[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 56 (Thursday, March 25, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1800-S1804]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            PREVENTING ACROSS-THE-BOARD DIRECT SPENDING CUTS

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 1868; that the Shaheen-
Collins substitute amendment No. 1410 and the Scott of Florida 
amendment No. 1411 be made pending and reported by number; further, 
that the Senate vote in relation to the Scott amendment and the 
substitute, that upon disposition of the amendments, the bill be 
considered read a third time, the Senate vote on passage of the bill as 
amended, if amended, with 60 affirmative votes required for passage; 
further, that there be 2 minutes for debate, equally divided, prior to 
each vote; and finally, that the motions to reconsider be considered 
made and laid upon the table, all with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Indiana. Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President, reserving the 
right to object, I rise today to ask support of this body to fix a 
problem in the American Rescue Plan, a bill that was passed in a rushed 
manner with no input from Republicans.
  I do not rise today to debate the underlying bill, although there 
could be plenty to debate about it, but to make the point we can 
multitask and address more than one time-sensitive issue at a time.
  We need to protect senior citizens and ensure we aren't making cuts 
to a vital program like Medicare, and today we will do that.
  But we have another issue that we can address today as well.
  In the American Rescue Plan, Democrats punished red States, like 
Indiana, for keeping unemployment low, by taking a smart approach to 
COVID, by balancing public safety with the economy.
  Now they want to tell States that they can't cut taxes through 2024, 
despite being good stewards day in and day out of taxpayer money over 
the past year.
  This provision is so troubling that 21 State AGs sent a letter to the 
Treasury raising the following concerns about the tax cut prohibition:
  It imposes an ambiguous condition on Federal funding; it results in 
Federal conditions that don't relate to the Federal interest for which 
the program was established; it violates separation of powers and 
fundamental democratic principles and effectively commandeers half of 
the States' fiscal ledgers; and, ultimately, it is unconstitutionally 
coercive.
  Treasury said last week that States can still cut their taxes; they 
just can't use American Rescue Plan money to do it. But Governors and 
State legislatures are still confused.
  One midwestern attorney general has asked a Federal judge to block 
the tax cut prohibition. Multiple tax professionals and outside groups 
say there are many questions still left unanswered.
  We can stop this entire mess by adopting my amendment, the Let States 
Cut Taxes Act, an amendment to stop the Federal Government's 
unconstitutional overreach on States' rights.
  Therefore, I ask that the Senator modify his request to include my 
amendment, which is at the desk, and that following disposition of the 
Scott amendment, the Senate vote on my amendment with a 60-affirmative-
vote threshold for adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator so modify his request?
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object.
  I have a statement to make.
  Last week, my friend from Indiana and I were last down here 
discussing this issue.
  There seemed to be a lot of confusion about the Treasury--or how the 
Treasury would interpret the net tax revenue provision. There seemed to 
be a fear that this language would prevent States from cutting any 
taxes whatsoever.
  And the good news is that we received some guidance earlier this week 
from Secretary Yellen that should put those concerns to bed once and 
for all.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the letter from Secretary Yellen
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                   Department of the Treasury,

                                   Washington, DC, March 23, 2021.
     Hon. Mark Brnovich,
     Attorney General, State of Arizona,
     Phoenix, AZ.
       Dear Attorney General Brnovich: I write in reply to your 
     March 16, 2021 letter regarding Treasury's implementation of 
     section 9901 of the American Rescue Plan Act (the ``Act''), 
     which provides funds to States, territories, Tribal 
     governments, and localities to help them manage the economic 
     consequences of COVID-19.
       In the Act, Congress has provided funding to help States 
     manage the public health and economic consequences of COVID-
     19 and it has given States considerable flexibility to use 
     that money to address the diverse needs of their communities. 
     At the same time, Congress placed limitations to ensure that

