[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 218 (Monday, December 21, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7924-S7928]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        UNITED STATES--MEXICO ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP ACT--Continue

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a 
colloquy with my colleague, Finance Committee Ranking Member Wyden, to 
discuss a tax provision included in the omnibus appropriations bill 
currently before the Senate. The tax title in this bill contains 
important clarifications to, and expansions of, the Employee Retention 
Tax Credit established under section 2301 of the CARES Act. This credit 
has provided vital payroll support to struggling businesses in Iowa and 
across the country. The enhancements included in this bill are 
necessary to help more employers access the credit. Importantly, the 
bill clarifies that businesses that received Paycheck Protection 
Program loans, or PPP, are still eligible for the credit based on other 
wages and benefits paid. Does Member Wyden agree that our intent is to 
allow struggling small businesses to access the retention credit, even 
if they have received a PPP loan?
  Mr. WYDEN. That is correct. COVID-19 has shuttered small businesses 
across the Country. This is especially true in Oregon, where small 
businesses are the backbone of our economy. Ensuring businesses can 
access relief from both the Paycheck Protection Program and the 
Employee Retention Tax Credit is critical. The legislation before us 
today would allow businesses who took out a PPP loan to access the 
retention credit in two instances. First, those businesses that have 
had or will have their loan forgiven can claim the credit for any wages 
that were not paid for with PPP loan proceeds. Second, a business that 
does not have its PPP loan forgiven can claim the credit for any wages. 
As this change will be retroactive, does the Chairman agree that it is 
equally as critical that these small businesses are able to quickly and 
easily claim these past credits they will now be eligible for?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes. That is why we are allowing these businesses, both 
those with forgiven loans and those without, to claim credits for wages 
paid in previous quarters that this bill makes eligible for the credit 
on their fourth quarter 2020 payroll tax filings. This will prevent 
small businesses from having to amend their previously filed payroll 
tax returns, easing the paperwork burden for both taxpayers and the 
Internal Revenue Service. I know Ranking Member Wyden will join me in 
urging the IRS to do all they can to simplify and expedite the process 
for eligible businesses retroactively claiming the retention credit. 
The last thing these businesses need right now is additional, complex 
payroll tax filings.
  I thank the ranking member for engaging in this colloquy to discuss 
this important issue and the clarification included in the pending 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I wish to enter remarks regarding the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, which I will refer to as the 
2021 Approps Act.
  Specifically, my remarks are about sections 1001 through 1005 of the 
2021 Approps Act. I was the sponsor and principal drafter of these 
sections. I also negotiated the final legislative text of these 
sections with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and my Democratic 
colleagues in the Senate, including Democratic Minority Leader Chuck 
Schumer.
  These sections relate to the Federal Reserve's temporary emergency 
lending facilities under section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act that 
are creatures of the CARES Act P.L. 116-136. These facilities were 
established in response to the extreme turmoil in the credit markets 
caused by the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020. They were made possible 
by $500 billion in funding and authority provided by the CARES Act. As 
a result, these facilities are often referred to as the CARES Act 
facilities, which is how I will refer to them.
  The CARES Act facilities are the Primary Market Corporate Credit 
Facility, the Secondary Market Corporate Credit Facility, the Municipal 
Liquidity Facility, the Main Street Lending Program, and the Term 
Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF). The CARES Act required 
and Congress intended the CARES Act facilities to cease operations by 
December 31, 2020.
  I was one of the two Republican Senators involved in drafting the 
CARES ACT provisions that provided the funding and authority for the 
CAREES Act facilities. During the last 2 days--December 19, 2020 and 
December 20, 2020--I have spoken at length on the Senate floor about 
the creation, intended purpose, and success of these facilities, as 
well as the impact of sections 1001 through 1005 of the 2021 Approps 
Act on these facilities and the reasons for enacting these sections. As 
a result, I will not repeat those remarks now.
  Today, I would like to focus on the impact of one particular section 
of the 2021 Approps Act: section 1005. But let me first remind my 
colleagues of what sections 1001 through 1005 of the 2021 Approps Act 
do. Collectively, these sections rescind more than $429 billion of 
unused money out of the CARES Act facilities and use that money for 
other important purposes; definitively end the CARES Act facilities by 
December 31, 2020, as Congress intended and the CARES Act requires; 
forbid the CARES Act facilities from being restarted; and prevent the 
CARES Act facilities from being replicated without congressional 
approval.
  Specifically, section 1005 of the 2021 Approps Act prevents the 
creation of any Federal Reserve emergency lending facility established 
under section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act that is ``the same as'' 
any CARES Act facility. Because an earlier version of TALF was 
established in 2008 prior to the CARES Act, section 1005 of the 2021 
Approps Act specifically allows TALF--but only TALF--to be replicated 
in the future without congressional approval. Under section 1005 of the 
2021 Approps Act, all of the other CARES Act facilities--the Primary 
Market Corporate Credit Facility, the Secondary Market Corporate Credit 
Facility, the Municipal Liquidity Facility, and the Main Street Lending 
Program--cannot be replicated in the future without congressional 
approval.
  So what does it mean for a new facility to be ``the same as'' a CARES 
Act facility? That question can easily be answered by looking at the 
purpose of the CARES Act facilities. The purpose of each CARES Act 
facility is identified in its term sheet.
  Let's walk through them. The purpose of the Primary Market Corporate 
Credit Facility was to lend directly to corporations by purchasing 
bonds or syndicated loans from them at issuance. The purpose of the 
Secondary Market Corporate Credit Facility was to purchase corporate 
bonds and corporate bond Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) in the secondary 
market. The purpose of the Municipal Liquidity Facility was to lend 
directly to states and municipalities by purchasing their municipal 
bonds from them at issuance. The purpose of the Main Street Lending 
Program was to extend credit directly to small or medium sized 
businesses, including nonprofit organizations.
  These purposes are clear and are what define each of the CARES Act 
facilities. A future lending facility that had the same purpose as a 
CARES Act facility would be the ``same as'' as CARES Act facility and 
therefore could

