[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 205 (Monday, November 29, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8769-S8777]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

    NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 4350, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4350) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2022 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Reed/Inhofe modified amendment No. 3867, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Reed amendment No. 4775 (to amendment No. 3867), to modify 
     effective dates relating to the Assistant Secretary of the 
     Air Force for Space Acquisition and Integration and the 
     Service Acquisition Executive of the Department of the Air 
     Force for Space Systems and Programs.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Hunter Biden

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, today I am going to highlight a new 
Hunter Biden record that I have recently made public.
  Before I get to that point, I am going to take a trip down memory 
lane--yes, down memory lane.
  On September 23, 2020, Senator Johnson and I released our ``Biden 
Report,'' as it has been called. That report focused on questionable 
financial transactions between the Biden family and foreign, 
government-linked individuals.
  On November 18, 2020, we released a supplemental to that report. I am 
going to read several statements from the media and my Democratic 
colleagues about our report.
  So, to start with, on September 23, 2020, a New York Times article by 
Nicholas Fandos described it in two ways: ``lack of meaningful new 
information'' and ``overlap with a Russian disinformation campaign.''
  And the then-Democratic minority leader was quoted in the same 
article

[[Page S8770]]

and said the report read ``as if Putin wrote it, not United States 
senators.''
  A September 23, 2020, Salon article by Igor Derysh quoted a 
Democratic Senator saying that the report was the culmination of a 
``sham investigation.'' In that article, the same Democratic Senator 
described our investigation as being ``rooted in disinformation'' from 
Russian operatives.
  Separately, a Democratic Senator also said about our report: ``Bottom 
line: The Johnson-Grassley investigation is baseless. It's laundering 
Russian propaganda for circulation in the U.S.''
  In a September 23, 2020, CBS article by Melissa Quinn, another 
Democratic Senator said about our report, meaning the Johnson-Grassley 
report: ``The chairmen have amplified a known Russian attack on our 
election,'' and ``It is unconscionable that the chairmen are continuing 
to advance false information intended to undermine our democratic 
process at the expense of bipartisan work that we should be doing to 
protect our national security.''
  That same CBS article said that our report ``reveals little new 
information.''
  And one Washington Post columnist, Josh Rogin, said: ``Even after 
accepting disinformation from Russian agents, Johnson and Grassley 
couldn't come up with anything new or interesting on Hunter Biden.''
  So understand this: Week after week, month after month, year after 
year, the media and my Democratic colleagues falsely attacked our 
investigation with reckless disregard for the truth. I have spoken at 
length on the Senate floor rebutting all these false charges with 
example after example. I did so on May 11, 2021; March 18, 2021; 
December 14, 2020; December 10, 2020; October 19, 2020; and September 
29, 2020.
  Well, on November 15, this year, Senator Johnson and I publicly 
released a record that I placed in part on this poster next to me, and 
I will get to this in a minute. The full document illustrates an 
assignment and assumption of business interests.
  The part next to me is a signature block in unaltered form, including 
one typographical error. The signature block includes Hunter Biden, two 
of his companies, and individuals connected to the communist Chinese 
regime. These are the main companies that Hunter Biden and his 
associates used to funnel money all over the world: Hudson West III, 
Hudson V, and then the other ones are ColdHarbour Capital and Owasco. 
Owasco is Hunter Biden's firm that was the recipient of millions of 
dollars from questionable financial transactions.
  Gongwen Dong was the right-hand man for the owner of a company called 
CEFC China Energy Company. Mervyn Yan was his associate. CEFC was an 
arm of the Chinese Government. Hunter Biden was a close business 
partner of these men and their companies. Therefore, this signature 
block shows a direct financial and legal relationship between Hunter 
Biden and individuals connected to the communist regime.
  Now, these are the same folks and companies that we discussed at 
length in our September 2020 report. This new document is yet another 
record that substantiates our report that we issued September 2020--
that same report that the media and my Democratic colleagues said was 
based on Russian disinformation.
  So I now say to the media and I now say to my Democratic colleagues 
who said our report was Russian disinformation, this question: Is this 
signature block Russian disinformation? Are the names of these 
companies Russian disinformation? Is this document disinformation?
  No. This is a legitimate record that my staff uncovered, and it 
didn't come from the Hunter Biden laptop. This is the same type of 
record that Senator Johnson and I based our report several months ago 
on.
  To my Democratic colleagues who falsely smeared our report: You are 
in the majority. You are now committee chairs, and you have 
jurisdiction over these matters. So I want to challenge you to use the 
same effort and energy that you exerted in the Trump-Russia 
investigation to expose the extensive ties between the Chinese regime 
and members of the Biden family.
  I think I speak with some credibility on this point because you know 
there was a President Trump, and at the time there was a President 
Trump, I investigated Donald Trump, Jr., on things that were 
appropriate at that time to ask legitimate questions about in the 
constitutional role of congressional oversight.


                               Education

  Madam President, on another matter--and this will be my last 
statement for the day--I have always been a critic of one-size-fits-all 
government, and there are few places where this is more inappropriate 
than education. Each child is different, and if we offer a cookie-
cutter, assembly-line education, it will hurt all students.
  Whether we are talking about students with gifts and talents or those 
with learning disabilities, students with unique learning needs must 
have teachers trained to address their way of learning. It may seem 
like common sense to say that, that students benefit when their 
education is tailored to their individual needs. Any parent can tell 
you that. You can't expect all students to learn at the same speed and 
depth in every subject.
  Unfortunately, those like outgoing New York Mayor de Blasio want to 
scrap programs for gifted students. Citing the fact that White and 
Asian students were overperforming compared to students from other 
ethnic categories, de Blasio tried to end the city's program.
  His focus on maintaining equality of outcomes by preventing any 
students from excelling is a misguided policy. It would have the 
perverse effect of reducing opportunity for the very students who need 
it most, including historically disadvantaged minority groups.
  Now, we all know that wealthy families can afford to put their kids 
in private schools or pay for services outside of the schools. It is 
those students who aren't as well off who need access to services to 
address their unique learning needs. Families from less advantaged 
backgrounds are not helped by limiting opportunities for all students 
in public schools. They are the ones who have the most to lose when 
public schools cancel needed services.
  Thankfully, the incoming New York mayor recognizes the importance of 
gifted and talented programming and has pledged to keep it.
  I introduced the TALENT Act to address these unique needs of gifted 
and talented students and ensure that they don't slip through the 
cracks. Thankfully, much of this bill was included in Every Child 
Achieves in the year 2015. But I am also a strong supporter of Javits 
Gifted and Talented Education. This is the only dedicated Federal 
program to develop and help teachers implement teaching methods that 
meet the needs of gifted students, and it is targeted specifically to 
disadvantaged gifted students.
  Thankfully, my State of Iowa is a leader in this area. Iowa law 
requires gifted education services for kids who need to be challenged. 
This applies to all students, whether or not they can afford private 
schools. Iowa has recognized that we should aim to challenge kids with 
gifts and talents and give them the resources they need to excel. We 
should help all students achieve their potential, not try in vain to 
find one identical education for every kid.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Legislative Agenda