[[Page S1801]]

     the money is used to achieve those purposes--including 
     provisions stating that this funding may not be used to 
     offset a reduction in net tax revenue resulting from certain 
     changes in state law.
       It is well established that Congress may place such 
     reasonable conditions on how States may use federal funding. 
     Congress includes those sorts of reasonable funding 
     conditions in legislation routinely, including with respect 
     to funding for Medicaid, education, and highways. Here, the 
     Act provides a broad outlay of federal funds, and accordingly 
     includes restrictions to ensure that those funds are properly 
     applied. Earlier COVID-19 relief measures providing state 
     funding also included restrictions that barred States from 
     spending those funds on certain ineligible expenditures.
       Nothing in the Act prevents States from enacting a broad 
     variety of tax cuts. That is, the Act does not ``deny States 
     the ability to cut taxes in any manner whatsoever.'' It 
     simply provides that funding received under the Act may not 
     be used to offset a reduction in net tax revenue resulting 
     from certain changes in state law. If States lower certain 
     taxes but do not use funds under the Act to offset those 
     cuts--for example, by replacing the lost revenue through 
     other means--the limitation in the Act is not implicated.
       It is also important to note that States choosing to use 
     the federal funds to offset a reduction in net tax revenue do 
     not thereby forfeit their entire allocation of funds 
     appropriated under this statute. The limitation affects 
     States' ability to retain only those federal funds used to 
     offset a reduction in net tax revenue resulting from certain 
     changes in state law.
       Treasury is crafting further guidance--including guidance 
     to address more specifically the issues raised by your letter 
     and the procedures Treasury will use for any future 
     recoupment--that will provide additional information about 
     how this provision will be administered. We will provide this 
     guidance before a State must submit a certification under 
     602(d)(1). We also expect to engage in an ongoing dialogue 
     throughout the program.
       These funds will provide transformative relief to States, 
     territories, and Tribal governments, and our communities 
     should be able to use the funds to recover from the economic 
     fallout due to the pandemic, which is what Congress intended. 
     I hope to work with your State, as well as others across the 
     country, to ensure these funds can be used in ways that align 
     with the goals of the statute without undue restrictions.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Janet L. Yellen.

  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I will enter this letter into the Record, 
but I would like to read the key sentences. And to the Senator from 
Indiana, if I could read this letter to you and to make sure that--I 
don't know how--I have spoken to my attorney general, who was one of 
the original cosigners, and I said: Mr. Attorney General, I want to 
explain this in English because it is very easy to understand. It says 
this:

       Nothing in the Act prevents States from enacting a broad 
     variety of tax cuts.

  Do whatever you want.

       That is, the Act does not ``deny States the ability to cut 
     taxes in any manner whatsoever.''

  This comes from the Secretary of Treasury.

       It simply provides that funding received under the Act may 
     not be used to offset a reduction. . . .

  That you choose, unless it is COVID related. It makes all the sense 
in the world. It has to be COVID related.

       If States lower certain taxes but do not use funds under 
     the Act to offset those cuts--for example, by replacing the 
     lost revenue through other means--the limitation in the Act 
     is not implicated.

  They can do whatever they want to. And if they can show other revenue 
to offset it, that is great. They just cannot use the Treasury's money 
that the people have invested in their States for that purpose.
  It also says this:

       It is . . . important to note that the States choosing to 
     use the Federal funds to offset a reduction in net tax 
     revenue do not thereby forfeit their entire allocation of 
     funds appropriated under this statute.

  They have alluded to that, which is not accurate.

       The limitation affects States' ability to retain only those 
     Federal funds used to offset a reduction in . . . tax revenue 
     resulting from certain changes in [the] state law.

  That is it. That is not--and these are all supposed to be educated 
attorneys that are writing letters wanting explanations.
  This is as common sense as it gets. It is a bipartisan guardrail to 
simply make sure the emergency funds make it to the people who need it 
most, and the States can do whatever they think they should do and 
could do.
  As a former Governor, I would have been offended if I thought it was 
hampered. I am not. I have got to make good decisions here. I have 
other revenue coming in. I want to cut this tax. That is fine. I just 
can't cut a tax to be popular and then say: OK. Mr. Senators here, 
please send us money so we can be popular back home but use your money 
to make us look good. That is about it in a nutshell.
  So it is for those reasons, and many, many more, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard to the modification.
  Is there objection to the original request?
  Mr. BRAUN. Reserving the right to object, coming from the world of 
business, I have been dismayed by Washington's inability to fix 
problems in a timely, rational manner, and that has been over a stretch 
of many years before I got here.
  I do, respectfully, disagree with my friend from West Virginia. We 
should fix this tax cut prohibition right now that was forced into the 
American Rescue Plan in the wee hours of the morning.
  If we want to fix a commonsense problem, we are being told that our 
only choice is to hold Hoosier seniors hostage. This is the most 
deliberative body in the world; this cannot be the best the Senate has 
to offer.
  We must get the Federal Government out of the way and stop 
complicating and confusing States. They should be allowed to do their 
jobs.
  And, by the way, they do their jobs--balancing their budgets every 
year, living within their means. Most of the rest of the country 
accepts that as well.
  Given the looming April 1 deadline for cuts to return to Medicare, I 
am not willing to let Hoosier seniors suffer. As a result, I will 
withdraw my amendment in the interest of seniors across Indiana.
  I look forward to working with the two leaders after the recess to 
fix this issue. I will not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, the Senate will proceed to the 
consideration of H.R. 1868, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1868) to prevent across-the-board direct 
     spending cuts, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will now 
report the amendments numbered 1410 and 1411 by number.


