To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to the authority of States or other taxing jurisdictions to tax certain income of employees for employment duties performed in other States or taxing jurisdictions.

LEGISLATIVE SESSION

______

SETTING FORTH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021--Resumed

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of S. Con. Res. 5, which the clerk
will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A resolution (S. Con. Res. 5) setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for
fiscal year 2021 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary
levels for fiscal years 2022 through 2030.

Recognition Of The Majority Leader

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.

Tribute to Ann Berry

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, first, I want to offer congratulations
to longtime Senate staffer Ann Berry, who will soon be taking over the
responsibilities of a very important job as Secretary of the Senate.
This is a position that dates all the way back to April 8, 1789, 2 days
after the Senate achieved its first quorum for business.
Ann's nomination was approved by the Senate yesterday afternoon,
making her the first African American and only the eighth woman to ever
serve in that position. It would be an understatement to say Ann knows
the Senate well. She brings four decades of experience in the Senate to
her new office, having worked with Senator Leahy for many years, and,
more recently, with Senator Jones from her home State of Alabama.
She is going to do a fantastic job helping the Senate through its
day-to-day responsibilities, and I look forward to seeing her up here
on the dais when she assumes her new title in a few weeks.
Once again, another ceiling has been broken, and we welcome Ann Berry
as Secretary of the Senate.

Coronavirus

Madam President, next, COVID. One year ago, the United States
reported 11 confirmed cases of COVID-19. A few days later, a woman from
California became the first American to die from this disease.
Today, those numbers stand at over 26 million Americans infected and
over 450,000 Americans dead. Along the way, COVID-19 has turned life as
we know it

[[Page S414]]

upside down. It triggered the greatest economic emergency since the
Great Depression, tens of millions of lost jobs, shuttered schools,
collapsed businesses, and the greatest healthcare crisis since the
Spanish pandemic flu.
Congress has come together on several occasions to pass important
relief measures--measures that did a lot of good. They saved jobs and
lives and businesses. But it has not yet been enough. The crisis is
still with us. The economy has weakened. Everyday Americans are
struggling with the basic costs of living, of necessities.
So today the Senate is going to take the next strong step forward in
passing a rescue plan to lift the country out of a crisis and set it
back on the path to normal. Starting this afternoon, we begin the
process of debating amendments to the budget resolution. When that
process is complete at whatever hour, we will vote on final passage and
pave the way for Senate committees to begin crafting the rescue plan
itself, in coordination with House committees as well.
The amendment process here today will be bipartisan, it will be open,
and it will be vigorous. Democrats and Republicans alike will have the
opportunity to share their ideas. We welcome that. Of course, what
amendments our friends in the minority propose is entirely up to them.
Now, the Republican leader hinted yesterday that his conference is
preparing several messaging amendments that they hope might score
political points. That is fine. That is their right. But I sincerely
hope our Republican colleagues approach our work today with the
intention of having serious ideas considered, not using the debate over
pandemic relief to sharpen ephemeral, partisan talking points. This
should be a very serious debate, a very much needed debate. We are in
one of the greatest crises America has ever faced. If there are good-
faith amendments from the other side, we look forward to them.
What we can't do, however, is think small in the face of big
problems. We cannot repeat the mistakes of the past. We cannot do too
little. We cannot lock our country into a long and slow recovery. We
must instead respond to the urgent needs in our country and chart a
bold path back to normal.
We must make sure that our country and its citizens have the
resources to survive the remaining months of challenge; that struggling
businesses can access loans and grants; that State and local
governments and, yes, Tribal governments are not forced to cut
essential services and millions of essential employees; and that our
doctors and medical workers can administer the vaccine as quickly and
as widely as possible. That is how we get back to normal. That is how
we survive the months in between until we get back to normal. And that
is what this budget resolution and the rescue plan are all about.

Impeachment

Madam President, now on impeachment, a few weeks ago, I laid out the
agenda for the Senate's opening few weeks: first, nominations; second,
major legislation to rescue the American people from the continued
effects of COVID-19; and third, an impeachment trial for Donald J.
Trump.
The Senate has made steady progress on the first two agenda items,
confirming several historic and exceptionally qualified nominees to
President Biden's Cabinet.
Tonight, we will be voting on the budget resolution--the first step
in giving the Congress the tools to pass a major relief bill.
On Tuesday, the Senate will begin to fulfill the third responsibility
that I outlined: the second impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump for
inciting a violent mob against the Capitol on January 6. They were
right near all of us--right near all of us.
It has been nearly a month since the attacks on the 6th. Time will do
its part to heal the scars left by that day, but we cannot allow it to
dull our sense of responsibility for holding to account those who
perpetrated and motivated the attack.
We were all witnesses to the events that day when a group of
insurrectionists, White supremacists, and domestic terrorists fed a
cavalcade of lies about the legitimacy of the American elections by the
former President, told to come to Washington by the former President,
whipped into a frenzy and directed toward the Capitol by the former
President, invaded and desecrated this sacred temple of democracy with
the intention of denying the counting of the electoral college vote--
the final act in certifying the former President's defeat.
The horrors of that day may have faded for some, not for others. Many
in this Chamber, staff, Senators, House Members, and House staff alike,
still live through this every single day--every single day. So it has
not faded for a lot of us. But as country, even for those for whom it
has faded, we cannot simply move on.

The U.S. Capitol Complex has been militarized, patrolled by the
National Guard, surrounded by a fence to safeguard the people's house
from the people themselves. Five people are dead. Just yesterday, we
held a memorial service in the Rotunda of this building for a Capitol
Police officer who was tragically killed during the attack.
There cannot be any healing without truth, without accountability.
The idea that we should sweep this under the rug and move on--one of
the greatest acts of perfidy against this government, against the
American people in our grand 200-some-odd-year history--no sweeping
under the rug.
So the trial will commence on Tuesday. Senators have already been
sworn in as judges and jurors. The House managers have filed their
brief. The former President's counsel have filed their answer. The
constitutional objection raised by some of my Republican colleagues has
been completely debunked by more than 150 scholars representing the
entire breadth of the political spectrum, including very prominent
conservatives like Steven Calabresi, the cofounder of the Federalist
Society.
We will move forward with a fair and speedy trial. The House managers
will present their case. The former President's counsel will mount a
defense. Senators will have to look deep into their consciences and
determine if Donald Trump is guilty and if so, ever qualified again to
enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
We will pass judgment, as our solemn duty under the Constitution
demands, and in turn, history will judge how the Senate and each
Senator responds.

Student Loans

Madam President, now on student loans, finally, later this morning, I
will join several of my Democratic colleagues from the House and Senate
to reintroduce our proposal to cancel up to $50,000 in Federal student
loan debt, a life-changing measure--life-changing--for Americans
struggling to stay afloat during this pandemic and secure financial
independence.
For tens of millions, especially people of color, college education
has represented the surest path to the middle class, but now that often
means taking on a mountain of debt that can take decades to pay off. It
makes it harder to own a home, save for retirement, and provide a
better life for loved ones. In the midst of a once-in-a-century crisis,
these Americans need relief fast. College has always been the ladder
up. For too many, it is now an anchor weighed down by huge amounts of
debt they almost can never see repaid in full.
I look forward to joining Senator Elizabeth Warren, as well as
Representatives Adams, Omar, and Jones, this morning to present our
plan for student loan debt cancellation.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is
recognized.

S. Con. Res. 5

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, this pandemic hit our Nation with
compounding layers of crisis. American families have faced a health
crisis, a jobs crisis, a small business crisis, an education crisis,
and, frankly, a social

[[Page S415]]

and community crisis--all piled on top of one another.
In response, Congress has built the largest Federal response to any
crisis since World War II--by far. In the last 11 months, we have
passed five major bipartisan rescue packages that sent about $4
trillion to fight the virus and to help American families.
For context, total net spending by the entire Federal Government back
in 2019 was $4.4 trillion. We have borrowed and spent almost as much
fighting COVID-19 as the Federal Government spent on everything in
2019. Our national debt is now larger than the size of our entire
economy for the first time since World War II.
This crisis has been historic. So has the Federal response. The
American people deserve for the conversation about the next steps to
begin with them and their needs--not partisan rush jobs, not talking
points. We need to start with the needs of our country. The most recent
package, another $900 billion, was literally passed 6 weeks ago--just 6
weeks ago.
Let's talk about, then, where we are right now. On the health front,
we have come through a terrible year. We have lost more than 450,000
Americans and counting. But our healthcare heroes held the line. The
genius of science plus Operation Warp Speed produced vaccines in record
time. The science and Operation Warp Speed produced vaccines in record
time. This administration's stated goal of 1 million shots per day is
exactly the pace they inherited from the prior team.
As we speak, nearly half of the money Congress has sent for testing
and about two-thirds of our funding for vaccine distribution is still
in the pipeline. That money has yet to be spent.
Let's talk about jobs. Last year, States had to take one of the best
job markets in American history, with layoffs and firings at 20-year
lows, and literally slam on the brakes to protect public health.
We spent historic sums to soften that blow. Two waves of direct
payment hit families' bank accounts. Multiple rounds of the Paycheck
Protection Program have helped small business workers stay employed. We
passed and extended extra Federal jobless benefits. As a result, even
as economic production fell last year, total personal income actually
went up. We saw the largest annual increase in disposable income in
almost 40 years. Household savings have shot up. Things are even
looking up in the service sector, where literally yesterday a key
measure of optimism hit a 2-year high.
There is no doubt that some families are still struggling. This isn't
finished, but experts agree the remaining damage to our economy does
not require another multitrillion-dollar, nontargeted bandaid.
Then there is education. Temporary emergency measures have sadly
become an enduring new normal for our students, parents, and teachers
as well, but, again, the horizon looks bright. Mounting evidence
confirms that in-person schooling is remarkably safe with smart and
basic precautions.
Let me say that again. The Biden administration's own scientists say
school can be quite safe and kids should be back in person. Dr. Fauci
says:

We need to try and get the children back to school. It's
less likely for a child to get infected in the school setting
than if they were just in the community.

The new CDC Director, Dr. Walensky, says:

I . . . want to be clear that there is increasing data to
suggest that schools can safely reopen, and that safe
reopening does not suggest that teachers need to be
vaccinated . . . [as] . . . a prerequisite.

These experts are not looking at hypothetical data conditioned on
Congress pouring even more huge sums into schools. They are describing
the science right now. They are describing the science right now.
Just 6 weeks ago, Congress sent another huge sum to help schools. It
brought the total for K-12 to about $68 billion. As of the latest
update, only $4 billion of the 68 had been spent. Ninety-four percent
of the K-12 funding we have already provided is still in the pipeline,
unspent.
So our Nation stands at a turning point on all these fronts. A dark
year is in the rearview mirror. Brighter days are already starting to
dawn, and much of the groundwork for a strong recovery is already in
place.
It will not serve Americans to pile another huge mountain of debt on
our grandkids for policies that even liberal economists say are poorly
targeted to current needs. It will not serve Americans to ram through a
one-size-fits-all minimum-wage hike that CBO says would kill more than
a million jobs for the most vulnerable workers, affect States
unequally, and already has bipartisan opposition.
This is no time to send wheelbarrows of cash to State and local
governments that simply, factually, do not need it. Nonpartisan
economists say States and localities are already ``well positioned to
weather the storm,'' with ``additional needs that are far less than the
$500 billion . . . in the Biden [plan].''
By the way, State and local tax receipts already fully rebounded--
fully rebounded--in quarter three to their highest level in American
history.
This is no time to ignore the science on school safety in order to
chase moving goalposts from Big Labor and pour endless sums into school
districts that unions will not allow to reopen.
If you combine the Democrats' new proposal with what just became law
6 weeks ago, the Democratic law plus this new proposal would dwarf the
size of the CARES Act, which sustained the country through months of
lockdowns
This is not the time for trillions more dollars to make perpetual
lockdowns and economic decline a little more palatable. Let me say that
again. This is not the time for trillions more dollars to make
perpetual lockdowns and economic decline a little more palatable. This
is the time to focus on our smart, targeted bridge to the day when we
end this chapter and win this fight.
Notwithstanding the actual needs, notwithstanding all the talk about
bipartisan unity, Democrats in Congress are plowing ahead. They are
using this phony budget to set the table to ram through their $1.9
trillion rough draft.
Last year, the Democratic leader kept saying we need a true,
bipartisan bill. He said: ``Sitting in your own office, writing a bill,
and then demanding the other side support it is not anyone's idea of
bipartisanship.'' That was the Democratic leader last year. Well, that
was then; this is now. Now Democrats reject the bipartisan approach
that built all five of our historic COVID packages. All five of them
were bipartisan.
So let's hope President Biden remembers the governing approach he
promised and changes course. In the meantime, if we are to debate this
phony, partisan budget, we will create some clarity for the American
people. We are going to put Senators on the record.
Expect votes to stop Washington from actively killing jobs during a
recovery, like terminating the Keystone Pipeline; that job-killing,
one-size-fits-all minimum-wage hike; and whether to bar tax hikes on
small businesses for the duration of this emergency.
Expect votes that would help target this plan towards Americans'
needs, issues like stimulus checks for illegal immigrants, pouring
money into schools where unions are blocking reopening, and the
commonsense step of delaying new spending until existing funds have
actually gone out the door.
We will see what this resolution looks like on the other side and
what signals Democrats send to the American people along the way.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered

Dream Act of 2021

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, someday I will write a book--maybe--and
one of the topics that I have thought of, because I spent most of my
adult life in the world of legislating, is what motivates or inspires
the idea to introduce a bill that might one day become a law.
I think many people would be surprised at what the motivation could
be. For example, on health issues, I have found Members who were
inspired because of the knowledge of someone in their family or a
friend who went through a challenge with a medical

[[Page S416]]

condition and asked them if they would help in the field of research.
Of course, many bills come to us from constituents who contact us and
have problems and challenges, and we realize the only real recourse is
a change in the law. That is the case with the bill I am introducing
today.
It was 20 years ago that we got a phone call in my office in Chicago,
and a woman who was the director of a music program in the city of
Chicago asked for some help. The program is known as the MERIT Music
Program, and a very kind lady left some money to the program with the
instruction that it should be used to teach students--low-income family
students--in public schools how to play a musical instrument and to
actually buy the instrument for them.

It has been spectacularly successful. And, of course, we learned that
many students, if they take up music, turn out to be not only musicians
but very good students.
The MERIT Music Program has quite a history. Well, they called and
told us 20 years ago that they had an amazing young woman who was part
of the MERIT Music Program, who had started playing the piano at the
age of 12 and was nothing short of a phenomenon. She had applied for
music schools that she might attend, and the major music schools--like
Juilliard and Manhattan Conservatory of Music--had expressed an
interest.
They had run into a problem, though, because when she filled out the
application form and they asked for her citizenship status. She said,
unfortunately, that she didn't know what it was, and her mother said:
Why don't we call Senator Durbin's office?
And that is how we got into the picture.
Her name was Tereza Lee. Tereza Lee was Korean American. She was
brought to the United States on a visitor's visa at a very early age,
at the age of 2, to Chicago. And when the visa expired, no effort was
made to renew it or to file any papers with the Federal Government.
She was a classic case of the undocumented alien. Her parents, some
of whom were here legally, and her siblings, some of whom were
citizens, did not spare her the problem that she faced in determining
her own status, and that is why they called us.
We learned that, even though she was 17 or 18 at the time and had
been in the United States all of her life that she could remember, she
did not have legal status. And the law said that Tereza Lee, at the age
of 17, had to leave the United States for 10 years and apply to come
back in legally.
I couldn't believe it when I heard it. My staff told me that they
didn't know what to tell her to do, and I soon realized the only thing
to do was to change the law and to give to young people brought here as
infants and toddlers and babies and young kids a chance to become legal
in America. That is why 20 years ago I introduced a bill called the
DREAM Act. The DREAM Act was for Tereza Lee.
I am going to interject here part of the story because I always
forget to tell the happy ending. Tereza Lee ended up applying to music
school in New York. She was accepted, and she went to school because of
the kindness of several families in Chicago who were so impressed with
her talent. She finished the 4 years of education at that music school
and was so good that she played in Carnegie Hall and then married an
American-born jazz musician in New York.
She is now the proud mother of three children. She is a music teacher
herself and an American citizen, by virtue of her marriage to the other
musician.
Tereza was the first Dreamer, but there were many just like her who
didn't have as much luck. They are still in a suspended animation
status when it comes to immigration and citizenship. So for 20 years on
the floor of the U.S. Senate, I have introduced this bill and told the
stories of the Dreamers.
I think I have gotten through to a number of people because the word
``Dreamer'' now really signifies more this citizenship status than
anything else. I joke that when I first started this mission, if you
were to ask people who were the Dreamers, older folks would have said:
Why, that is a British rock group, with a fellow named Freddie who is
the lead singer. But today when you mention the word ``Dreamers,''
people automatically think of these young people and their situation in
the United States, which, to this day, because of our failure to pass
the Dream Act, is still unresolved.
They came to the United States as kids. They are American in every
way. They went to our schools, and they stood up every morning and put
their hand over their heart to pledge allegiance to that flag--the only
flag they have ever known. They thought they were just like the kids
next to them, and then one day, the parents sat down and told them the
reality.
They go to school with our kids. We see them in church. We know that
they stand by the beds of our neighbors and relatives who are fighting
COVID-19. We know that they are injecting lifesaving vaccines in the
arms of our parents and loved ones. And they are giving back to America
as teachers, nurses, engineers, and soldiers, but they are not citizens
of the United States.
Today, I will once again reintroduce the Dream Act with Senator
Lindsey Graham, Republican from South Carolina, as my cosponsor. I want
to thank him for doing this and making it a bipartisan effort. We have
a long history of working together--though we disagree on many things,
but on this issue, we believe that Congress has an obligation to fix
our broken immigration system.
It was, as I mentioned, many years ago that I introduced the bill,
but it was 11 years ago that Republican Senator Dick Lugar, of Indiana,
on a bipartisan basis agreed to call on President Obama and ask him to
do what he could do to protect these young people from deportation.
President Obama created the DACA Program. The DACA Program meant that
these young people came forward, identified themselves, paid a
substantial fee, went through a criminal background check and a
national security check, and, if approved, were given a 2-year
renewable protection from deportation and a 2-year renewable right to
work.
More than 800,000 of these Dreamers came forward and received the
protection of DACA. It unleashed their full potential. I can tell you
over and over and over again, they will say to me: DACA changed my
life; I finally thought I had a chance to be part of America
And so they became soldiers and teachers and business owners and
everything imaginable.
In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, more than 200,000 DACA
recipients are essential infrastructure workers. That is not my term.
That is the definition of the Department of Homeland Security under
President Donald Trump.
Among these essential workers are 41,700 DACA recipients in the
healthcare industry: doctors, intensive care nurses, paramedics,
respiratory therapists--all of them in a suspended immigration status
because the Dream Act is still a bill and not a law.
On September 5, 2017, former President Trump repealed DACA. Hundreds
of thousands of these Dreamers faced losing their work permits and
being deported.
Last summer, the Supreme Court rejected President Trump's effort to
end deportation protection for Dreamers. In an opinion--an amazing
opinion--by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court held that President
Trump's attempt to rescind Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals,
known as DACA, was ``arbitrary and capricious.''
In one of his first official acts--I can't thank him enough--
President Biden signed an Executive order on January 20 to restore
DACA. I want to thank him from the bottom of my heart for making DACA
one of his highest priorities.
Without DACA, hundreds of thousands of talented young people who have
grown up in our country cannot continue their work and are at risk of
deportation to countries they barely remember, if they remember at all.
But the resumption of DACA is just the first step toward justice for
Dreamers. Only legislation by Congress can provide a path to
citizenship for Dreamers.
We know now that there are still efforts under way to eliminate DACA
protection in the courts of America. A recent case in Texas is a
reminder that a law has to pass.
I am honored that I have a chance to serve as chairman of the Senate
Judiciary Committee in this new Congress.

[[Page S417]]

As the child of an immigrant, I never dreamed that I would have this
opportunity to lead the committee in the Senate that writes our
Nation's immigration laws.
To all of the Dreamers out there, let me tell this: Passing the Dream
Act is still my highest legislative priority.
There was a fellow named Jack Valenti who worked for LBJ years ago,
and he used to say: ``Every good speech has six words in it.'' And so
he told me those words, and they are these: ``Let me tell you a
story.'' I have come to the floor of the U.S. Senate to tell the story
of the Dreamers 128 times.
Today, I want to tell you about Ana Cueva. She was born in Mexico and
came to the United States when she was 5 years old. She grew up in
Utah. What a student--she was president of the National Honor Society
at her high school, graduated in the top 10 percent of her class, and
volunteered at local hospitals in her junior and senior years.
Ana's dream? She wanted to become a nurse. Ana wrote me a letter, and
here is what she said about her dream:

My mom became very sick. She required emergency surgery for
a brain tumor. It was one year after arriving to the U.S., so
her English was [very] limited. After her recovery, she has
always said the nurses who cared for her were kind and
patient. Even though they couldn't communicate very well,
they touched her very deeply.

