Congressional Record, Volume 167 Issue 42 (Friday, March 5, 2021)

[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 42 (Friday, March 5, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1219-S1269]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

LEGISLATIVE SESSION

______

AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT OF 2021

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 1319, which the clerk will
report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 1319) to provide for reconciliation pursuant
to title II of S. Con. Res. 5.

Pending:

Schumer amendment No. 891, of a perfecting nature.

=========================== NOTE ===========================

On page S1219, March 5, 2021, second and third column, the
following appears: Pending: Schumer amendment No. 891, of a
perfecting nature. Prior to the consideration of this measure, the
Senate took the following action: By 51 yeas to 50 nays, Vice
President voting yea (Vote No. 73), the Senate agreed to the
motion to proceed to consideration of the bill. A unanimous-
consent-time agreement was reached providing for further
consideration of the bill at approximately 9 a.m., on Friday,
March 5, 2021; that there be 3 hours of debate remaining, with the
time equally divided and controlled between the two managers or
their designees; and that it be in order for Senator Sanders to
offer the first amendment.

The online Record has been corrected to read: Pending: Schumer
amendment No. 891, of a perfecting nature.

========================= END NOTE =========================

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont.

Unanimous Consent Agreements

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that for the
duration of the Senate's consideration of H.R. 1319, the American
Rescue Plan Act of 2021, the majority and Republican managers of the
bill, while seated or standing at the managers' desks, be permitted to
deliver floor remarks, retrieve, review, and edit documents, and send
email and other data communications from text displayed on wireless
personal digital assistant devices and tablet devices.
What do we think about that?
All right. I further ask unanimous consent that the use of
calculators be permitted on the floor during consideration of the bill;
further, that the staff be permitted to make technical and conforming
changes to the bill, if necessary, consistent with the amendments
adopted during Senate consideration of the bill.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

=========================== NOTE ===========================

On page S1219, March 5, 2021, third column, the following
appears: All right. I further ask unanimous consent that the use
of calculators be permitted on the floor during consideration of
the bill; further that the staff be permitted to make technical
and conforming changes to the bill, if necessary, consistent with
the amendments adopted during Senate consideration of the bill.

The online Record has been corrected to read: All right. I
further ask unanimous consent that the use of calculators be
permitted on the floor during consideration of the bill; further
that the staff be permitted to make technical and conforming
changes to the bill, if necessary, consistent with the amendments
adopted during Senate consideration of the bill. The ACTING
PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

========================= END NOTE =========================

Amendment No. 972 to Amendment No. 891

(Purpose: To provide for increases in the Federal minimum wage)

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 972.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], for himself and
others, proposes an amendment numbered 972 to amendment No.
891.

Mr. SANDERS. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in the Record of March 4, 2021 under ``Text
of Amendments.'')

=========================== NOTE ===========================

On page S1219, March 5, 2021, third column, the following
appears: (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text
of Amendments.'')

The Record has been corrected to read: (The amendment is printed
in the Record of March 4, 2021, under ``Text of Amendments.'')

========================= END NOTE =========================

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I rise to offer an amendment to
increase the Federal minimum wage from a starvation wage of $7.25 an
hour to $15 an hour over a 5-year period.
As I think you know, Congress has not raised the minimum wage since
2007. The result of that is that half of our people are now living
paycheck to paycheck, and many, in fact, are working for wages that are
much too low in order to take care of their families. So, to my mind,
the American people in poll after poll and State after State understand
that we have to raise that minimum wage to a living wage of 15 bucks an
hour. I intend to do everything that I can to make that happen, and I
will be offering that amendment this morning.

[[Page S1220]]

Madam President, before I do that, let me begin my remarks by
explaining why this reconciliation bill that we are debating today, the
American Rescue Plan, is so enormously important that it must be passed
and must be passed as quickly as possible, in my view. This legislation
is the most consequential and significant legislation for working
families that Congress has debated for many, many decades.
Now, why is that?
The answer is that, as I think all Americans know, the last year that
we have gone through has been, in so many ways, the very worst year in
our lifetimes. That is what it has been. The working families of our
country today are hurting in a way that they have not hurt since the
Great Depression, and they want their government to hear their pain and
come to their aid, and that is not too much to ask.
There are a lot of folks in this country--there are estimates of
maybe 30 to 40 percent of Americans--who have literally given up on
democracy. They are moving toward authoritarianism. They are hurting.
Their kids are hurting. Their parents are hurting. They look to
Washington for help in their democratic society, and they don't see
Washington responding. What they see year after year are policies which
make the very, very rich richer, which enable large, profitable
corporations to not pay a nickel in taxes, but for them, they face
eviction; they face hunger; they don't have healthcare; they can't
afford to send their kids to college. They are asking: Does anybody--
anybody--in Washington care about their lives?
So what today is about, in a very profound way, is whether or not we
stand with the working class of this country and say: Yes, we live in a
democratic society. We understand what you are going through, and we
are going to move as aggressively as we can to respond to your pain and
improve your lives.
This is not just a healthcare bill. It is not just an economic bill.
It is not just an educational bill. It is perhaps more than that. This
is a bill which will answer a profound question: Are we living in a
democratic society, where the U.S. Congress will respond to the needs
of working families rather than just the wealthy and large corporations
and their lobbyists? That is what today is about. It is dealing with
the pandemic. It is dealing with the economy. It is dealing with
education and so much more, but most importantly it is dealing with the
issue of whether or not we are hearing the pain that is out there and
if we are responding to it.
During the last year, as everybody knows, over 500,000 Americans have
died of COVID, and millions more have been made ill. Unbelievable. It
is unbelievable what we have gone through in terms of this terrible
pandemic. COVID has not only caused massive death and illness; it has
resulted in a way we have never experienced social isolation. That
means, all over this country, we have old people, elderly people, in
their homes. They can't interact with their grandchildren, with their
own kids, with their friends. You have young people who want to go to
school, who want to socialize, who want to date, who want to do things
that young people do. They can't do it and have been unable to do it
for the last year, and that has resulted in a very sharp increase in
mental illness in this country--something, by the way, that this
legislation also deals with. Many Americans, young and old and middle-
aged, are now dealing with depression, anxiety disorder, addictions. We
are seeing the growth of addictions and even suicidal ideation. So this
has been just an awful year for people in our country and, in fact,
throughout the world.
This last year has not only been a public health crisis, as bad as
that has been. The pandemic, as we all know, has led to a terrible
economic downturn, which has resulted in millions of Americans losing
their jobs and their incomes, and it has led to the shutting down of
something like one out of four small businesses in this country. That
is just an unbelievable number. Go to any town in America, and you will
see its Main Street shuttered down. Thriving businesses no longer
exist. Real unemployment in this country today is now over 10 percent.
Further, countless Americans face the threat of eviction. We have a
moratorium on evictions, which is the right thing, but there is going
to be a day when that ends. People are saying: I am $5,000, $8,000 in
debt. What happens to me when the moratorium ends? How am I going to
pay my rent? Am I going to be one of the 500,000 people already
sleeping out on the streets?
Millions more--and we have seen this in Vermont, and I know the
Acting President pro tempore has probably seen it in Minnesota, for it
is all over this country--are lining up in their cars for food, and it
is something that none of us ever dreamed. It is right in my own
community of Burlington, VT--hundreds of people, while in their cars,
lining up for food. Many of them, never in a million years, would have
dreamed that they would be in that position. Today, the level of hunger
in America is at the highest level it has been in decades.
Then, on top of all of that, we are in the midst of a pandemic.
People are scared to death about coming down with COVID. Yet, because
of our dysfunctional healthcare system, we have over 90 million people
who are uninsured or underinsured in the midst of a pandemic.
It is not only the public health crisis we worry about; it is not
only the collapse of our economy that we have to worry about; it is
what is happening to our young people because the pandemic has created
a massive disruption in our educational system, from childcare through
graduate school. The majority of our young people have seen education
disrupted. Think about all of the implications of what that means. It
is likely that hundreds of colleges in America, which were struggling
before the pandemic, will cease to exist.
So you have the public health crisis with a half a million people
dead, an economic crisis with real unemployment at 10 percent and small
businesses going out of business, and an educational crisis.
Meanwhile, in the midst of all of that, it is important to note that
not everybody in this country is hurting. What we are seeing, in the
midst of massive income and wealth inequality, is a moment when, in
fact, that gap between the very, very rich and everybody else is
growing wider. Incredibly, during this pandemic, over 650 billionaires
in America have increased their wealth by more than $1 trillion. The
50--five zero--richest people in America now own more wealth than the
bottom half of American society, some 160 million people.
So the bottom line here is very simple: In this moment of
unprecedented crises, the U.S. Senate must respond to the pain of
working families all across this country, and we must respond in an
unprecedented way, which is what this legislation is about.
Now I want to say a few words about some of what is in this bill.
This is a 600-page bill, and I will not read it all again. I think our
clerks had enough fun reading it last night, but I do want to summarize
some of what is in it.
Most importantly, what the American people want is, they want to get
back to a normal life. They want their kids to go to school. They want
to go to work. They want their businesses open. And what the American
Rescue Plan does is enable us to aggressively crush this pandemic and
enable the American people to return to their jobs and their schools.
It will establish a national emergency program to produce the
quantity of vaccines that we need and get them into the arms of our
people as quickly as possible. Clearly, we are making progress in that
area. More and more people are getting vaccinated. But we still have a
lot of work to do, and this legislation will enable us to do that.
At a time when so many of our people are hurting, this legislation
will allow us to provide $1,400 in direct payment to every working-
class person in this country and to their kids, and this is on top of
the $600 that we provided last month. So if you are out there and you
are a family of four earning less than $150,000 or an individual
earning less than $75,000, you are going to get that check for $1,400,
and for that family of four, that is $5,600.
Now, I know that to some that isn't a whole lot of money. You know,
5,600 bucks ain't that much. But for a family that is struggling right
now and can't pay their rent and can't feed their kids, that $5,600 for
a family of four could be the difference between desperation and
dignity.

[[Page S1221]]

Further, at a time when so many of our people are unemployed, this
Budget Reconciliation Act will provide $400 a week in supplemental
unemployment benefits to over 10 million Americans until the end of
August. If you are unemployed right now, you are worried--if your
unemployment check is your only source of income, you are worried that
it is going to cease, well, it is not. This legislation will continue
that check coming until the end of August.
This legislation understands that we have a childcare crisis in
America, and we provide the resources to provide childcare to 875,000
children.
And very importantly--we don't talk about this enough--one of the
absolute disgraces of our economy right now is the level of childhood
poverty in America, which is one of the highest for any major country
on Earth. This legislation will go a long way toward cutting childhood
poverty. Some studies suggest we are going to cut it in half by
expanding the child tax credit from $2,000 to $3,000 and $3,600 for
kids under the age of 6. In other words, we are about to cut childhood
poverty in half in this country.
This legislation, obviously, deals with the horror of so many of our
people facing hunger. We put in very substantial amounts of money for
nutrition assistance for working families, for kids, for the disabled,
and the elderly.
This legislation will provide rent relief, utility assistance, and
mortgage assistance to millions of tenants and homeowners who are in
danger of eviction and foreclosure.
This legislation will protect the pensions of many millions of
workers who are in danger of seeing their retirement benefits cut by as
much as 65 percent.
Not only is this $1.9 trillion emergency COVID relief package the
right thing to do for people from a moral perspective, it is exactly
what the overwhelming majority of the American people want us to do.
The American people didn't want us to give tax breaks to
billionaires. The American people did not want, as the Republicans
fought to do, throw 30 million people off the Affordable Care Act. The
American people didn't want that, but that is what the Republicans
tried to do under reconciliation.
Well, we have a different idea. Yeah, we are going to use
reconciliation, which requires only 51 votes. We are going to use it,
not for tax breaks for the rich, not to throw people off of healthcare
but to provide the help that working-class people need all across this
country.
Madam President, I am introducing, as I mentioned earlier,
legislation--an amendment--today to raise the minimum wage to 15 bucks
an hour.
Because of an unfortunate and, in my view, misguided decision by the
Parliamentarian, this reconciliation bill does not include an increase
in the minimum wage to $15 an hour. In my view, it should have, and I
think the Parliamentarian was dead wrong.
But more importantly, it is an absurd process that we allow an
unelected staffer, somebody who works for the Senate, not elected by
anybody, to make a decision as to whether 30 million Americans get a
pay raise or not. I don't care how the Parliamentarian rules. No
Parliamentarian should have that power.
If people here want to vote against raising the minimum wage, you
have that right. You want to vote for it, and I hope you do, you have
that right. But we should not shuffle off that responsibility to an
unelected staffer. That is wrong.
The amendment I am offering today to raise that minimum wage to $15
an hour is cosponsored by Majority Leader Schumer, and I thank him for
his strong support; Senator Patty Murray, who is the chair of the
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee; Senator Ron Wyden,
who is the chair of the Finance Committee; and many others in this
Chamber.
In fact, this amendment is similar in many ways to the legislation
that I have offered which is cosponsored by 38 Members of the Senate.
And let us not forget, this legislation was passed in the House, and
I want to thank my friends and colleagues in the House Progressive
Caucus for their extraordinary leadership on this issue.
This amendment is supported by some 300 national organizations,
including the AFL-CIO, and virtually all of the major unions in our
country. I want to thank in particular the SEIU, one of the great
unions in America, who have led this effort for years in terms of the
Fight for $15, where people working in McDonald's and Burger King have
gone out on strike and said: No, we can't make it on 10 bucks an hour,
11 bucks an hour. I want to thank the SEIU.
And this legislation will help workers all across the board, but it
will significantly help women who are unfortunately forced into low-
income work more than the general population, more than men, and it
will disproportionately help African Americans and Latinos, who
disproportionately are forced into low-income work. This legislation is
supported not only by 300 organizations but by groups like the
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. They understand that
if we are going improve the standard of living of the African-American
community, we ought to raise that minimum wage.
It is supported by the National Organization for Women because,
again, this raising the minimum wage is a women's issue in a very
significant way--not totally, believe me. There are a lot of men out
there who are working for 9, 10, 11 bucks an hour, but
disproportionately it impacts women.
It is supported by Unidos and other Latino organizations. It is
supported by the American Association of University Women, supported by
Indivisible, Justice for Migrant Women, the National Domestic Workers
Alliance, and the National Women's Law Center.
Here is the simple truth, and that is that in the richest country in
the history of the world, we can no longer tolerate millions of our
workers being unable to feed their families because they are working
for starvation wages. And that is not what I say, although I do say it;
it is what the President of the United States says. He very, very
strongly supports raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, and I thank
him for his support.
You know, when we look at the economy, people look at the stock
market, and they look at a whole lot of indices out there, but at the
end of the day, we have to ask ourselves: What is going on in the lives
of ordinary people? It is not acceptable to me that half of our people
are living paycheck to paycheck and millions of people are trying to
get by on 9, 10, 11 bucks an hour. And do you know what? You can't do
that. You can't do that in Vermont, and you can't do it in California,
and you can't do it in Minnesota. You can't do that. Our job is to make
sure that we have an economy that works for all and not just for the
few, and in order to do that, we are going to have to raise that
minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour.
Frankly, it is disgraceful that Congress has not passed an increase
in the minimum wage since 2007. Think of all the things that have
transpired since then. But Congress has not raised the minimum wage
since 2007.
The reality is that the minimum wage has lost over 30 percent of its
purchasing power since 1968. The minimum wage is worth a lot less now
than it used to be. When we increase the minimum wage, we will be
giving over 32 million Americans a much needed pay raise.
Let's be clear. Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour is an
enormously popular idea. More than 60 percent of the American people,
in poll after poll, support raising the minimum wage.
Since 1998--this is really amazing. You know, I have some friends
here who are nervous: Oh, my goodness, how radical can it be? Should we
raise the minimum wage? Oh, my God, I am scared of the American
Restaurant Association.
Well, since 1998, every time a State has had an initiative on the
ballot to raise the minimum wage, it has won. In conservative States,
in progressive States, put it on the ballot, it wins.
Just as one example, in November, just this last November, election
time, Joe Biden lost Florida. Donald Trump won Florida by three points.
But in that same election, the people of Florida--and I say that to the
two Senators from Florida--61 percent of the people in Florida voted to
raise the minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour. Florida voted for Donald
Trump and voted to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour.
Eight States--over the years, 8 States and over 40 cities have
adopted

[[Page S1222]]

laws to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. It is not a radical
idea.
And, as you know, over just a few days ago, the House of
Representatives did the right thing and voted to raise the minimum wage
to $15 an hour. This is not a radical idea. People want it. States have
done it. The House of Representatives has done it, and now it is our
turn to do what the American people want.
Now, in the last few days, I have heard some concerns from my
colleagues about one part of our amendment, and that is the provision
to raise the tip wage, which now stands--I want everybody to hear
that--the tip wage for waiters and waitresses and all those people who
get tips now stands at $2.13 an hour. No, you did not mishear me--$2.13
an hour. That is the Federal minimum wage for waiters and waitresses,
for barbers, for hairstylists, for parking attendants, and others. That
tip minimum wage has not been raised since 1991, 30 years ago.
You think maybe it is time to raise the tip wage from $2.13 an hour,
passed 30 years ago? I think so. The proposal in this legislation would
raise that tip wage from $2.13 an hour to $14.95 over a 7-year period.
Now, time and again, our legislation gets misrepresented. People say:
Oh, you are raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour tomorrow. No, we
are not. The tip wage is going to take 7 years. For better or worse,
that is what it is.
Now, the National Restaurant Association, a very powerful lobbying
organization, has suggested to Members of Congress that this
legislation is opposed by restaurant workers and would be harmful to
their interests. This is not true.
One Fair Wage, an organization representing service employees, has
just delivered to the White House a petition with 140,000 signatures
from service workers who are demanding that they receive the same
minimum wage as every other worker in their State.
Polling among service employees and nonservice employees also
supports the reality that Americans want our waiters and waitresses and
other service employees to get a fair minimum wage.
Now, I heard from some people that those people who are working in
the service industry are doing really well, you know, and they don't
want an increase in the Federal minimum wage. The tips that they are
receiving are covering all of their needs. ``Leave well enough alone,''
they say. Well, today, 70 percent of tipped workers are women who
suffer from three times the poverty rate of the rest of the U.S.
workforce. They are not doing so well. They use food stamps at double
the rate of the general workforce and suffer, by the way, from the
highest rates of sexual harassment of any industry because they must
tolerate inappropriate customer behavior to get the incomes that they
need.
Further--and this is important, and I want all of my colleagues to
hear this. The idea of moving tipped wages to the same level as the
overall minimum wage is not a radical idea. It has been done in State
after State. It already exists in seven States in our country,
including California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Montana, Alaska, and
Minnesota. I should point out that all of those States experienced a
growth in the number of small businesses and restaurants after they
abolished the tipped minimum wage. And guess what. Waiters and
waitresses in these States received more tips, not less, and let's be
clear: This pandemic has made a bad situation worse for waiters and
waitresses.
So, right now, it is absolutely imperative that we raise that minimum
wage to a living wage for all of our workers and that we raise the
tipped wage as well, which is already law in seven States of the
country right now.
And I see the Senator from California, Mr. Padilla, and we are
delighted that he is joining us. And his State has been one of the
leaders in this country in raising the minimum wage, and I would yield
the floor to him for his remarks.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
Mr. PADILLA. Madam President, I rise today in support of working men
and women across the country, and I am proud to stand with Senator
Sanders, who has been a champion for working people.
Let me be clear: Raising the minimum wage is COVID relief. The COVID-
19 pandemic has highlighted the immense underlying inequities in our
Nation. It has also driven home how important essential workers are to
our society and to our economy.
Millions of Americans do essential work but are not paid a living
wage. They work as home health aides, assisting elderly family members
to meet their basic needs with dignity. They produce our food, stock
our grocery shelves, keep facilities clean and safe, care for our
children, and so much more, so that we can go to work.
They are on the frontlines of this pandemic, risking their health,
yet still struggling to keep themselves and their families healthy.
They shouldn't also have to struggle to keep a roof over their heads
and food on their table.
Both of my parents worked jobs that are considered essential today.
For 40 years, my father worked as a short-order cook. For the same 40
years, my mom was a domestic worker. And it is people like them all
over America who work hard, with dignity, yet still struggle to make
ends meet. That is not the American dream--far from it.
It is finally time that Congress does something about it. There is
strong bipartisan support throughout the country for raising the
minimum wage. I am proud to say that my home State of California has
been a leader in the fight for 15, and just this past year, the voters
of Florida--yes, Florida, the State that voted for Donald Trump not
once but twice--approved a $15 minimum wage by a 20-point margin. That
is because it is Americans, both Democrats and Republicans, who know
that one of the most straightforward ways we can help working people is
by raising the Federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.
Now, California is a big State. We are a very diverse State, full of
diverse communities, with local variations in cost of living and local
business conditions, just like the rest of the country. And let me tell
you, the sky did not fall when California enacted a $15 minimum wage.
Now, I know some of our colleagues have argued that raising the
Federal minimum wage would reduce employment opportunities for American
workers. The facts show otherwise. Forty years of studies have found
little to no significant impact of wage increases on employment levels.
Some of our colleagues have also argued that eliminating the tipped
minimum wage nationwide would harm earnings for workers. That also has
not happened. Again, research has found that eliminating the tipped
minimum wage has no significant impact on employment.
At the same time, median hourly wages for tipped workers are higher
in equal treatment States like California compared to those with a
tipped minimum wage.
Madam President, 1.7 million Americans make the Federal minimum wage.
That is a $15,000-a-year income. We must be honest with ourselves. No
one can meet the minimum standards of living on a minimum wage of just
$15,000 a year.
Now, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour would also help reduce
some of the gender and racial inequities in our Nation, as Senator
Sanders has referenced, given the overrepresentation of women and
minorities in jobs that earn the minimum wage. It would give them more
money to spend in their local economy, which in turn is good for
business. But most importantly, it will lift hundreds of thousands of
families out of poverty. Think about that. We have the opportunity to
lift hundreds of thousands of families out of poverty.
This isn't just an opportunity, it is a moral responsibility. No one
who works a full-time job should live in poverty. It is that simple. We
must stand on the side of hard-working Americans.
I call on my colleagues to continue the fight for 15 and pass the
Sanders amendment to bring justice and prosperity for all American
workers.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, right now, the Senate is debating, having
been started by our colleague Senator Sanders, whether it is OK to pay
starvation wages in the United States. You

[[Page S1223]]

heard that right, starvation wages. Receiving that starvation wage,
single moms are skipping meals as they try to make rent and buy
groceries for their family. These moms get paid $7.25 an hour, often
work two jobs, and go to bed every night worried that the next morning
is going to bring financial calamity.
Senators, is this OK in a country as rich and strong as ours? Here in
the U.S. Senate, nobody has got to worry where their next meal is
coming from, but that is an everyday struggle for too many families
across the land.
Senators, let us think about those who are hurting as the vote on the
Sanders minimum wage amendment approaches. It is time for that single
mom to get a fair wage for a fair day's work, a living wage, not a
starvation wage.
There has never been a stronger case for a $15 minimum wage than
there is right now during the pandemic. I think about grocery store and
pharmacy workers, home health aides, food processing and packing
workers, restaurant employees interacting with maskless customers. So
many workers in Oregon and across the country are going to work in a
dangerous environment each day. Many of them are Black and Latino
workers, people from the communities that have suffered the most from
COVID-19. They have kept our country going through the last year.
I have heard a whole lot of Members of the Senate, Democratic and
Republicans, talk about those workers as heroes of the pandemic. So the
question is, Will the Senate stand up and give those heroes of the
pandemic the raise they deserve, the raise they have waited for, for 12
years?
There are 30 million Americans who earn less than $15 an hour. It
would be closer to 40 million if not for the fact that the coronavirus
put so many Americans out of work. That is just immoral and
unacceptable.
Now, if you want to see inequality baked into the law, just look at
how the country treats its lowest income workers compared to those at
the top. The minimum wage has been stuck for 12 long years, and a flat
minimum is nothing but a slow-moving pay cut for those who make the
least.
Minimum wage workers cannot afford the average rent in any State in
America, not one. It doesn't account for utilities, food, gas, car
payments, medical bills, school supplies. Here is a fact: Living is
expensive for the poor in America. Meanwhile, the most well-to-do keep
winning with their investments in the stock market. The entire Tax Code
is rigged to favor the income of billionaires over the income of wage-
earning families.
Republicans passed the $2 trillion Trump tax law promising trickle-
down benefits. They have been talking about that for decades, even
though those magical benefits never actually trickle down.
The Trump administration actually made it A-OK in the eyes of the law
for corporations to steal from their employees' tipped wages. A country
that aspires to be pro-work should not be this anti-worker.
Members of the Senate might forget it now, but minimum wage used to
go up all the time. It happened 22 times since the minimum wage was
enacted in 1938. Through the fifties, sixties, and into the seventies--
the post-war period that many looked as the boom years of the 20th
century--the minimum wage went up all the time, and Congress expanded
the range of workers it covered.
Now, colleagues, these increases did not lead to the end of Western
civilization back then, and raising the minimum wage isn't going to do
it today either. That is because--folks might want to sit down when I
say this--it is good for everybody when there are fewer poor people in
America. This is the longest the Congress has gone without raising the
minimum wage since its origin.
In recent years, the grassroots movement has picked up the slack and
made a lot of progress in cities and States all over the country,
including my home State of Oregon. But the Congress cannot wait any
longer. The powerful could pull the levers around here in a hurry, and
they get more than their share of benefits and attention. Right now,
the Congress has a chance to prove, to actually prove that it is
looking after working people, and that means raising the minimum wage
to $15 an hour. Every single Senator says they want to incentivize hard
work, and, folks, a living wage does just that. The single mom skipping
meals to feed her kids deserves better. The Senate can do better
starting today.
I appreciate my colleague Senator Sanders leading the effort to raise
the wage for years and years. As chairman of the Senate Finance
Committee, I am all in with Senator Sanders on this fight. Senators,
support our amendment. Give tens of millions of America's hard-working
people a raise. And before I yield the floor, I just briefly want to
provide an update with respect to the issue of trying to make sure that
folks who have been laid off, laid off from their jobs through no fault
of their own, are going to be able to get an unemployment benefit where
they can make rent and pay groceries.
We are having conversations now, bringing people together, I believe,
around two core principles. One is avoiding a cliff in August where you
would have something like 11 million people lose their benefits. We
have to do that. It defies common sense to have a cliff in the middle
of August when you have the Senate out of session.

Second, we are making a lot of progress on preventing an unemployment
tax surprise. This is a matter that Senator Sanders and I have spoken
about at length for weeks. A number of colleagues on both sides of the
aisle have a great interest in this. I think we have made a lot of
headway. We will have more to discuss with the Senate, but I am really
hopeful that this can bring all sides of this debate together.
I have personally felt the benefit should be $400. It should
certainly run into September, but I know some of my colleagues feel
otherwise. So what we are looking at is making sure that we can get a
benefit so that people can make rent and pay groceries, that we prevent
that cliff, and, by God, we sure as hell shouldn't let folks who are
unemployed pay taxes on those unemployment benefits that they secured
in 2020.
Senator Sanders and I will continue to prosecute this question of tax
forgiveness very strongly as well. I appreciate his leadership.
I see Senator Murray, the chair of another important committee with
jurisdiction over this matter.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Padilla). The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want to really thank Senator Schumer,
Senator Wyden, and Senator Sanders and others who are working so hard
with me on making sure that our relief bill includes a much needed
raise for our workers.
Democrats and Republicans alike have joined together in rightly
calling our essential workers heroes and the backbone of our economy.
But despite their tireless work and the constant risk of COVID
exposure, too many of these workers are paid wages so low, they cannot
afford to pay for even their most basic needs.
This pandemic should be a wake-up call that these workers whom we all
call heroes deserve more than $7.25 an hour. I urge my colleagues to
vote for the Sanders amendment in order to give a much needed raise to
millions of workers and end the tipped minimum wage and subminimum wage
for youth workers and workers with disabilities.
After more than a decade since the last Federal minimum wage
increase, the tides are turning, and there is overwhelming support for
Congress to act. So let me be clear. Today's vote is just one step in
our fight. We are not going to give up. Today we are going to keep
working to get this historic bill across the finish line because right
now this country is on fire. Republicans' biggest concern seems to be
that we might use too much water. The reality is, we are far from doing
too much because we will not have done enough until this crisis is
over, until families across the Nation are safe, and until we rebuild a
stronger and fairer country.
Anyone who says this bill is too expensive needs to understand how
much this pandemic has already cost our communities, how much it has
already taken from families, and how much more is at stake if we don't
finally bring it to an end.
They need to listen to public health and healthcare workers who have
been straining to test, to contact trace, to

[[Page S1224]]

vaccinate people across the country, and to grapple with the trauma of
fighting this pandemic on the frontlines.
They need to listen to parents who are asking how they are supposed
to go to work when they don't have childcare and their kids can't go to
school in person, who wonder how are they going to pay rent, how are
they going to pay for groceries, how are they going to pay to keep the
heat on, and fearing what will happen if they cannot.
They need to listen to students whom this pandemic has robbed of
critical school resources, as well as opportunities to grow and thrive
and socialize with their peers.
They need to listen to our States and our cities and our Tribes and
our territories that have seen their budgets upended.
They absolutely need to listen to people of color, to voices in the
Black, Latino, and Tribal communities who have been hit the hardest by
this pandemic in every way.
Anyone who has been listening to the American people and anyone who
has been watching what they have gone through understands the danger in
this moment is not doing too much; it is doing too little.
If Republicans want to talk about too much, there are almost 10
million fewer people working compared to this time a year ago. There
are 11 million people at risk of eviction and 11 million people about
to lose their unemployment benefits. That is too much.
One study says that by June, this pandemic will likely have set
students back 5 to 9 months in math from where they could be in a
typical year, and that setback is even larger for students of color.
Another notes that as schools across the country have shifted to remote
learning, that one in four students lacks access to internet at home.
According to the CDC, one in four young adults has considered suicide.
That is too much.
Since the start of the pandemic, we have lost over 650,000 jobs in
higher education and 1 in 6 jobs in childcare. That is too much.
Across this country, this virus has infected over 28 million, left
thousands of ``long haulers'' still experiencing symptoms, and killed
over half a million people. That is too much.
We have to act. We have to. And that is why we are fighting to pass
the American Rescue Plan. This American Rescue Plan will send families
long-overdue direct relief and prevent expanded unemployment benefits,
which have been a lifeline to so many people, from expiring. It will
help get vaccines in arms faster. It will hire and train more public
health workers. It will ramp up our testing capacity and invest in
programs to counter the disproportionate harm COVID-19 has caused
specifically to communities of color and Tribes. It will expand
affordable insurance to more families and give schools much needed
resources to help our students get back to classrooms for in-person
learning safely. It will stabilize our struggling childcare sector,
which is so critical to helping women and working families get back to
work. It will support small businesses and help States keep educators
and firefighters and sanitation workers and others on the job.
So before my Republican colleagues worry anymore about the cost of
doing all that, I hope they take a moment to consider the staggering
cost of failing to do it. There is a reason bold action like this plan
has the support of Republican Governors like Jim Justice in West
Virginia; the support of Republican mayors like Betsy Price in Fort
Worth, TX, or Francis Suarez in Miami, FL, or David Holt from Oklahoma
City; and, according to a recent poll, the support of a majority of
Republicans.
That same poll showed that the American people support this package
by an overwhelming 3-to-1 margin. People support this American Rescue
Plan because the American Rescue Plan supports people--workers,
families, communities--who know firsthand the loss and hardship of this
last year and because they understand the simple fact that when the
house is in flames, you do not argue about how much of the fire to put
out or how much water to use or how many lives to save; you do whatever
it takes until the crisis is over and everyone is safe, and you do it
as fast as you can. That is what Democrats are trying to do today. That
is what this bill is about, and I urge every single Member of the
Senate to support it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about the
American Rescue Plan, but following my colleague from Washington and in
the presence of the Senator from Vermont, I just want to thank them for
how hard they have fought for an increase in the minimum wage.
Our State, the State of Washington, has led the Nation for many years
in the highest minimum wage, and it didn't impact our economy. In fact,
it helped our economy. There are now reports, as we have moved towards
$15 from just a little town, SeaTac, to the city of Seattle, to now a
plan for our entire State to move to $15 over a gradual period of time.
I urge my colleagues--I urge my colleagues to come together with a
plan that can get us to a $15 minimum wage. I know we have it in us. I
know we can do it. I so appreciate our colleagues waging this effort to
continue to make this a priority for our Nation.
I can't tell you enough how much the wages, particularly in a place
like Seattle, are going to matter to people, to have a livable wage. I
know people here have discussed various aspects of this program and the
plans that are in this bill, but I just want them to know that the cost
of living in a very expensive place like Seattle demands that we pay
workers what they deserve. It also means that we deal with big-city
problems like homelessness and deal with making investments, and I hope
that our next infrastructure bill will get to that.
This is not the last time I am going to speak about minimum wage, but
I want our colleagues to know that this battle is not over yet and that
if we want to raise the standard of living in the United States, we
have to pay a livable wage.
So I come to talk about the details of the rescue plan. This is 1
year since a young man from Everett, WA, became the first COVID victim
in the United States of America. Not only did he get sick, but many
loved ones got sick, their families, and they are all waiting now for
vaccines. So this legislation--priority No. 1 for so many Americans
right now is the COVID-19 vaccine.
In my State, the State of Washington, more than 1 million residents
have been vaccinated, and 6 million more are still waiting. Everyone
knows that demand far exceeds the supply. Our healthcare workers are
working tirelessly, along with other government officials, to get shots
in the arms of individuals.
That is why this bill is so important, because it provides $20
billion to invest in vaccine administration and distribution. That
includes launching community vaccine centers, deploying mobile vaccine
units to hard-to-reach areas, and continuing to support an increased
pace of vaccinations. That is job 1 right now--get the vaccine into the
arms of Americans.
That is why this legislation is so important, to continue that
effort, but it also provides other support, like extending unemployment
benefits for millions of Americans who lost their jobs through no fault
of their own a year ago and are now seeing unemployment benefits expire
next week.
We know what today's numbers say. We still have a very high
unemployment rate in the United States of America. So this bill extends
the benefit another 5 months, until August 29. It is a very prudent
measure to continue to put the resources into the American economy.
It also provides $1,400 stimulus payments to millions, and it
supports new efforts for our restaurants, small businesses, and those
devastated by the pandemic so they can use this money for payroll,
rent, utilities, and paid sick leave. This is so important, to continue
to learn from the programs that COVID has started and to refine them to
make them successful for our economy.
This also helps children who are at home, helping provide more money
for E-Rate and broadband connectivity for schools and libraries. This
is so important to individuals.
It also provides critical dollars for Federal health funding to treat
Native