[[Page S7925]]

not be created without congressional approval. The Treasury and the 
Federal Reserve would need to come to Congress for approval, just as 
they did at the time of the creation of the CARES Act facilities.
  Unfortunately, I have seen some uninformed reporters and outside 
commentators incorrectly assert that section 1005 of the 2021 Approps 
Act only prevents the creation of new lending facilities if the 
facilities are ``identical to'' or ``exactly the same as'' the CARES 
Act facilities. That is manifestly not true. Section 1005 of the 2021 
Approps Act does not say that, nor was that the intent of Congress. I 
should know because unlike these reporters and commentators I drafted 
and negotiated the final text of section 1005 of the 2021 Approps Act 
with my Democratic colleagues, including Minority Leader Schumer.
  During the course of our negotiations, Democrats actually proposed 
that we use the phrase ``identical to'' in section 1005 of the 2021 
Approps Act. I specifically rejected this proposal because ``identical 
to'' is far too limited in scope. If section 1005 of the 2021 Approps 
Act had used the word ``identical to'' than that would mean only a new 
facility that is identical to a CARES Act facility in every way would 
be prohibited. That would defeat the entire purpose of section 1005.
  It would have allowed the Treasury and the Federal Reserve to 
essentially restart the CARES Act facilities, which section 1005 of the 
2021 Approps Act separately prohibits them from restarting, by simply 
tinkering with their terms and launching them under a new name. For 
example, the terms of the Municipal Liquidity Facility only allow it to 
purchase bonds directly from and state and municipal issuers that have 
a maturity of up to 3 years. If a new facility was the same in every 
way as the Municipal Liquidity Facility with the exception that it 
could purchase bonds with maturities up to 10 years, rather than up to 
3 years, than it would not be ``identical to'' the Municipal Liquidity 
Facility and therefore could be created. However, such a facility would 
be the same as the current Municipal Liquidity Facility because it is 
lending directly to States and municipalities.
  My Republican colleagues and I did not want to permit for such a 
loophole in the law. That is why I specifically rejected my Democratic 
colleagues' proposal that we use the phrase ``identical to'' any CARES 
Act facility. In our negotiations, I told him that we did not want the 
Treasury and Federal Reserve to replicate the CARES Act facilities by 
tinkering with their terms and then launching them under different 
names. Ultimately, my Democratic colleagues conceded on this point and 
agreed to compromise by using the broader phrase ``the same as'' 
instead.
  So where does that leave us? Section 1005 of the 2021 Approps Act 
prevents a new Federal Reserve emergency lending facility from being 
established under section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act without 
congressional approval, if the facility has the same purpose as a CARES 
Act facility. The CARES Act facilities were unprecedented facilities 
that the Treasury, with the support of the Federal Reserve, requested 
that Congress make possible. Congress did so through the CARES Act. 
These facilities required legislation in March 2020 and the same types 
of facilities would require legislation in the future if the Treasury 
and the Federal Reserve believed they needed to engage in such bond 
purchasing and direct lending again.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Virginia, 
the vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, for 
his work on the Intelligence Authorization Act, which is now part of 
the omnibus appropriations bill. I wish to address a few provisions 
that have been removed or modified.
  First, the IAA, as reported by the Senate Intelligence Committee in 
June, included a provision requiring the DNI to submit a report to the 
congressional intelligence committees on the implementation of 
Presidential Policy Directive 28. That report covers the classified 
annex referenced in section 3 of PPD-28.
  This report is extremely important. It will allow the committees to 
conduct oversight of signals intelligence collection conducted pursuant 
to Executive Order 12333. It will also provide the committee the 
