[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 21 (Thursday, February 4, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S413-S446]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

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

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

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


                   Recognition Of The Majority Leader

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


                          Tribute to Ann Berry

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


                              Coronavirus

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

[[Page S414]]

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


                              Impeachment

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

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


                             Student Loans

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


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

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


                             S. Con. Res. 5

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

[[Page S415]]

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

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

  The new CDC Director, Dr. Walensky, says:

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

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


                           Dream Act of 2021

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

[[Page S416]]

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

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

[[Page S417]]

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

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

  Ana said:

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

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

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

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


                          Biden Administration

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

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

  He reiterated that sentiment at his inauguration stating:

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

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

[[Page S418]]

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


                             S. Con. Res. 5

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

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

[[Page S419]]

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

[[Page S420]]

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


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

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


                             S. Con Res. 5

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

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

[[Page S421]]

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

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

[[Page S422]]

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

       Neither the President-elect--

  This was her earlier testimony--

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

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

[[Page S423]]

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

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

[[Page S424]]

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

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

[[Page S425]]

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

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

[[Page S426]]

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

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

[[Page S427]]

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

[[Page S428]]

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

[[Page S429]]

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

[[Page S430]]

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

[[Page S431]]

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

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

[[Page S432]]

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


                           Order of Business

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


                           Amendment No. 261

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

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

  The amendment is as follows

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

       At the end of title III, add the following:

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

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

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 14 Leg.]

                                YEAS--90

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

                                NAYS--10

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


                     Senator Murray's 9,000TH Vote

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

[[Page S433]]

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


                            Amendment No. 53

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

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

  The amendment is as follows:

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

       At the end of title III, add the following:

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

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

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


                        Vote on Amendment No. 53

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 15 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

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

                                NAYS--50

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


                            Amendment No. 69

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

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

  The amendment is as follows:

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

       At the end of title III, add the following:

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

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

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

[[Page S434]]

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 16 Leg.]

                               YEAS--100

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


                            Amendment No. 48

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

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

  The amendment is as follows:

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

       At the end of title III, add the following:

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

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

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


                        Vote on Amendment No. 48

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 17 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr

[[Page S435]]


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

                                NAYS--50

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


                     Amendment No. 52, as Modified

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

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

  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

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

       At the end of title III, add the following:

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

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

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


                 Vote on Amendment No. 52, As Modified

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


                            Amendment No. 54

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

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

  The amendment is as follows:

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

       At the end of title III, add the following:

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

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

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

[[Page S436]]

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


                        Vote on Amendment No. 54

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 18 Leg.]

                                YEAS--58

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

                                NAYS--42

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


                           Amendment No. 775

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

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

  The amendment is as follows:

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

       At the end of title III, add the following:

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

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

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


                       Vote on Amendment No. 775

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 19 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

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

                                NAYS--1

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


                           Amendment No. 553

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

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


[[Page S437]]


  The amendment is as follows:

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

       At the end of title III, add the following:

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

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

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


                       Vote on Amendment No. 553

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 20 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

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

                                NAYS--50

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


                           Amendment No. 716

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

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

  The amendment is as follows

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

       At the end of title III, add the following:

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

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

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


                       Vote on Amendment No. 716

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

[[Page S438]]

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 21 Leg.]

                               YEAS--100

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


                           Amendment No. 653

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

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

  The amendment is as follows:

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

       At the end of title III, add the following:

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

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

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


                       Vote on Amendment No. 653

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 22 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

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

                                NAYS--2

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


                           Amendment No. 192

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

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

  The amendment is as follows:

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

       At the end of title III, add the following:

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

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

[[Page S439]]

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

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


                             Point of Order

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


                            Motion to Waive

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 23 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

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

                                NAYS--48

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


                           Amendment No. 687

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

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

  The amendment is as follows:

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

       At the end of title III, add the following:

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

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

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


                             Point of Order

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

[[Page S440]]

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


                            Motion to Waive

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 24 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

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

                                NAYS--50

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


                           Amendment No. 132

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

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

  The amendment is as follows:

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

       At the end of title III, add the following:

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

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

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


                             Point of Order

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


                            Motion to Waive

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 25 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

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

                                NAYS--48

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

[[Page S441]]

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


                           Amendment No. 546

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

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

  The amendment is as follows:

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

       At the end of title III, add the following:

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

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

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


                       Vote on Amendment No. 546

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 26 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

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

                                NAYS--1

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


                    Senator Feinstein's 9,000th Vote

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

[[Page S442]]

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


                           Amendment No. 834

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

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

  The amendment is as follows:

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

       At the end of title III, add the following:

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

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

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


                       Vote on Amendment No. 834

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 27 Leg.]

                               YEAS--100

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


                           Amendment No. 833

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

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

  The amendment is as follows:

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

       At the end of title III, add the following:

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

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

  Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President, my amendment helps ensure that the EPA 
cannot, through regulation or otherwise, ban fracking in the United 
States. This is an issue of energy independence, locking in our 
CO2 emissions reduction provided by clean natural gas, and 
it gives us time to find the cleanest, least expensive options down the 
road.
  Due to our American renaissance, the United States passed Russia as a 
leading energy supplier in 2011 and passed Saudi Arabia in 2018.
  But fracking has been a boon to the economy as well. According to the 
Global Energy Institute, if fracking were banned in 2021, the U.S. 
economy would lose 19 million jobs in 4 years, local and State tax 
revenues would plummet, and gas prices would double. This is why 
President Biden promised: We will not ban fracking; we will protect and 
grow jobs.
  Yet many in this body have called to ban fracking. The American 
people deserve to know who stands with energy security and American 
workers. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, unfortunately, I must rise in opposition 
to Braun amendment 833 this evening. On its face, this amendment would 
prohibit the EPA and the Council on Environmental Quality from issuing 
any regulation or guidance that would ban oil and gas fracking.

[[Page S443]]

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


                       Vote on Amendment No. 833

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 28 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

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

                                NAYS--43

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


                           Order of Business

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


                            Amendment No. 91

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

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

  The amendment is as follows:

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

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

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

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

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


                             Point of Order

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


                            Motion to Waive

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 29 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

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

                                NAYS--51

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


                           Amendment No. 853

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

[[Page S444]]

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

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

  The amendment is as follows:

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

       At the end of title III, add the following:

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

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

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


                       Vote on Amendment No. 853

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


                           Amendment No. 786

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

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

  The amendment is as follows:

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

       At the end of title III, add the following:

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

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

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


                       Vote on Amendment No. 786

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 30 Leg.]

                                YEAS--97

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

                                NAYS--3

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


                            Amendment No. 1

                (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

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

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

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

[[Page S445]]

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


                        Vote on Amendment No. 1

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 31 Leg.]

                                YEAS--29

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

                                NAYS--71

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


                           Amendment No. 767

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

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

  The amendment is as follows:

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

       At the end of title III, add the following:

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

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

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


                       Vote on Amendment No. 767

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


                           Amendment No. 678

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

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

  The amendment is as follows:

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

       At the end of title III, add the following:

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

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

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

[[Page S446]]

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


                       Vote on Amendment No. 678

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 32 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

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

                                NAYS--48

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

                          ____________________