Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 9051 and S. 5085
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SANDERS. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
I would ask my friend from South Dakota: Do you disagree with the Tax Policy Center, which says that the top 5 percent of Americans--the wealthiest people in our country--would receive less than 1 percent of the total benefits being disbursed?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source