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, here we are, following the Thanksgiving 
holiday, where I hope that people got to get together with friends and 
family and enjoy a little respite from the hectic schedule here in 
Congress. But here we are now, with just a few short days intervening 
between now and Christmas, and the end-of-the-year legislative mad dash 
is officially upon us.
  This year, our Democratic colleagues, who control the Senate agenda, 
have ignored some of the Senate's most important and basic 
responsibilities, leaving us with a whole lot to do and not a whole lot 
of time in which to do it.
  In September, when the Senate should have passed a group of bills to

[[Page S8771]]

fund the government for the next fiscal year, our colleagues instead 
kicked the can down the road. You would have thought they would have 
used the past couple of months to pass the annual appropriations bills, 
which is one of most basic and fundamental responsibilities of 
Congress; but, no, they chose not to do that.
  Instead, our Democratic colleagues found time for partisan, dead-on-
arrival messaging bills while they failed to bring a single 
appropriations bill to the floor with a December 3 deadline.
  As things stand today, it looks like these funding bills are nowhere 
near ready. This risks leaving millions of Americans without a paycheck 
right before the Christmas holidays or punting on our funding 
responsibilities once again.
  And that is not the only potential fiscal disaster we are careening 
toward. At some point in the coming days, weeks, or months--we don't 
know exactly when; only Secretary Yellen knows--the U.S. will run up 
against the debt limit. That is, we have maxed out our credit card and, 
unless our Democratic colleagues decide to raise that credit limit, we 
will exhaust the credit of the United States Government.
  It kind of feels a little like ``Groundhog Day'' because we saw this 
movie just about 2 months ago.
  Democrats had a clear roadmap and ample time to increase the debt 
ceiling on their own and avoid a financial crisis, but they stubbornly 
refused. They said they didn't have enough time. Well, they don't have 
that excuse now.
  And, even then, they have known since July that Republicans would not 
help them with another partisan spending spree. So we find ourselves 
staring down the barrel of a potential economic crisis, but our 
colleagues can't blame the calendar for not having enough time again.
  If our Democratic colleagues want to exclude Republicans and continue 
spending on a purely partisan basis, they will have to raise the debt 
ceiling in a partisan fashion. They have proven they are OK with 
spending trillions of dollars of borrowed money without a single 
Republican vote. It is not too much to say that they should be held 
accountable for that reckless course of conduct.
  Of course, before the Senate addresses either one of those crises, 
there is another item on the agenda: The National Defense Authorization 
Act.
  Congress has passed the National Defense Authorization Act each year 
for the last 60 years, and for good reason. It is the case, I believe, 
that our national security is the single most important duty that we 
have here in the Senate. But this bill has been waiting in the wings 
for months, ready for floor action, and both the chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee and the ranking member have had to push the majority 
leader to actually bring this to the Senate floor, even at this late 
date.
  So 2 weeks ago, before the Thanksgiving holidays, the Senate finally 
began consideration of the Defense Authorization Act, and we hope we 
can actually do what the Senate is supposed to do, which is to vote on 
amendments to that bill and then pass it in the coming days. But the 
fact is, it is nearly December, and the fact that it has not been done 
yet is simply inexplicable.
  Now, with such a big to-do list and so little time to do it, you 
would think our colleagues would be laser focused on this hefty end-of-
the-year agenda: funding the government, avoiding a debt crisis, 
strengthening our military, and supporting our volunteer military 
forces and their families.
  None of the Senate's most basic responsibilities have been attended 
to; and, as it stands today, the Senate is only scheduled to be in 
session for a handful of days before the Christmas holidays.
  Well, unfortunately, our Democratic colleagues think they have an 
even more important job to do. Forget the millions of government 
employees who could be left without a paycheck before the holidays, or 
the economic crisis that will cripple our country if we defaulted on 
our debt. Our Democratic colleagues are laser focused on their 
multitrillion-dollar tax-and-spending spree.
  After months of party infighting and countless iterations of this 
bill, the Democratic leaders in the House--most notably Speaker 
Pelosi--finally managed to pass a partisan version of this bill. They 
couldn't even convince every Democrat to vote for the bill, which is an 
indication of how problematic it is.
  What we are talking about is an absolutely massive bill that would 
increase the role and power of the Federal Government and Americans' 
lives in an unprecedented fashion. It would reshape how we take care of 
our children, our healthcare system, our energy, our educational 
systems. Virtually every aspect of American citizens' daily lives would 
be affected by this monstrosity.
  And, of course, these programs don't come cheap, but Democrats have 
pulled every gimmick in the book to hide the true cost. They have 
filled this bill with arbitrary sunsets and cliffs and expirations that 
make these programs appear to cost less than we know they actually 
will.
  One example is the expanded child tax credit. As originally drafted, 
this policy was a temporary measure in their bill that became law in 
March, just 8 months ago. Earlier drafts of the so-called Build Back 
Better legislation would have extended that policy through 2025, even 
though it seemed all but certain that Democrats would later try to make 
it permanent.
  When Democrats needed to cut the overall pricetag of the bill to 
convince their own Members to vote for it, the expanded child tax 
credit was scaled back to a 1-year extension. But nothing has really 
changed. I have no expectation that this or a number of other so-called 
temporary programs in this bill will actually expire.
  As President Ronald Reagan once famously said, the closest thing to 
eternal life on Earth is a temporary government program.
  If all the temporary provisions in this bill are made permanent, it 
will cost a whole lot more than is advertised. And the budget experts 
at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business have 
given us an estimate of how much more it will cost.
  Of course, there is President Biden, who said it will cost zero. 
Nobody believes that. Others have said, well, it is a $1.75 trillion 
bill. And I would argue that, based on all the budget gimmickry, you 
can't really believe that either.