Ana said:

I wanted to do for others what these nurses did for my mom.

Driven by that commitment, Ana earned an associate's degree and a
bachelor of science in nursing at Utah Valley University. Thanks to
DACA, she became an ICU registered nurse. Most of her nursing career
has been in her home State of Utah, but during the COVID-19 pandemic,
she has become a travel nurse and has worked in California,
Massachusetts, Idaho, and Texas.
Here is what Ana said about the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic:

My soul aches. I have seen more people die in the past year
than my five years [before] as a nurse. I have held more
hands as people passed away alone and cried with families
through FaceTime and on the phone. I became numb for a short
while [there]. But as I find myself again, I remembered why I
do what I do.

I want to thank Ana for her service on the frontlines of the
coronavirus pandemic. She is a health hero. She is an immigrant health
hero. She is the face of DACA.
She has put her life at risk and her family at risk to protect
others. She should not also have to worry about whether she is going to
be deported and her family ripped apart.
So some people think we would be a stronger country if Ana Cueva
would leave: Go back to Mexico; you are not one of us. We have numbers
of immigrants we can accept each year, and you are not in that number.
You are illegal, you are undocumented.
What a loss that would be. If we lose Ana and people like her in the
middle of a pandemic, what would we be thinking? The fight is on for
Ana and for hundreds of thousands just like her who simply want a
chance to earn their way to legal status and citizenship in the United
States of America.
It would be a tragedy for us to turn away these brave, talented, and
determined professionals in the midst of this pandemic. So we have to
get to work in the Judiciary Committee and on the floor of the Senate.
This is the year. This is the time when we can come together and make a
difference in the future of America.
To Ana, we need you. We want you. We want to make you part of the
future of this country because you are such an important part of
America today. This Dream Act means a lot to me. We need to make it the
law.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Booker). The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.

Biden Administration

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, in his victory speech and in his
inauguration address, President Biden pledged to be a President for all
Americans. He said:

I pledge to be a President who seeks not to divide, but to
unify. Who doesn't see Red and Blue states, but a United
States. And who will work with all my heart to win the
confidence of the whole people.

He reiterated that sentiment at his inauguration stating:

On this January day, my whole soul is in this: Bringing
America together. Uniting our people . . . uniting our
Nation.

It is a sentiment that I honor. As I said the day after the
inauguration, if President Biden can truly be a President who governs
for all Americans and who respects all Americans and who works to win
the confidence of the whole people, he will have done our Nation a
great service.
But it is not enough to talk about unity. It has to be matched with
action. Too many of the President's actions so far have been more
calculated to appeal to the far-left wing of the Democratic Party than
to unite Americans. In his 2 weeks in office, the President has signed
off on a long list of Executive actions, many of which read like a wish
list of leftist priorities.
In a nod to the far-left environmental wing of the Democrat Party,
the President issued a new moratorium on oil and gas leasing on Federal
lands and called a halt to the Keystone XL Pipeline, even though we are
a long way from significantly reducing or eliminating our need for oil
and natural gas.
Domestic oil and gas production is essential to maintaining an
affordable and reliable energy supply here at home. Halting new oil and
gas drilling could jeopardize the stability of other affordable energy
supply and will definitely jeopardize American jobs supported by this
industry.
As for the Keystone XL Pipeline, stopping this project--which I would
point out is well underway--is nothing more than a symbolic gesture.
America will still need reliable sources of oil, and a modern pipeline
is a cleaner way to transport.
Keystone XL has been through multiple exhaustive environmental
reviews, and, on top of that, its builder has committed to fully
offsetting its operations with $1.7 billion in renewable energy
purchases. The oil trains, trucks, and other pipelines still moving
crude oil today aren't doing that. In fact, Canadian Prime Minister
Justin Trudeau, a staunch liberal, included the pipeline in Canada's
clean energy plan.
It is also worth noting, in addition to eliminating an
environmentally responsible means of transporting oil, canceling the
pipeline project will cost thousands of jobs, which is particularly
unfortunate given the many jobs that have been lost during this
pandemic. On day one of his Presidency, President Biden effectively
fired 2,000 pipeline workers and told another 9,000 never to show up.
Then, of course, there is the President's order halting construction
of the border wall on our southern border. The Biden administration has
plans for sweeping immigration reform but does not seem to be placing
much of an emphasis on border security. Instead, they have reduced the
wall to a symbol of the Trump administration and chosen to satisfy
immigration activists by halting construction without offering adequate
alternate ways to secure our borders against the flood of illegal
immigration or drug and human trafficking and other criminal activity.
Then, of course, there is the President's decision to overturn the
Mexico City policy, which prevents taxpayer dollars from being used to
fund abortions in other countries. The majority of Americans do not
believe in unrestricted abortion. A new poll released last month showed
a majority of Americans do not want their tax dollars going to fund
abortions, yet the President has acted to ensure that American tax
dollars can go to fund overseas abortions whether Americans want them
to or not.
In addition, this administration has given every sign that it intends
to pursue a radically pro-abortion agenda that is out of step with the
views of the majority of Americans.
Last week, the New York Times published an editorial urging the
President to slow down the Executive orders and to embrace
policymaking. The Times correctly pointed out that permanent
legislation on issues like immigration is better for the country than
wild policy shifts between administrations, and the Times urged the
President to focus

[[Page S418]]

less on Executive orders and more on legislating.
The editorial noted the President's pledge to seek unity and that on
the campaign trail he ``often touted his skill at finding compromise,
and his decades as a legislator, as reasons to elect him over Mr.
Trump.''
Now is the time for the President to show that he does really mean to
live up to his inaugural pledge and to unify our Nation. That means not
just talk, but action. It means working with lawmakers of both parties
to develop legislation, not pushing exclusively Democrat measures. It
means urging Democrat congressional leaders to actually negotiate with
Republicans instead of trying to force through an agenda that lacks the
support of half or more of the country. It means focusing less on
checking off the priorities of the far left and more on actually
representing the views of the majority of Americans.
The President has a chance to genuinely unify our Nation, but he will
have to decide whether or not he wants to take it.

S. Con. Res. 5

Mr. President, yesterday, I came down to the floor to talk about
Democrats' decision to pursue a partisan budget resolution designed to
pave the way for a partisan COVID relief measure, despite the fact that
Congress has produced five--five--prior COVID relief packages and
appropriated trillions of dollars on an overwhelmingly bipartisan
basis.
Republicans put forward several ideas to improve the measure: an
amendment to protect small businesses hit hard by the pandemic from
sudden tax increases; an amendment to ensure that schools actually
open, especially after teachers receive the vaccine; an amendment to
ensure that States deal honestly and transparently with the tragic
COVID deaths that had happened at certain nursing homes; an amendment
to protect healthcare workers who travel to other States to help during
the pandemic from getting surprise tax bills from those State as a
thank-you note.

I would like to think the Democrats would support some of these
amendments. My amendment to protect healthcare workers is based on
legislation I advanced that has received strong bipartisan support,
although it has been opposed by a handful of States, like the
Democratic leader's, that aggressively tax mobile workers.
So far Democrats have not shown much of an inclination to entertain
Republican ideas, no matter how much they would help address the
effects of the pandemic. Democrats have indicated that they may allow a
handful of amendments that enjoy some Republican support, but that
doesn't change the essentially partisan character of this undertaking,
which is designed to allow Democrats to pass the legislation that they
want on an entirely partisan basis.
Will we see political amendments on the floor during this process?
Sure, we will, from both parties.
Democrats have chosen a political maneuver instead of seeking to
replicate the bipartisan success we had with COVID bills like the CARES
Act. We did five--five--COVID bills while we were the majority at the
60-vote threshold, which is required for most legislation here in the
Senate, but with bipartisan support. Here we are in a purely partisan
legislative exercise on the floor of the U.S. Senate. So yes,
Republicans will offer some political amendments, but we will also
offer COVID-related amendments the Democrats should support if they
truly want to deliver help to those in need.
It is deeply disappointing that Democrats are heading down this
partisan path. If they really wanted to govern for all Americans, they
would work with Republicans to pass yet another bipartisan COVID bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to support the
budget resolution and to underscore the need for us to keep moving
forward on helping the American people during this pandemic.
It is clear to me from the people of the Northwest that we have to do
more to help them, whether it is vaccines, more PPE equipment, helping
our small businesses continuing to move through this process. It means
helping to also understand individuals most hard-hit by the pandemic
and sectors of our economy most hard-hit. It means helping to put kids
back into school. It means making sure that we fund the E-rate Program
and do more on broadband. And it also means we have to avoid more
layoffs, if possible, to help make sure Americans have jobs to pay the
bills at home.
I hope that we can find a bipartisan compromise and move forward on
these. There are issues that we have been able to do in the past two
COVID packages to get bipartisan support. I hope that our colleagues
will continue to look for those paths, but we have to keep helping the
American people within the Congress's jurisdiction.
I know some of my colleagues from the committee are going to come out
here and talk today. We have really focused on the issues of our
transportation sector and how hard-hit our transportation sector has
been.
I know that people see today's headlines even about airlines that are
issuing furlough notices as part of their requirement to do so. But
when we have these furlough notices, basically, what you are doing is
you are disrupting our transportation delivery system. People who end
up getting furloughed end up having to set retraining and reestablish
before they can go back to the sector.
We want to keep our transportation sector moving because, obviously,
the movement of goods and services of people is critical to delivering
on the pandemic and to helping our economy not suffer even greater
economic impact.
We have seen how important the transportation sector is. We have seen
even recently out in the West how our dockworkers, the ILWU and others,
have suffered major infection rates of COVID, and this now starts to
threaten our delivery of goods and products through those systems. We
need to do more to get them vaccines and to make sure that we are
moving Americans' products through our ports as well.
I want to talk about the fact that the aviation sector represents 5
percent of our GDP. That is 11 million jobs and $1.6 trillion in
economic activity. The aviation sector is important to us, overall, and
continuing to maintain our competitiveness there and to grow the
economy of the future is very critical. That is why we continue to work
for and look for ways to keep the aviation system going during the
pandemic and why we are continuing to move the support for airlines in
this package. Congress has twice acted to provide critical relief to
airline workers, pilots, mechanics, flight attendants, and we will
continue to do so as part of this budget reconciliation.
As I mentioned, avoiding furloughs keeps highly skilled pilots and
crew members trained and ready to go as part of the transportation
sector.
As we have seen with this economy, we are now--I think the sector is
back to almost 40 percent of where it was prior to the pandemic.
Helping to preserve that commerce and trade has helped our economy and
our U.S. airports, which also have been impacted by this and have had
continued economic losses, and we want to help them with moving forward
on this plan.
We also want to work on a bipartisan basis to do more to help
aviation manufacturing that has been greatly impacted by this. The
aviation aerospace sector has lost so many jobs, and there are hundreds
of thousands more at risk.
I know my colleague from Kansas and my colleague from Virginia,
Senators Moran and Warner, have been working on a proposal. We
certainly want to continue to work on a bipartisan basis to make sure
that as much of the aviation workforce can keep going, so as we return
to the very competitive environment of aviation, we have a workforce
that is skilled there to do it.
We also have to do more to help Amtrak. The revenues of ridership
dropped 97 percent compared to the 2019 ridership, and Amtrak has been
forced to furlough over 2,000 employees. It has had to cut essential
services on long-distance and State routes. Trust me. My colleagues
from Montana, Senator Tester and Senator Daines, have brought these
issues up. Without additional relief, essential services that connect
rural communities will be cut further. I can tell you, in Montana,

[[Page S419]]

where people go to see Glacier National Park and the wonders of that
great State, having this essential service is key.
We don't want do more damage to the economy, as we continue to deal
with the pandemic, by underinvesting in the infrastructure that has to
keep operating to help our economy. So I am going to continue to work
with our colleague Senator Wicker in his efforts on Amtrak and continue
to move forward.
Also, I know of the impact of transportation on the State budget that
we have seen. In the State of Washington, for example, there is a whole
list of projects that is now going to be delayed--projects that are not
finished, are not done--just because of the loss of revenue from
ridership and transportation. So our transportation infrastructure
needs to be kept going, and the workforce that keeps it going needs to
be supported. This is going to be a key aspect of the next budget
reconciliation package and what we are going to work on.
I hope our colleagues can understand how important this is to our
economy and how important it is to the men and women who serve in the
transportation sector. If I could just say, there are so many people in
the transportation sector that just went and did their jobs. We have
lost lives in aviation. We have lost lives in transit. We have lost
lives with dockworkers. People have just showed up to continue to do
their jobs, so we need to do better by passing this package and giving
them support, more vaccines, more equipment, and more support in
funding so we can keep Americans working in jobs but working safely.
That is what this next package will be about.
I yield to my colleagues who are going to talk about other priorities
within this particular sector. I see my colleague from New Mexico on
the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. LUJAN. Mr. President, the funding provided in the American
recovery package is critical to New Mexico's students, workers, and
families.
Among many measures important to New Mexicans, the budget resolution
provides emergency funds to close the homework gap for K-12 schools and
libraries, including those on Tribal lands. It provides emergency
funding for our rail and air infrastructure, including maintaining
essential air service in rural areas and passenger rail throughout the
Southwest. It includes emergency grant funding to support local
newspapers and broadcasters, who continue to provide fact- and
evidence-based reporting on local and national issues as advertising
revenues plummet.
New Mexico faces a digital divide, and the COVID-19 pandemic has
exacerbated existing disparities between the students who have
broadband access and the one in four who don't. Failing to address
these disparities risks widening the homework gap and making it harder
for students, especially those living in rural and Tribal communities,
to catch up. The budget resolution under consideration does right by
students, not only by helping them survive the public health emergency
but also by thriving long term.
By providing emergency funding for rail and air infrastructure, it
also saves jobs and communities in New Mexico. Our small airports and
rail stations are hubs of commerce that connect rural New Mexico with
markets across the United States and the world. As a new member of the
Senate Commerce Committee, I am ready to get to work and get the job
done on these New Mexico priorities.
What Congress is working toward today--providing essential support to
help fight and recover from the coronavirus pandemic--matters little if
those most in need do not trust in America's institutions enough to
benefit from this support. That is why I am particularly proud of the
resolution's support for local journalism. With this resolution,
Congress has an opportunity to help our students, protect jobs and
businesses, and fulfill our moral duty. The Senate must do everything
in its power to provide the tools for the American people to recover
and to rebuild.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I am here to emphasize just how important
this budget resolution is to unlocking opportunity for millions of
children across our country. I am here to shine a bright light on a
problem that predates the coronavirus but that has been severely
exacerbated by the ongoing pandemic. I am speaking about the homework
gap experienced by as many as 12 million children in the United States,
who, right now, today, nearly a year into this public health emergency,
still do not have internet access at home and are unable to participate
in online learning.
This is a national disgrace, and it is going to come back to haunt
our Nation for a generation. Children should not be missing the third
grade because they are not connected. They should not be missing the
fifth grade. They are going to pay a huge, long-term price because of
that lack of connectivity. Before the pandemic, these students were at
an educational disadvantage already because they could not complete
homework assignments that required internet access after class, but,
today, the problem is exacerbated with most schools being closed and
household kitchen tables becoming virtual classrooms during the
pandemic. Even as we try to safely reopen schools in the weeks and
months ahead, distance learning is not going away both because of the
continuing health crisis and the need to make up for severe learning
loss during these past 11 months.
The bottom line is that, if a young student has no internet
connection or device, she cannot learn. That means that those 12
million students in America, right now, without connectivity, who are
disproportionately from communities of color, low-income households,
and rural areas, are falling further behind in their studies every
single day that this pandemic continues.
There is no reason the country that invented the internet cannot
provide it to children who need it to learn and to develop. We as a
society simply cannot allow an 8-year-old to miss the third grade
because she does not have the internet at home. These vulnerable
students are no longer facing just a homework gap; they are facing a
learning gap, and it will likely become an opportunity gap for the rest
of their lives because those opportunities come from a good education.
To close this gap and correct this educational injustice, we must
immediately connect these students to the internet. Given its history
and success, it is just common sense that we use the E-rate Program as
a guide to connect students where they are currently learning--at home.
The E-rate, which already connects schools and libraries to the
internet, is a trusted program, deliberately designed to require an
equitable distribution of funding to our most vulnerable communities,
urban and rural, blue and red. I created the program more than two
decades ago, and it has since invested more than $52 billion in the
educational connectivity for children, especially in the poorest
communities, and that has unleashed another $50 billion. From the State
and local levels, which is $100 billion from that E-rate Program that I
authored out of the House of Representatives in 1996, it is still the
greatest educational technology program in the history of our country.
It has led to the deployment of this technology on school desks at
the same rate for poor children as rich children. That is the first
time that has ever happened. Yet, today, there is a gap because many of
these children--millions of them--do not have it at home. That is the
gap. In many instances, it is not a digital divide; it is a poverty
divide that is leading to this crisis. It is a poverty divide. Because
their parents cannot afford the connectivity and because they cannot
have this service for their children, we are going to see an absolute
disgrace which will befall our country when we look back and see what
has happened to these kids.
That is why we need in this reconciliation package billions of
dollars which are going to be included. We have to make sure that the
funding is there for every city, for every school system, for every
parent to have a kid who is connected for as long as this takes, and we
don't know how long it is going to take. Children are only 20 percent
of our population, but they are 100 percent of our future, and, right
now, we

[[Page S420]]

are leaving behind millions of them who will have much less of an
opportunity to be able to maximize their God-given abilities.
I am here to say that the one thing we must do this time, which the
Republicans forced out of the package in December, is put the billions
of dollars in in order to make sure that all children have access to
the internet at home for their educational opportunities.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am really honored to follow my
colleague from Massachusetts, Ed Markey, one of the premier founders--
the father--of E-rate, who knows better than anyone how investment in
online learning and connectivity can make a crucial difference in all
of our lives--in the lives of seniors, in the lives of people who live
in communities of color, and in other underserved areas of our country.
Most importantly, it can make a crucial difference in the lives of
schoolchildren. Most crucially, right now, the simple, stark fact about
this pandemic is that it has locked out of classrooms millions of
students around the country. We need to get those students back into
the classroom, and it has to be done safely.
In the meantime, online learning is going to be critical for them.
Yet substantial numbers--most especially in communities of color--lack
the connectivity and the devices they need to open classroom doors. In
many of those households, working parents simply can't be around to
supervise their children. It is more than just the nuts and bolts of
devices; it is learning about how to learn online, but at the very
least, the nuts and bolts have to be there, and that is why this
American rescue program is so critical to the lives and learning of
these millions of students.
The simple fact is that this homework gap is no longer a gap--it is a
chasm. The homework gap has turned into a homework chasm and a homework
crisis that threatens to set back students by months and even more. The
fact is, right now, students are estimated across the country to have
lost 3 to 5 years. In communities of color, that loss may be even
worse, and once students have suffered that loss in learning, catching
up, overcoming it, and bridging that gap is very difficult and
sometimes impossible to do, which is a lifelong potential setback for
them.
We are, in effect, disadvantaging American education by allowing this
homework chasm to continue.
The American rescue program provides a model--it provides money but
also a model in how the homework gap can be bridged and the chasm
avoided.
We have made a promise. America makes a promise to its students that
the basics of education will be provided so they can have an equal
chance at the American dream. We are failing to keep that promise.
Now, there is really nothing mysterious about how to bridge this gap.
In fact, I am proud to say that my State of Connecticut has done it
very significantly--I am tempted to say ``has done it,'' but nobody is
perfect.
Connecticut has built a program called Everybody Learns at the
initiative of our Governor, Ned Lamont, who has used Federal money from
the CARES Act. We have used significant private philanthropy--for
example, from Ray and Barbara Dalio, great citizens of the State of
Connecticut, and their foundation, which has contributed mightily,
particularly in the Hartford area, where the leadership of Mayor Luke
Bronin has been absolutely critical. What they have done, very simply,
is provide tens of thousands of tablets, the kind of devices that are
necessary for students to connect, and they have provided hot spots so
that students have that way of reaching the internet. No mystery--
simply hard work and money. Most important, commitment.
I am asking my colleagues today for that same commitment to our
Nation and to Connecticut, which needs to finish the job of connecting.
The Secretary of Education--or the nominee for that position--Miguel
Cardona, knows very well the importance of online learning. He has
championed it in Connecticut. Yesterday, he testified about it to the
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and he is going to be
a very steadfast advocate, a trusted champion for online learning. But
he, too, needs the tools and the resources.
Think of it not as a spending item, not as a funding measure; it is
an investment. It is an investment in the basics of devices and
connectivity. It is an investment in our young people.
Connecticut has made that investment, and we should not be skimping
or cutting corners on our young people. We should not be, in effect,
shortchanging them at this critical time when connectivity, broadband,
online learning are really the lifeline for them.
Let's put them online with this lifeline and give them the ability to
continue their education, even as the pandemic locks them out of
classrooms. They may be physically no longer in person, but online,
they can connect. If they are denied that online access, they will be
truly locked out of learning, not just locked out of their classroom,
and that would be a disgrace for this Nation.
I thank my colleagues for what I hope will be their commitment to
continuing American teaching and education online during this
unparalleled, uniquely painful and difficult time in our Nation's
history. We can make it is easier for students. We can save them the
homework chasm and the homework crisis.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Unanimous Consent Agreement--Trial of Donald John Trump, President of
the United States

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Secretary of the Senate be authorized, in relation to the pending
impeachment trial of former President Trump, to print as Senate
documents those documents filed by the parties to be immediately made
available to all parties, and that at the conclusion of the trial,
those douments be printed together as a Senate document.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.

