[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

     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 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

     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

                                NAYS--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

                             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

     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
     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
     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. 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

     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 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

     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 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

     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 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

     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 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

     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--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

     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--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

     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--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

     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 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

     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 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

     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 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

     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
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch

[[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

     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 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

     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

                                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--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

     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

[[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

     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 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

     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 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

     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 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

     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 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

     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 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

     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 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

     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

                                NAYS--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

                             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.

                          ____________________