A concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2022 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for the fiscal years 2023 through 2031.

It is good to be back. Thank you for the inquiries about my well-being.

To all my colleagues, I appreciate the good wishes and the phone calls and the food.

I made it. I think the worst is behind me.

I want to reinforce a simple message: If you haven't been vaccinated regarding the COVID problem, get vaccinated. I have been vaccinated, and I got COVID anyway; a couple of really bad days, but I am doing better and I feel on the mend. And I am confident that, if I hadn't had the vaccine, it would have been a lot worse.

So in my State, about 50 percent of the people are still unvaccinated. Just for your own good and the good of our State, I would urge you to consider getting vaccinated. I think the vaccine is safe, and it works. I am glad I had it. And the sooner we can get to herd immunity through vaccinations and other means, the better off we will be.

To all my colleagues and people back home, thank you for the kind words and inquiries.

We are back at work, and I am glad I was able to make this debate. I think this debate is worth having. We just passed a $1 trillion infrastructure bill. The Presiding Officer, Senator Sinema, from Arizona, was one of the architects of the bill.

Congratulations.

I voted for it because it made sense to me. We have been talking about infrastructure here for 5 or 10 years. In this $1 trillion package, 550 of new spending, which I believe will be paid for, goes into ports, roads, and bridges, and rural broadband; and 19 Republicans voted for it.

I am hoping we can make it reality and get it to President Biden's desk because I think infrastructure is much-needed, and we were finding bipartisanship in that space.

Now we are moving on to something completely different--I dare say radical. Right after the majority was seized by the Democratic Party, they pushed through a $1.9 trillion package that had a lot of talk about COVID--but most of it wasn't related to COVID as we know it-- after we had worked together on $4 trillion of spending.

Now, this budget resolution is proposing $3\1/2\ trillion of additional spending, and we will talk about how that affects you, the public, here in a minute. But the first thing I want you to know is it is not $3\1/2\ trillion. That is not accurate.

When you look at the increase in public debt and the authorization of new discretionary spending, it is at least $4.2 trillion. So it is not $3\1/2\ trillion; it is over $4 trillion. The first thing you have to do is be honest with the product you are selling. This will cost well over $4 trillion if fully implemented.

What else does this bill do that people in this body need to know about?

It changes the rule regarding emergency spending. Right now, we can spend, through an emergency, basically, unlimited money and not have to worry about offsets and all that good stuff because there is truly an emergency. But you need 60 votes to declare

something an emergency. This budget resolution will change that rule so that a simple majority of Senators can determine anything they would like to be an emergency and spend without any accountability.

I think that is a bad idea for the body because anything you can do, we can do, and it really is an assault on the idea of minority rights. I think it is the biggest blow to the institution yet. It is buried in this bill, but it eliminates the 60-vote requirement to declare items emergency spending, replace it with a simple majority, allowing a majority--a single party--to spend without restriction in the name of emergency.

So to my friends on the other side, you need to look at what is in this bill, and I hope you will find that to be an unacceptable change to the U.S. Senate because, when it comes to spending, it guts the idea that the minority matters because all you have to do, if this budget resolution is implemented the way they have written it, is to declare something an emergency, get 50 votes, and spend. Very bad idea. We are going to try to change that, and we are hoping we can find some bipartisan support.

Let me tell you about this bill. I am going to ask some questions. On the immigration side, Senator Sanders said that this bill creates millions of new green cards for people here illegally.

So here is a question: If we told the world that in the budget reconciliation we are going to increase millions of green cards for people here illegally, do you think that would entice more people to come here illegally?

Here is what I think. I think that is the dumbest idea I could think of. In the middle of an invasion of this country by illegal immigrants, the Democratic Party, through budget reconciliation, is going to authorize millions of new green cards for people here illegally. It is in your document. Senator Sanders admitted that.

Here is what is happening as I speak: These statements are being translated into Spanish and every other language, and human traffickers all over the world are going to let the word get out that, Hey, the Senate is about to increase the number of green cards available for illegal immigrants; why don't you go and get in line?

Nobody has asked the Border Patrol: How do you think this would affect our illegal immigration problem?

Have you spent 15 minutes talking to anybody at the border about what this policy change would do to a broken immigration system?

I guarantee you haven't, because if you talked to anybody with common sense on the border, they would tell you the last thing you need to do right now is incentivize more illegal immigration by allocating green cards to people who are here already illegally

What has happened in the last 6 months?

A 262-percent increase compared to last year.

Does any Democrat have any idea what is happening here? Have any of you come to the floor to explain to the American people what the hell is going on at the border?

You don't have a clue; you don't care.

The same people who are writing this budget resolution to spend $4 trillion on liberal wish lists are the same people in charge of the border. They haven't asked one Border Patrol professional the effect of this bill on a broken immigration system.