  The University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business pegs the 
price at close to $4.6 trillion over 10 years--that is the budget 
window--more than 2\1/2\ times the amount Democrats have previously 
stated.
  The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget agrees with that 
estimate. They estimate that the true cost of this bill would be 
approximately $5 trillion over the next 10 years. That is $5 trillion 
in largely borrowed money that would have to be paid back by somebody. 
That is a whole lot more than the $1.75 trillion pricetag that the 
press has reported based on the incredible estimates that our 
Democratic colleagues have provided.
  Of course, that flies in the face of President Biden's estimate that 
it would cost nothing. Well, again, we understand that is not true, and 
the 1.75 trillion pricetag is not true either.
  Last week, I sent a letter to the leaders of the Congressional Budget 
Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation requesting a true cost 
estimate for this bill. The American people deserve a full and complete 
picture of the real-world price of this legislation. And before voting 
on the bill, every Member of the Senate, both Republicans and 
Democrats, should want to know how much this legislation is going to 
end up costing the American people.
  The pricetag of this bill is deeply concerning, but that is only part 
of what makes this legislation so dangerous. As I said earlier, it 
dramatically increases the role of the Federal Government in every 
aspect of our lives. It drives up taxes on working families; it harms 
our energy security; and it hurts our competitiveness on the global 
stage, which hands a big win to China.
  That, apparently, is the priority for our Democratic colleagues right 
now, not the looming debt crisis or potential government shutdown. They 
are focused on legislation that actually does more harm than good.
  Our Democratic colleagues control the Senate agenda. They control the 
House, and they control the White House. They control every lever in 
the

[[Page S8772]]

legislative process here in Washington, DC, and this is how they have 
chosen to use that power.
  Our Democratic colleagues continue to prove that they are not doing 
what is best for the American people. If it was, then there would be an 
effort to build a bipartisan consensus for this legislation.
  Instead, they are using raw partisan political power to jam through 
an agenda that they know will end up costing somewhere around $5 
trillion and that will permanently alter the relationship of the 
American people to the Federal Government.
  For our country's sake, I hope something changes between now and the 
time we actually take up this partisan tax-and-spending spree bill that 
has been passed by the House of Representatives.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, I imagine many of us in this Chamber 
had a wonderful week talking with Tennesseans--with our constituents.
  In Tennessee, I will tell you this: We had a fabulous week. And 
everywhere I went, whether it was the grocery store or somewhere with 
the grandchildren, I was hearing from people about the issues that are 
in front of us, and they are really curious to see what is going to end 
up happening as we take up issues here in DC.
  And I talked with a lot of our county mayors, who are quite concerned 
about what is happening with the American Recovery Act funding and how 
they are going to be able to use that funding.
  They are very concerned about the infrastructure bill, and, you know, 
they were really a little bit surprised to find out that so little of 
the bill actually goes to infrastructure. I think they were really 
disappointed in that because what they are interested in is money for 
roads and bridges and highways and ports and broadband, and were really 
disappointed in the emphasis in the bill on mass transit.
  So what we have realized is that they have a lot of questions. They 
look around and they say: Well, in Washington, you have got a lot of 
spinning wheels going on and not a lot of forward motion.
  And I have to agree because, in Washington, it does appear that the 
President and many of my Democrat colleagues are spinning their wheels 
in the same rut that they were stuck in before the holiday, proving 
once again that, while they understand very little about the economy, 
they understand even less about where the American people are.
  Since day 1 of this administration, the White House has made it clear 
that governing is not a priority. Governing--working with the House, 
working with the Senate to find solutions.
  But, instead, this administration is doing all it can to force the 
country onto a path that the people have said time and again they don't 
want to travel this path. It is not where they want to go.
  By all accounts, businesses are, at least, a year out from a return 
to normal, which we continue to hear a lot about that. Everybody would 
like to be back to prepandemic normal.
  Our supply chains are a mess. Ships that are loaded with goods cannot 
get to ports. Inflation is, unfortunately, here to stay. It definitely 
wasn't transitory. Families are having an increasingly difficult time 
putting food on the table and gas in the car because a dollar doesn't 
go as far as it once went, and this is something every family is 
wrestling with. Even with all of this right in front of their faces, my 
Democratic colleagues are more concerned with how they will leverage 
these problems rather than how they are going to solve these problems. 
What solutions that they have proposed are completely divorced from 
reality and come loaded with more internal political strife than they 
are worth. This, of course, is the logical conclusion of a year where 
consensus took a backseat to the whims of the loudest and most radical 
leftist wing of the Democratic Party.