S. Con Res. 5

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to address the
body today about the bill we are to take up and debate and advance this
evening and about several different provisions that are of specific
concern and interest to me, to the residents of the State of Delaware,
and to our Nation.
Let me just remind all of us the moment that we are in. There are 26
million Americans who have been infected by COVID-19, a dread, deadly,
global pandemic, and 445,000 Americans have been killed so far in this
pandemic--far too many.
In my little home State of Delaware--just 900,000 people--we not too
long ago passed 1,000 deaths, and, like many other States, we are
racing to deliver vaccines and to address the economic and the human
wreckage of this pandemic and the recession caused by the bungled
mishandling of this pandemic by the now previous administration. I am
encouraged because there is also a positive number: 34 million
Americans have been vaccinated.

Delaware has been at the forefront of delivering vaccines quickly and
safely, and now with President Biden and his team at the helm, they are
pulling together the resources of our Nation--using the Defense
Production Act to deliver needed PPE, testing capabilities, and
vaccines to every corner of our country. They have a lot of work to do.
They are behind because of some of the failures of the past, but I am
excited by the promise of the future.
Yesterday, I had the honor of meeting with President Biden in the
Oval Office for an hour first thing in the morning, and we talked about
this pandemic and his plan, the American Rescue Plan, the $1.9 trillion
in badly needed relief that will touch almost every American family and
move us quickly out of this pandemic and back toward growth and
security, health and

[[Page S421]]

prosperity. And his determination, despite all the back-and-forth about
numbers--his determination, at the very core of what we do, is to keep
in mind the middle class of this country, the folks who have been
overlooked, underserved, and most disadvantaged. He is passionate about
seeing the ways in which this pandemic has revealed the deep inequities
in our country and making sure of how we respond to educational needs,
to housing needs, to transportation needs, and to healthcare needs,
that we combat the profound inequalities of our society and Build Back
Better.
As Senator Carper and I were sitting with President Biden, going over
$1,400 checks and this many months of unemployment extension and this
much for housing and homelessness or this much for transit, he said:
Wait, wait. Just remember at the end of the day, keep in your mind's
eye a family--a plumber and a teacher with two kids at home, one of
them laid off, desperately trying to pay their rent, trying to figure
out how to pay their bills, trying to figure out how they can keep a
roof over their kids' heads. Remember the people we are trying to help
and serve.
I am reminded of Mark from New Castle, who called my office to tell
me he had been laid off, and he was desperately afraid, that he was
struggling because he was fighting cancer, a health condition, and
fighting homelessness, concerned about losing his home. Fighting
housing and homelessness, combating homelessness and ensuring security
of housing has got to be at the center of how we respond to this
crisis.
Economist Mark Zandi says there is $57 billion in owed back rent
unpaid. One of the best things we have done as a body is to extend the
eviction moratorium that the CDC imposed last year. A key piece of the
bill we are taking up and debating is to ensure that more Americans
have an opportunity to safe, sanitary, decent, and affordable housing.
Before this pandemic, more than 17 million American households spent
more than half their money on rent or mortgage, unaffordable to any
household--those 17 million households stretched to their limits. The
pandemic has made the risk of eviction or foreclosure greater than
ever.
Some know my early years were spent working around issues of housing
and homelessness. I served with the National Coalition for the Homeless
in New York and in five other States around the country, staying in
homeless shelters in the late eighties, when homelessness was an
explosion, a crisis across this country that impacted families and
communities of all types and backgrounds.
People experiencing homelessness are particularly vulnerable to
COVID-19. Homeless individuals infected are twice as likely to be
hospitalized, four times as likely to need critical care, and three
times as likely to die.
In Delaware, on Martin Luther King Day, as part of a service project,
I got a chance to visit the Hope Center. The Hope Center used to be
known as the Sheraton. It was a hotel in foreclosure, and an innovative
county executive used some of the CARES Act money that we provided
federally to the State and local governments to buy it at auction and
to reopen it as a source of 192 emergency housing rooms that can have
up to 400 people in it. It was great to tour that center on Martin
Luther King Day, to be part of those delivering personal items and
material for those who are now resident at the Hope Center. But it is
just one of many examples of how Federal resources we provided last
year have been used creatively to help keep people in rental housing,
in emergency housing, or in their homes.
The CDC Federal eviction moratorium was extended in the bill we
passed in December, but it runs out in March; thus, the urgency of our
acting. And President Biden's American Rescue Plan includes $30 billion
in emergency rental assistance and $5 billion to prevent further
outbreaks of COVID-19 among America's homeless population. We need to
make this a key piece of this provision, an important part of this
bill, and it is my hope we can find support on both sides, but if we
don't, we must move forward.
Let me speak to two other topics before I yield the floor, if I
might.
Those of us on the East Coast, and my colleague from Maryland and my
colleague from New Jersey are certainly among them, travel by Amtrak
frequently. Before this pandemic, Amtrak carried a record 32 million
passengers just 2 years ago. But just like the airlines when the
pandemic hit, it lost the vast majority of their passengers. So, too,
did Amtrak and commuter rail all over our country. It has been a key
piece of our society, our competitiveness, our interconnectedness for
over a century, and there are millions who depend on it as their way to
commute up and down the East Coast corridor in particular.
My office recently heard from Ken Potts, the Delaware representative
for the Rail Passengers Association, about the urgent need for funding;
and, frankly, this is a warning notice for those of us who don't
realize that I-95, right as it goes through Wilmington, DE, is about to
be shut down for most of the next 2 years on a generational repair
project. There is going to be 100,000 people deterred off of the
highway, and hopefully onto rail, but only if it can keep running.
There are 1,200 furloughed Amtrak employees on the east coast and
other places around the country. Those are the folks I interact with on
the days when I commute from Wilmington to Washington. I get a chance
to talk to the staff, the conductors, the people who work at Union
Station or in Wilmington's Joe Biden Station. Twelve hundred furloughed
employees and families struggling, just like the airlines, every bit as
deserving of relief, and the budget resolution would allow for the $2
billion over the course of this pandemic that they need. We have
provided relief before. We need to provide relief in this bill and
going forward.
As I mentioned in my opening, getting the vaccine distributed as
quickly as possible is the most urgent thing before us. Last Saturday,
I had the chance to volunteer for several hours at a vaccination site
with Drs. Coker and Hockstein, put together at ENT & Allergy of
Delaware. They vaccinated over 150 people, and they had connected to
and reached out to some churches that I am familiar with and fond of--
Seeds of Greatness, Bethel AME.
But we are under pressure because there are new variants of this
virus emerging around the world. What viruses do is they mutate. Some
of you know there are new variants from South Africa, from Brazil, from
the UK that are more transmissive and, potentially, more deadly. So one
of the things we have to keep an eye on is that we cannot close
ourselves off from the world. Something that is missing from the
Republican proposal and that is urgently needed that is in the Biden
American Rescue Plan is $11 billion to help with global vaccination
relief.
I recently spoke with Strive Masiyiwa, a dear friend from Africa who
is leading the African Union's plans for how to vaccinate the 54
countries on the Continent of Africa Sure, the Russians have offered
their Sputnik vaccine, which was not fully and transparently developed
and tested. The Chinese are offering their vaccine. But what I believe
the developing world would welcome with open arms, if we would just
fund it and provide it, is the rapid scale-up, production, and
manufacturing in countries like South Africa, India, and elsewhere of
the tried, true, tested, scientifically sound vaccines made available
by Pfizer, by Johnson & Johnson, by Moderna, by the Western companies
like AstraZeneca and others that have shown that their vaccines are
safe.

The United States has long been a leader in world health. We have
inspired the world in the way in which we have brought our medical
advances, our scientific capability, and our humanitarian commitment to
the world. This should be another chapter in that long and great
history.
And we must remember that no one in this world is safe from this
pandemic until the entire world has been successfully vaccinated. If we
do not contribute to the global vaccine campaign of COVAX, if we do not
participate in the World Health Organization in meeting the needs of
the developing world, it will simply come back to the people of the
United States.
Of course, we must prioritize vaccinating our Nation, our people,
Delawareans. But just as Joe Biden in the Oval Office earlier this week
asked me to keep in my mind's eye that family sitting around a kitchen
table, worried, struggling with finances, with their

[[Page S422]]

health, with their future, we have to keep our eye on the horizon, on
having passenger rail available to recover when our country recovers,
on having housing and affordable housing options for families who are
struggling with homelessness, and our eye on the horizon of the
potential threat from the rest of the world of more dangerous variants,
which is why we need to contribute to a global campaign to ensure that
all of the world's people are safe from this pandemic.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to these three connected
concerns, all of which touch on Delaware's families and our Nation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, let me start by thanking my colleague
from Delaware for outlining the urgency of the moment and reminding us
that the United States is not an island; that we have to address these
issues together. And I am pleased to see President Biden reasserting
American global leadership on all sorts of fronts, including the
healthcare front.
Mr. President, I come to the floor today to support the budget
resolution that is before us. As our country together fights the COVID-
19 health crisis and the economic fallout, more than 450,000 of our
fellow Americans have died of COVID-19--200,000 more than the country
that has experienced the next highest death toll. It is an unacceptable
toll of suffering, and the economic fallout is painful as well.
Main Street is struggling. We have seen thousands of small businesses
shuttered. Our students are facing an ever-widening education gap.
Families are contending with mounting bills and food insecurity. It is
a crisis that has upended every part of American life and which has
disproportionately harmed working families, communities of color, our
children, and the elderly.
I am glad that this Congress has been able to come together on a
bipartisan basis before to deliver important emergency relief, but now
is not the time to pat ourselves on the back and say we are done and
throw in the towel. We need to go big, and we need to do it before it
is too late, so we can beat this virus, get help to those who are
hardest hit, and put our economy on the road to recovery. We must pass
a package that meets the moment, and that is what the Biden proposal
does: beating the pandemic by accelerating the delivery of vaccines and
testing, helping to get our students back into school as fast as
possible, and do it safely, and get our economy moving again--an
economy that continues to suffer the wounds of the pandemic that has
killed jobs and ballooned unemployment.
Right now, we are seeing a K-shaped recovery, a tale of two
economies. Some people are bouncing back just great, like a V shape,
but many others are flatlined or actually going further and further
under. At the very top, the wealthy are doing just great. The stock
market had a good year in 2020. The S&P 500 went up 16 percent. But it
is no secret that stock holdings are concentrated among the very elite
and that almost half of all American households have no stock holdings
at all, including in 401(K) or other retirement plans. So don't tell me
that the country is doing well because the stock market is up because
the stock market conceals the whole other economy.
Here is a little story that illustrates the point, which is that in
Baltimore City, per capita income is roughly $54,000, but if last year
Jeff Bezos moved to Baltimore City, the average per capita income would
be $175,000. People struggling in Baltimore City would be no better
off, but it would appear that way if you simply look at the averages.
So, as we look at these economic figures, let's remember that
averages conceal the real hurt being experienced by so many people. In
fact, over 18 million of our fellow Americans are relying on
unemployment benefits right now to sustain themselves and their
families, and that relief will begin to expire in mid-March if we don't
act.
Four million Americans have been out of work and looking for a job
for at least 6 months. The harsh reality is that the longer someone is
unemployed, the harder it is for them to get a new job, and when they
do, it is often at a much lower wage, and that lower pay then follows
them for decades. That is the story of countless American families
holding on today against the torrent of financial hardship.
So to those who claim ``Don't worry. This is all going to blow over.
Let's just delay our efforts to provide urgently required relief'' or
``Let's provide less,'' I say let's look at the hard facts.
If you look at the projections that just came out from the
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, they indicate that
unemployment will remain above 4 percent until the year 2025 unless we
do something different. That means that even after the last vaccine
shot goes into the last arm, we may be caught in the wake of this
economic down tow for years unless we act now.
So we shouldn't get complacent. We shouldn't look at those overall
average numbers. We shouldn't look at the stock market. We should
listen to the stories of people who are suffering, and if we don't act,
they will be suffering for much longer than they have to. That is why
it has been said that the risk is not that Congress might do too much
but that we might do too little.
I remind my colleagues that we have been in this place before. Many
of my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle have scar tissue
from 2009. Remember, we were facing a financial meltdown that was
taking the entire economy under, and here in the U.S. Senate at that
time, then-President Obama was working to get a big economic relief
package through. They had plenty of Democrats--at least 57 Democrats
were on board; a majority of this body--but needed just some
Republicans to join in this effort. Well, what happened was that the
proposal, the bold proposal, got negotiated down and down and down and
then barely squeaked by the U.S. Senate.
Even after all that long, bipartisan negotiating, in the House of
Representatives, not a single Republican Congressperson voted for that
bill. So we ended up with a divided Congress and an inadequate recovery
bill, and our Republican colleagues spent the next many, many years
complaining that the economic recovery after the downturn had taken too
long. It was the longest and slowest economic recovery in history, when
if we had been permitted to go big and bold, we could have changed that
trajectory.
That is why Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen said that now we
have to go all in. She said:

Neither the President-elect--

This was her earlier testimony--

nor I propose this relief package without an appreciation for
this country's debt burden. But right now, with interest
rates at historic lows, the smartest thing we can do is act
big. In the long run, I believe the benefits will far
outweigh the costs, especially if we care about helping
people who have been struggling for a very long time.

Even President Trump's former top economist, Kevin Hassett, supported
that assessment and has said that if we don't act now, we could end up
in a negative spiral for the economy.
The American public sees this very clearly. If you just look at
recent polls, 70 percent of the American public is fully on board with
President Biden's bold plan. That is reflected in a Quinnipiac poll
that came out just today. The Navigator data said the same thing. The
American public recognizes that we have to act big and we have to act
now to make sure that we beat this pandemic and that we get our economy
back on track just as soon as possible.
We all would like to have our Republican colleagues as partners in
this effort. President Biden has made that very clear. But the
overriding priority must be to meet the moment and take care of the
needs of the American people. That is what the American people are
telling us. I hope all of us will listen.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the Federal Government has become too big and
too expensive, and it has been this way for quite a long time. It is
not without its impact. It has been borrowing and

[[Page S423]]

spending far too much money and doing too many things even before the
COVID-19 global pandemic, but this emergency has really shown how badly
we need to return to some semblance of federalism, some semblance of
Federal restraint with respect to what it does and particularly what it
spends.
I say this because emergencies, national emergencies, will arise from
time to time. It happens. And when those things happen from time to
time, the Federal Government will need to expend some significant
resources and borrow money. That is exactly why we should not be
running multitrillion-dollar deficits at the top of the business cycle
to begin with.
During a period of significant economic expansion, not a recession,
we were already spending more than we had. It makes it much harder for
us to respond, be nimble, and do the things we need to do. This has
been a long-term problem because Washington, DC, has been centralizing
political power and political decision making now for generations. It
has not made the Federal Government more effective but, rather, weaker
and less effective. It has made it slower, less nimble, more rigid, and
inflexible.
We need to start turning policy in the other direction, localizing
more decisions so all Americans in red States and in blue States alike,
regardless of where they live, can live under policies that they are
more likely to agree with. That is the beauty of federalism. It allows
more Americans to have access to more of the kind of government they
want and less of the kind of government they don't want.
That is the goal of the budget resolution amendments that I will be
introducing this week. I will be introducing a number of amendments,
and I will cite a few examples here.
First, I am going to propose an amendment to ensure that Congress's
voice and the voices of our State governments are heard in the
designation of national monuments.
Utah has been home to two significant, massive national monument
designations over the last 25 years. One thing they both had in common
was they were made contrary to the expressed will of local and
statewide elected officials and Utah's congressional delegation at the
time they were made.
These two monument designations in and of themselves are larger than
two Delawares. Yet they were made without any input from Congress and
without any input from the host State's legislature. The Antiquities
Act currently allows this to happen. My amendment would propose that we
allow the people's elected representatives in Congress and the affected
State legislature to have input.
I will also be filing an amendment to ensure full funding for a
program known as PILT. PILT is an acronym; it stands for payment in
lieu of taxes. It is something very important to public land States
like mine.
You see, the Federal Government doesn't pay property tax on land that
it owns. In a State like mine where the Federal Government owns most of
the land--two-thirds of it, in fact--it can be very difficult for many
of our communities to survive because without that property tax
revenue, they find it difficult to fund everything from schools to
search and rescue operations, police and fire services, and so forth.
The Federal Government makes up for some of this through this payment
program that is supposed to in some ways replicate the property taxes
that the taxing authority would otherwise receive, and they call it
payment in lieu of taxes. The problem is, they haven't accurately
assessed the value of the land. My amendment would call for a more
accurate assessment of the land so that these taxing jurisdictions can
get what they need.
I will also be proposing a significant amendment to increase access
of the American people to health savings account systems. HSAs, health
savings accounts, do nothing to undermine the efficacy or the
prominence of government-run healthcare systems. They do, however, do a
lot of good for those who have them. They simply add a private option
for American families who would like to make some of their own
decisions about how they would like to spend their healthcare dollars.
If they would like to spend more on nutritional supplements, they
should be able to do that. If they would like to spend more on
preventive care, they should be able to do that. HSAs give them the
answer, and one of my amendments would expand their opportunities.
I will be offering an amendment to streamline the regulations under
the environmental law known as NEPA, the National Environmental Policy
Act. NEPA has achieved significant environmental gains in this country,
but it needs to be updated and modernized so as to make i easier for us
to complete infrastructure and construction projects, which have become
too slow and too expensive.