[[Page S1225]]

Americans in urban areas, a community that has been very hard hit by
the pandemic.
Our economy lost 9.8 million jobs in 2020, and our current
unemployment rate, as I just said--we know from this data that came out
this morning--is still too high. We know that, as a result, 19 million
Americans, including 460,000 Washingtonians, rely on those unemployment
benefits. If we don't act by March 14, 11.5 million people will lose
their extended unemployment benefits. So that is why this program is so
important to get passed today in the Senate.
The restaurants, as we know, have been very plagued by this problem,
and the PPP program has been helpful, but I believe this legislation
will be even more helpful. Since the beginning of the pandemic, 110,000
restaurants across our country have closed either permanently or for an
extended period of time, including 2,300 in the State of Washington,
and some are just struggling to hang on.
For example, the Black Cypress restaurant in Pullman, WA, lost more
than 1 million in revenue and had to lay off workers after the initial
PPP loan program ran out. In southwest Washington, restaurants like the
Mighty Bowl in Vancouver and the Depot Restaurant in Seaview are
operating at 50 percent revenue loss.
I talked to one of our restaurant owners, Wassef Haroun, who operates
very popular restaurants in Seattle, including Mamnoon. He said his
restaurants have lost 70 percent of their revenue compared to 2019. And
these are people who are hustling to do standup, popup windows, and all
sorts of things to keep the restaurants and restaurant employees
working.
So the Paycheck Protection Program was critical, and these
improvements were desperately needed. That is why this bill includes a
new $25 billion grant program for restaurants to address those concerns
of rent and utilities and sick leave and other things head-on.
The bill also helps with more funding for the SBA live venues grant
program that we have authorized, helping those venues stay open. For us
in Seattle, music is a thing, and we want these venues to be there.
They are part of our history. They are part of our culture. They are
part of a music story that really is about, well, just a little bit
different take on music than maybe some other parts of the world. So we
are very proud of it, and we don't want to lose these facilities, the
home for growing more music and cultural impacts to our society.
So one of the hardest hit businesses, though, has been businesses
with 10 or fewer employees in underserved areas, like Grays Harbor,
Yakima, Ferry County, or Pend Oreille. This legislation allows $10,000
grants from the SBA program of Economic Injury and Disaster Loan
Program to help with the smaller communities and the small businesses
that have been underserved to date by the programs that we have passed.
But for the first time, in this legislation, there will be support
for the aviation supply chain. We are hearing all sorts of discussions
about supply chain shortages and the competitiveness of the United
States if the United States sees that critical supply chain elements
will not be able to be filled, whether you are talking about the
automotive industry or whether you are talking about aviation.
Well, in the previous bills, certainly, I can say that the Fed made
capital available that, certainly, manufacturers--large-scale
manufacturers--took advantage of. Previous bills made money available
for the airlines to continue operating, as this legislation does as
well. And I would say, I think, we are probably somewhere between 40 to
45 percent of the original capacity for airlines that we were previous
to the pandemic, which means we are making progress, and that is what
we always wanted to see--the ability to return our economy quickly.
But in Washington State alone, we have 30,000 aerospace manufacturing
and supply chain jobs that have been lost. Our aerospace supply chain
is part of a juggernaut for our economy. It helps us with our gross
domestic product, and it helps us in containing and keeping a workforce
that is skilled that can work postpandemic. So in this legislation, we
will be, for the first time, making resources available for that supply
chain.
I want to thank Senator Moran and Senator Warner and a slew of other
Members who worked on providing resources to this supply chain. It will
help us retain and rehire workers in the aviation manufacturing sector.
It will help us keep highly skilled workers who serve as the backbone
of industries so that our Nation can continue to be poised for the
recovery. And it helps us in making sure that we are poised for a
strong recovery. We know that aviation manufacturing jobs mean a lot to
our Nation. Finally, we are going to help stave off the tide of the
huge losses that we have seen in that sector.
We are going to help the mom-and-pop machine shops. We are going to
take those who have been working on small aircraft parts and landing
gears and doors and flight controls and help them with the impact that
they have felt in trying to keep a workforce during this period of
time.
These are all important priorities for us as a nation: the vaccines,
the unemployment benefits, the stimulus checks, the E-rate program for
helping students learn at home, the investment in the aerospace supply
chain. It is important that we get the dollars out the door. This will
help us recover. This will help American families wade through the last
months of this COVID pandemic fight. But, believe me, they need the
help in the last months. This fight is not over, and this will help
sustain us.
I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, similar to Senator Cantwell, I want to
talk a little bit about the small business provisions in the American
Rescue Plan and the urgency of passing the recovery act as soon as
possible. We need to act in order to deal with the recovery of COVID-19
for our Nation.
As chair of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, it is
critically important to the health of small businesses that we act on
the American Rescue Plan. Small businesses are critically important to
our economy. I think the Members of this body understand that.
Two out of every three jobs in the private sector are created through
small companies. Innovation takes place in a much larger amount in
small companies. Just look at how small companies have adjusted to
COVID-19. We have seen curbside pickup. We have seen the use of the
online deliveries. We have seen ways in which small businesses have
shown that they can figure out ways to try to stay alive under any
circumstances.
But there is another factor about small businesses, and that is that
they are not as resilient to deal with an economic downturn as the
larger companies are. So whenever we go through any type of a
recession, small businesses suffer the most. So for all of those
reasons, it was critically important for us to act to help America's
small businesses.
Democrats and Republicans worked together to create a way in which we
could help small businesses during this pandemic. It is interesting
that the very first bill that we passed removed the restrictions in
regard to the EIDL Program so that those businesses that suffered as a
result of the pandemic could qualify for the Economic Injury and
Disaster Loan Program under the Small Business Administration. We did
that because we realized that government was imposing restrictions on
small businesses in their operations, and we had a responsibility to
act.
And then in mid-March of last year--not this year, but mid-March of
last year--we passed the CARES Act, almost a year ago. It recognized
that this pandemic was having a major impact on our small businesses.
We didn't realize how long the pandemic would last. We thought it would
last a few months. We certainly did not think it would last a full
year, and now beyond a year. We passed innovative programs in order to
save small businesses.
In the one that got perhaps the most attention, the PPP program--the
Paycheck Protection Program--we initially provided $350 billion. I
would like to think of the CARES Act as, really, a Marshall Plan. It
was a Marshall Plan to deal with COVID-19. It provided the

[[Page S1226]]

monies for vaccination, research, testing, and for public health, to
help our States and local governments, to help schools, but it also
provided money in a major way to help small businesses. So $350 billion
was initially provided through the Paycheck Protection Program because
we realized that rather than having to put more money into unemployment
insurance, wouldn't it be better to keep people on payroll so that
small businesses can retain their essential workforce? And it worked.
The program was very, very popular.
But we did more than just the Paycheck Protection Program. We also
expanded the Economic Injury and Disaster Loan Program, or the EIDL
Program, because we recognized that forgivable loans of a limited
amount of money was not enough to carry businesses over during the
pandemic. They were going to need longer term loans. EIDL is a 30-year
low-interest loan, up to 30 years. And we also created a new program
known as the EIDL Advance Program, which was cash--it was not a loan,
not a forgivable loan; it was a grant of up to $10,000--because we know
for many small businesses, particularly the most stressed and the most
challenged, taking on another loan was not a possibility. So we
provided an EIDL Advance of up to $10,000.
We also provided for loan forgiveness for those who had existing or
had recently taken out 7(a) or 504 loans under the Small Business
Administration.
These programs were exceedingly popular--so popular that, within just
about a matter of weeks, we started running out of resources. We had
appropriated, we thought, a significant amount of funds, but we found
that $350 billion went pretty quickly. So we came together, and we
replenished the funds. We put more money into the Paycheck Protection
Program, and we also recognized that we had to provide more flexibility
because businesses were suffering, and they needed more ability to be
able to use those funds. So we granted additional flexibility.
When we passed the CARES Act, we thought this pandemic would be over
with by last summer. Well, that was not the case. So we came back
together again and recognized we had to do more. We passed, as you
know, this past December in the Omnibus legislation another round of
help for America's small businesses. This time, it was $325 billion of
additional help.
We provided additional eligibility for entities that had not
qualified before for the Paycheck Protection Program, and we provided a
second round of the Paycheck Protection Program. But we targeted that
second round to those small businesses that were in underserved
communities, minority communities, and the smaller of the small
businesses. We helped mission lenders, such as CDFIs and minority
depository institutions so that we could really try to reach the
underserved communities.

And we established a program for shuttered venues. Why? Because
shuttered venues were shuttered. These were institutions that could not
operate because of a government order, and we recognized we had to do
something special in order to deal with that.
So when you put that all together, what happened? Well, we saved a
lot of small businesses, and we should be proud of that record. Seven
million Paycheck Protection Program loans--forgivable loans--were
granted for $678 billion. There were 3.7 million EIDL loans given for
$200 billion. And we were oversubscribed for the EIDL Advance of $20
billion. So we were able to really help, but more is needed.
When we passed the Omnibus bill in December, we recognized that that
would hold us until March. Well, it is now March. We need to act to
complete the work.
The Trump administration, in administering the SBA programs, did
things that we thought were unacceptable. They put a cap on the EIDL
loan of $150,000. The statute says $2 million. Many businesses needed
more help than was given by the administration of the EIDL loan
program. The EIDL Advance Program was supposed to be up to $10,000, but
the administration administered it at $1,000 per employee, making it
far less desirable than Congress intended.
And, quite frankly, the underserved communities were not being met at
the level that we had expected. I say that because Senator Shaheen and
I put a provision in the CARES Act, now known as page 30, that required
the SBA to make special efforts to get to the underbanked communities
because we realized the underbanked communities were going to have
difficulty getting loans that were forgivable. Their own inspector
general of the SBA said that the SBA did not carry out the intent of
Congress. So we needed to do more to reach those communities that were
being left behind.
That is why action is needed. I want to compliment the Biden
administration. They have taken administrative action to try to help us
on this. They have opened up for 14 days exclusivity under the PPP
program for those businesses that are 20 employees or less. The smaller
of the small businesses are those that are having the most difficulty
surviving in this climate. And they had a much more real--by Executive
order or by administrative action, they now have a much more realistic
formula for the self-employed as to how much they can receive under a
PPP loan. They were able to do that through Executive action, and they
removed the discriminatory nature against returning citizens being able
to qualify for these forgivable loans.
The Biden administration has taken action. Now it is necessary for us
to take action and come in with the American Rescue Plan. We need to
pass it, $50 billion of additional help directly--directly--to small
businesses to make the EIDL Advance really work for those in low-income
communities so they can get their full $10,000 grant that we intended
them to receive. So that we can make that work, we need to provide
another $15 billion to the EIDL Advance Program, targeting it to the
underserved communities.
We have a program to help our restaurants--why help the
restaurants?--with $25 billion. Here is the fact. Even with the
restaurants starting to come back, we are 2 million jobs less in the
restaurant field since the beginning of COVID-19--2 million jobs less.
The National Restaurant Association estimates that 110,000 restaurants
have either shuttered for good or are shuttered today as a result of
COVID-19. We need to direct help to the restaurant community.

The shuttered venue program needs additional support, so an extra
$1.25 billion is provided for shuttered venues. I will just give you
one example. The Merriweather Post Pavilion located in Howard County,
MD--I have been there many times--has not operated since last March.
They need help. A thousand jobs are dependent upon the Merriweather
Post Pavilion.
I am sure every one of my colleagues could mention the venues in
their own State that have been shuttered as a result of COVID-19 that
need that help.
We provide $7.25 billion for nonprofits, expanding eligibility, and
for the digital news platforms that need help. Johns Hopkins University
has done a study, and it has shown that the employment level in our
nonprofit community has dropped 1 million jobs since COVID-19 occurred.
We know the great work that they do, how they step up and help us
anytime, but particularly during a pandemic and during a national
crisis. They need help, and they should be eligible to be able to
receive the help under the Small Business PPP program. This bill will
provide that flexibility so they can get the help that they need--
another reason we have to pass the American Rescue Plan.
Then, lastly, let me mention the community navigators. There is a
modest amount of money here so we can have people who can help those
who are not as sophisticated to be able to get the help that they need
through a community navigator. Yes, we have the Women's Business
Centers. Yes, we have the Small Business Development Centers. But we
need more help. I think the record has shown that.
Then, lastly, let me say, yes, we need to pass the American Rescue
Plan for the direct help to small businesses, but they also need our
economy to return to some degree of normalcy. That is why there is help
for opening our schools, help for State and local governments, help for
families with direct payments and unemployment insurance, SNAP
benefits, COBRA protection; why the vaccine distribution is so
important, the Medicaid expansion, housing assistance. And I could go
on and on and on.
America needs the American Rescue Plan, and they need it now.
Democrats

[[Page S1227]]

worked with the Trump administration so that we could get help during
that administration. Republicans need to join us in helping the
American people.
Let's pass the American Rescue Plan, and let's do that as soon as
possible.
Mr. President, I rise today to go over with our colleagues the
importance of the American Rescue Plan as it relates to small
businesses.
As every member of this Chamber knows, small businesses are the
growth engine of the American economy. Small businesses are where jobs
are created--creating two of every three new jobs and employing almost
half of the Nation's private sector workforce during the years leading
up to the pandemic.
Just as important as the jobs they create, small businesses are where
innovation happens in our economy. They are the entities that are
figuring out better, more efficient ways of doing things.
Mr. President, we are 1 week away from the 1-year anniversary of the
historic day on March 11 of last year when the World Health
Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic.
In the year since, we have seen small businesses nationwide struggle,
but we have also seen their creativity and ingenuity on display. We
have seen the restaurants that have moved to curbside pick-up and
online deliveries because it is unsafe to have in-person dining.
These small businesses are the reason why our economy is performing
at the level it is, which may not be the level we want it to be, but
the ingenuity of these small businesses have put us in a much better
position.
But Mr. President, there is another characteristic of small
businesses that I think we all understand.
We all understand that they don't have the same degree of resiliency
as larger businesses, because they operate on razor-thin margins, they
don't have deep pockets, and as a result, they often struggle to find
outside financing. So when our economy hits a bump in the road, small
businesses suffer the most.
So Mr. President, when the impact COVID-19 would have on our economy
became clear last year, it was particularly important for us to respond
to help our small businesses so that when we get out of this pandemic,
when our economy returns, our small businesses emerge in a position to
help our economy recover, and continue to grow.
We had to support our small businesses, because the public health
restrictions on public gatherings--which have saved thousands of lives
and kept our communities safe--have been especially challenging for
small businesses.
So Congress had to respond, and we did. Our first major response was
the CARES Act--a bold, bipartisan bill that was created to help small
businesses, families, and create a ``Marshall Plan'' for healthcare,
which put money into vaccine development, producing personal protective
equipment, and put money into testing and other public health measures.
Because we recognized then, and now, that we have a responsibility as
the federal government to control the pandemic.
So the very first bill we passed in response to the pandemic made
small businesses affected by the pandemic eligible for the Economic
Injury Disaster Loan program.
Traditionally used to help small businesses recover from a natural
disaster like a hurricane or a tornado, EIDL provides low interest,
long-term--up to 30 years--loans to help businesses recover.
IT was important that we include EIDL as a tool in the Small Business
Administration's toolkit, because we knew small businesses would need
the flexible, patient capital provided by EIDL.
Next we passed the CARES Act, which provided more than $370 billion
in direct aid to small businesses bearing the costs of keeping us safe.
It created the Paycheck Protection Program, a bipartisan program
designed to keep employees on payroll. And we appropriated $350 billion
to the program.
We did this because we recognized at the time that while a business
could lay off workers who could then collect unemployment, it would be
better to keep them on payroll.
PPP provided an immediate influx of aid to small businesses through
forgivable loans equivalent to 2 months of payroll costs that could be
used primarily for payroll, but for other business expenses as well.
For small businesses that used the appropriate portion of their PPP
loan for payroll, the loan would be forgiven.
To complement EIDL and PPP, we created the EIDL Advance grant program
for those small businesses that were unable to take out a loan because
they were struggling to pay their existing loans.
The EIDL Advance program would provide grants up to $10,000 for our
most vulnerable small businesses. For many businesses, the grants were
a lifesaver that provided an immediate cash infusion without having to
worry about additional loans of their books.
We also created the SBA Debt Relief program to cover the monthly
payments on new and existing traditional SBA loans, including SBA 7(a)
and 504 loans.
Mr. President, the CARES Act was signed on March 27, and according to
SBA, more than $340 billion in PPP loans were approved by April 16--
roughly 3 weeks after the bill was signed.
So we had to appropriate additional funds for the program due to the
demand for the loans. We also made PPP more flexible for small
businesses in recognition of the fact that our Nation would be
confronting the pandemic for months to come and that we would not have
the pandemic behind us by summer, as we had hoped.
PPP, EIDL, EIDL Advance grants, and the SBA Debt Relief program
helped save many small businesses.
We only need to look at the numbers.
Since the creation of PPP last March, SBA has approved more than 7
million PPP loans worth more than $678 billion. Most of those funds
went directly to the millions of employees at those small businesses to
care for themselves and their families. SBA has approved more than 3.7
million EIDL applications providing loans worth more than $200 billion.
The EIDL Advance grant program has exhausted its initial $20 billion
appropriation.
In the months since these programs have been up-and-running, Mr.
President, we have learned many lessons that we must now deploy in
order to finish the job of ensuring that small businesses are protected
through this pandemic.
We learned that the historic barriers that small businesses in
underserved communities, especially Black- and Latino-owned small
businesses, do not have relationships with the traditional banking
institutions that make PPP loans.
Senator Shaheen and I were concerned about this as we wrote the CARES
Act, which is why we put a provision in the bill that required SBA to
issue guidance to banks participating in PPP to prioritize loan
applications from underserved small businesses.
Unfortunately, SBA did not do that, which led the SBA IG to issue
report that found that SBA's implementation of PPP ``did not fully
align'' with the Congressional intent of the CARES Act.
In response to SBA's failure to issue that guidance, a group of
stakeholders advocating on behalf of minority businesses started a
group known as the Page 30 Coalition, because the provision I talked
about was on page 30 of the CARES Act.
PPP wasn't the only program harmed by the way it was implemented by
the Trump administration.
The Trump administration hindered the utility of EIDL by capping
loans at $150,000, which is far below the $2 million cap that is in
statute.
And EIDL Advance grants were made less useful to small businesses due
to the Trump administration's decision to provide EIDL applicants with
$1,000 per employee for up to 10 employees, instead of the $10,000
grant provided by the CARES Act.
So I was pleased that we finally lived up to our overdue
responsibility to pass more economic aid in December. The bipartisan
$900 billion relief bill provided an additional $325 billion in aid to
small businesses and included provisions to make PPP a more useful
program for more of our most vulnerable small businesses.
The bill provided $284 billion for first and second PPP loans, and it
set aside

[[Page S1228]]

$15 billion for mission lenders, as well as another $15 billion set-
aside for certain smaller financial institutions, such as credit unions
and farm credit institutions.
The bill also made SBA's 7(a) and 504 loan programs more affordable
for borrowers and less risky for lenders; those programs helped
jumpstart the economy following the Great Recession.
The bill provided $20 billion for targeted EIDL Advance grants that
will be provided to small businesses in eligible low-income
communities. For small businesses in these communities that already
received an EIDL Advance grant, SBA will provide them with the
difference for a full $10,000 grant.
And we extended the Small Business Debt Relief Program for several
more months, which freed up cash flow for small businesses to use for
working capital.
Mr. President, I am proud to share that the changes to PPP are
already yielding results.
Data from SBA on this current round of PPP shows lower loan averages,
which indicates that more of the smaller, more vulnerable small
businesses are receiving loans this time than they did during the
initial months of PPP.
I was very proud last week after the Biden Administration announced
steps it was taking to make PPP a more equitable program and provide
relief to the many of Black- and Latino-owned small businesses that
were left out of, or underfunded, during previous rounds of relief.
The changes include a 14-day dedicated window for small businesses
with fewer than 20 employees to apply for PPP; an improved loan
calculation formula for sole proprietors, independent contractors, and
self-employed individuals; and the elimination of an unnecessary
restriction that prevented small business owners with a prior non-fraud
felony conviction from obtaining a PPP loan.
These changes will help many small businesses secure the aid they
need.
Now is the time to seize on that momentum.
The American Rescue Plan will deploy an additional $50 billion to the
communities and industries that still need help, and are likely to need
continuing support in the months to come.
Mr. President, this bill is necessary right now, because the
industries that have been hardest hit by the pandemic are also the
industries that will take the longest to resume full operations after
the pandemic--some of which are reliant on large crowds to turn a
profit; others because they are already struggled to access capital
before the pandemic, and will only be worse off after it.
It is vital that we provide additional funding to these industries,
because they have accounted for a large portion of the jobs lost during
the pandemic.
According to the National Restaurant Association, as of December of
last year, 110,000 eating and drinking places were closed for business
temporarily, or for good, and the sector finished 2020 nearly 2.5
million jobs below its pre-COVID level. And at the peak of initial
closures last year, the group estimates that up to 8 million restaurant
employees were laid off or furloughed.
The live events industry also needs additional support, because they
are the most reliant on large crowds to turn a profit, and businesses
in the sector often support hundreds of jobs, both directly and through
their relationships with other businesses.
In my home state of Maryland, for example, Merriweather Post Pavilion
in Howard County supports nearly 1,000 jobs across the State.
We must also expand support to more nonprofits, because the job
losses caused by the pandemic have not been limited to the for-profit
entities. According to a report from the Johns Hopkins University,
there are nearly 1 million fewer nonprofit jobs today than there were
in February of last year, including the 50,000 jobs lost by the
nonprofit sector in December. The report projects that it will take 18
months to regain the nonprofit jobs lost during the pandemic.
It goes without saying that getting these jobs back as quickly as
possible will be key to a swift, robust recovery. And enacting the
American Rescue Plan will help us do just that.
What these small businesses need more of however, are not loans, but
grants.
That is why the American Rescue Plan includes $15 billion for
targeted EIDL grants to provide hard-hit, underserved small businesses
with increased flexible grant relief, which will be particularly
helpful for very small businesses and sole proprietors.
This provision is especially important for minority-owned businesses,
which are more likely to be sole proprietors and have fewer employees
on average.
The American Rescue Plan will also create a $25 billion dedicated
grant relief program for restaurants, and it will provide an additional
$1.25 billion to the Shuttered Venue Operators Grant program, which was
created by the December bill.
The American Rescue Plan will expand PPP eligibility to additional
nonprofits that are providing essential social services, as well as
digital news services that are keeping our communities informed about
the pandemic.
The plan provides SBA with an additional $1.325 billion in
administrative funding to implement and scale up these grant programs.
And lastly, the plan provides $175 million for a community navigator
pilot program designed to help small businesses in underserved and
underbanked communities access the COVID-19 resources available to
them.
If we remember from the Affordable Care Act, community navigators
help get information out to hard-to-serve communities, and they will
help small business owners apply for the programs that best meet their
needs.
They are a good complement to SBA's existing resource partners, such
as the Women's Business Centers and Small Business Development Centers.
Mr. President, President Biden promised the American people that help
is on the way, and that is exactly what we intend to do by passing the
American Rescue Plan into law.
It is a bold approach, because the problems we are facing are so
great. We must pass this bill immediately.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, a vote-arama is upon us. Stay hydrated.
Try to keep good cheer. We are going to have lots of amendments today
and kind of talk about where we differ on certain things, which will be
good for the country.
What I hate the most is that we are doing a partisan COVID bill for
the first time as a nation, and I don't know why because on March 5,
2020, 96 to 1, we appropriated $8 billion when we had just begun to
understand what COVID was about; March 18, $355 billion, 90 to 8; March
25, $1.9 trillion.
So March 5 and 25, we spent well over $2 trillion, with the average
vote 96 to 1, 90 to 8, and 96 to 0. In April we spent $355 billion by
voice vote; September 30, 2020, $8 billion, 84 to 10; December 21,
2020, $1.04 trillion, 92 to 6.
So it is not like we can't work together on COVID. You had a
Republican President, you had a Republican Senate, and a Democratic
House, and we were able to come together as a nation. But that is all
over now because my Democratic colleagues have chosen to go another way
because they can. They have all the power. They have the House, the
Senate, and the White House.
They have chosen to do a $1.9 trillion package without any effort at
all, in my view, to try to find common ground. Ninety percent of this
money has got zero to do with COVID. It is a liberal wish list, and
every time Senator Schumer says it is not, it makes me believe it is.
So another point for the American people: Of all the money I just
described to you that we appropriated in a bipartisan fashion, we
haven't spent it all yet, but we are going to spend $1.9 trillion even
though we haven't spent the earlier money.
Of the administrative actions, we have got still $200 billion left to
spend. Of the legislative appropriations, we appropriated $4.1
trillion; we have got a trillion we haven't spent yet, but we are going
to spend $1.9 trillion more before we spend what we spent in the past.
The Federal Reserve set aside $5.9 trillion to help business. They
have only spent $2.8 trillion, so there is a lot more capability there.
The economy is showing signs of life. The vaccine is out. Things are
looking

[[Page S1229]]

better. It seems to me we would want to slow down and wisely spend the
money not spent before we embark on a $1.9 trillion spending spree.
Most of it doesn't have much to do, if anything, with COVID. They are
doing it because they can, and there will be a lot of amendments
talking about better ways to spend this money.
The minimum wage has been dropped out, but here is what is in this
bill: $20 million for the preservation and maintenance of Native
American languages. That might be something we want to do, but we
should go through the appropriations process, have hearings, not put it
on a COVID bill.
And $135 million for the National Endowment for the Arts. It may be
something we want to do, but not on a COVID bill. And $135 million for
the National Endowment for Humanities. Again, the same concept. About
$200 million for the Institute of Museum and Library Services. What has
that got to do with COVID? Nothing.
PPP loans for labor unions, paid leave fund for Federal employees, an
$86 billion bailout for union pensions. What has that got to do with
COVID? Nothing. And $350 billion for blue States. We changed the
formula under this bill--dramatically different than the one we passed
96 to 0.
So I could go on and on. Money for schools. Most of the money in this
bill--$129 billion for K-12--only $6.4 billion is to be distributed
this year. Most of the money is spent from 2022 to 2028. Hopefully we
will get control of COVID by 2028. Again, this is an opportunity to
spend money on things not related to COVID because they have the power
to do so.
It is going to be a long day. We are going to be talking about
reprioritizing money. We are going to try to strike provisions from
this bill, money that comes from hard-working taxpayers, being spent in
a way unrelated to COVID.
So stay tuned. Keep good cheer. Stay hydrated. But this is a debate
worth having, and I regret very much that we could not find common
ground here. To find it, you have to seek it. And this is the one area
where we were doing a pretty damn good job, I thought, working together
as Republicans and Democrats, spending a lot of money because there was
a need out there.
Today we are going to spend a lot of money, most of it not related to
COVID, and it is going to be along partisan lines. It is unfortunate,
but it is the choice my Democratic colleagues made. And we are going to
hold them to that choice.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, my colleague, the ranking member, Senator
Graham, says: Why?--$1.9 trillion, a lot of money. We have spent money
over the last year. He is right. Why did we spend the money? The answer
is because we are facing a series of unprecedented crises and because
the American people are reaching out to us, and they are saying: We are
hurting. We are in desperate condition, and we need help from the
Federal Government. That is why we are responding.
Half a million people have died in this country from COVID, and many
millions more have been made ill. And what the long-term impact of
those illnesses are nobody at this point knows, but certainly no one
will deny that we have a pandemic crisis.
Our job is to make sure that we produce the vaccines that the
American people desperately need and that we develop an effective
mechanism to get it into the arms of the American people. And the truth
is--I want to thank the President and his team--we have made progress
in the last month, but we still have a long, long way to go. To produce
the vaccines, to hire the people who will make sure that people get
those vaccines, inject people with the vaccines, it is going to take
money.
Everybody in this Senate and, I assume, in the country wants our kids
to get back to school. Well, you just can't open the schools unless
they are safe. Parents are not going to send their kids back to those
schools. Teachers are not going to teach. Childcare workers are not
going to provide the care that the little ones need.
And do you know what? To make those schoolrooms and school buildings
safe is going to require resources, but, for the sake of our children,
we need to reopen the schools as quickly as possible and do it in a
safe way.
There is money in this bill--Senator Graham didn't mention it--to
make sure that, this coming summer, school districts all over this
country have the resources to provide strong, well-staffed summer
programs so kids who have missed significant amounts of school can make
up some of what they have lost, in addition to getting some recreation
and associating with their fellow young people in a way that is safe.
There was a poll that came out just last week. It was rather shocking
at what it said. It said that 63 percent of the American people are
living paycheck to paycheck.
Senator Graham says: Why are we spending all of this money? The
answer is we don't believe that children in America should go hungry.
We don't believe that working people should be evicted from their
apartments or lose their homes. We don't believe that, in the midst of
a pandemic, people should not be able to afford to go to a doctor.
So making sure that people have those direct payments, yeah, we
believe in that. We believe that if a family is struggling today
through no fault of their own, having lost their income, yeah, we are
going to get them a check for 1,400 bucks and a family of four a check
for $5,600.
There are a lot of people in this country who are doing very well,
and they are wondering: What is this big deal about $1,400? That is not
a lot of money. You go to a corporate lunch, a bunch of people come in,
and they can spend $1,400 on a lunch.
But if you are struggling to put food on the table for your kids,
that $5,600 for a family of four is life and death; it is dignity or
desperation.
People are wondering: How am I going to pay the rent that I owe after
the rent moratorium, the eviction moratorium expires? How am I going to
feed my kids? How am I going to take care of the basic necessities of
life?
So, yes, we are providing $1,400 per working-class family because
that is desperately needed.
So when the Senator says: Well, why are we spending all of this
money? The answer is because we are living in the most difficult moment
in the modern history of this country and, arguably, even a more
difficult moment than the Great Depression of the 1930s. People are
hurting, and, in a democratic society, government is supposed to
respond to the people who sent us here.
Now, I know that there is controversy, and Senator Graham raised this
issue. Democrats have a majority, a bare majority with the Vice
President--51 votes. Why are we not working with our Republican
colleagues? We have reached out time and time and time again. The
President has reached out: Work with us. But you have got to understand
the severity of the crisis, and they have not done this.
Using reconciliation, by the way, as the Presiding Officer well
knows, is not a new idea. When our Republican colleagues had the
majority, they used reconciliation. What did they use it for? They used
it for massive tax breaks for the rich. That is what they used
reconciliation for. They used reconciliation in order to try to throw
32 million Americans off the Affordable Care Act, something that Trump
was fervent about. And by one vote--Senator McCain--we prevented 32
million people from losing their health insurance through the
reconciliation process.
So our response is, you want unity? Well, do you know what? We
probably have more unity today in America around this package than
anything that I can remember. The polls vary: 65, 70 percent of the
American people understand the crisis we are facing. They want us to
respond. This legislation is enormously popular, not just from
progressives, not from moderates, but from Republicans, as well,
depending on the poll.
Forty, fifty percent more Republicans support it because they can't
afford to pay their rent. They can't afford to go to the doctor. They
understand that government has to help.
So the real question here--and President Biden has raised this
issue--is, we believe in unity, we believe in bringing people together.
How does it happen that when 40, 50 percent of Republicans support this
legislation, we can't get one vote from Republicans here? What

[[Page S1230]]

is going on? And the answer is, I am afraid, that my Republican
colleagues have moved so far to the right that they have lost contact
with the needs of working families.
As I said earlier, this legislation is not just about dealing with
the pandemic and healthcare. It is not just dealing with the severe
economic downturn that we are facing. It is not just dealing with the
disruption of education in America and so much more. It is not just
dealing with the worst moment in the modern history of this country.
This amendment, this legislation, has everything to do with restoring
the confidence of the American people in democracy and in their
government. And if we can't respond to the pain of working families
today, we don't deserve to be here.
Senator Graham said it is going to be a long night. Bring it on. We
are ready. But at the end of the day, we are going to do what the
American people want, what the American people need. We are going to
pass the American Rescue Plan.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, later today the Senate will vote on an
amendment put forward by Senator Carper and myself dealing with an
extension of enhanced unemployment benefits.
Some Members of the Senate wanted to hold the enhanced weekly benefit
at $300 per week. My preference would have been to set it at $400 per
week on the longest extension possible and then later tie benefits to
economic conditions on the ground with automatic triggers. With the
amendment coming later today, I believe Members have reached a solution
that accomplishes two key goals.
First, it is a longer extension of benefits than the House bill that
avoids creating a new August cliff. It would extend the weekly benefit
at $300 per week into early October, including pandemic benefits for
gig workers and the self-employed. I have said time and again that
having an expiration in the middle of August, when Senators are home,
would be a prescription for trouble, and this option avoids the
potential of benefits expiring for millions of Americans with no way to
extend them.
Second, it would prevent a tax surprise for millions of Americans who
received unemployment benefits in 2020. The first $10,200 of the
unemployment benefits they received last year would be exempt from
income tax. People who already filed their taxes and found out that
they owed tax on their unemployment income would be able to file an
amended return to get back the difference.
This will wipe out taxes owed on last year's unemployment income for
most people who received it, saving them potentially thousands of
dollars. That is a big economic benefit for the people hardest hit by
the COVID crash, and jobless Americans will also have the certainty of
enhanced benefits running into October. My understanding is, the
Republican side will offer an amendment that will not prevent this tax
surprise.
I am going to keep working on automatic triggers. In my view, that is
the best way to manage this program going forward. But as for this
debate, I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Durbin). The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. The Republicans yield back their time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time is yielded back.
Mr. SANDERS. I yield back my time as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
The Senator from South Carolina.