We have had 1.2 million people come to the country illegally already. Let's compare that to last year--a 262-percent increase.

Illegal crossings by unaccompanied minors have surged 186 percent compared to last year. Why? The Biden administration has kept the COVID deportation title 42 law in place, but it has made exception by unaccompanied minors. If you are a certain age, you can stay. Guess what. The human traffickers have found that out, and word is out all over the Northern Triangle countries--but, really, the world.

And we have had a 186-percent increase in unaccompanied minors because of policy changes made by the Biden administration. Twenty- seven percent of unaccompanied minors recently deported tested positive for COVID-19.

How many of the unaccompanied minors have been released into the country? Of the 1.2 million people who have come here illegally: How many of them have been released? How many have them been tested? How many are positive for COVID?

Nobody knows these numbers because nobody seems to have a clue of what to do about it.

So what are the trends?

Look at this chart. Look at 2020 compared to `18, `19, and `20--an explosion of illegal immigrants, 1.2 million, almost. Year to date, in 2020, we had 458,000. A 260-percent increase in illegal crossings at the border because the Biden administration did away with the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy.

So asylum claims went through the roof. We are allowing unaccompanied children to stay as an exception to title 42, along with families. And guess what. You have an explosion of illegal immigrant crossings in this country.

If you pass this budget resolution the way Senator Sanders described, you are going to throw jet fuel on this. This number will go through the friggin' roof.

Every human trafficker in the world is going to get the word out throughout the world that they are increasing the number of green cards made available to illegal immigrants to America: Come now, the time is right.

What a dangerous idea, but it is part of this grand, new vision for America. Let me tell you about this vision for America: open borders; dropping people by the thousands off into the interior of the United States, not adequately tested; enticing young people to take a very dangerous journey; destroying all of the gains we had; stopping a wall that was almost built. That is the vision being created by the budget resolution and then some.

The idea of increasing green cards for illegal immigrants already here will make these numbers explode beyond what they already exploded. Only God knows.

Has anyone told you the price at the pump? Has anybody mentioned to you on the other side what is the cost of this bill when we implement change reforms to you as a consumer?

Senator Markey, who is a very passionate believer in climate change, said the Green New Deal is part of the DNA of this bill.

Senator Sanders is an avowed socialist, one of the most honest people in this building. Senator Sanders' vision for the last 20 and 30 years is in this budget resolution. This budget resolution is a dream for those who want to socialize America; it is a nightmare for working people.

How much have gas prices gone up in the last 6 months?

A dollar.

Here is what I think: If you implement the provisions of this budget resolution regarding climate change, you are declaring war on the internal combustion engine; you are going to shut out coal-fired plants in rural America.

The question I have for my Democratic colleagues: How much will gas prices go up if this bill becomes reality? How much will your heating bill go up because you shut down supply? How has there been an increase of a dollar at the pump? Policy matters.

I dare say that, if this bill is ever implemented, you are going to double gas prices.

I hope you are listening out there, America. If they implement this radical transformation of our energy economy, you are going to have a dramatic increase of gas prices and heating prices.

This is the worst thought-out idea I have ever seen. They are just throwing every liberal idea and hope it sticks to the wall, and their whole reason for being on the left is in this bill.

There is a border-adjusted carbon tax proposal floating around out there. What does that mean to you? What the hell is a border-adjusted carbon tax?

The best I can understand is it is going to be a tax on products coming into the country because the way the product was made is not sufficiently green enough. So they are going to charge for that product, put a tax on it at the border. Guess what. That is going to increase the cost of whatever good we are talking about.

And where do you think that cost goes?

It goes to you.

This is the most inflationary idea I have ever seen. We have had 5.4- percent increase in inflation recently, wiping out all the gains in the economy.

How could that be?

You are spending money like drunken sailors. And if this bill ever becomes law, if it is ever implemented and there is a border-adjusted carbon tax, it is going to be passed onto the consumer.

If you are on a fixed income, this whole idea is a nightmare for you because your gas prices are going to go up, your heating bill is going to go up, and all of the things that they are going to make for free will create an inflationary effect.

The size of the government is going to increase dramatically. Interest rates will have to go up. So if you own a home, you drive a car, you breathe air, get ready for more taxes and more spending.

All I can say is that I believe in climate change, and I would like to have a rational approach to solving the problem. But this is not rational; this is partisan. And this $4.2 trillion bill--it is not three and a half--is going to lead a wave of illegal immigration, the likes of which you have never seen before; a 262-percent increase in the last 6 months. If this bill, this idea, ever becomes reality, you can double that. If this bill ever becomes reality, a dollar increase in gas prices is going to be the good old days.

If they shut down all the coal-fired plants without any way to replace them, other than a bunch of BS, good luck with the heating bill.

They are going to change your country. It is going to be more like Venezuela and less like America.