  Over the past week, the media has dripped out story after story 
covering the cost of inflation, the consequences of failing to fund the 
government, and the upcoming debate over the debt limit. And if you 
thought the message coming from the White House and from my Democratic 
colleagues in response to all this was jumbled before, prepare yourself 
for something even more chaotic in the days to come.
  My colleagues across the aisle, unfortunately, still seem to be under 
the impression that Senate Republicans are going to band together to 
save them from the hole they have dug for themselves. They think we are 
going to endorse fiscal policy so destructive that many experts who are 
normally friendly to the White House have refused to support these 
ideas--and with good reason. They are a socialist, government-
controlled agenda.
  We have been down this road before. So my Democratic colleagues know 
that going through the motions of bipartisanship isn't going to be 
enough because we went through this months ago with the debt ceiling 
and on the matter of funding the government. We would have settled all 
of these issues months ago if the majority had their priorities in line 
and if they could articulate clearly to the American people what the 
priorities are, what the problems are, what the challenges are, and 
bring forward solutions for the American people to look at and say: 
Yeah, that makes sense. But that is not what they have done and what 
they continue to do.
  Here is the problem with where they are: The priorities of the 
Democratic Party are not the priorities of the American people. Out in 
the real world, inflation is a problem. Spending and debt--all of that 
means something. How you spend your money means something. People 
understand that. They get it.
  But according to the majority here in the Democratic-controlled 
Senate, none of these things actually matter in practice. In fact, the 
past few months have shown us that among Democrats, there is no real 
consensus about what, if anything, these major debates mean to them or 
what is the end game. It is amazing. They can't tell you. If you are 
here to solve problems or create problems, people are going to figure 
that out--the American people are. And they know that the question 
should be: Are you here to solve problems or create problems for your 
political enemies in a way that ensures you are punishing people?
  Now, that is the question that people are asking. Is the debt limit a 
legal fiction or a meaningful check on reckless spending? That is a 
question that we have heard. Is it just something that gets tossed 
around? Is funding the government part of your duty or is the 
appropriations debate just fuel for talking points? I think we know the 
majority's answers to all of these questions, and I think their answer 
is probably coming down on the wrong side of where the American people 
are.
  Those looking for good faith from the White House are seeming to not 
find it, nor are they finding any evidence that Democrats in Congress 
are aware of their moral obligation to be discerning and truthful about 
how they plan to spend trillions in taxpayer money.
  There is a reason that the Democrats lied about the costs associated 
with their massive social spending bill, which reflects the priorities 
of liberal, leftist activists rather than the priorities of the 
American people. They claimed it was paid for, but in reality it will 
add $367 billion to the deficit and cost taxpayers more than another 
$400 billion. That is why they have not been truthful with the American 
people that needed more buy-in in order for the Democrats to make this 
happen--even when they knew the CBO report was going to come and show 
how much debt was going to be added if this bill got passed.
  They know the people don't want this big spending bill. They know 
that the American people know that we cannot afford this. Our children 
and our grandchildren cannot afford this bill.
  As my colleague from Texas was saying, it is not $1.5 trillion or 
$1.75 trillion. It is trillions--trillions--of dollars in spending. And 
we know how some across the aisle are kind of, with a wink-wink and a 
nod-nod, saying: Yes, let's get these on the books, and then things 
will take care of themselves.
  This week, we are facing the prospect of yet another government 
shutdown, which means another eleventh-hour opportunity for my 
Democratic colleagues to complain about Republican obstruction. But 
what the Democrats in the media and the liberal activists

[[Page S8773]]

need to realize is that Republicans are not the problem here. The 
Democrats are in charge of this Chamber, the House, and the White 
House.
  And not even the Democrats in power can agree on how much they want 
to spend and how they want to spend it. If they had consensus and if 
that consensus came from listening to the people that elected them to 
serve, we wouldn't be staring at the prospect of another government 
shutdown. No, you would see Democrats marching to the Chamber in 
lockstep to vote for a continuing resolution that reflects goals that 
don't change with the news cycle.
  But there is no consensus. The people driving the ship have lost all 
sense of direction, and in doing so, they are losing the faith the 
American people have put in them.
  In Tennessee, we would say that our friends across the aisle are in 
the middle of a good old-fashioned come-apart, and there is one way and 
only one way to reverse the damage, and that is to stop worrying about 
politics and pushing a leftist agenda and start worrying about meeting 
the needs of the American people--not only today but the needs of our 
children and grandchildren. What are we going to do to their hopes and 
their dreams for living their version of the American dream?
  So we should agree, no more blame, no more budget gimmicks--open our 
eyes to the reality of the situation that we are dealing with. We have 
a job to do here, and the sooner my Democratic colleagues remember that 
fact, the sooner they will be able to earn back the faith and the trust 
of the American people. That is priority No. 1, and it is time for my 
colleagues to prove that they understand it.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KING. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KING. Madam President, I want to talk about the national defense 
bill, but first I do want to respond just in one particular to the 
comments of the gentlelady from Tennessee because I have heard this 
before, the idea that the infrastructure bill isn't infrastructure.
  I don't get how anybody is making that claim. Here is the list: roads 
and bridges, highway safety, public transit, rail, broadband, ports, 
airports, the electric grid, water, and Superfund cleanup. Yes, there 
are some items for EVs and for the facilitating of the electrification 
of our transportation system, but the vast bulk of it is what anybody 
would call infrastructure.
  Infrastructure is something you can kick. Infrastructure is something 
you can feel. And that is what we are talking about here--roads and 
bridges, ports, airports, rail, broadband. That is the infrastructure 
of the 21st century. This is an infrastructure bill, and it ought to be 
recognized as such.
  There are plenty of things we can argue and differ with around here, 
but this shouldn't be one of them. And people are confused about it 
because they are being given confusing information. They are being told 
it is not an infrastructure bill; there is no infrastructure. I have 
heard that. It is simply not true. So let's argue about the things 
that, you know, we have genuine policy differences, but let's not talk 
about things that just aren't the case. Ports, bridges, railroad, 
public transit--and, yes, public transit is infrastructure. It may not 
be in Tennessee. It may not be so much in Maine, although I suspect 
there is some in Tennessee and there is some in Maine, but public 
transportation is critical to our citizens.
  Broadband, airports, electric grid, water--that is infrastructure.