Point of Order

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the budgetary effects of the pending
amendment, 972, offered by Senator Sanders, are merely incidental to
the nonbudgetary effects of the amendment. Accordingly, the amendment
is extraneous. Therefore, I raise a point of order against this measure
pursuant to section 313(b)1(D) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

=========================== NOTE ===========================

On page S1230, March 5, 2021, second column, the following
appears: POINT OF ORDER Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the budgetary
effects of the pending amendment, 872, offered by Senator Sanders,
are merely incidental to the

The online Record has been corrected to read: POINT OF ORDER Mr.
GRAHAM. Mr. President, the budgetary effects of the pending
amendment, 972, offered by Senator Sanders, are merely incidental
to the

========================= END NOTE =========================

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

Motion to Waive

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, in accordance with section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of all
applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections
of that act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of amendment
No. 972, 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.
(Mr. PADILLA assumed the Chair.)
(Ms. CORTEZ MASTO assumed the Chair.)
(Mr. BLUMENTHAL assumed the Chair.)
(Mr. KELLY assumed the Chair.)
(Mrs. SHAHEEN assumed the Chair.)
(Ms. CANTWELL assumed the Chair.)
(Mr. WHITEHOUSE assumed the Chair.)
(Ms. HIRONO assumed the Chair.)
(Mr. MANCHIN assumed the Chair.)
(Mrs. MURRAY assumed the Chair.)
(Mr. BENNET assumed the Chair.)
(Ms. ROSEN assumed the Chair.)
(Ms. KLOBUCHAR assumed the Chair.)
The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 58, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 74 Leg.]

YEAS--42

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Casey
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Smith
Stabenow
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--58

Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Carper
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
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)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Durbin). On this vote, the yeas are 42,
the nays are 58.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion to waive all applicable budgetary
discipline with respect to the Senator from Vermont's amendment No. 972
is rejected.
The point of order is sustained and the amendment falls.
The amendment (No. 972) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, the agreement that has been reached will
allow us to move forward with the American Rescue Plan, and voting will
resume shortly.
Senate Democrats are completely united in our belief about how
important this entire bill is for our fellow Americans; for getting the
vaccine to our people; for reopening our schools; for keeping American
workers, families, and businesses afloat; and for putting our country
on the road to a strong recovery.
Now that this agreement has been reached, we are going to power
through the rest of the process and get this bill done. Make no
mistake, we are going to continue working until we get the job done.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: At what time did
the previous vote on the Senator's amendment begin?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote began at 11:03 a.m.
Mr. McCONNELL. How much total time elapsed during the floor vote on
the Senator's amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eleven hours and 50 minutes.
Mr. McCONNELL. Well, my goodness, this has been quite a start, quite
a start to this fast-track process. They were in a big hurry. We
started voting

[[Page S1231]]

on the first amendment, as the Parliamentarian said, right after 11
a.m. The Democratic leader held the vote open all day so they could try
to figure out what was going on with their own legislation that they
want to pass only with their votes.
Now, the last time we had a long string of amendment votes was just a
couple weeks ago. We considered about 40 amendments. So if you multiply
11 hours of scrambling times 40 amendments, you would land at about 440
hours. That is about 18 days with zero breaks.
So, look, the whole idea behind this, I gathered from listening to
them over the last few weeks, was to use the crisis to jam through what
the White House Chief of Staff called ``the most progressive domestic
legislation in a generation.'' A little tougher than they thought it
was going to be, isn't it? It turned out to be a little bit tougher.
Well, what this proves is there are benefits to bipartisanship when
you are dealing with an issue of this magnitude. We all remember that
we did this five times last year. We did it together. I think there
were no more than eight votes against any of these proposals. We spent
about $4 trillion on pandemic relief. Every one passed, as I said, with
90 or more votes. Not a single spectacle like today--not one.
Exactly 1 year ago, instead of partisan scrambling, we were humming
with bipartisan work, working on it together. We had a bipartisan task
force building the CARES Act from the bottom up. We passed the bill 96
to 0.
We were prepared to do yet another bill on a bipartisan basis.
Several of our Members went down to the White House, sat down with the
President, laid out a proposal we thought made sense given where we
were now. But, no, they wanted to do it the hard way. Wanted to do it
the hard way.
So now they want to begin the vote-arama that could have been done in
daylight because of their own confusion and the challenges of getting
together 50 people to agree on something when they could have been
doing it quicker on a bipartisan basis.

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. President, so rather than start the voting at 5 minutes to 11, I
move to adjourn until 10 a.m. tomorrow, 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.
(Ms. BALDWIN assumed the Chair.)
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 75 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
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
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

NOT VOTING--1

Sullivan

The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio.

Amendment No. 1092 to Amendment No. 891

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1092 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the amendment by
number.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Portman], for himself and
others, proposes an amendment numbered 1092 to amendment No.
891.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To reduce unemployment compensation provisions)

Strike parts 1 and 2 of subtitle A of title IX and insert
the following:

PART 1--EXTENSION OF CARES ACT UNEMPLOYMENT PROVISIONS

SEC. 9011. EXTENSION OF PANDEMIC UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE.

(a) In General.--Section 2102(c) of the CARES Act (15
U.S.C. 9021(c)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``paragraphs (2) and (3)'' and inserting
``paragraph (2)''; and
(B) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking ``March 14, 2021''
and inserting ``July 18, 2021''; and
(2) by striking paragraph (3) and redesignating paragraph
(4) as paragraph (3).
(b) Increase in Number of Weeks.--Section 2102(c)(2) of
such Act (15 U.S.C. 9021(c)(2)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``50 weeks'' and inserting ``74 weeks'';
and
(2) by striking ``50-week period'' and inserting ``74-week
period''.
(c) Hold Harmless for Proper Administration.--In the case
of an individual who is eligible to receive pandemic
unemployment assistance under section 2102 of the CARES Act
(15 U.S.C. 9021) as of the day before the date of enactment
of this Act and on the date of enactment of this Act becomes
eligible for pandemic emergency unemployment compensation
under section 2107 of the CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 9025) by
reason of the amendments made by section 9016(b) of this
title, any payment of pandemic unemployment assistance under
such section 2102 made after the date of enactment of this
Act to such individual during an appropriate period of time,
as determined by the Secretary of Labor, that should have
been made under such section 2107 shall not be considered to
be an overpayment of assistance under such section 2102,
except that an individual may not receive payment for
assistance under section 2102 and a payment for assistance
under section 2107 for the same week of unemployment.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a)
and (b) shall apply as if included in the enactment of the
CARES Act (Public Law 116-136), except that no amount shall
be payable by virtue of such amendments with respect to any
week of unemployment commencing before the date of the
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 9012. EXTENSION OF EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF FOR
GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES AND NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATIONS.

(a) In General.--Section 903(i)(1)(D) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1103(i)(1)(D)) is amended by striking
``March 14, 2021'' and inserting ``July 18, 2021''.
(b) Increase in Reimbursement Rate.--Section 903(i)(1)(B)
of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1103(i)(1)(B)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by inserting ``and except as
otherwise provided in this subparagraph'' after ``as
determined by the Secretary of Labor''; and
(2) by inserting after the first sentence the following:
``With respect to the amounts of such compensation paid for
weeks of unemployment beginning after March 31, 2021, and
ending on or before July 18, 2021, the preceding sentence
shall be applied by substituting `75 percent' for `one-
half'.''.

SEC. 9013. EXTENSION OF FEDERAL PANDEMIC UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION.

(a) In General.--Section 2104(e)(2) of the CARES Act (15
U.S.C. 9023(e)(2)) is amended by striking ``March 14, 2021''
and inserting ``July 18, 2021''.
(b) Amount.--Section 2104(b)(3)(A) of such Act (15 U.S.C.
9023(b)(3)(A)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) For weeks of unemployment ending after March 14,
2021, and ending on or before July 18, 2021, $300.''.

SEC. 9014. EXTENSION OF FULL FEDERAL FUNDING OF THE FIRST
WEEK OF COMPENSABLE REGULAR UNEMPLOYMENT FOR
STATES WITH NO WAITING WEEK.

(a) In General.--Section 2105(e)(2) of the CARES Act (15
U.S.C. 9024(e)(2)) is amended by striking ``March 14, 2021''
and inserting ``July 18, 2021''.
(b) Full Reimbursement.--Paragraph (3) of section 2105(c)
of such Act (15 U.S.C. 9024(c)) is repealed and such section
shall be applied to weeks of unemployment to which an
agreement under section 2105 of such Act applies as if such
paragraph had not been enacted.

SEC. 9015. EXTENSION OF EMERGENCY STATE STAFFING FLEXIBILITY.

If a State modifies its unemployment compensation law and
policies, subject to the succeeding sentence, with respect to
personnel standards on a merit basis on an emergency
temporary basis as needed to respond to the spread of COVID-
19, such modifications shall be disregarded for the purposes
of applying section 303 of the Social Security Act and
section 3304 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to such
State law. Such modifications shall only apply through July
18, 2021, and shall be limited to engaging of temporary
staff, rehiring of retirees or former employees on a non-
competitive basis, and other temporary actions to quickly
process applications and claims.

[[Page S1232]]

SEC. 9016. EXTENSION OF PANDEMIC EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION.

(a) In General.--Section 2107(g) of the CARES Act (15
U.S.C. 9025(g)) is amended to read as follows:
``(g) Applicability.--An agreement entered into under this
section shall apply to weeks of unemployment--
``(1) beginning after the date on which such agreement is
entered into; and
``(2) ending on or before July 18, 2021.''.
(b) Increase in Number of Weeks.--Section 2107(b)(2) of
such Act (15 U.S.C. 9025(b)(2)) is amended by striking ``24''
and inserting ``48''.
(c) Coordination of Pandemic Emergency Unemployment
Compensation With Extended Compensation.--Section
2107(a)(5)(B) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 9025(a)(5)(B)) is
amended by inserting ``or for the week that includes the date
of enactment of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (without
regard to the amendments made by subsections (a) and (b) of
section 9016 of such Act)'' after ``2020)''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply as if included in the enactment of the CARES Act
(Public Law 116-136), except that no amount shall be payable
by virtue of such amendments with respect to any week of
unemployment commencing before the date of the enactment of
this Act.

SEC. 9017. EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY FINANCING OF SHORT-TIME
COMPENSATION PAYMENTS IN STATES WITH PROGRAMS
IN LAW.

Section 2108(b)(2) of the CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 9026(b)(2))
is amended by striking ``March 14, 2021'' and inserting
``July 18, 2021''.

SEC. 9018. EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY FINANCING OF SHORT-TIME
COMPENSATION AGREEMENTS FOR STATES WITHOUT
PROGRAMS IN LAW.

Section 2109(d)(2) of the CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 9027(d)(2))
is amended by striking ``March 14, 2021'' and inserting
``July 18, 2021''.

PART 2--EXTENSION OF FFCRA UNEMPLOYMENT PROVISIONS

SEC. 9021. EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR STATES WITH
ADVANCES.

Section 1202(b)(10)(A) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1322(b)(10)(A)) is amended by striking ``March 14,
2021'' and inserting ``July 18, 2021''.

SEC. 9022. EXTENSION OF FULL FEDERAL FUNDING OF EXTENDED
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION.

Section 4105 of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act
(26 U.S.C. 3304 note) is amended by striking ``March 14,
2021'' each place it appears and inserting ``July 18, 2021''.
Mr. PORTMAN. I ask unanimous consent that there be 6 minutes of
debate equally divided.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, everybody around here agrees that the
U.S. economy is getting better--there is no argument about that--and
that workers are needed. Yet, in this massive partisan spending bill, a
lot of which is not even about COVID-19, the Democrats are insisting on
a substantial increase to the already extraordinary Federal Government
add-on to State unemployment payments, making it harder to get people
who can go back to work.
Just this morning, we learned that the economy added 379,000 jobs in
February and that the unemployment rate dropped to 6.2 percent. The
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the consensus of economists
is that unemployment will continue to trend lower. It underscores what
the CBO has said recently, which is that, without any additional
stimulus, the economy will recover to prepandemic levels by midyear,
this year--that is June 30--not in September as the Democrats' approach
would suggest.
Look at your own States. Employers are looking to hire people. ``Help
wanted'' signs are up. As the economy starts to improve, we want to get
people back to work.
Adding to the good news, President Biden now tells us that vaccines
will be available by the end of May for all who will want them. That
will further kick-start the economy.
Despite the better news, as we understand it, the Democrats' approach
actually extends the generous Federal supplement currently in place
until September 6--by the way, even a little beyond what is in the $1.9
trillion underlying bill.
I was just told that it has a $31 billion tax increase that affects
the so-called passthrough, which is primarily small businesses, to pay
for a proposal to pay people more who are on unemployment insurance.
The Democrats' proposal makes it even more advantageous to be on
unemployment by changing retroactively a longstanding policy that says
UI benefits are taxed as income. You make up to 10,000 bucks in
benefits, tax-free, even if you have made up to $150,000 a year.
Remember, with that 600 bucks a week Federal supplement, which is what
it was for a lot of last year when this would have applied, about 70
percent of workers on UI made more than they would have at their jobs.
Even at 300 bucks a week, 42 percent of workers are making more on UI
than they would make at their jobs.
Of the essential workers, think of the truckdrivers who are making 25
bucks an hour. They are being told ``you have to pay your taxes,'' but
those who aren't working not only get the UI benefits, but now, for the
first time ever, some of that income is actually going to be tax-free.
So you have to pay your taxes, but they don't. That is not fair.
The underlying bill and the Democrats' alternative are going to hurt
the effort to get people back to work. Our amendment would extend UI
benefits in a responsible manner at the current low level of $300 per
week through July 18. According to the CBO, this will save over $90
billion in outlays and actually raise $600 million in revenue. Why?
Because people will be working. That is a good thing. We should want
that.
I urge my colleagues to oppose unnecessarily lengthening the time of
the Federal UI supplement that would make it even more advantageous to
be on unemployment and would slow the job creation we all want. Our
amendment strikes the right balance. It helps those who truly need it,
promotes better stewardship of our taxpayer dollars, and encourages
those who can return to work to do so. I urge its adoption.
(Applause.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The senior Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, yesterday, the Senate learned that there
were 745,000 new unemployment claims--higher than the worst week of the
great recession. Yet the Portman amendment is a double whammy on
workers--a much faster cutoff of benefits and absolutely no help with
the nasty tax surprise millions of working families will find when they
file their taxes in the next few weeks.
For example, if you have been laid off from your job through no fault
of your own and you are struggling to make ends meet, you do not have
$1,000 to pay a surprise tax bill, and the party that claims to be for
tax relief for working families offers you absolutely nothing.
Since the pandemic, Senate Republicans have been pushing working
families deeper into an economic hole. We have an alternative that
doesn't hang working families out to dry, and we will be offering it
shortly.
Working families deserve better than the Portman amendment. Don't
shortchange those working families tonight. I urge opposition to this
very flawed amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 1092

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. WYDEN. 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.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 76 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
Manchin
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--49

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell

[[Page S1233]]

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
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Sullivan

The amendment (No. 1092) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.

Amendment No. 1242 to Amendment No. 891

(Purpose: In the nature of a substitute.)
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1242, and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins], for herself and
others, proposes an amendment numbered 1242 to amendment No.
891.

(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes of
debate, equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator will proceed.
Ms. COLLINS. This amendment provides $650 billion of immediate relief
to those Americans who need it most. It is focused on the COVID crisis
before us, not on future unrelated spending priorities. The amendment
provides $160 billion to bolster vaccine production and delivery, as
well as testing and much needed support for healthcare providers.
It includes $1,400 checks for lower and middle-income Americans and
extends unemployment insurance.
It targets money to reopen schools, something that needs to happen as
soon as possible, and to expand access to childcare.
It has funding for substance abuse programs to combat the opioid
epidemic that has worsened.
This amendment would save tax dollars. It would save taxpayers more
than $1.2 trillion while meeting immediate needs.
The emergency we are facing should not be an excuse for funding
partisan priorities. Instead, we should come together----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired.
Ms. COLLINS.--just as we had on the five previous bipartisan bills.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized for 1
minute.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, given the unprecedented series of crises
this country now faces, the Republican amendment simply does not
accomplish what the American people need or what they want.
Our bill would substantially expand the child tax credit and cut
child poverty in this country in half. Our bill provides a full $1,400
direct payment to every working-class adult and their kids. Under the
Collins amendment, if you are a single parent earning $50,000, you get
zero, nothing at all, while millions of children would receive just
$500 instead of the full $1,400 payment.
Our bill provides $130 billion to public schools so our kids can get
back to school and get back safely. The Republican alternative does
not.
Our plan provides $40 billion to colleges and universities, which
have already lost 650,000 jobs, and many are----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SANDERS.--cutting down. The Republican amendment simply does not
do what the American people need right now. I ask for a ``no'' vote.
Oh, I raise a point of order. I am sorry.

Point of Order

Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment
produces budgetary changes that are merely incidental to the
nonbudgetary components of the amendment and therefore violates section
313(b)(1)(D) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.

Motion to Waive

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive, 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.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 77 Leg.]

YEAS--48

Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
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
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
Hawley
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

NOT VOTING--1

Sullivan

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 48, the nays are
51.
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 amendment (No. 1242) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Scott from South Carolina.

Amendment No. 1030 to Amendment No. 891

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, I call up my amendment
No. 1030 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 South Carolina [Mr. Scott of South
Carolina], for himself and Mr. Barrasso, proposes an
amendment numbered 1030 to amendment No. 891.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To improve the bill)

Strike section 9818 and insert the following:

SEC. 9818. FUNDING FOR STATE STRIKE TEAMS FOR RESIDENT AND
EMPLOYEE SAFETY IN NURSING FACILITIES.

Section 1919 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r)
is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsections:
``(k) Funding for State Strike Teams.--In addition to
amounts otherwise available, there is appropriated to the
Secretary, out of any monies in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, $250,000,000, to remain available until
expended, for purposes of allocating such amount among the
States (including the District of Columbia and each territory
of the United States) for such a State to establish and
implement a strike team that will be deployed to a nursing
facility in the State with diagnosed or suspected cases of
COVID-19 among residents or staff for the purposes of
assisting with clinical care, infection control, or staffing
during the emergency period described in section
1135(g)(1)(B) and the 1-year period immediately following the
end of such emergency period.
``(l) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not make an
allocation under subsection (k) to a State unless the State,
for each month that occurs during the period that begins on
October 1, 2020, and ends on the last day of the 1-year
period described in such subsection, provides accurate
monthly reporting to the Secretary on the number of COVID-19
deaths of residents of nursing facilities and skilled nursing
facilities (as defined in 1819(a)) and certifies that such
deaths are not included in counts of COVID-19 deaths in other
settings. The Secretary shall rescind any amounts previously
allocated to a State under subsection (k) if the State fails
to comply with the requirement of this subsection.''.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
for 2 minutes of debate, equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Senator Scott will proceed.

[[Page S1234]]

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, I have been doing some
research as the ranking member of the Aging Committee. As of last
month, 40 percent of COVID-related deaths in this country were
residents or staff of long-term care facilities. Lawmakers are charged
with the responsibility of protecting the most vulnerable populations
in our country, and those numbers represent absolute failure.
Some States have underreported deaths in nursing homes, and some
public officials made this move intentionally, a clear effort to
deceive their populations into thinking the situation was not as dire.
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 the pandemic. We should not offer more funding to States
that have mismanaged and then covered up their pandemic response. It
makes no sense.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I urge my colleagues to do the right
thing and vote in favor of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who rises in opposition?
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I do.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized for 1
minute.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President and colleagues, the number of COVID-19
deaths among nursing home residents and staff is tragic. That is why
President Biden's and the Democrats' plan goes forward with an
investment in preventing nursing home infections and deaths, including
more PPE strike teams to address infections, testing, contact tracing,
and more.
We take a backseat to no one when it comes to timely and accurate
reporting in COVID-19 cases, and deaths will continue to ensure such
reporting. However, it would be a grave mistake to hold hostage this
badly needed support for strike teams to ensure residents' and
employees' safety in nursing home facilities. These funds are essential
to helping ensure the safety of seniors and staff that are at the
frontlines of the COVID-19 pandemic.
This amendment, colleagues, is punitive, and it doesn't further the
goal of transparency. It would hurt the very people we seek to protect.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. I urge my colleagues to do
the same.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
to have 30 seconds to respond.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Thank you, Mr. President.
I would simply say that what my amendment does is it says that you
can't lie about the numbers. The bottom line, it simply says that it is
very important for us to have accurate information about the deaths in
nursing homes. The more accurate the information, the more likely we
are to have the best response.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, 30 seconds?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized for 30
seconds without objection.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, on this side of the aisle, we have led the
fight for transparency with respect to the kind of information my
colleague is talking about. That is not what this amendment is about.
This amendment is about making sure that President Biden and
Democrats can make these necessary investments in these strike teams
that are going to ensure more safety in these long-term care
facilities.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask for 10 seconds to
respond to my good friend from Oregon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Thank you, Mr. President.
I will just simply say that even President Biden himself has
suggested that investigations are warranted into this issue.

Vote on Amendment No. 1030

The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. 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.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 78 Leg.]

YEAS--49

NAYS--50

NOT VOTING--1

Sullivan

The amendment (No. 1030) was rejected.

=========================== NOTE ===========================

On page S1234, March 5, 2021, third column, the following
appears: The amendment (No. 10) was rejected.

The online Record has been corrected to read: The amendment (No.
1030) was rejected.

========================= END NOTE =========================

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.

Amendment No. 1378 to Amendment No. 891

(Purpose: To improve the bill)

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1378 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 Oregon [Mr. Wyden] proposes an amendment
numbered 1378 to amendment No. 891.

(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 6 minutes,
evenly divided, to discuss this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, on this side, our goal has been to secure
the strongest possible protections for jobless Americans that could
pass the Senate. This amendment has two essential features that make it
far better for working families than the Portman amendment.
It ensures that millions of working families get their benefits at
least through September 5. It protects unemployed workers from being
hit with a big surprise tax bill with no way to pay for it.
Republicans have been standing in lockstep against tax relief for
Americans with a few hundred dollars in the bank after demanding
billions in write-offs for wealthy investors. On the other hand,
Democrats have led the effort to add hundreds of dollars in weekly
benefits and covering gig workers and the self-employed.
This is the boldest action the Congress has ever taken--ever taken--
to support jobless Americans during an economic crisis, and at every
stage, as Democrats proposed that help for working families, Senate
Republicans opposed us. This goes back, colleagues, to the CARES Act,
when Republicans had just one amendment. That was to gut the jobless
protections.
Finally, the whole process underscores the need to stop jumping from
one economic cliff to another. There would be no need to predict the
level of economic support needed 6 months from now if benefits were
tailored to match economic conditions.
We look forward to discussing this idea of triggers for economic
support

[[Page S1235]]

with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but tonight it is vital, as
the pandemic continues, that the Senate pass this amendment, an
economic lifeline for Americans who would strongly prefer to be back at
work.
Instead of attacking Americans as lazy individuals who don't want to
work, these are responsible adults with a strong work ethic who will
help us build back better in the days to come.
I strongly urge support for our amendment.
I yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, let's be clear with what is going on
here. The Republicans have offered a very generous unemployment system,
including 300 bucks per week, as is the current law after March 15,
when it would otherwise expire, and taking it to July 18.
Now, there is nobody in this Chamber that doesn't see that the
economy is improving. And the Congressional Budget Office, which is a
nonpartisan group here, has told us that, actually, by the middle of
this year, we are going to be back to the prepandemic level in terms of
our economy. Every economist looks at this and says that unemployment
is going down.
I note that my colleague over there, from Oregon, said that claims
were higher last week in terms of unemployment. The 4-week average is
actually down, considerably.
Let me tell you what happened today, because I just looked it up. New
York opened its movie theaters; Virginia announced they are opening
their schools; West Virginia opened their bars, their restaurants, all
businesses; Connecticut is opening indoor dining. This is happening
every day. The economy is getting better.
And everybody says--including, by the way, Larry Summers, a famous
Democratic economist, who was Treasury Secretary under President
Obama--that when you look at what happens with regard to unemployment
insurance, if it is too high, it is a disincentive to work.
I don't think Larry Summers is saying people are lazy. I think what
Larry Summers is saying is that you want to have a system that is
balanced, where you are encouraging people to work. There are so many
employers in our States who are looking for people right now, and that
is going to continue to happen as we open up more.
Look, our unemployment provision is very reasonable; it is very
generous--taking it through July 18.
They are taking theirs through September 6. And then they are adding
this new element that has never been in unemployment before, where
suddenly if you are on unemployment insurance, you don't have to pay
taxes, but if you are working you do have to pay taxes.
How does that make sense? Don't we want to encourage people to work?
I think we do. I hope that my colleagues will vote down this amendment
and continue to keep the Portman amendment in place, which, by the way,
passed this Chamber only about an hour and a half ago.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am going to ask for 15 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Wyden has 45 seconds remaining.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, first of all, with respect to the facts
about unemployment, every week--every week since last March,
unemployment claims have been higher than the worst week of the great
recession. And the fact is, we have got millions of Americans who,
every single week, are walking an economic tightrope. They are
balancing the food bill against the fuel bill and the fuel bill against
the rent bill. And we want to give them a modest amount of tax relief
for the typical working person, and the party that claims to want to
help workers on their taxes won't lift a finger. That is why it is so
important that this amendment pass.
I yield.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 15 seconds to
respond, and then I will stop.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). The Senator has time remaining.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, No. 1, the 4-week average on unemployment
claims are actually going the right way. Why? Because the economy is
opening up, folks. If you don't see that, you are not going home to
your States and talking to your employers.
Second, we have a situation here where the Republicans are saying we
want to continue the $300 per month--or per week after March 15, but
let's end it on July 18. If things turn south--which no one is
predicting, by the way, not a single economist--I know a lot of us
would be willing to work with the other side of the aisle to extend,
but there is no reason to do that at this point.
With regard to your tax cut, it is a tax increase. It is a tax
increase on small businesses.

Vote on Amendment No. 1378

The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. WYDEN. 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.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 79 Leg.]

YEAS--50

NAYS--49

NOT VOTING--1

Sullivan

The amendment (No. 1378) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.

Amendment No. 1026

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1026 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Florida [Mr. Rubio] proposes an amendment
numbered 1026.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To amend the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief
Fund)

Strike section 2001 and insert the following:

SEC. 2001. ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL EMERGENCY RELIEF
FUND.

(a) In General.--In addition to amounts otherwise
available, there is appropriated to the Department of
Education for fiscal year 2021, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $125,804,800,000, to
remain available through September 30, 2023, to carry out
this section.
(b) Grants.--From funds provided under subsection (a), the
Secretary shall make grants to each State educational agency
in accordance with this section.
(c) Allocation to States.--The amount of each grant under
subsection (b) shall be allocated by the Secretary to each
State in the same proportion as each State received under
part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 in the most recent fiscal year.
(d) Subgrants to Local Educational Agencies.--
(1) In general.--Each State shall allocate not less than 95
percent of the grant funds awarded to the State under this
section as subgrants to local educational agencies (including
charter schools that are local educational agencies in the
State) in proportion

[[Page S1236]]

to the amount of funds such local educational agencies and
charter schools that are local educational agencies received
under part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 in the most recent fiscal year.
(2) Availability of funds.--Each State shall make
allocations under paragraph (1) to local educational agencies
in accordance with the following:
(A) A local educational agency shall receive 25 percent of
its allocation under paragraph (1) not later than 30 days
after the date of enactment of this title.
(B) A local educational agency shall receive an additional
15 percent of its allocation under paragraph (1) for each
school day in a 5-day school week that public elementary and
secondary schools served by the local educational agency are
open for in-person instruction for 100 percent of students
within the local educational agency, as certified by the
local educational agency to the State.
(e) State Funding.--With funds not otherwise allocated
under subsection (d), a State may carry out, directly or
through grants or contracts, activities necessary to support
the safe reopening of schools.
(f) Equitable Services.--Each local educational agency that
receives funds from a subgrant under subsection (d) shall
reserve funds to provide equitable services in the same
manner as provided under section 1117 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6320) to students
and teachers in non-public schools, as determined in
consultation with representatives of non-public schools.
(g) Public Control of Funds.--The control of funds for the
services or assistance provided to a non-public school under
subsection (f), and title to materials, equipment, and
property purchased with such funds, shall be in a public
agency, and a public agency shall administer such funds,
services, assistance, materials, equipment, and property.
(h) Reallocation.--A State shall return to the Secretary
any funds received under this section that the State does not
award within 1 year of receiving such funds and the Secretary
shall reallocate such funds to the remaining States in
accordance with subsection (c).

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes of
debate equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I think we can all agree we have kids in
America who need to be in school who haven't been in school over a year
now, in some cases.
The science is clear that you can open up schools safely. Now, I know
different districts have different challenges about opening up. This
bill provides money for everybody to open up. We don't want to change
that. We want to help every district.
Under my amendment, every district in the country would get money,
but the more days of the week you are open, the more money you are
going to get, which makes all the sense in the world. If you are going
to open 4 days a week, you shouldn't have as much money as a district
that is going to open 5 days a week.
The purpose of the money that is being provided is so that schools
can fund the cost of opening safely. All this amendment tries to do is
create an incentive for these districts to open up more days because we
do have unions--to be fair, not all, but we do have teachers unions in
this country that are saying they are not going back until next year,
even if they are vaccinated, even if all the measures are put in place.
We have a crisis in this country. We have seen now a surge in mental
health problems, with young people showing up at hospitals, and across
the country, it is a terrible situation, not to mention the year of
lost learning. This amendment incentivizes us to get our kids back in
school.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the only way to safely reopen schools for
in-person learning and keep them open is to provide the $125 billion
that is included in the American Rescue Plan Act for our K-12 schools.
This Federal funding will support schools in their implementing safety
protocols that are aligned with local public health guidance in order
to safely reopen, stay open, and help students with learning recovery.
Our goal is clear.
Let me make something else clear. The amendment offered today to
condition funds on forced school reopenings is simply a political show
that will, actually, further disadvantage schools that have already
suffered the most. If we only provide funding to schools that are
physically open, schools in communities with high rates of COVID-19
can't receive the money they need to implement health safety protocols,
but they will feel the pressure to reopen even if it is not safe. So
conditioning funds actually undermines our ability to get students back
in the classroom safely.
Let's prioritize student learning. Safe in-person learning is
paramount so let's stop wasting time. Let's pass this plan and get the
schools the funds they need.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

Vote on Amendment No. 1026

The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. RUBIO. 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.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 80 Leg.]

