Congressional Record — Senate Proceedings, Friday, March 5, 2021 (No. 42)

Summary

Congressional Record, Senate proceedings of Friday, March 5, 2021, No. 42. The Senate met at 9 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable TINA SMITH, a Senator from the State of Minnesota, and the House was not in session. Schumer thanks Senate staff who worked overnight reading the Senate amendment to the American Rescue Plan, and says the Senate will move forward today with the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 and a lengthy amendment process. McConnell says the bill costs nearly $2 trillion, of which only 9 percent addresses the fight against the virus itself. The record also prints amendment text, including section 9012 on extending emergency unemployment relief for governmental entities and nonprofit organizations.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Congressional Record
U
N
U
M
E
P
LU
RI
B
U
S
United States
of America
PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 117th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION
∑ This ‘‘bullet’’ symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by a Member of the Senate on the floor.
.
S1217
Vol. 167
WASHINGTON, FRIDAY, MARCH 5, 2021
No. 42
House of Representatives
The House was not in session today. Its next meeting will be held on Monday, March 8, 2021, at 12 p.m.
Senate
FRIDAY, MARCH 5, 2021
The Senate met at 9 a.m. and was
called to order by the Honorable TINA
SMITH, a Senator from the State of
Minnesota.
f
PRAYER
The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, of-
fered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
Eternal God, who rules the raging of
the sea, use our lawmakers to bring
stability to our Nation through wise
and knowledgeable leadership. Remind
them to be quick to listen, slow to
speak, and slow to anger. Give them
the wisdom to understand that moral
rot within a nation can topple its gov-
ernment.
Lord, inspire our Senators to pursue
justice, to love mercy, and to work
with humility. Help them also to re-
member that You rescue the blameless
from harm.
And, Lord, give a special blessing to
Your faithful servants who worked
through the night.
We pray in Your faithful Name.
Amen.
f
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Presiding Officer led the Pledge
of Allegiance, as follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the
United States of America, and to the Repub-
lic for which it stands, one nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
f
APPOINTMENT OF ACTING
PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
clerk will please read a communication
to the Senate from the President pro
tempore (Mr. LEAHY).
The bill clerk read the following let-
ter:
U.S. SENATE,
PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE,
Washington, DC, March 5, 2021.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3,
of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby
appoint the Honorable TINA SMITH, a Senator
from the State of Minnesota, to perform the
duties of the Chair.
PATRICK J. LEAHY,
President pro tempore.
Ms. SMITH thereupon assumed the
Chair as Acting President pro tempore.
f
RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. Under the previous order, the
leadership time is reserved.
f
RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY
LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. The majority leader is recog-
nized.
f
THANKING SENATE STAFF
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President,
first and foremost, I want to thank ev-
eryone—everyone on the floor staff
who worked late into the night and
into the wee hours of the morning to
finish reading the Senate amendment
to the American Rescue Plan.
The folks who sit up here on the dais
come to work every day with a very se-
rious job to do, helping the Senate
come to life and fulfill its purpose
under the Constitution. I am sure you
all didn’t expect that part of your job
this week would entail standing on
your feet and reading dense legislation
for more than 10 hours straight.
I can’t imagine that is anyone’s idea
of a good time, but, as usual, our staff
took their additional duties in stride
and carried them out with profes-
sionalism and grace, finishing around 3
in the morning, and you are all right
back on your posts this morning.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for
your service, your dedication. You are
the unsung heroes of this place.
To all of the critical workers, not
just those here on the dais—the clerks,
the stenographers, the Capitol Police
officers, the floor staff—to all of you:
Thank you, thank you, thank you for
your efforts yesterday and every day.
And as for our friend from Wisconsin,
I
hope
he
enjoyed
his
Thursday
evening.
f
AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT OF
2021
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, a
year ago this week, Congress began
work on what would become the
CARES Act, the opening salvo in a
yearlong battle against what, at the
time, was a strange and new disease. I
don’t think anyone could have antici-
pated that a year hence we would have
lost more than 10 million jobs and over
half a million citizens.
Even as the vaccine makes its way
across the country, and hope shimmers
on the horizon, millions of Americans
VerDate Sep 11 2014
08:22 Mar 06, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.000
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1218
March 5, 2021
are still struggling with basic neces-
sities. Folks are thousands of dollars
behind on the rent and utilities. Their
heat, water and power are getting shut
off. More than a million Americans on
unemployment insurance report that
their kids aren’t getting enough to eat.
Sometimes the macrostatistics get in
the way because the top end is doing
very well, the top 10 percent or 25 per-
cent, but so many other people are
struggling. And if you just look at a
big number, you say: Oh, everything is
getting a little better. It is not for the
lower half of America. It is not.
I read about one of my constituents
recently,
Allilsa
Fernandez,
from
Queens, who had a job as a home
healthcare aide lined up at the start of
the pandemic but couldn’t take it be-
cause of her family’s preexisting med-
ical conditions. Her mother was in the
hospital with COVID. Her income went
from $3,400 a month to just $1,000.
It was a huge, huge loss—
She said.
I have medications, my electric bill, the
phone bill, and [the] other costs. Every day
you . . . have to make . . . decisions: Am I
going to eat?
In America, that should not be the
case. It shouldn’t be at any time but
particularly when an evil disease has
robbed our hard-working people of
their income, their livelihood.
‘‘Am I going to eat?’’ And we are sup-
posed to sit here and do nothing? We
are supposed to say to Ms. Fernandez,
and so many like her, we are not giving
you the help you need?
Ms. Fernandez hasn’t been able to
pay the rent since April of last year,
over $16,000 worth. And this bill will
help people like her, but it will also
prevent people from getting into Ms.
Fernandez’s place: people who work for
State
and
local
governments
who
might be laid off, people who work for
small businesses who might be laid off.
It is the job of this government, dur-
ing this evil pandemic, to assist Amer-
ican families, businesses, and workers
like Ms. Fernandez until this pandemic
is over. It is also our job to prevent
others from falling into the same awful
situation that Ms. Fernandez finds her-
self. It is our job to hasten the day
when Americans can go back to work,
our country can go back to normal, our
economy can come roaring back. We
can reduce that awfully high actual 10
percent unemployment. That is what
the American Rescue Plan will do.
It will send direct checks to Amer-
ican workers and families struggling
with the cost of groceries, medicine,
and the rent. The vast majority of
Americans will get the full $1,400 we
have asked for. It will help reopen
schools as quickly and safely as pos-
sible. It will help the hardest hit small
businesses hang on. It will keep fire-
fighters and teachers and busdrivers
and sanitation workers on the job. It
will help American families stay in
their homes, care for their children,
put food on the table, and it will give
our country the resources, the vaccina-
tion and testing, that it needs to crush
the virus once and for all.
All told, the American Rescue Plan
will be one of the largest anti-poverty
bills in recent history, cutting child
poverty just about in half. The entire
country has gotten behind the bill:
business leaders, mayors, Governors,
from big cities, small towns, Red
States, Blue States, Democrat, Repub-
lican.
The clear majority of the American
people—Democrats, Independents, and
Republicans—all support the American
Rescue Plan. It seems the only group
in America who doesn’t support the
American Rescue Plan are Washington
Republicans.
My colleagues on the other side of
the aisle say $1.9 trillion is too expen-
sive. Well, my Republican colleagues
didn’t think it was too expensive when
they gave nearly the same amount in
tax breaks to corporations and the
ultrarich in a healthy economy, not
one that is struggling.
My colleagues claim this bill isn’t re-
lated to COVID. What hogwash. It is a
strange thing to say because most of
the measures in the bill are exactly the
same ideas Republicans supported a
year ago in the CARES Act, which
passed without a single dissenting Re-
publican vote.
Direct checks, in the CARES Act; en-
hanced unemployment insurance, in
the CARES Act; assistance for State
and local governments, in the CARES
Act; funding for testing and the vac-
cine, in the CARES Act; aid to schools
and small businesses, in the CARES
Act. All of them were in the CARES
Act, which every Republican voted for,
and now they are saying the American
Rescue Plan, which has the basic, same
structure, is not related to COVID.
When we passed the CARES Act, we
all thought that maybe COVID would
be gone by the summer. It isn’t. We
need to keep at it in the same way.
Every single Republican who voted for
the CARES Act and those ideas a year
ago, when a Republican was in the
White House and Republicans con-
trolled the Senate, is now saying no, it
seems. But now that a Democrat is in
the White House, now that Democrats
control the Senate, those same ideas,
which they supported when Trump was
President and MCCONNELL was major-
ity leader, are a liberal wish list—same
ideas. Who the heck are they kidding?
They have no good answer.
But let’s face it, we need to get this
done. It would be so much better if we
could in a bipartisan way, but we need
to get it done.
We are not going to make the same
mistake we made after the last eco-
nomic downturn when Congress did too
little to help the Nation rebound, lock-
ing us into a long, slow, painful recov-
ery, where it was years before employ-
ment was back to where it was before
that crisis.
We are not, we are not going to be
timid in the face of big challenges. We
are not, we are not going to delay when
urgent action is called for. The Senate
will move forward today with the
American Rescue Plan. There will be a
lengthy amendment process, as the
rules of the Senate require. The Senate
is going to take a lot of votes, but we
are going to power through and finish
this bill however long it takes. The
American people are counting on us,
and our Nation depends on it.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the
roll.
Mr. MCCONNELL. Madam President,
I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. Without objection, it is so or-
dered.
f
RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY
LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. The Republican leader is recog-
nized.
f
AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT OF
2021
Mr. MCCONNELL. Madam President,
today or tonight or tomorrow, Demo-
crats say they will break the bipar-
tisan streak that has defined the pan-
demic response up until now. They are
dead set on ramming through an ideo-
logical spending spree packed with
non-COVID-related policies.
This is just what a leading House
Democrat admitted they would do back
at the start of the crisis: Exploit the
pandemic as ‘‘a tremendous oppor-
tunity to restructure things to fit our
vision.’’ To give them credit, they
never hid the ball. That is how you get
a 628-page bill that costs nearly $2 tril-
lion, but only 9 percent addresses the
fight against the virus itself and only 1
percent—1 percent—for the lifesaving
vaccines that are ending this night-
mare as we speak.
That is how you craft a bill that does
nothing to immediately get kids back
to classrooms. In fact, that spends only
5 percent of the K–12 school money this
fiscal year.
This isn’t a pandemic rescue pack-
age; it is a parade of leftwing pet
projects they are ramming through
during a pandemic.
There is a costly ObamaCare bailout
that will disproportionately benefit
wealthier people; payments to farmers
and ranchers based solely on the demo-
graphics of the recipient without any
regard to actual need; and a massive
cash bailout for mismanaged State and
local governments, multiple times the
size of COVID needs.
Instead of pushing back on the anti-
science bullying from Big Labor that is
locking kids out of the classrooms,
they buy into it.
They want to create generous new
benefits for parents who are dealing
VerDate Sep 11 2014
08:22 Mar 06, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\G05MR6.002
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1219
March 5, 2021
with school closures but only if they
are Federal employees. To all the par-
ents without government jobs, no such
luck.
There are provisions to let abortion
providers raid the small business res-
cue funds that were meant for Main
Street businesses.
They want to pay people a bonus not
to go back to work when we are trying
to rebuild our economy.
There is an effort to create a
brandnew, sprawling cash welfare pro-
gram—not the one-time checks but
constant payments—that ignores the
pro-work lessons of bipartisan welfare
reform and which the White House has
already stated they want to make per-
manent.
The unrelated liberal policies are
simply endless. It is like they have for-
gotten we have a pandemic to fight.
Larry Summers, a top economist in
both the Clinton and Obama adminis-
trations, says this plan piles way more
debt on our kids and grandkids than we
need to spend right now. That is Larry
Summers,
Bill
Clinton’s
Secretary
Treasury. Jason Furman, who chaired
President Obama’s Council of Eco-
nomic Advisers, said the State and
local bailouts are ‘‘overkill.’’ These are
liberal economists, Madam President.
By one analysis, the Democrats’
extra cash bonuses for laid-off workers
who stay home will result in almost 60
percent
of
workers
earning
more
money staying home than they would
earn from returning to work—more
money by staying home than they
would earn from returning to work.
What a great idea. This isn’t State un-
employment insurance; it is borrowing
from our kids and grandkids to pay yet
an additional cash bonus for not work-
ing.
This would extend deep into 2021,
when we anticipate serious job growth.
Just this morning, we had a jobs report
that shattered expectations, nearly
doubling the job growth experts had ex-
pected to see.
This is what the Washington Post
says about this mess. This is the Wash-
ington Post about this mess that is be-
fore us:
For policy experts and even members of
Biden’s own party, the improving picture is
raising questions about whether the stim-
ulus bill is mismatched to the needs of the
current moment.
That is from the Washington Post
editorial.
It is mismatched all right because it
was never designed to meet Americans’
needs. The goal was to ‘‘restructure
things to fit’’ their ‘‘vision.’’ That is
why there was no bipartisan process
after a year of completely bipartisan
COVID bills that we worked on to-
gether. That is why the Senate Repub-
licans who went to the White House to
propose working together were told: No
thanks; take it or leave it.
This is such a poorly targeted rush
job that Democrats can’t even settle on
one set of political spin. The White
House Chief of Staff is going around
town admitting that they have written
‘‘the most progressive domestic legisla-
tion in a generation.’’ That is the
White House Chief of Staff. Meanwhile,
here in the Senate, Democrats are still
pretending this is some down-the-mid-
dle proposal and lecturing us for not
supporting it. They can’t even get their
stories straight.
The administration campaigned on
ushering in a new day of unity and bi-
partisanship, but in 2020, under Repub-
lican leadership, the Senate negotiated
five rescue bills totaling $4 trillion,
and none of them got fewer than 90
votes. That is how this Senate was run
last year in a time of divided govern-
ment, and now, in this supposed new
era of healing leadership, we are about
to watch one party ram through a par-
tisan package on the thinnest margins.
Go figure.
Republicans have many ideas to im-
prove the bill, many ideas, and we are
about to vote on all kinds of amend-
ments in the hopes that some of these
ideas make it into the final product.
We are going to try to improve the bill.
The millions who elected 50 Republican
Senators will have their voices heard
loud and clear.
Our country is already set for a roar-
ing recovery. We are already on track
to bounce back from this crisis. That is
not because of this bill; it is because of
our work last year. This is a trend this
new Democratic government inherited.
We are going to come roaring back and
mostly not because of this bill—in fact,
in some ways, in spite of this bill. It
will be because of the bipartisan foun-
dation we laid last year and the
strength and resilience of our people.
Democrats inherited a tide that was al-
ready turning.
We could have worked together to do
something smart to finish this fight as
fast as possible. Democrats decided to
do something else.
f
CONCLUSION OF MORNING
BUSINESS
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore.
Morning business is closed.
f
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT OF
2021
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of
H.R. 1319, which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 1319) to provide for reconcili-
ation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 5.
Pending:
Schumer amendment No. 891, of a per-
fecting nature.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. The Senator from Vermont.
UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENTS
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I
ask unanimous consent that for the du-
ration of the Senate’s consideration of
H.R. 1319, the American Rescue Plan
Act of 2021, the majority and Repub-
lican managers of the bill, while seated
or standing at the managers’ desks, be
permitted to deliver floor remarks, re-
trieve, review, and edit documents, and
send email and other data communica-
tions from text displayed on wireless
personal digital assistant devices and
tablet devices.
What do we think about that?
All right. I further ask unanimous
consent that the use of calculators be
permitted on the floor during consider-
ation of the bill; further, that the staff
be permitted to make technical and
conforming changes to the bill, if nec-
essary, consistent with the amend-
ments adopted during Senate consider-
ation of the bill.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. Without objection, it is so or-
dered.
AMENDMENT NO. 972 TO AMENDMENT NO. 891
(Purpose: To provide for increases in the
Federal minimum wage)
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I
call up my amendment No. 972.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Vermont [Mr. SANDERS],
for himself and others, proposes an amend-
ment numbered 972 to amendment No. 891.
Mr. SANDERS. I ask unanimous con-
sent that the reading of the amend-
ment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in the
RECORD of March 4, 2021 under ‘‘Text of
Amendments.’’)
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I
rise to offer an amendment to increase
the Federal minimum wage from a
starvation wage of $7.25 an hour to $15
an hour over a 5-year period.
As I think you know, Congress has
not raised the minimum wage since
2007. The result of that is that half of
our people are now living paycheck to
paycheck, and many, in fact, are work-
ing for wages that are much too low in
order to take care of their families. So,
to my mind, the American people in
poll after poll and State after State un-
derstand that we have to raise that
minimum wage to a living wage of 15
bucks an hour. I intend to do every-
thing that I can to make that happen,
and I will be offering that amendment
this morning.
VerDate Sep 11 2014
09:42 Apr 14, 2021
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\RECORD21\MARCH\S05MR1.REC
S05MR1
ejoyner on DSKJLYS7X2PROD with CONG-REC-ONLINE
CORRECTION

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1220
March 5, 2021
Madam President, before I do that,
let me begin my remarks by explaining
why this reconciliation bill that we are
debating today, the American Rescue
Plan, is so enormously important that
it must be passed and must be passed
as quickly as possible, in my view. This
legislation is the most consequential
and significant legislation for working
families that Congress has debated for
many, many decades.
Now, why is that?
The answer is that, as I think all
Americans know, the last year that we
have gone through has been, in so
many ways, the very worst year in our
lifetimes. That is what it has been. The
working families of our country today
are hurting in a way that they have
not hurt since the Great Depression,
and they want their government to
hear their pain and come to their aid,
and that is not too much to ask.
There are a lot of folks in this coun-
try—there are estimates of maybe 30 to
40 percent of Americans—who have lit-
erally given up on democracy. They are
moving toward authoritarianism. They
are hurting. Their kids are hurting.
Their parents are hurting. They look
to Washington for help in their demo-
cratic society, and they don’t see
Washington responding. What they see
year after year are policies which
make the very, very rich richer, which
enable large, profitable corporations to
not pay a nickel in taxes, but for them,
they face eviction; they face hunger;
they don’t have healthcare; they can’t
afford to send their kids to college.
They are asking: Does anybody—any-
body—in Washington care about their
lives?
So what today is about, in a very pro-
found way, is whether or not we stand
with the working class of this country
and say: Yes, we live in a democratic
society. We understand what you are
going through, and we are going to
move as aggressively as we can to re-
spond to your pain and improve your
lives.
This is not just a healthcare bill. It is
not just an economic bill. It is not just
an educational bill. It is perhaps more
than that. This is a bill which will an-
swer a profound question: Are we living
in a democratic society, where the U.S.
Congress will respond to the needs of
working families rather than just the
wealthy and large corporations and
their lobbyists? That is what today is
about. It is dealing with the pandemic.
It is dealing with the economy. It is
dealing with education and so much
more, but most importantly it is deal-
ing with the issue of whether or not we
are hearing the pain that is out there
and if we are responding to it.
During the last year, as everybody
knows, over 500,000 Americans have
died of COVID, and millions more have
been made ill. Unbelievable. It is unbe-
lievable what we have gone through in
terms of this terrible pandemic. COVID
has not only caused massive death and
illness; it has resulted in a way we
have never experienced social isola-
tion. That means, all over this coun-
try, we have old people, elderly people,
in their homes. They can’t interact
with their grandchildren, with their
own kids, with their friends. You have
young people who want to go to school,
who want to socialize, who want to
date, who want to do things that young
people do. They can’t do it and have
been unable to do it for the last year,
and that has resulted in a very sharp
increase in mental illness in this coun-
try—something, by the way, that this
legislation
also
deals
with.
Many
Americans, young and old and middle-
aged, are now dealing with depression,
anxiety disorder, addictions. We are
seeing the growth of addictions and
even suicidal ideation. So this has been
just an awful year for people in our
country and, in fact, throughout the
world.
This last year has not only been a
public health crisis, as bad as that has
been. The pandemic, as we all know,
has led to a terrible economic down-
turn, which has resulted in millions of
Americans losing their jobs and their
incomes, and it has led to the shutting
down of something like one out of four
small businesses in this country. That
is just an unbelievable number. Go to
any town in America, and you will see
its Main Street shuttered down. Thriv-
ing businesses no longer exist. Real un-
employment in this country today is
now over 10 percent.
Further, countless Americans face
the threat of eviction. We have a mora-
torium on evictions, which is the right
thing, but there is going to be a day
when that ends. People are saying: I
am $5,000, $8,000 in debt. What happens
to me when the moratorium ends? How
am I going to pay my rent? Am I going
to be one of the 500,000 people already
sleeping out on the streets?
Millions more—and we have seen this
in Vermont, and I know the Acting
President pro tempore has probably
seen it in Minnesota, for it is all over
this country—are lining up in their
cars for food, and it is something that
none of us ever dreamed. It is right in
my own community of Burlington,
VT—hundreds of people, while in their
cars, lining up for food. Many of them,
never in a million years, would have
dreamed that they would be in that po-
sition. Today, the level of hunger in
America is at the highest level it has
been in decades.
Then, on top of all of that, we are in
the midst of a pandemic. People are
scared to death about coming down
with COVID. Yet, because of our dys-
functional healthcare system, we have
over 90 million people who are unin-
sured or underinsured in the midst of a
pandemic.
It is not only the public health crisis
we worry about; it is not only the col-
lapse of our economy that we have to
worry about; it is what is happening to
our young people because the pandemic
has created a massive disruption in our
educational system, from childcare
through graduate school. The majority
of our young people have seen edu-
cation disrupted. Think about all of
the implications of what that means. It
is likely that hundreds of colleges in
America, which were struggling before
the pandemic, will cease to exist.
So you have the public health crisis
with a half a million people dead, an
economic crisis with real unemploy-
ment at 10 percent and small busi-
nesses going out of business, and an
educational crisis.
Meanwhile, in the midst of all of
that, it is important to note that not
everybody in this country is hurting.
What we are seeing, in the midst of
massive income and wealth inequality,
is a moment when, in fact, that gap be-
tween the very, very rich and every-
body else is growing wider. Incredibly,
during this pandemic, over 650 billion-
aires in America have increased their
wealth by more than $1 trillion. The
50—five zero—richest people in Amer-
ica now own more wealth than the bot-
tom half of American society, some 160
million people.
So the bottom line here is very sim-
ple: In this moment of unprecedented
crises, the U.S. Senate must respond to
the pain of working families all across
this country, and we must respond in
an unprecedented way, which is what
this legislation is about.
Now I want to say a few words about
some of what is in this bill. This is a
600-page bill, and I will not read it all
again. I think our clerks had enough
fun reading it last night, but I do want
to summarize some of what is in it.
Most importantly, what the Amer-
ican people want is, they want to get
back to a normal life. They want their
kids to go to school. They want to go
to work. They want their businesses
open. And what the American Rescue
Plan does is enable us to aggressively
crush this pandemic and enable the
American people to return to their jobs
and their schools.
It will establish a national emer-
gency program to produce the quantity
of vaccines that we need and get them
into the arms of our people as quickly
as possible. Clearly, we are making
progress in that area. More and more
people are getting vaccinated. But we
still have a lot of work to do, and this
legislation will enable us to do that.
At a time when so many of our peo-
ple are hurting, this legislation will
allow us to provide $1,400 in direct pay-
ment to every working-class person in
this country and to their kids, and this
is on top of the $600 that we provided
last month. So if you are out there and
you are a family of four earning less
than $150,000 or an individual earning
less than $75,000, you are going to get
that check for $1,400, and for that fam-
ily of four, that is $5,600.
Now, I know that to some that isn’t
a whole lot of money. You know, 5,600
bucks ain’t that much. But for a family
that is struggling right now and can’t
pay their rent and can’t feed their kids,
that $5,600 for a family of four could be
the difference between desperation and
dignity.
VerDate Sep 11 2014
08:22 Mar 06, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\G05MR6.006
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1221
March 5, 2021
Further, at a time when so many of
our people are unemployed, this Budget
Reconciliation Act will provide $400 a
week in supplemental unemployment
benefits to over 10 million Americans
until the end of August. If you are un-
employed right now, you are worried—
if your unemployment check is your
only source of income, you are worried
that it is going to cease, well, it is not.
This legislation will continue that
check coming until the end of August.
This legislation understands that we
have a childcare crisis in America, and
we provide the resources to provide
childcare to 875,000 children.
And very importantly—we don’t talk
about this enough—one of the absolute
disgraces of our economy right now is
the level of childhood poverty in Amer-
ica, which is one of the highest for any
major country on Earth. This legisla-
tion will go a long way toward cutting
childhood poverty. Some studies sug-
gest we are going to cut it in half by
expanding the child tax credit from
$2,000 to $3,000 and $3,600 for kids under
the age of 6. In other words, we are
about to cut childhood poverty in half
in this country.
This
legislation,
obviously,
deals
with the horror of so many of our peo-
ple facing hunger. We put in very sub-
stantial amounts of money for nutri-
tion assistance for working families,
for kids, for the disabled, and the elder-
ly.
This legislation will provide rent re-
lief, utility assistance, and mortgage
assistance to millions of tenants and
homeowners who are in danger of evic-
tion and foreclosure.
This legislation will protect the pen-
sions of many millions of workers who
are in danger of seeing their retirement
benefits cut by as much as 65 percent.
Not only is this $1.9 trillion emer-
gency COVID relief package the right
thing to do for people from a moral
perspective, it is exactly what the
overwhelming majority of the Amer-
ican people want us to do.
The American people didn’t want us
to give tax breaks to billionaires. The
American people did not want, as the
Republicans fought to do, throw 30 mil-
lion people off the Affordable Care Act.
The American people didn’t want that,
but that is what the Republicans tried
to do under reconciliation.
Well, we have a different idea. Yeah,
we are going to use reconciliation,
which requires only 51 votes. We are
going to use it, not for tax breaks for
the rich, not to throw people off of
healthcare but to provide the help that
working-class people need all across
this country.
Madam President, I am introducing,
as I mentioned earlier, legislation—an
amendment—today to raise the min-
imum wage to 15 bucks an hour.
Because of an unfortunate and, in my
view, misguided decision by the Parlia-
mentarian, this reconciliation bill does
not include an increase in the min-
imum wage to $15 an hour. In my view,
it should have, and I think the Parlia-
mentarian was dead wrong.
But more importantly, it is an ab-
surd
process
that
we
allow
an
unelected staffer, somebody who works
for the Senate, not elected by anybody,
to make a decision as to whether 30
million Americans get a pay raise or
not. I don’t care how the Parliamen-
tarian
rules.
No
Parliamentarian
should have that power.
If people here want to vote against
raising the minimum wage, you have
that right. You want to vote for it, and
I hope you do, you have that right. But
we should not shuffle off that responsi-
bility to an unelected staffer. That is
wrong.
The amendment I am offering today
to raise that minimum wage to $15 an
hour is cosponsored by Majority Leader
SCHUMER, and I thank him for his
strong support; Senator PATTY MUR-
RAY, who is the chair of the Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions Com-
mittee; Senator RON WYDEN, who is the
chair of the Finance Committee; and
many others in this Chamber.
In fact, this amendment is similar in
many ways to the legislation that I
have offered which is cosponsored by 38
Members of the Senate.
And let us not forget, this legislation
was passed in the House, and I want to
thank my friends and colleagues in the
House Progressive Caucus for their ex-
traordinary leadership on this issue.
This amendment is supported by
some 300 national organizations, in-
cluding the AFL–CIO, and virtually all
of the major unions in our country. I
want to thank in particular the SEIU,
one of the great unions in America,
who have led this effort for years in
terms of the Fight for $15, where people
working in McDonald’s and Burger
King have gone out on strike and said:
No, we can’t make it on 10 bucks an
hour, 11 bucks an hour. I want to thank
the SEIU.
And this legislation will help workers
all across the board, but it will signifi-
cantly help women who are unfortu-
nately forced into low-income work
more than the general population,
more than men, and it will dispropor-
tionately help African Americans and
Latinos, who disproportionately are
forced into low-income work. This leg-
islation is supported not only by 300 or-
ganizations but by groups like the
Leadership Conference on Civil and
Human Rights. They understand that if
we are going improve the standard of
living of the African-American commu-
nity, we ought to raise that minimum
wage.
It is supported by the National Orga-
nization for Women because, again,
this raising the minimum wage is a
women’s issue in a very significant
way—not totally, believe me. There are
a lot of men out there who are working
for 9, 10, 11 bucks an hour, but dis-
proportionately it impacts women.
It is supported by Unidos and other
Latino organizations. It is supported
by the American Association of Univer-
sity Women, supported by Indivisible,
Justice for Migrant Women, the Na-
tional Domestic Workers Alliance, and
the National Women’s Law Center.
Here is the simple truth, and that is
that in the richest country in the his-
tory of the world, we can no longer tol-
erate millions of our workers being un-
able to feed their families because they
are working for starvation wages. And
that is not what I say, although I do
say it; it is what the President of the
United States says. He very, very
strongly supports raising the minimum
wage to $15 an hour, and I thank him
for his support.
You know, when we look at the econ-
omy, people look at the stock market,
and they look at a whole lot of indices
out there, but at the end of the day, we
have to ask ourselves: What is going on
in the lives of ordinary people? It is not
acceptable to me that half of our peo-
ple are living paycheck to paycheck
and millions of people are trying to get
by on 9, 10, 11 bucks an hour. And do
you know what? You can’t do that. You
can’t do that in Vermont, and you
can’t do it in California, and you can’t
do it in Minnesota. You can’t do that.
Our job is to make sure that we have
an economy that works for all and not
just for the few, and in order to do
that, we are going to have to raise that
minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour.
Frankly, it is disgraceful that Con-
gress has not passed an increase in the
minimum wage since 2007. Think of all
the things that have transpired since
then. But Congress has not raised the
minimum wage since 2007.
The reality is that the minimum
wage has lost over 30 percent of its pur-
chasing power since 1968. The minimum
wage is worth a lot less now than it
used to be. When we increase the min-
imum wage, we will be giving over 32
million Americans a much needed pay
raise.
Let’s be clear. Raising the minimum
wage to $15 an hour is an enormously
popular idea. More than 60 percent of
the American people, in poll after poll,
support raising the minimum wage.
Since 1998—this is really amazing.
You know, I have some friends here
who are nervous: Oh, my goodness, how
radical can it be? Should we raise the
minimum wage? Oh, my God, I am
scared of the American Restaurant As-
sociation.
Well, since 1998, every time a State
has had an initiative on the ballot to
raise the minimum wage, it has won. In
conservative
States,
in
progressive
States, put it on the ballot, it wins.
Just as one example, in November,
just this last November, election time,
Joe Biden lost Florida. Donald Trump
won Florida by three points. But in
that same election, the people of Flor-
ida—and I say that to the two Senators
from Florida—61 percent of the people
in Florida voted to raise the minimum
wage to 15 bucks an hour. Florida
voted for Donald Trump and voted to
raise the minimum wage to $15 an
hour.
Eight
States—over
the
years,
8
States and over 40 cities have adopted
VerDate Sep 11 2014
08:22 Mar 06, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\G05MR6.007
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1222
March 5, 2021
laws to raise the minimum wage to $15
an hour. It is not a radical idea.
And, as you know, over just a few
days ago, the House of Representatives
did the right thing and voted to raise
the minimum wage to $15 an hour. This
is not a radical idea. People want it.
States have done it. The House of Rep-
resentatives has done it, and now it is
our turn to do what the American peo-
ple want.
Now, in the last few days, I have
heard some concerns from my col-
leagues about one part of our amend-
ment, and that is the provision to raise
the tip wage, which now stands—I want
everybody to hear that—the tip wage
for waiters and waitresses and all those
people who get tips now stands at $2.13
an hour. No, you did not mishear me—
$2.13 an hour. That is the Federal min-
imum wage for waiters and waitresses,
for barbers, for hairstylists, for park-
ing attendants, and others. That tip
minimum wage has not been raised
since 1991, 30 years ago.
You think maybe it is time to raise
the tip wage from $2.13 an hour, passed
30 years ago? I think so. The proposal
in this legislation would raise that tip
wage from $2.13 an hour to $14.95 over a
7-year period.
Now, time and again, our legislation
gets misrepresented. People say: Oh,
you are raising the minimum wage to
$15 an hour tomorrow. No, we are not.
The tip wage is going to take 7 years.
For better or worse, that is what it is.
Now, the National Restaurant Asso-
ciation, a very powerful lobbying orga-
nization, has suggested to Members of
Congress that this legislation is op-
posed by restaurant workers and would
be harmful to their interests. This is
not true.