This idea that it is going to be paid for by taxing the rich is a bunch of BS. If you took the entire wealth of the 1 percent, including their cars and their dogs, it is less than half of what we need to deal with the entitlement problems we already have.

And you are growing exponentially the size of government--more government to pay for. Eventually interest rates are going to have to go up.

You are putting in motion, I think, the demise of America as we know it. You are putting in motion a government that nobody's grandchild could ever afford to pay. You are putting in motion the destruction of energy independence. You have declared war on the fossil fuel industry in this country, and you have not done a damn thing about China, India, Russia, or Iran.

The bottom line here is, if you believe in energy independence, then you need to vote against this budget resolution because we will lose it. If you believe that inflation is the death blow to the middle class, you need to vote against this budget resolution. If you don't know how much gas prices are going to be increased, they owe you an answer.

So I am going to ask this question for the next 15 hours: Do you have any idea, if all this becomes reality, how much increase at the pump will be affected by the average consumer the next year? How much will our heating bills go up? As to the border-adjusted carbon tax, will it be inflationary? Where does the money go from the tax? Who gets it? Little details like this.

All I can say is that everybody has a dream in America. There is the American dream and the American socialist dream for America. This budget resolution sets in motion an assault on free enterprise, the destruction of energy independence, incentivizing illegal immigration at a time we can afford it the least.

If you don't believe these things, then you haven't read what is in this blueprint. Have you ever asked yourself the question: What the hell has happened in the last 6 months; why are we up $1 a gallon at the pump? Because they declared a war on fossil fuels made in America.

Why do we have a 262-percent increase in illegal immigration? Because they changed all the policies that worked at the border.

Why is inflation rising? Because the fiscal policies of the Biden administration and our friends on the left are driving up prices.

The worst is yet to come. If this budget resolution becomes a reality, God help the American middle class. We will be less energy independent. Our money will go not nearly as far.

You are going to have to automatically raise taxes if you intend to pay for this monstrosity. And some Democrats say it has to be paid for. There is no way in hell to pay for this bill unless you fundamentally raise taxes across the board--at a time when we are struggling to get back on our feet.

This is why we have elections. In 2022, this idea will be on the ballot. My goal and my Republican colleagues' is to fight like hell to stop the increase at the pump, stop the increase of the heating bills, and to stop an invasion in our country by illegal immigrants all driven by bad policy choices.

But everything they have done in the last 6 months pales in comparison with what they are going to do to this country if this budget resolution ever becomes a reality.

Yes, sir, we are going to have one hell of a fight. I don't know how long we are going to be here, but as long as it takes. America is worth fighting for. And America, we know, is at risk with this budget resolution.

Thank you.

I yield the remaining Republican time on the resolution.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that for the duration of the Senate's consideration of S. Con. Res. 14, the budget resolution for fiscal year 2021, the majority and the Republican managers of the resolution, while seated or standing at the managers' desks, be permitted to deliver floor remarks, retrieve, review, and edit documents, and send email and other data communications from text displayed on wireless personal digital assistant devices and tablet devices.

I further ask unanimous consent that the use of calculators be permitted on the floor during consideration of the budget resolution; further, that the staff be permitted to make technical and conforming changes to the resolution, if necessary, consistent with the amendments adopted during Senate consideration, including calculating the associated change in the net interest function and incorporating the effect of such adopted amendments on the budgetary aggregates for Federal revenues, the amount by which the Federal revenue should be changed, new budget authority, budget outlays, deficits, public debt, and debt held by the public.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes for debate, equally divided, prior to each vote during consideration of S. Con. Res. 14.

Mr. President, let me begin by thanking President Biden and Majority Leader Schumer for their leadership in the arduous process which has gotten us to where we are right now.

I do understand that many of my Republican colleagues are in a bit of shock. They are in a bit of shock now. They are finding it hard to believe that the President and the Democratic Caucus are prepared to go forward in addressing the long, neglected needs of working families and not just the 1 percent and wealthy campaign contributors. That is not the way things usually happen around here.

Usually, it is the big money interests, the campaign contributors, and the lobbyists who call the tunes. But not today. Today, we move this country in a very different direction.

The American people are sick and tired of growing income and wealth inequality in our country, where two people now own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent, where the top 1 percent owns more wealth than the bottom 92 percent, and where 45 percent of all new income has gone to the top 1 percent since 2009.

In other words, the people on top are doing phenomenally well.

Meanwhile, while the very rich have become much richer, the gross unfairness of our current tax system has allowed, in a given year, some of the wealthiest people in our country and some of the largest and most profitable corporations to not pay a nickel in a given year in Federal income tax--not one penny.

Well, that is about to change. The American people want a government which represents all of us and not just the few. And this legislation is going to ask the wealthiest people in our country to start paying their fair share of taxes so that we can address the needs of working families, the elderly, the children, the sick, and the poor.