I have a number of other amendments, including one that would
increase the child tax credit significantly in order to further
diminish a little-known but pernicious aspect of our Federal Tax Code
known as the parent tax penalty.
I will be introducing another amendment to increase the recognition
and the credit that Americans receive for making charitable
contributions--especially important during a global pandemic like this
one.
I have another amendment protecting Americans' Second Amendment
rights, one protecting religious freedom, and one dealing with gasoline
tax, which I don't think should be increased, especially during
difficult times like these and especially given the regressive nature
of the fuel tax.
I have another amendment dealing with some legislation I have
developed called the PROMISE Act. This would help to make sure that
interactive online providers--entities including but not limited to
social media platforms--make clear what their standards are, what they
will be doing to moderate speech on their platforms, for example, how
they will be enforced, and gives them incentive, with possible
penalties under law if they deceive their customers about what their
policies are and how they will be enforced.
The bottom line here is that the Federal Government's size has not
been making it stronger or more nimble or more effective; its size and
its bureaucracy have undermined its work, from our COVID response to
our entitlement crisis, to our dysfunctional welfare system, which,
while intended to alleviate poverty and make it rare, has instead
sometimes made it longer lasting.
Reform doesn't mean just doing the same exact things but spending a
little bit less; it means modernizing and streamlining processes and
devolving, where appropriate, certain government functions to State and
local governments that are closer and more accountable to the people.
The way we serve the American people is not just by letting
bureaucrats and politicians make decisions for them thousands of miles
away in Washington, DC. The way we achieve true, effective government
and fair government is by giving all Americans up and down the income
scale and across the political spectrum the power to make their own
decisions and to make them as locally as possible.
Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as we all know, over the last year,
coronavirus relief has dominated our work here in the Congress. To the
surprise of some, Republicans and Democrats have worked closely
together to bolster our response on both the public health and economic
front so we can bring an end to this crisis as quickly as possible. Not
surprisingly, there were some disagreements along the way--there always
are--but both sides understood the importance of action and reaching a
bipartisan deal.
Part of the reason was pure function. With a divided government,
every piece of legislation involves compromise. You are forced to work
with folks on the other side of the aisle to reach an agreement. That
is a good thing because that is what it requires to reach the
President's desk and earn the President's signature.
But the reasons for working together on COVID-19 relief are more than
just the practical or functional requirements. Over the last year, I
have spoken with countless Texans who have faced incredible challenges
and dealt with unimaginable hardship. There are folks who have lost
their jobs and have lost loved ones, who fought this virus on the
frontlines in hospitals, and who have tried to support their
communities throughout this crisis. I know

[[Page S424]]

colleagues throughout the Chamber have heard similar stories from their
constituents back home because every State and every community has been
impacted by this virus.
Regardless of politics, we all realize this virus has taken a
devastating toll on the American people, and we need to remain
committed to providing relief. There have been big disagreements, of
course, about the best way to do that, but in the end, if we share the
same goal--to bring an end to this pandemic as quickly as possible and
minimize the pain and suffering of the American people--we can figure
out how to make this happen.
That common goal has led to five bipartisan relief packages that have
represented the best ideas of each party.
None of these bills are perfect, but I am sure both sides will agree
that, in the end, every COVID package that has been signed into law has
received overwhelming bipartisan support. As a matter of fact, none of
the bills have received less than 90 votes, and one passed unanimously.
That is spending close to $4 trillion. That is a remarkable, remarkable
accomplishment.
In the beginning, President Biden appeared to agree that a
continuation of this bipartisan approach was the best for the country.
After all, his campaign was built on a theme of unity, and he has
consistently talked with great eloquence about the need to heal our
divisions and work together and compromise.
To his credit, he has met with a number of our Republican colleagues
at the White House earlier this week to discuss what a compromise
package might look like. Ordinarily, that would be seen as an
encouraging development. We have a Congress with a record of bipartisan
COVID-19 bills and a President who talks about the desire to broker
deals that could win the support of both political parties.
But, unfortunately, what might seem like good news and a positive
development really isn't because in the mix you have the Democratic
leader, who is not on board with the President's call for unity and
bipartisanship.
Less than 24 hours after the bipartisan meeting at the White House
and just 15 days after the President's inauguration, the majority
leader laid the foundation to pass President Biden's massive $1.9
trillion package with zero Republican votes. They are not interested in
doing the hard work it takes to build consensus. Rather than take the
normal legislative process, which was used for each of the bipartisan
bills that had previously passed, the Democratic leader is preparing to
use the budget reconciliation process to pass this controversial
legislation.
And please note: We passed a $900 billion bill in December, and only
20 percent of the money that we appropriated is even out the door yet.
This is not the time to try to make political statements. This is the
time to try to parse where the needs are and to target those resources
to the people who need them--not a time to pass your liberal outbox and
agenda.
So, unfortunately, this reconciliation process is designed not to
encourage bipartisanship, not to encourage negotiation, not to get
bipartisan buy-in. In short, it is not designed to achieve unity at
all--just the opposite.
Well, after spending almost a trillion dollars this December, just
about a month ago--again, with only 20 percent of that money actually
out the door and on the way to the people who need it--our Democratic
colleagues are prepared to spend nearly double that amount when a huge
portion of the previous funding hasn't even reached its intended
target.
As of a couple of weeks ago, States had spent just $4 billion of the
$68 billion we appropriated for K-12 schools--$4 billion of the $68
billion. And what do our Democratic colleagues want to do? They want to
continue to shovel money out the door.
The CDC, the Centers for Disease Control, has distributed only about
a third of the $9 billion we have already appropriated for vaccine
distribution--only a third. And then there are tens of billions of
dollars in unspent funds for everything from COVID-19 testing to the
Paycheck Protection Program. So it is hard for me to see--and I am sure
I am not alone--the justification for spending tens of billions of
dollars more in places where previous funding is still waiting to be
spent.
There is also the question of whether the current funding is even
serving its intended purpose. Federal funding has helped K-12 schools
prepare for a safe reopening, and in Texas these have been used to
update the ventilation systems, purchase masks and personal protective
equipment, and make other investments in classroom safety.
But there are other school districts across the country that have
gladly accepted that funding but have zero plan to reopen their schools
to in-person education. They have capitulated to the teachers unions
that have demanded that schools stay closed. Some have said they refuse
to go back until all students are vaccinated--not all teachers but all
students. There is not even a vaccine approved for people under the age
of 16, but that is the demand of the teachers unions, who have showed
zero interest in their students but a lot of self-interest.
Some of these districts have gladly accepted the funding to prepare
for a safe reopening and, in many cases, have put their teachers at the
front of the line for vaccines, but somehow the teachers unions are
appalled at the idea that schools would actually use these tools to get
children back in the classroom.
Before we pass another multitrillion-dollar spending bill and add to
our rapidly growing national debt, we need to determine where the needs
truly are and whether the teachers unions are on board with our goal to
get children safely back into the classroom, which is our goal.
I will not support a COVID-19 relief proposal that sends hard-earned
taxpayer dollars to places where they already have billions that they
haven't even spent yet. One great example is additional funding for
schools. Our Democratic friends would provide $130 billion more for K-
12 education when there is still $64 billion remaining from the money
we appropriated in December. They want to spend $130 billion more when
there is still $64 billion available to be spent.
Well, even that is a high number because the CDC, the Centers for
Disease Control, estimated that schools only needed about $22 billion.
In other words, they have almost three times more than they already
need, according to the CDC, but our Democratic friends want to spend
another $130 billion.
I will be the first person to advocate for additional relief when and
where it i needed, but this massive relief package creates more
problems than solutions. I continue to believe that targeted relief
bills are the most effective way to support our country without driving
up unnecessary spending.

Somebody is going to have to pay this money back, and we shouldn't be
frivolous about the way we spend it. If there is a need, let's do it.
But if there is not a need, it is reckless and irresponsible to
continue to shovel money out the door. If there is a need to reinvest
in critical areas like unemployment benefits, the reopening of schools,
vaccine distribution, or the Paycheck Protection Program, we can and we
should replenish those funds through targeted proposals; and I would
hope, as before, we would be able to proceed on a bipartisan basis.
While Senator Schumer is clearly on the warpath to get this massive
relief to the Senate on a partisan vote, at least one of our Democratic
colleagues has shown some hesitation about going along with his plan.
Senator Manchin, the Senator from West Virginia, said this week he
wouldn't vote for a COVID-19 package that wasn't bipartisan. I hope he
will stick by his guns.
Congress has passed five overwhelmingly bipartisan COVID-19 bills
last year. We have overcome disagreements before, and I have no doubt
that we could, if we were to try, do so again.
This crisis has affected Americans in red States and blue States
alike. It would be a shame for the Democratic leader to shut out half
of this Chamber in an effort to claim a reckless win for his party.
We need to remember, just like the teachers who teach our students,
they need to keep their focus on the children and on their education
needs and their safety, and we need to keep our attention on our
constituents and what their needs are and try to be responsive to their
needs--not try to gain some partisan advantage at their expense.
I yield the floor.

[[Page S425]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I want to address the budget resolution we
are going to vote on later today. To be clear, this is a device that
makes it possible, subsequently, to pass this massive blowout spending
bill that President Biden has proposed and to do it on a strictly
party-line vote. That is what this is all about.
It is disappointing at many, many levels, not the least of which is
that, just 15 days ago, President Biden made an impassioned call for
unity. He said: ``This is our historic moment of crisis and challenge,
and unity is the path forward.''
Well, there is nothing about unity in this exercise. This is designed
to be a partisan exercise. It is designed not to find common ground. It
appears not to be informed by any objective measure of needs. The only
organizing principle in this bill that I can figure out is the desire
to spend a massive amount of money on things that aren't required.
Oh, and it is worse than that. It willfully ignores the adverse
impact some of these policies are going to have.
Part of what is so maddening about this is we have demonstrated--up
until now, anyway--that we can pass major bipartisan legislation. We
have done it five times already--but no more. President Biden and the
Democrats, who control the Senate and the House, don't want to pursue
bipartisan legislation anymore. I guess those days are behind us for
now, according to them.
But I would remind my colleagues of what a dramatic departure that is
from what we have been doing about this COVID crisis. Back in March and
April, when States shut down their economies and we went into a full-
blown economic crisis, we responded with massive, bold legislation, the
biggest of which, the March bill, had a huge category that was designed
and, in fact, did replace lost income for people who, through no fault
of their own, were out of work. It had a huge category to deal with
healthcare expenses for hospitals, for vaccine development, for PPE--
all kinds of healthcare-related needs.
And we had a set of provisions that were designed to provide
liquidity, provide loans and funding for businesses so that they could
survive and people would have a place to go back to work after this was
behind us. We did that. Actually, we did five bills altogether, every
one of them overwhelmingly bipartisan.
In the Senate, each of the five got over 90 votes. The biggest of
them didn't have a single ``no'' vote. My point is, we have
demonstrated we can pass big, bold, unprecedented legislation if people
on both sides of the aisle want to work together. We did it five times
last year.
But our Democratic colleagues don't want to pursue that anymore
because they have a different objective in mind. By the way, the last
of the five was the second largest of all time, a COVID relief package
of almost a trillion dollars, and it was signed into law 39 days ago.
Literally, hundreds of billions of dollars of that money is still
unspent, yet we are told immediately we need to get another $1.9
trillion.
This is unbelievable. Part of the reason it is so unbelievable is
that the economy is not in the same place today that it was in back in
March or April--not even close. We were in a situation we had never
been in before. We had shut down our economy. It was absolutely
devastating--very, very scary.
Fortunately, in part because of our response, I think, we were able
to avoid a depression, an extended disastrous period, and we have begun
a robust recovery.
Consider some of the data. In April of last year, the unemployment
rate hit almost 15 percent. Today it is at 6.7. Most economists didn't
think we would get below 7 percent until the end of this year, 2021. We
got below 7 percent back in October. We have 18 States in the Union
that have employment rates below 5 percent.

After a devastating downdraft of our economy in the second quarter,
the third quarter came roaring back. The third quarter of the economy
grew by 33 percent. That was a long way towards recovering what we had
lost in the second quarter--not complete--and the growth has continued.
The fourth quarter grew by 4 percent. The CBO's economic outlook for
this entire year is nearly 5 percent.
We have a strong recovery that is underway. Look, we are not there
yet. We are not back to the tremendously booming economy we had just
before the pandemic hit, but we do know that the vast majority of the
economic pain that people are going through is concentrated in a
handful of very hard-hit industries. It is hospitality, travel,
entertainment. We know that. What we should be asking ourselves is,
have we done what we need to do for these particular sectors and the
people who are in these sectors who are hurting? But $1.9 trillion for
the entire economy?
I mean, think about this statistic: Total employee compensation in
the second and third quarters of last year was down. That is not
surprising, right? Total employee compensation was down because so many
people were out of work. It was down by about $215 billion. Government
transfer payments to individuals was up by almost $900 billion. That is
more than four times the lost income. And now we are told we need
another whole round of these universal so-called stimulus checks--
checks that go out to everyone regardless of whether you actually had
any lost income.
Well, it happens that personal income is actually higher today than
it was before the pandemic hit. Disposable, real per capita income rose
last year at the fastest rate since 1984. The personal savings rate is
at an alltime high for most of 2020--the highest since 1974 now--and
that is all before the bill we passed 39 days ago that sends still more
money to people. So I don't see the data that suggests we need yet
another round of these universal stimulus checks, but in President
Biden's bill that we are in the process of facilitating today, that is
almost half a trillion dollars we are going to spend this way.
This money is not lying on the shelf, by the way; we are either going
to print it, or we are going to borrow it from overseas. President
Biden has pretty much admitted this is about fulfilling a campaign
promise.
The fact is, the vast majority of the 160 million Americans who have
received checks already never had any lost income. They never lost
their jobs. They never lost their checks. What Federal employee, for
instance--of the many categories I could cite, what Federal employee
lost their paycheck because of the COVID crisis? I don't know of them.
My staff continued to get paid throughout this entire period, but they
all got checks.
Think about this: If President Biden's plan passes as our Democratic
colleagues want to pass it and the eligibility criteria for these
checks follows the methodology from the previous two rounds of checks,
a family of four with a household income of $150,000 will receive
$5,600. That is on top of the $5,800 they got from the previous rounds.
It is a total of $11,400 that we are going to mail out to a family who
had a six-figure income and no income loss. How does this make any
sense?
Consider the expanded unemployment benefits. I was all in favor of
it. I remain in favor of expanding eligibility for unemployment
benefits because we have a lot of folks who work in the gig economy.
They are self-employed, and they have not been able to historically
participate in the unemployment insurance program. I am in favor of
having made those folks eligible, but we have already done that. They
are totally eligible.
On top of eligibility, back in March when we passed the CARES Act, we
added $600 a week to unemployment checks. It turns out that 70
percent--according to the University of Chicago, their analysis, about
70 percent of everybody who was unemployed ended up getting paid more
money not to work than they did to get to work. In what universe does
that make sense?
We have had unemployment insurance for decades. Never anywhere, at
any time, under any circumstances have we designed the program so that
we would pay you more not to work than what you make working. The
reason we have never done that is because it doesn't make any sense.
President Biden's plan is not for $600, but it is $400 of extra
payments above and beyond what unemployment insurance pays. If that
happens, then over half of all the beneficiaries will be paid more not
to work than they would get paid if they actually worked. That will

[[Page S426]]

only slow the economic recovery, as well as not make any sense--not to
mention the invitation for fraud.
By the way, it is estimated that there have been $10 billion in
fraudulent unemployment insurance payments in California alone.
Speaking of California, State and local governments--now, this is
rich--in this $1.9 trillion spending bonanza, there is $350 billion to
go to State and local governments. We know many of our Democratic
colleagues have wanted to bail out these fiscally irresponsible and
insolvent States and municipalities for a long time, but here is what
is unbelievable. We are told there is a fiscal crisis here. Just look
at the numbers. The total of State and local tax collections in 2020
was up by $21 billion over 2019.
Let me clear about this. In 2019--the amount of revenue collected by
State and local governments hit an alltime record high in 2019. In
2020, they broke the record--alltime record amount of revenue
collected.
This, by the way, does not include the $572 billion that the Federal
Government sent to these State and local governments through the five
bills that we have already passed, so they have alltime record revenue
on their own. We sent them $572 billion more, and now we are told we
have to send them yet another $350 billion.
Look, let's not kid ourselves. This is just a complete bailout of
insolvent and irresponsible States. That is what this is. This hasn't
got anything to do with a pandemic.
Minimum wage--that is in this bill as well, the President's proposal.
It is another terrible idea. A $15-an-hour minimum wage--what this is
guaranteed to do is destroy the jobs of lower income people. Guess
what. A disproportionate number of them work in the hardest hit
industries, like hotels and restaurants.
This isn't just my speculation; the Congressional Budget Office
projects that if we have a $15 mandatory minimum wage nationally, which
is what the President's proposal would do, we would lose at least 1.3
million jobs and maybe as high as 3.7 million jobs. Of course, this
wil disproportionately affect young people just entering the workforce.
That is the biggest category of people who are paid at the low end of
the pay scale. So we will just take away the ladder that these folks
need to step on to in order to build the ability to provide for
themselves and their families.

We have a moratorium on evictions from the CDC that gets extended.
This is unbelievable. First of all, it is absurd to think that the CDC
has the authority to impose this universally and throughout America.
They just don't. It is also a terrible precedent to say that despite
the fact that our unemployment rate is below 7 percent and we have more
than replaced lost income, people don't have to pay the rent.
Let's be honest about the consequences. There is only one consequence
that is going to happen as a result of this, and that is, we are going
to have less affordable housing and higher rents because the landlord
is going to have to think long and hard about how long he is going to
go without being able to collect rents in the future, and so he is
either going to get out of the business, in which case there is less
affordable housing being built, or he is going to raise the rents to
cover that period when the government pursues this senseless policy.
Health provisions are an area that is in a category unto itself here.
Specifically, I think every single person in this body would agree that
it is absolutely essential that we get as many vaccines into as many
arms as quickly as we possibly can. That is certainly my view. For the
sake of eliminating human suffering, to prevent unnecessary deaths, and
at a much lower level of importance, but also to help restore the
vibrancy of our economy, that is what we have to do. We have to put as
many vaccines into as many arms as quickly as we can.
Today, there are around 260 million Americans who are eligible to
receive COVID-19 vaccines. We have an average of about 1.34 million
doses actually being administered every day. It is the highest daily
rate of doses being administered anywhere in the world. I am trying to
understand what more government spending now is going to do about that.
In the Federal Government, we already purchased 600 million doses,
which is enough to vaccinate 300 million Americans. We have multiple
vaccine candidates. Some already have been approved, and some are about
to be approved. We have already paid for them, and we have also paid
for all the other related costs of administering the vaccine. We paid
for the R&D in the first place. We bought the production--as they say,
600 million doses. The Federal Government pays for the transportation
to deliver the vaccine to the site at which it is going to be
administered. The Federal Government has paid for all the accompanying
supplies--the syringes, the vials, the stoppers, the dry ice to keep it
cold, all of that. Insurance--Medicare covers the cost of putting the
vaccine into somebody's arm. We have even allocated money to fund the
planning of the execution of this plan.
It is pretty clear to me that, in talking to Pennsylvania healthcare
folks who are on the frontlines delivering this and actually
vaccinating people, that the limiting factor now is production of the
vaccine, and we are going all-out. I mean, you could take General
Motors and get them to produce ventilators. General Motors can
manufacture ventilators pretty quickly. They can do that. You can't get
General Motors to produce vaccines--not in anything like the timeframe
we would like.
So I am all ears. If someone can show me how we can spend money that
will actually result in getting more people vaccinated more quickly,
then I am for it. I just haven't heard that explanation yet, and I
haven't seen how it gets allocated in this bill to accomplish that.
President Biden had a commendable call to unity in his early
addresses to the Nation, but this exercise we are going through today
is suggesting that that kind of rings hollow. Just a few weeks into
office and the President and our Democratic colleagues seem to be
abandoning what had consistently been overwhelmingly bipartisan,
successful, major responses to this COVID crisis. Now it seems they are
on a one-party partisan track to pass a bunch of their liberal wish
list items, much of which has nothing to do with the circumstances we
face.
The fact is, what we ought to be working on is maximizing the speed
of vaccinations and ensuring that we return our economy and allow
people to get back to work so that we can have the prosperity that we
had before this pandemic struck. What we shouldn't be doing is using
the pandemic as the excuse to pass a longstanding partisan policy wish
list.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues from
both sides of the aisle to support this veterans COVID-19 relief
package, to do right by the millions of veterans across our country
struggling with this pandemic.
For months, I have been hearing from folks back home in Montana on
the need for Congress to put together a smart, targeted package that
will quickly provide communities across the country with the resources
they need to weather this storm. This includes delivering assistance
and vaccines to those who have worn the uniform and sacrificed for our
liberties.
If this year has taught us anything, it is that we need to secure
additional resources to expand medical services, mental healthcare, and
telehealth capabilities to protect and support our most vulnerable
populations.
And we need a distribution plan that will provide more predictability
when it comes to administering vaccines. That way, we could get more
vaccines into the veterans' arms as quickly as possible.
Today, we are putting a bicameral proposal on the table that delivers
tangible relief to veterans and families and all Americans who need
them. As we all know, proposals are rarely ever perfect, and this
package is no different.
But the truth is, we have good provisions in this bill that allow us
to provide serious relief to those who swore an oath to protect our
country. It will slow the spread of the virus, and it will help save
lives.
A previous package that was put forth by my Republican colleagues--I