YEAS--48

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
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
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
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Sullivan

The amendment (No. 1026) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.

Amendment No. 1344 to Amendment No. 891

Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1344 and ask that
it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report the
amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Hampshire [Ms. Hassan], for herself
and others, proposes an amendment numbered 1344 to amendment
No. 891.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for a safe return to in-person instruction)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:
(_) Safe Return to In-person Instruction.--
(1) In general.--A local educational agency receiving funds
under this section shall develop and make publicly available
on the local educational agency's website, not later than 30
days after receiving the allocation of funds described in
paragraph (d)(1), a plan for the safe return to in-person
instruction and continuity of services.
(2) Comment period.--Before making the plan described in
paragraph (1) publicly available, the local educational
agency shall seek public comment on the plan and take such
comments into account in the development of the plan.
(3) Previous plans.--If a local educational agency has
developed a plan for the safe return to in-person instruction
before the date of enactment of this Act that meets the
requirements described in paragraphs (1) and (2), such plan
shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements under this
subsection.

Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes
equally divided.

[[Page S1237]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, I believe that every single Member of this
body agrees that remote learning is taking an enormous toll on our
students, teachers, and our students' families, and that we need to
safely get students back into the classroom.
This amendment would ensure that educational agencies receiving
relief funds will within 30 days develop and make publicly available a
plan for the safe return to in-person instruction.
I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense
amendment to support an objective that we all share: getting our
students safely back in their classrooms.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, last year Congress provided nearly $68
billion in emergency funding for schools. About 10 percent of that has
been used. This bill provides another $126 billion, with no requirement
that we get kids back to school.
We know they need to be back in school. I think this amendment
actually, if applied, almost ensures we won't get back to school this
year.
Thirty days to come up with a plan; public comment on that plan. It
is the middle of March before anybody even begins to make--have the 30
days to make that plan. We need to get kids back to school. The New
York Times understands that.
Many States are saying the suicide rates, the emergency room mental
health concerns demand that kids get back to school, and not next year
but they get back to school as quickly as they can this year.
I think this amendment, while I am sure offered in good intention,
works against that, not for it, and I would urge a ``no'' vote on the
amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 1344

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Hassan
amendment.
Ms. HASSAN. 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 legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 48, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 81 Leg.]

YEAS--51

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
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

NAYS--48

Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
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
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NOT VOTING--1

Sullivan

The amendment (No. 1344) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.

Amendment No. 1369, As Modified, to Amendment No 891

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President I would like to call up amendment No. 1369,
as modified, and ask it be reported by number.

Additional Cosponsor

I ask that Senator Hagerty be added as cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment, as
modified.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Graham], for himself
and others, proposes an amendment numbered 1369, as modified,
to amendment No. 891.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To improve the bill)

Strike section 9901 and insert the following:

SEC. 9901. CORONAVIRUS STATE AND LOCAL FISCAL RECOVERY FUND.

(a) In General.--Title VI of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 801 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``SEC. 602. CORONAVIRUS FISCAL RECOVERY FUND.

``(a) Appropriation.--
``(1) In general.--Out of any money in the Treasury of the
United States not otherwise appropriated, there are
appropriated for making payments to States, Tribal
governments, and units of local government under this
section, $350,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2021.
``(2) Reservation of funds.--Of the amount appropriated
under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall reserve--
``(A) $4,500,000,000 for making payments to the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States
Virgin Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, and American Samoa; and
``(B) $20,000,000,000 for making payments to Tribal
governments.
``(b) Authority to Make Payments.--Not later than 30 days
after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary
shall pay each State and Tribal government the amount
determined for the State or Tribal government for fiscal year
2021 under subsection (c).
``(c) Payment Amounts.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the amount
paid under this section for fiscal year 2021 to a State that
is 1 of the 50 States shall be the amount equal to the
relative population proportion amount determined for the
State under paragraph (3) for such fiscal year.
``(2) Minimum payment.--
``(A) In general.--No State that is 1 of the 50 States
shall receive a payment under this section for fiscal year
2021 that is less than $2,927,000,000.
``(B) Pro rata adjustments.--The Secretary shall adjust on
a pro rata basis the amount of the payments for each of the
50 States determined under this subsection without regard to
this subparagraph to the extent necessary to comply with the
requirements of subparagraph (A).
``(3) Relative population proportion amount.--For purposes
of paragraph (1), the relative population proportion amount
determined under this paragraph for a State for fiscal year
2021 is the product of--
``(A) the amount appropriated under paragraph (1) of
subsection (a) for fiscal year 2021 that remains after the
application of paragraph (2) of that subsection; and
``(B) the relative State population proportion (as defined
in paragraph (4)).
``(4) Relative state population proportion defined.--For
purposes of paragraph (3)(B), the term `relative State
population proportion' means, with respect to a State, the
quotient of--
``(A) the population of the State; and
``(B) the total population of all States (excluding the
District of Columbia and territories specified in subsection
(a)(2)(A)).
``(5) District of columbia and territories.--The amount
paid under this section for fiscal year 2021 to a State that
is the District of Columbia or a territory specified in
subsection (a)(2)(A) shall be the amount equal to the product
of--
``(A) the amount set aside under subsection (a)(2)(A) for
such fiscal year; and
``(B) each such District's and territory's share of the
combined total population of the District of Columbia and all
such territories, as determined by the Secretary.
``(6) Tribal governments.--From the amount set aside under
subsection (a)(2)(B) for fiscal year 2021, the amount paid
under this section for fiscal year 2021 to a Tribal
government shall be the amount the Secretary shall determine,
in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior and Indian
Tribes, that is based on increased expenditures of each such
Tribal government (or a tribally-owned entity of such Tribal
government) relative to aggregate expenditures in fiscal year
2019 by the Tribal government (or tribally-owned entity) and
determined in such manner as the Secretary determines
appropriate to ensure that all amounts available under
subsection (a)(2)(B) for fiscal year 2021 are distributed to
Tribal governments.
``(7) Data.--For purposes of this subsection, the
population of States shall be determined based on the most
recent year for which data are available from the Bureau of
the Census.
``(d) Use of Funds.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), a State or
Tribal government shall use the funds provided under a
payment made under this section to cover only those costs of
the State or Tribal government that--
``(A) are necessary expenditures incurred due to the public
health emergency with respect to the Coronavirus Disease 2019
(COVID-19);

[[Page S1238]]

``(B) were not accounted for in the budget most recently
approved as of the date of enactment of this section for the
State or government; and
``(C) were incurred during the period that begins on March
1, 2020, and ends on December 31, 2022.
``(2) State distributions to units of local government.--
``(A) In general.--Each State (other than the District of
Columbia) shall distribute 45 percent of the amount allocated
and paid to the State under this section to units of local
government in the State in accordance with this paragraph.
``(B) Manner of distribution.--A State shall allocate the
amount that the State is required to distribute among units
of local government in the State based on the population of
each such unit of local government (as determined by the
State) relative to the population of all units of local
government in the State.
``(C) Application of uses of funds.--The limitations on the
uses of funds described in paragraph (1) shall apply to
amounts distributed to a unit of local government under this
paragraph in the same manner that such limitations apply to a
payment to a State under this subsection.
``(e) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) In general.--The terms `Indian Tribe', `Secretary',
`State', and `Tribal government' shall have the meaning given
such terms in section 601(g).
``(2) Unit of local government.--The term `unit of local
government' means a county, municipality, town, township,
village, parish, borough, or other unit of general government
below the State level.''.
(b) Technical Amendment.--The heading for title VI of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) is amended by
striking ``FUND'' and inserting ``AND FISCAL RECOVERY
FUNDS''.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask for 2 minutes, equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAHAM. There was a time about a year ago when we were together,
and we passed a COVID relief bill of $1.9 trillion, 96 to nothing. What
happened? You all got it now.
So here is what I want you to know. That CARES formula, that bill we
passed, had an allocation for State and local funding that has been
changed by our Democratic friends, and the biggest winners are New York
and California. So the formula they are using now, New York and
California wins big. You need to check what you are doing because you
are giving a lot of money to New York and California because they can
do it.
This is a big State bailout. You need to check and explain to people
back in your State why they need more money than you do. You are
rewarding people who have closed down the economy, won't reopen, so I
am asking to go back to the bipartisan formula, reject this partisan
formula that rewards Democratic blue States at the expense of most
everybody else in this building.
So if you don't know how your State is doing, we know how your State
is doing, and you will hear about it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, nobody on our side likes this
amendment, and we urge a ``no'' vote. It would tie the hands of local
and State government. It would make it more difficult to rehire or
interfere with recovery in our capital cities, so if we could all have
a resounding ``no'' vote on the Graham amendment, I would appreciate it
and yield back further time.

Vote on Amendment No. 1369

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. GRAHAM. 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.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 82 Leg.]

YEAS--48

NAYS--51

NOT VOTING--1

Sullivan

The amendment (No. 1369) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.

Amendment No. 1197 to Amendment No. 891

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I would like to call up amendment No. 1197
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 Montana [Mr. Tester] proposes an amendment
numbered 1197 to amendment No. 891.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require the President to review and approve the Keystone
XL Pipeline to assist COVID-impacted communities)

At the end of title X, add the following:

SEC. 10___. APPROVAL OF KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE.

(a) In General.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the President shall review and approve
a permit for the project of TransCanada Keystone Pipeline,
L.P., to construct, connect, operate, and maintain the
pipeline and cross-border facilities at the northern border
of the State of Montana necessary to import oil from Canada
to the United States, as described in the Presidential Permit
of March 29, 2019 (84 Fed. Reg. 13101 (April 3, 2019)), if
the President determines that the project would create
construction jobs and increase tax revenues in communities
that have been economically impacted by COVID-19.
(b) Revocation.--Section 6 of Executive Order 13990 (86
Fed. Reg. 7041 (January 25, 2021)) shall have no force or
effect.
Mr. TESTER. I ask unanimous consent for 4 minutes of debate, equally
divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TESTER. Senator Hoeven will speak for 1 minute. I will speak for
1 minute, and I would ask that I be notified when I run of out of my
minute.
Mr. President, this is the most important vote of the night. It is
2:41, so pay attention here.
The Keystone Pipeline would create good-paying jobs and bring much
needed revenue to rural counties in Eastern Montana. These counties
have been hard-hit by the pandemic. They have also been hard-hit by
trade wars that have impacted our agricultural community. So they need
the tax base, and this XL Pipeline would give them the tax base.
Look, there is no doubt the pipeline needs to be built responsibly
with American steel to the highest safety standards to respect private
property rights and to include significant consultation with Native
American Tribes. But the fact is, we have many pipelines to go across
the border between Canada and the United States. This is just one.
I would ask you to support this amendment.
Senator Hoeven.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator from
Montana for offering this amendment and to speak strongly in support of
the amendment.
In 2015, S. 1 authorized the Keystone Pipeline. So we have voted on
this before, and we have approved it. We need to do it again.
Look, whether you are for traditional sources of energy or renewable
sources of energy or both, we need the infrastructure to move it around
the country as safely as possible in an environmentally sound way on a
dependable basis. That means we need transmission lines, and we need
pipelines.
Let's come together. Let's continue to build our energy future, not
to mention the 11,000-plus jobs directly involved in working on this
pipeline. But

[[Page S1239]]

for energy independence and energy security for our country, for good-
paying jobs, energy is foundational to everything we do in our economy.
Let's support this amendment.
I yield back to Senator Tester.

Additional Cosponsor

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Manchin be added to this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, President Biden is right. He canceled the
Keystone Pipeline because he is listening to the scientists, and what
the scientists are telling us is that we have a small number of years--
5, 6, 7 years--before this country and this world face irreparable--I
underline the word ``irreparable''--harm because of climate change.
My friends here talk about creating jobs. Well, we all want to create
jobs. Do you know where the jobs are? The jobs are in energy
efficiency. The jobs are in sustainable energy. That is where the jobs
of the future are.
If we love our kids and if we love our grandchildren and if we want
to leave them a country and a planet that is healthy and is habitable,
yes, this country is going to have to lead the world, work with the
world, in transforming our energy system away from fossil fuel.
I urge opposition to this amendment.

Point of Order

Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment is
not germane and therefore violates section 305(b)(2) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.

Motion to Waive

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, in accordance with section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of all
applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections
of that act and applicable budget resolutions for the purpose of
amendment No. 1197, and I would ask for the yeas and nays.

Vote on Amendment No. 1197

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 legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Durbin). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote or change their vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 51, nays 48, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 83 Leg.]

YEAS--51

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
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

NOT VOTING--1

Sullivan

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 51, 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 amendment (No. 1197) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.

Amendment No. 1161 to Amendment No. 891

Mr. CASSIDY. I call up my amendment No. 1161 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 Louisiana [Mr. Cassidy] proposes an
amendment numbered 1161.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To improve the bill regarding emergency assistance to non-
public schools)

In section 2002 strike ``that enroll a significant
percentage of'' and all that follows through the end of the
section and insert ``under the terms and conditions of
section 312(d) of the Coronavirus Response and Relief
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2021 (division M of Public
Law 116-260).''
Mr. CASSIDY. I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes of debate, equally
divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, on a bipartisan basis, the December COVID
relief bill included emergency assistance to private and parochial
schools, reimbursing for things such as disinfectants, technology, and
PPE.
Guidelines prioritize schools serving low-income students. The
current bill has money for private and parochial schools but,
incredibly, does not allow reimbursement for COVID-related expenses in
a COVID relief bill. It does allow arbitrary guidelines restricting
which schools are eligible.
My amendment goes back to the bipartisan language agreed to in
December, prioritizing schools with low-income students and addressing
COVID expenses. I urge colleagues to support these schools serving 10
percent of America's children, 7 percent of children in poverty, to
support their families. Please support this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment. It would strike
two important improvements we made to the program that funds private
schools.
First, Republicans are critiquing this bill for not being targeted
enough, but this amendment would remove the requirement to target
funding to private schools that serve significant percentages of low-
income students.
The American Rescue Plan provides an additional $2.75 billion for
services to private schools. And the bottom line is, Federal funds
shouldn't be spent at expensive private schools. Instead, they should
be targeted to low-income students at private schools like all our
other education investments.
The pandemic is disproportionately harming students of color and
those from families with low incomes. While these students are already
much more likely to attend public schools, we need to make sure that
those who do attend private schools are prioritized as well.
Secondly, this amendment strikes the limitation we placed on the
funds being used for reimbursements at private schools. Reimbursements
that were permitted with the first round of funding for this program
were in order to cover past expenses incurred by private schools. Those
expenses should be reimbursed by that first round. These additional
funds are intended to provide services for private schools in the
future. I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. CASSIDY. How many seconds do I have left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. I am sorry, the Senator has no time remaining.
Mr. CASSIDY. I ask unanimous consent for 10 seconds, please.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CASSIDY. This is the exact same language that we used in
December. It targets children with private schools. To say that you are
going to restrict it further than that is merely a way to keep the kids
from having it. Seven percent of kids in poverty go to private schools.
About 7 percent of this money will go to private kids. We should
support the children.

Vote on Amendment No. 1161

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.

[[Page S1240]]

Mr. CASSIDY. 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.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 84 Leg.]

YEAS--49

NAYS--50

NOT VOTING--1

Sullivan

The amendment (No. 1161) was rejected
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk,
and I ask that it be reported.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley] moves to commit the
bill, H.R. 1319, to the Committee on Finance with
instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days,
not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session,
with changes that--(1) are within the jurisdiction of such
committee; and (2) include reforms to protect taxpayers from
perpetually subsidizing private sector pension plans by
ensuring the long-term solvency of the multiemployer pension
system.

The motion is as follows

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. Grassley moves to commit the bill, H.R. 1319, to the
Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same
back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which
the Senate is not in session, with changes that--
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and
(2) include reforms to protect taxpayers from perpetually
subsidizing private sector pension plans by ensuring the
long-term solvency of the multiemployer pension system.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes of
debate, equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this bill includes an $86 billion no-
strings bailout of multiemployer pension plans. It does not belong in
the current package. It has nothing to do with COVID. The bailout is
not coupled with any reforms. Consequently, there won't be any long-
term sustainability. It is just a blank check with no measures to hold
plans accountable.
Senator Alexander and I spent the last Congress working on a
responsible proposal to rescue and reform failing multiemployer pension
plans. Without reforms included, the precedent will be that taxpayers,
not the PPGC, will be the ultimate guarantors of private employer
pensions. In that case, the burden on the taxpayers will not be for the
$86 billion. It will be endless as to how much the taxpayers are going
to have to pay.
Please vote in favor of my motion to commit to consider the reforms
necessary to protect the taxpayers and ensure the long-term
sustainability of the multiemployer pension system.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, every time banks need help and every time
large corporate interests need help, this body rises to the occasion,
but when it is a bunch of workers or a bunch of small businesses, we
are going to turn our backs? Unions, chambers of commerce, and small
businesses--pretty much everyone--agree we need to get this done.
I have listened for years to my colleagues' speeches extolling the
value of hard work and the virtues of small businesses. This is your
chance, my friends, to live up to your own words and help these
workers.
In collective bargaining, they negotiate at the bargaining table.
They gave up money today to put money in pensions for the future. If
you support working Americans, vote no on this motion. Let's pass a
solution which actually honors the dignity of work.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, do I have any time remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

Vote on Motion to Commit

The question is on agreeing to the motion.
Mr. GRASSLEY. 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 legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 85 Leg.]

YEAS--49

NAYS--50

NOT VOTING--1

Sullivan

The motion was rejected
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.

Amendment No. 1010 to Amendment No. 891

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1010, and I 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 Pennsylvania [Mr. Toomey] proposes an
amendment numbered 1010 to amendment No. 891.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To strike a provision providing payments to farmers for
purposes unrelated to COVID-19)

Strike section 1005.

Additional Cosponsor

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2
minutes of debate, equally divided, and that Senator Daines be added as
a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, my amendment would simply strike the
section that provides ``such sums as may be necessary to make payments
of 120 percent of outstanding debts to socially disadvantaged farmers
and ranchers.''
There are only two requirements to get this money. One is to have a
USDA

[[Page S1241]]

farm loan, and there are billions of dollars' worth out there, and the
other is, you must be a member of a favored racial or ethnic group,
including African American, Hispanic, Asian Americans, and some others.
There is no income test. There is no asset test. It doesn't matter
whether you are rich or poor. You don't have to have experienced any
harm of any kind whatsoever, including from COVID. You just have to be
the right race.
The senior Senator from Michigan called this provision ``an important
piece of reparations.'' This bill is supposed to be about COVID relief
and helping the people who are adversely affected by the economics of
the lockdown. Instead, we are handing out money based exclusively on
race. This is unconstitutional. It is outrageous. My amendment strikes
the provision, and I urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. WARNOCK. Mr. President, contrary to the suggestion from my
colleague from Pennsylvania, this provision has everything to do with
COVID-19 relief.
The thing about this terrible pandemic is that it has both
illuminated and exacerbated longstanding disparities rooted in our
racial past, and for too long, farmers of color have been left to fend
for themselves, not getting the support they deserve from the USDA,
making it even more difficult for them to recover from this pandemic.
We have an opportunity here to lift all of our rural communities by
aiming the aid where it is needed given our historic past, which is
very much present. So I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this
amendment that strips these communities that have been forgotten by our
government of the relief that they so desperately deserve. It will have
an adverse effect on the very relief that we are trying to provide to
all rural communities.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.

Vote on Amendment No. 1010

The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. TOOMEY. 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.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
wishing to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 86 Legs]

YEAS--49

NAYS--50

NOT VOTING--1

Sullivan

The amendment (No. 1010) was rejected
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.

Amendment No. 944 to Amendment No. 891

(Purpose: To distribute funds for public transportation urbanized area
formula grants through the existing formulas)

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 944 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 Nebraska [Mrs. Fischer] proposes an
amendment numbered 944 to amendment No. 891.

(The amendment is printed in the Record of March 4, 2021, under
``Text of Amendments.'')
Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes of
debate equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, my amendment would fix the proposed new
formula that benefits New York at the expense of other States. The bill
provides $30 billion for transit on top of the nearly $40 billion
Congress already gave transit in the CARES Act and the December COVID
bill.
I oppose the extreme funding, but my amendment at least fixes one
troubling detail. The bill directs $26 billion in transit to urbanized
areas but gives 30 percent of that to New York City, nearly double of
what it would receive under the normal formula. By voting for this
bill, my colleagues from States like Arizona, Georgia, and West
Virginia would lose out on transit money to New York.
The bill also has $2.2 billion for FTA to allocate based on another
new formula that just happens to reward the largest urban transit
systems. My amendment would reinstate the regular formula. It will
ensure transit money is at least distributed fairly instead of
benefitting one or two cities, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment. Don't believe the
false argument that most of the funding goes to New York. In New
Jersey, they get the same treatment as everyone else.
The alternative formula offered by the amendment is indefensible. One
small city would get 2,400 times their annual transit budget.
And think about the workers. Think about the drivers and the clerks
who put themselves dealing with the public every single day and the
anxiety coming home at night about potentially having COVID. The way we
treat essential workers is crucial in this bill. If you care about
workers and if you care about the dignity of work, vote no on this
amendment.
Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, do I have time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mrs. FISCHER. Could I ask unanimous consent for 15 more seconds,
please?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. FISCHER. New York would receive 30 percent more under this new
formula compared to the 18 percent they have now. For example, Reno,
NV, would lose $2 million, and other cities like that lose as well
under this new formula.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, may I ask unanimous consent for 15 seconds
also?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you. The transit formula in the American Rescue Plan
Act is the exact same formula developed with Republicans, some of that
coming out of the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee for the
relief bill we passed in December. This formula uses data and not
politics to allocate funds.

Vote on Amendment No. 944

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. CORNYN. 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.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

[[Page S1242]]

[Rollcall Vote No. 87 Leg.]

YEAS--49

NAYS--50

NOT VOTING--1

Sullivan

The amendment (No. 944) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.

Amendment No. 1014 to Amendment No. 891

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I call up my amendment 1014 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 Kentucky [Mr. Paul] proposes an amendment
numbered 1014 to amendment No. 891.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To strike provisions relating to nonprofit entities for the
paycheck protection program)

Strike section 5001.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes of
debate, equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, the Paycheck Protection Program was created
to help small businesses. We should all agree that an organization with
thousands of employees working in dozens of cities across the country
is not a small business, but this bill has a provision that would
extend small business assistance to these kinds of large organizations.
That means that an organization operating in 100 cities across
America, with thousands of employees, will get money that was really
intended for small businesses. My amendment would remove this
provision, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment. This is a matter
of basic fairness.
When we passed the Paycheck Protection Program, it included
nonprofits. We didn't have the cost estimates for all the (c)'s.
Originally we only included the (c)(3)'s. We added the (c)(6)'s during
the omnibus. This adds the rest of the (c)'s, other than (c)(4)'s, with
the protection against lobbying activities, et cetera, that is in the
bill. The standards are the same as they are for the other nonprofits.
This is just a matter of fairness.
Let me just point out, according to information that we have received
from a Johns Hopkins University study, we have lost over a million jobs
in the nonprofit sector as a result of COVID-19. This bill is needed,
and we need to be fair to all the nonprofits.
I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 1014

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. PAUL. 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 assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Toomey).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote or change their vote?
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 51, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 88 Leg.]

YEAS--47

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
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
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
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Sullivan
Toomey
The amendment (No. 1014) was rejected
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.

Amendment No. 1383 to Amendment No. 891

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1383 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 Indiana [Mr. Young] proposes an amendment
numbered 1383 to amendment No. 891.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To strike the provision establishing the Emergency Federal
Employee Leave Fund and appropriate $300,000,000 for chemical screening
devices for U.S. Customs and Border Protection)

Strike section 4001 and insert the following:

SEC. 4001. FUNDING FOR NARCOTIC AND OPIOID DETECTION.

(a) Appropriation.--In addition to amounts otherwise
available, there is appropriated to U.S. Customs and Border
Protection for fiscal year 2021, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $300,000,000, which
shall remain available until September 30, 2025, to acquire,
deploy, operate, and maintain chemical screening devices to
identify, in an operational environment, synthetic opioids
and other narcotics at purity levels less than or equal to 10
percent.
(b) Use of Funds.--Amounts appropriated under subsection
(a) may also be used--
(1) to train users on the equipment described in such
subsection;
(2) to provide directors of ports of entry with an
alternate method for identifying narcotics, including
synthetic opioids, at lower purity levels; and
(3) to test any new chemical screening devices to
understand the abilities and limitations of such devices
relating to identifying narcotics at various purity levels
before U.S. Customs and Border Protection commits to the
acquisition of such devices.

Mr. YOUNG. I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes of debate equally
divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, in February, I met with the President of
the United States along with nine of my colleagues. The objective here
was to find middle ground on a targeted COVID relief package focused on
vaccine distribution and getting Americans back to work and back to
school as quickly as possible. Instead, we have been offered a bloated
and wasteful spending bill, only 10 percent of which actually goes
toward COVID-related needs.
Meanwhile, the COVID-19 crisis has exacerbated America's drug
epidemic with synthetic opioids being the primary driver of the 38-
percent annual increase in overdose deaths.
We know illegal narcotics are coming through our southern border at
ports of

[[Page S1243]]

entry. My unobjectionable amendment simply increases funding for
Customs and Border Protection by $300 million for technology to detect
fentanyl and other drugs of lower purity levels.
This funding is more than offset by reducing funding from a provision
granting 600 hours of paid leave to Federal employees--600 hours. That
is 15 weeks of paid leave. So if an employee took every day of this
paid leave in this bloated spending bill starting today, that would be
by June 18. Oh, by the way, we are supposed to all be vaccinated by the
end of May, according to the President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I share my colleague's interest in
supporting the men and women at Customs and Border Protection, but this
amendment does the opposite. In fact, what it does is strip them of
critical emergency support to them and other frontline Federal
employees who are working to protect our country. In fact, 8,000 of the
Federal employees at CBP have tested positive for COVID-19. Twenty-
seven have died.
Your amendment would strip away emergency medical leave for these men
and women who are protecting us while keeping the provisions in the
bill that provide a 100-percent tax credit to private employers to
provide up to $511 a day in sick leave, a provision I support.
So here you are targeting the men and women who are protecting our
country at the border and other places by stripping them of their
ability to take sick leave and keeping in the provision that allows our
private sector neighbors to provide sick leave. This is, unfortunately,
just aimed at undermining the folks who are helping protect this
country on the frontline. I ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Mr. YOUNG. I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds to respond.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. YOUNG. Only in Washington, DC, and in the greater Washington, DC,
area does it make sense to offer paid leave in a $1.9 trillion spending
bill at 5:15 a.m. in the morning to last until after a pandemic is
projected to be over. How wasteful could we be with our constituent
spending?
Vote for my amendment.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I ask for 15 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I just want to point out that if we want to prevent
the spread of the virus, we need to make sure those who get it have a
chance to stay home and not spread it among their colleagues around the
country.

Vote on Amendment No. 1383

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. 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 legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kentucky (Mr. Paul) and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 89 Leg.]

YEAS--48

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
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--50

NOT VOTING--2

Paul
Sullivan

The amendment (No. 1383) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk,
and I ask that it be reported.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from West Virginia [Mrs. Capito] moves to
commit the bill, H.R. 1319, to the Committee on Finance with
instructions.

The motion to commit is as follows

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mrs. Capito moves to commit the bill, H.R. 1319, to the
Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same
back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which
the Senate is not in session, with changes that--
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and
(2) in order to fix and enhance our Nation's
infrastructure, create jobs, and help our economy recover
from the COVID-19 pandemic, reduce the amounts appropriated
for the Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Fund and the
Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery Fund and dedicate such
amounts to pay for bipartisan surface transportation
reauthorization legislation.

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2
minutes of debate equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, one of our top priorities will be the
surface transportation reauthorization bill.
Our EPW Committee has already kicked off bipartisan efforts to meet
our Nation's transportation needs. Every State needs the certainty of a
long-term reauthorization plan to complete projects. Paying for
infrastructure is a difficult challenge. A status quo reauthorization
bill would require at least $70 billion in new funding for the highway
trust fund, which we all know falls short, and we all want to make sure
that we make robust investments in our roads and bridges.
The bill on the floor provides $350 billion to State and local on top
of the $150 billion that was provided in the CARES Act. This motion
instructs the Finance Committee to divert some of that $350 billion to,
instead, help pay forward for a bipartisan surface transportation
reauthorization bill. Funds would still go to our States and
localities, but the dollars would be better spent on road and bridge
projects that create a safer and more efficient transportation system.
I urge my colleagues to support the motion to commit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, to speak in opposition, the Capito motion
to commit the bill to the Finance Committee instructs the committee to
do two things. The first is to dedicate funds to pay for bipartisan
transportation legislation. The other is to cut the funding currently
provided in our bill to provide relief to State and local governments.
I would like to say that the reason we oppose this is that this,
colleagues, is a false choice. If we are talking about major
legislation to improve our infrastructure, including roads, bridges,
airports, broadband, and more, count us in. In fact, I think one of the
first areas we ought to be focusing on, if we finish this bill, is
infrastructure, but this does not have to be at the expense of relief
to State and local governments. These two are not mutually exclusive,
colleagues. We can do both. We can address infrastructure and help our
State and local governments that have been hammered by COVID and a
struggling economy. They have had to lay off police, teachers, EMTs,
and many others.
I urge opposition to the Capito motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

Vote on Motion to Commit

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.

[[Page S1244]]

Mrs. CAPITO. 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.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kentucky (Mr. Paul) and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 90 Leg.]

YEAS--48

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
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--50

NOT VOTING--2

Paul
Sullivan

The motion was rejected
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.

Amendment No. 1395 to Amendment No. 891

Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1395,
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 Florida [Mr. Scott] proposes an amendment
numbered 1395 to amendment No. 891.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To fund the procurement of HC-130J aircraft by the Coast
Guard, and to provide an offset by striking National Railroad Passenger
Corporation grant funding for the Northeast Corridor)

Strike section 7101 and insert the following:

SEC. 7101. GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER
CORPORATION.

(a) National Network Appropriation.--In addition to amounts
otherwise available, there is appropriated for fiscal year
2021, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, $729,611,840, to remain available until
September 30, 2024, for grants as authorized under section
11101(b) of the FAST Act (Public Law 114-94) to prevent,
prepare for, and respond to coronavirus.
(b) Long-distance Service Restoration and Employee
Recalls.--Not less than $165,926,000 of the amounts made
available under subsection (a) shall be for use by the
National Railroad Passenger Corporation to--
(1) restore, not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the frequency of rail service on long-
distance routes (as defined in section 24102 of title 49,
United States Code) that the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation reduced the frequency of on or after July 1,
2020, and continue to operate such service at such frequency;
and
(2) recall and manage employees furloughed on or after
October 1, 2020, as a result of efforts to prevent, prepare
for, and respond to coronavirus.
(c) Use of Funds for State Payments for State-supported
Routes.--
(1) In general.--Of the amounts made available under
subsection (a), $174,850,000 shall be for use by the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation to offset amounts required to
be paid by States for covered State-supported routes.
(2) Funding share.--The share of funding provided under
paragraph (1) with respect to a covered State-supported route
shall be distributed as follows:
(A) Each covered State-supported route shall receive 7
percent of the costs allocated to the route in fiscal year
2019 under the cost allocation methodology adopted pursuant
to section 209 of the Passenger Rail Investment and
Improvement Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-432).
(B) Any remaining amounts after the distribution described
in subparagraph (A) shall be apportioned to each covered
State-supported route in proportion to the passenger revenue
of such route and other revenue allocated to such route in
fiscal year 2019 divided by the total passenger revenue and
other revenue allocated to all covered State-supported routes
in fiscal year 2019.
(3) Covered state-supported route defined.--In this
subsection, the term ``covered State-supported route'' means
a State-supported route, as such term is defined in section
24102 of title 49, United States Code, but does not include a
State-supported route for which service was terminated on or
before February 1, 2020.
(d) Use of Funds for Debt Repayment or Prepayment.--Not
more than $100,885,000 of the amounts made available under
subsection (a) shall be--
(1) for the repayment or prepayment of debt incurred by the
National Railroad Passenger Corporation under financing
arrangements entered into prior to the date of enactment of
this Act; and
(2) to pay required reserves, costs, and fees related to
such debt, including for loans from the Department of
Transportation and loans that would otherwise have been paid
from National Railroad Passenger Corporation revenues.
(e) Project Management Oversight.--Not more than $2,000,000
of the amounts made available under subsection (a) shall be
for activities authorized under section 11101(c) of the FAST
Act (Public Law 114-94).