                               H.R. 4350

  Now, in a few moments, we will have what I hope is not a historic 
vote. It shouldn't be a historic vote. It ought to be a boring vote. 
The vote is to proceed to the National Defense Authorization Act for 
2022, just as we have done for 60 years' running. But I understand that 
there is a movement afoot to derail it because there haven't been 
enough amendments. ``I didn't get my amendment in; therefore, I am 
going to block this bill.''
  Well, let's talk a little bit about the history of the bill. I serve 
on the Armed Services Committee, as does the Presiding Officer, and 
both of us can attest that the Armed Services Committee is one of the 
most nonpartisan committees in the U.S. Senate. In fact, in the Armed--
let's talk about amendments for a minute. In the Armed Services 
Committee, during our markup, we adopted 145 amendments--most by 
agreement, by bipartisan agreement, by unanimous consent. There were a 
few rollcall votes but not very many. And in my experience in 9 years 
on that committee, there have only been a handful of party-line 
rollcall votes in the Armed Services Committee.
  It produces some very odd bedfellows, and some combinations that 
don't make much sense politically, but it is because the members of the 
committee put the interests of the United States of America first and 
make their decision on that, not on politics.
  So there were 145 amendments in the committee. Then there is a 
managers' package that we are going to be voting on today that has 57 
amendments in it--27 supported by Republicans and 27 by Democrats and 3 
that are entirely bipartisan. So we are up to 202 amendments. That is a 
lot of amendments to a piece of legislation, not to mention the fact 
that the managers' package within the committee was developed largely 
by consensus between the two party leaders, Chairman Reed and Ranking 
Member Inhofe. So this process is replete with amendments and 
compromise, and that is how it has been done for the past 60 years.
  Now, last week, before we left, we had another 18 amendments that 
were agreed upon by both parties to bring up as a package--not as a 
package; I am sorry--to be considered one at a time and be voted on.
  That process was killed by a group of Senators who said: No. I want 
my amendment. I am not on the list, and, therefore, I am going to 
object to the unanimous consent request, so nobody gets their 
amendments.
  So, today, we are going to be voting on the motion to proceed to the 
substitute amendment that is chock-full of bipartisan amendments. It 
doesn't have all of the amendments everybody wants. It doesn't have a 
couple of amendments that I feel are very important.
  But do you know what? To quote my favorite philosopher, Mick Jagger: 
You don't always get what you want, but, if you try sometimes, you just 
might find you get what you need.
  And that is what we have got right here, is what we need.
  This is the defense of the United States of America. Why can't we do 
just one bill without politics and without stamping our feet, saying, 
``I didn't get my amendment, so I am going to vote against it''?
  By the way, this is a vote on a motion to proceed, which, in my view, 
ought to be just the most routine possible vote. It is not a vote on 
the bill itself. Let's proceed to this bill. Let's proceed to the 
bipartisan managers' package that has been worked out, painstakingly, 
over the last several months.
  Let's think about what this bill is all about. This isn't ordinary 
policy. This is the national security of this country. This is a pay 
raise for our troops. This is national security that our people depend 
upon. That is our most fundamental responsibility. In the preamble of 
the Constitution, one of the key responsibilities is to provide for the 
common defense. That is why you have governments in the first place.
  We have done it for 60 years in a row. I urge my colleagues--this 
isn't a moment for partisanship or for complaining about, you know, ``I 
didn't get my amendment, so I am not going to vote for it.'' You know, 
suck it up.
  I am going to vote for it. As I say, there are a couple of amendments 
that I felt very passionately about involving cyber and the protection 
of the country. They aren't in, but I am still going to vote for it, 
because that is our responsibility.
  This is the most fundamental responsibility we have around here. We 
have a bipartisan process, and it came out of committee 23 to 3. Two 
Republicans and one Democrat voted against it. That is as close to 
unanimity as you can get on an important piece of policy legislation.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the motion to proceed, and 
then to

[[Page S8774]]