And despite what some of my Republican colleagues may be saying, no one in America who makes less than $400,000 a year will pay a nickel more in Federal taxes. In fact, what we are looking at in this budget proposal is a historic tax cut for working families and the middle class.

Further, and importantly, at a time when California is on fire, when Oregon is on fire, when Greece is burning, and when countries throughout the world are experiencing unprecedented drought, which will clearly impact food production, this legislation begins the process of combating climate change so that our kids and grandchildren can live in a country and on a planet which is healthy and habitable. It would be immoral and an absolute dereliction of our responsibilities as elected officials to do anything less. We cannot ignore climate change any longer. Now is the time for our great country to lead the world out of this existential crisis.

And, by the way, as we address the long neglected needs of working families and as we combat climate change, we are going to create millions of good-paying jobs, many of them union jobs.

Let me very briefly take this opportunity to describe some of what is in this budget proposal. First, we are going to address the disgrace of the United States having the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major country on Earth. This is the wealthiest country on Earth, and we should not have millions of our children living in poverty.

This budget is going to provide the long-awaited-for help that working parents all over this country desperately need, and when we do that, we will substantially reduce childhood poverty in America. And we are going to do that by extending the child tax credit so that families continue to receive monthly direct payments of up to $300 per child.

We began that process in the American Rescue Plan. It has been enormously successful in Vermont and all over this country as parents finally get the help that they need to raise their kids, and, in fact, it has helped reduce childhood poverty in our country by 61 percent. And we are going to extend those child tax credits.

Further, we are going to help working parents by addressing the crisis in childcare by making sure that no working family in our country pays more than 7 percent of their income for childcare. And all over this country, in talking to parents in Vermont and elsewhere, people are paying 20 percent, 25 percent of their income for childcare so that they can go to work. That makes no sense at all. Under our proposal, no working family will pay more than 7 percent. And when we do that, when we make childcare more affordable and accessible, it will allow over a million women who are now home with their kids to reenter the workforce and improve our economy.

Further, in terms of addressing the needs of our working parents and their kids, we will expand public education by providing universal pre- K to every 3- and 4-year-old in the country.

This budget proposal is going to end the international disgrace of the United States being the only major country on Earth not to guarantee paid family and medical leave as a right. Somebody who is sick today should not be forced to go to work and maybe, by expanding their illness by contagion,

make other people sick. Parents should be able to stay home with their sick children. When a woman has a baby, she should not be forced back into work a week after giving birth simply because she has no income to stay home.

Yes, in America, we will join every other major country and guarantee paid family and medical leave.

We will begin to address the crisis in higher education by making community colleges in America tuition-free, and this will give millions of young people and working people the opportunity to get the education they need to acquire the skills so they can go out and get the good- paying jobs that are out there. It will also give people the opportunity to transfer the 2 years of credits earned at a community college to a 4-year school. Now, I hope in years to come we will go further, but 2 years of free community college is no small thing.

This budget proposal begins the process of taking on the greed of the pharmaceutical industry and saving taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars by requiring that Medicare negotiate prescription drug prices with the pharmaceutical industry. It is not acceptable to me and to the American people that we continue to pay, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. Medicare must negotiate prescription drug prices, and this budget sets the stage for that to happen.

And we will use the savings acquired by negotiating prescription drug prices in Medicare by expanding Medicare. We are going to use those savings to expand Medicare to cover the dental care, the hearing aids, and the eyeglasses that seniors desperately need. This is the wealthiest country on Earth, and yet we have millions of senior citizens who lack teeth in their mouth. They need dentures; they can't afford to get them. They need hearing aids in order to communicate with their grandkids; can't afford to do that. They need a decent pair of glasses; can't afford that.

And in terms of healthcare, we will also substantially increase the number of doctors, nurses, and dentists who practice in underserved areas and expand the Community Health Centers Program into new areas as well.

This budget proposal will combat homelessness in America and address the reality that nearly 18 million households are paying over 50 percent of their limited incomes for housing through an unprecedented investment in affordable housing. We will ensure, further, that people in an aging society--we are getting older as a society, and we will ensure that those people can receive the healthcare they need in their own homes instead of being forced into expensive and inadequate nursing homes and that the workers who provide that important care to the elderly and the disabled are not forced to exist on starvation wages. This is such important work and such emotionally draining work; those folks deserve a decent paycheck.

We will bring undocumented people out of the shadows and provide them with a pathway to citizenship, including those very brave workers who have courageously kept our economy going in the middle of a deadly pandemic.

As I mentioned earlier, we will take on the existential threat of climate change by transforming our energy system toward renewable energy and energy efficiency. Among many other provisions in terms of climate change, we will establish a Civilian Climate Corps which will give hundreds of thousands of young people good-paying jobs and educational benefits as they roll up their sleeves and get to work to help us save the planet.

This budget proposal will make it easier, not harder, for workers to join unions in America.