[[Page S427]]

would say, thank you for doing that, but unfortunately, that package
didn't put as much as a dime to support our veterans and families.
Now, there are a lot of things we disagree upon in this body, but
delivering for our Nation's veterans should never be one of them. That
is why my colleagues and I worked with the Biden administration on this
new relief package that allocates $17 billion in critical resources and
assistance to the men and women who have served this country.
The truth is that out of almost 7 million veterans that the VA serves
nationwide, only 638,000 veterans have been vaccinated so far. Serious
efforts need to be made to reach more veterans, especially those
veterans who live in rural or country areas.
Additional funding under our proposal allows the VA to increase
vaccine distribution and outreach efforts to remote areas, ensuring all
veterans who want a vaccine can receive one.
It even goes a step further in accelerating the deployment of VA's
supply chain modernization initiative to improve the Department's
preparedness and response to public health emergencies. It takes an
aggressive approach in assisting vulnerable veterans by providing
mental health care options, medical equipment, and additional services
to women vets, those at risk of homelessness, and those who face
unemployment.
Make no mistake, this pandemic is taking a dangerous toll on our
veterans. Veterans are experiencing job losses at unprecedented rates.
The veteran unemployment rate for December was roughly double what it
was this time last year, up from 2.8 percent to 5.3 percent. And with
older veterans continuing to face more difficulty in the job market, it
makes this package even more necessary today.
Our proposal helps tackle veteran unemployment by establishing a VA
Rapid Retraining Assistance Program that will strengthen existing job
opportunities and establish new resources to get veterans employed and
back on their feet.
And for folks burdened by healthcare costs, our provisions waive
copayment billing and debt collection, as well as costs for COVID-19
testing, treatment, and vaccine services, because no veteran should
have to worry about choosing between accessing essential healthcare and
providing for their family during a global pandemic and an economic
crisis.
When veterans elect officials to Congress, they do so with the
expectation that they will get the job done. So while this proposal is
not a silver bullet, it is our best shot, however, at getting more
folks vaccinated and our economy back on track.
There should be no excuses. Veterans and all Americans are looking at
us to do the right thing. We do need bipartisan support in this Chamber
if we are going to put this pandemic behind us, and we do need it
today.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King). The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I joined some of my colleagues at the White
House yesterday to talk with President Biden and Vice President Harris
about what it will take to make real progress against the pandemic and
to make a real difference in people's lives. Our country is in the
middle, as we know, of a once-in-a-generation crisis, and this is our
opportunity to deliver for them.
Yesterday, I came to the floor to talk about the need for direct
stimulus checks and for rental assistance and tax cuts for working
families and to use the Defense Production Act to get more people
vaccinated more quickly.
Today, I am here to talk about the critical help in this plan, the
Biden plan, for our Nation's veterans and their families.
Since the beginning of the pandemic, 9,300 veterans have died of
COVID-19. Right now, at least 9,000 veterans are sick with this virus.
Our plan would ensure that frontline VA employees would have the
protective equipment they need to continue to do their jobs every day
as they care for our veterans. It would help us get more veterans and
VA workers vaccinated. We know that nothing is more critical now than
getting vaccines into people's arms, especially as we face new, more
contagious variants. So far, the VA has provided some 800,000 initial
doses of vaccines to veterans and employees. Additional funding would
ramp up both vaccine distribution and COVID treatments for those who
answer the call to service.
In order to continue to meet our Nation's and veterans' medical
needs, the VA has shifted to new methods of caring, including expanded
telehealth. We know the need for expanded capabilities will only
continue to grow. The VA will need additional funding to meet veterans'
needs where they are--so they can stay home and so they can stay safe
whenever possible--and provide them with the healthcare they have
earned.
In many cases, the VA was able to freeze bills, if you will, to
veterans who accrued copayments and fees for care during the pandemic.
That was the right move. In discussions with VA Medical Center
directors in Ohio, I said we should use as much flexibility as possible
to waive these debts. Some of these copays and fees amounted to $2,000
for some vets. For them to have the bills come due right after the
holidays was cruel as we were seeing cases spike and uncertainty
continue. We know that any large medical bill can be a shock, and
during these uncertain times, we can work to lessen that burden and
especially take away that stress on our veterans. That is why our plan
would provide copayment relief to all veterans as the pandemic
continues. If a vet were charged a VA copay, regardless of whether the
care was COVID-related or not, that copay would be waived. It would
reimburse veterans who have already paid their bills to the VA.
I thank Chairman Tester and Chairman Schatz for their work on this
plan as many of our Nation's veterans have fixed incomes, and it will
mean so much to them not to have to worry about another medical bill.
Last week, Denis McDonough came before our Committee on Veterans'
Affairs. He is the nominee to be the VA Secretary. He was asked about a
proposed program that would require military borrowers who are coming
out of COVID-19 mortgage forbearance to pay back their missed payments
with interest within 10 years. This VA program would be more expensive
than what other Federal mortgage programs are offering.
Think about that. We charge veterans more than others through this
program. It makes no sense. It would make it more likely that VA
borrowers will fall behind on these new, higher monthly payments.
He gave me his word that he would look into the program and would
work with me to ensure that no VA homeowner is left with a worse option
than borrowers in other federally backed loan programs.
We are about to have new leadership at the VA, leadership that
understands that the decisions made in Washington impact veterans in
Portland, ME, in Cincinnati, OH, in Columbus, in Dayton, and in
Chillicothe. Veterans in Cleveland and Toledo don't care how the Senate
passes this. They don't care about regular order or reconciliation.
They just want the help that they need. That is why we need to go big.
Veterans care about when they get the vaccine, when they can get an
appointment with their mental health professionals, and whether their
VA providers have enough personal protective equipment so they can
continue to do their jobs.
So I say to my colleagues of both parties: Let's get this done. There
is no time for squabbling over Senate procedure. The Senate has used
these fast-tracking budget measures over and over in times far less
dire and far less stressful than what we face today.
That is why it is so important that we just go back and remember what
Senator McConnell had no problem with in 2017 during the leader's first
term. He had no problems pouring money into corporations' coffers with
their tax cuts. There was no emergency. The only emergency was that
lobbyists were lined up out in front of Senator McConnell's office,
asking for

[[Page S428]]

tax cuts for their corporations. Now Senator McConnell claims he can't
afford to help everyone else.
We didn't win World War II by worrying about whether or not we could
afford it. General Eisenhower didn't call President Roosevelt in early
June 1944 and say: We have enough dollars for D-day. Of course not. Our
veterans know that. They know we are in a global crisis. They know we
have marshaled all of our vast resources and talent to rise to meet it.
Then we grew the economy, after the war, from the middle class out, and
we paid down the debt with rising wages.
This is a war too. Americans elected new leaders because they were
tired of a President and a majority leader who refused to treat this
war with the same urgency. People are tired of being told that we can't
do it, that we can't afford it, and that we have done enough. Let's aim
higher in this country. Let's deliver for the people we serve. Let's
come together. Let's pass this. Let's make a real difference in
Americans' lives.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored to follow my colleague
Senator Brown on an issue that should be close to all of our hearts,
which is strengthening our VA so that it can provide more assistance,
more help, and more support for our Nation's heroes.
I had the great opportunity last Sunday to spend time at the West
Haven VA Hospital, where literally thousands of vaccines are being
administered hour by hour to our veterans. Around 25 percent of the
veterans of Connecticut eligible to receive it have had vaccinations
administered to them. That 25 percent is way above the 10 percent of
the entire population of our State, and it is a great beginning. Under
the leadership of Al Montoya at the West Haven VA and his remarkable
team, our Nation's heroes are receiving the vaccinations they need and
deserve. More than 8,000 already--and the staff of the VA, 2,500--have
received vaccinations. Not all want it, but the VA is reaching out to
them--literally, person by person--to ask them to come and ensure them
that this vaccine is safe and effective. Most assuredly, it is.
So the VA is moving forward, but much more needs to be done. A lot of
that VA target population is among the most vulnerable by virtue of
age, by virtue of preexisting conditions, by virtue of their service
and exposure and comorbidity. That is why this plan, the American
Rescue Plan, in its distributing COVID-19 vaccines to veterans, is so
critically important. There are 9,000 VA patients who have died of
coronavirus. Although 1 million nationwide of our veterans have
received vaccinations, there are many, many more who have not. These
vaccines are reaching the arms of veterans, but the VA system needs
support and the investment to do its job.
Likewise, this pandemic has imposed mental health burdens on our
veterans. The veterans who are shut in--likewise, the veterans who have
no homes and veterans in all parts of the country--have been stressed
and strained just like everyone else--in fact, maybe more so. Medical
health services available through telemedicine are more important than
ever, but they alone are not going to accomplish this purpose. Again,
what we have seen in Connecticut through the CBOCs, what is
accomplished from telemedicine, and what is provided through counseling
all show additional investment will produce even better care for our
veterans.
A lot of our veterans have debts. Some of them are medical debts.
They need help. This American Rescue Plan provides assistance for them.
I have been a longtime advocate of extending VA healthcare to more
veterans. I am proud this plan would allow struggling veterans to get
more healthcare at the VA, but relieving veterans from the burden of
medical costs is not enough. We need to deliver stimulus payments,
unemployment insurance, and aid to small businesses so that we can lift
the broader economic pain brought on by COVID-19. Veterans are part of
our general population, and those general programs are part of what we
owe them.
All of these programs need more oversight and more vigorous scrutiny
as we go forward in order to prevent the kind of waste or delay that we
have seen sometimes in veterans' programs. That is why the funds for
the VA would be directed, in part, to oversight by the VA Office of the
Inspector General. Through oversight by the inspector general, in
combination with rigorous congressional oversight, we can ensure that
these dollars are being spent effectively and in accordance with
congressional priorities in a way that best supports our veterans.
A broader plan is also necessary, a broader infrastructure plan that
will, for example, reconstruct and rehabilitate the West Haven
hospital. It dates from the 1950s. It has a new shell, but its
structure is aging and aged, degrading and sometimes, in some ways,
decrepit. The VA has done a great job of sustaining and maintaining it,
but this reconstruction is absolutely necessary. A capital investment
must be made as our VA facilities, our ports and airports, roads and
bridges all are in need of vital repair and reconstruction. That is
part of the broader plan that must be undertaken. Priority must be
given to those VA facilities.
Just a few months ago, we suffered in Connecticut a tragic accident
when two workers at that VA hospital were killed while they were doing
maintenance. It was unnecessary, avoidable, preventable, but it
demonstrated the weaknesses and defects in the construction that
remains in that hospital. It must be remediated and improved. The best
way to do it is through a new building, not just a new exterior, not
just cosmetic work but, truly, an infrastructure program that keeps
faith with our veterans.
There is no excuse for delaying this COVID-19 rescue plan. Delay is
unconscionable. Time is not on our side. We need decisive, bold, and
big action to meet the needs that our veterans have and that all of the
American people have in this time of unique, painful, and continuing
crisis.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to make the
case that we should invest $10 billion in the prevention and defeat of
COVID-19 in the foreign assistance portion of this budget resolution.
For so long as COVID-19 is anywhere, it can spread everywhere,
directly threatening our national security, our economy, and the health
and safety of the American people.
COVID-19 has devastated the world. To date, there have been nearly
103 million confirmed cases worldwide. More than 2 million people have
died, including over 450,000 in the United States.
The lockdowns necessitated by the pandemic have triggered the worst
recession since the Great Depression. We must join with our partners
and allies around the globe to end this scourge once and for all.
Now, with so many Americans shattered by the death, disruption, and
economic devastation unleashed by the coronavirus, I am sure more than
a few would question why we should bother spending any resources in the
global fight against COVID-19, let alone $10 billion.
The simple answer is: COVID-19 knows no borders.
The pandemic didn't start here, but it came here. The world is in a
race against COVID-19, and we cannot lose, for the longer we allow this
virus to spread, the more it will mutate into new strains, and the more
that it mutates into new strains, the greater the threat to the
efficacy of our vaccines and our ability to rebuild our economy and
restore our way of life.
This $10 billion investment will ramp up American efforts to fight
COVID-19 and stop new variants before they reach our shores and cost
more American lives.

[[Page S429]]

It will fund humanitarian assistance to respond to the suffering
inflicted by COVID-19 and channel resources to international
organizations charged with responding to these challenges and
preventing further spread. And it will support the global race to
develop new vaccines.
As Dr. Anthony Fauci publicly stated last month, we have to start
work now preparing additional vaccines to deal with new and virulent
strains of COVID-19.
This will require investment both at home and abroad.
In addition to our own efforts, we must invest in international
research and development and support technology transfers so that
vaccines capable of protecting us from future variants are produced and
made available quickly around the world.
The package also includes funding for global health programs that
strengthen health systems in developing countries. As we have learned
firsthand, COVID-19 can overwhelm even the most robust of healthcare
systems. For countries with poorer public health infrastructure, the
challenge is exponentially harder. And the longer we allow COVID-19 to
ravage health systems around the globe, the longer it will remain a
threat to the United States.
The resolution will also help us protect two decades' worth of
investments to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria
through the Global Fund. Specifically, the resolution ensures that
lifesaving treatments for those three deadly diseases continues.
It also provides resources to support the Global Fund's newly
developed COVID-19 response mechanism, allowing countries to better
prevent, care for, and treat this disease.
It is hard to recapture the scale of the suffering unleashed by this
pandemic, but here is what we know: The number of people facing
faminelike conditions around the world has doubled, and child
malnutrition and death rates are on the rise. Through this resolution,
we will be able to address the pandemic's toll on the most vulnerable,
including children and refugees, by funding organizations such as the
World Food Programme and UNICEF.
It will also enable us to help confront dramatically increased rates
of violence against women and girls, what the United Nations has called
the ``shadow pandemic'' of gender-based violence. And it will provide
urgently needed funding for the World Health Organization, which the
Biden administration rejoined on the President's first day in office.
We cannot forfeit our seat at the table to other countries that do
not share our values or our interests. We must engage, and we must
lead.
Finally, the resolution will support ongoing State Department and
USAID operations that protect Americans overseas and advance our
diplomatic and economic interests around the globe. We must begin to
undo the damage to the State Department and USAID wrought by the Trump
administration and ensure that both agencies have the resources to deal
with the effects of COVID-19, including the impacts on our foreign
service officers and their families, Embassy operations, and lost
revenue due to disruption of services, even as we look to replenish and
revive these critical instruments for our national security.
So I will end where I began: We cannot hermetically seal ourselves
and believe that we can avoid any consequences from anyplace across the
globe. Disease, including this one, knows no boundaries, knows no
borders.
Unless and until COVID-19 is stamped out globally, American lives and
livelihoods remain at risk. Simply put, our international efforts to
stop the spread of COVID-19 abroad are directly linked to our national
and economic security at home.
So I urge all of my colleagues to support continued relief, recovery,
and prevention efforts by voting in support of the budget resolution
I yield the floor to my distinguished colleague, the senior member of
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Cardin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first, let me thank Chairman Menendez, the
chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, for his advocacy in
getting into this budget resolution the $10 billion for the global
response to COVID-19.
I just want to underscore what Chairman Menendez said from the
beginning: This global response will not only save lives around the
world, it will save lives here at home.
In 1 year, 450,000 Americans have lost their lives to COVID-19; 2.6
million worldwide. The United States has the distinction of having the
largest number of fatalities and infections of any country in the
world.
This is a challenge that requires the leadership of the United States
of America. If we are going to beat COVID-19, America must be in the
leadership to do this as quickly and as efficiently as possible.
So what does that require? It requires us to take the right steps at
home, and the budget resolution before us gives us the resources to do
that with the production and distribution--fair distribution--of
vaccines and dealing with the needs for testing, dealing with the needs
of those businesses and individuals who have been directly affected by
COVID-19, all that is dealt with in this package, but we also need to
work responsibly in the global community, and that is what this $10
billion will allow us to do--to be leaders globally as well as what we
do at home.
President Biden has already taken the initial steps by rejoining the
World Health Organization and joining the COVID-19 Vaccines Global
Access Facility so that 190 countries in the world can join together to
make sure that everyone gets access to this vaccine, particularly in
low- and middle-economic countries that otherwise would be challenged.
Why? Because those are our values--humanitarian concerns globally, but
it is also in our individual interest because if this virus is not
contained in a country, it will get to the United States.
And as Chairman Menendez said, the longer this virus goes globally,
the more variants we are going to see and the tougher it is going to be
for us to control the COVID-19 around the world and in the United
States of America.
With 104 million infections globally, this is a global pandemic and
requires a global response, and this budget resolution gives us the
wherewithal in order to do that.
And as Senator Menendez has pointed out, it is not only to deal with
the direct eradication of the virus, which we have to do, but the
consequences of the virus in world poverty and hunger and those issues
that are important for the United States to lead the global community
in dealing with the aftermath of this terrible virus.
So I just really wanted to come to the floor to underscore there are
so many reasons to support this budget resolution, but the one that I
just really wanted to underscore today is that we are not only dealing
with the issues at home, we are being responsible citizens of the
world, leading by example and leading by engagement, which will help
the healthcare of the people in America and our national security.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, so as I understand it, some of the
Senators will come in after I speak. I will talk 10 or 15 minutes, and
then we will get on with the process of voting.
So, to the American people who may be watching, what is this all
about? This is an effort by my Democratic colleagues, supported by
President Biden, to pass $1.9 trillion in COVID relief through a budget
process that requires only 50 votes. It goes around the idea of
bipartisanship.
And I would say this: I think all of us would like unity. I think
President Biden said all the right things in his inauguration. The
question is, Are we going to do more than talk about unity?
I can understand having reconciliation used for ObamaCare or for
taxes. You all did that. We did that. There are big philosophical
differences. But this is the one area that there was bipartisanship up
until recently. This is the

[[Page S430]]

one area where the Congress has been able to work together across party
lines, and that is providing relief to the American people who have
been long-suffering under the COVID pandemic.
So I find it odd that if our goal is unity, we start with an issue
that has been unified up until now. That is what is a bit perplexing
because it is not like the Republican Party can't work with the
Democratic Party to help the American people when it comes to COVID
relief.
We had a Republican President, a Democratic-controlled House, and a
Republican Senate for the last year. We have appropriated $4 trillion
in COVID relief for the American people working together. So when there
was divided government--a Republican President, a Democratic-controlled
House, and a Republican-controlled Senate--we were able to achieve
bipartisanship in large measure, dealing with a lot of money, because
we saw the problem as something worthy of bipartisanship, necessary for
bipartisanship, and COVID was affecting everybody, regardless of
political persuasion.
Now we find ourselves early on in the Biden administration abandoning
that model and going forward on a partisan effort to spend $1.9
trillion with one party alone without, really, input from the other
party.
On March 5, 2020, we approved an $8 billion supplemental
appropriation 96 to 1. In March, we were just beginning to understand
the nature of the COVID problem. We shut the country down pretty much
in March, and as things became more clear to us, we acted, I think,
responsibly.
March 18, just a couple of weeks later, we approved, 98 to 8, a $355
billion package to help families that were affected by COVID. March 25,
just about a week later, we spent $1.9 trillion in a COVID-relief
package, which is a massive amount of money--one of the largest
expenditures in the history of the country since World War II--96 to
nothing.
So we are now talking about spending $1.9 trillion in February of
2021, and there seems to be no ability here to negotiate a package that
could get another 90-plus votes because my Democratic colleagues have
chosen the reconciliation route.
April 21, 2020, by voice vote, we spent $355 billion to add more
money to the Paycheck Protection Act that Senator Collins and the
Presiding Officer worked on to help businesses that had lost their
customer base. September 30, we had $8 billion, 84 to 10. December 21,
2020, we did an omnibus bill of $1.4 trillion funding the government,
and we had money for COVID in that package, about $900 billion. That
passed 92 to 6. That was Christmas.
Here is what I want you to understand. We have, up to now, been able
to work together to help the American people who have been suffering
from COVID. We have appropriated, as I have just described, over $4
trillion, and as of this moment, $2.7 trillion has actually been
allocated. So there is over $1.3 trillion that we haven't spent yet. Of
the $900 billion we authorized to be spent, appropriated in December,
only 20 percent of it has been spent.
So a lot of the money is yet to be spent, and now we are going to add
$1.9 trillion on top of what we have done before all the money has been
spent or most of it has been spent. We created a Federal Reserve
program for midsize and larger businesses that had a $5.7 trillion cap
on it, and we have done $2.6 trillion.
So I think people on our side really believe that we should learn
more about how the money we have already appropriated is being spent
and that a $15 minimum wage increase in a COVID package is a bad idea
during a COVID economy, and that is what is in this package.
Most small businesses in South Carolina and throughout the country
have been struggling to stay open due to lack of travel. And due to
mandates at the State and local levels reducing the ability to have 100
percent occupancy in restaurants, tourism has really been hurt. The
service sector has really been hurt. The food industry has really been
hurt
Can you imagine the combined effect of having the government reduce
your ability to earn money by restricting your business model and at
the same time adding a mandate to your business of maybe increasing
your wages by 50 percent, maybe 100 percent?
So this one-two punch will take out what is left of small businesses
in the tourism sector and the restaurant business because what we have
had to do--some people say we have done too much in restricting the
ability of small businesses to earn a living, and that is having an
effect on their ability to generate income. Now we are combining an
increase in cost of increasing wages for every business in the country
to $15 an hour over time. They can't absorb that.
A lot of us believe that is the wrong thing to do in a COVID economy.
Maybe one day we can talk about a minimum wage increase when business
can get back on its feet, but that is one of the reasons that you are
going to find pretty much unified opposition on our side.
So I just want the American people to know, it is one thing to talk
about unity, and it is another thing to seek it. And you picked the one
issue that we have been able to find common ground. Why you did this, I
don't know, but you have.
I appreciate President Biden sitting down with 10 Republicans who
wanted to find an alternative. A lot of people believe that in this
package the direct payments go to people who really are not going to
spend the money because they haven't lost their jobs and are making
over $150,000 or $200,000-plus as a couple and that we should target
direct stimulus checks to people in the lower income areas who have
suffered the most.
So there is a lot of concern about the nature of the $1.9 trillion
package. Details do matter. But I will just say this: I can understand
having a fight about healthcare and about taxes, but when it comes to
COVID relief, we have been able, in the last year, to find
bipartisanship for $4 trillion. And now we are abandoning that quest,
and we are going to try to create a process--my Democratic colleagues
are--to deal us all out on our side and pass a $1.9 trillion COVID
package that I think in many ways misses the mark.
So to say that I am disappointed is an understatement. You have the
right to do this. And during the campaign, we talked about what would
happen if one party got in charge of everything. We predicted, on the
Republican side, if you have a Democratic President, Democratic Senate,
and a Democratic House, the liberal wish list is going to come roaring
through the House and the Senate, trying to get on President Biden's
desk.
To President Biden's credit, I think he ran a campaign that was more
centrist, but now he has the chance, as President of the United States,
to stand down this process and continue to talk with the Republicans. I
think there are more than 10 who would like to find an alternative to a
$1.9 trillion package that we think misses the mark and is being
appropriated when we haven't spent most of the money we have already
appropriated.
So this is the choice you make. This is the debate we are going to
have. It is going to be a long day. It will go into the night. Let's
try to keep good cheer about it. I understand that we all love the
country, but these kinds of debates are important, and the choices you
make as a party--we will have to accept responsibility for the choices
that we all make.
And I would just urge my Democratic colleagues, this is one area
where I have been relatively proud of the Congress. We have spent an
enormous amount of money in a bipartisan fashion. Some of the most
conservative Members of the Senate have been voting on pretty large
amounts of money because, I think, generally speaking, it has been
necessary. But now the vaccine is being distributed. Anything we can do
to get it out faster to more people, great. Most of the money we have
appropriated hasn't been spent. I would just ask that we slow down a
bit.
Whatever we spend in the future needs to be more targeted. And the
last thing you want to do in a COVID economy is increase the cost of
doing business at a time when most businesses are barely hanging on in
certain sectors of the economy.
So I look forward to working with Senator Sanders, trying to work
through the amendments. This will be a long day, but, hopefully, it
will be a fruitful day for the American people as you understand more
about the differences that we have. And, eventually,