One Fair Wage, an organization rep-
resenting service employees, has just
delivered to the White House a petition
with 140,000 signatures from service
workers who are demanding that they
receive the same minimum wage as
every other worker in their State.
Polling among service employees and
nonservice employees also supports the
reality that Americans want our wait-
ers and waitresses and other service
employees to get a fair minimum wage.
Now, I heard from some people that
those people who are working in the
service industry are doing really well,
you know, and they don’t want an in-
crease in the Federal minimum wage.
The tips that they are receiving are
covering all of their needs. ‘‘Leave well
enough alone,’’ they say. Well, today,
70 percent of tipped workers are women
who suffer from three times the pov-
erty rate of the rest of the U.S. work-
force. They are not doing so well. They
use food stamps at double the rate of
the general workforce and suffer, by
the way, from the highest rates of sex-
ual harassment of any industry be-
cause they must tolerate inappropriate
customer behavior to get the incomes
that they need.
Further—and this is important, and I
want all of my colleagues to hear this.
The idea of moving tipped wages to the
same level as the overall minimum
wage is not a radical idea. It has been
done in State after State. It already
exists in seven States in our country,
including California, Oregon, Wash-
ington, Nevada, Montana, Alaska, and
Minnesota. I should point out that all
of those States experienced a growth in
the number of small businesses and res-
taurants
after
they
abolished
the
tipped minimum wage. And guess what.
Waiters and waitresses in these States
received more tips, not less, and let’s
be clear: This pandemic has made a bad
situation worse for waiters and wait-
resses.
So, right now, it is absolutely imper-
ative that we raise that minimum wage
to a living wage for all of our workers
and that we raise the tipped wage as
well, which is already law in seven
States of the country right now.
And I see the Senator from Cali-
fornia, Mr. PADILLA, and we are de-
lighted that he is joining us. And his
State has been one of the leaders in
this country in raising the minimum
wage, and I would yield the floor to
him for his remarks.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. The Senator from California.
Mr. PADILLA. Madam President, I
rise today in support of working men
and women across the country, and I
am proud to stand with Senator SAND-
ERS, who has been a champion for
working people.
Let me be clear: Raising the min-
imum wage is COVID relief. The
COVID–19 pandemic has highlighted
the immense underlying inequities in
our Nation. It has also driven home
how important essential workers are to
our society and to our economy.
Millions of Americans do essential
work but are not paid a living wage.
They work as home health aides, as-
sisting elderly family members to meet
their basic needs with dignity. They
produce our food, stock our grocery
shelves, keep facilities clean and safe,
care for our children, and so much
more, so that we can go to work.
They are on the frontlines of this
pandemic, risking their health, yet
still struggling to keep themselves and
their families healthy. They shouldn’t
also have to struggle to keep a roof
over their heads and food on their
table.
Both of my parents worked jobs that
are considered essential today. For 40
years, my father worked as a short-
order cook. For the same 40 years, my
mom was a domestic worker. And it is
people like them all over America who
work hard, with dignity, yet still
struggle to make ends meet. That is
not the American dream—far from it.
It is finally time that Congress does
something about it. There is strong bi-
partisan support throughout the coun-
try for raising the minimum wage. I
am proud to say that my home State of
California has been a leader in the
fight for 15, and just this past year, the
voters of Florida—yes, Florida, the
State that voted for Donald Trump not
once but twice—approved a $15 min-
imum wage by a 20-point margin. That
is because it is Americans, both Demo-
crats and Republicans, who know that
one of the most straightforward ways
we can help working people is by rais-
ing the Federal minimum wage to $15
an hour.
Now, California is a big State. We are
a very diverse State, full of diverse
communities, with local variations in
cost of living and local business condi-
tions, just like the rest of the country.
And let me tell you, the sky did not
fall when California enacted a $15 min-
imum wage.
Now, I know some of our colleagues
have argued that raising the Federal
minimum wage would reduce employ-
ment opportunities for American work-
ers. The facts show otherwise. Forty
years of studies have found little to no
significant impact of wage increases on
employment levels.
Some of our colleagues have also ar-
gued that eliminating the tipped min-
imum wage nationwide would harm
earnings for workers. That also has not
happened. Again, research has found
that eliminating the tipped minimum
wage has no significant impact on em-
ployment.
At the same time, median hourly
wages for tipped workers are higher in
equal treatment States like California
compared to those with a tipped min-
imum wage.
Madam President, 1.7 million Ameri-
cans make the Federal minimum wage.
That is a $15,000-a-year income. We
must be honest with ourselves. No one
can meet the minimum standards of
living on a minimum wage of just
$15,000 a year.
Now, raising the minimum wage to
$15 an hour would also help reduce
some of the gender and racial inequi-
ties in our Nation, as Senator SANDERS
has referenced, given the overrepre-
sentation of women and minorities in
jobs that earn the minimum wage. It
would give them more money to spend
in their local economy, which in turn
is good for business. But most impor-
tantly, it will lift hundreds of thou-
sands of families out of poverty. Think
about that. We have the opportunity to
lift hundreds of thousands of families
out of poverty.
This isn’t just an opportunity, it is a
moral
responsibility.
No
one
who
works a full-time job should live in
poverty. It is that simple. We must
stand on the side of hard-working
Americans.
I call on my colleagues to continue
the fight for 15 and pass the Sanders
amendment to bring justice and pros-
perity for all American workers.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, right
now, the Senate is debating, having
been started by our colleague Senator
SANDERS, whether it is OK to pay star-
vation wages in the United States. You
VerDate Sep 11 2014
08:22 Mar 06, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\G05MR6.009
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1223
March 5, 2021
heard that right, starvation wages. Re-
ceiving that starvation wage, single
moms are skipping meals as they try
to make rent and buy groceries for
their family. These moms get paid $7.25
an hour, often work two jobs, and go to
bed every night worried that the next
morning is going to bring financial ca-
lamity.
Senators, is this OK in a country as
rich and strong as ours? Here in the
U.S. Senate, nobody has got to worry
where their next meal is coming from,
but that is an everyday struggle for too
many families across the land.
Senators, let us think about those
who are hurting as the vote on the
Sanders minimum wage amendment
approaches. It is time for that single
mom to get a fair wage for a fair day’s
work, a living wage, not a starvation
wage.
There has never been a stronger case
for a $15 minimum wage than there is
right now during the pandemic. I think
about grocery store and pharmacy
workers, home health aides, food proc-
essing and packing workers, restaurant
employees interacting with maskless
customers. So many workers in Oregon
and across the country are going to
work in a dangerous environment each
day. Many of them are Black and
Latino workers, people from the com-
munities that have suffered the most
from COVID–19. They have kept our
country going through the last year.
I have heard a whole lot of Members
of the Senate, Democratic and Repub-
licans, talk about those workers as he-
roes of the pandemic. So the question
is, Will the Senate stand up and give
those heroes of the pandemic the raise
they deserve, the raise they have wait-
ed for, for 12 years?
There are 30 million Americans who
earn less than $15 an hour. It would be
closer to 40 million if not for the fact
that the coronavirus put so many
Americans out of work. That is just
immoral and unacceptable.
Now, if you want to see inequality
baked into the law, just look at how
the country treats its lowest income
workers compared to those at the top.
The minimum wage has been stuck for
12 long years, and a flat minimum is
nothing but a slow-moving pay cut for
those who make the least.
Minimum wage workers cannot af-
ford the average rent in any State in
America, not one. It doesn’t account
for utilities, food, gas, car payments,
medical bills, school supplies. Here is a
fact: Living is expensive for the poor in
America. Meanwhile, the most well-to-
do keep winning with their invest-
ments in the stock market. The entire
Tax Code is rigged to favor the income
of billionaires over the income of wage-
earning families.
Republicans passed the $2 trillion
Trump tax law promising trickle-down
benefits. They have been talking about
that for decades, even though those
magical benefits never actually trickle
down.
The Trump administration actually
made it A-OK in the eyes of the law for
corporations to steal from their em-
ployees’ tipped wages. A country that
aspires to be pro-work should not be
this anti-worker.
Members of the Senate might forget
it now, but minimum wage used to go
up all the time. It happened 22 times
since the minimum wage was enacted
in 1938. Through the fifties, sixties, and
into the seventies—the post-war period
that many looked as the boom years of
the 20th century—the minimum wage
went up all the time, and Congress ex-
panded the range of workers it covered.
Now, colleagues, these increases did
not lead to the end of Western civiliza-
tion back then, and raising the min-
imum wage isn’t going to do it today
either. That is because—folks might
want to sit down when I say this—it is
good for everybody when there are
fewer poor people in America. This is
the longest the Congress has gone
without raising the minimum wage
since its origin.
In recent years, the grassroots move-
ment has picked up the slack and made
a lot of progress in cities and States all
over the country, including my home
State of Oregon. But the Congress can-
not wait any longer. The powerful
could pull the levers around here in a
hurry, and they get more than their
share of benefits and attention. Right
now, the Congress has a chance to
prove, to actually prove that it is look-
ing after working people, and that
means raising the minimum wage to
$15 an hour. Every single Senator says
they want to incentivize hard work,
and, folks, a living wage does just that.
The single mom skipping meals to feed
her kids deserves better. The Senate
can do better starting today.
I appreciate my colleague Senator
SANDERS leading the effort to raise the
wage for years and years. As chairman
of the Senate Finance Committee, I am
all in with Senator SANDERS on this
fight. Senators, support our amend-
ment. Give tens of millions of Amer-
ica’s hard-working people a raise. And
before I yield the floor, I just briefly
want to provide an update with respect
to the issue of trying to make sure
that folks who have been laid off, laid
off from their jobs through no fault of
their own, are going to be able to get
an unemployment benefit where they
can make rent and pay groceries.
We are having conversations now,
bringing people together, I believe,
around two core principles. One is
avoiding a cliff in August where you
would have something like 11 million
people lose their benefits. We have to
do that. It defies common sense to have
a cliff in the middle of August when
you have the Senate out of session.
Second, we are making a lot of
progress on preventing an unemploy-
ment tax surprise. This is a matter
that Senator SANDERS and I have spo-
ken about at length for weeks. A num-
ber of colleagues on both sides of the
aisle have a great interest in this. I
think we have made a lot of headway.
We will have more to discuss with the
Senate, but I am really hopeful that
this can bring all sides of this debate
together.
I have personally felt the benefit
should be $400. It should certainly run
into September, but I know some of my
colleagues feel otherwise. So what we
are looking at is making sure that we
can get a benefit so that people can
make rent and pay groceries, that we
prevent that cliff, and, by God, we sure
as hell shouldn’t let folks who are un-
employed pay taxes on those unem-
ployment benefits that they secured in
2020.
Senator SANDERS and I will continue
to prosecute this question of tax for-
giveness very strongly as well. I appre-
ciate his leadership.
I see Senator MURRAY, the chair of
another important committee with ju-
risdiction over this matter.
I yield the floor.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER
(Mr.
PADILLA). The Senator from Wash-
ington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want
to really thank Senator SCHUMER, Sen-
ator WYDEN, and Senator SANDERS and
others who are working so hard with
me on making sure that our relief bill
includes a much needed raise for our
workers.
Democrats and Republicans alike
have joined together in rightly calling
our essential workers heroes and the
backbone of our economy. But despite
their tireless work and the constant
risk of COVID exposure, too many of
these workers are paid wages so low,
they cannot afford to pay for even
their most basic needs.
This pandemic should be a wake-up
call that these workers whom we all
call heroes deserve more than $7.25 an
hour. I urge my colleagues to vote for
the Sanders amendment in order to
give a much needed raise to millions of
workers and end the tipped minimum
wage and subminimum wage for youth
workers and workers with disabilities.
After more than a decade since the
last Federal minimum wage increase,
the tides are turning, and there is over-
whelming support for Congress to act.
So let me be clear. Today’s vote is just
one step in our fight. We are not going
to give up. Today we are going to keep
working to get this historic bill across
the finish line because right now this
country is on fire. Republicans’ biggest
concern seems to be that we might use
too much water. The reality is, we are
far from doing too much because we
will not have done enough until this
crisis is over, until families across the
Nation are safe, and until we rebuild a
stronger and fairer country.
Anyone who says this bill is too ex-
pensive needs to understand how much
this pandemic has already cost our
communities, how much it has already
taken from families, and how much
more is at stake if we don’t finally
bring it to an end.
They need to listen to public health
and healthcare workers who have been
straining to test, to contact trace, to
VerDate Sep 11 2014
08:22 Mar 06, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\G05MR6.011
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1224
March 5, 2021
vaccinate people across the country,
and to grapple with the trauma of
fighting
this
pandemic
on
the
frontlines.
They need to listen to parents who
are asking how they are supposed to go
to work when they don’t have childcare
and their kids can’t go to school in per-
son, who wonder how are they going to
pay rent, how are they going to pay for
groceries, how are they going to pay to
keep the heat on, and fearing what will
happen if they cannot.
They need to listen to students whom
this pandemic has robbed of critical
school resources, as well as opportuni-
ties to grow and thrive and socialize
with their peers.
They need to listen to our States and
our cities and our Tribes and our terri-
tories that have seen their budgets up-
ended.
They absolutely need to listen to
people of color, to voices in the Black,
Latino, and Tribal communities who
have been hit the hardest by this pan-
demic in every way.
Anyone who has been listening to the
American people and anyone who has
been watching what they have gone
through understands the danger in this
moment is not doing too much; it is
doing too little.
If Republicans want to talk about too
much, there are almost 10 million
fewer people working compared to this
time a year ago. There are 11 million
people at risk of eviction and 11 mil-
lion people about to lose their unem-
ployment benefits. That is too much.
One study says that by June, this
pandemic will likely have set students
back 5 to 9 months in math from where
they could be in a typical year, and
that setback is even larger for students
of color. Another notes that as schools
across the country have shifted to re-
mote learning, that one in four stu-
dents lacks access to internet at home.
According to the CDC, one in four
young adults has considered suicide.
That is too much.
Since the start of the pandemic, we
have lost over 650,000 jobs in higher
education and 1 in 6 jobs in childcare.
That is too much.
Across this country, this virus has
infected over 28 million, left thousands
of ‘‘long haulers’’ still experiencing
symptoms, and killed over half a mil-
lion people. That is too much.
We have to act. We have to. And that
is why we are fighting to pass the
American Rescue Plan. This American
Rescue Plan will send families long-
overdue direct relief and prevent ex-
panded unemployment benefits, which
have been a lifeline to so many people,
from expiring. It will help get vaccines
in arms faster. It will hire and train
more public health workers. It will
ramp up our testing capacity and in-
vest in programs to counter the dis-
proportionate
harm
COVID–19
has
caused specifically to communities of
color and Tribes. It will expand afford-
able insurance to more families and
give schools much needed resources to
help our students get back to class-
rooms for in-person learning safely. It
will stabilize our struggling childcare
sector, which is so critical to helping
women and working families get back
to work. It will support small busi-
nesses and help States keep educators
and firefighters and sanitation workers
and others on the job.
So before my Republican colleagues
worry anymore about the cost of doing
all that, I hope they take a moment to
consider the staggering cost of failing
to do it. There is a reason bold action
like this plan has the support of Repub-
lican Governors like Jim Justice in
West Virginia; the support of Repub-
lican mayors like Betsy Price in Fort
Worth, TX, or Francis Suarez in
Miami, FL, or David Holt from Okla-
homa City; and, according to a recent
poll, the support of a majority of Re-
publicans.
That same poll showed that the
American people support this package
by an overwhelming 3-to-1 margin.
People support this American Rescue
Plan because the American Rescue
Plan supports people—workers, fami-
lies, communities—who know firsthand
the loss and hardship of this last year
and because they understand the sim-
ple fact that when the house is in
flames, you do not argue about how
much of the fire to put out or how
much water to use or how many lives
to save; you do whatever it takes until
the crisis is over and everyone is safe,
and you do it as fast as you can. That
is what Democrats are trying to do
today. That is what this bill is about,
and I urge every single Member of the
Senate to support it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I
come to the floor to talk about the
American Rescue Plan, but following
my colleague from Washington and in
the presence of the Senator from
Vermont, I just want to thank them for
how hard they have fought for an in-
crease in the minimum wage.
Our State, the State of Washington,
has led the Nation for many years in
the highest minimum wage, and it
didn’t impact our economy. In fact, it
helped our economy. There are now re-
ports, as we have moved towards $15
from just a little town, SeaTac, to the
city of Seattle, to now a plan for our
entire State to move to $15 over a grad-
ual period of time.
I urge my colleagues—I urge my col-
leagues to come together with a plan
that can get us to a $15 minimum wage.
I know we have it in us. I know we can
do it. I so appreciate our colleagues
waging this effort to continue to make
this a priority for our Nation.
I can’t tell you enough how much the
wages, particularly in a place like Se-
attle, are going to matter to people, to
have a livable wage. I know people here
have discussed various aspects of this
program and the plans that are in this
bill, but I just want them to know that
the cost of living in a very expensive
place like Seattle demands that we pay
workers what they deserve. It also
means that we deal with big-city prob-
lems like homelessness and deal with
making investments, and I hope that
our next infrastructure bill will get to
that.
This is not the last time I am going
to speak about minimum wage, but I
want our colleagues to know that this
battle is not over yet and that if we
want to raise the standard of living in
the United States, we have to pay a liv-
able wage.
So I come to talk about the details of
the rescue plan. This is 1 year since a
young man from Everett, WA, became
the first COVID victim in the United
States of America. Not only did he get
sick, but many loved ones got sick,
their families, and they are all waiting
now for vaccines. So this legislation—
priority No. 1 for so many Americans
right now is the COVID–19 vaccine.
In my State, the State of Wash-
ington, more than 1 million residents
have been vaccinated, and 6 million
more are still waiting. Everyone knows
that demand far exceeds the supply.
Our healthcare workers are working
tirelessly, along with other govern-
ment officials, to get shots in the arms
of individuals.
That is why this bill is so important,
because it provides $20 billion to invest
in vaccine administration and distribu-
tion. That includes launching commu-
nity vaccine centers, deploying mobile
vaccine units to hard-to-reach areas,
and continuing to support an increased
pace of vaccinations. That is job 1 right
now—get the vaccine into the arms of
Americans.
That is why this legislation is so im-
portant, to continue that effort, but it
also provides other support, like ex-
tending unemployment benefits for
millions of Americans who lost their
jobs through no fault of their own a
year ago and are now seeing unemploy-
ment benefits expire next week.
We know what today’s numbers say.
We still have a very high unemploy-
ment rate in the United States of
America. So this bill extends the ben-
efit another 5 months, until August 29.
It is a very prudent measure to con-
tinue to put the resources into the
American economy.
It also provides $1,400 stimulus pay-
ments to millions, and it supports new
efforts for our restaurants, small busi-
nesses, and those devastated by the
pandemic so they can use this money
for payroll, rent, utilities, and paid
sick leave. This is so important, to
continue to learn from the programs
that COVID has started and to refine
them to make them successful for our
economy.
This also helps children who are at
home, helping provide more money for
E-Rate and broadband connectivity for
schools and libraries. This is so impor-
tant to individuals.
It also provides critical dollars for
Federal health funding to treat Native
VerDate Sep 11 2014
08:22 Mar 06, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\G05MR6.012
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1225
March 5, 2021
Americans in urban areas, a commu-
nity that has been very hard hit by the
pandemic.
Our economy lost 9.8 million jobs in
2020, and our current unemployment
rate, as I just said—we know from this
data that came out this morning—is
still too high. We know that, as a re-
sult, 19 million Americans, including
460,000 Washingtonians, rely on those
unemployment benefits. If we don’t act
by March 14, 11.5 million people will
lose their extended unemployment ben-
efits. So that is why this program is so
important to get passed today in the
Senate.
The restaurants, as we know, have
been very plagued by this problem, and
the PPP program has been helpful, but
I believe this legislation will be even
more helpful. Since the beginning of
the
pandemic,
110,000
restaurants
across our country have closed either
permanently or for an extended period
of time, including 2,300 in the State of
Washington, and some are just strug-
gling to hang on.
For example, the Black Cypress res-
taurant in Pullman, WA, lost more
than 1 million in revenue and had to
lay off workers after the initial PPP
loan program ran out. In southwest
Washington,
restaurants
like
the
Mighty Bowl in Vancouver and the
Depot Restaurant in Seaview are oper-
ating at 50 percent revenue loss.
I talked to one of our restaurant
owners, Wassef Haroun, who operates
very popular restaurants in Seattle, in-
cluding Mamnoon. He said his res-
taurants have lost 70 percent of their
revenue compared to 2019. And these
are people who are hustling to do
standup, popup windows, and all sorts
of things to keep the restaurants and
restaurant employees working.
So the Paycheck Protection Program
was critical, and these improvements
were desperately needed. That is why
this bill includes a new $25 billion
grant program for restaurants to ad-
dress those concerns of rent and utili-
ties and sick leave and other things
head-on.
The bill also helps with more funding
for the SBA live venues grant program
that we have authorized, helping those
venues stay open. For us in Seattle,
music is a thing, and we want these
venues to be there. They are part of
our history. They are part of our cul-
ture. They are part of a music story
that really is about, well, just a little
bit different take on music than maybe
some other parts of the world. So we
are very proud of it, and we don’t want
to lose these facilities, the home for
growing more music and cultural im-
pacts to our society.
So one of the hardest hit businesses,
though, has been businesses with 10 or
fewer employees in underserved areas,
like Grays Harbor, Yakima, Ferry
County, or Pend Oreille. This legisla-
tion allows $10,000 grants from the SBA
program of Economic Injury and Dis-
aster Loan Program to help with the
smaller communities and the small
businesses that have been underserved
to date by the programs that we have
passed.
But for the first time, in this legisla-
tion, there will be support for the avia-
tion supply chain. We are hearing all
sorts of discussions about supply chain
shortages and the competitiveness of
the United States if the United States
sees that critical supply chain ele-
ments will not be able to be filled,
whether you are talking about the
automotive industry or whether you
are talking about aviation.
Well, in the previous bills, certainly,
I can say that the Fed made capital
available that, certainly, manufactur-
ers—large-scale
manufacturers—took
advantage of. Previous bills made
money available for the airlines to con-
tinue operating, as this legislation does
as well. And I would say, I think, we
are probably somewhere between 40 to
45 percent of the original capacity for
airlines that we were previous to the
pandemic, which means we are making
progress, and that is what we always
wanted to see—the ability to return
our economy quickly.
But in Washington State alone, we
have 30,000 aerospace manufacturing
and supply chain jobs that have been
lost. Our aerospace supply chain is part
of a juggernaut for our economy. It
helps us with our gross domestic prod-
uct, and it helps us in containing and
keeping a workforce that is skilled
that can work postpandemic. So in this
legislation, we will be, for the first
time, making resources available for
that supply chain.
I want to thank Senator MORAN and
Senator WARNER and a slew of other
Members who worked on providing re-
sources to this supply chain. It will
help us retain and rehire workers in
the aviation manufacturing sector. It
will help us keep highly skilled work-
ers who serve as the backbone of indus-
tries so that our Nation can continue
to be poised for the recovery. And it
helps us in making sure that we are
poised for a strong recovery. We know
that aviation manufacturing jobs mean
a lot to our Nation. Finally, we are
going to help stave off the tide of the
huge losses that we have seen in that
sector.
We are going to help the mom-and-
pop machine shops. We are going to
take those who have been working on
small aircraft parts and landing gears
and doors and flight controls and help
them with the impact that they have
felt in trying to keep a workforce dur-
ing this period of time.
These are all important priorities for
us as a nation: the vaccines, the unem-
ployment
benefits,
the
stimulus
checks, the E-rate program for helping
students learn at home, the investment
in the aerospace supply chain. It is im-
portant that we get the dollars out the
door. This will help us recover. This
will
help
American
families
wade
through the last months of this COVID
pandemic fight. But, believe me, they
need the help in the last months. This
fight is not over, and this will help sus-
tain us.
I urge my colleagues to pass this leg-
islation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, similar
to Senator CANTWELL, I want to talk a
little bit about the small business pro-
visions in the American Rescue Plan
and the urgency of passing the recov-
ery act as soon as possible. We need to
act in order to deal with the recovery
of COVID–19 for our Nation.
As chair of the Small Business and
Entrepreneurship
Committee,
it
is
critically important to the health of
small businesses that we act on the
American Rescue Plan. Small busi-
nesses are critically important to our
economy. I think the Members of this
body understand that.
Two out of every three jobs in the
private sector are created through
small
companies.
Innovation
takes
place in a much larger amount in small
companies. Just look at how small
companies have adjusted to COVID–19.
We have seen curbside pickup. We have
seen the use of the online deliveries.
We have seen ways in which small busi-
nesses have shown that they can figure
out ways to try to stay alive under any
circumstances.
But there is another factor about
small businesses, and that is that they
are not as resilient to deal with an eco-
nomic downturn as the larger compa-
nies are. So whenever we go through
any type of a recession, small busi-
nesses suffer the most. So for all of
those reasons, it was critically impor-
tant for us to act to help America’s
small businesses.
Democrats and Republicans worked
together to create a way in which we
could help small businesses during this
pandemic. It is interesting that the
very first bill that we passed removed
the restrictions in regard to the EIDL
Program so that those businesses that
suffered as a result of the pandemic
could qualify for the Economic Injury
and Disaster Loan Program under the
Small Business Administration. We did
that because we realized that govern-
ment was imposing restrictions on
small businesses in their operations,
and we had a responsibility to act.
And then in mid-March of last year—
not this year, but mid-March of last
year—we passed the CARES Act, al-
most a year ago. It recognized that this
pandemic was having a major impact
on our small businesses. We didn’t real-
ize how long the pandemic would last.
We thought it would last a few months.
We certainly did not think it would
last a full year, and now beyond a year.
We passed innovative programs in
order to save small businesses.
In the one that got perhaps the most
attention, the PPP program—the Pay-
check Protection Program—we ini-
tially provided $350 billion. I would like
to think of the CARES Act as, really, a
Marshall Plan. It was a Marshall Plan
to deal with COVID–19. It provided the
VerDate Sep 11 2014
08:22 Mar 06, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\G05MR6.014
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1226
March 5, 2021
monies for vaccination, research, test-
ing, and for public health, to help our
States and local governments, to help
schools, but it also provided money in
a major way to help small businesses.
So $350 billion was initially provided
through the Paycheck Protection Pro-
gram because we realized that rather
than having to put more money into
unemployment insurance, wouldn’t it
be better to keep people on payroll so
that small businesses can retain their
essential workforce? And it worked.
The program was very, very popular.
But we did more than just the Pay-
check Protection Program. We also ex-
panded the Economic Injury and Dis-
aster Loan Program, or the EIDL Pro-
gram, because we recognized that for-
givable loans of a limited amount of
money was not enough to carry busi-
nesses over during the pandemic. They
were going to need longer term loans.
EIDL is a 30-year low-interest loan, up
to 30 years. And we also created a new
program known as the EIDL Advance
Program, which was cash—it was not a
loan, not a forgivable loan; it was a
grant of up to $10,000—because we know
for many small businesses, particularly
the most stressed and the most chal-
lenged, taking on another loan was not
a possibility. So we provided an EIDL
Advance of up to $10,000.
We also provided for loan forgiveness
for those who had existing or had re-
cently taken out 7(a) or 504 loans under
the Small Business Administration.
These programs were exceedingly
popular—so popular that, within just
about a matter of weeks, we started
running out of resources. We had ap-
propriated, we thought, a significant
amount of funds, but we found that $350
billion went pretty quickly. So we
came together, and we replenished the
funds. We put more money into the
Paycheck Protection Program, and we
also recognized that we had to provide
more
flexibility
because
businesses
were suffering, and they needed more
ability to be able to use those funds. So
we granted additional flexibility.
When we passed the CARES Act, we
thought this pandemic would be over
with by last summer. Well, that was
not the case. So we came back together
again and recognized we had to do
more. We passed, as you know, this
past December in the Omnibus legisla-
tion another round of help for Amer-
ica’s small businesses. This time, it
was $325 billion of additional help.
We provided additional eligibility for
entities that had not qualified before
for the Paycheck Protection Program,
and we provided a second round of the
Paycheck Protection Program. But we
targeted that second round to those
small businesses that were in under-
served communities, minority commu-
nities, and the smaller of the small
businesses. We helped mission lenders,
such as CDFIs and minority depository
institutions so that we could really try
to reach the underserved communities.
And we established a program for
shuttered venues. Why? Because shut-
tered venues were shuttered. These
were institutions that could not oper-
ate because of a government order, and
we recognized we had to do something
special in order to deal with that.
So when you put that all together,
what happened? Well, we saved a lot of
small businesses, and we should be
proud of that record. Seven million
Paycheck Protection Program loans—
forgivable loans—were granted for $678
billion. There were 3.7 million EIDL
loans given for $200 billion. And we
were oversubscribed for the EIDL Ad-
vance of $20 billion. So we were able to
really help, but more is needed.
When we passed the Omnibus bill in
December, we recognized that that
would hold us until March. Well, it is
now March. We need to act to complete
the work.
The Trump administration, in admin-
istering the SBA programs, did things
that we thought were unacceptable.
They put a cap on the EIDL loan of
$150,000. The statute says $2 million.
Many businesses needed more help
than was given by the administration
of the EIDL loan program. The EIDL
Advance Program was supposed to be
up to $10,000, but the administration
administered it at $1,000 per employee,
making it far less desirable than Con-
gress intended.
And, quite frankly, the underserved
communities were not being met at the
level that we had expected. I say that
because Senator SHAHEEN and I put a
provision in the CARES Act, now
known as page 30, that required the
SBA to make special efforts to get to
the underbanked communities because
we realized the underbanked commu-
nities were going to have difficulty
getting loans that were forgivable.
Their own inspector general of the SBA
said that the SBA did not carry out the
intent of Congress. So we needed to do
more to reach those communities that
were being left behind.
That is why action is needed. I want
to compliment the Biden administra-
tion. They have taken administrative
action to try to help us on this. They
have opened up for 14 days exclusivity
under the PPP program for those busi-
nesses that are 20 employees or less.
The smaller of the small businesses are
those that are having the most dif-
ficulty surviving in this climate. And
they had a much more real—by Execu-
tive order or by administrative action,
they now have a much more realistic
formula for the self-employed as to
how much they can receive under a
PPP loan. They were able to do that
through Executive action, and they re-
moved
the
discriminatory
nature
against returning citizens being able to
qualify for these forgivable loans.
The Biden administration has taken
action. Now it is necessary for us to
take action and come in with the
American Rescue Plan. We need to pass
it, $50 billion of additional help di-
rectly—directly—to small businesses to
make the EIDL Advance really work
for those in low-income communities
so they can get their full $10,000 grant
that we intended them to receive. So
that we can make that work, we need
to provide another $15 billion to the
EIDL Advance Program, targeting it to
the underserved communities.
We have a program to help our res-
taurants—why help the restaurants?—
with $25 billion. Here is the fact. Even
with the restaurants starting to come
back, we are 2 million jobs less in the
restaurant field since the beginning of
COVID–19—2 million jobs less. The Na-
tional Restaurant Association esti-
mates that 110,000 restaurants have ei-
ther shuttered for good or are shut-
tered today as a result of COVID–19. We
need to direct help to the restaurant
community.
The shuttered venue program needs
additional support, so an extra $1.25
billion
is
provided
for
shuttered
venues. I will just give you one exam-
ple. The Merriweather Post Pavilion
located in Howard County, MD—I have
been there many times—has not oper-
ated since last March. They need help.
A thousand jobs are dependent upon
the Merriweather Post Pavilion.
I am sure every one of my colleagues
could mention the venues in their own
State that have been shuttered as a re-
sult of COVID–19 that need that help.
We provide $7.25 billion for non-
profits, expanding eligibility, and for
the digital news platforms that need
help. Johns Hopkins University has
done a study, and it has shown that the
employment level in our nonprofit
community has dropped 1 million jobs
since COVID–19 occurred. We know the
great work that they do, how they step
up and help us anytime, but particu-
larly during a pandemic and during a
national crisis. They need help, and
they should be eligible to be able to re-
ceive the help under the Small Busi-
ness PPP program. This bill will pro-
vide that flexibility so they can get the
help that they need—another reason we
have to pass the American Rescue
Plan.
Then, lastly, let me mention the
community navigators. There is a mod-
est amount of money here so we can
have people who can help those who are
not as sophisticated to be able to get
the help that they need through a com-
munity navigator. Yes, we have the
Women’s Business Centers. Yes, we
have the Small Business Development
Centers. But we need more help. I
think the record has shown that.