                           Amendment No. 1410

  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mrs. Shaheen] for herself 
     and Ms. Collins proposes an amendment numbered 1410.

  The amendment is as follows

                (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

        Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF MEDICARE 
                   SEQUESTRATION.

       (a) Extension.--
       (1) In general.--Section 3709(a) of division A of the CARES 
     Act (2 U.S.C. 901a note) is amended by striking ``March 31, 
     2021'' and inserting ``December 31, 2021''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
     shall take effect as if enacted as part of the CARES Act 
     (Public Law 116-136).
       (b) Offset.--Section 251A(6)(C) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901a(6)(C)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in clause (i)--
       (A) by striking ``first 6 months'' and inserting ``first 5 
     \1/2\ months'';
       (B) by striking ``4.0 percent'' and inserting ``2.0 
     percent''; and
       (C) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in clause (ii)--
       (A) by striking ``second 6 months'' and inserting ``6-month 
     period beginning on the day after the last day of the period 
     described in clause (i)''; and
       (B) by striking ``0.0 percent.'' and inserting ``4.0 
     percent; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) with respect to the remaining \1/2\ month in which 
     such order is so effective for such fiscal year, the payment 
     reduction shall be 0.0 percent.''.

     SEC. 2. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

       (a) Rural Health Clinic Payments.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1833(f)(3) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(f)(3)) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) in clause (i), by striking subclauses (I) and (II) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(I) with respect to a rural health clinic that had a per 
     visit payment amount established for services furnished in 
     2020--

       ``(aa) the per visit payment amount applicable to such 
     rural health clinic for rural

[[Page S1802]]

     health clinic services furnished in 2020, increased by the 
     percentage increase in the MEI applicable to primary care 
     services furnished as of the first day of 2021; or
       ``(bb) the limit described in paragraph (2)(A); and

       ``(II) with respect to a rural health clinic that did not 
     have a per visit payment amount established for services 
     furnished in 2020--

       ``(aa) the per visit payment amount applicable to such 
     rural health clinic for rural health clinic services 
     furnished in 2021; or
       ``(bb) the limit described in paragraph (2)(A); and''; and

       (ii) in clause (ii)(I), by striking ``under clause (i)(I)'' 
     and inserting ``under subclause (I) or (II) of clause (i), as 
     applicable,''; and
       (B) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) A rural health clinic described in this subparagraph 
     is a rural health clinic that--
       ``(i) as of December 31, 2020, was in a hospital with less 
     than 50 beds and after such date such hospital continues to 
     have less than 50 beds (not taking into account any increase 
     in the number of beds pursuant to a waiver under subsection 
     (b)(1)(A) of section 1135 during the emergency period 
     described in subsection (g)(1)(B) of such section); and
       ``(ii)(I) as of December 31, 2020, was enrolled under 
     section 1866(j) (including temporary enrollment during such 
     emergency period for such emergency period); or
       ``(II) submitted an application for enrollment under 
     section 1866(j) (or a request for such a temporary enrollment 
     for such emergency period) that was received not later than 
     December 31, 2020.''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
     Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-260).
       (b) Additional Amount for Certain Hospitals With High 
     Disproportionate Share.--Effective as if included in the 
     enactment of section 203(a) of title II of division CC of 
     Public Law 116-260, subsection (g) of section 1923 of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-4), as amended by such 
     section, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Continued application of grandfathered transition 
     rule.--Notwithstanding paragraph (2) of this subsection (as 
     in effect on October 1, 2021), paragraph (2) of this 
     subsection (as in effect on September 30, 2021, and as 
     applied under section 4721(e) of the Balanced Budget Act of 
     1997, and amended by section 607 of the Medicare, Medicaid, 
     and SCHIP Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999 (Public Law 
     106-113)) shall apply in determining whether a payment 
     adjustment for a hospital in a State referenced in section 
     4721(e) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 during a State 
     fiscal year shall be considered consistent with subsection 
     (c).''.