[[Page S431]]

maybe we can find something in common.
If you asked me before the election: What are the two areas that
bipartisanship would be easiest achieved, most likely to be achieved--
infrastructure, because we all have roads and bridges and ports, and
COVID. So I was wrong about the COVID part, and time will tell if it
matters at all.
With that, I will yield to my friend and colleague, the chairman of
the committee, Senator Sanders.
Mr. SANDERS. Let me thank my colleague from South Carolina. And I
look forward to working with him. He is going to be the ranking member
of the Budget Committee. We have a lot of work to do, and I look
forward to working with him.
As Senator Graham indicated, in a few moments, at the end of my
remarks, we are going to begin the vote-arama process, where Senators
can offer amendments, with debate limited to 2 minutes--1 minute for
the proponents and 1 minute for the opponents.
The last time I checked--I may be a little behind the times on this--
my Republican colleagues had filed over 550 amendments, which,
theoretically, means that we will be here for days, but I think not. I
have a feeling it will be a very long night, but I assume we will get
out of here at some point.
Unfortunately, many of the amendments being offered have absolutely
nothing to do with COVID relief, which, after all, is what this budget
resolution is all about.
My Republican colleagues have filed amendments to make President
Trump's tax breaks for the wealthiest people in our country and the
most profitable corporations permanent, which would provide a massive
windfall for the top 1 percent and the billionaire class who have
already seen their wealth go up by over $1 trillion during this
pandemic. In my mind, it is not exactly the kind of policy that we need
right now.
Republicans have filed amendments to exacerbate the xenophobia, the
xenophobia which exists in this country, despite the fact that many
undocumented workers are doing some of the most essential and dangerous
work in our country. They are working in meatpacking plants; they are
preparing our food and working on the frontlines, often with very low
pay. We should not be attacking them. We should not be dividing this
country up. We should be bringing our people together.
We have had 4 years of efforts to divide us up. Now is a time for
unity.
Members of the Democratic caucus have made my life easy in this
process because they have filed zero amendments. Republicans, 550
amendments; Democrats, 0. I think that speaks to the strong desire of
our entire caucus to pass President Biden's $1.9 trillion emergency
COVID relief plan as soon as we possibly can.
The reason we have got to pass that plan as quickly as possible is
that the American people are suffering one crisis after another, and we
have got to address those crises as quickly as we can.
Let me briefly--I know there is a lot of media talk about $1.9
trillion, and this, that, and the other thing. Sometimes we forget to
look at actually what is in the proposal. What are we trying to do?
What are the problems that we are trying to address? So let me just,
very briefly, touch on some of the provisions of this budget
resolution.
First, and perhaps most importantly, it will enable us to
aggressively crush the pandemic, which has already taken over 450,000
American lives. That is our top priority: crush the pandemic and allow
people to get back to work as we reopen and strengthen the economy, and
we get our kids back to school. That is an essential part of what this
resolution is about.
This resolution will allow us to provide the funding to establish a
national emergency program to produce the quantity of vaccines that we
need. We don't have enough vaccines now. We need more. And then we need
a process, which we don't have right now either, to get those vaccines
into the arms of people as quickly as we possibly can.
At a time when so many of our people are hurting, have gone through
the worst year in their lives as a result of this pandemic, this budget
resolution will allow us to keep the promises we made to the American
people and increase the $600 in direct payments for working-class
adults and their children to $2,000. That means $1,400 for every
working-class adult and child in this country, an additional $5,600 on
top of the 600 bucks that we sent out a few weeks ago.
Do you know what that would mean t millions of families who are
worried about whether they can pay the rent or put food on the table?
They will understand that maybe, just maybe, we are one country, and
the government and this Congress has heard their pain.

Passing this budget resolution will give us the tools we need to
raise the minimum wage to a living wage of $15 an hour and provide
substantial help to struggling small businesses to help them cover the
cost of these wage increases.
We do understand that restaurants and small businesses are hurting,
and that is why we will provide billions of dollars to help them cover
the cost of increasing the minimum wage.
But let us be clear, the minimum wage in this country has not been
raised since the year 2007. It now stands at $7.25 an hour. That is a
starvation wage. That is an embarrassment, and that minimum wage must
be increased so that we can give a pay raise to some 32 million
workers.
Moreover, this pandemic has caused tens of millions of Americans to
lose their jobs through no fault of their own. For 45 consecutive
weeks, unemployment claims have been higher during the worst week of
the great recession in 2008.
The budget resolution that we are considering this week will provide
the funding to provide 18 million Americans with $400 a week in
supplemental unemployment benefits until the end of September. So we
are saying now to the millions and millions of unemployed workers in
this country, who, through no fault of their own, have lost their jobs,
we are there for you. We are going to extend unemployment benefits to
September and add another $400 on top of the benefits that you normally
would receive.
One of the disgraces that we have allowed to go on for so many years,
and not talk about it, is the fact that in this country--the richest
country in the history of the world--we have one of the highest
childhood poverty rates of any industrialized country. And they are all
over America. You have got single moms and couples, people trying to
take care of their kids, trying to pay for childcare, trying to do all
of the things that good parents want to do, and they are unable to do
it. This budget resolution will provide the resources necessary to
provide childcare to 875,000 kids in America.
This resolution will expand the child tax credit from $2,000 to
$3,000 and $3,600 for kids under the age of 6, which we believe will
cut the child poverty rate in America in half--something we should have
done 20 years ago. That is what is in this resolution.
This budget resolution that we are debating today would provide $350
billion to prevent mass layoffs of public sector workers in State and
local governments. We have lost well over 1 million jobs--talking about
teachers, firemen, cops, municipal workers. This resolution will give
States and local governments the resources to not lay off workers, to
bring those workers back so they could provide the services that their
communities and States require.
We are the only major country on Earth not to guarantee healthcare to
all people as a human right. And, right now, over 90 million Americans
are either uninsured or underinsured. Imagine being uninsured in the
midst of a terrible pandemic. That is the case for 90 million people.
This budget resolution will enable the Senate to substantially
increase access to healthcare for many millions of Americans,
including, very likely, a significant expansion of Medicaid.
This budget resolution will allow more Americans to receive the
primary healthcare they need through community health centers. It will
address the serious shortage of doctors and nurses in rural areas and
inner cities by expanding the National Health Service Corps. And it
will make sure our veterans receive the healthcare they have earned and
deserve by increasing funding at the VA by some $17 billion.
In addition, in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, I
don't

[[Page S432]]

think it is saying too much that people should not go hungry. I get
emotionally wrought when, in my own State--and this is true in every
State in this country--in my own city of Burlington, VT, hundreds of
people line up in their cars to get emergency food packages. Many of
them never, in a million years, would have thought that they would be
in that position.
We are looking at the highest rate of hunger in America in decades.
And if this country means anything, if this government means anything,
we are not going to allow our fellow Americans to go hungry.
This budget resolution will provide nutrition assistance to tens of
millions of hungry families with children, the disabled, and the
elderly by providing billions of dollars for SNAP, WIC, and the
pandemic nutrition assistance program.
One of the outstanding crises this country faces is the fear of many
millions of our people of being evicted from their homes or their
apartments. Today, over 14 million Americans owe an average of $5,800
in back rent. We have a moratorium on eviction right now. But the day
that moratorium ends, I fear that many, many people all over this
country will face eviction. That is why this budget resolution will
provide the funding for rent relief, utility assistance, and mortgage
relief to millions of tenants and homeowners who are in danger of
eviction or foreclosure.
In addition, this budget resolution allows us to address the terrible
crisis of homelessness in America where, a few blocks away from here,
in bitter cold weather, Americans are sleeping out in tents.
Not only is this $1.9 trillion emergency COVID relief package the
right thing to do from a moral perspective and a public policy
perspective, it is exactly what the overwhelming majority of the
American people want us to do. They understand that if we are one
country and they are hurting, now is the time to come together and to
address that pain.
So many of our people have given up on democracy. They have given up
on their belief that government can work to help them. Now is the time
to try to reaffirm people's faith in government.
People want us to go forward. According to a recent poll, over 70
percent of the American people support President Biden's $1.9 trillion
COVID-19 plan, 83 percent support boosting direct payments from $600 to
$2,000, 64 percent support raising the Federal minimum wage to 15 bucks
an hour, and 62 percent support additional unemployment benefits.
In other words, what we are doing is the right thing to do, and what
we are doing is what the American people want us to do. So now is the
time to reaffirm the faith of the American people that their government
listens to them; that, in fact, we are a government of the people, by
the people, and for the people, as Lincoln talked about in the midst of
the terrible Civil War.
So now we can show who we are, and that is, instead of listening to
wealthy campaign contributors and all of the lobbyists who flood
Capitol Hill, let us stand with working families today, the elderly,
the children, the sick, and the poor who want us to stand with them.
Let us pass this budget resolution, and let us then finish the job by
passing a reconciliation bill so that we can get it to the President
for his signature as soon as possible.
With that, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Van Hollen). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Order of Business

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
following amendments be called up in the order listed: Wicker-Sinema
No. 261, Tim Scott No. 53, Rubio-Scott No. 69, Blunt No. 48, Thune No.
52, Young No. 54; further, that there be 2 minutes for debate equally
divided in the usual form prior to each vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.

Amendment No. 261

Ms. SINEMA. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 261 on behalf of
Senator Wicker and myself and ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arizona [Ms. Sinema], for Mr. Wicker,
proposes an amendment numbered 261.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
establishing a fund to provide grants to food service and drinking
establishments affected by the COVID-19 pandemic)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
ESTABLISHING A FUND TO PROVIDE GRANTS TO FOOD
SERVICE AND DRINKING ESTABLISHMENTS AFFECTED BY
THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,
and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or
more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between
the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to
establishing a fund to provide grants to food service and
drinking establishments affected by the COVID-19 pandemic by
the amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes,
provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2021
through 2025 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2021
through 2030.

Ms. SINEMA. Mr. President, I yield back all time on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. SINEMA. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 10, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 14 Leg.]

YEAS--90

Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kaine
Kelly
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Lummis
Manchin
Markey
Marshall
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young

NAYS--10

Braun
Cruz
Daines
Lankford
Lee
Paul
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Toomey
Tuberville
The amendment (No. 261) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Rosen). The majority leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for 1
minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Senator Murray's 9,000TH Vote

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, as the Senate proceeds today on its
long string of rollcall votes, I rise at this moment to note that this
vote is different than the rest.
One of our most beloved, effective Members has just cast her 9,000th
rollcall vote in the course of her career.
Senator Murray, congratulations.
(Applause, Senators rising.)
Mr. SCHUMER. It is a history-making accomplishment from a truly
history-making public servant
Madam President, as the Senate proceeds today on its long string of
rollcall votes, I rise at this moment to note that this one is
different from the rest--because, with this vote, our

[[Page S433]]

friend Senator Murray has now reached 9,000 rollcall votes over the
course of her career, a history-making accomplishment from a truly
history-making public servant.
Senator Murray was elected to this Chamber in 1992, the, ``Year of
the Woman.'' She began her tenure alongside Senator Feinstein, who will
also hit this significant milestone later today, and two other women in
a year that tripled the number of women who served in this chamber,
from two to six.
Over the course of her career, she was the first woman to serve in a
number of positions of Senate leadership, including chair of the Senate
Veterans' Affairs Committee and chair of the Senate Budget Committee.
In her time, she has been a leading voice on the biggest issues, from
healthcare, to the environment, to labor rights, pensions, standing up
for families and workers everywhere, possessing the rare gift of
explaining and presenting complex policy with extraordinary clarity.
As a close member of my leadership team, she has been a valued and
trusted partner and a dear friend.
So let us take this moment to recognize Senator Murray, a public
servant of extraordinary skill, and a Member we have all been honored
to serve alongside for all these years.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.

Amendment No. 53

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam President, I call up my amendment
No. 53 and ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott of South
Carolina) proposes an amendment numbered 53.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
ensuring the accurate reporting of COVID-19 related deaths of residents
or staff at nursing homes)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO ENSURING
THE ACCURATE REPORTING OF COVID-19 RELATED
DEATHS OF RESIDENTS OR STAFF AT NURSING HOMES.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,
and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or
more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between
the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to
ensuring States accurately report COVID-19 deaths, which may
include conducting investigations and withholding funding
from States who underreport, by the amounts provided in such
legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2021 through 2025 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2021 through 2030.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Colleagues, as of last month, two out of
every five COVID-related deaths in this country are either residents of
nursing homes or the staff of nursing homes.
Inaccurate information affects life-and-death decisions for
communities. Requiring States to provide accurate data is common sense
for anyone who believes, as I do, that we should have a science-based,
fact-driven response to this pandemic.
We should not offer more funding to States that have mismanaged and
then covered up their pandemic response until they fix it. It simply
makes no sense. That is why my colleagues should join me in supporting
this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I have great respect for my colleague
from South Carolina. We are going to serve together on the Aging
Committee, leading the committee.
I oppose this amendment for some basic reasons. No. 1 is he cited the
number of deaths in long-term care facilities across the country. More
than 150,000 people are dead in long-term care. The last administration
didn't even count those deaths until May of 2020, despite efforts by
Members of this body to urge the administration to do that.
They never had a plan. They didn't help the States. This is an
effort, an ongoing effort, to blame States when the Federal Government
dropped the ball when it came to long-term care.
I think we can do better than that. We should be helping nursing
homes with the resources they need, like resources for cohorting where
you can separate a resident with COVID-19 from those who don't have it.
We should be providing money for strike teams in ways to help nursing
homes. Let's reduce the deaths instead of pointing fingers.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam President, how much time do I have
left on my 60 seconds?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 seconds.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I look forward to working with Senator
Casey on the committee, and he is a person I have great respect for.
I would simply say that it is the responsibility of the Governors of
these States to report accurate information. This is not a political
debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

Vote on Amendment No. 53

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. THUNE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 15 Leg.]

YEAS--50

Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--50

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
The amendment (No. 53) was rejected
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.

Amendment No. 69

Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 69 and ask it
be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report the
amendment by number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), for himself and
others, proposes an amendment numbered 69.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
prohibiting legislation that would increase taxes on small businesses
during any period in which a national emergency has been declared with
respect to a pandemic)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
PREVENTING TAX INCREASES ON SMALL BUSINESSES
DURING A PANDEMIC.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,
and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or
more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between
the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to
changes in Federal tax laws, which may include preventing tax
increases on small businesses during any period in which a
national emergency has been declared with respect to a
pandemic, by the amounts provided in such legislation for
those purposes, provided that such legislation would not
increase the deficit over either the period of the total of
fiscal years 2021 through 2025 or the period of the total of
fiscal years 2021 through 2030.

Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, this amendment simply says you can't
raise

[[Page S434]]

taxes on small business during the pandemic, and I hope everyone can
support it. I can't imagine anyone being against that idea.
I yield the floor.
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
I recognize the Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, there are no tax increases on small
business in this. We support the Rubio amendment.
Mr. GRAHAM. Do it by voice vote?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator want to yield back time?
Mr. SANDERS. Yes. We yield back time. We support a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
The yeas and nays were previously ordered.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
rollcall be dispensed with and we use voice votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the Rubio amendment.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll
The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 16 Leg.]

YEAS--100

Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Braun
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kaine
Kelly
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Lujan
Lummis
Manchin
Markey
Marshall
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Paul
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
The amendment (No. 69) was agreed to
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
subsequent votes be 10 minutes in duration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I would
like to ask Senator Paul, in front of everybody, to start wearing a
mask on the Senate floor, like the entire staff does all the time--
particularly the staff. And I appreciate now the Presiding Officer is
wearing a mask, but I wish Senator Paul would show respect to his
colleagues to wear a mask while he is on the Senate floor walking
around.
I withdraw my objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request from the
Senator from Kentucky?
The objection is withdrawn.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.

Amendment No. 48

Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 48 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Blunt] proposes an amendment
numbered 48.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
prohibiting the provision of COVID-19 related kindergarten through
grade 12 emergency relief to schools that do not reopen for in-person
learning after the teachers of such schools are vaccinated against
COVID-19)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO PROVIDING
COVID-19 RELATED EMERGENCY RELIEF TO SCHOOLS.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,
and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or
more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between
the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to
supporting schools, students, and their families, which may
include limiting or prohibiting the provision of COVID-19
related kindergarten through grade 12 emergency relief to
schools that do not reopen for in-person learning after the
teachers of such schools are vaccinated, by the amounts
provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided
that such legislation would not increase the deficit over
either the period of the total of fiscal years 2021 through
2025 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2021 through
2030.

Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I am offering an amendment today to
reopen our Nation's schools once teachers are vaccinated and the
potential for tying COVID funding to that reopening.
The evidence is clear, school closures are hurting students,
prolonged remote learning puts kids where they are at high risk of
falling behind, of failing classes, and of having mental health
problems. And even a greater number of students with disabilities in
underserved areas are impacted by not going to school.
Science confirms schools can and should reopen safely. Just this
week, the CDC Director said that vaccines aren't even a prerequisite to
getting kids back to school. There shouldn't be any further delay. This
amendment does include teachers vaccines as part of the criteria; but
with vaccines, we should get back to in-person school. The case is
strong. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, the role of Federal funding to schools
for COVID relief is to help support our schools in implementing public
health protocols aligned with local public health guidance in order to
safely reopen.
The President has made clear that he would like the vast majority of
K-8 schools to reopen in the next 100 days, but any amendment offered
today attaching extraneous conditions to those funds is simply a
political show. If we withhold funds and schools cannot implement
health safety protocols, then we are acting counter to actually getting
students back into the classroom.
Making sure our Nation's educators receive a vaccine is an important
step; however, vaccinations are just one piece of safely transitioning
back. Safely reopening schools means providing schools the resources to
implement public health protocols, physical distancing, consistent
mask-wearing, ventilation, testing, and contact tracing. This amendment
would prohibit schools from getting critical resources to implement
those public health protocols, and, as a result, this amendment would
make that much harder for schools to reopen for in-person instruction.
The best way for our schools to reopen as soon as possible is to give
schools the resources they need. I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment.
Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, may I have additional time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 seconds.
Mr. BLUNT. Vote yes on this amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 48

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. THUNE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 17 Leg.]

YEAS--50

Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr

[[Page S435]]

Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--50

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
The amendment (No. 48) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warnock). The Senator from South Dakota.

Amendment No. 52, as Modified

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment
No. 52 be called up, as modified, and reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] proposes an
amendment numbered 52, as modified.