SEC. 7101A. COAST GUARD PROCUREMENT OF HC-130J AIRCRAFT.

In addition to amounts otherwise available, there is
appropriated to the Secretary of Homeland Security for fiscal
year 2021, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, $970,388,160, to remain available until
September 30, 2024, for the procurement of HC-130J aircraft
for the Coast Guard.

Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2
minutes of debate, equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, there is no reason this bill
should include funding for Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, a woefully
mismanaged public railway system that benefits very few Americans.
My amendment redirects this wasteful spending to strengthen many of
the core missions of our military. For the U.S. Coast Guard, that
includes search and rescue, drug and migrant interdiction, cargo and
personnel transport, and maritime stewardship. American taxpayer
dollars are better spent to support this mission and improve the
defense and security of this Nation than to prop up wasteful and
mismanaged transportation systems in New Jersey, New York, and
Massachusetts.
My amendment directs nearly $1 billion to the Coast Guard's Super
Hercules program to continue their procurement of HC-130Js, a top-of-
class long range surveillance aircraft which will strengthen our
national defense and border security. I urge my colleagues to join me
in support of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ossoff). The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, the sun is coming up in Washington, DC,
and we have to spend all night debating policy and questions to arrive
at this moment, at 6 a.m., with an amendment that is literally robbing
Peter to pay Paul. This isn't the idea of a debate.
The Amtrak and North Corridor System has basically had to reallocate
resources. The 457 Corridor, which is one of the busiest in the Nation,
has over 750,000 people on that system, but because of COVID, it has
lost revenue. It has a 97-percent loss of revenue, and now they are
making drastic cuts to employees and to services that could become
permanent.
This simply helps Amtrak and our busiest corridor stay in business.
We will address the Coast Guard needs in other legislation. I ask my
colleagues to vote no. Stop robbing Peter to pay Paul. Let's fix the
COVID crisis on our transportation system.

Vote on Amendment No. 1395

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. 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.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kentucky (Mr. Paul) and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 51, as follows:

[[Page S1245]]

[Rollcall Vote No. 91 Leg.]

YEAS--47

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
Murkowski
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
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
Moran
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Paul
Sullivan

The amendment (No. 1395) was rejected
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.

Motion To Commit With Instructions

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk, and
I ask that it be reported.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Cotton] moves to commit the
bill, H.R. 1319, to the Committee on Finance with
instructions.

The motion is as follows:

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. Cotton moves to commit the bill H.R. 1319 to the
Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same
back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which
the Senate is not in session, with changes that--
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and
(2) reduce spending by prohibiting any payment of funds
under Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds under
title VI of the Social Security Act, as amended by section
9901 of the bill, to any State or subdivision thereof that
prohibits its employees or contractors from--
(A) sharing law enforcement information with the Department
of Homeland Security; or
(B) cooperating with lawful requests from the Department of
Homeland Security to hold an individual pending arrest for
any violation of Federal law.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes of
debate, equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, my motion to commit is to send this bill
back to the Finance Committee to adopt the commonsense rule that should
have been in there from the beginning that we are not going to give
bailout money to sanctuary States and sanctuary cities.
Now, to whom are the States and cities giving sanctuary? Criminal
illegal aliens. Where is the sanctuary for their victims? Why should
cities and States that refuse to cooperate with Federal law enforcement
receive Federal bailouts? They should not.
I reserve my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let's face reality. The immigration law
system in America is broken. If we are going to get behind slogans and
bumper stickers and do something about the problems we face in America,
we have to talk about comprehensive immigration reform.
The amendment being offered by the Senator from Arkansas brings back
another one of the old arguments about sanctuary cities.
Let me tell you what the police chief, Art Acevedo of Houston, had to
say before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

If we are to be tough on crime, we must not forget that it
begins with trust and cooperation in our communities.

He went on to say:

[I]f we want to be effective and work to disrupt the drug
cartels, we cannot afford to alienate broad spectrums of our
community. Asking local law enforcement officers to become
involved in immigration enforcement is counterproductive.

Vote no on the Cotton amendment.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. COTTON. The immigration system is broken because the Democratic
Party will not enforce our borders. You see that with the Biden border
crisis right now. We can fix one small part of it by stopping Federal
bailout dollars from going to cities and States that refuse to
cooperate with Federal law enforcement.

Vote on Motion to Commit

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.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kentucky (Mr. Paul) and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 92 Leg.]

YEAS--48

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
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--50

NOT VOTING--2

Paul
Sullivan

The motion is rejected
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.

Amendment No. 1342 to Amendment No. 891

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment 1342 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 Kansas [Mr. Moran], for himself and
others, proposes an amendment numbered 1342 to amendment No.
891.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide an effective date for the modification of revenue
requirements for proprietary institutions of higher education)

At the end of section 2013, add the following:
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made under this section
shall--
(1) be subject to the master calendar requirements under
section 482 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1089) and the public involvement and negotiated rulemaking
requirements under section 492 of the Higher Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 1098a), except that such negotiated
rulemaking shall commence not earlier than October 1, 2021;
and
(2) apply to institutional fiscal years beginning on or
after January 1, 2023.

Mr. MORAN. I ask unanimous consent for 3 minutes of debate equally
divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MORAN. My colleagues, I arise here at the request of many
veterans service organizations and veterans across the country who have
called for a long time for us to protect our military and veteran
students and close the 90-10 loophole.
What was once a partisan discussion is becoming a bipartisan
discussion, and while the American Rescue Plan closes the 90-10
loophole, we need to make sure we do it in the right way, make these
changes in the correct way,

[[Page S1246]]

and we need to ensure we put the policy back in the perspective of not
politics but the right answer.
I am thankful to my colleagues Senators Carper, Cassidy, and Lankford
for putting politics aside and working on this amendment with me. I
also want to thank Chairman Murray and Ranking Member Burr and their
staffs, as well as the veteran groups and the stakeholders, for their
help in crafting this amendment.
By providing a 6-month delay before the start of a negotiated
rulemaking process, Congress now has time to work together with our
veterans service organizations and the higher education community on a
bipartisan plan to deliver reasonable and needed protections for
veterans and taxpayers alike.
I ask my colleagues to join us in support of our bipartisan amendment
and continue to work with us on a path forward this Congress.
I yield to the Senator from Delaware
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, this may be the only bipartisan amendment
that we will have the chance to vote on today. The really good news is
that there will be a voice vote.
For the past decade, our Nation's veterans service organizations have
called on Congress to protect our military veteran students and close
the 90-10 loophole that you have heard about. Today, at long last,
Congress heeds that call by harnessing market forces to ensure better
educational opportunities and outcomes for our millions of veterans.
Those millions of veterans and veteran students use their hard-earned
educational benefits at a variety of educational institutions in our
States, including the types of trade and vocational schools that my own
father--maybe your relatives as well--used in World War II and Korea
and Vietnam using the original GI bill.
Let me be clear. Some for-profit schools in this country do a very
good job working with our veterans, preparing them for lives and
careers. Unfortunately, we have seen way too many that do not, and what
we want to do with this legislation is to make sure that the veterans
are protected from the bad actors in the for-profit college sector,
places like ITT Tech and Corinthian, places that no longer exist.
While the American Rescue Plan closes the 90-10 loophole, we
understand the need to make sure we get this right. I am grateful to
our colleagues, for Jerry Moran, and am proud to be joining him, along
with Senators Cassidy and Lankford, in the thoughtful, bipartisan
approach to a contentious issue.
By providing a 6-month delay before the start of the negotiated
rulemaking process, our amendment gives Congress time to work together
with our veterans service organizations on a bipartisan plan to
strengthen these protections for our veterans and taxpayers.
We invite you all to join us in supporting this amendment.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, while the Senator from Delaware stole my
thunder, I believe this amendment can pass by voice vote, and I would
add the request that all of the amendments that follow this follow the
same precedent.

Vote on Amendment No. 1342

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1342) was agreed to.
(Applause.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hassan). The Senator from Tennessee.

Amendment No. 996 to Amendment No. 891

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 996 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 Tennessee [Mrs. Blackburn], for herself
and others, proposes an amendment numbered 996 to amendment
No. 891.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To strike section 9831)

Strike section 9831.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 4
minutes of debate, equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, this amendment strikes an unfair
hospital wage index earmark that would benefit just three States: Rhode
Island, New Jersey, and Delaware. It would give preferential treatment
to them for the consideration of the area wage index.
The benefit comes at the expense of poor Americans that are living in
rural areas and make the payout disparities between rural and urban
hospitals worse than they already are. If you have rural hospitals in
your State and you vote against this amendment, what you are doing is
taking money from those hospitals; you are making these disparities
worse.
It is a multibillion dollar earmark. Get that, a multibillion dollar
earmark. It has nothing to do with COVID relief and does not belong in
this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask for 1 minute of the 2 minutes.
This provision is providing fundamental fairness so that hospitals in
every State of this country have the resources they need to hire the
best, most qualified providers.
Years ago, CMS came up with an arbitrary formula that excluded a
series of States from a payment policy that intended to benefit all
hospitals so we are not competing for labor unfairly. A bipartisan
policy that began under President Bush continued through multiple
administrations until the Trump administration ended it without
justification.
Making matters worse, our States were at the epicenter of the COVID
crisis. This provision would simply provide parity, and it would do so,
unlike what the Senator is saying, without decreasing payments for any
other State.
This is the fairest way to provide parity that our States need and to
be able to deal with the challenges of getting people at a time in
which we need them the most.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, for 1 minute.
Madam President, knowing how much my colleagues on the other side
love unelected bureaucrats, I want to make sure it is clear that this
was a unilateral decision made by an unelected bureaucrat to change the
way hospitals are compensated. And the result, at least in my State, is
that our hospitals are paid 25 cents per dollar less than the hospital
right across the border in Massachusetts and 30 cents per dollar less
than the hospital right across the border 20 minutes down the road in
Connecticut.
Dr. Barrasso and Dr. Cassidy can understand that a 25-percent hit in
hospitals that close together, a 30-percent hit between hospitals that
close together, is ridiculous.
And my friends on the Finance Committee will remember me showing this
graph to every Health and Human Services witness who showed up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. And none could defend it. I ask your support on this.
The Senator from Tennessee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, to respond to this, I think what you
just heard from my colleague from Rhode Island is what happens with too
much government interference into healthcare. That is what he is
complaining about, as we have been up all night long working on this
bill. There is nothing that makes New Jersey, Rhode Island, and
Delaware more special than the other States in this country.
If you have rural hospitals, if you have--if you vote no on this
amendment, you are making the disparities worse. And I would urge a
``yes'' vote on the amendment.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask for 15 additional seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MENENDEZ. And there is nothing that makes any other State in this
country more special than our States.

Vote on Amendment No. 996

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. 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.

[[Page S1247]]

The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 93 Leg.]

YEAS--49

NAYS--50

NOT VOTING--1

Sullivan

The amendment (No. 996) was rejected
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, I have a parliamentary inquiry before
I begin.
Parliamentary inquiry: On page 225, line 23, it appears that the 7(b)
disaster loan program allocates $460 million, but only $70 million is
for the actual disaster loans. The other $390 million appears to be
allocated for administrative costs of the program.
Could the clerk please read page 225 line 20 through page 226 line 2
to confirm the administrative cost for this program is $390 million and
the grant program itself is only $70 million?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the section of the
amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:

(2) $460,000,000 to carry out the disaster loan program
authorized by section 7(b) of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 636(b)), of which $70,000,000 shall be for the cost of
direct loans authorized by such section and $390,000,000
shall be for administrative expenses to carry out such
program.

Amendment No. 1031 to Amendment No. 891

(Purpose: To improve the bill)
Mr. LANKFORD. I call up my amendment No. 1031 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 Oklahoma [Mr. Lankford], for himself and
Mr. Daines, proposes an amendment numbered 1031 to amendment
No. 891.

(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. LANKFORD. I ask unanimous consent for 3 minutes of debate equally
divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, millions of Americans see a sonogram,
and they see a child. They count 10 fingers. They count 10 toes. They
watch that little girl in the womb suck her thumb. They see a child.
Science notes that the DNA of that child in the womb is different
than the DNA of the mom and different than the DNA of the dad. It is
both confirmed by science that is a baby, and it is self-evident by
just looking at her in the womb, that is a child. Millions of Americans
see that.
Because we have such a divide in this Nation where some people see
every child as valuable and some people see only some children as
valuable, because we have had that divide that is unresolved in our
Nation, we have, for decades, in every appropriations bill, had the
Hyde Amendment, that did not force Americans to have to pay for
abortion procedures for the death of children. We have also had that in
all five COVID bills that we have agreed together on in the last 12
months.
In this partisan bill, mysteriously, the Hyde Amendment disappeared
and suddenly, now, for the first time, Americans who profoundly believe
that children are of great value and should be protected will be
compelled with our tax dollars to pay for the destruction of life.
This simple statement is that we should maintain Hyde protections in
this bill as we have in the previous five COVID bills.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, it is frustrating, but not at all
surprising, that in the middle of a pandemic, as we are working to get
urgently needed relief to our families, to our small businesses, and to
our communities across the country, some Republicans would rather spend
time launching political attacks on reproductive health.
That is exactly what this amendment is--an effort to expand
restrictions on abortion that already make it harder for women who have
low incomes, who are often women of color, to exercise their
constitutionally guaranteed right to make their own healthcare choices.
I oppose this amendment because it is completely unnecessary. It is a
harmful attempt to distract us from the work that we are on tonight.

Point of Order

Madam President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment
produces budgetary changes that are merely incidental to the non-
budgetary components of the amendment, and it therefore violates
section 313(b)1(d) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

Motion to Waive

Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, in the middle of a pandemic, we
shouldn't be dealing with abortion funding. So, I would say, pursuant
to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive.

Vote on Motion to Waive

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
Mr. LANKFORD. 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 clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 52, nays 47, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 94 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
Kaine
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Manchin
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--47

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
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
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Sullivan

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Duckworth). On this vote, the yeas are 52,
the nays are 47.
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 amendment (No. 1031) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

Amendment No. 969 to Amendment No. 891

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 969 and ask
that it be reported by number.

[[Page S1248]]

The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cruz] proposes an amendment
numbered 969 to amendment No. 891.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide children with an option for in-classroom education
instruction if the child's local public school does not commit to re-
opening to 5-day-a-week, in-classroom instruction for the remainder of
the current school year and the 2021-2022 school year)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. STATE DIRECT FAMILY GRANT PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this title, not later than 7 days after the date of enactment
of this title, each school that is eligible to receive grant
funding under section 2001 shall submit to their respective
State Secretary of Education, or equivalent State official, a
plan to re-open and resume regular, full-time, 5-day-a-week
in-classroom instruction with teachers and faculty physically
present for the remainder of the 2020-2021 and for the 2021-
2022 school year in such a manner that meets or exceeds the
plan for in-classroom instruction that was in effect for that
school at the start of the 2019-2020 school year.
(b) Direct Education Assistance Fund.--Each State shall
establish a State-controlled Direct Education Assistance
Fund. In the event that a school fails to timely submit a re-
opening plan in accordance with subsection (a), the State
shall withhold all grant funds that would have been provided
to such school under section 2001, depositing such amount
into the Direct Education Assistance Fund. The State shall
administer the Direct Education Assistance Fund, using the
monies deposited therein, to establish and operate a grant
program to assist families with educational costs in order to
provide students with access to alternative education for the
2021-2022 school year. The State Department of Education
shall operate the grant program as follows:
(1) The Department shall establish an application process
that allows parents to apply for an education grant from the
State's Direct Education Assistance Fund as follows:
(A) Awards grants from available funds in a manner that
prioritizes children--
(i) from schools that have not submitted a re-opening plan
as required by this section;
(ii) who are special needs students;
(iii) who are suffering from depression or a similar
condition or at risk of suicide due to COVID-19-related
isolation; or
(iv) who have a parent (or parents) or guardian (or
guardians) who work outside of the home during regular school
hours and are not available to assist the child with virtual
learning.
(B) Includes, as part of the application form, the
opportunity for the parent or guardian to submit an education
plan for the child that--
(i) as part of an application for a grant for direct
education assistance, includes the proposed school, if any,
that the parent or guardian has selected for the child and
the cost of any fees associated with the application,
enrollment, or attendance at such school; or
(ii) as part of an application for a grant for supplemental
education assistance a list of any costs which the parent or
guardian anticipates will be incurred to purchase items
listed in paragraph (5)(B).
(2) The Department shall publicize the availability of
direct education assistance to parents across the State with
an application period of not less than 45 days and a deadline
for applications as of a date not later than July 1, 2021.
(3) The Department shall first prioritize eligibility for
grants awarded from available funds to the parents or
guardians of children between the ages of 5 and 18 who are
eligible to attend a school that failed to timely submit a
re-opening plan as described herein and, if funds remain
available in the Direct Education Assistance Fund after each
priority student has received a grant, the Department shall
make grants from the Fund available to the parent or
guardians applying on behalf of students from other
elementary and secondary schools in the State.
(4) The Department shall only award a grant to an
individual who is the legal parent or guardian of an eligible
child provided that such individual is also a citizen or
national of the United States or an alien (as defined in
section 101(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1101(a)) who is lawfully present in the United States.
(5) The Department will administer the Direct Education
Assistance Fund as follows:
(A) 75 percent of such Fund shall be set aside and used to
award direct education assistance grants to finance all or a
portion of the educational costs of a child to attend a
different school as selected by that child's parent or
guardian in an amount not to exceed $10,000 per grant award.
(B) 25 percent of such Fund shall be set aside and used to
award supplemental education assistance grants to cover a
portion of the costs for education such as tutoring services,
educational classes, or curriculum inside or outside of the
home, books, instructional materials, online educational
materials, educational therapies, including educational
therapies and services for students with disabilities, and
such other educational and instructional materials as the
child's parent or guardian determines is beneficial in-
relation to at-home learning, including online or virtual
schooling or home instruction.
(6) All grants shall be awarded not later than August 15,
2021.
(7) The Department shall require that any parent or
guardian who receives a grant pursuant to this section
maintain records of how any grant funds were spent.
(8) Grants awarded out of the Fund for direct education
assistance shall be distributed in an equitable manner among
recipients for such grants consistent with the priorities
identified in this section but in an amount not to exceed the
educational costs identified within an application and grants
awarded out of the Fund for supplemental education assistance
shall be made in an equitable manner among recipients for
such grants in an amount not to exceed the costs identified
in such application.
(c) Prohibition of Control Over Non-public Education
Providers.--
(1) In general.--Nothing in this section shall be construed
to permit, allow, encourage, or authorize any Federal control
over any aspect of any private, religious, or home education
provider, whether or not a home education provider is treated
as a private school or home school under State law.
(2) No discrimination.--No State shall exclude,
discriminate against, or otherwise disadvantage any education
provider, including home education provider, with respect to
programs or services under this section based in whole or in
part on the provider's religious character or affiliation,
including religiously based or mission-based policies or
practices.
(d) Parental Rights to Use Grants.--No State shall disfavor
or discourage the use of qualifying grants for the purchase
of elementary and secondary education services, including
those services provided by private or nonprofit entities,
such as faith-based providers.
(e) Repayment.--If a school does not re-open and maintain
operations consistent with the plan submitted under this
section, the school shall be required to repay all monies
received under section 2001 to the State.
(f) Return to Treasury.--Any monies remaining in the Fund
as of September 30, 2021, or if subsequently repaid under
subsection (e), shall be repaid to the United States Treasury
not later than June 30, 2022.
At the end of section 2001(c), add the following: ``An
allocation to a State shall be made pursuant to the previous
sentence only if the State has publicly published, by not
later than 7 days after enactment of this Act, a written plan
that guarantees each child in the State has a local public
school education option to resume regular, 5-day-a-week in-
classroom instruction with teachers physically present and
that identifies by name and location which schools will be
available for regular in-classroom instruction. Assistance
from a grant awarded to a State under this section shall only
be provided to a school identified by the State under the
previous sentence.''.
Mr. CRUZ. I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes of debate equally
divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, we are facing an absolute crisis with our
schools. Today, only 40 percent of school kids in America are attending
in-person school 5 days a week.
It has been a year since these COVID lockdowns began. Millions of
school kids are falling behind, and it is falling disproportionately on
low-income kids, on African-American kids, on Hispanic kids.
This bill spends billions of dollars on schools and doesn't require
that they open. My amendment does something very simple. It says if a
school is open, it gets the new money that is in this bill, but if the
school is not open 5 days a week, then that money goes to the parents,
up to $10,000 per child, so they can get their kids an education.
We have single moms with kids trapped in schools that are not open,
and this crisis, this body can do something about. Those kids, if they
fall behind, the science and the data tells us that they will be
behind, potentially, for the rest of their lives. We should come
together in a bipartisan way to say: We are going to open the schools,
and we are going to give hope and relief to the kids who are being left
behind.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, this is yet another amendment that
conditions funding to our public schools under the guise of wanting in-
person learning, when in reality withholding this funding is counter to
everyone's goal.
But this amendment goes a step further. It strips much needed funds
from our public schools that want to reopen for in-person learning and
implement safety protocols that are aligned with local public health
guidance in order to create a voucher program.

[[Page S1249]]

That is right. This amendment takes money from public schools that
serve 90 percent of our students and sends those funds to private
schools. It is unclear to me if our colleague's goals are really about
reopening public schools or just about advancing long-term ideological
goals.
If we only provide funding to schools that are physically open,
schools in communities with high transmission rates of COVID-19 will
not receive the resources necessary to implement safety health
protocols. Conditioning funds undermines our ability to actually get
our students back into the classroom.
Let's stop wasting time and pass the American Rescue Plan so those
resources can get to our schools and our students.

Vote on Amendment No. 969

Mr. CRUZ. 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.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
wishing to vote or change his or her vote?
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 95 Leg.]

YEAS--49

NAYS--50

NOT VOTING--1

Sullivan

The amendment (No. 969) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

Order of Business

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, good morning.
Now, it looks like we have about 14 amendments left, and 1 or 2 of
those may be voice-voted. So I would ask that we all stay in our seats
so we can expedite the process. I would ask that we try to accomplish
these votes in no more than 10 minutes so that we can move forward.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.

Amendment No. 1364 to Amendment No. 891

(Purpose: To provide relief for State and local governments based on
demonstrated need)

Mr. ROMNEY. Madam President, I call up my amendment 1364 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 Utah [Mr. Romney] proposes an amendment
numbered 1364 to amendment No. 891.

(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. ROMNEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 4 minutes of
debate equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROMNEY. Madam President, I actually believe that we make better
legislation if we have two parties work together on something.
In this case, we have crafted a piece of legislation that our party
hasn't had any involvement in whatsoever. We tried. We went to the
White House, and the President was very gracious in welcoming us and
listening to us but did not accept any of our proposals. So we have
before us today a piece of legislation that has the benefit of only one
party.
There are some errors in that and some things I think we really have
to look at and try to fix. One of them is with regard to States and
localities.
At the time the President put his bill out there, there was an
assumption that States have massive losses associated with the COVID
experience. But the data that has come out since then has shown that,
in fact, the States did not have those kinds of losses. Many States did
not. Twenty-one States are seeing a rise in revenue. States like
Florida don't need more money. Oklahoma doesn't need more money. My
State of Utah doesn't need more money. California has record surpluses,
billions of dollars in surplus. Yet, under this legislation, California
itself at the State level gets $26 billion more and in total with its
localities gets $41 billion. This is on top of their already surplus
year.
Think about that. We are going to be asking the American people to
allow us to borrow money from China and others, pass that on to our
kids and grandkids so that we can send money to States like California
and mine and others that don't need the money.
This doesn't make any sense at all. So my amendment does a very
simple thing. It says: Look, you can spend all the money that the
President's plan suggests and the way they suggest it, but each State's
amount is limited by the amount of their revenue loss--meaning the gap
they had from 2019 to 2020 and then 2021--as well as any COVID
expenses, as well as any Medicaid expenses that grew. So just limit it
by how much they need it. That is all it does.
So I ask that people on both sides of the aisle just get behind this
so that we can save probably at least $100 billion, to keep money from
going to States and localities that don't actually need it.
Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the Romney
amendment.
First, colleagues, this amendment would be a drastic cut to the
relief in the bill. Specifically, it would limit the number of
firefighters, municipal workers, and teachers who would actually get
their jobs back in the coming weeks and months.
Second, the amendment doesn't take into account the full impact the
pandemic has had on State budgets and the costs they are going to
continue to incur in the months ahead.
Our view is, this is just the wrong time to start hacking away at
State and local funding because the job losses are stacking up. As we
have heard again and again from independent economists, those losses
are going to continue if the Senate doesn't go big, as this bill does.
Saving jobs and rehiring laid-off workers is what this portion of the
bill is all about.
So, colleagues, I would strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the Romney
amendment.
I yield.
Mr. ROMNEY. Madam President, may I respond?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah, without objection.
Mr. ROMNEY. First of all, those States that I described didn't lay
people off. They didn't lay off firefighters. They didn't lay off
teachers. They have held their teachers. They have held their
firefighters. My State has actually paid bonuses to teachers and to
State workers, they have so much money coming in.
You see, COVID, the pandemic, did not hit all the States in the same
way. So States that need more money, give them more money. I am happy
to do that. But States like mine, Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, California,
they don't need more money. Why are we borrowing more money and sending
on the burden of debt and interest payments to our kids and grandkids
to send money to States that don't need it?
By the way, we are talking about States that don't have deficits;
they have surpluses. All of their COVID expenses would be reimbursed
under the

[[Page S1250]]

proposal that I make. There is no COVID expense that is not reimbursed.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Can I have 30 seconds to briefly respond?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WYDEN. First of all, we can't even really determine the formula
that is used under the Romney amendment. It is clear to us there are
going to be costs to States as a result of this legislation.
Colleagues, the reality is, the pandemic is a public health
nightmare, and this provision is designed to specifically address the
challenge of making sure that firefighters, municipal workers, and
others who are responding day in and day out at risk to themselves are
going to be able to get their jobs back in the coming weeks and months.
The fact is, this amendment is going to reduce the money the States
have to address those critical needs.
I urge colleagues to vote no.
Mr. ROMNEY. I believe I have 10 more seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does not have 10 more seconds.

Vote on Amendment No. 1364

Mr. ROMNEY. 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.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 96 Leg.]

YEAS--49

NAYS--50

NOT VOTING--1

Sullivan

The amendment (No. 1364) was rejected
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.

Amendment No. 1386 to Amendment No. 891

Mr. TUBERVILLE. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 1386 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 Alabama [Mr. Tuberville] proposes an
amendment numbered 1386 to amendment No. 891.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To prohibit funds made available under title II to States,
local educational agencies, and institutions of higher education that
permit any student whose biological sex is male to participate in an
athletic program or activity designated for women or girls)

At the end of part 1 of subtitle A of title II, add the
following:

SEC. 2014. RULE REGARDING ATHLETIC PROGRAMS OR ACTIVITIES.

As a condition of receiving funds under section 2001, 2003,
or 2005, a State, local educational agency, or institution of
higher education may not permit any student whose biological
sex (recognized based solely on a person's reproductive
biology and genetics at birth) is male to participate in an
athletic program or activity that is--
(1) administered by that State, local educational agency,
or institution of higher education, as the case may be; and
(2) designated for women or girls.

Mr. TUBERVILLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 2
minutes, evenly divided, to debate this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TUBERVILLE. Madam President, I started my career coaching high
school football and girls and boys basketball 45 years ago, just a few
years after title IX was enacted. It ensured young women had the same
opportunities as young men and the same access to funding, facilities,
and athletic scholarships.
Title IX has given young women the long-denied platform that had
always been afforded to men, and today America's female athletes are
routinely the best performing on the world stage.
My amendment, cosponsored by Senators Graham and Marshall, recognizes
title IX's role in protecting women in education and in sports.
Under this amendment, educational institutions would be prohibited
from receiving funding if biological males are allowed to compete in
women's athletics. This amendment safeguards fairness and equality for
women. This amendment will ensure that education funding in the bill is
properly directed to schools that are focused on COVID response and
recovery rather than pushing a liberal agenda.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, this amendment will undermine the goals
of this bill to provide assistance to all educators, all students, and
families who have struggled through this pandemic. It is simply an
attempt to discriminate against transgender students.
All students, including transgender students, benefit from
participating in sports--to challenge themselves, to improve fitness,
to be part of a team. Allowing transgender students to participate in
athletic activities consistent with their gender identity in no way
disadvantages their fellow students.
For the love of God, can't we just have a little bit of heart and
compassion in this world for someone who doesn't look or live exactly
like you?
Instead of focusing on discriminatory policies, we should be
examining the real issues with gender parity in sports when it comes to
funding and resources and pay equity.
I oppose this amendment because it discriminates against transgender
students. It is a harmful attempt to undermine our work to help
students and families.

Point of Order

Madam President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment
produces budgetary changes that are merely incidental to the
nonbudgetary components of the amendment and violates section
313(b)(1)(D) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Motion to Waive

Mr. TUBERVILLE. Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive and 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.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Booker). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote or change their vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 97 Leg.]

YEAS--49

[[Page S1251]]

Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
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
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Sullivan

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Booker). The yeas are 49, the nays are 50.
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 amendment (No. 1386) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.

Motions to Commit en bloc

Mr. HAGERTY. Mr. President, I have 11 en bloc motions at the desk,
and I ask that they be read and considered en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The senior assistant legislative clerk will report the motions en
bloc.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Hagerty] offers 11 motions
to commit the bill to each of the following instructed
committees: Environment and Public Works; Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry; Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions; Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs; Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs; Small Business and
Entrepreneurship; Commerce, Science, and Transportation;
Veterans' Affairs; Finance; Foreign Relations; and Indian
Affairs, and that the 11 motions be considered en bloc.