My Republican colleagues are upset that we are using the reconciliation process and only 50 votes to pass this budget. They are very upset about that. But let us be clear. This idea of using reconciliation is certainly not a new idea. When Republicans controlled the Senate, they used reconciliation to pass trillions of dollars in tax breaks to the top 1 percent and large corporations.

When Republicans controlled the Senate, they used reconciliation to make climate change worse by opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling.

When Republicans controlled the Senate, they tried to use reconciliation to repeal the Affordable Care Act and throw 32 million Americans off of the healthcare they had.

Well, today, it is true we will also use reconciliation, but we will do it in a different way. We will use it to help the working families of our country and not just the wealthy and the powerful.

It is no great secret that millions of Americans are giving up on democracy, are moving toward authoritarianism, and are losing faith in their government. Many of those people are working longer hours for lower wages; they can't afford healthcare; they can't afford to send their kids to college; and they worry very much about the future of their kids and the future of this country.

This legislation will not only provide enormous support-- unprecedented in recent American history--to the children in our country, to the parents in our country, to the elderly people in our country, to the working families of our country, but it will also, I hope, restore the faith of the American people in the belief that we can have a government that works for all of us and not just the few.

Thank you.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to call up the following amendments, that they be reported by number, and that the Senate vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed with no amendments in order prior to a vote: Barrasso No. 3055, Carper No. 3330, Thune No. 3106, and Cortez Masto No. 3317.

I yield the majority's remaining time on the resolution.

Madam President, Mr. Barrasso's amendment is interesting, when he talks about the Green New Deal. The only problem is what he is talking about has nothing to do with the Green New Deal.

Despite what Senator Barrasso says, the Green New Deal would not ship jobs overseas. In fact, it will create millions of good-paying jobs in the United States of America. It will not raise electricity prices. It will not make the United States dependent on dirty sources of energy from other countries.

In case the Senator from Wyoming has missed it, Oregon is burning, California is burning, Greece is burning. There is a drought hitting virtually every country on Earth. News flash: Climate change is real and the United States and other countries have got to address it.

Madam President, as a supporter of the Green New Deal, I have no problem voting for this amendment because it has nothing to do with the Green New Deal.

Vote on Amendment No. 3055

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following the Cortez Masto amendment the following amendments be in order and that the amendments be reported by number with no amendments in order prior to a vote in relation to the amendment: Lummis, No. 3104; Hassan- Young, No. 3278, Crapo, No. 3099; Wyden, No. 3365; Cramer, No. 3105; Scott, No. 3073; and Rubio, No. 3097

Madam President, the crisis on our southern border continues to escalate. CBP is tracking the largest surge in migrant apprehensions in 20 years. Unaccompanied children are literally piling up in close quarters. It turns out when politicians spend a 2-year campaign advertising amnesty, people actually listen. As one senior CBP official said, there is ``no end in sight.'' No end in sight.

The administration still refuses to even admit there is a crisis, much less address it. We keep hearing strange mixed messaging from the White House

podium like ``now is not the time to come,'' as if there will be a good time to break the law and come illegally, and the White House will let us all know when that time is, I assume.

The Washington Post put it gently: ``Administration officials have been plagued by muddled messaging.'' Boy, that is an understatement. But actually, when you look at Democrats' actions, the message isn't mixed at all. That is the problem. For months on the campaign trail, President Biden spoke directly to potential migrants. At one point, he said, ``You want to flee . . . you should come.'' That was President Biden.

President Lopez Obrador of Mexico himself stated this week that President Biden's campaign created expectations that ``caused Central American migrants, and also from our country, wanting to cross the border, thinking that it is easier to do so.'' That was the President of Mexico.

On Inauguration Day, the President followed through--five Executive orders to roll back immigration enforcement and open up the border. The administration wasted no time rolling back the policies from the prior administration that had guarded against this exact outcome. South of the border, message received. Some migrants are arriving with Biden campaign flags and T-shirts. One arriving person said, ``Biden promised us that everything was going to change.''

So what about the Democrats here in Congress? Are the House Democrats rising to the occasion with solutions? Well, not exactly. They prioritized passing another amnesty bill. They doubled down on the wrong direction and the wrong incentives.

The situation is raising eyebrows among Democrats' own rank and file. As one Texas Democrat put it, ``When you create a system that incentivizes people to come across . . . that immediately sends a message.''

Here, in the Senate, our Democratic colleagues decided to go the route of obstruction. Yesterday, Republicans tried to pass serious proposals to help address parts of the immigration system. Democrats rejected every single one of them.

Senator Ernst had a proposal to require detention for migrants charged with violent crimes. It is not exactly a radical idea. Democrats blocked it.

Senator Cruz had legislation to raise the stakes for repeated illegal entry. It is not exactly rocket science. Democrats blocked that one too.

Senator Blackburn and Senator Lee tried to combat child trafficking within the asylum process, and Democrats even blocked that.