Then, lastly, let me say, yes, we need
to pass the American Rescue Plan for
the direct help to small businesses, but
they also need our economy to return
to some degree of normalcy. That is
why there is help for opening our
schools, help for State and local gov-
ernments, help for families with direct
payments and unemployment insur-
ance, SNAP benefits, COBRA protec-
tion; why the vaccine distribution is so
important, the Medicaid expansion,
housing assistance. And I could go on
and on and on.
America needs the American Rescue
Plan, and they need it now. Democrats
VerDate Sep 11 2014
08:22 Mar 06, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\G05MR6.016
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1227
March 5, 2021
worked with the Trump administration
so that we could get help during that
administration. Republicans need to
join us in helping the American people.
Let’s pass the American Rescue Plan,
and let’s do that as soon as possible.
Mr. President, I rise today to go over
with our colleagues the importance of
the American Rescue Plan as it relates
to small businesses.
As every member of this Chamber
knows, small businesses are the growth
engine
of
the
American
economy.
Small businesses are where jobs are
created—creating two of every three
new jobs and employing almost half of
the Nation’s private sector workforce
during the years leading up to the pan-
demic.
Just as important as the jobs they
create, small businesses are where in-
novation happens in our economy.
They are the entities that are figuring
out better, more efficient ways of doing
things.
Mr. President, we are 1 week away
from the 1-year anniversary of the his-
toric day on March 11 of last year when
the World Health Organization de-
clared COVID–19 a global pandemic.
In the year since, we have seen small
businesses nationwide struggle, but we
have also seen their creativity and in-
genuity on display. We have seen the
restaurants
that
have
moved
to
curbside pick-up and online deliveries
because it is unsafe to have in-person
dining.
These small businesses are the reason
why our economy is performing at the
level it is, which may not be the level
we want it to be, but the ingenuity of
these small businesses have put us in a
much better position.
But Mr. President, there is another
characteristic of small businesses that
I think we all understand.
We all understand that they don’t
have the same degree of resiliency as
larger businesses, because they operate
on razor-thin margins, they don’t have
deep pockets, and as a result, they
often struggle to find outside financ-
ing. So when our economy hits a bump
in the road, small businesses suffer the
most.
So Mr. President, when the impact
COVID–19 would have on our economy
became clear last year, it was particu-
larly important for us to respond to
help our small businesses so that when
we get out of this pandemic, when our
economy returns, our small businesses
emerge in a position to help our econ-
omy recover, and continue to grow.
We had to support our small busi-
nesses, because the public health re-
strictions on public gatherings—which
have saved thousands of lives and kept
our communities safe—have been espe-
cially challenging for small businesses.
So Congress had to respond, and we
did. Our first major response was the
CARES Act—a bold, bipartisan bill
that was created to help small busi-
nesses, families, and create a ‘‘Mar-
shall Plan’’ for healthcare, which put
money into vaccine development, pro-
ducing personal protective equipment,
and put money into testing and other
public health measures.
Because we recognized then, and now,
that we have a responsibility as the
federal government to control the pan-
demic.
So the very first bill we passed in re-
sponse to the pandemic made small
businesses affected by the pandemic el-
igible for the Economic Injury Disaster
Loan program.
Traditionally used to help small busi-
nesses recover from a natural disaster
like a hurricane or a tornado, EIDL
provides low interest, long-term—up to
30 years—loans to help businesses re-
cover.
IT was important that we include
EIDL as a tool in the Small Business
Administration’s toolkit, because we
knew small businesses would need the
flexible, patient capital provided by
EIDL.
Next we passed the CARES Act,
which provided more than $370 billion
in direct aid to small businesses bear-
ing the costs of keeping us safe.
It created the Paycheck Protection
Program, a bipartisan program de-
signed to keep employees on payroll.
And we appropriated $350 billion to the
program.
We did this because we recognized at
the time that while a business could
lay off workers who could then collect
unemployment, it would be better to
keep them on payroll.
PPP provided an immediate influx of
aid to small businesses through forgiv-
able loans equivalent to 2 months of
payroll costs that could be used pri-
marily for payroll, but for other busi-
ness expenses as well. For small busi-
nesses that used the appropriate por-
tion of their PPP loan for payroll, the
loan would be forgiven.
To complement EIDL and PPP, we
created the EIDL Advance grant pro-
gram for those small businesses that
were unable to take out a loan because
they were struggling to pay their exist-
ing loans.
The EIDL Advance program would
provide grants up to $10,000 for our
most vulnerable small businesses. For
many businesses, the grants were a
lifesaver that provided an immediate
cash infusion without having to worry
about additional loans of their books.
We also created the SBA Debt Relief
program to cover the monthly pay-
ments on new and existing traditional
SBA loans, including SBA 7(a) and 504
loans.
Mr. President, the CARES Act was
signed on March 27, and according to
SBA, more than $340 billion in PPP
loans were approved by April 16—
roughly 3 weeks after the bill was
signed.
So we had to appropriate additional
funds for the program due to the de-
mand for the loans. We also made PPP
more flexible for small businesses in
recognition of the fact that our Nation
would be confronting the pandemic for
months to come and that we would not
have the pandemic behind us by sum-
mer, as we had hoped.
PPP, EIDL, EIDL Advance grants,
and the SBA Debt Relief program
helped save many small businesses.
We only need to look at the numbers.
Since the creation of PPP last
March, SBA has approved more than 7
million PPP loans worth more than
$678 billion. Most of those funds went
directly to the millions of employees
at those small businesses to care for
themselves and their families. SBA has
approved more than 3.7 million EIDL
applications
providing
loans
worth
more than $200 billion.
The EIDL Advance grant program
has exhausted its initial $20 billion ap-
propriation.
In the months since these programs
have been up-and-running, Mr. Presi-
dent, we have learned many lessons
that we must now deploy in order to
finish the job of ensuring that small
businesses are protected through this
pandemic.
We learned that the historic barriers
that small businesses in underserved
communities, especially Black- and
Latino-owned small businesses, do not
have relationships with the traditional
banking institutions that make PPP
loans.
Senator SHAHEEN
and I were con-
cerned about this as we wrote the
CARES Act, which is why we put a pro-
vision in the bill that required SBA to
issue guidance to banks participating
in PPP to prioritize loan applications
from underserved small businesses.
Unfortunately, SBA did not do that,
which led the SBA IG to issue report
that found that SBA’s implementation
of PPP ‘‘did not fully align’’ with the
Congressional intent of the CARES
Act.
In response to SBA’s failure to issue
that guidance, a group of stakeholders
advocating on behalf of minority busi-
nesses started a group known as the
Page 30 Coalition, because the provi-
sion I talked about was on page 30 of
the CARES Act.
PPP wasn’t the only program harmed
by the way it was implemented by the
Trump administration.
The Trump administration hindered
the utility of EIDL by capping loans at
$150,000, which is far below the $2 mil-
lion cap that is in statute.
And EIDL Advance grants were made
less useful to small businesses due to
the Trump administration’s decision to
provide EIDL applicants with $1,000 per
employee for up to 10 employees, in-
stead of the $10,000 grant provided by
the CARES Act.
So I was pleased that we finally lived
up to our overdue responsibility to pass
more economic aid in December. The
bipartisan $900 billion relief bill pro-
vided an additional $325 billion in aid
to small businesses and included provi-
sions to make PPP a more useful pro-
gram for more of our most vulnerable
small businesses.
The bill provided $284 billion for first
and second PPP loans, and it set aside
VerDate Sep 11 2014
08:22 Mar 06, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\G05MR6.018
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1228
March 5, 2021
$15 billion for mission lenders, as well
as another $15 billion set-aside for cer-
tain
smaller
financial
institutions,
such as credit unions and farm credit
institutions.
The bill also made SBA’s 7(a) and 504
loan programs more affordable for bor-
rowers and less risky for lenders; those
programs helped jumpstart the econ-
omy following the Great Recession.
The bill provided $20 billion for tar-
geted EIDL Advance grants that will
be provided to small businesses in eli-
gible low-income communities. For
small businesses in these communities
that already received an EIDL Advance
grant, SBA will provide them with the
difference for a full $10,000 grant.
And we extended the Small Business
Debt Relief Program for several more
months, which freed up cash flow for
small businesses to use for working
capital.
Mr. President, I am proud to share
that the changes to PPP are already
yielding results.
Data from SBA on this current round
of PPP shows lower loan averages,
which indicates that more of the small-
er, more vulnerable small businesses
are receiving loans this time than they
did during the initial months of PPP.
I was very proud last week after the
Biden Administration announced steps
it was taking to make PPP a more eq-
uitable program and provide relief to
the many of Black- and Latino-owned
small businesses that were left out of,
or underfunded, during previous rounds
of relief.
The changes include a 14–day dedi-
cated window for small businesses with
fewer than 20 employees to apply for
PPP; an improved loan calculation for-
mula for sole proprietors, independent
contractors, and self-employed individ-
uals; and the elimination of an unnec-
essary restriction that prevented small
business owners with a prior non-fraud
felony conviction from obtaining a
PPP loan.
These changes will help many small
businesses secure the aid they need.
Now is the time to seize on that mo-
mentum.
The American Rescue Plan will de-
ploy an additional $50 billion to the
communities and industries that still
need help, and are likely to need con-
tinuing support in the months to come.
Mr. President, this bill is necessary
right now, because the industries that
have been hardest hit by the pandemic
are also the industries that will take
the longest to resume full operations
after the pandemic—some of which are
reliant on large crowds to turn a profit;
others because they are already strug-
gled to access capital before the pan-
demic, and will only be worse off after
it.
It is vital that we provide additional
funding to these industries, because
they have accounted for a large portion
of the jobs lost during the pandemic.
According
to
the
National
Res-
taurant Association, as of December of
last year, 110,000 eating and drinking
places were closed for business tempo-
rarily, or for good, and the sector fin-
ished 2020 nearly 2.5 million jobs below
its pre-COVID level. And at the peak of
initial closures last year, the group es-
timates that up to 8 million restaurant
employees were laid off or furloughed.
The live events industry also needs
additional support, because they are
the most reliant on large crowds to
turn a profit, and businesses in the sec-
tor often support hundreds of jobs, both
directly and through their relation-
ships with other businesses.
In my home state of Maryland, for
example, Merriweather Post Pavilion
in Howard County supports nearly 1,000
jobs across the State.
We must also expand support to more
nonprofits,
because
the
job
losses
caused by the pandemic have not been
limited to the for-profit entities. Ac-
cording to a report from the Johns
Hopkins University, there are nearly 1
million fewer nonprofit jobs today than
there were in February of last year, in-
cluding the 50,000 jobs lost by the non-
profit sector in December. The report
projects that it will take 18 months to
regain the nonprofit jobs lost during
the pandemic.
It goes without saying that getting
these jobs back as quickly as possible
will be key to a swift, robust recovery.
And enacting the American Rescue
Plan will help us do just that.
What these small businesses need
more of however, are not loans, but
grants.
That is why the American Rescue
Plan includes $15 billion for targeted
EIDL grants to provide hard-hit, un-
derserved small businesses with in-
creased flexible grant relief, which will
be particularly helpful for very small
businesses and sole proprietors.
This provision is especially impor-
tant for minority-owned businesses,
which are more likely to be sole propri-
etors and have fewer employees on av-
erage.
The American Rescue Plan will also
create a $25 billion dedicated grant re-
lief program for restaurants, and it will
provide an additional $1.25 billion to
the Shuttered Venue Operators Grant
program, which was created by the De-
cember bill.
The American Rescue Plan will ex-
pand PPP eligibility to additional non-
profits that are providing essential so-
cial services, as well as digital news
services that are keeping our commu-
nities informed about the pandemic.
The plan provides SBA with an addi-
tional $1.325 billion in administrative
funding to implement and scale up
these grant programs.
And lastly, the plan provides $175
million for a community navigator
pilot program designed to help small
businesses in underserved and under-
banked
communities
access
the
COVID–19 resources available to them.
If we remember from the Affordable
Care Act, community navigators help
get information out to hard-to-serve
communities, and they will help small
business owners apply for the programs
that best meet their needs.
They are a good complement to
SBA’s existing resource partners, such
as the Women’s Business Centers and
Small Business Development Centers.
Mr. President, President Biden prom-
ised the American people that help is
on the way, and that is exactly what
we intend to do by passing the Amer-
ican Rescue Plan into law.
It is a bold approach, because the
problems we are facing are so great. We
must pass this bill immediately.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, a vote-
arama is upon us. Stay hydrated. Try
to keep good cheer. We are going to
have lots of amendments today and
kind of talk about where we differ on
certain things, which will be good for
the country.
What I hate the most is that we are
doing a partisan COVID bill for the
first time as a nation, and I don’t know
why because on March 5, 2020, 96 to 1,
we appropriated $8 billion when we had
just begun to understand what COVID
was about; March 18, $355 billion, 90 to
8; March 25, $1.9 trillion.
So March 5 and 25, we spent well over
$2 trillion, with the average vote 96 to
1, 90 to 8, and 96 to 0. In April we spent
$355 billion by voice vote; September
30, 2020, $8 billion, 84 to 10; December
21, 2020, $1.04 trillion, 92 to 6.
So it is not like we can’t work to-
gether on COVID. You had a Repub-
lican President, you had a Republican
Senate, and a Democratic House, and
we were able to come together as a na-
tion. But that is all over now because
my Democratic colleagues have chosen
to go another way because they can.
They have all the power. They have the
House, the Senate, and the White
House.
They have chosen to do a $1.9 trillion
package without any effort at all, in
my view, to try to find common
ground. Ninety percent of this money
has got zero to do with COVID. It is a
liberal wish list, and every time Sen-
ator SCHUMER says it is not, it makes
me believe it is.
So another point for the American
people: Of all the money I just de-
scribed to you that we appropriated in
a bipartisan fashion, we haven’t spent
it all yet, but we are going to spend $1.9
trillion even though we haven’t spent
the earlier money.
Of the administrative actions, we
have got still $200 billion left to spend.
Of the legislative appropriations, we
appropriated $4.1 trillion; we have got a
trillion we haven’t spent yet, but we
are going to spend $1.9 trillion more be-
fore we spend what we spent in the
past.
The Federal Reserve set aside $5.9
trillion to help business. They have
only spent $2.8 trillion, so there is a lot
more capability there.
The economy is showing signs of life.
The vaccine is out. Things are looking
VerDate Sep 11 2014
08:22 Mar 06, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.002
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1229
March 5, 2021
better. It seems to me we would want
to slow down and wisely spend the
money not spent before we embark on
a $1.9 trillion spending spree.
Most of it doesn’t have much to do, if
anything, with COVID. They are doing
it because they can, and there will be a
lot of amendments talking about bet-
ter ways to spend this money.
The minimum wage has been dropped
out, but here is what is in this bill: $20
million for the preservation and main-
tenance of Native American languages.
That might be something we want to
do, but we should go through the ap-
propriations process, have hearings,
not put it on a COVID bill.
And $135 million for the National En-
dowment for the Arts. It may be some-
thing we want to do, but not on a
COVID bill. And $135 million for the
National Endowment for Humanities.
Again, the same concept. About $200
million for the Institute of Museum
and Library Services. What has that
got to do with COVID? Nothing.
PPP loans for labor unions, paid
leave fund for Federal employees, an
$86 billion bailout for union pensions.
What has that got to do with COVID?
Nothing. And $350 billion for blue
States. We changed the formula under
this bill—dramatically different than
the one we passed 96 to 0.
So I could go on and on. Money for
schools. Most of the money in this
bill—$129 billion for K–12—only $6.4 bil-
lion is to be distributed this year. Most
of the money is spent from 2022 to 2028.
Hopefully we will get control of COVID
by 2028. Again, this is an opportunity
to spend money on things not related
to COVID because they have the power
to do so.
It is going to be a long day. We are
going to be talking about reprioritizing
money. We are going to try to strike
provisions from this bill, money that
comes from hard-working taxpayers,
being spent in a way unrelated to
COVID.
So stay tuned. Keep good cheer. Stay
hydrated. But this is a debate worth
having, and I regret very much that we
could not find common ground here. To
find it, you have to seek it. And this is
the one area where we were doing a
pretty damn good job, I thought, work-
ing together as Republicans and Demo-
crats, spending a lot of money because
there was a need out there.
Today we are going to spend a lot of
money, most of it not related to
COVID, and it is going to be along par-
tisan lines. It is unfortunate, but it is
the choice my Democratic colleagues
made. And we are going to hold them
to that choice.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, my
colleague, the ranking member, Sen-
ator GRAHAM, says: Why?—$1.9 trillion,
a lot of money. We have spent money
over the last year. He is right. Why did
we spend the money? The answer is be-
cause we are facing a series of unprece-
dented crises and because the Amer-
ican people are reaching out to us, and
they are saying: We are hurting. We
are in desperate condition, and we need
help from the Federal Government.
That is why we are responding.
Half a million people have died in
this country from COVID, and many
millions more have been made ill. And
what the long-term impact of those ill-
nesses are nobody at this point knows,
but certainly no one will deny that we
have a pandemic crisis.
Our job is to make sure that we
produce the vaccines that the Amer-
ican people desperately need and that
we develop an effective mechanism to
get it into the arms of the American
people. And the truth is—I want to
thank the President and his team—we
have made progress in the last month,
but we still have a long, long way to
go. To produce the vaccines, to hire the
people who will make sure that people
get those vaccines, inject people with
the vaccines, it is going to take money.
Everybody in this Senate and, I as-
sume, in the country wants our kids to
get back to school. Well, you just can’t
open the schools unless they are safe.
Parents are not going to send their
kids back to those schools. Teachers
are not going to teach. Childcare work-
ers are not going to provide the care
that the little ones need.
And do you know what? To make
those schoolrooms and school buildings
safe is going to require resources, but,
for the sake of our children, we need to
reopen the schools as quickly as pos-
sible and do it in a safe way.
There is money in this bill—Senator
GRAHAM
didn’t mention it—to make
sure that, this coming summer, school
districts all over this country have the
resources
to
provide
strong,
well-
staffed summer programs so kids who
have missed significant amounts of
school can make up some of what they
have lost, in addition to getting some
recreation and associating with their
fellow young people in a way that is
safe.
There was a poll that came out just
last week. It was rather shocking at
what it said. It said that 63 percent of
the American people are living pay-
check to paycheck.
Senator GRAHAM says: Why are we
spending all of this money? The answer
is we don’t believe that children in
America should go hungry. We don’t
believe that working people should be
evicted from their apartments or lose
their homes. We don’t believe that, in
the midst of a pandemic, people should
not be able to afford to go to a doctor.
So making sure that people have
those direct payments, yeah, we be-
lieve in that. We believe that if a fam-
ily is struggling today through no fault
of their own, having lost their income,
yeah, we are going to get them a check
for 1,400 bucks and a family of four a
check for $5,600.
There are a lot of people in this coun-
try who are doing very well, and they
are wondering: What is this big deal
about $1,400? That is not a lot of
money. You go to a corporate lunch, a
bunch of people come in, and they can
spend $1,400 on a lunch.
But if you are struggling to put food
on the table for your kids, that $5,600
for a family of four is life and death; it
is dignity or desperation.
People are wondering: How am I
going to pay the rent that I owe after
the rent moratorium, the eviction mor-
atorium expires? How am I going to
feed my kids? How am I going to take
care of the basic necessities of life?
So, yes, we are providing $1,400 per
working-class family because that is
desperately needed.
So when the Senator says: Well, why
are we spending all of this money? The
answer is because we are living in the
most difficult moment in the modern
history of this country and, arguably,
even a more difficult moment than the
Great Depression of the 1930s. People
are hurting, and, in a democratic soci-
ety, government is supposed to respond
to the people who sent us here.
Now, I know that there is con-
troversy, and Senator GRAHAM raised
this issue. Democrats have a majority,
a bare majority with the Vice Presi-
dent—51 votes. Why are we not working
with our Republican colleagues? We
have reached out time and time and
time again. The President has reached
out: Work with us. But you have got to
understand the severity of the crisis,
and they have not done this.
Using reconciliation, by the way, as
the Presiding Officer well knows, is not
a new idea. When our Republican col-
leagues had the majority, they used
reconciliation. What did they use it
for? They used it for massive tax
breaks for the rich. That is what they
used reconciliation for. They used rec-
onciliation in order to try to throw 32
million Americans off the Affordable
Care Act, something that Trump was
fervent about. And by one vote—Sen-
ator McCain—we prevented 32 million
people from losing their health insur-
ance through the reconciliation proc-
ess.
So our response is, you want unity?
Well, do you know what? We probably
have more unity today in America
around this package than anything
that I can remember. The polls vary:
65, 70 percent of the American people
understand the crisis we are facing.
They want us to respond. This legisla-
tion is enormously popular, not just
from progressives, not from moderates,
but from Republicans, as well, depend-
ing on the poll.
Forty, fifty percent more Repub-
licans support it because they can’t af-
ford to pay their rent. They can’t af-
ford to go to the doctor. They under-
stand that government has to help.
So the real question here—and Presi-
dent Biden has raised this issue—is, we
believe in unity, we believe in bringing
people together. How does it happen
that when 40, 50 percent of Republicans
support this legislation, we can’t get
one vote from Republicans here? What
VerDate Sep 11 2014
08:22 Mar 06, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\G05MR6.019
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1230
March 5, 2021
is going on? And the answer is, I am
afraid, that my Republican colleagues
have moved so far to the right that
they have lost contact with the needs
of working families.
As I said earlier, this legislation is
not just about dealing with the pan-
demic and healthcare. It is not just
dealing
with
the
severe
economic
downturn that we are facing. It is not
just dealing with the disruption of edu-
cation in America and so much more.
It is not just dealing with the worst
moment in the modern history of this
country. This amendment, this legisla-
tion, has everything to do with restor-
ing the confidence of the American
people in democracy and in their gov-
ernment. And if we can’t respond to
the pain of working families today, we
don’t deserve to be here.
Senator GRAHAM said it is going to be
a long night. Bring it on. We are ready.
But at the end of the day, we are going
to do what the American people want,
what the American people need. We are
going to pass the American Rescue
Plan.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, later
today the Senate will vote on an
amendment put forward by Senator
CARPER and myself dealing with an ex-
tension of enhanced unemployment
benefits.
Some Members of the Senate wanted
to hold the enhanced weekly benefit at
$300 per week. My preference would
have been to set it at $400 per week on
the longest extension possible and then
later tie benefits to economic condi-
tions on the ground with automatic
triggers. With the amendment coming
later today, I believe Members have
reached a solution that accomplishes
two key goals.
First, it is a longer extension of bene-
fits than the House bill that avoids cre-
ating a new August cliff. It would ex-
tend the weekly benefit at $300 per
week into early October, including pan-
demic benefits for gig workers and the
self-employed. I have said time and
again that having an expiration in the
middle of August, when Senators are
home, would be a prescription for trou-
ble, and this option avoids the poten-
tial of benefits expiring for millions of
Americans with no way to extend
them.
Second, it would prevent a tax sur-
prise for millions of Americans who re-
ceived unemployment benefits in 2020.
The first $10,200 of the unemployment
benefits they received last year would
be exempt from income tax. People
who already filed their taxes and found
out that they owed tax on their unem-
ployment income would be able to file
an amended return to get back the dif-
ference.
This will wipe out taxes owed on last
year’s unemployment income for most
people who received it, saving them po-
tentially thousands of dollars. That is
a big economic benefit for the people
hardest hit by the COVID crash, and
jobless Americans will also have the
certainty of enhanced benefits running
into October. My understanding is, the
Republican side will offer an amend-
ment that will not prevent this tax
surprise.
I am going to keep working on auto-
matic triggers. In my view, that is the
best way to manage this program going
forward. But as for this debate, I urge
all my colleagues to support this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DUR-
BIN). The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. The Republicans yield
back their time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time is
yielded back.
Mr. SANDERS. I yield back my time
as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time
is yielded back.
The Senator from South Carolina.
POINT OF ORDER
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the
budgetary
effects
of
the
pending
amendment, 972, offered by Senator
SANDERS, are merely incidental to the
nonbudgetary effects of the amend-
ment. Accordingly, the amendment is
extraneous. Therefore, I raise a point
of order against this measure pursuant
to section 313(b)1(D) of the Congres-
sional Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Vermont.
MOTION TO WAIVE
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, in ac-
cordance with section 904 of the Con-
gressional Budget Act of 1974 and the
waiver provisions of all applicable
budget resolutions, I move to waive all
applicable sections of that act and ap-
plicable budget resolutions for pur-
poses of amendment No. 972, and I ask
for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a
sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient sec-
ond.
The question is on agreeing to the
motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
(Mr. PADILLA assumed the Chair.)
(Ms. CORTEZ MASTO assumed the
Chair.)
(Mr. BLUMENTHAL assumed the
Chair.)
(Mr. KELLY assumed the Chair.)
(Mrs. SHAHEEN assumed the Chair.)
(Ms. CANTWELL assumed the Chair.)
(Mr.
WHITEHOUSE
assumed
the
Chair.)
(Ms. HIRONO assumed the Chair.)
(Mr. MANCHIN assumed the Chair.)
(Mrs. MURRAY assumed the Chair.)
(Mr. BENNET assumed the Chair.)
(Ms. ROSEN assumed the Chair.)
(Ms.
KLOBUCHAR
assumed
the
Chair.)
The result was announced—yeas 42,
nays 58, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 74 Leg.]
YEAS—42
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Casey
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Klobuchar
Leahy
Luja´n
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Smith
Stabenow
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS—58
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Carper
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
King
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Manchin
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DUR-
BIN). On this vote, the yeas are 42, the
nays are 58.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly cho-
sen and sworn not having voted in the
affirmative, the motion to waive all
applicable budgetary discipline with
respect to the Senator from Vermont’s
amendment No. 972 is rejected.
The point of order is sustained and
the amendment falls.
The amendment (No. 972) was re-
jected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ma-
jority leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, the
agreement that has been reached will
allow us to move forward with the
American Rescue Plan, and voting will
resume shortly.
Senate Democrats are completely
united in our belief about how impor-
tant this entire bill is for our fellow
Americans; for getting the vaccine to
our people; for reopening our schools;
for keeping American workers, fami-
lies, and businesses afloat; and for put-
ting our country on the road to a
strong recovery.
Now that this agreement has been
reached, we are going to power through
the rest of the process and get this bill
done. Make no mistake, we are going
to continue working until we get the
job done.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Re-
publican leader.
Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, par-
liamentary inquiry: At what time did
the previous vote on the Senator’s
amendment begin?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote
began at 11:03 a.m.
Mr. MCCONNELL. How much total
time elapsed during the floor vote on
the Senator’s amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eleven
hours and 50 minutes.
Mr. MCCONNELL. Well, my good-
ness, this has been quite a start, quite
a start to this fast-track process. They
were in a big hurry. We started voting
VerDate Sep 11 2014
17:16 Jun 03, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\RECORD21\MARCH\S05MR1.REC
S05MR1
sradovich on DSKJLST7X2PROD with CONG-REC-ONLINE
CORRECTION

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1231
March 5, 2021
on the first amendment, as the Parlia-
mentarian said, right after 11 a.m. The
Democratic leader held the vote open
all day so they could try to figure out
what was going on with their own leg-
islation that they want to pass only
with their votes.
Now, the last time we had a long
string of amendment votes was just a
couple weeks ago. We considered about
40 amendments. So if you multiply 11
hours of scrambling times 40 amend-
ments, you would land at about 440
hours. That is about 18 days with zero
breaks.
So, look, the whole idea behind this,
I gathered from listening to them over
the last few weeks, was to use the cri-
sis to jam through what the White
House Chief of Staff called ‘‘the most
progressive domestic legislation in a
generation.’’ A little tougher than they
thought it was going to be, isn’t it? It
turned out to be a little bit tougher.
Well, what this proves is there are
benefits to bipartisanship when you are
dealing with an issue of this mag-
nitude. We all remember that we did
this five times last year. We did it to-
gether. I think there were no more
than eight votes against any of these
proposals. We spent about $4 trillion on
pandemic relief. Every one passed, as I
said, with 90 or more votes. Not a sin-
gle spectacle like today—not one.
Exactly 1 year ago, instead of par-
tisan scrambling, we were humming
with bipartisan work, working on it to-
gether. We had a bipartisan task force
building the CARES Act from the bot-
tom up. We passed the bill 96 to 0.
We were prepared to do yet another
bill on a bipartisan basis. Several of
our Members went down to the White
House, sat down with the President,
laid out a proposal we thought made
sense given where we were now. But,
no, they wanted to do it the hard way.
Wanted to do it the hard way.
So now they want to begin the vote-
arama that could have been done in
daylight because of their own confu-
sion and the challenges of getting to-
gether 50 people to agree on something
when they could have been doing it
quicker on a bipartisan basis.
MOTION TO ADJOURN
Mr. President, so rather than start
the voting at 5 minutes to 11, I move to
adjourn until 10 a.m. tomorrow, and I
ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a
sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient sec-
ond.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
(Ms. BALDWIN assumed the Chair.)
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is
necessarily absent: the Senator from
Alaska (Mr. SULLIVAN).
The result was announced—yeas 49,
nays 50, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 75 Leg.]
YEAS—49
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS—50
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Luja´n
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING—1
Sullivan
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
Senator from Ohio.
AMENDMENT NO. 1092 TO AMENDMENT NO. 891
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I call
up my amendment No. 1092 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
clerk will report the amendment by
number.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Ohio [Mr. PORTMAN], for
himself and others, proposes an amendment
numbered 1092 to amendment No. 891.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To reduce unemployment
compensation provisions)
Strike parts 1 and 2 of subtitle A of title IX
and insert the following:
PART 1—EXTENSION OF CARES ACT
UNEMPLOYMENT PROVISIONS
SEC. 9011. EXTENSION OF PANDEMIC UNEMPLOY-
MENT ASSISTANCE.
(a) IN
GENERAL.—Section 2102(c) of the
CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 9021(c)) is amended—
(1) in paragraph (1)—
(A) by striking ‘‘paragraphs (2) and (3)’’
and inserting ‘‘paragraph (2)’’; and
(B) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking
‘‘March 14, 2021’’ and inserting ‘‘July 18,
2021’’; and
(2) by striking paragraph (3) and redesig-
nating paragraph (4) as paragraph (3).
(b) INCREASE IN NUMBER OF WEEKS.—Sec-
tion
2102(c)(2)
of
such
Act
(15
U.S.C.
9021(c)(2)) is amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘50 weeks’’ and inserting
‘‘74 weeks’’; and
(2) by striking ‘‘50-week period’’ and insert-
ing ‘‘74-week period’’.
(c) HOLD HARMLESS FOR PROPER ADMINIS-
TRATION.—In the case of an individual who is
eligible to receive pandemic unemployment
assistance under section 2102 of the CARES
Act (15 U.S.C. 9021) as of the day before the
date of enactment of this Act and on the
date of enactment of this Act becomes eligi-
ble for pandemic emergency unemployment
compensation under section 2107 of the
CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 9025) by reason of the
amendments made by section 9016(b) of this
title, any payment of pandemic unemploy-
ment assistance under such section 2102
made after the date of enactment of this Act
to such individual during an appropriate pe-
riod of time, as determined by the Secretary
of Labor, that should have been made under
such section 2107 shall not be considered to
be an overpayment of assistance under such
section 2102, except that an individual may
not receive payment for assistance under
section 2102 and a payment for assistance
under section 2107 for the same week of un-
employment.
(d) EFFECTIVE
DATE.—The amendments
made by subsections (a) and (b) shall apply
as if included in the enactment of the
CARES Act (Public Law 116–136), except that
no amount shall be payable by virtue of such
amendments with respect to any week of un-
employment commencing before the date of
the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 9012. EXTENSION OF EMERGENCY UNEM-
PLOYMENT RELIEF FOR GOVERN-
MENTAL ENTITIES AND NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 903(i)(1)(D) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1103(i)(1)(D)) is
amended by striking ‘‘March 14, 2021’’ and in-
serting ‘‘July 18, 2021’’.
(b) INCREASE
IN REIMBURSEMENT RATE.—
Section 903(i)(1)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1103(i)(1)(B)) is amended—
(1) in the first sentence, by inserting ‘‘and
except as otherwise provided in this subpara-
graph’’ after ‘‘as determined by the Sec-
retary of Labor’’; and
(2) by inserting after the first sentence the
following: ‘‘With respect to the amounts of
such compensation paid for weeks of unem-
ployment beginning after March 31, 2021, and
ending on or before July 18, 2021, the pre-
ceding sentence shall be applied by sub-
stituting ‘75 percent’ for ‘one-half’.’’.
