my colleague from Texas.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.\n  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would say to our colleague from Vermont,\nI have no problem with providing assistance, whether it is to public\nhealth officials who are trying to struggle with this pandemic or to\nprovide money for research for the therapeutics or vaccines which,\nfortunately, are now being distributed around the country. I have no\nobjection to direct payments to individuals. I voted for the $1,200\ndirect payments contained in the CARES Act. I voted for the additional\nmoney that is provided for in the most recent COVID-19 legislation. But\nthis legislation that the Senator from Vermont is advocating would\nbenefit households with annual incomes of over $350,000. They would get\nthis money.\n  I would say that one way to deal with this--because, of course, we\nnegotiated back and forth on the last COVID-19 bill, and nobody got\neverything they wanted--but if our colleagues on the other side of the\naisle want an additional financial benefit for people making up to\n$350,000, why not couple it with liability protection for people who\nare acting in good faith?\n  This isn't just about corporations, and our colleagues across the\naisle know it. This is about schools. This is about churches,\nsynagogues, and mosques. This is about every business that is worried\nthat a game of ``gotcha'' is going to take place and they are going to\nend up paying the price. Even if they win the lawsuit, they will still\nhave to pay for the cost of defense, potentially losing their\nbusinesses outright.\n  Clearly, our colleagues across the aisle care more about trial\nlawyers and being able to bring litigation against businesses that have\ntried to do their best and have struggled with the evolving public\nhealth guidance provided by the CDC and other authorities. Clearly, if\nthey are not interested in engaging in a negotiation where people, who\nthrough no fault of their own, find themselves victimized by frivolous\nlitigation, then, we have no alternative but to continue to object to\nthis request.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.\n  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, if you listened carefully, you understood\nthat my friend from Texas did not answer my question. He has a concern\nabout corporate liability. It is a legitimate debate. Do you know what?\nBring it to the floor. Let's vote it up or down. I will vote against\nit. You will vote for it. But I asked you a very simple question, not\nabout linking things together--nobody in the real world understands\nthat stuff. That is inside-the-beltway stuff.\n  What people in the real world know--and I want to take a moment to\nread some of these statements. We have a lot of people on our social\nmedia, and we asked the American people, just the other day: Tell me;\nwhat would a $2,000 check mean to you? What is going on in your life?\n  And in just over 24 hours, I would say to my friend from Texas,\nnearly 6,000 people responded. Here is just what a few of them had to\nsay. This is Twitter stuff. So I don't have their names here, and I\nwouldn't use them publicly, anyhow. But this is what they say.\n  One person writes: ``$2,000 is the difference between keeping our\napartment and being evicted.'' Here is another one: ``$2,000 means I\ncan afford to feed my three kids.'' Another response: ``It would mean\nnot having to choose between rent and groceries and not having to\nration my partner's meds.'' Another response: ``I am raising my\ngrandson with medical needs. I am $4,000 behind on utilities. We need\nelectricity to run his medical equipment.'' Here is another response:\n``$2,000 would mean I wouldn't have to worry about making my mortgage\npayment this month, and I could get my medication.'' Another response:\n``$2,000 would mean paying my rent and getting lifesaving treatment\nbecause I can't afford the $50 copay through my work insurance just to\nsee my neurologist right now''--and on and on and on. Thousands of\npeople responded.\n  So, I want to get back to the point. I want to again say to my friend\nfrom Texas: If you have a concern about corporate liability--good\nissue--bring it to the floor. Let's vote on corporate liability.\n  I would yield for a question from my friend from Illinois.\n  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I yield for a question through the Chair.\n  I have listened to the figures used on the floor about families who\nwould qualify for the $2,000. It is my understanding that an individual\nwith an income of $75,000 or less could qualify for the $2,000 payment,\nand for a joint return--husband and wife--$2,000 could be given to them\nif their income is under $150,000. Is that your understanding?\n  Mr. SANDERS. That is my understanding. And I think, you know, as\nRepublicans do, they are going to let it be.\n  But I get back to my friend--my friend from Texas, Senator Cornyn. We\nare asking a simple question. If you want to bring up corporate\nliability, bring it up. If you want to bring up section 230, bring it\nup. If you want to bring up the man in the Moon, bring it up. But what\nthe American people want now is an up-or-down vote.\n  Look, you are going to vote against it if it comes to the floor. That\nis fine. It is your right. Explain it to the people of Texas. I will\nvote for it. But all that I am asking for is the right, as a U.S.\nSenator, to have the vote.\n  Again I ask you: What is your problem with Members of the U.S.\nSenate, including a number of Republicans, who have already indicated\nthey would like to vote for this? What is your problem with bringing\nthat up as a single stand-alone bill, not merged with corporate\nliability or anything else? What is your problem with that?\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.\n  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would say to our colleague from Vermont:\nThis money is not targeted to people who have suffered financially.\n  Mr. SANDERS. Then vote against it.\n  Mr. CORNYN. It is not targeted to people who have suffered financial\nlosses. This money would go to members of your own staff if they meet\nthe financial requirements and to other government employees who have\nsuffered no financial loss during this pandemic.\n  We have all suffered in different ways during the pandemic, to be\nsure, but, financially, this money is designed to help the people who\nneed it the most. Why would you send money to government employees who\nhave been receiving their full paycheck during this pandemic?\n  Mr. SANDERS. That is a good question. And then I will have to explain\nthat to the people of the State of Vermont.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has the floor.\n  Mr. SANDERS. He asked me a question, as I understood it.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.\n  Mr. SANDERS. Did the Senator from Texas ask me a question?\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.\n  Mr. CORNYN. It was more of a rhetorical question.\n  Mr. SANDERS. I took you literally.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.\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-PgS7976"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 24.083819007501006, "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"}