The furthest left ideology on these issues is keeping Washington Democrats from upholding the basic responsibility of government: ensuring the integrity of our borders and protecting our national security.

Election Security

Madam President, now, on another matter. Yesterday, the Rules Committee held a hearing on the Democrats' proposal to tilt our entire political system on a partisan basis. It would forcibly rewrite every State's election laws in ways that defy common sense and are deeply unpopular with American voters.

It would mandate nearly unrestricted same-day registration. It would mandate big loopholes that would render voter ID almost meaningless. It would make every State legalize ballot harvesting, where paid operatives can turn up carrying big piles of ballots with other people's names on them, zero chain of custody.

Democrats want to hide behind the mantle of voting rights. What they are really proposing is less security, less integrity, and a grab bag of changes that are deeply, deeply unpopular. Just look at the other changes with zero relationship to voting rights that Democrats want to smuggle in behind that smokescreen.

This bill would take the Federal Election Commission from an evenly split, bipartisan panel to a partisan body so that Democrats could rule unilaterally over politics as well as citizens' speech, turn the neutral judge into a partisan prosecutor, and it would send taxpayers' money to fund political campaigns.

It contains a massive attack on the privacy of citizens who engage in free speech, a massive and intentional gift to cancel culture. That led even the leftwing ACLU to oppose this bill 2 years ago and lead senior ACLU lawyers to torch it again in the Washington Post just recently.

Democrats are desperate to avoid talking about any of these things. They are desperate to convince the media that a partisan takeover at the FEC, socialism for political ad makers, and an assault on free speech and Americans' privacy are just ``voting rights,'' a shameless, shameless bait and switch.

I noticed something funny yesterday. Remember, this is the same bill Democrats were shopping around 2 years ago in response to the 2016 election, which they said was a disaster. Now, 2 years ago, Democrats were marketing this bill as a massive shakeup that our broken elections badly needed.

Our democracy was in shambles after they lost in 2016. It was broken, they said. It was insecure, they said, and only this sweeping transformation could possibly repair it. Of course, it didn't pass, and the 2020 election came and went without the liberal takeover, and yet Democrats say it was a huge success.

Democrats said the 2020 election was beyond reproach. They said the integrity and security were beyond question. They have said only conspiracy theorists would complain about the last election.

Oh, but curiously enough, they are now still pushing this very same bill. Now, instead of a sweeping transformation, they are trying to say it would just preserve our smoothly functioning system so State legislatures can't mess it up.

So let's get this straight. Two years ago, in 2019, Democrats suggested this bill was a bold, radical overhaul for a broken system. In the meantime, what happened was, they got an election they liked, and now they claim the exact same legislation just does a few modest things to protect our system just the way it is.

What utter nonsense--utter nonsense. This legislation has but one goal, just one. It has only ever had one goal, just one. That goal was the same in 2019 as it is today. And that goal is to let Washington Democrats rig the rules of democracy from top down to hide that partisan project behind the smokescreen, the smokescreen of voting rights.

Business Before the Senate

Madam President, now one final matter. Senators will soon head home for the State work period. We will be seeing an Easter recess of optimism and hope as the tide of the pandemic continues to turn. Thanks to science and fueled by five bipartisan bills we passed last year, vaccines were developed, approved, and preordered in record time. America was delivering more than a million doses per day before the current administration even took office.

And because of last year's bipartisan work, our economy was already poised for a historic comeback. I am also going to be talking with Kentuckians about their confusion and concern surrounding the multitrillion-dollar partisan spending plan that Democrats just rushed through Congress recently, like why teachers unions got huge sums for schools, much of which won't be spent until years, years into the future, without any meaningful requirement to reopen, even though science says it is safe. There are concerns like why Kentucky and other States whose budgets have come through the crisis intact will actually be subsidizing massive bailouts to other States for mismanagement that predates the pandemic, and confusion and concern about the radical, last-minute provision that tries to prevent States from implementing any policy, any policy that might be interpreted as a tax cut.

That one could wreak havoc on the plans of local officials in my State and entire industries as they try to get the Bluegrass growing again. This provision has the potential to shoot down a State law designed to help the Commonwealth's small businesses deduct PPP expenses from their State taxes and unwind planned waivers of hikes on their unemployment taxes.

Secretary Yellen was asked about this huge uncertainty in a hearing yesterday, about how this will be defined or enforced. She essentially had no answers.

So I will be joining Kentuckians to celebrate what has gone well, thanks to our bipartisan work just last year; to hear their concerns about all the

consequences of the Democrats' go-it-alone effort; and to hear what they think about the multimillion-dollar cousin of the Green New Deal that Democrats are reportedly planning for a sequel.

Madam President, reserving the right to object.

Madam President, first, let me thank the Senator from Oklahoma for bringing this to the floor.