SEC. 9013. EXTENSION OF FEDERAL PANDEMIC
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2104(e)(2) of the
CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 9023(e)(2)) is amended
by striking ‘‘March 14, 2021’’ and inserting
‘‘July 18, 2021’’.
(b) AMOUNT.—Section 2104(b)(3)(A) of such
Act (15 U.S.C. 9023(b)(3)(A)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
‘‘(iii) For weeks of unemployment ending
after March 14, 2021, and ending on or before
July 18, 2021, $300.’’.
SEC. 9014. EXTENSION OF FULL FEDERAL FUND-
ING OF THE FIRST WEEK OF COM-
PENSABLE
REGULAR
UNEMPLOY-
MENT FOR STATES WITH NO WAIT-
ING WEEK.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2105(e)(2) of the
CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 9024(e)(2)) is amended
by striking ‘‘March 14, 2021’’ and inserting
‘‘July 18, 2021’’.
(b) FULL REIMBURSEMENT.—Paragraph (3)
of section 2105(c) of such Act (15 U.S.C.
9024(c)) is repealed and such section shall be
applied to weeks of unemployment to which
an agreement under section 2105 of such Act
applies as if such paragraph had not been en-
acted.
SEC. 9015. EXTENSION OF EMERGENCY STATE
STAFFING FLEXIBILITY.
If a State modifies its unemployment com-
pensation law and policies, subject to the
succeeding sentence, with respect to per-
sonnel standards on a merit basis on an
emergency temporary basis as needed to re-
spond to the spread of COVID–19, such modi-
fications shall be disregarded for the pur-
poses of applying section 303 of the Social
Security Act and section 3304 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to such State law. Such
modifications shall only apply through July
18, 2021, and shall be limited to engaging of
temporary staff, rehiring of retirees or
former employees on a non-competitive
basis, and other temporary actions to quick-
ly process applications and claims.
VerDate Sep 11 2014
08:22 Mar 06, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\G05MR6.023
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1232
March 5, 2021
SEC. 9016. EXTENSION OF PANDEMIC EMER-
GENCY
UNEMPLOYMENT
COM-
PENSATION.
(a) IN
GENERAL.—Section 2107(g) of the
CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 9025(g)) is amended to
read as follows:
‘‘(g) APPLICABILITY.—An agreement en-
tered into under this section shall apply to
weeks of unemployment—
‘‘(1) beginning after the date on which such
agreement is entered into; and
‘‘(2) ending on or before July 18, 2021.’’.
(b) INCREASE IN NUMBER OF WEEKS.—Sec-
tion
2107(b)(2)
of
such
Act
(15
U.S.C.
9025(b)(2)) is amended by striking ‘‘24’’ and
inserting ‘‘48’’.
(c) COORDINATION OF PANDEMIC EMERGENCY
UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION
WITH
EX-
TENDED COMPENSATION.—Section 2107(a)(5)(B)
of such Act (15 U.S.C. 9025(a)(5)(B)) is amend-
ed by inserting ‘‘or for the week that in-
cludes the date of enactment of the Amer-
ican Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (without regard
to the amendments made by subsections (a)
and (b) of section 9016 of such Act)’’ after
‘‘2020)’’.
(d) EFFECTIVE
DATE.—The amendments
made by this section shall apply as if in-
cluded in the enactment of the CARES Act
(Public Law 116–136), except that no amount
shall be payable by virtue of such amend-
ments with respect to any week of unem-
ployment commencing before the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 9017. EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY FINANC-
ING OF SHORT-TIME COMPENSATION
PAYMENTS IN STATES WITH PRO-
GRAMS IN LAW.
Section 2108(b)(2) of the CARES Act (15
U.S.C. 9026(b)(2)) is amended by striking
‘‘March 14, 2021’’ and inserting ‘‘July 18,
2021’’.
SEC. 9018. EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY FINANC-
ING OF SHORT-TIME COMPENSATION
AGREEMENTS FOR STATES WITHOUT
PROGRAMS IN LAW.
Section 2109(d)(2) of the CARES Act (15
U.S.C. 9027(d)(2)) is amended by striking
‘‘March 14, 2021’’ and inserting ‘‘July 18,
2021’’.
PART 2—EXTENSION OF FFCRA
UNEMPLOYMENT PROVISIONS
SEC. 9021. EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY ASSIST-
ANCE FOR STATES WITH ADVANCES.
Section 1202(b)(10)(A) of the Social Secu-
rity Act (42 U.S.C. 1322(b)(10)(A)) is amended
by striking ‘‘March 14, 2021’’ and inserting
‘‘July 18, 2021’’.
SEC. 9022. EXTENSION OF FULL FEDERAL FUND-
ING OF EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION.
Section
4105
of
the
Families
First
Coronavirus Response Act (26 U.S.C. 3304
note) is amended by striking ‘‘March 14,
2021’’ each place it appears and inserting
‘‘July 18, 2021’’.
Mr. PORTMAN. I ask unanimous
consent that there be 6 minutes of de-
bate equally divided.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, every-
body around here agrees that the U.S.
economy is getting better—there is no
argument about that—and that work-
ers are needed. Yet, in this massive
partisan spending bill, a lot of which is
not even about COVID–19, the Demo-
crats are insisting on a substantial in-
crease to the already extraordinary
Federal Government add-on to State
unemployment payments, making it
harder to get people who can go back
to work.
Just this morning, we learned that
the economy added 379,000 jobs in Feb-
ruary and that the unemployment rate
dropped to 6.2 percent. The nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office and the
consensus of economists is that unem-
ployment will continue to trend lower.
It underscores what the CBO has said
recently, which is that, without any
additional stimulus, the economy will
recover to prepandemic levels by mid-
year, this year—that is June 30—not in
September as the Democrats’ approach
would suggest.
Look at your own States. Employers
are looking to hire people. ‘‘Help want-
ed’’ signs are up. As the economy starts
to improve, we want to get people back
to work.
Adding to the good news, President
Biden now tells us that vaccines will be
available by the end of May for all who
will want them. That will further kick-
start the economy.
Despite the better news, as we under-
stand it, the Democrats’ approach ac-
tually extends the generous Federal
supplement currently in place until
September 6—by the way, even a little
beyond what is in the $1.9 trillion un-
derlying bill.
I was just told that it has a $31 bil-
lion tax increase that affects the so-
called passthrough, which is primarily
small businesses, to pay for a proposal
to pay people more who are on unem-
ployment insurance.
The Democrats’ proposal makes it
even more advantageous to be on un-
employment by changing retroactively
a longstanding policy that says UI ben-
efits are taxed as income. You make up
to 10,000 bucks in benefits, tax-free,
even if you have made up to $150,000 a
year. Remember, with that 600 bucks a
week Federal supplement, which is
what it was for a lot of last year when
this would have applied, about 70 per-
cent of workers on UI made more than
they would have at their jobs. Even at
300 bucks a week, 42 percent of workers
are making more on UI than they
would make at their jobs.
Of the essential workers, think of the
truckdrivers who are making 25 bucks
an hour. They are being told ‘‘you have
to pay your taxes,’’ but those who
aren’t working not only get the UI ben-
efits, but now, for the first time ever,
some of that income is actually going
to be tax-free. So you have to pay your
taxes, but they don’t. That is not fair.
The underlying bill and the Demo-
crats’ alternative are going to hurt the
effort to get people back to work. Our
amendment would extend UI benefits
in a responsible manner at the current
low level of $300 per week through July
18. According to the CBO, this will save
over $90 billion in outlays and actually
raise $600 million in revenue. Why? Be-
cause people will be working. That is a
good thing. We should want that.
I urge my colleagues to oppose un-
necessarily lengthening the time of the
Federal UI supplement that would
make it even more advantageous to be
on unemployment and would slow the
job creation we all want. Our amend-
ment strikes the right balance. It helps
those who truly need it, promotes bet-
ter stewardship of our taxpayer dollars,
and encourages those who can return
to work to do so. I urge its adoption.
(Applause.)
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER
(Ms.
BALDWIN). The senior Senator from Or-
egon.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, yes-
terday, the Senate learned that there
were
745,000
new
unemployment
claims—higher than the worst week of
the great recession. Yet the Portman
amendment is a double whammy on
workers—a much faster cutoff of bene-
fits and absolutely no help with the
nasty tax surprise millions of working
families will find when they file their
taxes in the next few weeks.
For example, if you have been laid off
from your job through no fault of your
own and you are struggling to make
ends meet, you do not have $1,000 to
pay a surprise tax bill, and the party
that claims to be for tax relief for
working families offers you absolutely
nothing.
Since the pandemic, Senate Repub-
licans have been pushing working fami-
lies deeper into an economic hole. We
have an alternative that doesn’t hang
working families out to dry, and we
will be offering it shortly.
Working families deserve better than
the Portman amendment. Don’t short-
change those working families tonight.
I urge opposition to this very flawed
amendment.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 1092
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment.
Mr. WYDEN. I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a
sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient sec-
ond.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is
necessarily absent: the Senator from
Alaska (Mr. SULLIVAN).
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER
(Mr.
BROWN). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced—yeas 50,
nays 49, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 76 Leg.]
YEAS—50
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Manchin
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS—49
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
VerDate Sep 11 2014
08:22 Mar 06, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.007
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1233
March 5, 2021
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Luja´n
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING—1
Sullivan
The amendment (No. 1092) was agreed
to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Maine.
AMENDMENT NO. 1242 TO AMENDMENT NO. 891
(Purpose: In the nature of a substitute.)
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I call
up my amendment No. 1242, and ask
that it be reported by number.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Maine [Ms. COLLINS], for
herself and others, proposes an amendment
numbered 1242 to amendment No. 891.
(The amendment is printed in today’s
RECORD under ‘‘Text of Amendments.’’)
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent for 2 minutes of de-
bate, equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator will proceed.
Ms. COLLINS. This amendment pro-
vides $650 billion of immediate relief to
those Americans who need it most. It
is focused on the COVID crisis before
us, not on future unrelated spending
priorities. The amendment provides
$160 billion to bolster vaccine produc-
tion and delivery, as well as testing
and
much
needed
support
for
healthcare providers.
It includes $1,400 checks for lower
and middle-income Americans and ex-
tends unemployment insurance.
It targets money to reopen schools,
something that needs to happen as
soon as possible, and to expand access
to childcare.
It has funding for substance abuse
programs to combat the opioid epi-
demic that has worsened.
This amendment would save tax dol-
lars. It would save taxpayers more
than $1.2 trillion while meeting imme-
diate needs.
The emergency we are facing should
not be an excuse for funding partisan
priorities. Instead, we should come to-
gether——
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator’s time is expired.
Ms. COLLINS.—just as we had on the
five previous bipartisan bills.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Vermont is recognized for 1
minute.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, given
the unprecedented series of crises this
country now faces, the Republican
amendment simply does not accom-
plish what the American people need or
what they want.
Our bill would substantially expand
the child tax credit and cut child pov-
erty in this country in half. Our bill
provides a full $1,400 direct payment to
every working-class adult and their
kids. Under the Collins amendment, if
you are a single parent earning $50,000,
you get zero, nothing at all, while mil-
lions of children would receive just $500
instead of the full $1,400 payment.
Our bill provides $130 billion to public
schools so our kids can get back to
school and get back safely. The Repub-
lican alternative does not.
Our plan provides $40 billion to col-
leges and universities, which have al-
ready lost 650,000 jobs, and many
are——
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator’s time has expired.
Mr. SANDERS.—cutting down. The
Republican amendment simply does
not do what the American people need
right now. I ask for a ‘‘no’’ vote. Oh, I
raise a point of order. I am sorry.
POINT OF ORDER
Mr. President, I raise a point of order
that the pending amendment produces
budgetary changes that are merely in-
cidental to the nonbudgetary compo-
nents of the amendment and therefore
violates section 313(b)(1)(D) of the Con-
gressional Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Maine is recognized.
MOTION TO WAIVE
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, pursu-
ant to section 904 of the Congressional
Budget Act, I move to waive, and I ask
for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a
sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient sec-
ond.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is
necessarily absent: the Senator from
Alaska (Mr. SULLIVAN).
The result was announced—yeas 48,
nays 51, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 77 Leg.]
YEAS—48
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS—51
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Luja´n
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING—1
Sullivan
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this
vote, the yeas are 48, the nays are 51.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly cho-
sen and sworn not having voted in the
affirmative, the motion is not agreed
to.
The point of order is sustained, and
the amendment falls.
The amendment (No. 1242) was re-
jected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator
SCOTT from South Carolina.
AMENDMENT NO. 1030 TO AMENDMENT NO. 891
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr.
President, I call up my amendment No.
1030 and ask that it be reported by
number.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
clerk will report the amendment by
number.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from South Carolina [Mr.
SCOTT of South Carolina], for himself and
Mr. BARRASSO, proposes an amendment num-
bered 1030 to amendment No. 891.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To improve the bill)
Strike section 9818 and insert the fol-
lowing:
SEC. 9818. FUNDING FOR STATE STRIKE TEAMS
FOR
RESIDENT
AND
EMPLOYEE
SAFETY IN NURSING FACILITIES.
Section 1919 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1396r) is amended by adding at the end
the following new subsections:
‘‘(k) FUNDING FOR STATE STRIKE TEAMS.—
In addition to amounts otherwise available,
there is appropriated to the Secretary, out of
any monies in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, $250,000,000, to remain avail-
able until expended, for purposes of allo-
cating such amount among the States (in-
cluding the District of Columbia and each
territory of the United States) for such a
State to establish and implement a strike
team that will be deployed to a nursing facil-
ity in the State with diagnosed or suspected
cases of COVID–19 among residents or staff
for the purposes of assisting with clinical
care, infection control, or staffing during the
emergency
period
described
in
section
1135(g)(1)(B) and the 1-year period imme-
diately following the end of such emergency
period.
‘‘(l) LIMITATION.—The Secretary shall not
make an allocation under subsection (k) to a
State unless the State, for each month that
occurs during the period that begins on Octo-
ber 1, 2020, and ends on the last day of the 1-
year period described in such subsection,
provides accurate monthly reporting to the
Secretary on the number of COVID–19 deaths
of residents of nursing facilities and skilled
nursing facilities (as defined in 1819(a)) and
certifies that such deaths are not included in
counts of COVID–19 deaths in other settings.
The Secretary shall rescind any amounts
previously allocated to a State under sub-
section (k) if the State fails to comply with
the requirement of this subsection.’’.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr.
President, I ask unanimous consent for
2 minutes of debate, equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Senator SCOTT will proceed.
VerDate Sep 11 2014
08:22 Mar 06, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.008
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1234
March 5, 2021
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr.
President, I have been doing some re-
search as the ranking member of the
Aging Committee. As of last month, 40
percent of COVID-related deaths in this
country were residents or staff of long-
term care facilities. Lawmakers are
charged with the responsibility of pro-
tecting the most vulnerable popu-
lations in our country, and those num-
bers represent absolute failure.
Some
States
have
underreported
deaths in nursing homes, and some
public officials made this move inten-
tionally, a clear effort to deceive their
populations into thinking the situation
was not as dire. Inaccurate information
affects
life-and-death
decisions
for
communities.
Requiring States to provide accurate
data is common sense for anyone who
believes, as I do, that we should have a
science-based, fact-driven response to
the pandemic. We should not offer
more funding to States that have mis-
managed and then covered up their
pandemic response. It makes no sense.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator’s time has expired.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I urge
my colleagues to do the right thing and
vote in favor of this amendment.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
Who
rises in opposition?
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I do.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Oregon is recognized for 1
minute.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President and col-
leagues,
the
number
of
COVID–19
deaths among nursing home residents
and staff is tragic. That is why Presi-
dent Biden’s and the Democrats’ plan
goes forward with an investment in
preventing nursing home infections
and deaths, including more PPE strike
teams to address infections, testing,
contact tracing, and more.
We take a backseat to no one when it
comes to timely and accurate reporting
in COVID–19 cases, and deaths will con-
tinue to ensure such reporting. How-
ever, it would be a grave mistake to
hold hostage this badly needed support
for strike teams to ensure residents’
and employees’ safety in nursing home
facilities. These funds are essential to
helping ensure the safety of seniors and
staff that are at the frontlines of the
COVID–19 pandemic.
This amendment, colleagues, is puni-
tive, and it doesn’t further the goal of
transparency. It would hurt the very
people we seek to protect.
I urge a ‘‘no’’ vote on this amend-
ment. I urge my colleagues to do the
same.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr.
President, I ask unanimous consent to
have 30 seconds to respond.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Thank
you, Mr. President.
I would simply say that what my
amendment does is it says that you
can’t lie about the numbers. The bot-
tom line, it simply says that it is very
important for us to have accurate in-
formation about the deaths in nursing
homes. The more accurate the informa-
tion, the more likely we are to have
the best response.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, 30 sec-
onds?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Oregon is recognized for 30
seconds without objection.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, on this
side of the aisle, we have led the fight
for transparency with respect to the
kind of information my colleague is
talking about. That is not what this
amendment is about.
This amendment is about making
sure that President Biden and Demo-
crats can make these necessary invest-
ments in these strike teams that are
going to ensure more safety in these
long-term care facilities.
I urge a ‘‘no’’ vote.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr.
President, I ask for 10 seconds to re-
spond to my good friend from Oregon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Thank
you, Mr. President.
I will just simply say that even
President Biden himself has suggested
that investigations are warranted into
this issue.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 1030
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time
has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the
amendment.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I ask
for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a
sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient sec-
ond.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is
necessarily absent: the Senator from
Alaska (Mr. SULLIVAN).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there
any other Senators in the Chamber de-
siring to vote?
The result was announced—yeas 49,
nays 50, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 78 Leg.]
YEAS—49
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS—50
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Luja´n
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING—1
Sullivan
The amendment (No. 1030) was re-
jected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Oregon.
AMENDMENT NO. 1378 TO AMENDMENT NO. 891
(Purpose: To improve the bill)
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I call up
amendment No. 1378 and ask that it be
reported by number.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
clerk will report the amendment by
number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk
read as follows:
The Senator from Oregon [Mr. WYDEN] pro-
poses an amendment numbered 1378 to
amendment No. 891.
(The amendment is printed in today’s
RECORD under ‘‘Text of Amendments.’’)
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent for 6 minutes, even-
ly divided, to discuss this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, on this
side, our goal has been to secure the
strongest possible protections for job-
less Americans that could pass the
Senate. This amendment has two es-
sential features that make it far better
for working families than the Portman
amendment.
It ensures that millions of working
families get their benefits at least
through September 5. It protects unem-
ployed workers from being hit with a
big surprise tax bill with no way to pay
for it.
Republicans have been standing in
lockstep against tax relief for Ameri-
cans with a few hundred dollars in the
bank after demanding billions in write-
offs for wealthy investors. On the other
hand, Democrats have led the effort to
add hundreds of dollars in weekly bene-
fits and covering gig workers and the
self-employed.
This is the boldest action the Con-
gress has ever taken—ever taken—to
support jobless Americans during an
economic crisis, and at every stage, as
Democrats
proposed
that
help
for
working families, Senate Republicans
opposed us. This goes back, colleagues,
to the CARES Act, when Republicans
had just one amendment. That was to
gut the jobless protections.
Finally, the whole process under-
scores the need to stop jumping from
one economic cliff to another. There
would be no need to predict the level of
economic support needed 6 months
from now if benefits were tailored to
match economic conditions.
We look forward to discussing this
idea of triggers for economic support
VerDate Sep 11 2014
17:20 Jun 03, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\RECORD21\MARCH\S05MR1.REC
S05MR1
sradovich on DSKJLST7X2PROD with CONG-REC-ONLINE
CORRECTION

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1235
March 5, 2021
with colleagues on both sides of the
aisle, but tonight it is vital, as the pan-
demic continues, that the Senate pass
this amendment, an economic lifeline
for Americans who would strongly pre-
fer to be back at work.
Instead of attacking Americans as
lazy individuals who don’t want to
work, these are responsible adults with
a strong work ethic who will help us
build back better in the days to come.
I strongly urge support for our
amendment.
I yield.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
Who
yields time?
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Ohio is recognized.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, let’s
be clear with what is going on here.
The Republicans have offered a very
generous unemployment system, in-
cluding 300 bucks per week, as is the
current law after March 15, when it
would otherwise expire, and taking it
to July 18.
Now, there is nobody in this Chamber
that doesn’t see that the economy is
improving.
And
the
Congressional
Budget Office, which is a nonpartisan
group here, has told us that, actually,
by the middle of this year, we are going
to be back to the prepandemic level in
terms of our economy. Every econo-
mist looks at this and says that unem-
ployment is going down.
I note that my colleague over there,
from Oregon, said that claims were
higher last week in terms of unemploy-
ment. The 4-week average is actually
down, considerably.
Let me tell you what happened
today, because I just looked it up. New
York opened its movie theaters; Vir-
ginia announced they are opening their
schools; West Virginia opened their
bars, their restaurants, all businesses;
Connecticut is opening indoor dining.
This is happening every day. The econ-
omy is getting better.
And everybody says—including, by
the way, Larry Summers, a famous
Democratic economist, who was Treas-
ury
Secretary
under
President
Obama—that when you look at what
happens with regard to unemployment
insurance, if it is too high, it is a dis-
incentive to work.
I don’t think Larry Summers is say-
ing people are lazy. I think what Larry
Summers is saying is that you want to
have a system that is balanced, where
you are encouraging people to work.
There are so many employers in our
States who are looking for people right
now, and that is going to continue to
happen as we open up more.
Look, our unemployment provision is
very reasonable; it is very generous—
taking it through July 18.
They are taking theirs through Sep-
tember 6. And then they are adding
this new element that has never been
in unemployment before, where sud-
denly if you are on unemployment in-
surance, you don’t have to pay taxes,
but if you are working you do have to
pay taxes.
How does that make sense? Don’t we
want to encourage people to work? I
think we do. I hope that my colleagues
will vote down this amendment and
continue to keep the Portman amend-
ment in place, which, by the way,
passed this Chamber only about an
hour and a half ago.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am
going to ask for 15 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator
WYDEN has 45 seconds remaining.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, first of
all, with respect to the facts about un-
employment, every week—every week
since
last
March,
unemployment
claims have been higher than the worst
week of the great recession. And the
fact is, we have got millions of Ameri-
cans who, every single week, are walk-
ing an economic tightrope. They are
balancing the food bill against the fuel
bill and the fuel bill against the rent
bill. And we want to give them a mod-
est amount of tax relief for the typical
working person, and the party that
claims to want to help workers on
their taxes won’t lift a finger. That is
why it is so important that this
amendment pass.
I yield.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent for 15 seconds to re-
spond, and then I will stop.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. MUR-
PHY). The Senator has time remaining.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, No. 1,
the 4-week average on unemployment
claims are actually going the right
way. Why? Because the economy is
opening up, folks. If you don’t see that,
you are not going home to your States
and talking to your employers.
Second, we have a situation here
where the Republicans are saying we
want to continue the $300 per month—
or per week after March 15, but let’s
end it on July 18. If things turn south—
which no one is predicting, by the way,
not a single economist—I know a lot of
us would be willing to work with the
other side of the aisle to extend, but
there is no reason to do that at this
point.
With regard to your tax cut, it is a
tax increase. It is a tax increase on
small businesses.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 1378
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time
has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the
amendment.
Mr. WYDEN. I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a
sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient sec-
ond.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk
called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is
necessarily absent: the Senator from
Alaska (Mr. SULLIVAN).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there
any other Senators in the Chamber de-
siring to vote?
The result was announced—yeas 50,
nays 49, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 79 Leg.]
YEAS—50
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Luja´n
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS—49
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NOT VOTING—1
Sullivan
The amendment (No. 1378) was agreed
to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Florida.
AMENDMENT NO. 1026
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I call up
my amendment No. 1026 and ask that it
be reported by number.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
clerk will report the amendment by
number.
The assistant bill clerk read as fol-
lows:
The Senator from Florida [Mr. RUBIO] pro-
poses an amendment numbered 1026.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To amend the Elementary and
Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund)
Strike section 2001 and insert the fol-
lowing:
SEC.
2001.
ELEMENTARY
AND
SECONDARY
SCHOOL EMERGENCY RELIEF FUND.
(a) IN GENERAL.—In addition to amounts
otherwise available, there is appropriated to
the Department of Education for fiscal year
2021, out of any money in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated, $125,804,800,000, to re-
main available through September 30, 2023,
to carry out this section.
(b) GRANTS.—From funds provided under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall make
grants to each State educational agency in
accordance with this section.
(c) ALLOCATION TO STATES.—The amount of
each grant under subsection (b) shall be allo-
cated by the Secretary to each State in the
same proportion as each State received
under part A of title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 in the most
recent fiscal year.
(d) SUBGRANTS
TO
LOCAL
EDUCATIONAL
AGENCIES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Each State shall allocate
not less than 95 percent of the grant funds
awarded to the State under this section as
subgrants to local educational agencies (in-
cluding charter schools that are local edu-
cational agencies in the State) in proportion
VerDate Sep 11 2014
08:24 Mar 06, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\G05MR6.030
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1236
March 5, 2021
to the amount of funds such local edu-
cational agencies and charter schools that
are local educational agencies received under
part A of title I of the Elementary and Sec-
ondary Education Act of 1965 in the most re-
cent fiscal year.
(2) AVAILABILITY
OF
FUNDS.—Each State
shall make allocations under paragraph (1)
to local educational agencies in accordance
with the following:
(A) A local educational agency shall re-
ceive 25 percent of its allocation under para-
graph (1) not later than 30 days after the
date of enactment of this title.
(B) A local educational agency shall re-
ceive an additional 15 percent of its alloca-
tion under paragraph (1) for each school day
in a 5-day school week that public elemen-
tary and secondary schools served by the
local educational agency are open for in-per-
son instruction for 100 percent of students
within the local educational agency, as cer-
tified by the local educational agency to the
State.
(e) STATE FUNDING.—With funds not other-
wise allocated under subsection (d), a State
may carry out, directly or through grants or
contracts, activities necessary to support
the safe reopening of schools.
(f) EQUITABLE SERVICES.—Each local edu-
cational agency that receives funds from a
subgrant under subsection (d) shall reserve
funds to provide equitable services in the
same manner as provided under section 1117
of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6320) to students and
teachers in non-public schools, as deter-
mined in consultation with representatives
of non-public schools.
(g) PUBLIC CONTROL OF FUNDS.—The con-
trol of funds for the services or assistance
provided to a non-public school under sub-
section (f), and title to materials, equip-
ment, and property purchased with such
funds, shall be in a public agency, and a pub-
lic agency shall administer such funds, serv-
ices, assistance, materials, equipment, and
property.
(h) REALLOCATION.—A State shall return to
the Secretary any funds received under this
section that the State does not award within
1 year of receiving such funds and the Sec-
retary shall reallocate such funds to the re-
maining States in accordance with sub-
section (c).
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent for 2 minutes of de-
bate equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I think we
can all agree we have kids in America
who need to be in school who haven’t
been in school over a year now, in some
cases.
The science is clear that you can
open up schools safely. Now, I know
different districts have different chal-
lenges about opening up. This bill pro-
vides money for everybody to open up.
We don’t want to change that. We want
to help every district.
Under my amendment, every district
in the country would get money, but
the more days of the week you are
open, the more money you are going to
get, which makes all the sense in the
world. If you are going to open 4 days
a week, you shouldn’t have as much
money as a district that is going to
open 5 days a week.
The purpose of the money that is
being provided is so that schools can
fund the cost of opening safely. All this
amendment tries to do is create an in-
centive for these districts to open up
more days because we do have unions—
to be fair, not all, but we do have
teachers unions in this country that
are saying they are not going back
until next year, even if they are vac-
cinated, even if all the measures are
put in place.
We have a crisis in this country. We
have seen now a surge in mental health
problems, with young people showing
up at hospitals, and across the country,
it is a terrible situation, not to men-
tion the year of lost learning. This
amendment incentivizes us to get our
kids back in school.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the
only way to safely reopen schools for
in-person learning and keep them open
is to provide the $125 billion that is in-
cluded in the American Rescue Plan
Act for our K–12 schools. This Federal
funding will support schools in their
implementing safety protocols that are
aligned with local public health guid-
ance in order to safely reopen, stay
open, and help students with learning
recovery. Our goal is clear.
Let me make something else clear.
The amendment offered today to condi-
tion funds on forced school reopenings
is simply a political show that will, ac-
tually, further disadvantage schools
that have already suffered the most. If
we only provide funding to schools that
are physically open, schools in commu-
nities with high rates of COVID–19
can’t receive the money they need to
implement health safety protocols, but
they will feel the pressure to reopen
even if it is not safe. So conditioning
funds actually undermines our ability
to get students back in the classroom
safely.
Let’s
prioritize
student
learning.
Safe in-person learning is paramount
so let’s stop wasting time. Let’s pass
this plan and get the schools the funds
they need.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator’s time has expired.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 1026
The question is on agreeing to the
amendment.
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask for
the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a
sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient sec-
ond.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk called
the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is
necessarily absent: the Senator from
Alaska (Mr. SULLIVAN).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there
any other Senators in the Chamber de-
siring to vote?
The result was announced—yeas 48,
nays 51, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 80 Leg.]
YEAS—48
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS—51
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Luja´n
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING—1
Sullivan
The amendment (No. 1026) was re-
jected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from New Hampshire.
AMENDMENT NO. 1344 TO AMENDMENT NO. 891
Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, I call up
amendment No. 1344 and ask that it be
reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the clerk will report the
amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk
read as follows:
The Senator from New Hampshire [Ms.
HASSAN], for herself and others, proposes an
amendment numbered 1344 to amendment
No. 891.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide for a safe return to in-
person instruction)
At the appropriate place, insert the fol-
lowing:
(l) SAFE RETURN
TO IN-PERSON INSTRUC-
TION.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—A local educational agen-
cy receiving funds under this section shall
develop and make publicly available on the
local educational agency’s website, not later
than 30 days after receiving the allocation of
funds described in paragraph (d)(1), a plan for
the safe return to in-person instruction and
continuity of services.
(2) COMMENT
PERIOD.—Before making the
plan described in paragraph (1) publicly
available, the local educational agency shall
seek public comment on the plan and take
such comments into account in the develop-
ment of the plan.
(3) PREVIOUS PLANS.—If a local educational
agency has developed a plan for the safe re-
turn to in-person instruction before the date
of enactment of this Act that meets the re-
quirements described in paragraphs (1) and
(2), such plan shall be deemed to satisfy the
requirements under this subsection.
Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous
consent
for
2
minutes
equally divided.
VerDate Sep 11 2014
08:52 Mar 06, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.013
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1237
March 5, 2021
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, I be-
lieve that every single Member of this
body agrees that remote learning is
taking an enormous toll on our stu-
dents, teachers, and our students’ fami-
lies, and that we need to safely get stu-
dents back into the classroom.
This amendment would ensure that
educational agencies receiving relief
funds will within 30 days develop and
make publicly available a plan for the
safe return to in-person instruction.
I urge all of my colleagues to join me
in
supporting
this
commonsense
amendment to support an objective
that we all share: getting our students
safely back in their classrooms.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Missouri.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, last year
Congress provided nearly $68 billion in
emergency funding for schools. About
10 percent of that has been used. This
bill provides another $126 billion, with
no requirement that we get kids back
to school.
We know they need to be back in
school. I think this amendment actu-
ally, if applied, almost ensures we
won’t get back to school this year.
Thirty days to come up with a plan;
public comment on that plan. It is the
middle of March before anybody even
begins to make—have the 30 days to
make that plan. We need to get kids
back to school. The New York Times
understands that.
Many States are saying the suicide
rates, the emergency room mental
health concerns demand that kids get
back to school, and not next year but
they get back to school as quickly as
they can this year.
I think this amendment, while I am
sure offered in good intention, works
against that, not for it, and I would
urge a ‘‘no’’ vote on the amendment.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 1344
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
question is on agreeing to the Hassan
amendment.
Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, I ask
for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a
sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient sec-
ond.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk
called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is
necessarily absent: the Senator from
Alaska (Mr. SULLIVAN).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there
any other Senators in the Chamber de-
siring to vote?
The result was announced—yeas 51,
nays 48, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 81 Leg.]
YEAS—51
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Luja´n
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS—48
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NOT VOTING—1
Sullivan
The amendment (No. 1344) was agreed
to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from South Carolina is recognized.
AMENDMENT NO. 1369, AS MODIFIED, TO
AMENDMENT NO 891
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President I would
like to call up amendment No. 1369, as
modified, and ask it be reported by
number.