move the bill later this week--to meet our responsibility to the 
American people, to meet the responsibility that every Congress has met 
for the last 60 years.
  If we don't do that because we are angry that we didn't get something 
in or there weren't enough amendments--there are 202 amendments built 
on top of, already, a bipartisan package that was produced in the 
chairman's markup in committee. That, to me, is pretty full 
consideration.
  I hope my colleagues will vote yes to proceed to this bill. It is our 
responsibility and, more than that, it is what is necessary to protect 
this country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, let me, first of all, say that I would 
have a hard time finding a better friend than the Member who just 
spoke. We have been good friends for a long period of time, and we have 
not been apart on very many votes; yet we are not of the same party. 
Nonetheless, we are going to have to do something that is the same 
thing we had to do 5 years ago, and really for kind of the same reason.
  Every year, when the Senate turns to the NDAA, we call it our must-
pass bill. It is a must-pass bill, and it is a bill that will pass. It 
is a must-pass because it gives our troops the pay that they have 
earned and the tools and the training that they need to fight and to 
win against our enemies.
  That is why we have passed the NDAA every year for 60 straight years. 
This year will be 61. This is pretty much the only authorization bill 
that gets done the way it should year after year. In fact, it is pretty 
much the only bill--period--that Congress does every single year 
without fail.
  However, no matter how important it is, that doesn't mean that we 
will accept the fact that Senator Schumer wants to jam it through the 
Senate without adequate consideration.
  Let me be clear. Senator Schumer has put us in this position today. 
He waited more than 2 months after we filed the NDAA to bring it to the 
floor. For 2 months, we could have been discussing this and having it 
and treating it like we should.
  He tried to tack it onto his unrelated legislation just as many of 
us, including my Democrat colleague in the House, Adam Smith, guessed 
that he would, and now he wants a floor vote on this bill--the most 
important bill that we do all year--to be enough, despite the fact that 
he isn't giving us ample time to debate the bill, and he certainly 
hasn't been willing to entertain an open amendment process.
  We have been trying to get this for a long period of time, and we 
haven't gotten it--the most important bill of the year.
  I think Americans back home are smart enough to understand that our 
servicemembers deserve more. They deserve to be our priority in the 
Senate, and we need to show them, by providing a robust and open debate 
on the annual Defense bill, that that is how we will do it.
  We are in this place right now because Senator Schumer won't 
prioritize national defense and fund our troops because the majority 
leader mismanaged the Senate's schedule. He won't allow votes on 
bipartisan amendments that make our country more secure. We heard that 
argument the last time we were in session.
  These include an amendment that would inflict sanctions against 
Russia to stop its power grab over European energy supplies, which 
simply builds on our previous bipartisan NDAAs and aligns with the 
House's version of the NDAA.
  Another amendment on which Senator Schumer would not give a vote 
would tighten import restrictions on China to ensure goods sold in the 
United States aren't made by Uighur forced labor. This already passed 
the Senate by voice vote.
  Good amendments like these shouldn't fall victim to the majority 
leader's failed leadership.
  We all understand how important this bill is. It shouldn't be a 
partisan thing. This is the most important bill we do every year. In 
fact, we have said this every year. In fact, I have said this more 
times than any other Member has stated it. It is even more important 
now because we are in the most threatened position of our lifetimes. I 
can't tell you how many times I have demonstrated that fact on the 
floor of the Senate.
  I echo the minority leader's frustration. I understand the 
frustration from my colleagues who wanted, in realtime, to debate this 
bill. I think they pled their case very effectively. We wouldn't be in 
this position if the majority leader had brought this bill up earlier, 
which we kept insisting that he do, over and over again, on a 
bipartisan plea.
  While I want to be clear that we are in this position because Senator 
Schumer is forcing this unfortunate action, I also want to be equally 
clear that I am still very supportive of this bill, and I hope we will 
pass it soon, but I stand with my colleagues who are voting against the 
majority leader's irresponsible management of the bills. We have got to 
get it done, but we can't rush it, and that is why I will be voting no 
on cloture. That is not an easy thing for me to do, but I believe we 
can get this bill in better shape. My vote against the process is not 
against the bill; it is against the process.
  We are not delaying national security, no. This is just the opposite. 
We are demanding that we show, through open and robust debate, that our 
men and women in uniform are our priority.
  I have heard this from many of our people that I have talked to over 
the weekend and over this past week who are really wondering why we 
didn't have this on the table earlier so we could get the debate. I 
hope that a lot of the American people heard the six different 
Republicans who were demanding to have their votes and amendment 
process. This is the first time, in my memory, that we have not had 
this kind of a process take place, and for that reason I will be voting 
no.
  I do want to hear, of course--and let me say something because this 
might be an area of disagreement between my partner and myself.
  Senator Reed, we have worked on these bills together for a long 
period of time. We have been successful, and we are going to be 
successful this time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, it would be a very disappointing moment if 
we would fail to invoke cloture.
  This bill, from the very beginning, has been completely bipartisan 
and open to amendments. In the course, as Senator King eloquently 
remarked, of the committee hearing, we included over 100 amendments on 
a bipartisan basis. We came to the floor with a bill that passed our 
committee 23 to 3--overwhelmingly bipartisan.
  We also brought to the floor a substitute amendment, including, 
approximately, 60 amendments that were also bipartisan. And then we had 
another series of nearly 20 amendments that was bipartisan, that would 
have been voted on, but they were objected to because several Members 
did not get their amendments.
  Now, just to point out, the majority of those amendments aren't even 
within the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee. They don't 
relate directly to the men and women of the armed services. They might 
have foreign policy implications, but they are not something that is 
essential to the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act.
  I can recall many times on this floor when the NDAA was brought up; 
both sides could not agree on amendments; we went through the process; 
we invoked cloture; we voted on the substitute bill; and we went off to 
conference. So this would not be the first occasion on which, 
ironically, a few people did not get their amendments. In fact, on 
previous occasions, there were many, many people who did not get their 
amendments.
  And so, again, I go back to the point that we have produced a 
bipartisan piece of legislation. I commend the ranking member. We 
worked with closely the subcommittee chairs and the subcommittee 
ranking members. The staff has done a superb job. And we are here, just 
one procedural vote away from moving forward, and I think we should 
move forward for the benefit of the men and women of the armed 
services, as Senator King, again, so eloquently described.
  I think the other factor, too, is that eventually we have to 
reconcile whatever we do or attempt to do with the

[[Page S8775]]

House of Representatives. Certainly, I think it gives us much more 
credibility, much more clout, and much more leverage when we have a 
strong bill that has passed on the floor of the Senate.
  We are not talking about 100 amendments that we have to consider. We 
are talking about a handful of Senators who didn't get their way, even 
though many others were frustrated. I think, again, our duty is to move 
forward to pass this cloture vote this evening, then to move forward to 
final passage, and then to reconcile our differences with the House and 
come back with legislation.
  At this point--and I think the ranking member would agree with me--as 
it stands right now, I would be proud to pass this legislation because 
it is bipartisan, it responds to the needs of the men and women of the 
Armed Forces, and it establishes robust resources for the Department of 
Defense much more than were advocated by the President in his budget.
  So we are taking a strong step forward, and I just would hate to see 
this as a sidestep away from final passage.
  I would urge all of my colleagues to vote for cloture.
  Mr. KING. Would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. REED. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. KING. Madam President, my recollection is--and we have passed 
this bill, as we both have recognized, every year for the past 60 
years, including over the last 4 or 5 years--in the last several years, 
there weren't that many amendments.
  There were a few, and it was always agreed in advance. There was a 
package, just as we had the other night, but everybody didn't get--
there wasn't an unlimited number of amendments or votes on amendments. 
There was generally an agreed-upon number of amendments, and it wasn't 
very many.
  Is that correct?
  Mr. REED. That is absolutely correct.
  There have been occasions where we have had--once we got the 
substitute adopted--in some cases, no amendments and we went to final 
passage, ultimately, and in other cases, just a handful of amendments. 
Last year, I don't believe we had the kind of amendments we are 
offering this year, some of them have nothing whatsoever to do with the 
national defense. The nearly 20 amendments we were proposing were 
nearly equally divided to be bipartisan.
  And, frankly, to your point, I think this would represent more 
amendments than in the many years I witnessed the passage of the NDAA.
  Mr. KING. Thank you.
  Thank you, Madam Chair.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                            Cloture Motion 