Here is our challenge. If it gets onto the bill that we have before us, it will delay the continuation of the Paycheck Protection Program because it terminates on March 31. We are not going to have any program to modify. And the House is not in session until the second week in April so it is not possible to get this done before the program expires.

So, for that reason, we have to oppose any amendment on the underlying bill, which is a clean extension of the PPP.

But I want to thank my friend from Oklahoma for bringing this forward because I agree with you. As chairman of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, I support making the changes that the administration made in regard to the determination for self-employed retroactive. I think that is a fair thing to do. I also support making sure that the business structure that is chosen by a small business also qualifies, whether it be a partnership or a traditional business arrangement.

I think we need to make those changes, and I know our staffs are working on the exact language. There is some challenge on how we draft the language. And you have my commitment that we will work during this recess, and I assure you that I want to see this done. I hope we can do it by UC when we return, when the House is in session, and get this done as quickly as possible.

The point the Senator from Oklahoma raises is very valid, but let me go back to the original bill for the self-employed that used, as you said, a formula that didn't work. In some cases, it was $50 or $80 that they got on the PPP, which was ridiculous because a self-employed person doesn't have the same payroll expenses that a traditional small business has.

We based the PPP calculations on the payroll amount. That didn't apply to the self-employed. So that is why the gross receipts are the right way to make those calculations, and that is what we want to do. That is what this administration did in its recalculation, but it made it prospective only. It needs to be retroactive.

So I agree with the gentleman, but I cannot consent to agree to it today. And it is not going to delay the Senate consideration of it because the House is not in session for the next 2 weeks.

So the first time we can really get this done is the second week in April, and you have my commitment that we will work together to get the provision made retroactive and to cover the legal structures that are used by some of our small businesses that are not currently covered under the current interpretation--I think legal, this is a legal issue that we have to resolve.

For all those reasons, I do object.

Madam President.

I ask unanimous consent that there be two minutes of debate, equally divided, before each vote in today's series.

I rise in opposition to the Kennedy amendment.

Let me be clear. Any amendment that is put on this clean extension will mean that the program will terminate in less than 1 week, and hundreds of thousands of small businesses will not be able to get their PPP loans. These are newly eligible. We changed the calculations on how much you can apply for. Those who have difficulty finding a financial institution to write the forgivable loan, those in hard-to-serve communities, all are going to be denied. The SBA has indicated there are hundreds of thousands of eligible applicants that have not been able to get in by the due date.

Now, in regard to the Kennedy amendment, the SBA COVID-19 relief is for existing businesses and current business owners with proven reentry track records. Anyone who has rebuilt their life after being incarcerated should be celebrated and supported. There is no reason why a business owned by someone with an unrelated criminal record should be treated any differently.

I would urge my colleagues, for the sake of getting this bill to the President and signed so we can help our small businesses, to reject the Kennedy amendment.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds to respond.

The gentleman's amendment goes well beyond that. The gentleman's amendment goes back 2 years. It could have been a civil disturbance on a college campus if someone now has an existing business totally unrelated to any economic crime. It is just something that should not be in this law, and I urge my colleagues to reject it.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Rubio amendment.

The policy that Senator Rubio is objecting to is implemented by the Small Business Administration to help the underserved communities.

During that 14-day period, 400,000 small businesses with 20 employees or less were able, at long last, to get PPP help. And almost half were first-time borrowers under the PPP program, those that had been shut out in the past.

But, specifically, the Rubio amendment, if it were adopted--and it is wrong policy--would require the House to concur. The House is not in session for 2 weeks. That could take us beyond the 31st of March, and the program would end, costing hundreds of thousands of small businesses the opportunity that--some are now eligible for the first time; some are trying to figure out the calculations.

So for all those reasons--and one last point: The Chamber of Commerce of the United States urges all of us to vote in favor of the underlying bill and oppose any amendment that would derail the expeditious approval of this measure.

Let's follow the Chamber's advice. Let's vote down the Rubio amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 1405

Mr. President, I have been advised by the administration there is an excess of $50 billion available at the end of this month for the extension. So pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions in section 4(g)(3) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, I move to waive all applicable sections of those acts and applicable budget resolutions for purpose of the pending measure, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, first, I want to thank Senator Collins for her leadership on this issue. I want to thank Senator Shaheen for her help in getting this done.

This bill is widely supported. It passed the House by 415 to 3, supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the NFIB, and numerous other stakeholders in small business.

It will be 1 year since the passage of the CARES Act, and the PPP program has saved millions of small businesses from being shuttered. It has helped save our unemployment insurance system by keeping small- employer employees on the payroll. It has kept workforce together for small businesses, which is critically important to get through this pandemic.

Small businesses need additional time because we have changed the eligibility, we have changed the calculation, and you have to find private banks that are willing to take on this loan. And we are now into a second round. There is over $50 billion available at the end of this month to continue the program.