ADDITIONAL COSPONSOR
I ask that Senator HAGERTY be added
as cosponsor.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
clerk will report the amendment, as
modified.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as
follows:
The Senator from South Carolina [Mr.
GRAHAM], for himself and others, proposes an
amendment numbered 1369, as modified, to
amendment No. 891.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To improve the bill)
Strike section 9901 and insert the fol-
lowing:
SEC. 9901. CORONAVIRUS STATE AND LOCAL FIS-
CAL RECOVERY FUND.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Title VI of the Social Se-
curity Act (42 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
‘‘SEC. 602. CORONAVIRUS FISCAL RECOVERY
FUND.
‘‘(a) APPROPRIATION.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Out of any money in the
Treasury of the United States not otherwise
appropriated, there are appropriated for
making payments to States, Tribal govern-
ments, and units of local government under
this section, $350,000,000,000 for fiscal year
2021.
‘‘(2)
RESERVATION
OF
FUNDS.—Of
the
amount appropriated under paragraph (1),
the Secretary shall reserve—
‘‘(A) $4,500,000,000 for making payments to
the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Is-
lands, Guam, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, and American
Samoa; and
‘‘(B) $20,000,000,000 for making payments to
Tribal governments.
‘‘(b) AUTHORITY TO MAKE PAYMENTS.—Not
later than 30 days after the date of enact-
ment of this section, the Secretary shall pay
each State and Tribal government the
amount determined for the State or Tribal
government for fiscal year 2021 under sub-
section (c).
‘‘(c) PAYMENT AMOUNTS.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2),
the amount paid under this section for fiscal
year 2021 to a State that is 1 of the 50 States
shall be the amount equal to the relative
population proportion amount determined
for the State under paragraph (3) for such
fiscal year.
‘‘(2) MINIMUM PAYMENT.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—No State that is 1 of the
50 States shall receive a payment under this
section for fiscal year 2021 that is less than
$2,927,000,000.
‘‘(B) PRO
RATA
ADJUSTMENTS.—The Sec-
retary shall adjust on a pro rata basis the
amount of the payments for each of the 50
States determined under this subsection
without regard to this subparagraph to the
extent necessary to comply with the require-
ments of subparagraph (A).
‘‘(3)
RELATIVE
POPULATION
PROPORTION
AMOUNT.—For purposes of paragraph (1), the
relative population proportion amount de-
termined under this paragraph for a State
for fiscal year 2021 is the product of—
‘‘(A) the amount appropriated under para-
graph (1) of subsection (a) for fiscal year 2021
that remains after the application of para-
graph (2) of that subsection; and
‘‘(B) the relative State population propor-
tion (as defined in paragraph (4)).
‘‘(4) RELATIVE STATE POPULATION PROPOR-
TION
DEFINED.—For purposes of paragraph
(3)(B), the term ‘relative State population
proportion’ means, with respect to a State,
the quotient of—
‘‘(A) the population of the State; and
‘‘(B) the total population of all States (ex-
cluding the District of Columbia and terri-
tories specified in subsection (a)(2)(A)).
‘‘(5) DISTRICT
OF
COLUMBIA
AND
TERRI-
TORIES.—The amount paid under this section
for fiscal year 2021 to a State that is the Dis-
trict of Columbia or a territory specified in
subsection (a)(2)(A) shall be the amount
equal to the product of—
‘‘(A) the amount set aside under subsection
(a)(2)(A) for such fiscal year; and
‘‘(B) each such District’s and territory’s
share of the combined total population of the
District of Columbia and all such territories,
as determined by the Secretary.
‘‘(6)
TRIBAL
GOVERNMENTS.—From
the
amount set aside under subsection (a)(2)(B)
for fiscal year 2021, the amount paid under
this section for fiscal year 2021 to a Tribal
government shall be the amount the Sec-
retary shall determine, in consultation with
the Secretary of the Interior and Indian
Tribes, that is based on increased expendi-
tures of each such Tribal government (or a
tribally-owned entity of such Tribal govern-
ment) relative to aggregate expenditures in
fiscal year 2019 by the Tribal government (or
tribally-owned entity) and determined in
such manner as the Secretary determines ap-
propriate to ensure that all amounts avail-
able under subsection (a)(2)(B) for fiscal year
2021 are distributed to Tribal governments.
‘‘(7) DATA.—For purposes of this sub-
section, the population of States shall be de-
termined based on the most recent year for
which data are available from the Bureau of
the Census.
‘‘(d) USE OF FUNDS.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2),
a State or Tribal government shall use the
funds provided under a payment made under
this section to cover only those costs of the
State or Tribal government that—
‘‘(A) are necessary expenditures incurred
due to the public health emergency with re-
spect
to
the
Coronavirus
Disease
2019
(COVID–19);
VerDate Sep 11 2014
08:24 Mar 06, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\G05MR6.036
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1238
March 5, 2021
‘‘(B) were not accounted for in the budget
most recently approved as of the date of en-
actment of this section for the State or gov-
ernment; and
‘‘(C) were incurred during the period that
begins on March 1, 2020, and ends on Decem-
ber 31, 2022.
‘‘(2) STATE
DISTRIBUTIONS
TO
UNITS
OF
LOCAL GOVERNMENT.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Each State (other than
the District of Columbia) shall distribute 45
percent of the amount allocated and paid to
the State under this section to units of local
government in the State in accordance with
this paragraph.
‘‘(B) MANNER
OF
DISTRIBUTION.—A State
shall allocate the amount that the State is
required to distribute among units of local
government in the State based on the popu-
lation of each such unit of local government
(as determined by the State) relative to the
population of all units of local government
in the State.
‘‘(C) APPLICATION OF USES OF FUNDS.—The
limitations on the uses of funds described in
paragraph (1) shall apply to amounts distrib-
uted to a unit of local government under this
paragraph in the same manner that such
limitations apply to a payment to a State
under this subsection.
‘‘(e) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The terms ‘Indian Tribe’,
‘Secretary’, ‘State’, and ‘Tribal government’
shall have the meaning given such terms in
section 601(g).
‘‘(2) UNIT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT.—The term
‘unit of local government’ means a county,
municipality, town, township, village, par-
ish, borough, or other unit of general govern-
ment below the State level.’’.
(b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—The heading
for title VI of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 801 et seq.) is amended by striking
‘‘FUND’’ and inserting ‘‘AND FISCAL RE-
COVERY FUNDS’’.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask
for 2 minutes, equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAHAM. There was a time
about a year ago when we were to-
gether, and we passed a COVID relief
bill of $1.9 trillion, 96 to nothing. What
happened? You all got it now.
So here is what I want you to know.
That CARES formula, that bill we
passed, had an allocation for State and
local funding that has been changed by
our Democratic friends, and the biggest
winners are New York and California.
So the formula they are using now,
New York and California wins big. You
need to check what you are doing be-
cause you are giving a lot of money to
New York and California because they
can do it.
This is a big State bailout. You need
to check and explain to people back in
your State why they need more money
than you do. You are rewarding people
who have closed down the economy,
won’t reopen, so I am asking to go
back to the bipartisan formula, reject
this partisan formula that rewards
Democratic blue States at the expense
of most everybody else in this building.
So if you don’t know how your State
is doing, we know how your State is
doing, and you will hear about it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President,
nobody on our side likes this amend-
ment, and we urge a ‘‘no’’ vote. It
would tie the hands of local and State
government. It would make it more dif-
ficult to rehire or interfere with recov-
ery in our capital cities, so if we could
all have a resounding ‘‘no’’ vote on the
Graham amendment, I would appre-
ciate it and yield back further time.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 1369
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment.
Mr. GRAHAM. I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a
sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient sec-
ond.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk called
the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is
necessarily absent: the Senator from
Alaska (Mr. SULLIVAN).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there
any other Senators in the Chamber de-
siring to vote?
The result was announced—yeas 48,
nays 51, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 82 Leg.]
YEAS—48
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS—51
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Luja´n
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Toomey
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING—1
Sullivan
The amendment (No. 1369) was re-
jected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Montana.
AMENDMENT NO. 1197 TO AMENDMENT NO. 891
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I would
like to call up amendment No. 1197 and
ask that it be reported by number.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
clerk will report the amendment by
number.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as
follows:
The Senator from Montana [Mr. TESTER]
proposes an amendment numbered 1197 to
amendment No. 891.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To require the President to review
and approve the Keystone XL Pipeline to
assist COVID-impacted communities)
At the end of title X, add the following:
SEC. 10lll. APPROVAL OF KEYSTONE XL PIPE-
LINE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, the
President shall review and approve a permit
for the project of TransCanada Keystone
Pipeline, L.P., to construct, connect, oper-
ate, and maintain the pipeline and cross-bor-
der facilities at the northern border of the
State of Montana necessary to import oil
from Canada to the United States, as de-
scribed in the Presidential Permit of March
29, 2019 (84 Fed. Reg. 13101 (April 3, 2019)), if
the President determines that the project
would create construction jobs and increase
tax revenues in communities that have been
economically impacted by COVID–19.
(b) REVOCATION.—Section 6 of Executive
Order 13990 (86 Fed. Reg. 7041 (January 25,
2021)) shall have no force or effect.
Mr. TESTER. I ask unanimous con-
sent for 4 minutes of debate, equally di-
vided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TESTER. Senator HOEVEN will
speak for 1 minute. I will speak for 1
minute, and I would ask that I be noti-
fied when I run of out of my minute.
Mr. President, this is the most im-
portant vote of the night. It is 2:41, so
pay attention here.
The Keystone Pipeline would create
good-paying jobs and bring much need-
ed revenue to rural counties in Eastern
Montana. These counties have been
hard-hit by the pandemic. They have
also been hard-hit by trade wars that
have impacted our agricultural com-
munity. So they need the tax base, and
this XL Pipeline would give them the
tax base.
Look, there is no doubt the pipeline
needs to be built responsibly with
American steel to the highest safety
standards to respect private property
rights and to include significant con-
sultation with Native American Tribes.
But the fact is, we have many pipelines
to go across the border between Canada
and the United States. This is just one.
I would ask you to support this
amendment.
Senator HOEVEN.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from North Dakota.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I would
like to thank the Senator from Mon-
tana for offering this amendment and
to speak strongly in support of the
amendment.
In 2015, S. 1 authorized the Keystone
Pipeline. So we have voted on this be-
fore, and we have approved it. We need
to do it again.
Look, whether you are for traditional
sources of energy or renewable sources
of energy or both, we need the infra-
structure to move it around the coun-
try as safely as possible in an environ-
mentally sound way on a dependable
basis. That means we need trans-
mission lines, and we need pipelines.
Let’s come together. Let’s continue
to build our energy future, not to men-
tion the 11,000-plus jobs directly in-
volved in working on this pipeline. But
VerDate Sep 11 2014
04:43 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.018
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1239
March 5, 2021
for energy independence and energy se-
curity for our country, for good-paying
jobs, energy is foundational to every-
thing we do in our economy. Let’s sup-
port this amendment.
I yield back to Senator TESTER.
ADDITIONAL COSPONSOR
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous
consent
that
Senator
MANCHIN be added to this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, Presi-
dent Biden is right. He canceled the
Keystone Pipeline because he is listen-
ing to the scientists, and what the sci-
entists are telling us is that we have a
small number of years—5, 6, 7 years—
before this country and this world face
irreparable—I underline the word ‘‘ir-
reparable’’—harm because of climate
change.
My friends here talk about creating
jobs. Well, we all want to create jobs.
Do you know where the jobs are? The
jobs are in energy efficiency. The jobs
are in sustainable energy. That is
where the jobs of the future are.
If we love our kids and if we love our
grandchildren and if we want to leave
them a country and a planet that is
healthy and is habitable, yes, this
country is going to have to lead the
world, work with the world, in trans-
forming our energy system away from
fossil fuel.
I urge opposition to this amendment.
POINT OF ORDER
Mr. President, I raise a point of order
that the pending amendment is not
germane and therefore violates section
305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Montana.
MOTION TO WAIVE
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, in ac-
cordance with section 904 of the Con-
gressional Budget Act of 1974 and the
waiver provisions of all applicable
budget resolutions, I move to waive all
applicable sections of that act and ap-
plicable budget resolutions for the pur-
pose of amendment No. 1197, and I
would ask for the yeas and nays.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 1197
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient sec-
ond.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is
necessarily absent: the Senator from
Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DUR-
BIN). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote or change
their vote?
The yeas and nays resulted—yeas 51,
nays 48, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 83 Leg.]
YEAS—51
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Manchin
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS—48
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Luja´n
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING—1
Sullivan
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this
vote, the yeas are 51, the nays are 48.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly cho-
sen and sworn not having voted in the
affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The point of order is sustained, and
the amendment falls.
The amendment (No. 1197) was re-
jected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Louisiana.
AMENDMENT NO. 1161 TO AMENDMENT NO. 891
Mr. CASSIDY. I call up my amend-
ment No. 1161 and ask that it be re-
ported by number.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
clerk will report the amendment by
number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. CASSIDY]
proposes an amendment numbered 1161.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To improve the bill regarding
emergency assistance to non-public schools)
In section 2002 strike ‘‘that enroll a signifi-
cant percentage of’’ and all that follows
through the end of the section and insert
‘‘under the terms and conditions of section
312(d) of the Coronavirus Response and Relief
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2021 (divi-
sion M of Public Law 116–260).’’
Mr. CASSIDY. I ask unanimous con-
sent for 2 minutes of debate, equally di-
vided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, on a bi-
partisan basis, the December COVID
relief bill included emergency assist-
ance to private and parochial schools,
reimbursing for things such as dis-
infectants, technology, and PPE.
Guidelines prioritize schools serving
low-income students. The current bill
has money for private and parochial
schools but, incredibly, does not allow
reimbursement for COVID-related ex-
penses in a COVID relief bill. It does
allow arbitrary guidelines restricting
which schools are eligible.
My amendment goes back to the bi-
partisan language agreed to in Decem-
ber, prioritizing schools with low-in-
come students and addressing COVID
expenses. I urge colleagues to support
these schools serving 10 percent of
America’s children, 7 percent of chil-
dren in poverty, to support their fami-
lies. Please support this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I op-
pose this amendment. It would strike
two important improvements we made
to the program that funds private
schools.
First, Republicans are critiquing this
bill for not being targeted enough, but
this amendment would remove the re-
quirement to target funding to private
schools that serve significant percent-
ages of low-income students.
The American Rescue Plan provides
an additional $2.75 billion for services
to private schools. And the bottom line
is, Federal funds shouldn’t be spent at
expensive
private
schools.
Instead,
they should be targeted to low-income
students at private schools like all our
other education investments.
The pandemic is disproportionately
harming students of color and those
from families with low incomes. While
these students are already much more
likely to attend public schools, we need
to make sure that those who do attend
private schools are prioritized as well.
Secondly, this amendment strikes
the limitation we placed on the funds
being used for reimbursements at pri-
vate schools. Reimbursements that
were permitted with the first round of
funding for this program were in order
to cover past expenses incurred by pri-
vate schools. Those expenses should be
reimbursed by that first round. These
additional funds are intended to pro-
vide services for private schools in the
future. I ask my colleagues to oppose
this amendment.
Mr. CASSIDY. How many seconds do
I have left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. I am
sorry, the Senator has no time remain-
ing.
Mr. CASSIDY. I ask unanimous con-
sent for 10 seconds, please.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CASSIDY. This is the exact same
language that we used in December. It
targets children with private schools.
To say that you are going to restrict it
further than that is merely a way to
keep the kids from having it. Seven
percent of kids in poverty go to private
schools. About 7 percent of this money
will go to private kids. We should sup-
port the children.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 1161
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment.
VerDate Sep 11 2014
04:43 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\G05MR6.041
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1240
March 5, 2021
Mr. CASSIDY. I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a
sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient sec-
ond.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is
necessarily absent: the Senator from
Alaska (Mr. SULLIVAN).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there
any other Senators in the Chamber de-
siring to vote?
The result was announced—yeas 49,
nays 50, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 84 Leg.]
YEAS—49
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS—50
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Luja´n
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING—1
Sullivan
The amendment (No. 1161) was re-
jected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Iowa.
MOTION TO COMMIT WITH INSTRUCTIONS
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I
have a motion to commit at the desk,
and I ask that it be reported.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
clerk will report the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Iowa [Mr. GRASSLEY]
moves to commit the bill, H.R. 1319, to the
Committee on Finance with instructions to
report the same back to the Senate in 3 days,
not counting any day on which the Senate is
not in session, with changes that—(1) are
within the jurisdiction of such committee;
and (2) include reforms to protect taxpayers
from perpetually subsidizing private sector
pension plans by ensuring the long-term sol-
vency of the multiemployer pension system.
The motion is as follows:
MOTION TO COMMIT WITH INSTRUCTIONS
Mr. Grassley moves to commit the bill,
H.R. 1319, to the Committee on Finance with
instructions to report the same back to the
Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on
which the Senate is not in session, with
changes that—
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such com-
mittee; and
(2) include reforms to protect taxpayers
from perpetually subsidizing private sector
pension plans by ensuring the long-term sol-
vency of the multiemployer pension system.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous
consent that there be 2 minutes of de-
bate, equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this
bill includes an $86 billion no-strings
bailout
of
multiemployer
pension
plans. It does not belong in the current
package. It has nothing to do with
COVID. The bailout is not coupled with
any reforms. Consequently, there won’t
be any long-term sustainability. It is
just a blank check with no measures to
hold plans accountable.
Senator Alexander and I spent the
last Congress working on a responsible
proposal to rescue and reform failing
multiemployer pension plans. Without
reforms included, the precedent will be
that taxpayers, not the PPGC, will be
the ultimate guarantors of private em-
ployer pensions. In that case, the bur-
den on the taxpayers will not be for the
$86 billion. It will be endless as to how
much the taxpayers are going to have
to pay.
Please vote in favor of my motion to
commit to consider the reforms nec-
essary to protect the taxpayers and en-
sure the long-term sustainability of
the multiemployer pension system.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, every
time banks need help and every time
large corporate interests need help,
this body rises to the occasion, but
when it is a bunch of workers or a
bunch of small businesses, we are going
to turn our backs? Unions, chambers of
commerce, and small businesses—pret-
ty much everyone—agree we need to
get this done.
I have listened for years to my col-
leagues’ speeches extolling the value of
hard work and the virtues of small
businesses. This is your chance, my
friends, to live up to your own words
and help these workers.
In collective bargaining, they nego-
tiate at the bargaining table. They
gave up money today to put money in
pensions for the future. If you support
working Americans, vote no on this
motion. Let’s pass a solution which ac-
tually honors the dignity of work.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, do I
have any time remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator’s time has expired.
VOTE ON MOTION TO COMMIT
The question is on agreeing to the
motion.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask
for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a
sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient sec-
ond.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is
necessarily absent: the Senator from
Alaska (Mr. SULLIVAN).
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER
(Mr.
HEINRICH). Are there any other Sen-
ators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced—yeas 49,
nays 50, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 85 Leg.]
YEAS—49
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS—50
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Luja´n
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING—1
Sullivan
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Pennsylvania.
AMENDMENT NO. 1010 TO AMENDMENT NO. 891
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I call
up my amendment No. 1010, and I ask
that it be reported by number.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
clerk will report the amendment by
number.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The
Senator
from
Pennsylvania
[Mr.
TOOMEY] proposes an amendment numbered
1010 to amendment No. 891.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To strike a provision providing
payments to farmers for purposes unre-
lated to COVID–19)
Strike section 1005.
ADDITIONAL COSPONSOR
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
Mr.
President, I ask unanimous consent for
2 minutes of debate, equally divided,
and that Senator DAINES be added as a
cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, my
amendment would simply strike the
section that provides ‘‘such sums as
may be necessary to make payments of
120 percent of outstanding debts to so-
cially
disadvantaged
farmers
and
ranchers.’’
There are only two requirements to
get this money. One is to have a USDA
VerDate Sep 11 2014
09:45 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\G05MR6.043
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1241
March 5, 2021
farm loan, and there are billions of dol-
lars’ worth out there, and the other is,
you must be a member of a favored ra-
cial or ethnic group, including African
American, Hispanic, Asian Americans,
and some others. There is no income
test. There is no asset test. It doesn’t
matter whether you are rich or poor.
You don’t have to have experienced
any harm of any kind whatsoever, in-
cluding from COVID. You just have to
be the right race.
The senior Senator from Michigan
called this provision ‘‘an important
piece of reparations.’’ This bill is sup-
posed to be about COVID relief and
helping the people who are adversely
affected by the economics of the
lockdown. Instead, we are handing out
money based exclusively on race. This
is unconstitutional. It is outrageous.
My amendment strikes the provision,
and I urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Georgia.
Mr. WARNOCK. Mr. President, con-
trary to the suggestion from my col-
league from Pennsylvania, this provi-
sion has everything to do with COVID–
19 relief.
The thing about this terrible pan-
demic is that it has both illuminated
and exacerbated longstanding dispari-
ties rooted in our racial past, and for
too long, farmers of color have been
left to fend for themselves, not getting
the support they deserve from the
USDA, making it even more difficult
for them to recover from this pan-
demic.
We have an opportunity here to lift
all of our rural communities by aiming
the aid where it is needed given our
historic past, which is very much
present. So I urge all of my colleagues
to oppose this amendment that strips
these communities that have been for-
gotten by our government of the relief
that they so desperately deserve. It
will have an adverse effect on the very
relief that we are trying to provide to
all rural communities.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time
has expired.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 1010
The question is on agreeing to the
amendment.
Mr. TOOMEY. I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a
sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient sec-
ond.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is
necessarily absent: the Senator from
Alaska (Mr. SULLIVAN).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there
any other Senators in the Chamber
wishing to vote?
The result was announced—yeas 49,
nays 50, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 86 Legs]
YEAS—49
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS—50
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Luja´n
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING—1
Sullivan
The amendment (No. 1010) was re-
jected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Nebraska.
AMENDMENT NO. 944 TO AMENDMENT NO. 891
(Purpose: To distribute funds for public
transportation
urbanized
area
formula
grants through the existing formulas)
Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I call
up my amendment No. 944 and ask that
it be reported by number.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
clerk will report the amendment by
number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk
read as follows:
The Senator from Nebraska [Mrs. FISCHER]
proposes an amendment numbered 944 to
amendment No. 891.
(The amendment is printed in the
RECORD of March 4, 2021, under ‘‘Text of
Amendments.’’)
Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent for 2 minutes of de-
bate equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, my
amendment would fix the proposed new
formula that benefits New York at the
expense of other States. The bill pro-
vides $30 billion for transit on top of
the nearly $40 billion Congress already
gave transit in the CARES Act and the
December COVID bill.
I oppose the extreme funding, but my
amendment at least fixes one troubling
detail. The bill directs $26 billion in
transit to urbanized areas but gives 30
percent of that to New York City, near-
ly double of what it would receive
under the normal formula. By voting
for this bill, my colleagues from States
like Arizona, Georgia, and West Vir-
ginia would lose out on transit money
to New York.
The bill also has $2.2 billion for FTA
to allocate based on another new for-
mula that just happens to reward the
largest urban transit systems. My
amendment would reinstate the reg-
ular formula. It will ensure transit
money is at least distributed fairly in-
stead of benefitting one or two cities,
and I urge my colleagues to support it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I oppose
the amendment. Don’t believe the false
argument that most of the funding
goes to New York. In New Jersey, they
get the same treatment as everyone
else.
The alternative formula offered by
the amendment is indefensible. One
small city would get 2,400 times their
annual transit budget.
And think about the workers. Think
about the drivers and the clerks who
put themselves dealing with the public
every single day and the anxiety com-
ing home at night about potentially
having COVID. The way we treat essen-
tial workers is crucial in this bill. If
you care about workers and if you care
about the dignity of work, vote no on
this amendment.
Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, do I
have time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator’s time has expired.
Mrs. FISCHER. Could I ask unani-
mous consent for 15 more seconds,
please?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. FISCHER. New York would re-
ceive 30 percent more under this new
formula compared to the 18 percent
they have now. For example, Reno, NV,
would lose $2 million, and other cities
like that lose as well under this new
formula.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, may I
ask unanimous consent for 15 seconds
also?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you. The transit
formula in the American Rescue Plan
Act is the exact same formula devel-
oped with Republicans, some of that
coming out of the Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs Committee for the
relief bill we passed in December. This
formula uses data and not politics to
allocate funds.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 944
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment.
Mr. CORNYN. I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a
sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient sec-
ond.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is
necessarily absent: the Senator from
Alaska (Mr. SULLIVAN).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there
any other Senators in the Chamber de-
siring to vote?
The result was announced—yeas 49,
nays 50, as follows:
VerDate Sep 11 2014
04:43 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\G05MR6.047
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1242
March 5, 2021
[Rollcall Vote No. 87 Leg.]
YEAS—49
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS—50
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Luja´n
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING—1
Sullivan
The amendment (No. 944) was re-
jected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Kentucky.
AMENDMENT NO. 1014 TO AMENDMENT NO. 891
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I call up
my amendment 1014 and ask that it be
reported by number.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
clerk will report the amendment by
number.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as
follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. PAUL]
proposes an amendment numbered 1014 to
amendment No. 891.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To strike provisions relating to
nonprofit entities for the paycheck protec-
tion program)
Strike section 5001.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unan-
imous consent for 2 minutes of debate,
equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, the Pay-
check Protection Program was created
to help small businesses. We should all
agree that an organization with thou-
sands of employees working in dozens
of cities across the country is not a
small business, but this bill has a pro-
vision that would extend small busi-
ness assistance to these kinds of large
organizations.
That means that an organization op-
erating in 100 cities across America,
with thousands of employees, will get
money that was really intended for
small
businesses.
My
amendment
would remove this provision, and I urge
a ‘‘yes’’ vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I oppose
this amendment. This is a matter of
basic fairness.
When we passed the Paycheck Pro-
tection Program, it included non-
profits. We didn’t have the cost esti-
mates for all the (c)’s. Originally we
only included the (c)(3)’s. We added the
(c)(6)’s during the omnibus. This adds
the rest of the (c)’s, other than (c)(4)’s,
with the protection against lobbying
activities, et cetera, that is in the bill.
The standards are the same as they are
for the other nonprofits. This is just a
matter of fairness.
Let me just point out, according to
information that we have received
from
a
Johns
Hopkins
University
study, we have lost over a million jobs
in the nonprofit sector as a result of
COVID–19. This bill is needed, and we
need to be fair to all the nonprofits.
I urge my colleagues to reject the
amendment.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 1014
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment.
Mr. PAUL. I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a
sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient sec-
ond.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk called the
roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators
are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. SULLIVAN) and the
Senator
from
Pennsylvania
(Mr.
TOOMEY).
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER
(Mr.
BLUMENTHAL). Are there any other Sen-
ators in the Chamber desiring to vote
or change their vote?
The result was announced—yeas 47,
nays 51, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 88 Leg.]
YEAS—47
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS—51
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Luja´n
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING—2
Sullivan
Toomey
The amendment (No. 1014) was re-
jected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Indiana.
AMENDMENT NO. 1383 TO AMENDMENT NO. 891
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I call up
my amendment No. 1383 and ask that it
be reported by number.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
clerk will report the amendment by
number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk
read as follows:
The Senator from Indiana [Mr. YOUNG] pro-
poses an amendment numbered 1383 to
amendment No. 891.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To strike the provision estab-
lishing the Emergency Federal Employee
Leave Fund and appropriate $300,000,000 for
chemical screening devices for U.S. Cus-
toms and Border Protection)
Strike section 4001 and insert the fol-
lowing:
SEC. 4001. FUNDING FOR NARCOTIC AND OPIOID
DETECTION.
(a)
APPROPRIATION.—In
addition
to
amounts otherwise available, there is appro-
priated to U.S. Customs and Border Protec-
tion for fiscal year 2021, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated,
$300,000,000, which shall remain available
until September 30, 2025, to acquire, deploy,
operate, and maintain chemical screening
devices to identify, in an operational envi-
ronment, synthetic opioids and other nar-
cotics at purity levels less than or equal to
10 percent.
(b) USE OF FUNDS.—Amounts appropriated
under subsection (a) may also be used—
(1) to train users on the equipment de-
scribed in such subsection;
(2) to provide directors of ports of entry
with an alternate method for identifying
narcotics, including synthetic opioids, at
lower purity levels; and
(3) to test any new chemical screening de-
vices to understand the abilities and limita-
tions of such devices relating to identifying
narcotics at various purity levels before U.S.
Customs and Border Protection commits to
the acquisition of such devices.
Mr. YOUNG. I ask unanimous con-
sent for 2 minutes of debate equally di-
vided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, in Feb-
ruary, I met with the President of the
United States along with nine of my
colleagues. The objective here was to
find middle ground on a targeted
COVID relief package focused on vac-
cine distribution and getting Ameri-
cans back to work and back to school
as quickly as possible. Instead, we have
been offered a bloated and wasteful
spending bill, only 10 percent of which
actually goes toward COVID-related
needs.
Meanwhile, the COVID–19 crisis has
exacerbated America’s drug epidemic
with synthetic opioids being the pri-
mary driver of the 38-percent annual
increase in overdose deaths.
We know illegal narcotics are coming
through our southern border at ports of
VerDate Sep 11 2014
04:43 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.025
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1243
March 5, 2021
entry. My unobjectionable amendment
simply increases funding for Customs
and Border Protection by $300 million
for technology to detect fentanyl and
other drugs of lower purity levels.
This funding is more than offset by
reducing funding from a provision
granting 600 hours of paid leave to Fed-
eral employees—600 hours. That is 15
weeks of paid leave. So if an employee
took every day of this paid leave in
this bloated spending bill starting
today, that would be by June 18. Oh, by
the way, we are supposed to all be vac-
cinated by the end of May, according to
the President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Maryland.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I
share my colleague’s interest in sup-
porting the men and women at Cus-
toms and Border Protection, but this
amendment does the opposite. In fact,
what it does is strip them of critical
emergency support to them and other
frontline Federal employees who are
working to protect our country. In
fact, 8,000 of the Federal employees at
CBP have tested positive for COVID–19.
Twenty-seven have died.
Your amendment would strip away
emergency medical leave for these men
and women who are protecting us while
keeping the provisions in the bill that
provide a 100-percent tax credit to pri-
vate employers to provide up to $511 a
day in sick leave, a provision I support.
So here you are targeting the men
and women who are protecting our
country at the border and other places
by stripping them of their ability to
take sick leave and keeping in the pro-
vision that allows our private sector
neighbors to provide sick leave. This is,
unfortunately, just aimed at under-
mining the folks who are helping pro-
tect this country on the frontline. I
ask my colleagues to oppose the
amendment.
Mr. YOUNG. I ask unanimous con-
sent for 30 seconds to respond.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. YOUNG. Only in Washington, DC,
and in the greater Washington, DC,
area does it make sense to offer paid
leave in a $1.9 trillion spending bill at
5:15 a.m. in the morning to last until
after a pandemic is projected to be
over. How wasteful could we be with
our constituent spending?
Vote for my amendment.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I
ask for 15 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I just want to
point out that if we want to prevent
the spread of the virus, we need to
make sure those who get it have a
chance to stay home and not spread it
among their colleagues around the
country.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 1383
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I
ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a
sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient sec-
ond.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk
called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators
are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kentucky (Mr. PAUL) and the
Senator from Alaska (Mr. SULLIVAN).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there
any other Senators in the Chamber de-
siring to vote?
The result was announced—yeas 48,
nays 50, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 89 Leg.]
YEAS—48
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS—50
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Luja´n
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING—2
Paul
Sullivan
The amendment (No. 1383) was re-
jected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from West Virginia.
MOTION TO COMMIT WITH INSTRUCTIONS
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I have a
motion to commit at the desk, and I
ask that it be reported.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
clerk will report the motion.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as
follows:
The Senator from West Virginia [Mrs. CAP-
ITO] moves to commit the bill, H.R. 1319, to
the Committee on Finance with instructions.
The motion to commit is as follows:
MOTION TO COMMIT WITH INSTRUCTIONS
Mrs. Capito moves to commit the bill, H.R.
1319, to the Committee on Finance with in-
structions to report the same back to the
Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on
which the Senate is not in session, with
changes that—
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such com-
mittee; and
(2) in order to fix and enhance our Nation’s
infrastructure, create jobs, and help our
economy recover from the COVID–19 pan-
demic, reduce the amounts appropriated for
the Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Fund
and the Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery
Fund and dedicate such amounts to pay for
bipartisan surface transportation reauthor-
ization legislation.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that there be 2
minutes of debate equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, one of
our top priorities will be the surface
transportation reauthorization bill.