ability to understand how the government interprets and implements PPD-
28, which has broad legal, policy, and diplomatic implications. In 
response to the outrage from our European allies regarding U.S. signals 
intelligence operations revealed by Edward Snowden, President Obama 
issued PPD-28 in January 2014. PPD-28 covers topics that are directly 
relevant to both Americans and foreigners, such as bulk collection. The 
directive, and its classified annex in particular, is designed to 
evaluate the benefits and risks of signals intelligence operations. It 
was intended to reassure our allies about the scope of U.S. signals 
intelligence collection and to serve as a cornerstone for data-sharing 
agreements, which are still ongoing. Unlike FISA collection, however, 
there is no judicial oversight of collection conducted pursuant to EO 
12333 and governed by PPD-28. For all these reasons, therefore, it is 
absolutely critical that there be serious congressional oversight of 
PPD-28.
  The PPD-28 reporting requirement was not merely part of the IAA 
reported by the committee. It was in the version of the IAA that was 
attached to the National Defense Authorization Act that passed the full 
Senate in July. That version was never passed into law, however, 
because the IAA fell off the NDAA, which is why the IAA is now part of 
the omnibus appropriations bill.
  Unfortunately, during the negotiations leading up to this bill, the 
House Intelligence Committee minority insisted that this bipartisan, 
Senate-passed provision be modified so that the portion of the report 
on the classified annex of PPD-28 is submitted to the chairmen and 
ranking minority members of the congressional intelligence committee. 
To the extent this language could be misinterpreted to limit access by 
the full committees, it is unacceptable and unprecedented. Congress 
should not be in the position of passing legislation that could be seen 
as limiting its ability to fulfill its own oversight responsibilities.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator from Oregon. I agree that the report 
required by the IAA on PPD-28 is critically important and central to 
the committee's oversight responsibilities. I share the Senator's 
dismay that this provision was modified in this way and through what I 
consider to be an unfortunate conference process that should not be 
repeated. More generally, I oppose legislation that would purport to 
restrict full committee access and impede the critical oversight 
provided by the full committee.
  This provision, as modified, states that the DNI will submit the 
report to the chairman and vice chairman. It does not, however, 
preclude its provision to the other members of the committee. As vice 
chairman of the committee, it is my intent to push for the full 
committee to get this report. It is also my intent to seek to amend 
this language so that it is not misinterpreted to limit full committee 
access.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Senator from Virginia. On another topic, the 
vice chairman and I worked together to include in the IAA a number of 
critically important provisions protecting whistleblowers. Again, at 
the insistence of the House Intelligence Committee minority, those 
provisions were taken out. The latest was the removal of a provision 
that would help whistleblowers whose security clearances have been 
revoked as a form of reprisal. Those provisions need to be passed into 
law.
  Mr. WARNER. I agree. I strongly supported each of the five 
whistleblower protection provisions in the IAA. It is my intent to keep 
fighting for them so that they are on next year's IAA and are passed 
into law.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my friends from Oregon and Virginia for their 
hard work on the Senate Intelligence Committee. I agree with them that 
oversight by the full Senate Intelligence Committee on these and other 
intelligence matters is at the core of the Senate's constitutional 
responsibilities. I, too, agree that the language should not be 
interpreted to limit that full committee oversight. I also strongly 
agree with the Senators' views on the critical importance of protecting 
whistleblowers. The abuses of the outgoing administration have 
illustrated the urgent need for these legislative protections.