The motions en bloc are as follows:

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. Hagerty moves to commit the bill H.R. 1319 to the
Committees on Environment and Public Works with instructions
to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting
any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes
that--
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee;
(2) ensure that the provisions within the jurisdiction of
such committee provide appropriations only for purposes for
which appropriations were provided by the bipartisan
Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental
Appropriations Act (Public Law 116-123), the Families First
Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law 116-127), the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (Public
Law 116-136), the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care
Enhancement Act (Public Law 116-139), and divisions M and N
of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-
260);
(3) ensure that the provisions within the jurisdiction of
such committee do not modify the purpose of an appropriation
provided by the bipartisan Coronavirus Preparedness and
Response Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 116-
123), the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law
116-127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
Act (Public Law 116-136), the Paycheck Protection Program and
Health Care Enhancement Act (Public Law 116-139), and
divisions M and N of the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2021 (Public Law 116-260);
(4) ensure that any appropriations for a purpose provided
by provisions within the jurisdiction of such committee are
not available for obligation until all appropriations made
available for that purpose by the bipartisan Coronavirus
Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act
(Public Law 116-123), the Families First Coronavirus Response
Act (Public Law 116-127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act (Public Law 116-136), the Paycheck
Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act (Public
Law 116-139), and divisions M and N of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-260) have been
obligated; and
(5) ensure that the period of availability of any
appropriation provided by a provision within the jurisdiction
of such committee is not later than the earlier of the
termination of the public health emergency declared by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services under section 319 of
the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d) on January 31,
2020, with respect to the coronavirus disease 2019, and
September 30, 2021.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mrs. Hyde-Smith moves to commit the bill H.R. 1319 to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry with
instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days,
not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session,
with changes that--
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee;
(2) ensure that the provisions within the jurisdiction of
such committee provide appropriations only for purposes for
which appropriations were provided by the bipartisan
Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental
Appropriations Act (Public Law 116-123), the Families First
Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law 116-127), the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (Public
Law 116-136), the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care
Enhancement Act (Public Law 116-139), and divisions M and N
of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-
260);
(3) ensure that the provisions within the jurisdiction of
such committee do not modify the purpose of an appropriation
provided by the bipartisan Coronavirus Preparedness and
Response Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 116-
123), the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law
116-127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
Act (Public Law 116-136), the Paycheck Protection Program and
Health Care Enhancement Act (Public Law 116-139), and
divisions M and N of the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2021 (Public Law 116-260); and
(4) ensure that any appropriations for a purpose provided
by provisions within the jurisdiction of such committee are
not available for obligation until all appropriations made
available for that purpose by the bipartisan Coronavirus
Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act
(Public Law 116-123), the Families First Coronavirus Response
Act (Public Law 116-127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act (Public Law 116-136), the Paycheck
Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act (Public
Law 116-139), and divisions M and N of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-260) have been
obligated; and
(5) ensure that the period of availability of any
appropriation provided by a provision within the jurisdiction
of such committee is not later than the earlier of the
termination of the public health emergency declared by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services under section 319 of
the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d) on January 31,
2020, with respect to the coronavirus disease 2019, and
September 30, 2021.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. Tuberville moves to commit the bill H.R. 1319 to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions with
instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days,
not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session,
with changes that--
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee;
(2) ensure that the provisions within the jurisdiction of
such committee provide appropriations only for purposes for
which appropriations were provided by the bipartisan
Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental
Appropriations Act (Public Law 116-123), the Families First
Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law 116-127), the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (Public
Law 116-136), the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care
Enhancement Act (Public Law 116-139), and divisions M and N
of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-
260);
(3) ensure that the provisions within the jurisdiction of
such committee do not modify the purpose of an appropriation
provided by the bipartisan Coronavirus Preparedness and
Response Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 116-
123), the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law
116-127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
Act (Public Law 116-136), the Paycheck Protection Program and
Health Care Enhancement Act (Public Law 116-139), and
divisions M and N of the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2021 (Public Law 116-260);
(4) ensure that any appropriations for a purpose provided
by provisions within the jurisdiction of such committee are
not available for obligation until all appropriations made
available for that purpose by the bipartisan Coronavirus
Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act
(Public Law 116-123), the Families First Coronavirus Response
Act (Public Law 116-127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act (Public Law 116-136), the Paycheck
Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act (Public
Law 116-139), and divisions M and N of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-260) have been
obligated; and
(5) ensure that the period of availability of any
appropriation provided by a provision within the jurisdiction
of such committee is not later than the earlier of the
termination of the public health emergency declared by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services under section 319 of
the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d) on January 31,
2020, with respect to the coronavirus disease 2019, and
September 30, 2021.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. Cramer moves to commit the bill H.R. 1319 to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs with
instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days,
not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session,
with changes that--

[[Page S1252]]

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee;
(2) ensure that the provisions within the jurisdiction of
such committee provide appropriations only for purposes for
which appropriations were provided by the bipartisan
Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental
Appropriations Act (Public Law 116-123), the Families First
Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law 116-127), the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (Public
Law 116-136), the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care
Enhancement Act (Public Law 116-139), and divisions M and N
of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-
260);
(3) ensure that the provisions within the jurisdiction of
such committee do not modify the purpose of an appropriation
provided by the bipartisan Coronavirus Preparedness and
Response Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 116-
123), the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law
116-127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
Act (Public Law 116-136), the Paycheck Protection Program and
Health Care Enhancement Act (Public Law 116-139), and
divisions M and N of the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2021 (Public Law 116-260); and
(4) ensure that any appropriations for a purpose provided
by provisions within the jurisdiction of such committee are
not available for obligation until all appropriations made
available for that purpose by the bipartisan Coronavirus
Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act
(Public Law 116-123), the Families First Coronavirus Response
Act (Public Law 116-127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act (Public Law 116-136), the Paycheck
Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act (Public
Law 116-139), and divisions M and N of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-260) have been
obligated; and
(5) ensure that the period of availability of any
appropriation provided by a provision within the jurisdiction
of such committee is not later than the earlier of the
termination of the public health emergency declared by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services under section 319 of
the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d) on January 31,
2020, with respect to the coronavirus disease 2019, and
September 30, 2021.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. Johnson moves to commit the bill H.R. 1319 to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs with
instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days,
not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session,
with changes that--
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee;
(2) ensure that the provisions within the jurisdiction of
such committee provide appropriations only for purposes for
which appropriations were provided by the bipartisan
Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental
Appropriations Act (Public Law 116-123), the Families First
Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law 116-127), the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (Public
Law 116-136), the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care
Enhancement Act (Public Law 116-139), and divisions M and N
of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-
260);
(3) ensure that the provisions within the jurisdiction of
such committee do not modify the purpose of an appropriation
provided by the bipartisan Coronavirus Preparedness and
Response Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 116-
123), the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law
116-127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
Act (Public Law 116-136), the Paycheck Protection Program and
Health Care Enhancement Act (Public Law 116-139), and
divisions M and N of the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2021 (Public Law 116-260); and
(4) ensure that any appropriations for a purpose provided
by provisions within the jurisdiction of such committee are
not available for obligation until all appropriations made
available for that purpose by the bipartisan Coronavirus
Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act
(Public Law 116-123), the Families First Coronavirus Response
Act (Public Law 116-127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act (Public Law 116-136), the Paycheck
Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act (Public
Law 116-139), and divisions M and N of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-260) have been
obligated; and
(5) ensure that the period of availability of any
appropriation provided by a provision within the jurisdiction
of such committee is not later than the earlier of the
termination of the public health emergency declared by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services under section 319 of
the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d) on January 31,
2020, with respect to the coronavirus disease 2019, and
September 30, 2021.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. Kennedy moves to commit the bill H.R. 1319 to the
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship with
instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days,
not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session,
with changes that--
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee;
(2) ensure that the provisions within the jurisdiction of
such committee provide appropriations only for purposes for
which appropriations were provided by the bipartisan
Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental
Appropriations Act (Public Law 116-123), the Families First
Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law 116-127), the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (Public
Law 116-136), the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care
Enhancement Act (Public Law 116-139), and divisions M and N
of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-
260);
(3) ensure that the provisions within the jurisdiction of
such committee do not modify the purpose of an appropriation
provided by the bipartisan Coronavirus Preparedness and
Response Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 116-
123), the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law
116-127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
Act (Public Law 116-136), the Paycheck Protection Program and
Health Care Enhancement Act (Public Law 116-139), and
divisions M and N of the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2021 (Public Law 116-260); and
(4) ensure that any appropriations for a purpose provided
by provisions within the jurisdiction of such committee are
not available for obligation until all appropriations made
available for that purpose by the bipartisan Coronavirus
Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act
(Public Law 116-123), the Families First Coronavirus Response
Act (Public Law 116-127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act (Public Law 116-136), the Paycheck
Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act (Public
Law 116-139), and divisions M and N of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-260) have been
obligated; and
(5) ensure that the period of availability of any
appropriation provided by a provision within the jurisdiction
of such committee is not later than the earlier of the
termination of the public health emergency declared by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services under section 319 of
the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d) on January 31,
2020, with respect to the coronavirus disease 2019, and
September 30, 2021.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Ms. Lummis moves to commit the bill H.R. 1319 to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation with
instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days,
not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session,
with changes that--
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee;
(2) ensure that the provisions within the jurisdiction of
such committee provide appropriations only for purposes for
which appropriations were provided by the bipartisan
Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental
Appropriations Act (Public Law 116-123), the Families First
Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law 116-127), the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (Public
Law 116-136), the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care
Enhancement Act (Public Law 116-139), and divisions M and N
of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-
260);
(3) ensure that the provisions within the jurisdiction of
such committee do not modify the purpose of an appropriation
provided by the bipartisan Coronavirus Preparedness and
Response Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 116-
123), the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law
116-127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
Act (Public Law 116-136), the Paycheck Protection Program and
Health Care Enhancement Act (Public Law 116-139), and
divisions M and N of the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2021 (Public Law 116-260); and
(4) ensure that any appropriations for a purpose provided
by provisions within the jurisdiction of such committee are
not available for obligation until all appropriations made
available for that purpose by the bipartisan Coronavirus
Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act
(Public Law 116-123), the Families First Coronavirus Response
Act (Public Law 116-127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act (Public Law 116-136), the Paycheck
Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act (Public
Law 116-139), and divisions M and N of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-260) have been
obligated; and
(5) ensure that the period of availability of any
appropriation provided by a provision within the jurisdiction
of such committee is not later than the earlier of the
termination of the public health emergency declared by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services under section 319 of
the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d) on January 31,
2020, with respect to the coronavirus disease 2019, and
September 30, 2021.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. Hagerty moves to commit the bill H.R. 1319 to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs with instructions to report
the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day
on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that--
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee;
(2) ensure that the provisions within the jurisdiction of
such committee provide appropriations only for purposes for
which appropriations were provided by the bipartisan
Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental
Appropriations Act (Public Law

[[Page S1253]]

116-123), the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Public
Law 116-127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security Act (Public Law 116-136), the Paycheck Protection
Program and Health Care Enhancement Act (Public Law 116-139),
and divisions M and N of the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2021 (Public Law 116-260);
(3) ensure that the provisions within the jurisdiction of
such committee do not modify the purpose of an appropriation
provided by the bipartisan Coronavirus Preparedness and
Response Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 116-
123), the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law
116-127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
Act (Public Law 116-136), the Paycheck Protection Program and
Health Care Enhancement Act (Public Law 116-139), and
divisions M and N of the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2021 (Public Law 116-260);
(4) ensure that any appropriations for a purpose provided
by provisions within the jurisdiction of such committee are
not available for obligation until all appropriations made
available for that purpose by the bipartisan Coronavirus
Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act
(Public Law 116-123), the Families First Coronavirus Response
Act (Public Law 116-127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act (Public Law 116-136), the Paycheck
Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act (Public
Law 116-139), and divisions M and N of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-260) have been
obligated; and
(5) ensure that the period of availability of any
appropriation provided by a provision within the jurisdiction
of such committee is not later than the earlier of the
termination of the public health emergency declared by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services under section 319 of
the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d) on January 31,
2020, with respect to the coronavirus disease 2019, and
September 30, 2021.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mrs. Blackburn moves to commit the bill H.R. 1319 to the
Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same
back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which
the Senate is not in session, with changes that--
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee;
(2) ensure that the provisions within the jurisdiction of
such committee provide appropriations only for purposes for
which appropriations were provided by the bipartisan
Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental
Appropriations Act (Public Law 116-123), the Families First
Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law 116-127), the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (Public
Law 116-136), the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care
Enhancement Act (Public Law 116-139), and divisions M and N
of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-
260);
(3) ensure that the provisions within the jurisdiction of
such committee do not modify the purpose of an appropriation
provided by the bipartisan Coronavirus Preparedness and
Response Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 116-
123), the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law
116-127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
Act (Public Law 116-136), the Paycheck Protection Program and
Health Care Enhancement Act (Public Law 116-139), and
divisions M and N of the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2021 (Public Law 116-260); and
(4) ensure that any appropriations for a purpose provided
by provisions within the jurisdiction of such committee are
not available for obligation until all appropriations made
available for that purpose by the bipartisan Coronavirus
Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act
(Public Law 116-123), the Families First Coronavirus Response
Act (Public Law 116-127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act (Public Law 116-136), the Paycheck
Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act (Public
Law 116-139), and divisions M and N of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-260) have been
obligated; and
(5) ensure that the period of availability of any
appropriation provided by a provision within the jurisdiction
of such committee is not later than the earlier of the
termination of the public health emergency declared by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services under section 319 of
the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d) on January 31,
2020, with respect to the coronavirus disease 2019, and
September 30, 2021.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. Hagerty moves to commit the bill H.R. 1319 to the
Committee on Foreign Relations with instructions to report
the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day
on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that--
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee;
(2) ensure that the provisions within the jurisdiction of
such committee provide appropriations only for purposes for
which appropriations were provided by the bipartisan
Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental
Appropriations Act (Public Law 116-123), the Families First
Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law 116-127), the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (Public
Law 116-136), the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care
Enhancement Act (Public Law 116-139), and divisions M and N
of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-
260);
(3) ensure that the provisions within the jurisdiction of
such committee do not modify the purpose of an appropriation
provided by the bipartisan Coronavirus Preparedness and
Response Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 116-
123), the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law
116-127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
Act (Public Law 116-136), the Paycheck Protection Program and
Health Care Enhancement Act (Public Law 116-139), and
divisions M and N of the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2021 (Public Law 116-260);
(4) ensure that any appropriations for a purpose provided
by provisions within the jurisdiction of such committee are
not available for obligation until all appropriations made
available for that purpose by the bipartisan Coronavirus
Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act
(Public Law 116-123), the Families First Coronavirus Response
Act (Public Law 116-127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act (Public Law 116-136), the Paycheck
Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act (Public
Law 116-139), and divisions M and N of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-260) have been
obligated; and
(5) ensure that the period of availability of any
appropriation provided by a provision within the jurisdiction
of such committee is not later than the earlier of the
termination of the public health emergency declared by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services under section 319 of
the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d) on January 31,
2020, with respect to the coronavirus disease 2019, and
September 30, 2021.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. Hagerty moves to commit the bill H.R. 1319 to the
Committee on Indian Affairs with instructions to report the
same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on
which the Senate is not in session, with changes that--
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee;
(2) ensure that the provisions within the jurisdiction of
such committee provide appropriations only for purposes for
which appropriations were provided by the bipartisan
Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental
Appropriations Act (Public Law 116-123), the Families First
Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law 116-127), the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (Public
Law 116-136), the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care
Enhancement Act (Public Law 116-139), and divisions M and N
of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-
260);
(3) ensure that the provisions within the jurisdiction of
such committee do not modify the purpose of an appropriation
provided by the bipartisan Coronavirus Preparedness and
Response Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 116-
123), the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law
116-127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
Act (Public Law 116-136), the Paycheck Protection Program and
Health Care Enhancement Act (Public Law 116-139), and
divisions M and N of the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2021 (Public Law 116-260);
(4) ensure that any appropriations for a purpose provided
by provisions within the jurisdiction of such committee are
not available for obligation until all appropriations made
available for that purpose by the bipartisan Coronavirus
Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act
(Public Law 116-123), the Families First Coronavirus Response
Act (Public Law 116-127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act (Public Law 116-136), the Paycheck
Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act (Public
Law 116-139), and divisions M and N of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-260) have been
obligated; and
(5) ensure that the period of availability of any
appropriation provided by a provision within the jurisdiction
of such committee is not later than the earlier of the
termination of the public health emergency declared by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services under section 319 of
the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d) on January 31,
2020, with respect to the coronavirus disease 2019, and
September 30, 2021.
Mr. HAGERTY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by a host of my
colleagues. The motions we are proposing are very simple and should
attract wide support.
Senators on both sides have said this must be a bipartisan process,
but so far, it isn't. Not once did any of the 11 Senate subcommittees
with jurisdiction over relevant aspects of this legislation meet to
consider it--not once. What is the purpose of the Senate's system of
expert committees if, as we consider one of the largest bills ever
before this body, we are just going to act as if the committees never
existed?
We are for pandemic relief. What we are not for is a decade-long
spending spree, rushed through this body, much of which has nothing to
do with pandemic relief. Our motions would simply

[[Page S1254]]

send this legislation back to committee for 3 days so it can be
reviewed in a bipartisan manner. These motions would ensure that the
legislation supports proven bipartisan programs before launching new
programs or spending more money on programs that are already flush with
cash. By midweek, we would have bipartisan legislation with committee
input that is targeted to timely pandemic relief for those in need.
I urge my colleagues to support these motions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment. There are some people here who do not understand the crises
facing the American people. Sixty-three percent of our people today are
living paycheck to paycheck. Every day that we do not vaccinate
somebody, there is somebody unnecessarily dying. Our kids are not in
school. We are suffering a mental health epidemic.
This country is demanding that Congress act now and stand up for the
working families of this country. People are tired of obstructionism.
They are tired of delays. They want action. Let's do it.
I yield.

Vote on Motions to Commit

Mr. HAGERTY. 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 motions en bloc.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 98 Leg.]

YEAS--49

NAYS--50

NOT VOTING--1

Sullivan

The motions were rejected en bloc
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.

Motion to Commit with Instructions

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk,
and I ask that it be reported.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Kennedy] moves to commit
the bill, H.R. 1319, to the Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship of the Senate with instructions.

The motion is as follows:

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. Kennedy moves to commit the bill H.R. 1319 to the
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the
Senate with instructions to report the same back to the
Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is
not in session, with changes that--
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and
(2) prohibit the provision of assistance by the Small
Business Administration to an individual convicted of a
felony for actions during or in connection with a riot or
civil disorder that occurred--
(A) during the 15-year period preceding the date of
enactment of this Act; or
(B) on or after the date of enactment of this Act.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes of
debate equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, my amendment would prohibit the Small
Business Administration from providing any assistance including, but
not limited to, Paycheck Protection Program 7(a) loans or other small
business assistance to anyone who has been convicted during the past 15
years of a felony during and in connection with a riot, a civil
disorder, or another declared disaster. Without order, there can be no
justice.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I oppose this motion to recommit. This
moves us in the wrong direction.
We have had bipartisan support recognizing that those who have been
convicted of crime, once they paid their price, should be able to
participate in our society.
The motion to recommit would suggest that someone who may have
participated in a rally while they were in college 15 years ago and has
a perfectly clear record could be prevented from participating in the
SBA programs. That is moving in the wrong direction. I hope we would
have strong rejection of this amendment.
Mr. President, I want to correct the record or at least clarify the
record for Senator Lankford. He raised the point in regard to
administrative funds being made available to the SBA. There was a small
amount, $70 million, put into the program. That is additional funds.
The EIDL loan program is $200 billion worth of loans, so it is a much
larger program, and that was just some additional funds that were being
put into the program.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
The Senator has 6 seconds.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a felony for rioting. We shouldn't
be giving them money.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.

Vote on Motion to Commit

The question is on agreeing to the motion.
Mrs. FISCHER. 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.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan) and the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young).
Further, if present and voting. the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young)
would have voted ``yea''.
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 99 Leg.]

YEAS--48

NAYS--50

NOT VOTING--2

Sullivan
Young
The motion was rejected
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the
desk, and I ask that it be reported.

[[Page S1255]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Florida [Mr. Scott] moves to commit the
bill H.R. 1319 to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs of the Senate with instructions.

The motion is as follows

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. Scott of Florida moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1319
to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs of the Senate with instructions to report the same
back to the Senate in 3 days (not counting any day on which
the Senate is not in session) with an amendment, within the
jurisdiction of such committee, that withholds the salaries
of all Members of Congress during any fiscal year if all 12
appropriations bills for a fiscal year are not passed by
Congress on or before September 30 of the prior fiscal year.

Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, as we can tell, this week,
Washington is completely dysfunctional, and the unwillingness to work
together has caused multiple government shutdowns. If Members of
Congress cannot work together to pass a budget, they should not be
getting paid. It is pretty simple. If we can't do our jobs, we
shouldn't get taxpayer-funded salaries.
My no budget, no pay amendment simply requires Congress to meet
appropriations bills deadlines or forgo their own salaries until the
job is done. This is a simple concept. There is no reason that Members
of Congress should be held to a different standard than American
families and businesses across the Nation. Accountability shouldn't be
controversial. I hope my colleagues will join me in this motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, my colleague from Florida may not know
it, but this is a budget, a $1.9 trillion reconciliation budget, which,
in fact, will turn out to be the most significant piece of legislation
for working people that has been passed in decades. Finally, Congress
is doing its job. Unfortunately, my friends on the other side have used
delaying tactics, after delaying tactics, and obstruction, obstruction,
obstruction.
The American people want action. They want action now. I urge my
colleagues to oppose this motion.

Vote on Motion to Commit

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. 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 bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 100 Leg.]

YEAS--48

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
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
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Sullivan

The motion was rejected
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.

Amendment No. 1381 to Amendment No. 891

(Purpose: To modify the provisions relating to the child tax credit and
to strike the provisions relating to dependent care assistance)

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1381 and ask that
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 Utah [Mr. Lee], for himself and Mr. Rubio, proposes
an amendment numbered 1381 to amendment No. 891.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes of
debate equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, there is a little known feature in our Tax
Code created by the Tax Code and the way it interacts with our senior
entitlement programs. It is called the parent tax penalty. It is very
misunderstood, little known, but very, very harmful.
Sadly, the changes made to the child tax credit in the reconciliation
package are not the right way forward. They don't directly attempt to
fix the parent penalty. In addition to this problem, the substitute
changes to the child and dependent care tax credit would make the
penalty on stay-at-home parents in our Tax Code nearly seven times
worse.
My amendment with Senator Rubio would ensure that the child tax
credit is targeted to refunding Americans their income and payroll
taxes and turning the child and dependent care tax credit, which
discriminates against stay-at-home parents, into a young child
enhancement to provide some additional help to parents during those
critical first 2 years.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Colleagues, the underlying bill has significant improvements in the
child tax credit. All told, the bill cuts child poverty in half. But
this amendment would set us back. True, it expands the child credit in
some ways, but to pay for these expansions, it dramatically cuts back
on what is known as refundability.
Here is the problem, colleagues: Refundability is what helps the
families at the lower end of the income scale. So to expand the child
tax credit in several ways, the Lee amendment reduces benefits to the
working families who need them most.
I want to close by way of saying that I will be glad to work with my
colleague from Utah and the Senator from Florida. I would also note
that the other Senator from Utah has been interested in these issues.
This amendment sets us back because it reduces benefits to working
families who need them most.
I yield back.

Vote on Amendment No. 1381

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I call 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
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 101 Leg.]

YEAS--49

NAYS--50

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper

[[Page S1256]]

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

NOT VOTING--1

Sullivan

The amendment (No. 1381) was rejected
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

Motion to Commit with Instructions

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk, and
I ask that it be reported.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn] moves to commit the bill, H.R.
1319, to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the
Senate with instructions.
The motion to commit reads as follows

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. Cornyn moves to commit the bill H.R. 1319 to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the
Senate with instructions to report the same back to the
Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is
not in session, with changes that--
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee;
(2) strike all of the funding under section 2022 for the
National Endowment for the Humanities; and
(3) provide funding to the Office of Refugee Resettlement
of the Department of Health and Human Services for--
(A) mitigation of coronavirus transmission risk in
immigration detention facilities;
(B) adequate bed space to allow unaccompanied alien
children--
(i) to remain in safe and humane custody until their
immigration court hearings; and
(ii) to be separated from aliens suspected of, charged
with, or convicted of criminal offenses.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes of
debate equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the United States is facing a brewing
humanitarian crisis at the border. At the same time, we are
experiencing a global pandemic. This motion will help make sure we are
prepared.
In January 2021, the Border Patrol recorded about 75,000 encounters
on the southwest land border. That is a 60-percent increase over the
last year, which was just before the last major migrant surge.
The Department of Homeland Security is reportedly projecting that it
will apprehend 117,000 unaccompanied children this year. The Department
of Health and Human Services and the Office of Refugee Resettlement are
struggling to maintain enough bed space to shelter all of these
unaccompanied children transferred into their custody. It is estimated
the COVID-19 restrictions have reduced their capacity by about 40
percent.
The Biden administration has reactivated a facility at Carrizo
Springs, TX, to handle this influx of unaccompanied children, and press
reports indicate that an additional facility may be necessary.
So this motion, simply put, would commit the bill to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions with instructions to provide
adequate funding for the Office of Refugee Resettlement to address this
brewing humanitarian crisis.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Let's be clear. This is a delay tactic intended to stop
what we are doing here to send the bill to the HELP Committee. It would
instruct the HELP Committee to remove $135 million in critical funding
that will help support humanities and cultural organizations weather
the worst of this pandemic.
Mr. President, the pandemic has devastated our arts and cultural
organizations. Our Nation's museums, indigenous cultural organizations,
and local education nonprofits are facing significant losses in
revenue, in layoffs, in furloughs. Our cultural organizations in rural
and urban and suburban areas need these resources to continue to serve
our communities.
The UAC Program at the Department of Health and Human Services is
critical for ensuring the health and welfare of unaccompanied children.
We absolutely do need to take steps to support this program to ensure
the well-being of children in ORR care. But this amendment is merely a
delay tactic to address the critical issues at hand related to the
COVID-19 crisis. I urge my colleagues to oppose the motion.

Vote on Motion to Commit

Mr. CORNYN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King). Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote or change their vote?
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 102 Leg.]

YEAS--49

NAYS--50

NOT VOTING--1

Sullivan

The motion was rejected
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.

Amendment No. 1162 to Amendment No. 891

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1162 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 Louisiana [Mr. Cassidy], for himself and
Mr. Cotton, proposes an amendment numbered 1162 to amendment
No. 891.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To ensure that the 2021 Recovery Rebates are not provided to
prisoners)

On page 356, between lines 19 and 20, insert the
following:
``(j) Special Rules With Respect to Prisoners.--
``(1) Disallowance of credit.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), no credit
shall be allowed under subsection (a) to an eligible
individual who is, for each day during calendar year 2021,
described in clause (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) of section
202(x)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
402(x)(1)(A)).
``(B) Joint return.--In the case of eligible individuals
filing a joint return where 1 spouse is described in
subparagraph (A), subsection (b)(1) shall be applied by
substituting `$1,400' for `$2,800'.
``(2) Denial of advance refund or credit.--No refund or
credit shall be made or allowed under subsection (g) with
respect to any individual whom the Secretary has knowledge
is, at the time of any determination made pursuant to
paragraph (3) of such subsection, described in clause (i),
(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) of section 202(x)(1)(A) of the
Social Security Act.''.

Mr. CASSIDY. I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes of debate equally
divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senators
Cotton and Cruz. Our amendment prevents $1,400 stimulus checks from
going to inmates.
You heard that right. This bill sends $1,400 stimulus checks to
people incarcerated for heinous crimes. Prisoners

[[Page S1257]]

have all their living and medical expenses paid for by the taxpayer.
They don't pay taxes. They don't contribute to the tax base. They can't
be unemployed. In other words, inmates are not economically impacted by
COVID, and inmates cannot stimulate the economy. But under this bill,
Democrats are giving prisoners--again, sometimes incarcerated for
heinous crimes--a $1,400 stimulus check. If we eliminate these, we save
taxpayers $1.9 billion.
Now, I know my Democratic colleagues aren't going to agree, but this
spending should be on real needs. Stimulus checks for inmates is
nontargeted, inappropriate, and is a total waste of money. I ask my
colleagues to support the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this amendment will cause harm to the
families of incarcerated individuals, joint filers who would receive
only half of the payment that the families are owed while the spouse is
incarcerated. Given the stark racial disparities in our criminal
justice system, this would cause the most harm to Black and Brown
families and communities already harmed by mass incarceration. Children
should not be forced to go hungry because a parent is incarcerated.
Relief payments would allow families to replace lost income and pay
rent and put food on the table.
The Cassidy amendment sweeps broadly, denying recovery of rebates not
only to incarcerated individuals but also to anyone violating a
condition of probation on parole, but the Social Security statute that
Senator Cassidy's amendment copies from has a safety valve giving
discretion to allow payments to persons because of mitigating
circumstances. His amendment does not.
I would urge my colleagues to understand what we are facing with our
criminal justice system today. We need to bring more justice to it and
caring for the families of those who are incarcerated.
Mr. CASSIDY. I will reply, it only applies to people incarcerated for
a year. That is not true.

Vote on Amendment No. 1162

I call for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators wishing to vote
or change his or her vote?
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 103 Leg.]

YEAS--49

NAYS--50

NOT VOTING--1

Sullivan

The amendment (No. 1162) was rejected
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

Amendment No. 968 to Amendment No. 891

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 968 and ask that
it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cruz] proposes an amendment
numbered 968 to amendment No. 891.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To ensure that the 2021 Recovery Rebates are not provided to
illegal immigrants)

On [page 345, strike lines 12 through 16] and insert the
following:
``(2) any alien who is not lawfully present (as such term
is used in section 36B(e)(1)),
``(3) any individual who is a dependent of another taxpayer
for a taxable year beginning in the calendar year in which
the individual's taxable year begins, and
``(4) an estate or trust.''.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes of
debate equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, moments ago, the Democrats in this Chamber
just voted to send $1,400 stimulus checks to murderers, to rapists, and
child molesters incarcerated in prison. This amendment, just like the
one we just voted on that Senator Cassidy and I introduced, this
amendment before us today provides that the stimulus check should not
go to illegal aliens in this country.
The question for the American people to answer is, Should your money,
should taxpayer money be sent--$1,400--to every illegal alien in
America? This amendment provides that it should not; that stimulus
checks should only go to American citizens or to people lawfully
present.
Now, Democrats may say their language allows for that, but they know
that the IRS treats someone who is illegally present in the United
States for 31 days last year as a resident alien. So this corrects that
and ensures that illegal aliens are not eligible for taxpayer-funded
stimulus checks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the statement of the Senator from Texas is
just plain false--false. Let me be clear. Undocumented immigrants do
not have Social Security numbers, and they do not qualify for stimulus
relief checks, period.
And just in case you didn't notice, they didn't qualify in December
when 92 of us voted for that measure, and they don't qualify under the
American Rescue Plan. Nothing has changed.
And for you to stand up there and say the opposite is just to rile
people up over something that is not true.
Mr. CRUZ. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. SCHUMER. No.
Mr. DURBIN. No. It is not true, and we know what is going on right
now. They want to be able to give speeches and say the checks go to
undocumented people. In the circumstance where there is a parent
receiving----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. DURBIN.--a check for the child, that is it; but no money going to
undocumented people under the American Rescue Plan.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, do I have any time remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.

Vote on Amendment No. 968

The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. CRUZ. I call 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 senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote or change their vote?
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 104 Leg.]

YEAS--49

Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley

[[Page S1258]]

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
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--50

NOT VOTING--1

Sullivan

The amendment (No. 968) was rejected
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.

Amendment No. 1331 to Amendment No. 891

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1331 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 Utah [Mr. Lee] proposes an amendment
numbered 1331 to amendment No. 891.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To limit the expansion of premium assistance for households
above 500 percent of the federal poverty line)

Strike section 9661 and insert the following:

SEC. 9661. IMPROVING AFFORDABILITY BY EXPANDING PREMIUM
ASSISTANCE FOR CONSUMERS.

(a) In General.--Section 36B(b)(3)(A) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the
following new clause:
``(iii) Temporary percentages for 2021 and 2022.--In the
case of a taxable year beginning in 2021 or 2022--

``(I) clause (ii) shall not apply for purposes of adjusting
premium percentages under this subparagraph, and
``(II) the following table shall be applied in lieu of the
table contained in clause (i):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
``In the case of household income
(expressed as a percent of poverty The initial The final
line) within the following income premium premium
tier: percentage is-- percentage is--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 150.0 percent.................. 0.0 0.0
150.0 percent up to 200.0 percent.... 0.0 2.0
200.0 percent up to 250.0 percent.... 2.0 4.0
250.0 percent up to 300.0 percent.... 4.0 6.0
300.0 percent up to 400.0 percent.... 6.0 8.5
400.0 percent up to 500.0 percent.... 8.5 8.5''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 36B(c)(1) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end
the following new subparagraph:
``(E) Temporary rule for 2021 and 2022.--In the case of a
taxable year beginning in 2021 or 2022, subparagraph (A)
shall be applied by substituting `500 percent' for `400
percent'.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2020.

Mr. LEE. I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes of debate, equally
divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEE. Welfare for the wealthy, that is what we have here.
Expanding ObamaCare and its premium tax credit without limit would
allow families making up to $500,000 a year to access Federal subsidies
for health insurance. My amendment would limit this expansion so that
no individual or family making more than 500 percent of the Federal
poverty line could receive them.
For a family of four, this cutoff would happen at around $132,000 a
year. Any expansion of the ObamaCare premium tax credit must be
temporary and limited.
Look, regardless of how you feel about ObamaCare, regardless of how
you feel about this expansion of it, I think we should all be able to
agree that allowing those who are making hundreds of thousands of
dollars a year to access this form of government assistance, even in a
pandemic--perhaps especially in a pandemic--is inappropriate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition.
Colleagues, this is what this amendment would do: It would deny
premium assistance to many middle-class families, forcing them to pay
more for healthcare--the last thing they need in the middle of a
pandemic.
Now, in 2020, the average cost of health insurance was $17,244 for a
family of 4. That is a hefty bill to pay without assistance for most
middle-income families, especially those who live in higher cost areas.
ACA premium tax credits can mean the difference between affordable
health insurance and doing without coverage.
I urge colleagues to oppose the Lee amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 1331

Mr. LEE. I call 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.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote or change their vote?
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 105 Leg.]

YEAS--49

NAYS--50

NOT VOTING--1

Sullivan

The amendment (No. 1331) was rejected
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.