Our EPW Committee has already
kicked off bipartisan efforts to meet
our
Nation’s
transportation
needs.
Every State needs the certainty of a
long-term reauthorization plan to com-
plete projects. Paying for infrastruc-
ture is a difficult challenge. A status
quo reauthorization bill would require
at least $70 billion in new funding for
the highway trust fund, which we all
know falls short, and we all want to
make sure that we make robust invest-
ments in our roads and bridges.
The bill on the floor provides $350 bil-
lion to State and local on top of the
$150 billion that was provided in the
CARES Act. This motion instructs the
Finance Committee to divert some of
that $350 billion to, instead, help pay
forward for a bipartisan surface trans-
portation reauthorization bill. Funds
would still go to our States and local-
ities, but the dollars would be better
spent on road and bridge projects that
create a safer and more efficient trans-
portation system.
I urge my colleagues to support the
motion to commit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, to speak
in opposition, the Capito motion to
commit the bill to the Finance Com-
mittee instructs the committee to do
two things. The first is to dedicate
funds to pay for bipartisan transpor-
tation legislation. The other is to cut
the funding currently provided in our
bill to provide relief to State and local
governments.
I would like to say that the reason
we oppose this is that this, colleagues,
is a false choice. If we are talking
about major legislation to improve our
infrastructure,
including
roads,
bridges, airports, broadband, and more,
count us in. In fact, I think one of the
first areas we ought to be focusing on,
if we finish this bill, is infrastructure,
but this does not have to be at the ex-
pense of relief to State and local gov-
ernments. These two are not mutually
exclusive, colleagues. We can do both.
We can address infrastructure and help
our State and local governments that
have been hammered by COVID and a
struggling economy. They have had to
lay off police, teachers, EMTs, and
many others.
I urge opposition to the Capito mo-
tion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator’s time has expired.
VOTE ON MOTION TO COMMIT
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
question is on agreeing to the motion.
VerDate Sep 11 2014
04:43 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\G05MR6.052
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1244
March 5, 2021
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I ask
for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a
sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient sec-
ond.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk called
the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators
are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kentucky (Mr. PAUL) and the
Senator from Alaska (Mr. SULLIVAN).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there
any other Senators in the Chamber de-
siring to vote?
The result was announced—yeas 48,
nays 50, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 90 Leg.]
YEAS—48
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS—50
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Luja´n
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING—2
Paul
Sullivan
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Florida.
AMENDMENT NO. 1395 TO AMENDMENT NO. 891
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President,
I call up my amendment No. 1395, and
ask that it be reported by number.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
clerk will report the amendment by
number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Florida [Mr. SCOTT] pro-
poses an amendment numbered 1395 to
amendment No. 891.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To fund the procurement of HC–
130J aircraft by the Coast Guard, and to
provide an offset by striking National Rail-
road Passenger Corporation grant funding
for the Northeast Corridor)
Strike section 7101 and insert the fol-
lowing:
SEC. 7101. GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD
PASSENGER CORPORATION.
(a) NATIONAL NETWORK APPROPRIATION.—In
addition to amounts otherwise available,
there is appropriated for fiscal year 2021, out
of any money in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, $729,611,840, to remain avail-
able until September 30, 2024, for grants as
authorized under section 11101(b) of the
FAST Act (Public Law 114–94) to prevent,
prepare for, and respond to coronavirus.
(b) LONG-DISTANCE
SERVICE
RESTORATION
AND
EMPLOYEE
RECALLS.—Not less than
$165,926,000 of the amounts made available
under subsection (a) shall be for use by the
National Railroad Passenger Corporation
to—
(1) restore, not later than 90 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the frequency
of rail service on long-distance routes (as de-
fined in section 24102 of title 49, United
States Code) that the National Railroad Pas-
senger Corporation reduced the frequency of
on or after July 1, 2020, and continue to oper-
ate such service at such frequency; and
(2) recall and manage employees fur-
loughed on or after October 1, 2020, as a re-
sult of efforts to prevent, prepare for, and re-
spond to coronavirus.
(c) USE OF FUNDS FOR STATE PAYMENTS FOR
STATE-SUPPORTED ROUTES.—
(1) IN
GENERAL.—Of the amounts made
available under subsection (a), $174,850,000
shall be for use by the National Railroad
Passenger Corporation to offset amounts re-
quired to be paid by States for covered
State-supported routes.
(2) FUNDING SHARE.—The share of funding
provided under paragraph (1) with respect to
a covered State-supported route shall be dis-
tributed as follows:
(A) Each covered State-supported route
shall receive 7 percent of the costs allocated
to the route in fiscal year 2019 under the cost
allocation methodology adopted pursuant to
section 209 of the Passenger Rail Investment
and Improvement Act of 2008 (Public Law
110–432).
(B) Any remaining amounts after the dis-
tribution described in subparagraph (A) shall
be apportioned to each covered State-sup-
ported route in proportion to the passenger
revenue of such route and other revenue allo-
cated to such route in fiscal year 2019 divided
by the total passenger revenue and other
revenue allocated to all covered State-sup-
ported routes in fiscal year 2019.
(3) COVERED
STATE-SUPPORTED
ROUTE
DE-
FINED.—In this subsection, the term ‘‘cov-
ered State-supported route’’ means a State-
supported route, as such term is defined in
section 24102 of title 49, United States Code,
but does not include a State-supported route
for which service was terminated on or be-
fore February 1, 2020.
(d) USE OF FUNDS FOR DEBT REPAYMENT OR
PREPAYMENT.—Not more than $100,885,000 of
the amounts made available under sub-
section (a) shall be—
(1) for the repayment or prepayment of
debt incurred by the National Railroad Pas-
senger Corporation under financing arrange-
ments entered into prior to the date of en-
actment of this Act; and
(2) to pay required reserves, costs, and fees
related to such debt, including for loans from
the Department of Transportation and loans
that would otherwise have been paid from
National Railroad Passenger Corporation
revenues.
(e) PROJECT MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT.—Not
more than $2,000,000 of the amounts made
available under subsection (a) shall be for ac-
tivities authorized under section 11101(c) of
the FAST Act (Public Law 114–94).
SEC. 7101A. COAST GUARD PROCUREMENT OF
HC–130J AIRCRAFT.
In addition to amounts otherwise avail-
able, there is appropriated to the Secretary
of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2021,
out of any money in the Treasury not other-
wise appropriated, $970,388,160, to remain
available until September 30, 2024, for the
procurement of HC–130J aircraft for the
Coast Guard.
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes
of debate, equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President,
there is no reason this bill should in-
clude funding for Amtrak’s Northeast
Corridor, a woefully mismanaged pub-
lic railway system that benefits very
few Americans.
My amendment redirects this waste-
ful spending to strengthen many of the
core missions of our military. For the
U.S. Coast Guard, that includes search
and rescue, drug and migrant interdic-
tion, cargo and personnel transport,
and maritime stewardship. American
taxpayer dollars are better spent to
support this mission and improve the
defense and security of this Nation
than to prop up wasteful and mis-
managed transportation systems in
New Jersey, New York, and Massachu-
setts.
My amendment directs nearly $1 bil-
lion to the Coast Guard’s Super Her-
cules program to continue their pro-
curement of HC–130Js, a top-of-class
long range surveillance aircraft which
will strengthen our national defense
and border security. I urge my col-
leagues to join me in support of this
amendment.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER
(Mr.
OSSOFF).
The
Senator
from
Wash-
ington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, the
sun is coming up in Washington, DC,
and we have to spend all night debating
policy and questions to arrive at this
moment, at 6 a.m., with an amendment
that is literally robbing Peter to pay
Paul. This isn’t the idea of a debate.
The Amtrak and North Corridor Sys-
tem has basically had to reallocate re-
sources. The 457 Corridor, which is one
of the busiest in the Nation, has over
750,000 people on that system, but be-
cause of COVID, it has lost revenue. It
has a 97-percent loss of revenue, and
now they are making drastic cuts to
employees and to services that could
become permanent.
This simply helps Amtrak and our
busiest corridor stay in business. We
will address the Coast Guard needs in
other legislation. I ask my colleagues
to vote no. Stop robbing Peter to pay
Paul. Let’s fix the COVID crisis on our
transportation system.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 1395
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment.
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. I ask for the
yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a
sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient sec-
ond.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators
are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kentucky (Mr. PAUL) and the
Senator from Alaska (Mr. SULLIVAN).
The result was announced—yeas 47,
nays 51, as follows:
VerDate Sep 11 2014
04:43 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\G05MR6.054
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1245
March 5, 2021
[Rollcall Vote No. 91 Leg.]
YEAS—47
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Murkowski
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS—51
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Luja´n
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING—2
Paul
Sullivan
The amendment (No. 1395) was re-
jected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Arkansas.
MOTION TO COMMIT WITH INSTRUCTIONS
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I have a
motion to commit at the desk, and I
ask that it be reported.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
clerk will report the motion.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. COTTON]
moves to commit the bill, H.R. 1319, to the
Committee on Finance with instructions.
The motion is as follows:
MOTION TO COMMIT WITH INSTRUCTIONS
Mr. Cotton moves to commit the bill H.R.
1319 to the Committee on Finance with in-
structions to report the same back to the
Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on
which the Senate is not in session, with
changes that—
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such com-
mittee; and
(2) reduce spending by prohibiting any pay-
ment of funds under Coronavirus State and
Local Fiscal Recovery Funds under title VI
of the Social Security Act, as amended by
section 9901 of the bill, to any State or sub-
division thereof that prohibits its employees
or contractors from—
(A) sharing law enforcement information
with the Department of Homeland Security;
or
(B) cooperating with lawful requests from
the Department of Homeland Security to
hold an individual pending arrest for any
violation of Federal law.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Arkansas.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent for 2 minutes of de-
bate, equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, my mo-
tion to commit is to send this bill back
to the Finance Committee to adopt the
commonsense rule that should have
been in there from the beginning that
we are not going to give bailout money
to sanctuary States and sanctuary cit-
ies.
Now, to whom are the States and cit-
ies giving sanctuary? Criminal illegal
aliens. Where is the sanctuary for their
victims? Why should cities and States
that refuse to cooperate with Federal
law enforcement receive Federal bail-
outs? They should not.
I reserve my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let’s
face reality. The immigration law sys-
tem in America is broken. If we are
going to get behind slogans and bumper
stickers and do something about the
problems we face in America, we have
to talk about comprehensive immigra-
tion reform.
The amendment being offered by the
Senator from Arkansas brings back an-
other one of the old arguments about
sanctuary cities.
Let me tell you what the police chief,
Art Acevedo of Houston, had to say be-
fore the Senate Judiciary Committee.
If we are to be tough on crime, we must
not forget that it begins with trust and co-
operation in our communities.
He went on to say:
[I]f we want to be effective and work to
disrupt the drug cartels, we cannot afford to
alienate broad spectrums of our community.
Asking local law enforcement officers to be-
come involved in immigration enforcement
is counterproductive.
Vote no on the Cotton amendment.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Arkansas.
Mr. COTTON. The immigration sys-
tem is broken because the Democratic
Party will not enforce our borders. You
see that with the Biden border crisis
right now. We can fix one small part of
it by stopping Federal bailout dollars
from going to cities and States that
refuse to cooperate with Federal law
enforcement.
VOTE ON MOTION TO COMMIT
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a
sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient sec-
ond.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators
are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kentucky (Mr. PAUL) and the
Senator from Alaska (Mr. SULLIVAN).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there
any other Senators in the Chamber de-
siring to vote?
The result was announced—yeas 48,
nays 50, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 92 Leg.]
YEAS—48
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS—50
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Luja´n
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING—2
Paul
Sullivan
The motion is rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Kansas.
AMENDMENT NO. 1342 TO AMENDMENT NO. 891
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I call up
my amendment 1342 and ask that it be
reported by number.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
clerk will report the amendment by
number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kansas [Mr. MORAN], for
himself and others, proposes an amendment
numbered 1342 to amendment No. 891.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide an effective date for the
modification of revenue requirements for
proprietary institutions of higher edu-
cation)
At the end of section 2013, add the fol-
lowing:
(c) EFFECTIVE
DATE.—The amendments
made under this section shall—
(1) be subject to the master calendar re-
quirements under section 482 of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1089) and the
public involvement and negotiated rule-
making requirements under section 492 of
the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1098a), except that such negotiated rule-
making shall commence not earlier than Oc-
tober 1, 2021; and
(2) apply to institutional fiscal years be-
ginning on or after January 1, 2023.
Mr. MORAN. I ask unanimous con-
sent for 3 minutes of debate equally di-
vided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MORAN. My colleagues, I arise
here at the request of many veterans
service
organizations
and
veterans
across the country who have called for
a long time for us to protect our mili-
tary and veteran students and close the
90–10 loophole.
What was once a partisan discussion
is becoming a bipartisan discussion,
and while the American Rescue Plan
closes the 90–10 loophole, we need to
make sure we do it in the right way,
make these changes in the correct way,
VerDate Sep 11 2014
04:43 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.037
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1246
March 5, 2021
and we need to ensure we put the pol-
icy back in the perspective of not poli-
tics but the right answer.
I am thankful to my colleagues Sen-
ators CARPER, CASSIDY, and LANKFORD
for putting politics aside and working
on this amendment with me. I also
want to thank Chairman MURRAY and
Ranking Member BURR and their staffs,
as well as the veteran groups and the
stakeholders, for their help in crafting
this amendment.
By providing a 6-month delay before
the start of a negotiated rulemaking
process, Congress now has time to
work together with our veterans serv-
ice organizations and the higher edu-
cation community on a bipartisan plan
to deliver reasonable and needed pro-
tections for veterans and taxpayers
alike.
I ask my colleagues to join us in sup-
port of our bipartisan amendment and
continue to work with us on a path for-
ward this Congress.
I yield to the Senator from Delaware.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, this
may be the only bipartisan amendment
that we will have the chance to vote on
today. The really good news is that
there will be a voice vote.
For the past decade, our Nation’s
veterans service organizations have
called on Congress to protect our mili-
tary veteran students and close the 90–
10 loophole that you have heard about.
Today, at long last, Congress heeds
that call by harnessing market forces
to ensure better educational opportuni-
ties and outcomes for our millions of
veterans. Those millions of veterans
and veteran students use their hard-
earned educational benefits at a vari-
ety of educational institutions in our
States, including the types of trade and
vocational schools that my own fa-
ther—maybe your relatives as well—
used in World War II and Korea and
Vietnam using the original GI bill.
Let me be clear. Some for-profit
schools in this country do a very good
job working with our veterans, pre-
paring them for lives and careers. Un-
fortunately, we have seen way too
many that do not, and what we want to
do with this legislation is to make sure
that the veterans are protected from
the bad actors in the for-profit college
sector, places like ITT Tech and Corin-
thian, places that no longer exist.
While the American Rescue Plan
closes the 90–10 loophole, we under-
stand the need to make sure we get
this right. I am grateful to our col-
leagues, for JERRY
MORAN, and am
proud to be joining him, along with
Senators CASSIDY and LANKFORD, in the
thoughtful, bipartisan approach to a
contentious issue.
By providing a 6-month delay before
the start of the negotiated rulemaking
process, our amendment gives Congress
time to work together with our vet-
erans service organizations on a bipar-
tisan plan to strengthen these protec-
tions for our veterans and taxpayers.
We invite you all to join us in sup-
porting this amendment.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, while the
Senator from Delaware stole my thun-
der, I believe this amendment can pass
by voice vote, and I would add the re-
quest that all of the amendments that
follow this follow the same precedent.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 1342
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment.
The amendment (No. 1342) was agreed
to.
(Applause.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. HAS-
SAN). The Senator from Tennessee.
AMENDMENT NO. 996 TO AMENDMENT NO. 891
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Presi-
dent, I call up my amendment No. 996
and ask that it be reported by number.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
clerk will report the amendment by
number.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Tennessee [Mrs. BLACK-
BURN], for herself and others, proposes an
amendment numbered 996 to amendment No.
891.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To strike section 9831)
Strike section 9831.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent for 4
minutes of debate, equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Presi-
dent, this amendment strikes an unfair
hospital wage index earmark that
would benefit just three States: Rhode
Island, New Jersey, and Delaware. It
would give preferential treatment to
them for the consideration of the area
wage index.
The benefit comes at the expense of
poor Americans that are living in rural
areas and make the payout disparities
between rural and urban hospitals
worse than they already are. If you
have rural hospitals in your State and
you vote against this amendment,
what you are doing is taking money
from those hospitals; you are making
these disparities worse.
It is a multibillion dollar earmark.
Get that, a multibillion dollar ear-
mark. It has nothing to do with COVID
relief and does not belong in this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I
ask for 1 minute of the 2 minutes.
This provision is providing funda-
mental fairness so that hospitals in
every State of this country have the
resources they need to hire the best,
most qualified providers.
Years ago, CMS came up with an ar-
bitrary formula that excluded a series
of States from a payment policy that
intended to benefit all hospitals so we
are not competing for labor unfairly. A
bipartisan policy that began under
President Bush continued through mul-
tiple administrations until the Trump
administration ended it without jus-
tification.
Making matters worse, our States
were at the epicenter of the COVID cri-
sis. This provision would simply pro-
vide parity, and it would do so, unlike
what the Senator is saying, without de-
creasing payments for any other State.
This is the fairest way to provide
parity that our States need and to be
able to deal with the challenges of get-
ting people at a time in which we need
them the most.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam Presi-
dent, for 1 minute.
Madam
President,
knowing
how
much my colleagues on the other side
love unelected bureaucrats, I want to
make sure it is clear that this was a
unilateral
decision
made
by
an
unelected bureaucrat to change the
way hospitals are compensated. And
the result, at least in my State, is that
our hospitals are paid 25 cents per dol-
lar less than the hospital right across
the border in Massachusetts and 30
cents per dollar less than the hospital
right across the border 20 minutes
down the road in Connecticut.
Dr. BARRASSO and Dr. CASSIDY can
understand that a 25-percent hit in hos-
pitals that close together, a 30-percent
hit between hospitals that close to-
gether, is ridiculous.
And my friends on the Finance Com-
mittee will remember me showing this
graph to every Health and Human
Services witness who showed up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator’s time has expired.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. And none could
defend it. I ask your support on this.
The Senator from Tennessee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Presi-
dent, to respond to this, I think what
you just heard from my colleague from
Rhode Island is what happens with too
much government interference into
healthcare. That is what he is com-
plaining about, as we have been up all
night long working on this bill. There
is nothing that makes New Jersey,
Rhode Island, and Delaware more spe-
cial than the other States in this coun-
try.
If you have rural hospitals, if you
have—if you vote no on this amend-
ment, you are making the disparities
worse. And I would urge a ‘‘yes’’ vote
on the amendment.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I
ask for 15 additional seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MENENDEZ. And there is noth-
ing that makes any other State in this
country more special than our States.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 996
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. I ask for the yeas
and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a
sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient sec-
ond.
The clerk will call the roll.
VerDate Sep 11 2014
04:43 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\G05MR6.062
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1247
March 5, 2021
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is
necessarily absent: the Senator from
Alaska (Mr. SULLIVAN).
The result was announced—yeas 49,
nays 50, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 93 Leg.]
YEAS—49
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS—50
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Luja´n
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING—1
Sullivan
The amendment (No. 996) was re-
jected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Oklahoma.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, I
have a parliamentary inquiry before I
begin.
Parliamentary inquiry: On page 225,
line 23, it appears that the 7(b) disaster
loan program allocates $460 million,
but only $70 million is for the actual
disaster loans. The other $390 million
appears to be allocated for administra-
tive costs of the program.
Could the clerk please read page 225
line 20 through page 226 line 2 to con-
firm the administrative cost for this
program is $390 million and the grant
program itself is only $70 million?
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
clerk will read the section of the
amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:
(2) $460,000,000 to carry out the disaster
loan program authorized by section 7(b) of
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)), of
which $70,000,000 shall be for the cost of di-
rect loans authorized by such section and
$390,000,000 shall be for administrative ex-
penses to carry out such program.
AMENDMENT NO. 1031 TO AMENDMENT NO. 891
(Purpose: To improve the bill)
Mr. LANKFORD. I call up my amend-
ment No. 1031 and ask that it be re-
ported by number.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
clerk will report the amendment by
number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The
Senator
from
Oklahoma
[Mr.
LANKFORD], for himself and Mr. DAINES, pro-
poses an amendment numbered 1031 to
amendment No. 891.
(The amendment is printed in today’s
RECORD under ‘‘Text of Amendments.’’)
Mr. LANKFORD. I ask unanimous
consent for 3 minutes of debate equally
divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President,
millions of Americans see a sonogram,
and they see a child. They count 10 fin-
gers. They count 10 toes. They watch
that little girl in the womb suck her
thumb. They see a child.
Science notes that the DNA of that
child in the womb is different than the
DNA of the mom and different than the
DNA of the dad. It is both confirmed by
science that is a baby, and it is self-evi-
dent by just looking at her in the
womb, that is a child. Millions of
Americans see that.
Because we have such a divide in this
Nation where some people see every
child as valuable and some people see
only some children as valuable, be-
cause we have had that divide that is
unresolved in our Nation, we have, for
decades, in every appropriations bill,
had the Hyde Amendment, that did not
force Americans to have to pay for
abortion procedures for the death of
children. We have also had that in all
five COVID bills that we have agreed
together on in the last 12 months.
In this partisan bill, mysteriously,
the Hyde Amendment disappeared and
suddenly, now, for the first time,
Americans who profoundly believe that
children are of great value and should
be protected will be compelled with our
tax dollars to pay for the destruction
of life.
This simple statement is that we
should maintain Hyde protections in
this bill as we have in the previous five
COVID bills.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, it
is frustrating, but not at all surprising,
that in the middle of a pandemic, as we
are working to get urgently needed re-
lief to our families, to our small busi-
nesses, and to our communities across
the country, some Republicans would
rather spend time launching political
attacks on reproductive health.
That is exactly what this amendment
is—an effort to expand restrictions on
abortion that already make it harder
for women who have low incomes, who
are often women of color, to exercise
their constitutionally guaranteed right
to make their own healthcare choices.
I oppose this amendment because it
is completely unnecessary. It is a
harmful attempt to distract us from
the work that we are on tonight.
POINT OF ORDER
Madam President, I raise a point of
order that the pending amendment pro-
duces
budgetary
changes
that
are
merely incidental to the non-budgetary
components of the amendment, and it
therefore violates section 313(b)1(d) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Oklahoma.
MOTION TO WAIVE
Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President,
in the middle of a pandemic, we
shouldn’t be dealing with abortion
funding. So, I would say, pursuant to
section 904 of the Congressional Budget
Act, I move to waive.
VOTE ON MOTION TO WAIVE
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
question is on agreeing to the motion.
Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, I
ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a
sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient sec-
ond.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is
necessarily absent: the Senator from
Alaska (Mr. SULLIVAN).
The yeas and nays resulted—yeas 52,
nays 47, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 94 Leg.]
YEAS—52
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kaine
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Manchin
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS—47
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Luja´n
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING—1
Sullivan
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER
(Ms.
DUCKWORTH). On this vote, the yeas are
52, the nays are 47.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly cho-
sen and sworn not having voted in the
affirmative, the motion is not agreed
to.
The point of order is sustained and
the amendment falls.
The amendment (No. 1031) was re-
jected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Texas.
AMENDMENT NO. 969 TO AMENDMENT NO. 891
Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I call
up my amendment No. 969 and ask that
it be reported by number.
VerDate Sep 11 2014
04:43 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\G05MR6.064
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1248
March 5, 2021
The senior assistant legislative clerk
read as follows:
The Senator from Texas [Mr. CRUZ] pro-
poses an amendment numbered 969 to amend-
ment No. 891.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide children with an option
for in-classroom education instruction if
the child’s local public school does not
commit to re-opening to 5-day-a-week, in-
classroom instruction for the remainder of
the current school year and the 2021-2022
school year)
At the appropriate place, insert the fol-
lowing:
SEC. ll. STATE DIRECT FAMILY GRANT PRO-
GRAM.
(a)
IN
GENERAL.—Notwithstanding
any
other provision of this title, not later than 7
days after the date of enactment of this
title, each school that is eligible to receive
grant funding under section 2001 shall submit
to their respective State Secretary of Edu-
cation, or equivalent State official, a plan to
re-open and resume regular, full-time, 5-day-
a-week in-classroom instruction with teach-
ers and faculty physically present for the re-
mainder of the 2020-2021 and for the 2021-2022
school year in such a manner that meets or
exceeds the plan for in-classroom instruction
that was in effect for that school at the start
of the 2019-2020 school year.
(b) DIRECT EDUCATION ASSISTANCE FUND.—
Each State shall establish a State-controlled
Direct Education Assistance Fund. In the
event that a school fails to timely submit a
re-opening plan in accordance with sub-
section (a), the State shall withhold all
grant funds that would have been provided to
such school under section 2001, depositing
such amount into the Direct Education As-
sistance Fund. The State shall administer
the Direct Education Assistance Fund, using
the monies deposited therein, to establish
and operate a grant program to assist fami-
lies with educational costs in order to pro-
vide students with access to alternative edu-
cation for the 2021-2022 school year. The
State Department of Education shall operate
the grant program as follows:
(1) The Department shall establish an ap-
plication process that allows parents to
apply for an education grant from the
State’s Direct Education Assistance Fund as
follows:
(A) Awards grants from available funds in
a manner that prioritizes children—
(i) from schools that have not submitted a
re-opening plan as required by this section;
(ii) who are special needs students;
(iii) who are suffering from depression or a
similar condition or at risk of suicide due to
COVID–19-related isolation; or
(iv) who have a parent (or parents) or
guardian (or guardians) who work outside of
the home during regular school hours and
are not available to assist the child with vir-
tual learning.
(B) Includes, as part of the application
form, the opportunity for the parent or
guardian to submit an education plan for the
child that—
(i) as part of an application for a grant for
direct education assistance, includes the pro-
posed school, if any, that the parent or
guardian has selected for the child and the
cost of any fees associated with the applica-
tion, enrollment, or attendance at such
school; or
(ii) as part of an application for a grant for
supplemental education assistance a list of
any costs which the parent or guardian an-
ticipates will be incurred to purchase items
listed in paragraph (5)(B).
(2) The Department shall publicize the
availability of direct education assistance to
parents across the State with an application
period of not less than 45 days and a deadline
for applications as of a date not later than
July 1, 2021.
(3) The Department shall first prioritize
eligibility for grants awarded from available
funds to the parents or guardians of children
between the ages of 5 and 18 who are eligible
to attend a school that failed to timely sub-
mit a re-opening plan as described herein
and, if funds remain available in the Direct
Education Assistance Fund after each pri-
ority student has received a grant, the De-
partment shall make grants from the Fund
available to the parent or guardians applying
on behalf of students from other elementary
and secondary schools in the State.
(4) The Department shall only award a
grant to an individual who is the legal par-
ent or guardian of an eligible child provided
that such individual is also a citizen or na-
tional of the United States or an alien (as de-
fined in section 101(a) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)) who is
lawfully present in the United States.
(5) The Department will administer the Di-
rect Education Assistance Fund as follows:
(A) 75 percent of such Fund shall be set
aside and used to award direct education as-
sistance grants to finance all or a portion of
the educational costs of a child to attend a
different school as selected by that child’s
parent or guardian in an amount not to ex-
ceed $10,000 per grant award.
(B) 25 percent of such Fund shall be set
aside and used to award supplemental edu-
cation assistance grants to cover a portion of
the costs for education such as tutoring serv-
ices, educational classes, or curriculum in-
side or outside of the home, books, instruc-
tional materials, online educational mate-
rials, educational therapies, including edu-
cational therapies and services for students
with disabilities, and such other educational
and instructional materials as the child’s
parent or guardian determines is beneficial
in-relation to at-home learning, including
online or virtual schooling or home instruc-
tion.
(6) All grants shall be awarded not later
than August 15, 2021.
(7) The Department shall require that any
parent or guardian who receives a grant pur-
suant to this section maintain records of
how any grant funds were spent.
(8) Grants awarded out of the Fund for di-
rect education assistance shall be distributed
in an equitable manner among recipients for
such grants consistent with the priorities
identified in this section but in an amount
not to exceed the educational costs identi-
fied within an application and grants award-
ed out of the Fund for supplemental edu-
cation assistance shall be made in an equi-
table manner among recipients for such
grants in an amount not to exceed the costs
identified in such application.
(c) PROHIBITION OF CONTROL OVER NON-PUB-
LIC EDUCATION PROVIDERS.—
(1) IN
GENERAL.—Nothing in this section
shall be construed to permit, allow, encour-
age, or authorize any Federal control over
any aspect of any private, religious, or home
education provider, whether or not a home
education provider is treated as a private
school or home school under State law.
(2) NO DISCRIMINATION.—No State shall ex-
clude, discriminate against, or otherwise dis-
advantage any education provider, including
home education provider, with respect to
programs or services under this section
based in whole or in part on the provider’s
religious character or affiliation, including
religiously based or mission-based policies or
practices.
(d) PARENTAL RIGHTS TO USE GRANTS.—No
State shall disfavor or discourage the use of
qualifying grants for the purchase of elemen-
tary and secondary education services, in-
cluding those services provided by private or
nonprofit entities, such as faith-based pro-
viders.
(e) REPAYMENT.—If a school does not re-
open and maintain operations consistent
with the plan submitted under this section,
the school shall be required to repay all
monies received under section 2001 to the
State.
(f) RETURN TO TREASURY.—Any monies re-
maining in the Fund as of September 30, 2021,
or if subsequently repaid under subsection
(e), shall be repaid to the United States
Treasury not later than June 30, 2022.
At the end of section 2001(c), add the fol-
lowing: ‘‘An allocation to a State shall be
made pursuant to the previous sentence only
if the State has publicly published, by not
later than 7 days after enactment of this
Act, a written plan that guarantees each
child in the State has a local public school
education option to resume regular, 5-day-a-
week in-classroom instruction with teachers
physically present and that identifies by
name and location which schools will be
available for regular in-classroom instruc-
tion. Assistance from a grant awarded to a
State under this section shall only be pro-
vided to a school identified by the State
under the previous sentence.’’.
Mr. CRUZ. I ask unanimous consent
for 2 minutes of debate equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, we are
facing an absolute crisis with our
schools. Today, only 40 percent of
school kids in America are attending
in-person school 5 days a week.
It has been a year since these COVID
lockdowns began. Millions of school
kids are falling behind, and it is falling
disproportionately on low-income kids,
on African-American kids, on Hispanic
kids.
This bill spends billions of dollars on
schools and doesn’t require that they
open. My amendment does something
very simple. It says if a school is open,
it gets the new money that is in this
bill, but if the school is not open 5 days
a week, then that money goes to the
parents, up to $10,000 per child, so they
can get their kids an education.
We have single moms with kids
trapped in schools that are not open,
and this crisis, this body can do some-
thing about. Those kids, if they fall be-
hind, the science and the data tells us
that they will be behind, potentially,
for the rest of their lives. We should
come together in a bipartisan way to
say: We are going to open the schools,
and we are going to give hope and relief
to the kids who are being left behind.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President,
this is yet another amendment that
conditions
funding
to
our
public
schools under the guise of wanting in-
person learning, when in reality with-
holding this funding is counter to ev-
eryone’s goal.
But this amendment goes a step fur-
ther. It strips much needed funds from
our public schools that want to reopen
for in-person learning and implement
safety protocols that are aligned with
local public health guidance in order to
create a voucher program.
VerDate Sep 11 2014
04:43 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\G05MR6.067
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1249
March 5, 2021
That is right. This amendment takes
money from public schools that serve
90 percent of our students and sends
those funds to private schools. It is un-
clear to me if our colleague’s goals are
really about reopening public schools
or just about advancing long-term ide-
ological goals.
If we only provide funding to schools
that are physically open, schools in
communities with high transmission
rates of COVID–19 will not receive the
resources necessary to implement safe-
ty health protocols. Conditioning funds
undermines our ability to actually get
our students back into the classroom.
Let’s stop wasting time and pass the
American Rescue Plan so those re-
sources can get to our schools and our
students.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 969
Mr. CRUZ. I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a
sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient sec-
ond.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk
called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is
necessarily absent: the Senator from
Alaska (Mr. SULLIVAN).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there
any other Senators in the Chamber
wishing to vote or change his or her
vote?
The result was announced—yeas 49,
nays 50, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 95 Leg.]
YEAS—49
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS—50
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Luja´n
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING—1
Sullivan
The amendment (No. 969) was re-
jected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ma-
jority leader.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President,
good morning.