[[Page S7926]]

  Mr. Barrasso. Mr. President, Senator Carper, ranking member of the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senator John Kennedy, and I, 
as chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, are the 
principal Senate authors of section 103 in Division S of the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021--the American Innovation and 
Manufacturing, ``AIM'', Act of 2020, hereinafter ``section 103''. This 
bipartisan legislation will phase down the production and consumption 
of hydrofluorocarbons, HFCs, which are potent greenhouse gases that 
contribute to climate change. As authors, we submit these comments to 
provide the Senate with additional information regarding the 
development of section 103.
  Section 103 establishes a new, national program administered by the 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to phase down the production 
and consumption of certain HFC substances. Section 103 vests EPA with 
authority to phase down the production and consumption of these 
substances in a comprehensive manner. It is designed to provide 
regulatory certainty. Specifically, section 103 requires EPA to 
implement an 85 percent phase down of the production and consumption of 
regulated HFC substances, so those levels reach approximately 15 
percent of their 2011-2013 average annual levels by 2036. Importantly, 
this section includes provisions to safeguard consumers and American 
manufacturers from cost increases during the phase down while still 
adhering to the phase down timetable in subsection (e)(2)(C).
  The text of section 103 reflects bipartisan, necessary improvements 
to the original, introduced text in the Senate. On March 4, 2020, 
Senator Kennedy filed amendment No. 1504 to S. 2657, which was 
identical to stand-alone legislation, S. 2754, the American Innovation 
and Manufacturing Act of 2019. Ranking Member Carper of the U.S. Senate 
Committee on Environment and Public Works Committee, EPW, cosponsored 
amendment No. 1504 and S. 2754. EPW Chairman Barrasso opposed amendment 
No. 1504 and S. 2754 as introduced, hereinafter ``introduced 
legislation''.
  On March 25, 2020, Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper began 
an electronic information-gathering process on S. 2754 by EPW to 
solicit the views of stakeholders. This process allowed EPW to hear 
safely from many stakeholders during the COVID-19 pandemic. The 
extensive information-gathering process generated filings from a range 
of industries, States, interest groups, and individuals.
  We relied on the valuable information gained through that process to 
improve the introduced legislation and to reach collective agreement on 
amended text. This agreement was filed as amendment No. 2655 to S. 2657 
on September 10, 2020. Section 103 closely resembles the text of 
amendment No. 2655.
  Our agreed-upon changes to the introduced legislation have focused in 
a few key areas identified by Chairman Barrasso. The first key area is 
``essential uses'' of regulated HFC substances. The introduced 
legislation offered immediate relief for some special circumstances, 
including feedstocks and process agents. For example, in a provision 
that has been present in all versions of the legislation, subsection 
(e)(4)(A) assures there are no regulatory requirements for ``a 
regulated substance that is used and entirely consumed (except for 
trace quantities) in the manufacture of another chemical.'' Where trace 
quantities of an HFC regulated substance, including impurities or 
unreacted feedstock chemical, remain through transformation of a 
regulated HFC substance into another product, that activity is covered 
by the exemption as soon as the Act is enacted into law.
  The introduced legislation did not provide immediate protection for 
essential uses. Subsection (e)(4)(B) now provides that relief for 
essential uses. Congress has identified six essential uses in 
subsection (e)(4)(B)(iv) that are designated by law as essential uses 
upon enactment: No. 1, propellant in metered dose inhalers; No. 2, 
defense sprays; No. 3, structural composite preformed polyurethane foam 
for marine use and trailer use; No. 4, the etching of semiconductor 
material or wafers and the cleaning of chemical vapor deposition 
chambers within the semi-conductor manufacturing sector; No. 5, 
