[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.
____________________