Now, it looks like we have about 14
amendments left, and 1 or 2 of those
may be voice-voted. So I would ask
that we all stay in our seats so we can
expedite the process. I would ask that
we try to accomplish these votes in no
more than 10 minutes so that we can
move forward.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Utah.
AMENDMENT NO. 1364 TO AMENDMENT NO. 891
(Purpose: To provide relief for State and
local governments based on demonstrated
need)
Mr. ROMNEY. Madam President, I
call up my amendment 1364 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
clerk will report the amendment by
number.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as
follows:
The Senator from Utah [Mr. ROMNEY] pro-
poses an amendment numbered 1364 to
amendment No. 891.
(The amendment is printed in today’s
RECORD under ‘‘Text of Amendments.’’)
Mr. ROMNEY. Madam President, I
ask unanimous consent for 4 minutes
of debate equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROMNEY. Madam President, I
actually believe that we make better
legislation if we have two parties work
together on something.
In this case, we have crafted a piece
of legislation that our party hasn’t had
any involvement in whatsoever. We
tried. We went to the White House, and
the President was very gracious in wel-
coming us and listening to us but did
not accept any of our proposals. So we
have before us today a piece of legisla-
tion that has the benefit of only one
party.
There are some errors in that and
some things I think we really have to
look at and try to fix. One of them is
with regard to States and localities.
At the time the President put his bill
out there, there was an assumption
that States have massive losses associ-
ated with the COVID experience. But
the data that has come out since then
has shown that, in fact, the States did
not have those kinds of losses. Many
States did not. Twenty-one States are
seeing a rise in revenue. States like
Florida don’t need more money. Okla-
homa doesn’t need more money. My
State of Utah doesn’t need more
money. California has record surpluses,
billions of dollars in surplus. Yet,
under this legislation, California itself
at the State level gets $26 billion more
and in total with its localities gets $41
billion. This is on top of their already
surplus year.
Think about that. We are going to be
asking the American people to allow us
to borrow money from China and oth-
ers, pass that on to our kids and
grandkids so that we can send money
to States like California and mine and
others that don’t need the money.
This doesn’t make any sense at all.
So my amendment does a very simple
thing. It says: Look, you can spend all
the money that the President’s plan
suggests and the way they suggest it,
but each State’s amount is limited by
the amount of their revenue loss—
meaning the gap they had from 2019 to
2020 and then 2021—as well as any
COVID expenses, as well as any Med-
icaid expenses that grew. So just limit
it by how much they need it. That is
all it does.
So I ask that people on both sides of
the aisle just get behind this so that we
can save probably at least $100 billion,
to keep money from going to States
and localities that don’t actually need
it.
Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I rise
in opposition to the Romney amend-
ment.
First, colleagues, this amendment
would be a drastic cut to the relief in
the bill. Specifically, it would limit the
number
of
firefighters,
municipal
workers, and teachers who would actu-
ally get their jobs back in the coming
weeks and months.
Second, the amendment doesn’t take
into account the full impact the pan-
demic has had on State budgets and
the costs they are going to continue to
incur in the months ahead.
Our view is, this is just the wrong
time to start hacking away at State
and local funding because the job losses
are stacking up. As we have heard
again and again from independent
economists, those losses are going to
continue if the Senate doesn’t go big,
as this bill does. Saving jobs and rehir-
ing laid-off workers is what this por-
tion of the bill is all about.
So, colleagues, I would strongly urge
a ‘‘no’’ vote on the Romney amend-
ment.
I yield.
Mr.
ROMNEY.
Madam
President,
may I respond?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Utah, without objection.
Mr. ROMNEY. First of all, those
States that I described didn’t lay peo-
ple off. They didn’t lay off firefighters.
They didn’t lay off teachers. They have
held their teachers. They have held
their firefighters. My State has actu-
ally paid bonuses to teachers and to
State workers, they have so much
money coming in.
You see, COVID, the pandemic, did
not hit all the States in the same way.
So States that need more money, give
them more money. I am happy to do
that. But States like mine, Florida,
Oklahoma,
Texas,
California,
they
don’t need more money. Why are we
borrowing more money and sending on
the burden of debt and interest pay-
ments to our kids and grandkids to
send money to States that don’t need
it?
By the way, we are talking about
States that don’t have deficits; they
have surpluses. All of their COVID ex-
penses would be reimbursed under the
VerDate Sep 11 2014
04:43 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\G05MR6.068
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1250
March 5, 2021
proposal that I make. There is no
COVID expense that is not reimbursed.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Can I have 30 seconds to
briefly respond?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WYDEN. First of all, we can’t
even really determine the formula that
is used under the Romney amendment.
It is clear to us there are going to be
costs to States as a result of this legis-
lation.
Colleagues, the reality is, the pan-
demic is a public health nightmare,
and this provision is designed to spe-
cifically address the challenge of mak-
ing sure that firefighters, municipal
workers, and others who are respond-
ing day in and day out at risk to them-
selves are going to be able to get their
jobs back in the coming weeks and
months. The fact is, this amendment is
going to reduce the money the States
have to address those critical needs.
I urge colleagues to vote no.
Mr. ROMNEY. I believe I have 10
more seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator does not have 10 more seconds.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 1364
Mr. ROMNEY. I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a
sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient sec-
ond.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk called
the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is
necessarily absent: the Senator from
Alaska (Mr. SULLIVAN).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there
any other Senators in the Chamber de-
siring to vote?
The result was announced—yeas 49,
nays 50, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 96 Leg.]
YEAS—49
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS—50
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Luja´n
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING—1
Sullivan
The amendment (No. 1364) was re-
jected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Alabama.
AMENDMENT NO. 1386 TO AMENDMENT NO. 891
Mr. TUBERVILLE. Madam Presi-
dent, I call up my amendment No. 1386
and ask that it be reported by number.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
clerk will report the amendment by
number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk
read as follows:
The
Senator
from
Alabama
[Mr.
TUBERVILLE] proposes an amendment num-
bered 1386 to amendment No. 891.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To prohibit funds made available
under title II to States, local educational
agencies, and institutions of higher edu-
cation that permit any student whose bio-
logical sex is male to participate in an ath-
letic program or activity designated for
women or girls)
At the end of part 1 of subtitle A of title II,
add the following:
SEC. 2014. RULE REGARDING ATHLETIC PRO-
GRAMS OR ACTIVITIES.
As a condition of receiving funds under
section 2001, 2003, or 2005, a State, local edu-
cational agency, or institution of higher edu-
cation may not permit any student whose bi-
ological sex (recognized based solely on a
person’s reproductive biology and genetics at
birth) is male to participate in an athletic
program or activity that is—
(1) administered by that State, local edu-
cational agency, or institution of higher edu-
cation, as the case may be; and
(2) designated for women or girls.
Mr. TUBERVILLE. Madam Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent for 2
minutes, evenly divided, to debate this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TUBERVILLE. Madam Presi-
dent, I started my career coaching high
school football and girls and boys bas-
ketball 45 years ago, just a few years
after title IX was enacted. It ensured
young women had the same opportuni-
ties as young men and the same access
to funding, facilities, and athletic
scholarships.
Title IX has given young women the
long-denied platform that had always
been afforded to men, and today Amer-
ica’s female athletes are routinely the
best performing on the world stage.
My amendment, cosponsored by Sen-
ators GRAHAM and MARSHALL, recog-
nizes title IX’s role in protecting
women in education and in sports.
Under this amendment, educational
institutions would be prohibited from
receiving funding if biological males
are allowed to compete in women’s ath-
letics.
This
amendment
safeguards
fairness and equality for women. This
amendment will ensure that education
funding in the bill is properly directed
to schools that are focused on COVID
response and recovery rather than
pushing a liberal agenda.
I ask my colleagues to support this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President,
this amendment will undermine the
goals of this bill to provide assistance
to all educators, all students, and fami-
lies who have struggled through this
pandemic. It is simply an attempt to
discriminate against transgender stu-
dents.
All students, including transgender
students, benefit from participating in
sports—to challenge themselves, to im-
prove fitness, to be part of a team. Al-
lowing transgender students to partici-
pate in athletic activities consistent
with their gender identity in no way
disadvantages their fellow students.
For the love of God, can’t we just
have a little bit of heart and compas-
sion in this world for someone who
doesn’t look or live exactly like you?
Instead of focusing on discriminatory
policies, we should be examining the
real issues with gender parity in sports
when it comes to funding and resources
and pay equity.
I oppose this amendment because it
discriminates against transgender stu-
dents. It is a harmful attempt to un-
dermine our work to help students and
families.
POINT OF ORDER
Madam President, I raise a point of
order that the pending amendment pro-
duces
budgetary
changes
that
are
merely incidental to the nonbudgetary
components of the amendment and vio-
lates section 313(b)(1)(D) of the Con-
gressional Budget Act of 1974.
MOTION TO WAIVE
Mr. TUBERVILLE. Madam Presi-
dent, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act, I move to
waive and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a
sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient sec-
ond.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk
called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is
necessarily absent: the Senator from
Alaska (Mr. SULLIVAN).
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER
(Mr.
BOOKER). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote or
change their vote?
The yeas and nays resulted—yeas 49,
nays 50, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 97 Leg.]
YEAS—49
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Manchin
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Portman
Risch
VerDate Sep 11 2014
04:43 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\G05MR6.070
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1251
March 5, 2021
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS—50
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Luja´n
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING—1
Sullivan
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER
(Mr.
BOOKER). The yeas are 49, the nays are
50.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly cho-
sen and sworn not having voted in the
affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The point of order is sustained, and
the amendment falls.
The amendment (No. 1386) was re-
jected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Tennessee is recognized.
MOTIONS TO COMMIT EN BLOC
Mr. HAGERTY. Mr. President, I have
11 en bloc motions at the desk, and I
ask that they be read and considered
en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The senior assistant legislative clerk
will report the motions en bloc.
The senior assistant legislative clerk
read as follows:
The
Senator
from
Tennessee
[Mr.
HAGERTY] offers 11 motions to commit the
bill to each of the following instructed com-
mittees: Environment and Public Works; Ag-
riculture, Nutrition, and Forestry; Health,
Education, Labor and Pensions; Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs; Homeland Secu-
rity and Governmental Affairs; Small Busi-
ness
and
Entrepreneurship;
Commerce,
Science, and Transportation; Veterans’ Af-
fairs; Finance; Foreign Relations; and Indian
Affairs, and that the 11 motions be consid-
ered en bloc.
The motions en bloc are as follows:
MOTION TO COMMIT WITH INSTRUCTIONS
Mr. Hagerty moves to commit the bill H.R.
1319 to the Committees on Environment and
Public Works with instructions to report the
same back to the Senate in 3 days, not
counting any day on which the Senate is not
in session, with changes that—
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such com-
mittee;
(2) ensure that the provisions within the
jurisdiction of such committee provide ap-
propriations only for purposes for which ap-
propriations were provided by the bipartisan
Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Sup-
plemental Appropriations Act (Public Law
116–123), the Families First Coronavirus Re-
sponse
Act
(Public
Law
116–127),
the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Secu-
rity Act (Public Law 116–136), the Paycheck
Protection Program and Health Care En-
hancement Act (Public Law 116–139), and di-
visions M and N of the Consolidated Appro-
priations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–260);
(3) ensure that the provisions within the
jurisdiction of such committee do not mod-
ify the purpose of an appropriation provided
by the bipartisan Coronavirus Preparedness
and Response Supplemental Appropriations
Act (Public Law 116–123), the Families First
Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law 116–
127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Eco-
nomic Security Act (Public Law 116–136), the
Paycheck Protection Program and Health
Care Enhancement Act (Public Law 116–139),
and divisions M and N of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–
260);
(4) ensure that any appropriations for a
purpose provided by provisions within the ju-
risdiction of such committee are not avail-
able for obligation until all appropriations
made available for that purpose by the bipar-
tisan Coronavirus Preparedness and Re-
sponse Supplemental Appropriations Act
(Public Law 116–123), the Families First
Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law 116–
127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Eco-
nomic Security Act (Public Law 116–136), the
Paycheck Protection Program and Health
Care Enhancement Act (Public Law 116–139),
and divisions M and N of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–260)
have been obligated; and
(5) ensure that the period of availability of
any appropriation provided by a provision
within the jurisdiction of such committee is
not later than the earlier of the termination
of the public health emergency declared by
the Secretary of Health and Human Services
under section 319 of the Public Health Serv-
ice Act (42 U.S.C. 247d) on January 31, 2020,
with respect to the coronavirus disease 2019,
and September 30, 2021.
MOTION TO COMMIT WITH INSTRUCTIONS
Mrs. Hyde-Smith moves to commit the bill
H.R. 1319 to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry with instructions to
report the same back to the Senate in 3 days,
not counting any day on which the Senate is
not in session, with changes that—
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such com-
mittee;
(2) ensure that the provisions within the
jurisdiction of such committee provide ap-
propriations only for purposes for which ap-
propriations were provided by the bipartisan
Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Sup-
plemental Appropriations Act (Public Law
116–123), the Families First Coronavirus Re-
sponse
Act
(Public
Law
116–127),
the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Secu-
rity Act (Public Law 116–136), the Paycheck
Protection Program and Health Care En-
hancement Act (Public Law 116–139), and di-
visions M and N of the Consolidated Appro-
priations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–260);
(3) ensure that the provisions within the
jurisdiction of such committee do not mod-
ify the purpose of an appropriation provided
by the bipartisan Coronavirus Preparedness
and Response Supplemental Appropriations
Act (Public Law 116–123), the Families First
Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law 116–
127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Eco-
nomic Security Act (Public Law 116–136), the
Paycheck Protection Program and Health
Care Enhancement Act (Public Law 116–139),
and divisions M and N of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–
260); and
(4) ensure that any appropriations for a
purpose provided by provisions within the ju-
risdiction of such committee are not avail-
able for obligation until all appropriations
made available for that purpose by the bipar-
tisan Coronavirus Preparedness and Re-
sponse Supplemental Appropriations Act
(Public Law 116–123), the Families First
Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law 116–
127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Eco-
nomic Security Act (Public Law 116–136), the
Paycheck Protection Program and Health
Care Enhancement Act (Public Law 116–139),
and divisions M and N of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–260)
have been obligated; and
(5) ensure that the period of availability of
any appropriation provided by a provision
within the jurisdiction of such committee is
not later than the earlier of the termination
of the public health emergency declared by
the Secretary of Health and Human Services
under section 319 of the Public Health Serv-
ice Act (42 U.S.C. 247d) on January 31, 2020,
with respect to the coronavirus disease 2019,
and September 30, 2021.
MOTION TO COMMIT WITH INSTRUCTIONS
Mr. Tuberville moves to commit the bill
H.R. 1319 to the Committee on Health, Edu-
cation, Labor, and Pensions with instruc-
tions to report the same back to the Senate
in 3 days, not counting any day on which the
Senate is not in session, with changes that—
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such com-
mittee;
(2) ensure that the provisions within the
jurisdiction of such committee provide ap-
propriations only for purposes for which ap-
propriations were provided by the bipartisan
Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Sup-
plemental Appropriations Act (Public Law
116–123), the Families First Coronavirus Re-
sponse
Act
(Public
Law
116–127),
the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Secu-
rity Act (Public Law 116–136), the Paycheck
Protection Program and Health Care En-
hancement Act (Public Law 116–139), and di-
visions M and N of the Consolidated Appro-
priations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–260);
(3) ensure that the provisions within the
jurisdiction of such committee do not mod-
ify the purpose of an appropriation provided
by the bipartisan Coronavirus Preparedness
and Response Supplemental Appropriations
Act (Public Law 116–123), the Families First
Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law 116–
127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Eco-
nomic Security Act (Public Law 116–136), the
Paycheck Protection Program and Health
Care Enhancement Act (Public Law 116–139),
and divisions M and N of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–
260);
(4) ensure that any appropriations for a
purpose provided by provisions within the ju-
risdiction of such committee are not avail-
able for obligation until all appropriations
made available for that purpose by the bipar-
tisan Coronavirus Preparedness and Re-
sponse Supplemental Appropriations Act
(Public Law 116–123), the Families First
Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law 116–
127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Eco-
nomic Security Act (Public Law 116–136), the
Paycheck Protection Program and Health
Care Enhancement Act (Public Law 116–139),
and divisions M and N of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–260)
have been obligated; and
(5) ensure that the period of availability of
any appropriation provided by a provision
within the jurisdiction of such committee is
not later than the earlier of the termination
of the public health emergency declared by
the Secretary of Health and Human Services
under section 319 of the Public Health Serv-
ice Act (42 U.S.C. 247d) on January 31, 2020,
with respect to the coronavirus disease 2019,
and September 30, 2021.
MOTION TO COMMIT WITH INSTRUCTIONS
Mr. Cramer moves to commit the bill H.R.
1319 to the Committee on Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs with instructions to report
the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not
counting any day on which the Senate is not
in session, with changes that—
VerDate Sep 11 2014
09:31 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.045
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1252
March 5, 2021
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such com-
mittee;
(2) ensure that the provisions within the
jurisdiction of such committee provide ap-
propriations only for purposes for which ap-
propriations were provided by the bipartisan
Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Sup-
plemental Appropriations Act (Public Law
116–123), the Families First Coronavirus Re-
sponse
Act
(Public
Law
116–127),
the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Secu-
rity Act (Public Law 116–136), the Paycheck
Protection Program and Health Care En-
hancement Act (Public Law 116–139), and di-
visions M and N of the Consolidated Appro-
priations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–260);
(3) ensure that the provisions within the
jurisdiction of such committee do not mod-
ify the purpose of an appropriation provided
by the bipartisan Coronavirus Preparedness
and Response Supplemental Appropriations
Act (Public Law 116–123), the Families First
Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law 116–
127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Eco-
nomic Security Act (Public Law 116–136), the
Paycheck Protection Program and Health
Care Enhancement Act (Public Law 116–139),
and divisions M and N of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–
260); and
(4) ensure that any appropriations for a
purpose provided by provisions within the ju-
risdiction of such committee are not avail-
able for obligation until all appropriations
made available for that purpose by the bipar-
tisan Coronavirus Preparedness and Re-
sponse Supplemental Appropriations Act
(Public Law 116–123), the Families First
Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law 116–
127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Eco-
nomic Security Act (Public Law 116–136), the
Paycheck Protection Program and Health
Care Enhancement Act (Public Law 116–139),
and divisions M and N of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–260)
have been obligated; and
(5) ensure that the period of availability of
any appropriation provided by a provision
within the jurisdiction of such committee is
not later than the earlier of the termination
of the public health emergency declared by
the Secretary of Health and Human Services
under section 319 of the Public Health Serv-
ice Act (42 U.S.C. 247d) on January 31, 2020,
with respect to the coronavirus disease 2019,
and September 30, 2021.
MOTION TO COMMIT WITH INSTRUCTIONS
Mr. Johnson moves to commit the bill H.R.
1319 to the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs with instructions
to report the same back to the Senate in 3
days, not counting any day on which the
Senate is not in session, with changes that—
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such com-
mittee;
(2) ensure that the provisions within the
jurisdiction of such committee provide ap-
propriations only for purposes for which ap-
propriations were provided by the bipartisan
Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Sup-
plemental Appropriations Act (Public Law
116–123), the Families First Coronavirus Re-
sponse
Act
(Public
Law
116–127),
the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Secu-
rity Act (Public Law 116–136), the Paycheck
Protection Program and Health Care En-
hancement Act (Public Law 116–139), and di-
visions M and N of the Consolidated Appro-
priations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–260);
(3) ensure that the provisions within the
jurisdiction of such committee do not mod-
ify the purpose of an appropriation provided
by the bipartisan Coronavirus Preparedness
and Response Supplemental Appropriations
Act (Public Law 116–123), the Families First
Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law 116–
127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Eco-
nomic Security Act (Public Law 116–136), the
Paycheck Protection Program and Health
Care Enhancement Act (Public Law 116–139),
and divisions M and N of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–
260); and
(4) ensure that any appropriations for a
purpose provided by provisions within the ju-
risdiction of such committee are not avail-
able for obligation until all appropriations
made available for that purpose by the bipar-
tisan Coronavirus Preparedness and Re-
sponse Supplemental Appropriations Act
(Public Law 116–123), the Families First
Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law 116–
127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Eco-
nomic Security Act (Public Law 116–136), the
Paycheck Protection Program and Health
Care Enhancement Act (Public Law 116–139),
and divisions M and N of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–260)
have been obligated; and
(5) ensure that the period of availability of
any appropriation provided by a provision
within the jurisdiction of such committee is
not later than the earlier of the termination
of the public health emergency declared by
the Secretary of Health and Human Services
under section 319 of the Public Health Serv-
ice Act (42 U.S.C. 247d) on January 31, 2020,
with respect to the coronavirus disease 2019,
and September 30, 2021.
MOTION TO COMMIT WITH INSTRUCTIONS
Mr. Kennedy moves to commit the bill
H.R. 1319 to the Committee on Small Busi-
ness and Entrepreneurship with instructions
to report the same back to the Senate in 3
days, not counting any day on which the
Senate is not in session, with changes that—
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such com-
mittee;
(2) ensure that the provisions within the
jurisdiction of such committee provide ap-
propriations only for purposes for which ap-
propriations were provided by the bipartisan
Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Sup-
plemental Appropriations Act (Public Law
116–123), the Families First Coronavirus Re-
sponse
Act
(Public
Law
116–127),
the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Secu-
rity Act (Public Law 116–136), the Paycheck
Protection Program and Health Care En-
hancement Act (Public Law 116–139), and di-
visions M and N of the Consolidated Appro-
priations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–260);
(3) ensure that the provisions within the
jurisdiction of such committee do not mod-
ify the purpose of an appropriation provided
by the bipartisan Coronavirus Preparedness
and Response Supplemental Appropriations
Act (Public Law 116–123), the Families First
Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law 116–
127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Eco-
nomic Security Act (Public Law 116–136), the
Paycheck Protection Program and Health
Care Enhancement Act (Public Law 116–139),
and divisions M and N of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–
260); and
(4) ensure that any appropriations for a
purpose provided by provisions within the ju-
risdiction of such committee are not avail-
able for obligation until all appropriations
made available for that purpose by the bipar-
tisan Coronavirus Preparedness and Re-
sponse Supplemental Appropriations Act
(Public Law 116–123), the Families First
Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law 116–
127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Eco-
nomic Security Act (Public Law 116–136), the
Paycheck Protection Program and Health
Care Enhancement Act (Public Law 116–139),
and divisions M and N of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–260)
have been obligated; and
(5) ensure that the period of availability of
any appropriation provided by a provision
within the jurisdiction of such committee is
not later than the earlier of the termination
of the public health emergency declared by
the Secretary of Health and Human Services
under section 319 of the Public Health Serv-
ice Act (42 U.S.C. 247d) on January 31, 2020,
with respect to the coronavirus disease 2019,
and September 30, 2021.
MOTION TO COMMIT WITH INSTRUCTIONS
Ms. Lummis moves to commit the bill H.R.
1319
to
the
Committee
on
Commerce,
Science, and Transportation with instruc-
tions to report the same back to the Senate
in 3 days, not counting any day on which the
Senate is not in session, with changes that—
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such com-
mittee;
(2) ensure that the provisions within the
jurisdiction of such committee provide ap-
propriations only for purposes for which ap-
propriations were provided by the bipartisan
Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Sup-
plemental Appropriations Act (Public Law
116–123), the Families First Coronavirus Re-
sponse
Act
(Public
Law
116–127),
the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Secu-
rity Act (Public Law 116–136), the Paycheck
Protection Program and Health Care En-
hancement Act (Public Law 116–139), and di-
visions M and N of the Consolidated Appro-
priations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–260);
(3) ensure that the provisions within the
jurisdiction of such committee do not mod-
ify the purpose of an appropriation provided
by the bipartisan Coronavirus Preparedness
and Response Supplemental Appropriations
Act (Public Law 116–123), the Families First
Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law 116–
127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Eco-
nomic Security Act (Public Law 116–136), the
Paycheck Protection Program and Health
Care Enhancement Act (Public Law 116–139),
and divisions M and N of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–
260); and
(4) ensure that any appropriations for a
purpose provided by provisions within the ju-
risdiction of such committee are not avail-
able for obligation until all appropriations
made available for that purpose by the bipar-
tisan Coronavirus Preparedness and Re-
sponse Supplemental Appropriations Act
(Public Law 116–123), the Families First
Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law 116–
127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Eco-
nomic Security Act (Public Law 116–136), the
Paycheck Protection Program and Health
Care Enhancement Act (Public Law 116–139),
and divisions M and N of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–260)
have been obligated; and
(5) ensure that the period of availability of
any appropriation provided by a provision
within the jurisdiction of such committee is
not later than the earlier of the termination
of the public health emergency declared by
the Secretary of Health and Human Services
under section 319 of the Public Health Serv-
ice Act (42 U.S.C. 247d) on January 31, 2020,
with respect to the coronavirus disease 2019,
and September 30, 2021.
MOTION TO COMMIT WITH INSTRUCTIONS
Mr. Hagerty moves to commit the bill H.R.
1319 to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs
with instructions to report the same back to
the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day
on which the Senate is not in session, with
changes that—
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such com-
mittee;
(2) ensure that the provisions within the
jurisdiction of such committee provide ap-
propriations only for purposes for which ap-
propriations were provided by the bipartisan
Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Sup-
plemental Appropriations Act (Public Law
VerDate Sep 11 2014
04:43 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.050
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1253
March 5, 2021
116–123), the Families First Coronavirus Re-
sponse
Act
(Public
Law
116–127),
the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Secu-
rity Act (Public Law 116–136), the Paycheck
Protection Program and Health Care En-
hancement Act (Public Law 116–139), and di-
visions M and N of the Consolidated Appro-
priations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–260);
(3) ensure that the provisions within the
jurisdiction of such committee do not mod-
ify the purpose of an appropriation provided
by the bipartisan Coronavirus Preparedness
and Response Supplemental Appropriations
Act (Public Law 116–123), the Families First
Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law 116–
127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Eco-
nomic Security Act (Public Law 116–136), the
Paycheck Protection Program and Health
Care Enhancement Act (Public Law 116–139),
and divisions M and N of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–
260);
(4) ensure that any appropriations for a
purpose provided by provisions within the ju-
risdiction of such committee are not avail-
able for obligation until all appropriations
made available for that purpose by the bipar-
tisan Coronavirus Preparedness and Re-
sponse Supplemental Appropriations Act
(Public Law 116–123), the Families First
Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law 116–
127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Eco-
nomic Security Act (Public Law 116–136), the
Paycheck Protection Program and Health
Care Enhancement Act (Public Law 116–139),
and divisions M and N of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–260)
have been obligated; and
(5) ensure that the period of availability of
any appropriation provided by a provision
within the jurisdiction of such committee is
not later than the earlier of the termination
of the public health emergency declared by
the Secretary of Health and Human Services
under section 319 of the Public Health Serv-
ice Act (42 U.S.C. 247d) on January 31, 2020,
with respect to the coronavirus disease 2019,
and September 30, 2021.
MOTION TO COMMIT WITH INSTRUCTIONS
Mrs. Blackburn moves to commit the bill
H.R. 1319 to the Committee on Finance with
instructions to report the same back to the
Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on
which the Senate is not in session, with
changes that—
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such com-
mittee;
(2) ensure that the provisions within the
jurisdiction of such committee provide ap-
propriations only for purposes for which ap-
propriations were provided by the bipartisan
Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Sup-
plemental Appropriations Act (Public Law
116–123), the Families First Coronavirus Re-
sponse
Act
(Public
Law
116–127),
the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Secu-
rity Act (Public Law 116–136), the Paycheck
Protection Program and Health Care En-
hancement Act (Public Law 116–139), and di-
visions M and N of the Consolidated Appro-
priations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–260);
(3) ensure that the provisions within the
jurisdiction of such committee do not mod-
ify the purpose of an appropriation provided
by the bipartisan Coronavirus Preparedness
and Response Supplemental Appropriations
Act (Public Law 116–123), the Families First
Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law 116–
127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Eco-
nomic Security Act (Public Law 116–136), the
Paycheck Protection Program and Health
Care Enhancement Act (Public Law 116–139),
and divisions M and N of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–
260); and
(4) ensure that any appropriations for a
purpose provided by provisions within the ju-
risdiction of such committee are not avail-
able for obligation until all appropriations
made available for that purpose by the bipar-
tisan Coronavirus Preparedness and Re-
sponse Supplemental Appropriations Act
(Public Law 116–123), the Families First
Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law 116–
127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Eco-
nomic Security Act (Public Law 116–136), the
Paycheck Protection Program and Health
Care Enhancement Act (Public Law 116–139),
and divisions M and N of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–260)
have been obligated; and
(5) ensure that the period of availability of
any appropriation provided by a provision
within the jurisdiction of such committee is
not later than the earlier of the termination
of the public health emergency declared by
the Secretary of Health and Human Services
under section 319 of the Public Health Serv-
ice Act (42 U.S.C. 247d) on January 31, 2020,
with respect to the coronavirus disease 2019,
and September 30, 2021.
MOTION TO COMMIT WITH INSTRUCTIONS
Mr. Hagerty moves to commit the bill H.R.
1319 to the Committee on Foreign Relations
with instructions to report the same back to
the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day
on which the Senate is not in session, with
changes that—
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such com-
mittee;
(2) ensure that the provisions within the
jurisdiction of such committee provide ap-
propriations only for purposes for which ap-
propriations were provided by the bipartisan
Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Sup-
plemental Appropriations Act (Public Law
116–123), the Families First Coronavirus Re-
sponse
Act
(Public
Law
116–127),
the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Secu-
rity Act (Public Law 116–136), the Paycheck
Protection Program and Health Care En-
hancement Act (Public Law 116–139), and di-
visions M and N of the Consolidated Appro-
priations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–260);
(3) ensure that the provisions within the
jurisdiction of such committee do not mod-
ify the purpose of an appropriation provided
by the bipartisan Coronavirus Preparedness
and Response Supplemental Appropriations
Act (Public Law 116–123), the Families First
Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law 116–
127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Eco-
nomic Security Act (Public Law 116–136), the
Paycheck Protection Program and Health
Care Enhancement Act (Public Law 116–139),
and divisions M and N of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–
260);
(4) ensure that any appropriations for a
purpose provided by provisions within the ju-
risdiction of such committee are not avail-
able for obligation until all appropriations
made available for that purpose by the bipar-
tisan Coronavirus Preparedness and Re-
sponse Supplemental Appropriations Act
(Public Law 116–123), the Families First
Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law 116–
127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Eco-
nomic Security Act (Public Law 116–136), the
Paycheck Protection Program and Health
Care Enhancement Act (Public Law 116–139),
and divisions M and N of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–260)
have been obligated; and
(5) ensure that the period of availability of
any appropriation provided by a provision
within the jurisdiction of such committee is
not later than the earlier of the termination
of the public health emergency declared by
the Secretary of Health and Human Services
under section 319 of the Public Health Serv-
ice Act (42 U.S.C. 247d) on January 31, 2020,
with respect to the coronavirus disease 2019,
and September 30, 2021.
MOTION TO COMMIT WITH INSTRUCTIONS
Mr. Hagerty moves to commit the bill H.R.
1319 to the Committee on Indian Affairs with
instructions to report the same back to the
Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on
which the Senate is not in session, with
changes that—
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such com-
mittee;
(2) ensure that the provisions within the
jurisdiction of such committee provide ap-
propriations only for purposes for which ap-
propriations were provided by the bipartisan
Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Sup-
plemental Appropriations Act (Public Law
116–123), the Families First Coronavirus Re-
sponse
Act
(Public
Law
116–127),
the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Secu-
rity Act (Public Law 116–136), the Paycheck
Protection Program and Health Care En-
hancement Act (Public Law 116–139), and di-
visions M and N of the Consolidated Appro-
priations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–260);
(3) ensure that the provisions within the
jurisdiction of such committee do not mod-
ify the purpose of an appropriation provided
by the bipartisan Coronavirus Preparedness
and Response Supplemental Appropriations
Act (Public Law 116–123), the Families First
Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law 116–
127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Eco-
nomic Security Act (Public Law 116–136), the
Paycheck Protection Program and Health
Care Enhancement Act (Public Law 116–139),
and divisions M and N of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–
260);
(4) ensure that any appropriations for a
purpose provided by provisions within the ju-
risdiction of such committee are not avail-
able for obligation until all appropriations
made available for that purpose by the bipar-
tisan Coronavirus Preparedness and Re-
sponse Supplemental Appropriations Act
(Public Law 116–123), the Families First
Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law 116–
127), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Eco-
nomic Security Act (Public Law 116–136), the
Paycheck Protection Program and Health
Care Enhancement Act (Public Law 116–139),
and divisions M and N of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–260)
have been obligated; and
(5) ensure that the period of availability of
any appropriation provided by a provision
within the jurisdiction of such committee is
not later than the earlier of the termination
of the public health emergency declared by
the Secretary of Health and Human Services
under section 319 of the Public Health Serv-
ice Act (42 U.S.C. 247d) on January 31, 2020,
with respect to the coronavirus disease 2019,
and September 30, 2021.