mission-critical military end uses, such as armored vehicle engine and 
shipboard fire suppression systems and systems used in deployable and 
expeditionary applications; and No. 6, onboard aerospace fire 
suppression.
  In implementing this legislation, EPA must allocate, by rule, the 
full quantity of allowances needed by each of these six congressionally 
designated uses for at least 5 years. This rulemaking only determines 
the quantities of mandatory allowances that are allocated to each of 
the six uses above.
  Under subsection (e)(4)(B)(i)-(iii), EPA may, by rule, designate 
other uses as essential uses and allocate any such use a quantity of 
allowances, provided certain criteria are met and subject to the 
applicable phasedown timelines and regulations for the production and 
consumption of HFCs under (e)(2)-(3). The Administrator is required to 
review each essential use application every 5 years and shall continue 
to make available essential use allowances if the Administrator 
determines, subject to notice and opportunity for public comment, that 
statutory criteria are met under subsection (e)(4)(B)(v).
  The second key area of change from the introduced legislation is 
express preemption of certain State and local laws, reflected in 
subsection (k)(2). With respect to an exclusive use for which a 
mandatory allocation of allowances is provided under subsection 
(e)(4)(B)(iv)(I), subsection (k)(2)(A) preempts any enforcement of a 
statute or administrative action by a State or political subdivision of 
a State for 5 years from the date of enactment. Preemption is 
potentially extendable for up to--but not more than--10 years, as 
provided in subsection (k)(2)(B).
  The third key area of change from the introduced legislation is the 
protection of consumers and businesses from cost increases. Of 
particular note, under subsection (f)(2)(B), EPA cannot accelerate the 
15-year regulatory timeline faster than HFC consumption levels that the 
market is already achieving. However, EPA must ensure any level set 
under this subsection is at least as stringent as the production and 
consumption levels of regulated substances required under subsection 
(e)(2)(C) for a given year, as provided in subsection (f)(6). Language 
to protect consumers and businesses, particularly residential and small 
business consumers, has also been added to regulatory provisions 
throughout the bill, including essential uses (subsection (e)(4)-(5)), 
accelerated schedule (subsection (f)), and technology transitions 
(subsection (i)).
  Together we support section 103. We thank our House colleagues for 
working together with us to improve further our Senate agreement 
reached in September 2020. Through negotiations with leaders of the 
U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, we 
agreed to additional changes to improve legislative clarity, including 
language to help protect affordability for residential and small 
business consumers while also protecting the environment.
  Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, section 20l(f) of the unemployment 
extension provisions of the bill we are considering this evening 
contains language limiting retroactive Pandemic Unemployment Assistance 
compensation for applicants that had not applied by the date of 
enactment of this bill.
  It is my understanding that this provision is intended to cover 
individuals who have known for months of their eligibility for benefits 
but failed to apply in a timely manner. However, it is also my 
understanding that this provision is not intended to apply in cases 
where the individuals have only recently learned they would be eligible 
for PUA and a State unemployment office had previously advised those 
individuals not to apply for benefits. This is the case, for instance, 
for secondary schools students in Minnesota, who were advised by the 
State that they were not eligible for PUA, but a court recently 
determined that the students were indeed eligible earlier this month.
  It is also my understanding that this provision is not intended to 
apply to individuals who have filed a regular State unemployment 
insurance claim that remains in adjudication, who later find out that 
they are ineligible for regular unemployment compensation and must 
apply for PUA instead.