I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I would yield the remainder of our time to Senator Collins.

Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support passage of H.R. 1799, the PPP Extension Act of 2021. It is imperative that we act immediately to pass this bill because we are just days away from the PPP being closed to applications for assistance. This bill mirrors legislation I introduced with my colleagues, Senators Cardin and Shaheen, which is cosponsored by Senators Marshall, Sullivan, Rosen, Murkowski, Leahy, Wyden, Tillis, Ossoff, Capito, Merkley, Heinrich, Portman, Klobuchar, and Manchin.

Last March, Senators Rubio, Cardin, Shaheen, and I crafted the Paycheck Protection Program, PPP--a forgivable loan program designed to help keep small employers afloat and their employees paid during the pandemic.

The bipartisan bill we are considering today would simply extend the current application deadline for new PPP loans from March 31 to May 31 of this year and then provide an additional 30-day period during which time the Small Business Administration may continue processing applications received prior to the new May 31 deadline. This bipartisan bill passed the House last week by an overwhelming margin of 415 to 3.

The PPP has been a lifeline for small businesses in Maine and across the country, providing the support they need to survive the pandemic and continue paying their employees. In 2020, more than 5 million small employers received forgivable PPP loans, helping to sustain upwards of 50 million American jobs. This included more than 28,000 Maine small businesses, which received nearly $2.3 billion in forgivable PPP loans. The average loan size in Maine during this time was $80,000.

Recognizing the importance of this program for our Nation's small employers, the bipartisan December 2020 COVID-relief law provided an additional $284.5 billion to reopen the Paycheck Protection Program and allow the hardest hit small employers to receive a second forgivable loan. The December law also made other improvements to the PPP, such as expanding forgivable overhead expenses to include supplier costs and investments in facility modifications and personal protective equipment needed to operate safely.

Since reopening in January, more than 3.1 million additional forgivable loans--totaling nearly $196 billion--have been approved for small businesses across the country. In Maine, more than 12,700 small employers have

been approved for $797 million in forgivable loans since PPP's reopening. In total, Maine small employers have been approved for upwards of $3 billion in forgivable loans since the program was created last year.

I have heard from numerous small employers about the impact this program has had on them and their employees. The PPP has helped the owners of Pottle Transportation in Hermon, Anglers Restaurants in Hampden, and the Harraseeket Inn in Freeport keep their businesses alive and their employees paid. Hodgdon, America's oldest boat builder, was able to keep its family-owned East Boothbay business in operation with the help of two forgivable PPP loans. The owner of Channel X Radio in Aroostook County told me that two forgivable PPP loans kept his business going. The Boys & Girls Clubs of Southern Maine and the Y in Bangor have been able to provide childcare and other services to children due to support from the PPP.

With the ongoing distribution of COVID-19 vaccines and reopening of our Nation's economy, I am hopeful that better times will soon be ahead. We are not there yet, which is why we need to extend the deadline to apply for new PPP loans. Extending the deadline would provide more time for the Small Business Administration to resolve error messages generated by its computer systems that prevented eligible small businesses from receiving approval for a PPP Loan. It would also give us more time to address an inequity facing certain sole proprietors who received their PPP loans before the Biden administration unexpectedly announced a change in the maximum loan amount calculation for these types of businesses.

By extending the PPP for another 2 months and then providing an additional 30 days after that time for the SBA to process applications that are still pending, the bill before us today would help our Nation's small employers retain access to forgivable PPP loans.

This bill has been endorsed by more than 90 organizations, including the National Federation of Independent Business, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Hotel & Lodging Association, International Franchise Association, National Restaurant Association, the U.S. Travel Association, and the Independent Community Bankers of America. I would ask unanimous consent that these letters of support be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.

I would like to once again thank my colleagues, Senators Cardin and Shaheen, for partnering with me on this legislation, and Senator Rubio for working to craft the PPP and oversee its implementation. I look forward to working with them and the new administrator of the Small Business Administration to ensure that the PPP is implemented according to Congressional intent.

I urge my colleagues to support passage of this bill.

Mr. President, I urge all of our colleagues to vote yes on this bill, which will provide a crucial 2-month extension for the Paycheck Protection Program.

This program has been a lifeline to countless small businesses and has saved more than 50 million jobs in this country.

I salute my colleagues Senator Cardin and Senator Shaheen for their work on this extension, which was overwhelmingly passed by the House.

Let's talk about briefly what would happen if we do not act. If we do not act, there are approximately 190,000 loans still under review, which prevents any of these businesses from receiving a second PPP loan. These small businesses need this assistance now in order to pay their employees and stay afloat during this pandemic.

We cannot wait. The House has gone home. We cannot allow an interruption of this vital program that has made such a difference to our small businesses and their employees.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this 2-month extension, with an additional month for SBA to review the applications.

Vote on H.R. 1799