                Amendment No. 1411 to Amendment No. 1410

  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Scott] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1411 to amendment No. 1410.

  The amendment is as follows

                     (Purpose: To improve the bill)

        Strike section 2(b).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate, equally 
divided, prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 1411.
  The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, it must be nice to be the 
Speaker of the House. Speaker Pelosi gets to push around our new 
majority leader and my Democratic colleagues, and they get nothing in 
return.
  This bill is a bailout for Speaker Pelosi and gives California's 
healthcare system the ability to claim up to 175 percent of 
uncompensated care costs in their DSH Program while all the other 
States can only claim up to 100 percent of costs.
  How is that fair to Florida?
  How can the majority leader and my new colleagues from Georgia, 
Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona justify a vote that is unfair to 
their States? Well, welcome to Pelosi's U.S. Senate.
  Seriously, how can anyone in this body, except, perhaps, my two 
colleagues from California, possibly justify voting against this 
amendment?
  This is a very simple concept. All 50 States should be treated 
equally. One State should not be given special treatment over the 
others. This is a bailout for Speaker Pelosi, period.
  I want to be very clear. I oppose any cuts to Medicare benefits. So 
what I am offering protects Medicare benefits, and the only change it 
makes to this bill is to strip out this ridiculous Pelosi bailout.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I 
have another 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. What I am offering protects Medicare benefits, 
and the only change it makes to this bill is to strip out this 
ridiculous Pelosi bailout.
  A vote for my amendment is a vote to ensure that all 50 States play 
by the same rules. It is to preserve the current law.
  A vote against my amendment is a vote to say that your State plays by 
the rules, but Pelosi gets her own set of rules.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  The bill before us today fixes a drafting error from legislation 
enacted last December. The unintentional error occurred accidentally 
against a longstanding rule under which California is able to use 
Medicaid funding to reimburse hospitals serving uninsured and Medicaid 
patients.
  Today's bill fixes that drafting error. It makes no other changes to 
law and does not provide additional funds to California or any other 
State. CBO says that this provision has no budgetary effect.
  Because of the sheer number of Medicaid and uninsured patients that 
receive care in California's safety net hospitals, Congress, in 1997, 
granted the State additional flexibility. It can use Federal funds it 
receives to cover hospital expenses for those in need.
  If the Scott amendment passes, hospital care for half of the children 
in California and the vulnerable populations most affected by COVID 
would be at risk.
  Please vote no on this amendment.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1411

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Scott 
amendment.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. 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 Nebraska (Mr. Sasse), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the 
Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran) 
would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse) 
would have voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote or to change their vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 141 Ex.]

                                YEAS--47

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

                                NAYS--50

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Hyde-Smith
     Moran
     Sasse
  The amendment (No. 1411) was rejected.


                           Amendment No. 1410

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 2 minutes of debate on the 
Shaheen-Collins amendment.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. If we are quiet, we will be quick.

[[Page S1803]]

  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together and 
help ensure that our Nation's hospitals, nursing homes, physicians, and 
other healthcare providers have the support they need to get through 
the COVID-19 pandemic.
  This substitute amendment that Senator Collins and I are offering is 
a compromise that delays the Medicare payment cuts through December 31 
and ensures that the cost of this delay is paid for.
  I hope you will support it.
  Senator Collins.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Shaheen-
Collins substitute to prevent a cut in Medicare reimbursements for 
hospitals, nursing homes, home health agencies and other healthcare 
providers who continue to care for their patients in this era of COVID. 
Congress twice last year suspended the 2-percent Medicare sequester in 
bipartisan COVID relief packages, and I hope we can do so once again.
  At a time when our country is relying so heavily on our healthcare 
providers to help get us back to normal, we cannot ignore the financial 
realities they face. Almost half--17 out of 36--of Maine hospitals 
finished last year with a negative operating margin. According to 
Northern Light Health in Maine, relief from the Medicare sequester 
amounts to $1 million per month.
  The Shaheen-Collins amendment will extend the current sequester 
moratorium until the end of the year. This financial certainty is 
needed in these uncertain times.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Shaheen-Collins substitute.
  Thank you.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1410