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Reed-Inhofe 
     substitute amendment No. 3867, as modified, to Calendar No. 
     144, H.R. 4350, a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2022 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other 
     purposes.
          Charles E. Schumer, Jack Reed, Catherine Cortez Masto, 
           Benjamin L. Cardin, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Jeanne 
           Shaheen, Tim Kaine, Angus S. King, Jr., Kyrsten Sinema, 
           Christopher Murphy, Maria Cantwell, Mark Kelly, Brian 
           Schatz, Patrick J. Leahy, Mazie K. Hirono, Debbie 
           Stabenow, Mark R. Warner.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
amendment No. 3867, offered by the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, 
as modified, to H.R. 4350, a bill to authorize appropriations for 
fiscal year 2022 for military activities of the Department of Defense, 
for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department 
of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal 
year, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), 
the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. 
Sasse).
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 45, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 473 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     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
     Menendez
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Schatz
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Whitehouse

                                NAYS--51

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Blunt
     Cassidy
     Cruz
     Sasse
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). On this vote, the yeas are 45, 
the nays are 51.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion was not agreed to.
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                          Motion to Reconsider

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the failed 
cloture vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture 
vote on the underlying bill, H.R. 4350, ripen upon disposition of 
substitute amendment No. 3867, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to express my great disappointment 
that some of my colleagues have indicated by their vote that they are 
preventing the adoption of the National Defense Authorization Act, and 
they claim that more amendments and more debate are needed.
  This bill has been bipartisan from the beginning. It incorporated 
over 100 amendments at the committee level. There were approximately 60 
additional amendments in the substitute, which were agreed to on a 
bipartisan basis.
  Last week before we adjourned, we offered nearly 20 more amendments 
on a bipartisan basis, and they were rejected by my colleagues on the 
Republican side, just as this evening, this motion for cloture was 
rejected by the Republicans. They had their opportunity to consider 
more amendments. We had 19 amendments ready last week that were brought 
forward on an equal basis to be debated and voted upon. But that was 
blocked by several of my Republican colleagues.
  One of the ironies this evening is that many of my colleagues, who 
had their amendments denied by fellow Republican objections, came down 
and voted against the bill. That doesn't seem to be particularly 
logical, in my mind.
  Now, in the course of NDAAs--and I have done a few--there have been 
periods in which there has been extensive considerations of the bill 
with very few, if any, amendments. There have been times in which only 
a handful of amendments were presented before we voted on cloture, 
passed cloture, and passed the bill. So this is an unusual departure 
from procedure, particularly with a bill that has so much bipartisan 
support.

[[Page S8776]]

  The bill passed out of committee 23 to 3 because it represented all 
of the principled points that my colleagues wanted. In the course of 
the committee deliberations, there were 300 amendments presented, and 
we adopted 143.
  Mr. President, let me yield to the majority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my friend from Rhode Island. I want to make a 
brief statement about the vote, and then I will turn it over to him.
  My colleagues, there should be no misunderstanding about the 
absurdity that just played out on the floor. For a while now, 
Republicans have claimed they want to pass the Defense authorization 
legislation immediately. They said we couldn't afford to wait any 
longer. They called it a core duty, a bare minimum, and they called on 
me to bring it to the floor for a full vote.
  But a few moments ago, Republicans just blocked legislation to 
support our troops, support our families, and keep Americans safe. 
Republican dysfunction has, again, derailed bipartisan progress. The 
Republican choice to block our bill and, by an extension, legislation 
to support our troops and protect the homeland can be summed up in two 
words: inexplicable and outrageous.
  I hope the American people are watching. Don't tell me we aren't 
offering a fair process. We have had ample debate. We had amendments 
from both sides. We had a huge number of managers' amendments, equal 
numbers Democrat and Republican. We offered to debate--I believe it is 
18 amendments--more than has been on most other bills of this type.
  In any other time in history, what we offered Republicans would be 
considered a very fair and generous compromise, but just because a few 
Republicans didn't get every single concession they insisted on, they 
are now halting the process.
  Despite this vote, Democrats will continue to work to make sure our 
troops get paid and our vital defense programs can continue.
  I thank my colleague for his courtesy and yield the floor back to 
him.
  Mr. REED. I thank the majority leader for his comments and just to 
elaborate, this represents what the majority leader just pointed out--a 
few Members on the other side frustrated the entire process and, 
ironically, frustrated many of their own colleagues in their caucus who 
had amendments, either in the substitute agreement or were ready to be 
voted on.
  So this is really a question of doing our utmost, as we have in the 
past, not for individual points but for the support of the men and 
women in the military. That was the spirit that guided our efforts in 
the committee.
  Working closely with Senator Inhofe and all the Members on both 
sides, we recognized that what we do ultimately affects the safety and 
the welfare of our men and women in uniform and their families. And 
this legislation would accomplish a great deal. This is, in my sense, 
one of the most bipartisan bills we have ever considered. It is 
unfortunate that we can't move forward on a bipartisan basis, consider 
this bill, and then go to the House and come back with a final 
legislation for consideration by this Senate.
  We will have to do an NDAA. It will be done. I think Senator Inhofe 
is committed to that, as I am, and we will have to use procedures that 
are appropriate to get it done. But we just missed an opportunity to 
send a clear message that we support this legislation, we support our 
troops. We are going to get to final passage, and then we are going to 
go to the House, and then we will send the bill to the President of the 
United States.
  I should note that one of the other reasons that many amendments were 
not brought up for debate is because they are not in the purview of the 
Armed Services Committee. There were foreign policy issues; there were 
sanctions issues, et cetera. The NDAA often serves as a vehicle to move 
those issues along, but it is not central to the purpose of the bill.
  Our nation faces an enormous range of security challenges, and it is 
more important than ever that we provide our military men and women 
with the support they need to keep Americans safe. To that end, this 
bill makes great progress. It addresses a broad range of pressing 
issues, from strategic competition with China and Russia, to investing 
in game-changing technologies, to modernizing our ships, aircraft, and 
vehicles. It provides our servicemembers with the resources and support 
they need to defend our Nation, while at the same taking care of their 
families.
  That is why we are here on the floor with the national defense 
authorization act. It is not only an opportunity, but a responsibility. 
Tonight, we demonstrated irresponsibility to those who serve and their 
families. I regret it immensely.
  Now, I look forward, again, to working with my colleague Senator 
Inhofe and all Members of the committee, to continue forward to develop 
legislation that will be acceptable to this body and pass, as we have 
for 60-some-odd years, the National Defense Authorization Act.
  I recognize and thank my colleague from Ohio for yielding to me.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I always laud and so appreciate the 
principled leadership of the senior Senator from Rhode Island, who 
never would have done what just happened on the floor when we were in 
the minority. Jack Reed is always there for the troops and always there 
for our national security, and I join my colleagues in showing our 
appreciation. I know the Presiding Officer from New Mexico thinks the 
same thing.