Amendment No. 902 to Amendment No. 891

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 902 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 Iowa [Mr. Grassley] proposes an amendment
numbered 902 to amendment No. 891.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To provide funding for payments for losses of crops due to
disasters)

In section 1001(b), strike paragraphs (3) and (4) and
insert the following:
(3) to make grants and loans for small or midsized food
processors or distributors, seafood processing facilities and
processing vessels, farmers markets, producers, or other

[[Page S1259]]

organizations to respond to COVID-19, including for measures
to protect workers against COVID-19;
(4) to make loans and grants and provide other assistance
to maintain and improve food and agricultural supply chain
resiliency; and
(5) to make payments for necessary expenses related to
losses of crops (including losses due to high winds or
derechos) in the same manner as under title I of the
Additional Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief
Act, 2019 (Public Law 116-20; 133 Stat. 871; 133 Stat. 1097;
133 Stat. 2659), for crop losses in crop year 2020.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes, equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, you folks on the other side of the
aisle, the House Agriculture Committee voted out the bill that Senator
Warnock successfully defended. That same House Agriculture Committee
voted out a bipartisan bill that had the support of Congressman
Feenstra of Iowa and Congresswoman Axne of Iowa.
It got out of committee, and then you know what? The Rules Committee
took it out of this bill that came over here. So I am asking for the
reconsideration of that.
This amendment does this: It makes farmers in Iowa that were hit by
the derecho wind--and that is a wind that you don't predict like you do
a tornado, and it just crops up, 150 miles long and 30 miles wide. It
destroyed 855,000 acres of corn, laid it flat. And if it was meteoric,
you still couldn't harvest it. So most of it was plowed under.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. GRASSLEY. My time is up already? I would like to have it
considered, please.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, to my good friend--we work together on
so many things in agriculture--let me first say we all saw the
devastation caused by the storm across the Midwest last year. That is
why we have a strong crop insurance program in our bipartisan farm bill
that quickly responds when disasters strike.
Iowa producers have already received nearly $600 million in crop
insurance indemnities for damages in 2020. If crop insurance can't meet
the need, the other opportunity is to consider something in
appropriations.
It should not be here. I urge a ``no'' vote because it would take
away, in this amendment, critical funds to repair our broken food
supply chain; support our farmers, our food banks, our frontline
workers, and our families in need.
We know the supply chain is broken. This provision is going to help
fix that, and I would urge a ``no'' vote. Don't take money away from
here, which is so critically needed for farmers and ranchers.
Thank you.

Vote on Amendment No. 902

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I request a rollcall vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested.
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.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote or change their vote?
The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 54, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 106 Leg.]

YEAS--45

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
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--54

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
Lee
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Paul
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Toomey
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Sullivan

The amendment (No. 902) was rejected
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.

Amendment No. 1154 to Amendment No. 891

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1154 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 Kansas [Mr. Moran] proposes an amendment
numbered 1154 to amendment No. 891.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To increase the availability of amounts for the Veterans
Community Care program of the Department of Veterans Affairs)

On page 278, beginning on line 18, strike ``not more'' and
all that follows through the period on line 22 and insert the
following: ``not less than $5,000,000,000 shall be available
pursuant to section 1703 of title 38, United States Code, for
health care furnished through the Veterans Community Care
program in sections 1703(c)(1) and 1703(c)(5) of such title,
and not less than $1,250,000,000 shall be available for
construction under chapter 81 of such title.''

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes of
debate equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, amendment No. 1154 is on community care
funding within the Department of Veterans Affairs. The VA has estimated
that it needs $13.4 billion for medical care. This bill provides $14.4
billion in care, but it currently limits how much money can be spent
within that care for community care. So we generally have all the care
within the VA, but sometimes people are referred out to the community,
sometimes there is telehealth, and sometimes the care actually occurs
in a VA facility.
This would eliminate that cap of $4.4 billion and replace it with
spending up to $5 billion on community care, the amount that it is
expected the VA will need. Again, this amendment removes this arbitrary
funding barrier, and it also includes additional dollars for
maintenance at our VA medical centers.
I retain the balance of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise, and unfortunately I have to speak
against this amendment from my good friend Jerry Moran. But here is the
deal. If you talk to the veterans, they like VA care, but there are
some cases where community care is very, very important for them to
have, either for personal reasons or maybe it is because it is closer
to where they live. So community care is also very, very important.
Here is the problem I have with Ranking Member Moran's amendment.
This bill sets it at a cap of $4 billion. OK. They go over that, they
have to come to us and ask for permission to go over that. Under this
amendment, they can spend any amount on care, up to $5 billion and even
more if they so choose, without our permission. I want Jerry Moran and
myself and others to be able to say: Hey, what are you spending that
money on? Is it really being spent to the best advantage? By the way,
that is not only for community care; that is for VA care too. So I
would like to leave that as a cap instead of a floor. That is why I
oppose this amendment.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, the MISSION Act allows for the veteran and
the VA to make the decision where the care should occur.

Vote on Amendment No. 1154

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. MORAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

[[Page S1260]]

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
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote or change their vote?
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 107 Leg.]

YEAS--49

NAYS--50

NOT VOTING--1

Sullivan

The amendment (No. 1154) was rejected
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.

Amendment No. 1233

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1233 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 Alaska [Ms. Murkowski], for herself and
Mr. Portman, proposes an amendment numbered 1233 to amendment
No. 891.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To use $800,000,000 of the Elementary and Secondary School
Emergency Relief Fund to identify and provide homeless children and
youth with wrap-around services in light of the challenges of COVID-19
and other assistance)

In section 2001(b), strike ``shall make grants'' and insert
the following: ``shall--
(1) use $800,000,000 for the purposes of identifying
homeless children and youth and providing homeless children
and youth with--
(A) wrap-around services in light of the challenges of
COVID-19; and
(B) assistance needed to enable homeless children and youth
to attend school and participate fully in school activities;
and
(2) from the remaining amounts, make grants

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes of debate
equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this is the amendment we are waiting
for. This is a bipartisan amendment. This is so bipartisan that we have
already agreed to a voice vote, so listen carefully. Yes, thank you for
that.
Prepandemic, our public schools had identified about 1.5 million kids
who experience homelessness. That is 2.7 percent of all public school
students. So think about what that means. That was prepandemic. We know
that number is higher now.
Our amendment is pretty simple here. We reallocate less than 1
percent of the funding for the Elementary and Secondary School
Emergency Relief Fund to ensure that homeless youth and kids have the
resources they need to get into and succeed in school.
In Alaska and around the country, the COVID-19 pandemic and economic
downturn have increased the strain on our families and the need for
services. Too many of the kids have left their homes, been pushed out
of their homes, sometimes many of them to escape a dangerous situation.
They are dealing with the challenges of virtual learning. These kids
are worrying about where to sleep at night, how they are going to eat
dinner, if they are going to be safe.
This amendment ensures that these kids, no matter the trauma and the
challenges they face outside of the classroom, will have a safe place
to sleep and access to the wraparound services that they need. We have
a responsibility to ensure that this vulnerable population, many of
whom will be subject to predation, violence, or trafficking, is not
forgotten or left behind.
I would like to yield to my friend and my colleague Senator Manchin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I also proudly rise with my colleague on
this piece of legislation.
There is not one of us in this room who doesn't have rising
homelessness for our children in your State, not one of us. We are all
experiencing that right now. We are 10,000 in the State of West
Virginia alone.
These are children--basically, if you look at it, it is estimated
that there are one in four homeless children. That is about 420,000
kids who are potentially unidentified and not even connected with a
school system, not even connected. They are couch surfing. It is
horrible what is going on.
I am so proud. This is such a bipartisan piece of legislation. Less
than 1 percent, $800 million, is all we asked for to use for this, and
everyone supported it. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Vote on Amendment No. 1233

The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1233) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.

Motion to Commit with Instructions

Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Montana [Mr. Daines] moves to commit the
bill H.R. 1319 to the Committee on Foreign Relations with
instructions.

The motion is as follows

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. Daines moves to commit the bill H.R. 1319 to the
Committee on Foreign Relations with instructions to report
the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day
on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that--
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and
(2) would support American jobs and energy security by
directing a portion of the funds appropriated for Department
of State Operations to be used to review and approve
international cross border permits pursuant to Executive
Order 13337 (69 Fed. Reg. 25299 (May 5, 2004)), including the
Keystone XL pipeline.

Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, this motion to commit will send this bill
back to the Foreign Relations Committee to include authorization of the
Keystone XL Pipeline in the final bill. In fact, as we saw earlier this
morning, the Keystone XL Pipeline has bipartisan support.
Here is the difference. This morning's amendment vote was a 60-vote
threshold. This is a simple majority. This is good for union jobs. It
is great for our rural communities. It reduces emissions.
It is time to get this done. I urge my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle to support this motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, colleagues, this amendment is meant for
one purpose and one purpose only and that is to kill the American
Rescue Plan, to kill all the work that has brought us to this moment,
to kill the $1,400 checks to American families that will help them stay
in their homes and put food on the table, to kill the extended
unemployment checks that millions are depending upon us not to let
lapse next week, to kill the ability to put more vaccine in the arms of
our families, to kill the desperate aid that small businesses need to
stay alive, to kill the chance to lift 50 percent of all of those
children in poverty into the sunlit plains of opportunity.
The Senate has already expressed itself today on Keystone. The
committee rule could not accommodate this referral in the timeframe
offered. Enough is enough. It is time to defeat this amendment and pass
the American Rescue Plan.

[[Page S1261]]

I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. DAINES. The only thing that has been killed is the Keystone XL
Pipeline by President Biden. This resurrects the Keystone XL Pipeline.
The union jobs are needed. The rural communities need these tax
revenues for their schools. This is what we want to do. We had
bipartisan support for that this morning. Let's do it again. I urge
passage of this motion to commit.

Vote on Motion to Commit

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
Mr. BARRASSO. 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 proceeded to call the roll
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: The Senator
from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 108 Leg.]

YEAS--49

NAYS--50

NOT VOTING--1

Sullivan

The motion was rejected
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

Amendment No. 1391 to Amendment No. 891

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1391 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 Virginia [Mr. Warner], for himself and Mr.
Rubio, propose an amendment numbered 1391 to amendment No.
891.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To extend the authority for Federal contractors to reimburse
employees unable to perform work due to the COVID-19 pandemic from
March 31, 2021, to September 30, 2021)

At the end of title IV, add the following:

SEC. 4015. EXTENSION OF REIMBURSEMENT AUTHORITY FOR FEDERAL
CONTRACTORS.

Section 3610 of the CARES Act (Public Law 116-136; 134
Stat. 414) is amended by striking ``September 30, 2020'' and
inserting ``September 30, 2021''.

Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes equally
divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. My colleagues, I think this may be the last amendment. It
is broadly bipartisan. This amendment simply continues provisions that
were included in the earlier COVID relief packages.
It was called section 3610, and it ensures that our classified
government contracting workforce--a workforce that oftentimes takes
many years to receive top-level security clearance--continues to be
compensated through the balance of the fiscal year. Failure to do this
would lose this workforce to private sector and other competitors and
seriously put our national security at risk.
I point out this is an independent bill of this nature that cleared
unanimously earlier this week on this side of the aisle.
I yield the balance of my time to Senator Rubio.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. RUBIO. This is important to the intelligence community. I ask
that no one be a fly in the ointment here.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, this amendment is an insult to every cashier
at Walmart or bagger at Kroger who comes to work every day in person.
This amendment is an insult to every meatpacker or waiter or waitress
who comes to work every day in person.
Supporters of this amendment care more about government contractors
making $100,000 a year than they do about the people who serve your
food. If food servers and grocery store clerks can go to work in
person, I think government contractors can, too.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

Vote on Amendment No. 1391

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. WARNER. 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.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 6, as follows:

[Rolllcall Vote No. 109 Leg.]

YEAS--93

Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
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
Kaine
Kelly
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lujan
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
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young

NAYS--6

Braun
Johnson
Lee
Lummis
Paul
Tuberville

NOT VOTING--1

Sullivan

The amendment (No. 1391) was agreed to.

PRAYER

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Pursuant to rule IV, paragraph 2, the hour
of 12 noon having arrived, the Senate having been in continuous session
since yesterday, the Senate will suspend for a prayer from the Senate
Chaplain.
The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
Eternal God, who guides us through life's marathons, we praise Your
powerful Name. Have compassion on us and answer our prayers. Lord, You
control our destiny. You have promised to do for us all that You have
planned.
May our lawmakers confidently face the future, believing that their
times are in Your hand. Guided by Your loving providence, may our
Senators refuse to depart from the path on which You have placed them.
Grant that Your blessings will rest on Your people now and always.
We pray in Your great Name. Amen.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.

Amendment No. 1398 to Amendment No. 891

(Purpose: To improve the bill)

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am pleased that we have finally come to
this point. This amendment makes a series of conforming and technical
changes. It strikes provisions that the

[[Page S1262]]

Parliamentarian advised were extraneous. It makes a series of
perfecting changes on behalf of reconciled committees while preserving
the will that the Senate has worked over this long day.
I call up my amendment No. 1398 and ask that it be reported by
number.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer], proposes an
amendment numbered 1398 to amendment No. 891.

(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes of
debate, equally divided.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, this amendment comes after about 24 hours
of discussion here as a surprise because we are just looking at it for
the first time.
But there are two things that are very disturbing about it. One is it
completely distorts workers' compensation for Federal employees, which
has substantially increased costs to taxpayers, of course. It also sets
a terrible precedent in terms of how workers' comp works.
Workers' comp, of course, is for people who are injured on the job,
and you have to show you have been injured on the job. That is how it
works. It is a basic principle for workers' comp.
In this case, this amendment changes the rules to require
compensation for COVID-19 lost wages no matter how risky the Federal
employees' behavior might have been outside of the workplace. In other
words, no questions asked. If you are a Federal worker and you get
COVID-19, you get this.
That is not the way workers' comp works. So this is a big change in
workforce policy and establishes, again, a dangerous new precedent in
workers' comp policy, generally.
It also creates a wrong incentive--think about it--for the employee
and for the employer. So we oppose this.
For Federal workers, the statute is very explicit. It says: Federal
workers' compensation ``for the disability or death . . . resulting
from personal injury sustained while in the performance of . . .
duty.''
Second--I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PORTMAN. Second, we are just finding out there is another $10
billion added through this amendment to State and local governments. I
don't know if everybody was listening when Senator Romney gave his
explanation during his amendment of what is happening with regard to
our States, but a lot of our States don't need the money. Some do and
some don't. And there is no requirements here that if you have got a
surplus or if you otherwise don't have COVID-19 expenses that you don't
get the money, and yet we are adding another $10 billion to that pot
through this one amendment. So, of course, we object to this amendment,
and there may be other stuff in there too. I hope everybody gets a
chance to look at it because we have not had a chance to do so yet.
But I hope we do not create the wrong incentives. I hope we do not
create this situation where we are substantially increasing costs to
the taxpayer through changes in workers' comp and adding another $10
billion to a category where it has been shown, in many cases, not to be
needed.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the technical
amendment and in very strong support of the overall bill, the American
Rescue Plan.
Let's be clear. This bill that we are completing now is the most
significant piece of legislation that benefits working people in the
modern history of this country. Not only are we going to go forward to
crush this pandemic, to rebuild our economy, and to get our kids back
to school safely, we are going to do something even more important. We
are going to help restore faith in the U.S. Government among the people
of our country. The people are hurting, and today we responded.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. All time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1398) was agreed to.

Vote on Amendment No. 891, As Amended

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to amendment
No. 891, as amended.
The amendment (No. 891), as amended, was agreed to.
The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill was read the third time
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today in support of provisions in
this bill that support socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.
One-fifth of all rural Americans--10.5 million people--are people of
color. For Black, Native American, Hispanic and Latinx, and Asian
American farm families, their experience in the agricultural economy is
markedly different than their White counterparts. This has been
particularly true when it comes to the interactions between farmers of
color and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This history of
longstanding systemic discrimination against farmers of color is well
documented. Congress has long recognized this discrimination against
farmers of color by USDA and, through various mechanisms, has sought to
remedy and alleviate systemic barriers that prevented socially
disadvantaged farmers and ranchers from fully participating in the
American farm economy. However, those efforts have fallen short, and
Congress is now providing additional assistance.
Various factors have contributed to the historic loss of farmland
owned and operated by farmers of color. According to the Economic
Research Service, a century ago, Black farmers owned more than 15
million acres of agricultural land and operated almost 1 million farms.
A century later, data from the 2017 Census of Agriculture indicated
that Black farmers own fewer than 2.9 million acres, less than a fifth
of what they owned in 1920. A Tufts University analysis estimated the
value of that lost farmland at more than $120 billion in lost
opportunities. According to a 2019 article in the Atlantic, ``The Great
Land Robbery,'' in the recovery from the Great Depression, the New Deal
Farm Security Administration at the U.S. Department of Agriculture
denied loans to poor Black farmers that were available to their White
neighbors.
In 1830, the Indian Removal Act formalized Native American removal as
a federally sanctioned practice, removing tens of thousands of original
inhabitants from their traditional lands within existing State borders
to land west of the Mississippi River. The removal disrupted land
ownership and tenure and reoriented traditional farm production
techniques. The Homestead Act, enacted in 1862, allowed settlers to
claim 160 acres of surveyed government land. Records in the National
Archive show that land had been inhabited by Native Americans, but
Native Americans were not eligible to participate in the program.
The California Alien Land Laws of 1913 and 1920 denied Asian
immigrants the opportunity to purchase farmland or enter into long-term
lease contracts until a 1952 court decision held the law to be
unconstitutional. During World War II, tens of thousands of first and
second generation Japanese American families were forced off their
farms and into internment camps. For perspective, an estimated half of
Japanese Americans living in California at the time were involved in
agriculture according to a February 12, 2021, article in ``Civil
Eats.''
Hispanic farmers have faced a particularly difficult time with
discrimination at the U.S. Department of Agriculture because
demographic information about Hispanic farmers wasn't even collected
separately by the Census of Agriculture until 1974. According to USDA,
the Census of Agriculture started collecting demographic information
about minority farmers in 1900 and published the first record of
minority farmers in 1920 but neglected to include Hispanic farmers.
This lack of historical documentation has resulted in many Hispanic
farmers being left out of critical farm programs and has made it
difficult to resolve issues of discrimination and civil rights. A 2001
article in the Natural Resources Journal entitled ``Livestock Racism
and Traditional

[[Page S1263]]

Culture in Northern New Mexico'' noted additional struggles Hispanic
farmers and ranchers have had with grazing issues and Federal land
management, including USDA programs.
American institutions both public and private have thoroughly
documented this discrimination. Numerous reports issued since the Civil
Rights Era in the 1960s have shown a consistent pattern of
discrimination, in particular by USDA, against Black, Indigenous, and
other farmers of color. Much of the following history was laid out by
House Agriculture Committee Chairman David Scott during his floor
statement in support of the American Rescue Plan provisions on February
26, 2021.

A 1965 report by the United States Commission on Civil
Rights found that Federal, state, and local officials
discriminated against Black farmers in agricultural programs
and that this discrimination actively contributed to the
decline in the Black ownership of farmland.
In 1968, a follow up report from the United States Commission on
Civil Rights found that Black farmers continued to face discrimination
when seeking farm loans and other forms of assistance.
In 1970, the United States Commission on Civil Rights again
found that discrimination continued in USDA program
administration. The 1970 report indicated that prior to 1968,
no Black farmer had ever been elected to any former
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service committee
at the county level in the South. In 1970, two out of more
than 4,100 committee members in the South were Black farmers,
even though there were 58 counties in the South, where Black
farmers comprised a majority of the farm operator population.
It is hard to view as coincidence then that half a million
Black-owned farms in the U.S. failed between 1950 and 1975.
In 1982, the United States Commission on Civil Rights
issued another report on the rapid decline of Black-operated
farms. The report noted that between 1970 and 1980, the Black
farm population declined 65 percent, compared to a 22 percent
decline in the white farm population. The report also
documented numerous discrimination complaints filed against
USDA field offices regarding the administration of farm loan
programs and noted that for many of these complaints, USDA's
Office of Equal Opportunity investigated and found equal
opportunity violations at those field offices. The report
concluded that racial discrimination was continuing within
the USDA, at USDA headquarters, and in the network of field
offices that implement USDA programs. Instead of responding
to recommendations of the report, President Ronald Reagan and
Agriculture Secretary John Block closed the Office in 1983,
and it would remain closed for another 13 years until
reopened under President Bill Clinton and Secretary Dan
Glickman in 1996.
A 1995 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report
found that socially disadvantaged producers were
significantly underrepresented on the county and community
committees of the former Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service. Specifically, the report found that
while minority producers accounted for nearly 5 percent of
the producers eligible to vote for committee members,
minority producers only represented 2.1 percent of county
committee members in the United States.
In 1997, the USDA formed a Civil Rights Action Team to hold
nationwide listening sessions to hear from socially
disadvantaged and minority farmers. A report published after
the listening sessions documented Black, Hispanic, Asian-
American, and American Indian farmers who told stories of
USDA hurting minority farmers more than helping them.
Minority farmers described how their discrimination
complaints were caught in the backlog of appeals or if
successfully appealed, were given findings of discrimination
that were not enforced. The report acknowledged that
discrimination in USDA program delivery continued to exist to
a large degree unabated.
Also in 1997, the USDA Office of the Inspector General
(OIG) issued a report to the USDA Secretary that noted ``a
climate of disorder within the civil rights staff at the Farm
Service Agency.'' It was difficult for the OIG to even
determine the number and status of civil rights complaints at
the agency and department because of that climate.
A 1998 OIG report noted the OIG had issued 44 recent
recommendations to USDA to improve its civil rights
complaints and improve relations with minority farmers and
stated that several of those recommendations had yet to be
implemented.
In 1998, the USDA National Commission on Small Farms
further described and documented the longstanding
discrimination of USDA towards socially disadvantaged
producers. And, it observed that ``discrimination has been a
contributing factor in the decline of Black farmers over the
last several decades.'' The Commission's report also notes
the ``history of under-allocation of resources to
institutions that have served minority farmers,'' the
``disgraceful'' ``failure to elect minority farmers to
positions on Farm Service Agency County Committees,'' and
more.
During the period between 1997 and 2000, Black farmers,
Native American farmers, and Hispanic farmers filed lawsuits
alleging USDA discriminated against them on the basis of race
in processing their farm program applications and that USDA
failed to investigate their complaints of discrimination.
In 2001, a report by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
documented the continued discriminatory lending practices
against minority farmers. The Commission found that Black
farmers waited four times longer than white farmers for USDA
farm loans. The Commission recommended that USDA resolve the
backlog of civil rights complaints and document and alleviate
discriminatory lending practices. However, USDA continued to
struggle with resolving its backlog of civil rights
complaints.
In a 2005 audit the OIG stated in a report, ``it took 12
days longer to complete minority applications, delinquencies
were higher for minority borrowers than non-minority
borrowers, and minority borrowers were reluctant to enter
into Farm Service Agency offices to apply for loans.''
In 2008, GAO reported that USDA's difficulties in resolving
discrimination complaints persisted and that the USDA had not
achieved its goal of preventing future backlogs of
discrimination complaints.
The 2010 Jackson Lewis report provided over 200
recommendations to USDA on civil rights issues, including
recommendations related to civil rights issues in USDA's farm
lending program and minority farmer access to other USDA
programs.
Recent studies and reports continue to document the
challenges and barriers faced by farmers of color due to race
or ethnic discrimination or the legacy of such
discrimination. A September 20, 2017, study in the
Agriculture and Human Values journal described the challenges
faced by Latinx farmers due to failure of agricultural
agencies to engage in appropriate outreach or account for
language barriers.
Most recently in 2019, a GAO report observed that despite
specific preference, socially disadvantaged farmers and
ranchers had proportionately fewer Farm Service Agency direct
and guaranteed loans than non-socially disadvantaged farmers
and ranchers. This report found that farmers and ranchers of
color continued to face more difficulties in obtaining farm
loans and highlighted the historic, systemic discrimination
against such farmers.

The record of discriminatory conduct at USDA, as well as the library
of studies and reports chronicling that discrimination is indeed long
and details many of the barriers between farmers of color and the
Department that prevent these farm families from accessing the same
programs and experiencing the same success as their White counterparts.
To address long and well-documented history of systemic
discrimination, successive Congresses have worked in a bicameral and
bipartisan manner over the years to authorize and oversee
implementation of programs at USDA.
During the agriculture credit crisis in the 1980s, Congress addressed
this well-documented systemic discrimination at USDA and began to
target assistance at the U.S. Department of Agriculture to ``socially
disadvantaged farmers or ranchers,'' a farmer or rancher who has been
subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice because of their identity as a
member of a socially disadvantaged group without regard to their
individual qualities. Congress provided support that targeted and
prioritizes USDA resources to ensure farmers of color have the same
opportunities as White farmers. Today, this support has grown to
include a broad range of set-asides, special programs, and incentives
for socially disadvantaged farmers.
In 1987, Congress passed the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987. Section
617 of this bill required the USDA to establish annual target
participation rates, on a countywide basis, that would ensure that
members of socially disadvantaged groups receive direct or guaranteed
farm ownership loans. Congress amended this requirement in 1996 to
ensure that USDA's implementation was consistent with the holding of
the Supreme Court in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Federico Pena,
Secretary of Transportation, 515 U.S. 200 (1995), which held that race-
based actions by the government is within constitutional constraints
when it is necessary to further a compelling interest such as the
``unhappy persistence of both the practice and lingering effects of
racial discrimination against minority groups.''

In the 1990 farm bill, Congress took additional steps to recognize
socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers and created a landmark new
program, the 2501 Socially Disadvantaged Farmer and Rancher Outreach
program,

[[Page S1264]]

which is designed specifically to improve outreach and technical
assistance to farmers of color.
In section 741 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (7 U.S.C.
2279 note), Congress took the extraordinary step of suspending the
application of the then-2-year statute of limitations regarding Equal
Credit Opportunity Claims. This allowed claimants in discrimination
suits against USDA, including Black farmers in Pigford v. Glickman and
Native American farmers in Keepseagle v. Veneman, to cite at times
decades-old instances of discrimination to qualify for payments under
the respective settlements.
In the 2002 farm bill, Congress created the Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Civil Rights, with statutory authority to ensure
compliance of all civil rights laws and incorporation of civil rights
activities into the strategic planning of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
A sense of Congress in the 2008 farm bill stated that claims and
class actions brought against USDA by socially disadvantaged farmers or
ranchers, including Native American, Hispanic, and female farmers or
ranchers, on racial, ethnic, or gender discrimination in farm program
participation should be quickly and fairly resolved. Congress reacted
to USDA's discriminatory history and provided $100 million to help
settle the Pigford discrimination claims and established a moratorium
on acceleration and foreclosure proceedings by USDA against any farmer
or rancher who filed a discrimination claim. To further support
Pigford, Congress provided an additional $1.15 billion in funding in
the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 to settle the additional claims in
the Pigford II class action lawsuit.
The 2014 farm bill created a permanent Office of Tribal Relations
under the Secretary of Agriculture.
Because of the continuing and systemic nature of these concerns, the
2018 farm bill permanently funded the section 2501 Socially
Disadvantaged Farmer and Rancher Outreach Program and provided new
support to address longstanding heirs property and farmland ownership
issues. Additionally, because Congress recognized that discrimination
is both pervasive and ongoing, the 2018 farm bill also required the
production of several reports by GAO on how both latent and overt
discrimination manifest in agriculture programs, including a report
specifically on bias-related to loan credit issues for farmers of color
within the socially disadvantaged designation to inform Congress for
future legislation. As important as Congress's actions have been, the
remedies are still not enough as there is still ongoing and pervasive
discrimination leaving socially disadvantaged farmers significantly
behind.
Settlements resulting from the Pigford and Keepseagle lawsuits, along
with Garcia v. Vilsack that focused on discrimination against Hispanic
and Latinx farmers, have not provided the relief necessary for these
farmers of color to participate fully in the American agricultural
economy. For example, the Los Angeles Times reported in 2012 that
payments made to Black farmers under the Pigford settlements were
significantly eroded by State taxes, as well as tax debt related to
forgiven USDA farm loans. In Keepseagle only a very small percentage of
potential claimants even applied. This was largely due to the older age
of many potential claimants and because they were difficult to contact.
Claims adjudication simply was not effective and did not adequately
remedy the discrimination.
Specifically in the area of farm lending, as recently as 2 years ago,
two GAO reports showed that socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers
have more difficulty getting loans and credit from USDA. These loans
can help beginning farmers break into the business and help existing
farmers continue running their operations. One of the GAO reports
focused on the specific barriers of Tribal farmers accessing credit and
the other GAO report highlights the systemic discrimination that has
hindered farmers of color for generations continue today.
Similarly, a 2019 report from the National Young Farmers Coalition on
the structural challenges facing farmers in California shows that while
White respondents reported that they had no gaps in access to resources
like business entity choice, credit lending, land access and lease
development, marketing, policy advocacy, and regulatory navigation;
non-White respondents reported significantly impaired access to those
same resources, and Native American respondents reported receiving none
of the listed resources.
The Farm Bill Law Enterprise reported that 99.4 percent of USDA's
Market Facilitation Program payments went to White farmers. Similarly,
the Environmental Working Group reported that nonminority farmers
received nearly 97 percent of the $9.2 billion provided through USDA's
first Coronavirus Food Assistance Program in 2020.
The diminished relationships between socially disadvantaged farmers
and USDA as a result of both latent barriers and historic
discrimination limits access of socially disadvantaged farmers to
USDA's program, making it more difficult or impossible for socially
disadvantaged farmers to participate in USDA programs. The statistics
continue to bear this out: 73 percent of Black farmers, when surveyed
by the Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund, an
association of Black farmers and landowners, were not even aware of the
agricultural aid provisions of the coronavirus rescue programs at USDA.
Congress recognizes the longstanding systemic discrimination against
farmers of color by USDA. Despite multiple congressional efforts to
address this discrimination, these efforts, taken mostly on a case-by
case basis, have still not remedied the discrimination. Congress is now
continuing to address this longstanding, widespread, and well-
documented discrimination against socially disadvantaged farmers and
ranchers, including systemic barriers preventing socially disadvantaged
farmers and ranchers from fully participating in the American farm
economy, in recognition that our mostly case-by-case efforts thus far
have not done enough. Because of discrimination in USDA's programs,
particularly loan programs, at USDA, socially disadvantaged farmers and
ranchers are less likely to have the same access to adequate loan
servicing and face other barriers in USDA programs, as their White
counterparts. As a result, their loans are more likely to be in default
or in a precarious situation.
Sections 1005 and 1006 of the American Rescue Plan contain narrowly
tailored provisions to address the discrimination in credit and other
programs at USDA, the effects of which have been magnified by the
pandemic, as well as programmatic changes to support socially
disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. The sections provide funding for
payments on existing USDA direct and guaranteed loans held by socially
disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. In addition, this legislation is
providing tools and funding for programs and systemic reforms at USDA
to undo the systemic racism that has prevented socially disadvantaged
farmers and ranchers from getting access to critical agricultural
credit.
The public recognition of longstanding discrimination against
socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers and the accompanying broad
support for this work along the food and agriculture supply chain is
overwhelming and represents every corner of American food and farming.
More than 600 farm, food, and rural organizations, businesses, equity
advocates, and legal scholars have sent letters, documents and issued
statements of support. Notably, each of these letters includes both
acknowledgment that these ongoing barriers exist, and a great many cite
staggering examples of the disadvantages many farmers of color
experience, as well as why the provisions contained in sections 1005
and 1006 of the American Rescue Plan are an appropriate remedy for
these important producers.
While earlier versions of this legislation included specific
references to the longstanding discrimination within the Department of
Agriculture, as noted in Chairman Scott's February 26, 2021, statement
for the record, the manager's amendment in the House Rules Committee
was purely to ensure that these sections would meet the requirements of
section 313 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 for consideration
in the U.S. Senate. Congress includes these measures to address the

[[Page S1265]]

longstanding and widespread systemic discrimination within the USDA,
particularly within the loan programs, against socially disadvantaged
farmers and ranchers.
Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of
sections 1005 and 1006 of the American Rescue Plan Act.
These sections provide loan forgiveness and other critical assistance
to Black farmers and to other farmers who are members of racial or
ethnic groups that have for many decades suffered discrimination by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
According to USDA data, in 1920 in the United States there were
nearly 1 million Black farmers, and they represented nearly 15 percent
of all farmers in our country. Today, as a direct result of a brutal
legacy of discrimination by a Federal agency, there are less than
50,000 Black farmers left and they represent less than 2 percent of all
farmers in our country.
It is estimated that during the past century, Black farmers have lost
between 15 and 20 million acres of land and the hundreds of billions of
dollars of generational wealth that land represented.
The cause of the loss of so much Black-owned farmland and the loss of
so many Black farmers is not a mystery. Federal court decisions, the
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and the USDA itself have all told us
that a primary cause of that loss was long standing, pervasive
discrimination by the USDA.
In his opinion in Pigford v. Glickman, Federal District Court Judge
Paul Friedman stated clearly that USDA and their county commissioners
discriminated against Black farmers when they denied, delayed, or
otherwise frustrated the applications of those Black farmers for farm
loans and other credit and benefit programs and that USDA and the
county commissioners bear much of the responsibility for the dramatic
decline in Black farms and Black-owned farmland.
Judge Friedman wrote his decision in 1999, but the systemic
discrimination by USDA against Black farmers and other farmers of color
by USDA was well documented beginning many decades earlier.
A 1965 report by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights found that
Federal, State, and local officials discriminated against Black farmers
in agricultural programs and that this discrimination actively
contributed to the decline in the Black ownership of farmland.
In 1968, a follow-up report from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
found that Black farmers continued to face discrimination when seeking
farm loans and other forms of assistance.
In 1970, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights again found that
discrimination continued in USDA program administration. The 1970
report stated that only 2 out of more than 4,100 USDA county committee
members in the South were Black farmers, even though there were 58
counties in the South where Black farmers comprised a majority of the
farm operator population.
In 1982, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued another report
entitled ``The Decline of Black Farming in America'' which found that
the prevailing practice at the USDA was to follow local patterns of
racial segregation and discrimination when providing assistance and
that longstanding discrimination in USDA programs contributed to the
decline in farms operated by African-American farmers.
In 1997, the USDA formed a Civil Rights Action Team to hold
nationwide listening sessions to hear from socially disadvantaged and
minority farmers. A report published after the listening sessions
documented Black, Hispanic, Asian-American, and indigenous farmers who
told story after story of USDA hurting minority farmers more than
helping them. This 1997 report acknowledged that discrimination in USDA
program delivery continued to exist to a large degree unabated and
recommended 92 changes to address racial bias at the USDA.
In 1998, the USDA National Commission on Small Farms further
described and documented the longstanding discrimination of USDA
towards socially disadvantaged farmers. USDA stated that
``discrimination has been a contributing factor in the decline of Black
farmers over the last several decades.'' The Commission's report also
notes the ``history of under-allocation of resources to institutions
that have served minority farmers.''
During the period between 1997 and 2000, Black farmers, Native
American farmers, and Latino/Latina farmers filed lawsuits alleging
USDA discriminated against them on the basis of race in processing
their farm program applications and that USDA failed to investigate
their complaints of discrimination. But settlements resulting from
these lawsuits did not provide the relief necessary for these farmers
of color to participate fully in the American agricultural economy.
On March 2, 2021, a group of full-time professors who work in
agricultural, food law, and related subjects wrote in a letter to
Majority Leader Schumer and Minority Leader McConnell that these court
settlements were severely flawed because of the adversarial nature of
the settlement process and because they attempted to define the problem
in terms of discrete incidents of individualized discrimination without
correcting the systemic problems that led to that discrimination. These
professors noted that while some farmers received a payment, many
remained indebted to the USDA, and the system itself remained broken.
Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent to have this letter
printed in the Record following my remarks.
In 2001, we then have a report by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
documenting the continued discriminatory lending practices against
minority farmers. The Commission found that Black farmers waited four
times longer than White farmers for USDA farm loans. The Commission
recommended that USDA resolve the backlog of civil rights complaints
and document and alleviate discriminatory lending practices.
However, USDA continued to struggle with resolving its backlog of
civil rights complaints. In 2008, the Government Accountability Office,
or GAO, reported that USDA's difficulties in resolving discrimination
complaints persisted and that the USDA had not achieved its goal of
preventing future backlogs of discrimination complaints.
In 2019, a GAO report observed that socially disadvantaged farmers
and ranchers had proportionately less agricultural credit than non-
socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. This report found that
farmers and ranchers of color continued to face more difficulties in
obtaining farm loans and highlighted the historic, systemic
discrimination against such farmers.
So now let's look at where we are today.
USDA spends billions of dollars each year to provide much needed
support to American farmers. The Market Facilitation Program and
Coronavirus Food Assistance Program are recent USDA programs designed
to bolster the farm economy. In both programs the majority of funds
went to nonminority farmers.
For example, the Environmental Working Group reported that
nonminority farmers received nearly 97 percent of the $9.2 billion
provided by the USDA's Coronavirus Food Assistance Program.
Additionally, the Farm Bill Law Enterprise reported that 99 percent of
market facilitation payments went to nonminority farmers.
Just last week the USDA stated ``there is a lot more that needs to be
done and accomplished at USDA to make programming equitable and to root
out decades of systemic discrimination that disproportionately affects
Black, Hispanic, Indigenous and other farmers of color.''
Early this week Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack recognized the
residual harm that decades of discrimination have caused to farmers of
color when he stated: ``Here's the challenge: We're not only dealing
with the specific issues of discrimination, but we're dealing with the
cumulative effect of that discrimination over a period of time.''
And what is the cumulative effect of that discrimination over time?
The cumulative effect of all the past systemic racism and
discrimination is that Black farmers and other farmers of color were in
a far more precarious financial situation before the COVID-19 pandemic
hit us, and so many of them have simply not been able to weather the
storm.