The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to the
authority of States or other taxing jurisdictions to tax certain income
of employees for employment duties performed in other States or taxing
jurisdictions)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO THE
AUTHORITY OF STATES AND OTHER TAXING
JURISDICTIONS TO TAX CERTAIN INCOME OF
EMPLOYEES WORKING IN OTHER STATES OR TAXING
JURISDICTIONS.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,
and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or
more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between
the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to the
authority of States or other taxing jurisdictions to tax
certain income of employees for employment duties performed
in other States or taxing jurisdictions by the amounts
provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided
that such legislation would not increase the deficit over
either the period of the total of fiscal years 2021 through
2025 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2021 through
2030.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, one significant thing we could do to
provide genuine relief to Americans is to address the tax situation
facing remote and mobile workers, like the medical professionals who
travel from other States to help during the COVID crisis who now may be
facing a surprise big, fat tax bill.
Mobile workers generally have to file tax returns in multiple States,
as tax rules often differ, and with COVID, many employers had their
employees begin working from home, presenting a possible tax problem
for workers who live in a different State than the one they work in.
This amendment would address these challenges. It would create a
uniform standard for mobile workers, codify the prepandemic status quo
for remote workers, and establish a special 90-day standard for
healthcare workers and others who traveled to another State to help
during the pandemic and to ensure that these workers don't face an
unexpected tax bill.
I would ask that we adopt the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I want to thank my friend, the senior
Senator from South Dakota, for working with me on this. We have been
working on this for a full decade now. We worked together in the Ag
Committee to deliver for America's farmers. I want to take the same
approach here.
Healthcare workers, as my friend from South Dakota said, have been on
the frontlines of this pandemic going on for a year now. Not only are
they combating this virus in their own community; many of them have
traveled across State lines, obviously, to do this.
A surprise tax bill is the last thing they need. We should make it
easier for these mobile workers to support themselves and their family.
This is important to a lot of my colleagues. Senator Hassan, Senator
Shaheen, Senator Cortez Masto, and I just talked about it. I thank all
of you for working to make this progress possible.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Ohio, and I would
ask that this amendment be adopted by voice.

Vote on Amendment No. 52, As Modified

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 52), as modified, was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.

Amendment No. 54

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 54 and ask that it
be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Young] proposes an amendment
numbered 54.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
preventing legislation that would allow illegal immigrants to receive
Economic Impact Payments or any other similar direct, tax-based
temporary financial assistance)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
PREVENTING LEGISLATION THAT WOULD ALLOW ILLEGAL
IMMIGRANTS TO RECEIVE ECONOMIC IMPACT PAYMENTS
OR ANY OTHER SIMILAR DIRECT, TAX-BASED,
TEMPORARY FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,
and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or
more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between
the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to
changes in Federal tax laws, which may include provisions
limiting or preventing illegal immigrants from receiving
Economic Impact Payments or other similar direct, tax-based
temporary financial assistance, by the amounts provided in
such legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2021 through 2025 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2021 through 2030.

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I rise today in support of my amendment to
ensure that any new round of economic impact payments does not go to
those in this country illegally.
It would establish a dangerous precedent if the Federal Government
were to give a direct cash payment to those who have jumped the line
and subverted our Nation's immigration system to enter the United
States.
Now, I want to emphasize that this amendment is not a change. It is
not a change from the way this body has approached EIPs during the last
two rounds. Moreover, it does not affect the important fix that
Congress implemented, with the leadership of Mr. Rubio, in December to
ensure mixed-status families are not negatively impacted.
This amendment would simply make certain that Democrats do not loosen
the existing eligibility requirements moving forward if there is a new
round of EIPs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me clarify something at the outset.
Undocumented immigrants do not qualify for stimulus relief under
current law or any proposal by the Biden administration. This amendment
is unnecessary.
There are estimated to be 11 million undocumented immigrants in the
United States, 7\1/2\ million ITINs. These are men and women working in
the United States, paying Federal taxes, living in this country.
We can save the debate for another day as to their entitlement for
any financial relief, but let me hope that we do agree on one basic
thing: Children who are legal citizens in the United States of America
are entitled to help, regardless of the immigration status of their
parents.

[[Page S436]]

Unfortunately, Senator Young's amendment, as written, would preclude
these children of immigrant parents from this financial assistance.
Whether you are for or against their parents receiving a payment, be
fair to these American children, these legal citizens in the United
States, and vote no on the Young amendment.
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, how much time do I have to respond?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five seconds.
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, we have consulted with legal counsel. The
gentleman from Illinois' statements, assertions are inaccurate. This
would not impact mixed-status families.
I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote aye on
this amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 54

I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. DURBIN. Do I have any time remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 42, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 18 Leg.]

YEAS--58

Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Hawley
Hickenlooper
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kelly
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Manchin
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Peters
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sinema
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--42

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Smith
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
The amendment (No. 54) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.

Amendment No. 775

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 775 and ask that
it be reported by number.
I also ask for unanimous consent that the time be split between
myself and the Senator from Maine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) proposes an
amendment numbered 775.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
targeting economic impact payments to Americans who are suffering from
the effects of COVID-19, including provisions to ensure upper-income
taxpayers are not eligible)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO TARGETING
ECONOMIC IMPACT PAYMENTS TO AMERICANS WHO ARE
SUFFERING FROM THE EFFECTS OF COVID-19.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,
and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or
more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between
the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to
targeting economic impact payments to Americans who are
suffering from the effects of COVID-19, including provisions
to ensure upper-income taxpayers are not eligible, by the
amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes,
provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2021
through 2025 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2021
through 2030.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, American families in every corner of our
country are struggling right now, and I don't think a single person on
this floor would disagree that the decent, compassionate thing is for
us to target relief to our neighbors struggling every day to get by, to
the families who are struggling to pay rent and put food on the table.
This $1,400 will make a significant impact on their ability to get by.
These families need our support right now.
Still, there are other families who have not missed a single paycheck
as a result of this pandemic. It does not make sense to send a check to
those individuals who are still working, earning a decent living over
the wages that we talked about.
My bipartisan amendment would simply ensure those Americans who are
truly struggling through no fault of their own--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty seconds.
Mr. MANCHIN. Are given the support they need during this difficult
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the question before us is quite simple:
Do we want stimulus checks to go to households with family incomes of
$300,000 or do we want to target the assistance to struggling families
who need the help and provide a boost for the economy?
I urge my colleagues to support the Manchin-Collins amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 30
seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. SANDERS. I do not oppose this amendment. I don't think anybody
here wants to see people making $300,000 or $400,000 get direct
payments.
But let me be very clear, speaking for myself. I absolutely want to
make certain that people who are making $75,000 a year or less do get
their payments and couples making $150,000 a year or less do get their
payments.
I yield the floor.

Vote on Amendment No. 775

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 1, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 19 Leg.]

YEAS--99

Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Braun
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kaine
Kelly
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Lujan
Lummis
Manchin
Markey
Marshall
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young

NAYS--1

Paul

The amendment (No. 775) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.

Amendment No. 553

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 553 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report the
amendment by number.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), for himself and
others, proposes an amendment numbered 553.

[[Page S437]]

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
ensuring that State and local law enforcement are permitted to
cooperate with Federal officials to enforce Federal law)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO ALLOWING
STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT COOPERATION.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,
and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or
more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between
the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to
reducing Federal funding by any of the committees instructed
in section 2002 for any State or political subdivision of a
State that prohibits its local officials from cooperating
with Federal officials to enforce Federal law, by the amounts
provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided
that such legislation would not increase the deficit over
either the period of the total of fiscal years 2021 through
2025 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2021 through
2030.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, this amendment would allow withholding of
community development block grants and Economic Development Act funding
from States and municipalities that prohibit local police from
cooperating with Federal officials to enforce Federal law.
It is important to note it would not affect any security-related
funds.
It is important because sanctuary cities, like San Francisco and
Philadelphia, in my State, have radical policies that actually forbid
the local police from cooperating with Federal immigration officials,
even when the local police would like to cooperate.
These policies are dangerous. They cost us time and money. But most
importantly, by far, is the tragic cost to human beings, people like
Kate Steinle, killed by an illegal immigrant who opened fire on a San
Francisco pier.
This shooter had been convicted of seven felonies, been deported five
times. Why was he on the pier that night? Because San Francisco chose
to release him rather than cooperate with Federal authorities that
wanted to take him off the streets.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired.
The majority whip.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, community policing is not a one-size-fits-
all approach. The Congress and the administration should respect the
judgment of local leaders when it comes to identifying public safety
needs.
Hundreds of cities and counties have decided they don't want to be
immigration police. Why? Because their resources are stretched thin,
and doing so will deter people from reporting crime and cooperating
with police investigation.
Instead of laying off this responsibility to local government, I have
got a radical idea: Why doesn't Congress do its own work and fix this
broken immigration system once and for all, instead of blaming local
police departments?

Vote on Amendment No. 553

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Toomey
amendment.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 20 Leg.]

YEAS--50

Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--50

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
The amendment (No. 553) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaine). The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in
order to call up the following amendments in the order listed and that
the amendments be reported by number: Cardin No. 716; Barrasso No. 653;
Sasse No. 192; Graham No. 687; Ernst No. 132; Collins No. 546; and
Shaheen No. 834.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.

Amendment No. 716

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 716 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] proposes an
amendment numbered 716.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
COVID-19 vaccine administration and a public awareness campaign)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO COVID-19
VACCINE ADMINISTRATION AND A PUBLIC AWARENESS
CAMPAIGN.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,
and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or
more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between
the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to
strengthening and improving the process of distributing
COVID-19 vaccines to States, which may include supporting
States in implementing a transparent and consistent vaccine
administration program and bolstering States' public
awareness campaigns to increase awareness and knowledge of
the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines
(particularly among vulnerable communities, including ethnic
minority populations), by the amounts provided in such
legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2021 through 2025 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2021 through 2030.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that 30
seconds of my time be devoted to Senator Portman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CARDIN. I thank Senator Portman and Senator Menendez for
cosponsoring this amendment. Each of our States has challenges in the
adequacy and fairness of vaccine distribution systems. This amendment
would provide that there would be State and Federal support to the
States for implementing a transparent and consistent vaccine
administration program and bolstering States' awareness campaigns to
increase awareness and knowledge of the safety and effectiveness of
COVID-19 vaccines, particularly among vulnerable communities, including
ethnic minority populations.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I strongly support this amendment. The
most important thing we can do right now is to get the vaccines
distributed. One of the problems we have is that about 40 percent of
Americans are still saying they are uncomfortable getting the vaccine.
Part of that is because we haven't been able to get a proper public
awareness campaign out there--not with politicians but with folks with
white coats and people who are respected and trusted on this issue--to
say it is necessary for us because these are safe and effective, and by
getting these vaccines in place, we can turn things around.
I support the amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 716

Mr. CARDIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

[[Page S438]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
Who yields time in opposition?
Mr. THUNE. I yield back time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 21 Leg.]

YEAS--100

Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Braun
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kaine
Kelly
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Lujan
Lummis
Manchin
Markey
Marshall
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Paul
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
The amendment (No. 716) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.

Amendment No. 653

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 653 and ask that
it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Barrasso] proposes an
amendment numbered 653.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
supporting elementary and secondary schools in States with lost revenue
due to the Federal moratorium on oil and natural gas leasing on public
lands and offshore waters)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
SUPPORTING ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN
STATES WITH LOST REVENUE DUE TO THE FEDERAL
MORATORIUM ON OIL AND NATURAL GAS LEASING ON
PUBLIC LANDS AND OFFSHORE WATERS.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,
and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or
more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between
the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to
supporting elementary and secondary schools in States with
lost revenue due to the Federal moratorium on oil and natural
gas leasing on public lands and offshore waters by the
amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes,
provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2021
through 2025 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2021
through 2030.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, my amendment addresses the serious
impacts of the Biden administration moratorium on oil and natural gas
leases and the impact on Federal lands and waters.
Wyoming and many States across the West have Federal land where there
is oil and gas development. The revenue generated from the lease sales
goes to States, which use it for essential services.
One of the many crushing consequences of the moratorium is
eliminating hundreds of millions of dollars for K-12 education for
students, funding all of these States. In 2019 alone, revenues from oil
and gas contributed $740 million to Wyoming's public schools.
This amendment creates a deficit-neutral reserve fund to protect
students and schools from this misguided moratorium by restoring these
lost funds to the States.
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, my friend from Wyoming and I disagree on
many things. We disagree on the impact of this policy in the immediate,
and we disagree on the speed of the energy transition to a zero-carbon
economy.
What we do not disagree about is that these communities we support--
we support their schools, and throughout this transition we should
support the people who have kept the lights on and made this country
the greatest energy country on the face of the Earth.
So I would support this amendment because it is about supporting the
schools in those communities.

Vote on Amendment No. 653

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 2, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 22 Leg.]

YEAS--98

Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Braun
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kaine
Kelly
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lujan
Lummis
Manchin
Markey
Marshall
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young

NAYS--2

Lee
Paul

The amendment (No. 653) was agreed to
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.

Amendment No. 192

Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 192 and ask that
it be reported by number, please.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Sasse], for himself and
others, proposes an amendment numbered 192.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
improving health care to prohibit a health care practitioner from
failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child
who survives an abortion or attempted abortion)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO IMPROVING
HEALTH CARE TO PROHIBIT A HEALTH CARE
PRACTITIONER FROM FAILING TO EXERCISE THE
PROPER DEGREE OF CARE IN THE CASE OF A CHILD
WHO SURVIVES AN ABORTION OR ATTEMPTED ABORTION.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,
and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or
more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between
the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to
improving health care, which may include the creation of
criminal and civil penalties for providers who fail to
exercise the same degree of care for babies who survive an
abortion or attempted abortion as would be provided to
another child born at the same gestational age, by the
amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes,
provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over either the period of the total of fiscal years

[[Page S439]]

2021 through 2025 or the period of the total of fiscal years
2021 through 2030.

Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, we are doing a lot of red versus blue
jersey stuff today. Until about 2 a.m., it is going to be mostly
straight partisan votes. It would be good for us to find some common
ground, and this amendment is an opportunity to do that.
This amendment, modeled on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors
Protection Act, is an opportunity to come together and to defend
babies. It is pretty simple, actually. Every baby, whether she is born
in a state-of-the-art hospital with a NICU unit or whether she is born
in an abortion clinic in a strip mall, every baby is born with dignity
and is created in God's image, and she deserves care. This amendment is
aimed at making sure that babies who survive abortions get the same
degree of care that any other newborn would. There is nothing partisan
about that. That is why my Democratic colleagues, Joe Manchin and Bob
Casey, both voted for this last year as legislation. We disagree on a
bunch of stuff, but not this.
There is a lot of complicated debate in this Chamber, but this isn't
actually one of them. Here is a chance for 100 Senators to come
together and support every baby. Every baby deserves a fighting chance.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.

Point of Order

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is already current law that all Federal
protections for people apply to every infant born alive, including
those born alive during the course of an abortion. Simply put, you
cannot kill an infant, regardless of how they came into this world.
This is the law of the land thanks to the Born-Alive Infants
Protection Act, which passed the House and Senate by a voice vote and
was signed into law by President George Bush in 2002.
Does it work? In 2013, Dr. Kermit Gosnell, a physician in
Pennsylvania, was found guilty on three counts of murdering babies born
alive in his clinic after botched late-term abortions. He is currently
serving three life terms in prison.
I would say to the Senator from Nebraska, of course we agree. People
like Dr. Gosnell should pay a heavy price. But to put this into a
budget resolution just doesn't fit, and I am afraid one page doesn't do
justice to even the explanation that was given.
I raise a point of order that the pending amendment is not germane to
the underlying resolution and therefore violates section 305(b)(2) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.

Motion to Waive

Mr. SASSE. Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move
to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget
resolutions for the purposes of Senate amendment No. 192, and I ask for
the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 48, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 23 Leg.]

YEAS--52

Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Manchin
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--48

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyde
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ossoff). On this vote, the yeas are 52,
the nays are 48.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment falls.
The Senator from South Carolina.

Amendment No. 687

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I call up my amendment, No. 687.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Graham] proposes an
amendment numbered 687.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
strengthening and protecting international agreements, joint
declarations, or proclamations entered into by the United States and
Mexico)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
STRENGTHENING AND PROTECTING INTERNATIONAL
AGREEMENTS, JOINT DECLARATIONS, OR
PROCLAMATIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE UNITED STATES
AND MEXICO.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,
and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or
more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between
the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to
strengthening and protecting international agreements, joint
declarations, or proclamations entered into by the United
States and Mexico, which may include the Remain in Mexico
program, which requires foreign nationals seeking assistance
at the United States-Mexico border to wait in Mexico for the
results, by the amounts provided in such legislation for
those purposes, provided that such legislation would not
increase the deficit over either the period of the total of
fiscal years 2021 through 2025 or the period of the total of
fiscal years 2021 through 2030.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy was put in
place by the Trump administration after talks with Mexico about how to
stem the flow of migrants from Central America who were seeking to come
to the United States for economic reasons more times than not. Before
the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy was adopted, migrants from the Northern
Triangle countries traveled to the United States, seeking to turn
themselves in and claim asylum whether they had valid claims or not.
They would then be released into the United States and often did not
return for their court dates.
If we end the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy for asylum seekers, it will
lead to a run on our border and complicate efforts to reform the
immigration system. Over 50,000 asylum seekers have been waiting in
Mexico rather than in the United States, where they often disappear
while waiting in the 1 million-person asylum case backlog. This was an
important change that the Trump administration put in place, and it is
a serious mistake to reverse it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment because my
distinguished colleague and friend put it in a very narrow context.
The reality is that this amendment suggests that all agreements,
proclamations, or declarations entered into between the United States
and Mexico will be preserved. The problem is Congress does not have a
clear picture of the international agreements, arrangements, and
supporting documents that the Trump administration negotiated with
Mexico. I requested those documents for almost 2 years as the ranking
member on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Yet the Trump
administration was afraid to put them up for congressional and public
scrutiny.
Without knowing what they say or how low they may have stooped, I
don't see how any Member can take an educated vote on this amendment to
consent to that which Members don't even know exists.
I, therefore, oppose the amendment for those and other reasons.

Point of Order

Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment is
not

[[Page S440]]

germane to the underlying resolution and, therefore, violates section
305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Motion to Waive

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of
applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections
of that act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of this
amendment, Senate amendment No. 687, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 24 Leg.]

YEAS--50

Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--50

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyde
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 50, and the nays
are 50.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the point of order is sustained and the amendment
falls.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.

Amendment No. 132

Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 132 and ask that
it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Iowa [Ms. Ernst], for herself and others,
proposes an amendment numbered 132.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
prioritizing taking into custody aliens charged with a crime resulting
in death or serious bodily injury)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
PRIORITIZING TAKING INTO CUSTODY ALIENS CHARGED
WITH A VIOLENT CRIME.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,
and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or
more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between
the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to
providing funding for the Department of Homeland Security to
establish and implement policies that prioritize the taking
into custody of removable aliens who have been charged in the
United States with a crime that resulted in the death or
serious bodily injury of another person, by the amounts
provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided
that such legislation would not increase the deficit over
either the period of the total of fiscal years 2021 through
2025 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2021 through
2030.

Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, this amendment reflects the intent of S.
80, Sarah's Law, which would amend the mandatory detention provisions
of the INA to require the detention of anyone unlawfully present in the
United States who is charged with a crime resulting in the death or
serious bodily injury of another person.
It honors the life of a girl from Iowa, Sarah Root. Her life was
tragically cut short by a drunk driver who was illegally here in the
United States. Sarah's Law currently has 21 cosponsors.
One of the first things the Biden administration did was stop
prioritizing violent aliens for deportation. This amendment reflects
that DHS should not implement such policies.
I thank Senators Tillis, Moran, Grassley, Sasse, Inhofe, Hyde-Smith,
Lee, Rick Scott, and Hoeven for joining me in this effort, and I urge
my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this amendment is opposed by the
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Center for American
Progress, America's Voice, SCIU, the National Immigrant Justice Center,
and many, many other civil rights and immigration organizations. The
reason they oppose it and why I oppose it is this amendment applies to
people charged, not convicted. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding
is that in this country, we believe that people are innocent until
proven guilty.
What this amendment does is vilify immigrants. Many of them are
working at essential and dangerous jobs right now, often for very low
pay.

Point of Order

Mr. President, this amendment is not germane to the budget resolution
as required by law; therefore, I raise a point of order that the
pending amendment violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.

Motion to Waive

Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of
applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections
of that act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of Senate
amendment No. 132, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 52, nays 48, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 25 Leg.]