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1410) in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the bill is 
considered read a third time.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes of debate
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to come together and help ensure that our 
Nation's hospitals, nursing homes, physicians, and other healthcare 
providers have the financial support they need to get through the 
COVID-19 pandemic.
  On March 25, 2020, this body came together and passed the CARES Act, 
by a 96-0 vote--exactly 1 year ago today.
  The CARES Act helped to provide the resources needed to ramp up 
testing and vaccine development, ensure that small businesses would 
have support to continue to pay their workers, and provide much-needed 
financial relief for healthcare providers on the frontlines of this 
pandemic.
  A year later, we can start to see the light at the end of the very 
long tunnel that is this public health crisis. More than 100 million 
doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been administered across the country. 
And we are starting to see job growth as more companies start hiring 
again.
  However, with hundreds of millions of Americans still needing to be 
vaccinated and the threat of COVID-19 variants still looming, we need 
to continue to support our frontline healthcare providers and help keep 
them financially strong for the months ahead.
  That is why Senator Collins and I came together to introduce the 
Medicare Sequester Relief Act, a bill that would suspend the 2 percent 
Medicare payment cuts that are scheduled to hit healthcare providers 
starting on April 1.
  As a result of the CARES Act and through subsequent relief measures, 
these payment cuts have been suspended through March 31, and they need 
to be suspended again.
  With American hospitals and nursing homes projecting tens of billions 
of dollars in additional financial losses this year due to the COVID-19 
crisis, we need to continue to avert these Medicare payment cuts until 
we are further past the worst of the pandemic.
  The substitute amendment that Senator Collins and I are offering 
today is a reasonable compromise. It delays the Medicare payment cuts 
through December 31. And it ensures that the cost of this delay is paid 
for, so that we do not increase the Federal budget deficit.
  This week, I heard from Wentworth-Douglass Hospital in Dover, NH.
  They highlighted that this legislation would result in $2.1 million 
in desperately needed additional revenue for the hospital.
  The hospital's chief financial officer, Peter Walcek told me: ``These 
are real dollars supporting our organization's recovery from tens of 
millions in lost revenue and added costs during the pandemic. . . . By 
passing a continued moratorium through 2021, Wentworth-Douglass will be 
in a better place to care for those in need and respond to any future 
crisis affecting the health of our community.''
  I also heard about the importance of Medicare sequester relief for 
New Hampshire nursing homes. Patricia Ramsey, from the Edgewood Centre 
nursing facility in Portsmouth, NH, said ``the Medicare sequestration 
suspension, although not a cure, will help us mitigate the added 
operating expenses and losses we continue to experience, especially 
with the exacerbated workforce shortage.''
  I have heard stories like these from so many healthcare providers 
across New Hampshire, and I believe there are healthcare providers in 
each of our communities that would share similar stories.
  We need to provide them with more financial support so that they can 
be there to care for patients, as we continue to make progress in 
combating this pandemic.
  We cannot allow our hospitals and healthcare providers to go under as 
we fight through the worst public health crisis of our lifetimes.
  I urge my colleagues to come together again, like we did in the CARES 
Act, and support this legislation when it comes up for a vote today.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, 30 seconds' worth.
  First of all, we are protecting the lifeline for senior citizens by 
delaying the sequester cut to Medicare. We would have extraordinary 
problems if this cut were to be allowed to take effect.
  Second, we have defeated the Scott amendment which, if adopted, would 
have set a horrible precedent by refusing to fix Congress's mistake and 
forcing hospitals in one Senator's State to take on draconian Medicaid 
cuts.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote.


                           Vote on H.R. 1868

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass, as amended?
  Mr. MANCHIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the 
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-
Smith), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from 
Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse), and the 
Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran) 
would have voted ``yea.''
  The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 2, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 142 Ex.]

                                YEAS--90

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Braun
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford

[[Page S1804]]


     Leahy
     Lee
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Manchin
     Markey
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--2

     Paul
     Toomey
       

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Barrasso
     Cornyn
     Cruz
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Moran
     Sasse
     Tuberville
  The bill (H.R. 1868), as amended, was passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cortez Masto). On this vote, the yeas are 
90, the nays are 2.
  The 60-vote threshold having been achieved, the bill, as amended, is 
passed.
  The bill (H.R. 1868), as amended, passed. The majority leader.

                          ____________________