[[Page S7927]]

  Senator Wyden was the lead Democratic negotiator on the unemployment 
provisions of this bill. Does he share the same understanding of the 
intent of this provision?
  Mr. WYDEN. Yes. That language was not intended to limit retroactive 
compensation for individuals who were previously advised by a State, 
that they were ineligible for PUA, nor was it intended to limit 
retroactive compensation for individuals who have a regular 
unemployment insurance claim in adjudication and later find out they 
need to apply for PUA.
  Ms. SMITH. Thank you for the clarification and for your work in 
drafting the unemployment compensation language in this bill.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the inclusion of 
critical protections for renters in the bill before us today. These 
include $25 billion in emergency rental assistance and an extension of 
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's nationwide eviction 
moratorium through January 31, 2021.
  This bill does not include all that I have been calling for since 
this crisis began, nor is it the bill I would have written on my own, 
but it is a long overdue and essential start on the help families 
urgently need to stay or become safely and stably housed right now. And 
it is arriving as millions of renters across the country are on the 
precipice of an entirely preventable eviction crisis.
  One in five renters are behind on rent right now. For renters in 
households with children, this number is one in four, and for Black 
renters, the rate is nearly one in three. Economist Mark Zandi 
estimates that renters are $70 billion behind on rent, with average 
back rent of nearly $6,000. With millions of families potentially 
facing eviction or displacement, without this bill, the current CDC 
eviction moratorium would have expired on December 31, making for a 
very unhappy new year for many renters across the country.
  A wave of evictions in the middle of this pandemic will set back 
millions of families, interrupt jobs and educations, and exacerbate 
inequality in this country. It will also make it harder to keep people 
healthy and get the virus under control.
  I have heard from Ohioans how badly people need housing assistance. A 
group of Ohio's homeless services organizations told me recently about 
the tremendous surge in family homelessness they are seeing during the 
pandemic. One reported that 80 percent of their shelter requests have 
been families with kids. These are families with nowhere to go and 
trying to balance work and school. How many of them could have stayed 
in their homes, and not disrupted their lives--and their kids' lives--
if the Federal Government had just stepped in with rental assistance?
  In Columbus, there are over 100 eviction trials every day, even with 
the current CDC moratorium in place. An advocate I spoke with told me 
that he expected there to be a ``massive flood'' of eviction cases in 
January after the CDC moratorium expires.
  We did not have to be here. Since the passage of the CARES Act in 
March, I have been calling for more help for renters and homeowners to 
withstand the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic effects. In May, I 
introduced S. 3865, the Emergency Rental Assistance and Rental Market 
Stabilization Act of 2020, to provide these resources throughout the 
country. The House passed this bill as part of the Heroes Act in May. 
Unfortunately, Senate Leader McConnell did not see the urgency to act 
on COVID relief for families, and we are just coming to the floor with 
a bill to help address the COVID-19 crisis 7 months later.
  Today's bill, while not going far enough, takes action to help 
renters remain or become stably housed and keep their utilities 
running. The $25 billion in rental assistance and extension of the 
eviction moratorium will work together to protect renters from 
evictions in the midst of the pandemic in the middle of winter. The 
eviction moratorium extension helps prevent evictions while families 
await assistance. Rental assistance will ensure that families can pay 
their bills and remain in their homes during and after the pandemic 
without being forced to make impossible choices between rent and food 
or medicine.
  Given how badly these resources are needed in the community today, 
the Department of Treasury must do all that it can to implement this 
rental assistance program quickly and successfully.
  This means ensuring that States and communities can quickly provide 
funds to those who need them and minimize artificial paperwork and 
documentation barriers for applicants trying to access the funds 
Congress intended them to have. Treasury should avoid establishing 
requirements that are burdensome for both renters and grantees 
administering emergency rental assistance programs and that will slow 
down dollars going to keep the heat on and pay landlords.
  The COVID-19 pandemic has had broad impacts on individuals, families, 
businesses, availability of government services and supports, and 
throughout our economy. It has changed where and how many people work. 
It has made it more difficult not just to keep a job, but also to find 
a new job, to get enough hours, and to find child care or someone to 
care for a sick loved one. All of these challenges brought on by the 
pandemic have made it more difficult for families to make ends meet. 
These effects are likely to exist for months and years to come. As 
Congress has stated in this bill, given the enormous documentation 
challenges facing families as businesses close and service jobs reduce 
in hours, an applicant's written attestation should be the only 
documentation required to demonstrate a connection to the pandemic.
  In addition to financial assistance for rent, utilities, and other 
housing costs, the bill permits grantees to fund housing stability 
services. This will allow grantees to offer households services they 
may need to remain or become stably housed, including case management, 
landlord-tenant mediation, legal services, eviction prevention 
services, rehousing services, services to connect eligible households 
to other public supports, and referrals to other services for 
behavioral, emotional, and mental health issues, domestic violence, 
child welfare, employment, and substance abuse treatment.
  Finally, the emergency rental assistance fund in this bill provides 
nontaxable assistance for renter households that does not count toward 
income for calculating eligibility for other programs. Emergency 
assistance is just that--emergency assistance for an extraordinary 
event--and it should not be used to penalize families further. If there 
is any confusion about the taxability of this assistance, the 
Department of Treasury, in consultation with the Internal Revenue 
Service, should provide guidance to clarify this for grantees and 
participants.
  I will continue to fight for the housing resources and protections 
our renters and homeowners need to stay in their homes. I also look 
forward to working to successfully deploy the historic resources and 
protections provided in this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                        Vote on Motion to Concur

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time 
be yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to concur.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
  (Mr. SASSE assumed the Chair.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 92, nays 6, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 289 Leg.]

                                YEAS--92

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Braun
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto

[[Page S7928]]


     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harris
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Loeffler
     Manchin
     Markey
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--6

     Blackburn
     Cruz
     Johnson
     Lee
     Paul
     Scott (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Enzi
     Round
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 92, the nays are 6.
  The 60-vote threshold having been achieved, the motion to concur is 
agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.

                          ____________________