YEAS--52

Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
King
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Manchin
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--48

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyde
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 52, the nays are
48.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. The point of order is
sustained, and the amendment falls.
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. ROMNEY. Mr. President, we had a vote a moment ago to have 10-
minute votes. So far the vote are closer to 30 minutes than 10 minutes.
I ask unanimous consent that the clerk time the votes to 10 minutes;
that we not go beyond 10 minutes; that at the end of 10 minutes, we
give an extra 1 minute of grace time; and that we close the vote after
11 minutes.
(Applause.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I
understand

[[Page S441]]

the Senator from Utah's sentiments, and I share them.
There is a physical need to call the roll, which takes an amount of
time, which sometimes can be more than 10 minutes. If we reach a tie
situation and have to call in the Vice President, it takes even longer.
The most effective thing I have seen in the Senate to deal with this
issue is for Members to sit in their chairs and to vote as their names
are called. We can bring the rollcalls to an end much more quickly. Now
they are running around 30 minutes.
I am going to object to your suggestion, but I would suggest that
when we reach the point where Members are sitting in their chairs,
amendments are called, and we vote on them quickly, we can come to a
conclusion in a much faster way.
Mr. ROMNEY. Would the gentleman agree, then, that we take as much
time as it takes to read the names, and if it requires the Vice
President to come here, we give her sufficient time to get here, but,
otherwise, 10 minutes?
Mr. DURBIN. I think you are going to find that 10 minutes is not
practical. I wish--I am for electronic voting, just to go way out on a
limb, but I want to tell you--
Mr. ROMNEY. That is probably not practical tonight.
Mr. SCHUMER. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROMNEY. Certainly.
Mr. SCHUMER. It would help speed things along if we could have a set
amount. You keep handing us new sheets.
(Applause.)
And that is OK, but let's see the total amount of amendments, and
then we can try to move the time as quickly as possible. OK?
Mr. LEE. Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, with due respect to the majority leader, I
understand what he is suggesting. But the Senator from Utah has made a
motion which has absolutely nothing to do with the number of votes that
we are going to be taking tonight.
Look, 365 days a year, we are told, as individual Senators, to wait
our turn; we will get to vote on whatever we want to vote on if and
when we vote on them. This is the one time, with budget vote-arama,
where anybody can ask for a vote on anything.
Now, I don't see anything wrong with the Senator from Utah's request
that we limit the amount of time it takes to vote to the amount of time
it takes to call the roll and then to add to that any additional time
that might be taken up by waiting for the Vice President in the event
of a tie.
So I would like to resuggest what the Senator from Utah has asked.
That is, I ask unanimous consent that we so limit the amount of time we
take to vote to the time it takes to call the roll, subject to the need
to wait for Vice President Harris to come and break any tie.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
Mr. DURBIN. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Maine.

Amendment No. 546

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senator Manchin,
Senator Capito, Senator Moran, Senator Shaheen, Senator Portman, and
Senator King, I call up amendment No. 546 and ask that it be reported
by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins], for herself and
others, proposes an amendment numbered 546.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
strengthening the Provider Relief Fund, including a 20 percent set
aside for rural hospitals)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
STRENGTHENING THE PROVIDER RELIEF FUND.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,
and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or
more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between
the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to
strengthening the Provider Relief Fund, which may include
additional support for rural hospitals in order to preserve
jobs and access to specialty services, by the amounts
provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided
that such legislation would not increase the deficit over
either the period of the total of fiscal years 2021 through
2025 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2021 through
2030.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask that I be notified when I have 30
seconds remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do so.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to replenish
and strengthen the Provider Relief Fund, which has been a lifeline for
hospitals, nursing homes, and community health centers, as well as
physician practices across the country, but especially so in rural
America.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 30 seconds.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, our rural hospitals have been
particularly hard hit during this pandemic.
With that, I would yield to my friend from West Virginia.
Mr. MANCHIN. I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, 18 rural hospitals across America closed
last year--three in my own State. Do any of you have any sympathy for
people who live in rural America?
Twenty percent of the population in America is rural. We only got 6
percent of the money that was associated that we sent out in the last
CARES package, and that is 6 percent to rural hospitals.
We need to treat them fair. That is all we are asking for. A 20-
percent set-aside is fair. Thank you, and I would appreciate your
support.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment.
Clearly, all across this country rural communities are suffering real
healthcare crises in terms of a loss of hospitals that they desperately
need.
So I would hope that this would be an issue that all of us will work
together to rebuild healthcare in rural America and make sure that our
communities have the hospitals that they need.

Vote on Amendment No. 546

I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll
The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 1, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 26 Leg.]

YEAS--99

Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Braun
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kaine
Kelly
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lujan
Lummis
Manchin
Markey
Marshall
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Paul
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young

NAYS--1

Lee

The amendment (No. 546) was agreed to
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the
Chamber for a minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Senator Feinstein's 9,000th Vote

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, we have another great accomplishment, one
right after the other, because they both came together. Earlier today,
we all congratulated our good friend Senator Murray for achieving a
historic

[[Page S442]]

milestone--9,000 rollcall votes. Well, we are pretty lucky because
today we get to celebrate another 9,000-vote accomplishment by none
other than the great senior Senator from California, Senator Feinstein.
(Applause.
Like Senator Murray, she was also elected during the Year of the
Woman, and she helped blaze a trail that many would follow.
Throughout her career, and through many of those 9,000 votes, she has
made her mark on some of the biggest issues of our time: the
environment, healthcare, gun safety, and much, much more.
Alongside Senator Boxer, she was the first woman to come to the
Senate from the State of California, the first Jewish woman to come to
the Senate from any State, and she became the first woman ever to serve
as chair of both the Rules Committee and Select Intelligence Committee.
One glass ceiling right after another in a storied and continually
impactful career.
I congratulate Senator Feinstein for today's accomplishment, and I
thank her for her many years of friendship.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.

Amendment No. 834

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I would like to call up amendment No.
834, as modified, and speak for 30 seconds and then turn the mic over
to my colleague Senator Murkowski, who is the cosponsor of this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Hampshire [Mrs. Shaheen], for herself
and others, proposes an amendment numbered 834, as modified.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
improving services and interventions relating to sexual assault, family
violence, domestic violence, dating violence, and child abuse)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO IMPROVING
SERVICES AND INTERVENTIONS RELATING TO SEXUAL
ASSAULT, FAMILY VIOLENCE, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE,
DATING VIOLENCE, AND CHILD ABUSE.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,
and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or
more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between
the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to
improving services and interventions for victims relating to
sexual assault, family violence, domestic violence, dating
violence, and child abuse, which may include funding for
programs and grants authorized by the Violence Against Women
Act and the Victims of Child Abuse Act, by the amounts
provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided
that such legislation would not increase the deficit over
either the period of the total of fiscal years 2021 through
2025 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2021 through
2030.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, this amendment supports organizations
serving survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and child
abuse. As we know, because of COVID, those survivors and families have
been hit particularly hard, and there has been very little money that
has gone to support them. This amendment would say very strongly we
need to do better.
Senator Murkowski.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we are ensuring with this amendment
that there will be resources for survivors of domestic violence, sexual
assault, and child abuse. Senator Shaheen has pointed out that our
shelters are very, very much in need of our support.

We urge you all to protect the most vulnerable in their time of need.
We ask for your support on this amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 834

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). Is there further debate?
Hearing none, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 27 Leg.]

YEAS--100

Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Braun
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kaine
Kelly
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Lujan
Lummis
Manchin
Markey
Marshall
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Paul
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
The amendment (No. 834), as modified, was agreed to
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The Senator from Indiana.

Amendment No. 833

Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 833 and ask that
it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Braun] proposes an amendment
numbered 833.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
prohibiting the Council on Environmental Quality and the Environmental
Protection Agency from promulgating rules or guidance that bans
hydraulic fracturing in the United States)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
PROHIBITING THE COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FROM PROMULGATING RULES OR GUIDANCE THAT BANS
FRACKING IN THE UNITED STATES.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,
and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or
more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between
the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and environmental
laws and policies, which may include limiting or prohibiting
the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality and the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from
proposing, finalizing, or implementing a rule or guidance
that bans fracking in the United States by the amounts
provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided
that such legislation would not increase the deficit over
either the period of the total of fiscal years 2021 through
2025 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2021 through
2030.

Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President, my amendment helps ensure that the EPA
cannot, through regulation or otherwise, ban fracking in the United
States. This is an issue of energy independence, locking in our
CO<inf>2</inf> emissions reduction provided by clean natural gas, and
it gives us time to find the cleanest, least expensive options down the
road.
Due to our American renaissance, the United States passed Russia as a
leading energy supplier in 2011 and passed Saudi Arabia in 2018.
But fracking has been a boon to the economy as well. According to the
Global Energy Institute, if fracking were banned in 2021, the U.S.
economy would lose 19 million jobs in 4 years, local and State tax
revenues would plummet, and gas prices would double. This is why
President Biden promised: We will not ban fracking; we will protect and
grow jobs.
Yet many in this body have called to ban fracking. The American
people deserve to know who stands with energy security and American
workers. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, unfortunately, I must rise in opposition
to Braun amendment 833 this evening. On its face, this amendment would
prohibit the EPA and the Council on Environmental Quality from issuing
any regulation or guidance that would ban oil and gas fracking.

[[Page S443]]

President Biden has stated repeatedly that he does not support a
blanket ban on fracking. He has said that we should capture the methane
that emanates from fracking, not ban the practice all together.
Let me give you his exact words. This is Joe Biden's words: ``Let me
be clear, and I know this always comes up, we're not going to ban
fracking.''
The amendment, as written, before us appears to go beyond just
prohibiting EPA and the Council on Environmental Quality from issuing
regs to ban oil and gas fracking. The effect here would actually go
beyond that and prevent the Federal Government from regulating
emissions of methane and air toxics that are related to fracking.
I encourage my colleagues to not vote for this hasty and unnecessary
amendment. Methane is 85 times more dangerous than carbon dioxide. We
should be controlling it, not allowing it to go up into the air.

Vote on Amendment No. 833

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. THUNE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 43, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 28 Leg.]

YEAS--57

Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lujan
Lummis
Manchin
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--43

Baldwin
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
The amendment (No. 833) was agreed to
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

Order of Business

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in
order to call up the following amendments in the order listed and that
the amendments be reported by number and that the amendments alternate
with a Democratic amendment when one is available to be called up:
Grassley No. 91, Cortez Masto No. 853, Inhofe No. 786, Paul No. 1,
Ernst No. 767, Daines No. 678, Johnson No. 542, Lee No. 821.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Iowa.

Amendment No. 91

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment 91 and ask that
it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley] proposes an amendment
numbered 91.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To create a point of order against legislation that would
allow for six-figure tax cuts for the top 1/10/th of 1 percent of
taxpayers)

At the appropriate place in title IV, add the following:

SEC. 4___. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY.

(a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate
to consider any bill, joint resolution, motion, amendment,
amendment between the Houses, or conference report that
increases or eliminates the limitation on the State and local
tax deduction if such increase or elimination would, as
determined by the Joint Committee on Taxation, result in any
taxpayer receiving a reduction in Federal income taxes which
is equal to or greater than $100,000.
(b) Waiver and Appeal.--Subsection (a) may be waived or
suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-
fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative
vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly
chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of
the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under
subsection (a).

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, my amendment creates a point of order
against repeal of the SALT tax deduction as part of the COVID package.
Any COVID relief package should be targeted at helping those in need,
not the benefit of the top 1 percent. According to JCT, over half of
the benefit from the repeal would go to those with incomes over $1
million, and $50,000 or lower wouldn't benefit at all.
According to an analysis of the Tax Policy Center, the top 1 percent
would receive an average tax cut of $144,000. No COVID relief package
should include six-figure tax cuts to multimillionaires when millions
of middle-class Americans are struggling to make ends meet.
And for the benefit of my friends on the other side of the aisle, it
is not progressive to give tax cuts to the top 1 percent of the people.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.

Point of Order

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I have been advised that inclusion of this
amendment in the budget resolution would be corrosive to the privileged
status of the resolution.
Since this amendment contains material inappropriate for inclusion in
a budget resolution, its adoption could jeopardize the privilege of
this resolution, which would completely halt our efforts to provide
urgent, critical pandemic relief.
Additionally, this amendment is not germane to the budget resolution,
as required by law. Accordingly, I raise a point of order that the
pending amendment violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.

Motion to Waive

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act and the waiver provisions of applicable budget
resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act and
applicable budget resolutions for the purpose of Senate amendment 91,
and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 49, nays 51, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 29 Leg.]

YEAS--49

Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--51

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Paul
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyde
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Durbin). Three-fifths of the Senators duly
chosen and sworn, having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not
agreed to.
The point of order is sustained and the amendment is rejected.
The Senator from Nevada.

Amendment No. 853

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 853.

[[Page S444]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada (Ms. Cortez Masto) proposes an
amendment numbered 853.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
expanded support to struggling Americans in relation to their
employment in hospitality, including those in conventions, trade shows,
entertainment, tourism, and travel)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
SUPPORTING HOSPITALITY, CONVENTIONS, TRADE
SHOWS, ENTERTAINMENT, TOURISM, AND TRAVEL AND
THEIR WORKERS.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,
and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or
more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between
the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to
supporting struggling Americans in relation to their
employment in hospitality, including those in the convention,
trade show, entertainment, tourism, and travel industries,
which may include legislation that provides relief and
recovery incentives, by the amounts provided in such
legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2021 through 2025 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2021 through 2030.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, the coronavirus pandemic has
devastated economies and industries at every single State across the
country. In Nevada, our hospitality travel and tourism sectors have
been especially hard-hit.
These businesses are economic engines for our communities, employing
hundreds of thousands of workers and pumping billions of dollars into
our economy each year, but they are facing incredible challenges right
now due to COVID.
This amendment ensures that the Senate will prioritize support for
the hospitality industry and its workers as it crafts legislation to
provide coronavirus relief and recovery to communities across the
United States.
Almost half of all job losses since the pandemic began have been in
the travel, leisure, and hospitality industries, and the situation gets
more dire every day we don't act.
Communities across this country have suffered as nearly $500 billion
in travel spending and an estimated $64 billion in Federal, State, and
local revenues have evaporated. Our communities cannot afford to see
these industries decimated.
That is why I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment
to expand support for our struggling hospitality industry and provide
relief for the workers in the industries hardest hit by this pandemic.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?

Vote on Amendment No. 853

If there is no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the
amendment.
The amendment (No. 853) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

Amendment No. 786

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I call up amendment up No. 786 and ask it
be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) proposes an
amendment numbered 786.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
maintaining the United States Embassy in Jerusalem, Israel)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
MAINTAINING THE UNITED STATES EMBASSY IN
JERUSALEM, ISRAEL.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,
and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or
more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between
the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to the
United States Embassy in Jerusalem, Israel, maintaining its
current location and level of operations, which may include
current funding levels and security, by the amounts provided
in such legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2021 through 2025 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2021 through 2030.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield 15 seconds from our time to our
friend, the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Hagerty.
Mr. HAGERTY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the senior Senator
from Oklahoma as the lead cosponsor of this amendment in support of our
shared objective, maintaining the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem, the
eternal and the indivisible capital of the Jewish State of Israel.
This Embassy is paving the way for peace throughout the region and
should be preserved. Now our allies there know we will stand with them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this amendment shouldn't be controversial
to anyone. It has been our position in the United States for 25 years
that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and we should have our Embassy
in Jerusalem.
This is not controversial. In 1995, the same amendment was 93 to 5.
In 2017, it was 90 to 0.
With that, I retain the balance of my time

Vote on Amendment No. 786

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does any Senator seek recognition in
opposition?
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll
The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 3, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 30 Leg.]

YEAS--97

Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Braun
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kaine
Kelly
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Lujan
Lummis
Manchin
Markey
Marshall
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Paul
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young

NAYS--3

Carper
Sanders
Warren
The amendment (No. 786) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Durbin). The Senator from Kentucky.

Amendment No. 1

(Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I call up my amendment, No. 1, and ask that
it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Paul] proposes an amendment
numbered 1.

(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, every American family must balance its own
family's budget, and voters wonder why Congress never balances its
budget. The Democratic budget before us will add $15 trillion of debt
over the next decade. The Pennies Plan budget, which is consistent with
the balanced budget amendment that most Republicans have voted for,
balances the budget in just 5 years.
When I first introduced this budget a few years ago, all you had to
do was cut one penny over 5 years, and the budget balanced, but as
Congress has blown through the budget caps, it has

[[Page S445]]

become much more difficult. Last year, it was two pennies--a 2-percent
cut per year to balance in 5 years. Now it is a three-penny plan, and
you have to have a 3-percent cut, but it is still foreseeable that we
could balance our budget.
It is the right thing to do. It is good for America. It will make us
a stronger country to leave for our kids and our grandkids, and I urge
a ``yes'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does any Senator seek recognition in
opposition?

Vote on Amendment No. 1

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 29, nays 71, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 31 Leg.]

YEAS--29

Barrasso
Blackburn
Braun
Cassidy
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Grassley
Hagerty
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
Moran
Paul
Risch
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville

NAYS--71

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Graham
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Portman
Reed
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
The amendment (No. 1) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.

Amendment No. 767

Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 767 and ask that
it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Iowa [Ms. Ernst] proposes an amendment
numbered 767.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
prohibiting an increase in the Federal minimum wage during a global
pandemic to $15 per hour)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
INCREASING THE FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE DURING A
GLOBAL PANDEMIC.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,
and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or
more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between
the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to
increasing the Federal minimum wage during a global pandemic,
which may include prohibiting the rate from more than
doubling to $15 per hour, by the amounts provided in such
legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2021 through 2025 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2021 through 2030.

Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, a $15 Federal minimum wage would be
devastating for our hardest hit small businesses at a time when they
can least afford it. These small businesses, like restaurants and
childcare centers, provide vital services for working families and are
the lifeblood of our rural communities.
The CBO estimates that raising the Federal minimum wage to $15 would
result in 1.3 million jobs lost--this during the worst period of job
loss since the Great Depression.
The cost of living in States like Iowa is very different than the
cost of living in States like New York or California. We should not
have a one-size-fits-all policy set by Washington politicians. We all
support higher wages, but a $15 Federal minimum wage would be
counterproductive to this goal.
I thank my colleague Senator Tim Scott for working on this with me,
and I urge my colleagues to vote yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any Senator seeking recognition in
opposition?
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, at a time when half of our workers are
living paycheck to paycheck, when millions of workers are earning
starvation wages, and when Congress has not voted to raise the minimum
wage since 2007, I will do everything that I can to make sure that a
$15-an-hour minimum wage is included in this reconciliation bill. But
there appears to be some misunderstanding. As the author of the Raise
the Wage Act, it was never my intention to increase the minimum wage to
$15 an hour immediately and during the pandemic. My legislation
gradually increases the minimum wage to $15 an hour over a 5-year
period, and that is what I believe we have to do. We need to do it in
the reconciliation bill, and we need to end the crisis of starvation
wages in Iowa and around the United States.
So I will support this amendment because nobody is talking about
doubling the Federal minimum wage during the pandemic. We are talking
about gradually phasing it in over a 5-year period.
Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, do I have time remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. I am sorry, the Senator from Iowa has no time
remaining.

Vote on Amendment No. 767

The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I would accept a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
Ms. ERNST. We withdraw the request for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 767) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.

Amendment No. 678

Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 678 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Montana [Mr. Daines], for himself and
others, proposes an amendment numbered 678.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to the
improvement of relations between the United States and Canada with
regard to the Keystone XL Pipeline entering the United States in
Phillips County, Montana)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO THE
IMPROVEMENT OF RELATIONS BETWEEN THE UNITED
STATES AND CANADA.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,
and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or
more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between
the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to
improving relations between the United States and Canada,
increasing energy trade between the two nations, and reducing
transportation emissions through the approval of the
importation of oil from Canada to the United States through
the Keystone XL Pipeline by the amounts provided in such
legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2021 through 2025 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2021 through 2030.

Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, despite President Biden's call for unity,
with the stroke of a pen, he killed the Keystone XL Pipeline and the
thousands of jobs that come with it. He eliminated tens of millions of
dollars of tax revenues for communities in Montana for education, for
law enforcement, for infrastructure, as well as across the West. Hard-
working Americans across our country, dozens of families in Montana
have already been given the pink slip. They were told to go home. Their
paycheck is gone. This isn't because of a pandemic; this is because of
President Biden.
I hope all of my colleagues join me today for the good of American
energy and our blue-collar workers, or they can stand with the job-
killing Green New Deal agenda. The choice is clear.

[[Page S446]]

I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does a Senator seek recognition in opposition
to the amendment?

Vote on Amendment No. 678

If not, the question is on the amendment.
Mr. THUNE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 48, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 32 Leg.]

YEAS--52

Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Manchin
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--48

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
The amendment (No. 678) was agreed to

____________________