                        Small Business Saturday

  Mr. President, this weekend, we celebrated Small Business Saturday 
for Ohioans. And people around the country showed their support for 
local businesses in their communities by shopping local for holiday 
gifts.
  Small businesses and their workers drive this economy. There is 
always talk on this floor about small business, but the focus is 
rarely, in this body, actually on small business and their workers. 
They create jobs and economic growth in our communities and the 
heartland, in small towns and overlooked neighborhoods, places that 
often don't get a lot of outside investment.
  The stakeholders in these businesses aren't nameless, faceless 
shareholders. They are our neighbors, our family members, the people 
you see at church and at the grocery store, and they are vital to our 
economic recovery. It is why we passed the bipartisan Paycheck 
Protection Program last year. It is why Democrats and President Biden 
expanded the American Rescue Plan.
  Last week, I asked Ohioans on social media to tell us about their 
favorite local businesses to support this holiday shopping season--
businesses that go above and beyond to help their community.
  This was a little bit, Mr. President--and I have gone to the floor on 
this before, and you and I have talked about this--when I post on my 
website, ``What did the child tax credit mean to your family,'' and the 
effusive outpouring and excitement from so many people saying this 
should be the role of government. This is what really matters. That is 
what we found when we posted asking people to share your stories about 
favorite local businesses. I want to share a few of them.
  Beth talked about Mootown Creamery in Berea. She said they are ``so 
involved in the community, never say no when help is needed.''
  Robin gave a shout-out.
  And that is in northeast Ohio near Cleveland.
  Robin gave a shout-out to Snazzies's in Oxford for local arts. That 
is in southwest Ohio, north of Cincinnati, the home of Miami 
University.
  I would add that Berea is the home of Baldwin Wallace College too.
  Sarah mentioned ``Sunset Bistro in Bowling Green. They not only 
support their local community, they are devoted to honoring our 
veterans''--another community with a big State university in northwest 
Ohio.
  Heather wrote about Let's Eat Cake in Urbana. She said: ``Owner Tina 
is always doing something for the downtown business association and the 
greater community.''
  Donna said: ``I can't say enough about Scott, the owner of Salad 
KraZe. Scott goes above and beyond to make the city of Avon Lake''--a 
city on Lake Erie, just east of Lorain--``a great place to live and 
raise our children.''
  Loria said: ``Pouka Art & Photography in Grove City''--in central

[[Page S8777]]

Ohio--``does amazing digital printings and photography. She restores 
old photographs into digital paintings.''
  Tia said: ``Gemini Gems & Creations in Lancaster''--a small city 
southeast of Columbus--``wonderful people who started selling out of 
their home and during town events''--out of their home and during town 
events--``and now finally have their own shop.''
  Teresa mentioned ``Chris Fultz's sign company, Fultz Signs and his 
pizza place, Bluelick General, in Lima.''
  Lima just swore in this week a new mayor, Sharetta Smith, and the 
mayor of Dayton, my friend Nan Whaley, attended the swearing in.
  Adam mentioned the Copper Penny Salon in Pettisville.
  Vickie mentioned the Charmed Farmhouse in Wellington. She said: 
``They take food drives and donate to those in town who directly help 
our community. They survived shutdown and thrive still.''
  Think about that: They survived and they thrive. This pandemic hit 
small businesses hard. For so many of them, they are still paying their 
workers and serving their communities because of PPP, because of our 
work through the American Rescue Plan to get people vaccinated.
  PPP has helped Ohio businesses survive. Vaccines are bringing back 
customers, allowing these small businesses to thrive again.
  The bipartisan infrastructure plan the President signed just last 
month is going to mean investment--earlier this month. Excuse me. It is 
going to mean investment in these businesses' local communities.
  People in Ohio and across the country remember how after the last 
economic crisis in 2008 and 2009, the biggest corporations recovered--
they always do--while large swaths of the country were left behind.
  Many of these same communities have watched for decades as factories 
closed, as investment dried up, as storefronts were boarded over. We 
can't make that mistake again, and we are not making that mistake.
  We are investing in rebuilding roads and bridges and bus and rail 
systems to revitalize downtowns. We know businesses can't survive on 
their own. They need safe streets and sidewalks. They need other 
businesses around. They need bus stops nearby. They need customers with 
money in their pockets.
  As part of the American Rescue Plan, as I said earlier, we passed the 
largest tax cut for working families ever. Ninety-two percent of 
families in Ohio who have children under 18--92 percent of those 
families--will get at least a $3,000-a-year tax cut.
  It is essential that this Congress, that this Senate extend that tax 
cut for at least another year. It is giving millions of Ohio families 
that tax cut every single month--$250 or $300 per child every single 
month. We need to make sure they continue.
  We need this holiday season to commit to shopping local, and in the 
Senate let's commit to protecting small business--putting small 
businesses and workers at the center of our economy.
  The workers who shared these--the Ohioans who shared these stories--
know the vibrancy and the dynamism and the diversity of working-class 
towns in neighborhoods that Senator Portman, who is in the Chamber this 
evening--that we represent. We need to get to work to invest in them. 
We need to get to work to ensure that these places--Ohio's Main 
Streets, America's Main Streets--are at the center of a better economy.

                          ____________________