[[Page S1266]]

Approximately 13 percent of borrowers with FSA direct loans are
currently delinquent on their loans and could lose their farms to
foreclosure. But for Black farmers, 35 percent of those with FSA direct
loans are in default and could soon lose their farms. And it is not
only Black farmers--approximately 24 percent of the FSA direct loans to
Hispanic, Asian-American, and Indigenous farmers are currently in
default. What this means is that we are facing yet another wave of
foreclosures and potential land loss by farmers of color. But the debt
forgiveness and other assistance in the bill we are considering today
can prevent this and can begin to turn the page on this shameful
history of discrimination by the Federal Government.
I want to close by giving you one specific example of the
discrimination I have been talking about.
Eddie and Dorothy Wise were residents of Whitakers, NC. A retired
Green Beret, Mr. Wise's dream was to own a pig farm, and so in 1991,
Mr. Wise purchased land and started to raise swine. But then came the
discriminatory actions by USDA: failure to handle his loan applications
in a timely manner, denial of loan applications, change of interest
rates and escalation of monthly notes, and other misdeeds.
In 1997, a loan for improvements to the property was approved, but
the receipt of the funds was delayed for 7 months, and his 400 pigs
froze to death, destroying his operation. Later, he discovered that his
original plan had been approved at the State level but that his loan
officer never told him.
In the early morning hours of January 20, 2016, at least 14 Federal
marshals descended with guns drawn on Eddie's farm and forcibly
escorted him and his wife, who was still in bed and suffering from a
debilitating medical condition, out of their home and off their
property. Forcibly evicted from their home and their land and forced to
live in a cheap motel, Dorothy Wise died shortly thereafter. The 106-
acre farm was sold to an adjacent White farmer for the miniscule price
of $260,000, and Eddie Wise had lost the one thing that he had always
wanted--to own a pig farm.
This story is just one example of the discrimination that literally
destroyed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Black farmers and their
families over the last century.
Today we have the opportunity to take a step towards justice for
those families.
I urge all of my colleagues to support sections 1005 and 1006 of the
bill before the Senate today.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

March 2, 2021.
Re Support for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers.

Hon. Charles Schumer,
Senate Majority Leader,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Senate Minority Leader
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
House Majority Leader,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
House Minority Leader,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Leader Schumer, Minority Leader McConnell, Speaker
Pelosi, and Minority Leader McCarthy: We write in support of
efforts to level the playing field for socially disadvantaged
American farmers as set forth in Sec. Sec. 1005 and 1006 of
the House-passed American Rescue Plan. If enacted, these
sections will help to correct past injustices and create new
opportunities to build the diverse, resilient food system
that we all want and need.
American agriculture's history began with slavery and the
forced removal of tribes from their land. It continued with
myriad abuses, including Jim Crow laws, the prohibition of
minority land ownership, property laws that facilitated Black
land loss, and deceptive practices to entice Hmong farmers to
incur huge debts to build chicken houses. Each of these
predatory practices were instituted or allowed by U.S. law.
At every turn, government policies have either intentionally
or inadvertently served to advantage white farmers, creating
the category of farmers recognized by Congress and the USDA
for decades as ``socially disadvantaged.''
Cultural traditions in farming in America, long
romanticized in disregard of their discriminatory
consequences, have further contributed to inequities. Farming
is built on relationships: handshake contracts, neighbors
helping neighbors, conversations at the local coffee shop.
These relationships work well if you are a member of the
group; if you are not, they serve as a persistent barrier to
success. According to the 2017 Census of Agriculture, of the
3.4 million farmers in the United States, 3.2 million, 95.4%
are white. Only approximately 1.7% are American Indian or
Alaskan Native; 1.3% are Black; and .6% are Asian. For most
of these farmers, their farms are smaller, their sales are
smaller, and each year they fall further behind.
The USDA should have served as the equalizer, supporting
all farmers and assisting those in need. But most often it
has not. It has instead reflected and perpetuated
institutional racism since its inception. The problems
experienced by the farmers it has disadvantaged have been
repeatedly documented in government reports and
investigations and in writings by scholars, journalists, and
others. While some tell of the decades-long pattern of
discrimination, recent reports, including a GAO Report
released just last week, confirm that the barriers still
exist today, expressly affirming that socially disadvantaged
farmers still have less access to credit than other
agricultural businesses. Fair Lending, Access and Retirement
Security, Government Accountability Office (2021) (finding
racial and income disparities in access to financial
services, availability of credit, and the ability to
accumulate wealth).
Congressionally enacted farm programs have perpetuated and
exacerbated the problem by distorting the farm economy.
Federal farm programs reward the largest farms the most,
providing staggering sums of money to large landowners who
produce the program-favored crops. Not only are the vast
majority of these large landowners white, the program-favored
crops are not those most often produced by socially
disadvantaged farmers. These government payments distort
credit, land, input costs, and markets by favoring white
farmers to the disadvantage of others, most of whom are small
or beginning farmers.
The cumulative effect of decades of unequal treatment by
the USDA coupled with farm programs that favor large
landowners continues to negatively impact the economic
condition of beginning farmers and small fanning operations,
creating an extra burden for socially disadvantaged farmers.
Today, disadvantaged farmers generally have less access to
credit than white farmers, less accumulated wealth, and
smaller farming operations.
Congress and the USDA acknowledged this racial
discrimination and attempted to resolve it through the
settlement of two landmark lawsuits--Pigford and Keepseagle.
But this approach was severely flawed. These settlements
attempted to define the problem in terms of discreet
incidents of individualized discrimination without correcting
the systemic problems that led to that discrimination. The
adversarial nature of the settlement process served to
further divide. While some farmers received a payment, many
remained indebted to the government, and the system itself
remained broken. Providing debt relief to disadvantaged
farmers, will help to correct the longstanding past
injustice, wiping the slate clean for USDA to start over.
Reforming the system will provide the necessary financial and
educational infrastructure to finally give these farmers an
opportunity to compete on an even playing field.
We depend on our food system, and farming is at the heart
of that system. Natural disasters and the COVID pandemic have
revealed significant systemic problems, and climate change
has and will produce additional challenges. We need strong
regional food systems to build the resilience that is
necessary for our very survival. We need diversity reflected
in that network. We bemoan the aging of our nation's farmers
and the high barriers to entry for beginning and would-be
beginning farmers. The vast majority of American farmers are
white men over the age of 50. We need to open farming to its
full potential by offering new opportunities for diverse
farmers, thus benefiting from their help in creating a
resilient regional food system that is always able to meet
our food security needs.
We are all full-time professors who work in agricultural,
food law, and related subjects. The opinions expressed in
this letter are our own personal views and do not represent
the position or policies of the Universities with which we
are affiliated.
Sincerely,
Susan A. Schneider, William H. Enfield Professor of Law,
Director, LL.M. Program in Agricultural & Food Law,
University of Arkansas School of Law; Nicole Civita,
Sustainable Food Systems Specialization Lead, Graduate
Faculty, Masters of the Environment Program, University
of Colorado; Josh Galperin, Visiting Associate
Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh School of
Law; Neil D. Hamilton, Emeritus Professor of Law, Drake
University Law School; Christopher R. Kelley, Associate
Professor of Law, University of Arkansas School of Law;
Stacy Leeds, Foundation Professor of Law and
Leadership, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona
State University; Emily M. Broad Leib, Clinical
Professor of Law, Director, Food Law and Policy

[[Page S1267]]

Clinic, Harvard Law School; Thomas W. Mitchell,
Professor of Law, Co-Director, Program in Real Estate
and Community Development Law, Texas A&M University
School of Law; Michelle B. Nowlin, Clinical Professor
of Law, Co-Director, Environmental Law and Policy
Clinic, Duke University School of Law; Michael T.
Roberts, Executive Director, Resnick Center for Food
Law and Policy, Professor from Practice, University of
California, Los Angeles; Anthony B. Schutz, Associate
Professor of Law, Associate Dean for Faculty, Director,
Rural Law Opportunities Program, University of Nebraska
College of Law; Jessica A. Shoemaker, Professor of Law,
University of Nebraska College of Law; Jennifer
Zwagerman, Assistant Professor of Law, Director of the
Agricultural Law Center, Drake University Law School.

Attachment

Examples of Government and Related Reports Documenting USDA
Discrimination

Equal Opportunity in Farm Programs, An Appraisal of
Services Rendered by Agencies of the USDA, U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights (1965) (finding discrimination in the
administration of federal farm programs, contributing to the
decline in Black ownership of farmland);
Civil Rights Under Federal Programs: An Analysis of Title
IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights (1968) (finding discrimination in the administration
of federal farm programs and in the information services
provided by Agricultural Extension);
Federal Civil Rights Enforcement Effort, U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights (1970) (finding discrimination in the
administration of federal farm programs);
The Decline of Black Farming in America, U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights (1982) (documenting discrimination complaints at
USDA field offices, the lack of institutional support
provided to Black farmers, and legal structures geared to
benefit large farming operations);
Hearing on the Decline of Minority Farming in the United
States, Committee on Government Operations, U.S. House of
Representatives (1990) (documenting evidence of
discrimination in USDA programs);
Minorities and Women on Farm Committees, Govt
Accountability Office (1995) (reporting on the lack of
representation of minority farmers within the USDA committee
system);
D.J. Miller Disparity Study: Producer Participation and EEO
Complaint Process Study), D.J. Miller & Associates report
prepared for the USDA Farm Services Agency (1996) (finding
inequities throughout the federal farm programs, with
minority farmers not receiving an equitable share of farm
payments and loans and serious problems with the USDA EEO
Complaint Process);
Report for the Secretary on Civil Rights Issues, USDA's
Inspector General (1997) (reporting that a ``staffing
problems, obsolete procedures, and little direction from
management have resulted in a climate of disorder'');
Civil Rights at the United States Department of
Agriculture--A Report by the Civil Rights Action Team, Report
of the USDA Civil Rights Action Team (1997) (documenting
widespread discrimination throughout the USDA network of
offices);
A Time to Act: A Report of the USDA National Commission on
Small Farms, USDA Nat'l Commission on Small Farms (1998)
(reporting on the ``structural bias toward greater
concentration of assets and wealth'' and on the importance of
developing policies to support and encourage small farms;
noting that ``Black, Hispanic Native American, Asian, women,
and other minorities have contributed immensely to our
Nation's food production and their contributions should be
recognized and rewarded.'');
USDA: Problems in Processing Discrimination Complaints,
U.S. Govt Accountability Office (2000) (reporting on the
continuation of ``longstanding problems'' in the USDA's
discrimination complaint process);
Racial and Ethnic Tensions in American Communities:
Poverty, Inequality, and Discrimination, Vol. VII: The
Mississippi Delta Report, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
(2001) (finding evidence that Black farmers have unequal
access to technical support and financial assistance, with a
wait that is four times longer than white farmers to receive
farm loans);
USDA: Recommendations and Options to Address Management
Deficiencies in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Civil Rights, Government Accountability Office (2008)
(reporting that the USDA's ``difficulties in resolving
discrimination complaints persist,'' that its data on
minority farmer participation is ``unreliable,'' and that its
``strategic planning does not address key steps needed to
ensure USDA provides fair and equitable services'');
Agricultural Lending: Information on Credit and Outreach to
Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers is Limited,
Government Accountability Office (2019) (addressing USDA
survey data that shows that ``socially disadvantaged
farmers'' receive a disproportionately small share of farm
loans and noting lack of reliable data on program services to
this community; acknowledging concerns of ongoing
discrimination);
Indian Issues: Agricultural Credit Needs and Barriers to
Lending on Tribal Lands, Government Accountability Office
(2019) (reporting on the structural barriers to lending to
tribal members, including the difficulty in using tribal land
as security, long delays in federal paperwork, lender
hesitancy, lack of credit history);
Fair Lending, Access and Retirement Security, Government
Accountability Office (2021) (finding racial and income
disparities in access to financial services, availability of
credit, and the ability to accumulate wealth; specifically
finding that ``women and minority farmers and ranchers,
including tribal members, had less access to credit than
other agricultural businesses'').
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, to most people back home in Tennessee,
``business as usual'' here in Washington means a combination of
partisan bickering and reckless spending, usually after someone up high
decides not to let a crisis go to waste. They are used to watching this
all play out on TV, then looking at the receipt and seeing a billion
dollars' worth of earmarks and pork barrel spending they didn't order.
Right now, Democrats are doing their best to spin the scandal their
absurb $1.9 trillion bailout bill has caused as ``business as usual''
but Tennesseans aren't stupid. They know the spin is a lie because over
the past year they have seen what ``business as usual'' looks like when
it comes to passing COVID relief funding.
Since last March, the Senate has passed five separate relief laws
with overwhelming bipartisan support, 96-1, 90-8, 96-0, 100-0, and 92-
6.
But what happened with last month's vote on the budget resolution?
Why did it end in a tiebreaker? For the same reason the House passed
their version of the bill we are considering today in the dead of
night. No amount of good PR could ever make the American people forget
that this little exercise the Democrats are leading us through has
almost nothing to do with providing emergency COVID relief.
Nine percent. That is how much of this package Democrats want to
dedicate to a national vaccination program, expanded testing, and
public health jobs. They slapped a ``COVID RELIEF'' label on one of the
largest transfers of wealth ever proposed in the history of the U.S.
Congress and tried to sneak it through reconciliation before anyone
caught on.
This bill is so far over the line that my friends across the aisle
have spent the past week fighting over the very provisions House
Democrats and the White House used to pitch it. The bill is fatally
flawed, right down to the formula it employs to allocate State funding.
The previous, bipartisan relief packages used population to determine
this. It very straightforward. But this time, Democrats ran the numbers
and decided they could benefit by making unemployment rate the deciding
factor. And, wouldn't you know it, this new system disproportionately
benefits poorly mannaged blue States at the expense of well-managed red
ones. New Jersey, New York, and California, whose destructive shutdowns
led to high unemployment rates, will walk away with a combined gain of
almost $9 billion. Tennessee, on the other hand, is still one of the
best fiscally managed States in the country. We will lose $164 million
for doing the right thing. Alabama will lose almost $900 million. Both
Florida and Georgia will lose over $l.2 billion each.
If this body mandates a transfer of wealth based solely on Democrats'
desire to clean up their prepandemic mistakes, we will scare off
investment and hamper innovation in every State long after we are able
to fully reopen. This isn't a hypothetical--leaders on the State level
know what is coming. Last week, 22 Governors, including Tennessee
Governor Bill Lee, released a joint statement pointing out the foolish
premise driving the new formula. I would like to associate myself with
what they said: ``A state's ability to keep businesses open and people
employed should not be a penalizing factor when distributing funds.''
If this happens, small towns and mom-and-pop shops will suffer. Those
budding tech hubs you hear so much about will suffer. The unemployed
people my colleagues on the left are using as leverage against their
political rivals will suffer.
So I would ask my colleagues whether fulfilling campaign promises is
worth what it will cost the families and small business owners stuck
holding the bill. And to the Democratic Senators representing States
losing out, I would say that we will be happy

[[Page S1268]]

to remind your constituents that you voted to send their tax dollars to
New York and California and Illinois and other States that
intentionally dragged their economies off a cliff.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, it has been a long day, a long night, a
long year, but a new day has come, and we tell the American people:
Help is on the way.
When Democrats assumed the majority in this Chamber, we promised to
pass legislation to rescue our people from the depths of the pandemic
and bring our economy and our country roaring back. In a few moments,
we are going to deliver on that promise.
This bill will deliver more help to more people than anything the
Federal Government has done in decades. It is broader, deeper, and more
comprehensive in helping working families and lifting people out of
poverty than anything Congress has seen or accomplished in a very long
time.
The pandemic has affected nearly every aspect of American life. So
this bill spans the gamut and provides support to every part of our
country. For Americans who doubted that the government can help them in
this time of crisis, you will be getting direct checks. Your schools
will receive assistance to reopen quickly and safely; your local
businesses will get another lifeline; and the day when you receive the
vaccine will be a lot sooner.
The American Rescue Plan will go down as one of the most sweeping
Federal recovery efforts in history. It is never easy to pass
legislation as momentous as this, but it will all and soon be worth it.
Now, I know that on Saturday morning the American people aren't
watching our proceedings here. They are probably out walking the dog or
sitting down at breakfast with the kids. But I want them to know help
is on the way; that their government is going to give one final push to
get us over the finish line.
I want the American people to know that we are going to get through
this, and someday soon our businesses will reopen; our economy will
reopen; and life will reopen. We will end this terrible plague, and we
will travel again and send our kids to school again and be together
again.
Our job right now is to help our country get from this stormy present
to that hopeful future, and it starts with voting aye on the
legislation before us. Vote yes on the American Rescue Plan. Vote yes.
And before I yield the floor, one final note. Let us all express our
deepest gratitude to all of my colleagues who went through a long, long
period in the last day; to the staffs of the committees and the
personnel in Senate offices who have worked so hard to put this
legislation together, and especially let us thank the great floor
staff: the clerks, the cafeteria workers, the custodial staff, and the
Capitol Police.
(Applause, Senators rising.
This bill includes important support for state and local governments,
allowing them to not only provide services that are needed to fight the
pandemic and support the economy, but also ensuring that teachers and
first responders don't need to be laid off and services don't need to
be cut.
We also know that this crisis is going to have lasting consequences
for State and local budgets, that many of the impacts won't just be
felt this year, but going forward given how disruptive the last year
was.
So in designing this funding, we split the money for localities into
two tranches, half to be delivered this year and half next year. For
States, the money is delivered up front, with the Secretary given the
discretion to calibrate timing of payments for some States based on
their unemployment rate. For States with lower unemployment rates, the
bill creates a structure for Treasury to work with States to spread the
funding out over the course of this recovery.
That will allow States and localities to get the money that they
need, but over a timeline that will best support the economy as it
recovers.
Additionally, below are names of the staff who worked tirelessly
towards the passage of this bill. I want to thank them for their
service, and I ask unanimous consent that their names be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee

Joe Shultz, Mary Beth Shultz, Jacqlyn Schneider, Kyle
Varner, Katie Naessens, Claire Borzner, Susan Keith, Adam
Tarr, Julia Rossman, Khadija Jahfiya.

Appropriations Committee

Charles Kieffer, Chanda Betourney, Dianne Nellor, Jean Toal
Eisen, Doug Clapp, Ellen Murray, Scott Nance, Melissa
Zimmerman, Alex Keenan, Meghan Mott, Michelle Dominguez, Tim
Rieser, Dabney Hegg, Jenny Winkler.

Banking, Housing, and Urban Development Committee

Beth Cooper, Homer Carlisle, Megan Cheney, Phil Rudd,
Elisha Tuku, Jeremy Hekhuis, Colin McGinnis, Drew Martineau,
Ben Lockshin, Laura Swanson.

Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee

David Strickland, Melissa Porter, Ronce Almond, Mary
Guenther, Gabrielle Slais, John Branscome, Shawn Bone, Brian
McDermott, Betsy McIntyre, Kara Fischer, Michael Davisson,
Alex Hall, Nikky Teutschel, Matthew Bobbink, Jimmy Bromley,
Eric Vryheid, Elle Wibisono, Jared Bomberg, John Beezer, Noam
Kantor, Jordan Blue, Lucy Koch, Hunter Blackburn.

=========================== NOTE ===========================

On page S1268, March 5, 2021, second column, the following
appears: COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE David
Strickland, Melissa Porter, Ronce Almond, Mary Guenther, Gabrielle
Slais, John Branscome Shawn Bone, Brian McDermott, Betsy McIntyre,
Kara Fischer, Michael Davisson. Alex Hall, Nikky Teutschel,
Matthew Bobbink, Jimmy Bromley, Eric Vryheid, Elle Wibisono, Jared
Bamberg, John Beezer, Noam Kantor, Jordan Blue, Lucy Koch, Hunter
Blackbum.

The online Record has been corrected to read: COMMERCE, SCIENCE,
AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE David Strickland, Melissa Porter,
Ronce Almond, Mary Guenther, Gabrielle Slais, John Branscome,
Shawn Bone, Brian McDermott, Betsy McIntyre, Kara Fischer, Michael
Davisson, Alex Hall, Nikky Teutschel, Matthew Bobbink, Jimmy
Bromley, Eric Vryheid, Elle Wibisono, Jared Bomberg, John Beezer,
Noam Kantor, Jordan Blue, Lucy Koch, Hunter Blackburn.

========================= END NOTE =========================

Environment and Public Works Committee

Mary Frances Repko, Greg Dotson, Kenneth Martin, Laura
Gillam, Elizabeth Mabry, Rebecca Higgins, John Kane, Caroline
Jones, Layla Brooks, Rachel Levitan, Jake Abbott, Gil
Connolly.

Finance Committee

Isaiah Akin, Robert Andres, Christopher Arneson, Shawn
Bishop, Sarah Bittleman, Adam Carasso, Ryan Carey, Ursula
Clausing, Drew Crouch, Anne Dwyer, Michael Evans, Jonathan
Goldman.
Rachael Kauss, Virginia Lenahan, Kristen Lunde, Marisa
Morin, Ian Nicholson, Sarah Schaefer, Joshua Sheinkman,
Tiffany Smith, Lavanya Sridharan, Kelly Szafara, Beth Vrabel,
Jayme White.

Foreign Relations Committee

Ruchi Gil, Andrew Keller, Jessica Lewis.

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee

Evan Schatz, John Righter, Kendra Isaacson, Yeongsik Kim,
Tiffany Haas, Nick Bath, Colin Goldfinch, Laurel Sakai,
Katlin McKelvie Backfield, Garrett Devenney, Esther Yoon,
Kara Marchione.
Amanda Beaumont, Bryce McKibben, Leila Schochet, Manuel
Contreras, Jennifer Stiddard, Helen Hare, Madeleine Russak,
Ryan Myers, Anali Alegria, Carly Rush, Elizabeth Letter,
Michael Huggins.
Michelle Sanchez, Vanessa Lobo, Monica Vela, Daniel
Elchert, Nimit Jindal, Kimi Chemoby, Sarah Mueller Rob Jones,
Andi Fristedt, Kimberly Knackstedt, Nikki McKinney, Joseph
Shantz.

Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee

Michelle Benecke, Lena Chang, Chris Mulkins, Annika
Christensen, Yelena Tsilker, Marie Talarico, Chelsea Davis,
Katie Conley, Corban Ryan, Jeff Rothblum, David Weinberg.

Indian Affairs Committee

Kim Moxley, Manu Tupper, Jennifer Romero.

Small Business Committee

Therese Meers, Jacob Press, Ron Storhaug, Kevin Wheeler,
Justin Pelletier, Kylie Patterson, Natalie George, Fabion
Seaton, DeMarcus Walker, Sean Moore.

Veterans Affairs Committee

Dahlia Melendrez, Shauna Rust, Tony McClain.

DPCC

Matt Williams, Christian Graf, Eliza Duckworth, Amy Brown,
Gabby Borg, Rob Curis.

Leader Schumer Staff

Abdelhaq, Yazeed, Achibar, Kathleen, Aleman, Jasmin,
Armwood, Garrett, Babin, Reggie. Banez, Robert, Barjon,
Didier, Barton, Steve, Battle, Sharon, Benavides, Jackie
Biasotti, Allison, Bluitt, Tinae, Bodian, Lane Bowman, Quinn,
Brennan, Martin, Burns, Caroline, Byrne, Sean, Cardinal, Jon,
Cardona, Selena, Carranza, Ramon.
Chang Prepis, Joyce, Charlery, Kristen, Cole, Emily,
Contes, Helena, Cook, Andrew, Cooke, Dave. Coutavas, Sophie,
Daly, Annie, Dayal, Tushar, Deveny, Adrian, Dickson, Jeff,
Dirienzo, Lindsay, Donovan, Patrick, Eagan, Ryan, Ellsworth,
Charlie, Emanuel, Marissa, Engle, Tricia, Fado, Kelly Flood,
Sam.
Fuentes, Matt, Geertsma, Joel, Glander, Megan, Goodman,
Justin, Gray-Hoehn, Hayley, Gutmaker, Joshua, Haberl, Gunnar,
Harris, Jasmine, Hawley, Marisa, Hickman, Rob, Housley, Jon,
Huus, Amber, Iannelli, Mike. Ileka, Steven, Jackson, Rachel,
Jamaica, Jessica, Jean, Mike, Kazibwe, Rodney, Kiandoli,
Cietta, Kuiken, Mike.
Lee, Monica, Lopez, Julietta, Lynch, Mike, Magaletta,
Grace, Mann, Steve, Mannering, Amy Marcojohn, Anneliese,
Martin, Ryan Mehta, Hemen, Meyer, Ken, Molofsky, Josh Moore,
Catey Moreno-Silva, Michelle, Morgan, Rachel, Murphy Vlasto,
Megan, Myrick Gary, Najafi, Leela, Nam, Alice, Nehme, Joe,
Nguyen, Alex, Nicholson, Jordan.
Nunez, Diana, Odgren, Andrew, Olvera, Lorenzo, Orlove,
Suzan, Ortega, Sol,

[[Page S1269]]

Osmolski, Rebecca, Oursler, Nate, Paone, Stephanie, Patel,
Vandan, Patterson, Liza, Patterson, Mark, Petrella, Gerry,
Pina, Oriana, Reese, William, Revelle, Justine, Rivera, Tony,
Robinson, Alexandra, Rodarte, Sam, Rodman, Scott, Rodriguez,
Crisitian.
Roefaro, Angelo, Rosenblum, Zac, Ryder, Tim, Seijas,
Nelson, Shah, Raisa, Sharbaugh, Tyson, Sinpatanasakul, Leeann
Skapnit, Amanda, Sledge, Alexa, Smith, Hannah, Sonnier-
Thompson, Bre, Spellicy, Amanda, Sundaramoorthy, Dili, Sweda,
Emily, Talley, Hanna, Taira, Meghan, Tam, Catalina, Taylor,
Anna, Taylor, Terri, Tepke, Paige, Timothy, Kimarah.
Tinsley, Dan, Vaughn, Erin, Sager, Velez, Cyre, Virgona,
Nicole, Vogel, Kai, Vorperian-Grillo, Karine, Watt, Brad,
Watters, Veronica, Weir, Emma, Yoken, Dan, Younkin, Nora,
Zeltmann, Chris, Zomorrodian, Reza.

Senator Durbin's Office

Maalik Simmons, Miriam Wheatley, Corey Tellez, Jasmine
Hunt, Joe Bushong, Emily Hampsten

Cloakroom Staff

Gary Myrick, Tricia Engle, Dan Tinsley, Brad Watt,
Stephanie Paone, Nate Oursler, Rachel Jackson, Liza
Patterson.

Chamber Assistants

Lauren Cavagnano, Drew Erickson, Virginia Brown, Brennan
Leach, Layne Donovan, Juliana Surprenant.
Mr. SCHUMER. Many of them have worked for as many as 36 hours
straight. My notes here say: ``Let's give them a round of applause.''
And, of course, one more thank-you to my great and wonderful staff. I
will thank all of them by name at a later date because I want them to
be awake and alert when I do.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. The Senate has never spent $2 trillion in a more
haphazard way or through a less rigorous process.
Voters gave Senate Democrats the slimmest possible majority. Voters
picked a President who promised unity and bipartisanship.
Democrats' response is to ram through what they call ``the most
progressive domestic legislation in a generation'' on a razor-thin
majority in both Houses.
The right path was obvious. We followed it five times last year--five
rescue packages totaling $4 trillion, and none of them got fewer than
90 votes.
The Senate wrote the CARES Act, Republicans and Democrats, shoulder
to shoulder. That was the road to real pandemic relief, but Democrats
actually wanted something else. They explained their intent very
clearly: to exploit this crisis as ``a tremendous opportunity to
restructure things to fit our vision.''
That is how you get this massive bill with only 1 percent--1 percent
for vaccinations, that ignores the science on reopening schools, that
is stuffed with non-COVID-related spending that even top liberal
economists say is wrong for the recovery.
Democrats inherited a tide that is already turning--2021 was already
set to be our comeback year--because of the American people's
resilience and the bipartisan foundation that we laid last year.
We could have worked together to speed up victory, but our Democratic
colleagues made a decision. Their top priority wasn't pandemic relief.
It was their Washington wish list.
So, Mr. President, colleagues, I strongly recommend a ``no'' vote.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill having been read the third time,
the question is, Shall the bill pass?
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alaska (Mr.
Sullivan) would have voted ``nay.''
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any Senators in the Chamber
wishing to change their vote?
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 110 Leg.]

YEAS--50

NAYS--49

NOT VOTING--1

Sullivan

The bill (H.R. 1319), as amended, was passed
(Applause.)
Mr. SCHUMER. I just want to thank everybody. We are a great team. We
are a great team.
Ms. DUCKWORTH. Thank you, Georgia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hickenlooper). The majority leader.

____________________