Mr. HAGERTY. Mr. President, I am
pleased to be joined by a host of my
colleagues. The motions we are pro-
posing are very simple and should at-
tract wide support.
Senators on both sides have said this
must be a bipartisan process, but so
far, it isn’t. Not once did any of the 11
Senate subcommittees with jurisdic-
tion over relevant aspects of this legis-
lation meet to consider it—not once.
What is the purpose of the Senate’s
system of expert committees if, as we
consider one of the largest bills ever
before this body, we are just going to
act as if the committees never existed?
We are for pandemic relief. What we
are not for is a decade-long spending
spree, rushed through this body, much
of which has nothing to do with pan-
demic relief. Our motions would simply
VerDate Sep 11 2014
04:43 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.054
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1254
March 5, 2021
send this legislation back to com-
mittee for 3 days so it can be reviewed
in a bipartisan manner. These motions
would ensure that the legislation sup-
ports proven bipartisan programs be-
fore launching new programs or spend-
ing more money on programs that are
already flush with cash. By midweek,
we would have bipartisan legislation
with committee input that is targeted
to timely pandemic relief for those in
need.
I urge my colleagues to support these
motions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise
in strong opposition to this amend-
ment. There are some people here who
do not understand the crises facing the
American people. Sixty-three percent
of our people today are living paycheck
to paycheck. Every day that we do not
vaccinate somebody, there is somebody
unnecessarily dying. Our kids are not
in school. We are suffering a mental
health epidemic.
This country is demanding that Con-
gress act now and stand up for the
working families of this country. Peo-
ple are tired of obstructionism. They
are tired of delays. They want action.
Let’s do it.
I yield.
VOTE ON MOTIONS TO COMMIT
Mr. HAGERTY. I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a
sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient sec-
ond.
The question is on agreeing to the
motions en bloc.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk called
the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is
necessarily absent: the Senator from
Alaska (Mr. SULLIVAN).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there
any other Senators in the Chamber de-
siring to vote?
The result was announced—yeas 49,
nays 50, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 98 Leg.]
YEAS—49
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS—50
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Luja´n
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING—1
Sullivan
The motions were rejected en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Louisiana.
MOTION TO COMMIT WITH INSTRUCTIONS
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have
a motion to commit at the desk, and I
ask that it be reported.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
clerk will report the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. KENNEDY]
moves to commit the bill, H.R. 1319, to the
Committee on Small Business and Entrepre-
neurship of the Senate with instructions.
The motion is as follows:
MOTION TO COMMIT WITH INSTRUCTIONS
Mr. Kennedy moves to commit the bill
H.R. 1319 to the Committee on Small Busi-
ness and Entrepreneurship of the Senate
with instructions to report the same back to
the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day
on which the Senate is not in session, with
changes that—
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such com-
mittee; and
(2) prohibit the provision of assistance by
the Small Business Administration to an in-
dividual convicted of a felony for actions
during or in connection with a riot or civil
disorder that occurred—
(A) during the 15-year period preceding the
date of enactment of this Act; or
(B) on or after the date of enactment of
this Act.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent for 2 minutes of de-
bate equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, my
amendment would prohibit the Small
Business
Administration
from
pro-
viding any assistance including, but
not limited to, Paycheck Protection
Program 7(a) loans or other small busi-
ness assistance to anyone who has been
convicted during the past 15 years of a
felony during and in connection with a
riot, a civil disorder, or another de-
clared disaster. Without order, there
can be no justice.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I oppose
this motion to recommit. This moves
us in the wrong direction.
We have had bipartisan support rec-
ognizing that those who have been con-
victed of crime, once they paid their
price, should be able to participate in
our society.
The motion to recommit would sug-
gest that someone who may have par-
ticipated in a rally while they were in
college 15 years ago and has a perfectly
clear record could be prevented from
participating in the SBA programs.
That is moving in the wrong direction.
I hope we would have strong rejection
of this amendment.
Mr. President, I want to correct the
record or at least clarify the record for
Senator LANKFORD. He raised the point
in regard to administrative funds being
made available to the SBA. There was
a small amount, $70 million, put into
the program. That is additional funds.
The EIDL loan program is $200 billion
worth of loans, so it is a much larger
program, and that was just some addi-
tional funds that were being put into
the program.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Louisiana.
The Senator has 6 seconds.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a
felony for rioting. We shouldn’t be giv-
ing them money.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time
has expired.
VOTE ON MOTION TO COMMIT
The question is on agreeing to the
motion.
Mrs. FISCHER. I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a
sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient sec-
ond.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators
are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. SULLIVAN) and the
Senator from Indiana (Mr. YOUNG).
Further, if present and voting. the
Senator from Indiana (Mr. YOUNG)
would have voted ‘‘yea’’.
The result was announced—yeas 48,
nays 50, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 99 Leg.]
YEAS—48
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
NAYS—50
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Luja´n
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING—2
Sullivan
Young
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Florida.
MOTION TO COMMIT WITH INSTRUCTIONS
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President,
I have a motion to commit at the desk,
and I ask that it be reported.
VerDate Sep 11 2014
07:59 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\G05MR6.074
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1255
March 5, 2021
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
clerk will report the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Florida [Mr. SCOTT]
moves to commit the bill H.R. 1319 to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Gov-
ernmental Affairs of the Senate with in-
structions.
The motion is as follows:
MOTION TO COMMIT WITH INSTRUCTIONS
Mr. Scott of Florida moves to recommit
the bill H.R. 1319 to the Committee on Home-
land Security and Governmental Affairs of
the Senate with instructions to report the
same back to the Senate in 3 days (not
counting any day on which the Senate is not
in session) with an amendment, within the
jurisdiction of such committee, that with-
holds the salaries of all Members of Congress
during any fiscal year if all 12 appropriations
bills for a fiscal year are not passed by Con-
gress on or before September 30 of the prior
fiscal year.
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that there be
2 minutes of debate equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President,
as we can tell, this week, Washington
is completely dysfunctional, and the
unwillingness to work together has
caused
multiple
government
shut-
downs. If Members of Congress cannot
work together to pass a budget, they
should not be getting paid. It is pretty
simple. If we can’t do our jobs, we
shouldn’t get taxpayer-funded salaries.
My no budget, no pay amendment
simply requires Congress to meet ap-
propriations bills deadlines or forgo
their own salaries until the job is done.
This is a simple concept. There is no
reason
that
Members
of
Congress
should be held to a different standard
than American families and businesses
across
the
Nation.
Accountability
shouldn’t be controversial. I hope my
colleagues will join me in this motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, my
colleague from Florida may not know
it, but this is a budget, a $1.9 trillion
reconciliation budget, which, in fact,
will turn out to be the most significant
piece of legislation for working people
that has been passed in decades. Fi-
nally, Congress is doing its job. Unfor-
tunately, my friends on the other side
have used delaying tactics, after delay-
ing tactics, and obstruction, obstruc-
tion, obstruction.
The American people want action.
They want action now. I urge my col-
leagues to oppose this motion.
VOTE ON MOTION TO COMMIT
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
question is on agreeing to the motion.
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President,
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a
sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is
necessarily absent: the Senator from
Alaska (Mr. SULLIVAN).
The result was announced—yeas 48,
nays 51, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 100 Leg.]
YEAS—48
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS—51
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Luja´n
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Paul
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING—1
Sullivan
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Utah.
AMENDMENT NO. 1381 TO AMENDMENT NO. 891
(Purpose: To modify the provisions relating
to the child tax credit and to strike the
provisions relating to dependent care as-
sistance)
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I call up my
amendment No. 1381 and ask that it be
reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the clerk will report the
amendment by number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Utah [Mr. LEE], for
himself and Mr. RUBIO, proposes an
amendment numbered 1381 to amend-
ment No. 891.
(The amendment is printed in today’s
RECORD under ‘‘Text of Amendments.’’)
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unani-
mous consent for 2 minutes of debate
equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, there is a
little known feature in our Tax Code
created by the Tax Code and the way it
interacts with our senior entitlement
programs. It is called the parent tax
penalty. It is very misunderstood, lit-
tle known, but very, very harmful.
Sadly, the changes made to the child
tax credit in the reconciliation pack-
age are not the right way forward.
They don’t directly attempt to fix the
parent penalty. In addition to this
problem, the substitute changes to the
child and dependent care tax credit
would make the penalty on stay-at-
home parents in our Tax Code nearly
seven times worse.
My amendment with Senator RUBIO
would ensure that the child tax credit
is targeted to refunding Americans
their income and payroll taxes and
turning the child and dependent care
tax credit, which discriminates against
stay-at-home parents, into a young
child enhancement to provide some ad-
ditional help to parents during those
critical first 2 years.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise in
opposition to this amendment.
Colleagues, the underlying bill has
significant improvements in the child
tax credit. All told, the bill cuts child
poverty in half. But this amendment
would set us back. True, it expands the
child credit in some ways, but to pay
for these expansions, it dramatically
cuts
back
on
what
is
known
as
refundability.
Here is the problem, colleagues:
Refundability is what helps the fami-
lies at the lower end of the income
scale. So to expand the child tax credit
in several ways, the Lee amendment
reduces benefits to the working fami-
lies who need them most.
I want to close by way of saying that
I will be glad to work with my col-
league from Utah and the Senator from
Florida. I would also note that the
other Senator from Utah has been in-
terested in these issues.
This amendment sets us back be-
cause it reduces benefits to working
families who need them most.
I yield back.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 1381
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I call for the
yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a
sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient sec-
ond.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is
necessarily absent: the Senator from
Alaska (Mr. SULLIVAN).
The result was announced—yeas 49,
nays 50, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 101 Leg.]
YEAS—49
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS—50
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
VerDate Sep 11 2014
07:59 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\G05MR6.077
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1256
March 5, 2021
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Luja´n
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING—1
Sullivan
The amendment (No. 1381) was re-
jected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Texas.
MOTION TO COMMIT WITH INSTRUCTIONS
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have a
motion to commit at the desk, and I
ask that it be reported.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
clerk will report the motion.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Texas [Mr. COR-
NYN] moves to commit the bill, H.R.
1319, to the Committee on Health, Edu-
cation, Labor, and Pensions of the Sen-
ate with instructions.
The motion to commit reads as fol-
lows:
MOTION TO COMMIT WITH INSTRUCTIONS
Mr. Cornyn moves to commit the bill H.R.
1319 to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions of the Senate with in-
structions to report the same back to the
Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on
which the Senate is not in session, with
changes that—
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such com-
mittee;
(2) strike all of the funding under section
2022 for the National Endowment for the Hu-
manities; and
(3) provide funding to the Office of Refugee
Resettlement of the Department of Health
and Human Services for—
(A) mitigation of coronavirus transmission
risk in immigration detention facilities;
(B) adequate bed space to allow unaccom-
panied alien children—
(i) to remain in safe and humane custody
until their immigration court hearings; and
(ii) to be separated from aliens suspected
of, charged with, or convicted of criminal of-
fenses.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent for 2 minutes of de-
bate equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the
United States is facing a brewing hu-
manitarian crisis at the border. At the
same time, we are experiencing a glob-
al pandemic. This motion will help
make sure we are prepared.
In January 2021, the Border Patrol re-
corded about 75,000 encounters on the
southwest land border. That is a 60-per-
cent increase over the last year, which
was just before the last major migrant
surge.
The Department of Homeland Secu-
rity is reportedly projecting that it
will apprehend 117,000 unaccompanied
children this year. The Department of
Health and Human Services and the Of-
fice of Refugee Resettlement are strug-
gling to maintain enough bed space to
shelter all of these unaccompanied
children transferred into their custody.
It is estimated the COVID–19 restric-
tions have reduced their capacity by
about 40 percent.
The Biden administration has reac-
tivated a facility at Carrizo Springs,
TX, to handle this influx of unaccom-
panied children, and press reports indi-
cate that an additional facility may be
necessary.
So this motion, simply put, would
commit the bill to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pen-
sions with instructions to provide ade-
quate funding for the Office of Refugee
Resettlement to address this brewing
humanitarian crisis.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Let’s be clear. This is
a delay tactic intended to stop what we
are doing here to send the bill to the
HELP Committee. It would instruct
the HELP Committee to remove $135
million in critical funding that will
help support humanities and cultural
organizations weather the worst of this
pandemic.
Mr. President, the pandemic has dev-
astated our arts and cultural organiza-
tions. Our Nation’s museums, indige-
nous cultural organizations, and local
education nonprofits are facing signifi-
cant losses in revenue, in layoffs, in
furloughs. Our cultural organizations
in rural and urban and suburban areas
need these resources to continue to
serve our communities.
The UAC Program at the Department
of Health and Human Services is crit-
ical for ensuring the health and welfare
of unaccompanied children. We abso-
lutely do need to take steps to support
this program to ensure the well-being
of children in ORR care. But this
amendment is merely a delay tactic to
address the critical issues at hand re-
lated to the COVID–19 crisis. I urge my
colleagues to oppose the motion.
VOTE ON MOTION TO COMMIT
Mr. CORNYN. I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
question is on agreeing to the motion.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is
necessarily absent: the Senator from
Alaska (Mr. SULLIVAN).
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER
(Mr.
KING). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote or change
their vote?
The result was announced—yeas 49,
nays 50, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 102 Leg.]
YEAS—49
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS—50
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Luja´n
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING—1
Sullivan
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Louisiana.
AMENDMENT NO. 1162 TO AMENDMENT NO. 891
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I call
up my amendment No. 1162 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
clerk will report the amendment by
number.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. CASSIDY],
for himself and Mr. COTTON, proposes an
amendment numbered 1162 to amendment
No. 891.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To ensure that the 2021 Recovery
Rebates are not provided to prisoners)
On page 356, between lines 19 and 20, insert
the following:
‘‘(j) SPECIAL RULES WITH RESPECT TO PRIS-
ONERS.—
‘‘(1) DISALLOWANCE OF CREDIT.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subparagraph
(B), no credit shall be allowed under sub-
section (a) to an eligible individual who is,
for each day during calendar year 2021, de-
scribed in clause (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) of
section 202(x)(1)(A) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 402(x)(1)(A)).
‘‘(B) JOINT RETURN.—In the case of eligible
individuals filing a joint return where 1
spouse is described in subparagraph (A), sub-
section (b)(1) shall be applied by substituting
‘$1,400’ for ‘$2,800’.
‘‘(2) DENIAL OF ADVANCE REFUND OR CRED-
IT.—No refund or credit shall be made or al-
lowed under subsection (g) with respect to
any individual whom the Secretary has
knowledge is, at the time of any determina-
tion made pursuant to paragraph (3) of such
subsection, described in clause (i), (ii), (iii),
(iv), or (v) of section 202(x)(1)(A) of the Social
Security Act.’’.
Mr. CASSIDY. I ask unanimous con-
sent for 2 minutes of debate equally di-
vided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I rise
on behalf of myself and Senators COT-
TON and CRUZ. Our amendment pre-
vents $1,400 stimulus checks from going
to inmates.
You heard that right. This bill sends
$1,400 stimulus checks to people incar-
cerated for heinous crimes. Prisoners
VerDate Sep 11 2014
04:43 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.063
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1257
March 5, 2021
have all their living and medical ex-
penses paid for by the taxpayer. They
don’t pay taxes. They don’t contribute
to the tax base. They can’t be unem-
ployed. In other words, inmates are not
economically impacted by COVID, and
inmates cannot stimulate the econ-
omy. But under this bill, Democrats
are giving prisoners—again, sometimes
incarcerated
for
heinous
crimes—a
$1,400 stimulus check. If we eliminate
these, we save taxpayers $1.9 billion.
Now, I know my Democratic col-
leagues aren’t going to agree, but this
spending should be on real needs. Stim-
ulus checks for inmates is nontargeted,
inappropriate, and is a total waste of
money. I ask my colleagues to support
the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this
amendment will cause harm to the
families of incarcerated individuals,
joint filers who would receive only half
of the payment that the families are
owed while the spouse is incarcerated.
Given the stark racial disparities in
our criminal justice system, this would
cause the most harm to Black and
Brown families and communities al-
ready harmed by mass incarceration.
Children should not be forced to go
hungry because a parent is incarcer-
ated. Relief payments would allow fam-
ilies to replace lost income and pay
rent and put food on the table.
The
Cassidy
amendment
sweeps
broadly, denying recovery of rebates
not only to incarcerated individuals
but also to anyone violating a condi-
tion of probation on parole, but the So-
cial Security statute that Senator CAS-
SIDY’s amendment copies from has a
safety valve giving discretion to allow
payments to persons because of miti-
gating circumstances. His amendment
does not.
I would urge my colleagues to under-
stand what we are facing with our
criminal justice system today. We need
to bring more justice to it and caring
for the families of those who are incar-
cerated.
Mr. CASSIDY. I will reply, it only
applies to people incarcerated for a
year. That is not true.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 1162
I call for the yeas and nays.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment.
Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is
necessarily absent: the Senator from
Alaska (Mr. SULLIVAN).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there
any other Senators wishing to vote or
change his or her vote?
The result was announced—yeas 49,
nays 50, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 103 Leg.]
YEAS—49
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS—50
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Luja´n
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING—1
Sullivan
The amendment (No. 1162) was re-
jected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Texas.
AMENDMENT NO. 968 TO AMENDMENT NO. 891
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I call up
my amendment No. 968 and ask that it
be reported by number.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
clerk will report by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk
read as follows:
The Senator from Texas [Mr. CRUZ] pro-
poses an amendment numbered 968 to amend-
ment No. 891.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To ensure that the 2021 Recovery
Rebates are not provided to illegal immi-
grants)
On øpage 345, strike lines 12 through 16¿
and insert the following:
‘‘(2) any alien who is not lawfully present
(as such term is used in section 36B(e)(1)),
‘‘(3) any individual who is a dependent of
another taxpayer for a taxable year begin-
ning in the calendar year in which the indi-
vidual’s taxable year begins, and
‘‘(4) an estate or trust.’’.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I ask unan-
imous consent for 2 minutes of debate
equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, moments
ago, the Democrats in this Chamber
just voted to send $1,400 stimulus
checks to murderers, to rapists, and
child molesters incarcerated in prison.
This amendment, just like the one we
just voted on that Senator CASSIDY and
I introduced, this amendment before us
today provides that the stimulus check
should not go to illegal aliens in this
country.
The question for the American people
to answer is, Should your money,
should
taxpayer
money
be
sent—
$1,400—to every illegal alien in Amer-
ica? This amendment provides that it
should
not;
that
stimulus
checks
should only go to American citizens or
to people lawfully present.
Now, Democrats may say their lan-
guage allows for that, but they know
that the IRS treats someone who is il-
legally present in the United States for
31 days last year as a resident alien. So
this corrects that and ensures that ille-
gal aliens are not eligible for taxpayer-
funded stimulus checks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the
statement of the Senator from Texas is
just plain false—false. Let me be clear.
Undocumented immigrants do not have
Social Security numbers, and they do
not qualify for stimulus relief checks,
period.
And just in case you didn’t notice,
they didn’t qualify in December when
92 of us voted for that measure, and
they don’t qualify under the American
Rescue Plan. Nothing has changed.
And for you to stand up there and say
the opposite is just to rile people up
over something that is not true.
Mr. CRUZ. Will the Senator yield for
a question?
Mr. SCHUMER. No.
Mr. DURBIN. No. It is not true, and
we know what is going on right now.
They want to be able to give speeches
and say the checks go to undocu-
mented people. In the circumstance
where there is a parent receiving——
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator’s time has expired.
Mr. DURBIN.—a check for the child,
that is it; but no money going to un-
documented people under the American
Rescue Plan.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, do I have
any time remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time
has expired.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 968
The question is on agreeing to the
amendment.
Mr. CRUZ. I call for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a
sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk
called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is
necessarily absent: the Senator from
Alaska (Mr. SULLIVAN).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there
any other Senators in the Chamber de-
siring to vote or change their vote?
The result was announced—yeas 49,
nays 50, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 104 Leg.]
YEAS—49
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
VerDate Sep 11 2014
04:43 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\G05MR6.084
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1258
March 5, 2021
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS—50
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Luja´n
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING—1
Sullivan
The amendment (No. 968) was re-
jected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Utah.
AMENDMENT NO. 1331 TO AMENDMENT NO. 891
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I call up my
amendment No. 1331 and ask that it be
reported by number.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
clerk will report the amendment by
number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Utah [Mr. LEE] proposes
an amendment numbered 1331 to amendment
No. 891.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To limit the expansion of premium
assistance for households above 500 percent
of the federal poverty line)
Strike section 9661 and insert the fol-
lowing:
SEC. 9661. IMPROVING AFFORDABILITY BY EX-
PANDING
PREMIUM
ASSISTANCE
FOR CONSUMERS.
(a) IN
GENERAL.—Section 36B(b)(3)(A) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended
by adding at the end the following new
clause:
‘‘(iii) TEMPORARY
PERCENTAGES
FOR
2021
AND 2022.—In the case of a taxable year be-
ginning in 2021 or 2022—
‘‘(I) clause (ii) shall not apply for purposes
of adjusting premium percentages under this
subparagraph, and
‘‘(II) the following table shall be applied in
lieu of the table contained in clause (i):
‘‘In the case of household
income (expressed as
a percent of poverty line)
within the following income tier:
The initial
premium
percentage
is—
The final
premium
percentage
is—
Up to 150.0 percent ...................................................................................................................................................
0.0
0.0
150.0 percent up to 200.0 percent ...............................................................................................................................
0.0
2.0
200.0 percent up to 250.0 percent ...............................................................................................................................
2.0
4.0
250.0 percent up to 300.0 percent ...............................................................................................................................
4.0
6.0
300.0 percent up to 400.0 percent ...............................................................................................................................
6.0
8.5
400.0 percent up to 500.0 percent ...............................................................................................................................
8.5
8.5’’.
(b)
CONFORMING
AMENDMENT.—Section
36B(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
is amended by adding at the end the fol-
lowing new subparagraph:
‘‘(E) TEMPORARY RULE FOR 2021 AND 2022.—
In the case of a taxable year beginning in
2021 or 2022, subparagraph (A) shall be ap-
plied by substituting ‘500 percent’ for ‘400
percent’.’’.
(c) EFFECTIVE
DATE.—The amendments
made by this section shall apply to taxable
years beginning after December 31, 2020.
Mr. LEE. I ask unanimous consent
for 2 minutes of debate, equally di-
vided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEE. Welfare for the wealthy,
that is what we have here. Expanding
ObamaCare and its premium tax credit
without limit would allow families
making up to $500,000 a year to access
Federal subsidies for health insurance.
My amendment would limit this expan-
sion so that no individual or family
making more than 500 percent of the
Federal poverty line could receive
them.
For a family of four, this cutoff
would happen at around $132,000 a year.
Any expansion of the ObamaCare pre-
mium tax credit must be temporary
and limited.
Look, regardless of how you feel
about ObamaCare, regardless of how
you feel about this expansion of it, I
think we should all be able to agree
that allowing those who are making
hundreds of thousands of dollars a year
to access this form of government as-
sistance, even in a pandemic—perhaps
especially in a pandemic—is inappro-
priate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise in
opposition.
Colleagues, this is what this amend-
ment would do: It would deny premium
assistance to many middle-class fami-
lies, forcing them to pay more for
healthcare—the last thing they need in
the middle of a pandemic.
Now, in 2020, the average cost of
health insurance was $17,244 for a fam-
ily of 4. That is a hefty bill to pay
without assistance for most middle-in-
come families, especially those who
live in higher cost areas. ACA premium
tax credits can mean the difference be-
tween affordable health insurance and
doing without coverage.
I urge colleagues to oppose the Lee
amendment.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 1331
Mr. LEE. I call for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a
sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient sec-
ond.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is
necessarily absent: the Senator from
Alaska (Mr. SULLIVAN).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there
any other Senators in the Chamber de-
siring to vote or change their vote?
The result was announced—yeas 49,
nays 50, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 105 Leg.]
YEAS—49
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS—50
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Luja´n
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING—1
Sullivan
The amendment (No. 1331) was re-
jected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Iowa.
AMENDMENT NO. 902 TO AMENDMENT NO. 891
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I call
up my amendment No. 902 and ask that
it be reported by number.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
clerk will report the amendment by
number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk
read as follows:
The Senator from Iowa [Mr. GRASSLEY]
proposes an amendment numbered 902 to
amendment No. 891.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide funding for payments
for losses of crops due to disasters)
In section 1001(b), strike paragraphs (3) and
(4) and insert the following:
(3) to make grants and loans for small or
midsized food processors or distributors, sea-
food processing facilities and processing ves-
sels, farmers markets, producers, or other
VerDate Sep 11 2014
12:13 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.069
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1259
March 5, 2021
organizations to respond to COVID–19, in-
cluding for measures to protect workers
against COVID–19;
(4) to make loans and grants and provide
other assistance to maintain and improve
food and agricultural supply chain resil-
iency; and
(5) to make payments for necessary ex-
penses related to losses of crops (including
losses due to high winds or derechos) in the
same manner as under title I of the Addi-
tional Supplemental Appropriations for Dis-
aster Relief Act, 2019 (Public Law 116–20; 133
Stat. 871; 133 Stat. 1097; 133 Stat. 2659), for
crop losses in crop year 2020.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous
consent for 2 minutes, equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, you
folks on the other side of the aisle, the
House Agriculture Committee voted
out the bill that Senator WARNOCK suc-
cessfully defended. That same House
Agriculture Committee voted out a bi-
partisan bill that had the support of
Congressman FEENSTRA
of Iowa and
Congresswoman AXNE of Iowa.
It got out of committee, and then
you know what? The Rules Committee
took it out of this bill that came over
here. So I am asking for the reconsider-
ation of that.
This amendment does this: It makes
farmers in Iowa that were hit by the
derecho wind—and that is a wind that
you don’t predict like you do a tor-
nado, and it just crops up, 150 miles
long and 30 miles wide. It destroyed
855,000 acres of corn, laid it flat. And if
it was meteoric, you still couldn’t har-
vest it. So most of it was plowed under.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator’s time has expired.
Mr. GRASSLEY. My time is up al-
ready? I would like to have it consid-
ered, please.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, to
my good friend—we work together on
so many things in agriculture—let me
first say we all saw the devastation
caused by the storm across the Mid-
west last year. That is why we have a
strong crop insurance program in our
bipartisan farm bill that quickly re-
sponds when disasters strike.
Iowa producers have already received
nearly $600 million in crop insurance
indemnities for damages in 2020. If crop
insurance can’t meet the need, the
other opportunity is to consider some-
thing in appropriations.
It should not be here. I urge a ‘‘no’’
vote because it would take away, in
this amendment, critical funds to re-
pair our broken food supply chain; sup-
port our farmers, our food banks, our
frontline workers, and our families in
need.
We know the supply chain is broken.
This provision is going to help fix that,
and I would urge a ‘‘no’’ vote. Don’t
take money away from here, which is
so critically needed for farmers and
ranchers.
Thank you.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 902
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I request a rollcall
vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas
and nays have been requested.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient sec-
ond.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk
called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is
necessarily absent: the Senator from
Alaska (Mr. SULLIVAN).
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER
(Mr.
MERKLEY). Are there any other Sen-
ators in the Chamber desiring to vote
or change their vote?
The result was announced—yeas 45,
nays 54, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 106 Leg.]
YEAS—45
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS—54
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lee
Luja´n
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Paul
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Toomey
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING—1
Sullivan
The amendment (No. 902) was re-
jected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Kansas.
AMENDMENT NO. 1154 TO AMENDMENT NO. 891
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I call up
my amendment No. 1154 and ask that it
be reported by number.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
clerk will report the amendment by
number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk
read as follows:
The Senator from Kansas [Mr. MORAN] pro-
poses an amendment numbered 1154 to
amendment No. 891.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To increase the availability of
amounts for the Veterans Community Care
program of the Department of Veterans Af-
fairs)
On page 278, beginning on line 18, strike
‘‘not more’’ and all that follows through the
period on line 22 and insert the following:
‘‘not less than $5,000,000,000 shall be available
pursuant to section 1703 of title 38, United
States Code, for health care furnished
through the Veterans Community Care pro-
gram in sections 1703(c)(1) and 1703(c)(5) of
such title, and not less than $1,250,000,000
shall be available for construction under
chapter 81 of such title.’’
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent for 2 minutes of de-
bate equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, amend-
ment No. 1154 is on community care
funding within the Department of Vet-
erans Affairs. The VA has estimated
that it needs $13.4 billion for medical
care. This bill provides $14.4 billion in
care, but it currently limits how much
money can be spent within that care
for community care. So we generally
have all the care within the VA, but
sometimes people are referred out to
the community, sometimes there is
telehealth, and sometimes the care ac-
tually occurs in a VA facility.
This would eliminate that cap of $4.4
billion and replace it with spending up
to $5 billion on community care, the
amount that it is expected the VA will
need. Again, this amendment removes
this arbitrary funding barrier, and it
also includes additional dollars for
maintenance at our VA medical cen-
ters.
I retain the balance of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Montana.
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise,
and unfortunately I have to speak
against this amendment from my good
friend JERRY MORAN. But here is the
deal. If you talk to the veterans, they
like VA care, but there are some cases
where community care is very, very
important for them to have, either for
personal reasons or maybe it is because
it is closer to where they live. So com-
munity care is also very, very impor-
tant.
Here is the problem I have with
Ranking Member MORAN’s amendment.
This bill sets it at a cap of $4 billion.
OK. They go over that, they have to
come to us and ask for permission to
go over that. Under this amendment,
they can spend any amount on care, up
to $5 billion and even more if they so
choose, without our permission. I want
JERRY MORAN and myself and others to
be able to say: Hey, what are you
spending that money on? Is it really
being spent to the best advantage? By
the way, that is not only for commu-
nity care; that is for VA care too. So I
would like to leave that as a cap in-
stead of a floor. That is why I oppose
this amendment.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, the MIS-
SION Act allows for the veteran and
the VA to make the decision where the
care should occur.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 1154
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment.
Mr. MORAN. I ask for the yeas and
nays.
VerDate Sep 11 2014
12:13 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.073
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1260
March 5, 2021
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a
sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient sec-
ond.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is
necessarily absent: the Senator from
Alaska (Mr. SULLIVAN).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there
any other Senators in the Chamber de-
siring to vote or change their vote?
The result was announced—yeas 49,
nays 50, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 107 Leg.]
YEAS—49
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS—50
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Luja´n
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING—1
Sullivan
The amendment (No. 1154) was re-
jected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Alaska.
AMENDMENT NO. 1233
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I
call up amendment No. 1233 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
clerk will report the amendment by
number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska [Ms. MUR-
KOWSKI], for herself and Mr. PORTMAN, pro-
poses an amendment numbered 1233 to
amendment No. 891.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To use $800,000,000 of the Elemen-
tary and Secondary School Emergency Re-
lief Fund to identify and provide homeless
children and youth with wrap-around serv-
ices in light of the challenges of COVID–19
and other assistance)
In section 2001(b), strike ‘‘shall make
grants’’ and insert the following: ‘‘shall—
(1) use $800,000,000 for the purposes of iden-
tifying homeless children and youth and pro-
viding homeless children and youth with—
(A) wrap-around services in light of the
challenges of COVID–19; and
(B) assistance needed to enable homeless
children and youth to attend school and par-
ticipate fully in school activities; and
(2) from the remaining amounts, make
grants
Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous
consent for 2 minutes of debate equally
divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President,
this is the amendment we are waiting
for. This is a bipartisan amendment.
This is so bipartisan that we have al-
ready agreed to a voice vote, so listen
carefully. Yes, thank you for that.
Prepandemic, our public schools had
identified about 1.5 million kids who
experience homelessness. That is 2.7
percent of all public school students.
So think about what that means. That
was prepandemic. We know that num-
ber is higher now.
Our amendment is pretty simple
here. We reallocate less than 1 percent
of the funding for the Elementary and
Secondary School Emergency Relief
Fund to ensure that homeless youth
and kids have the resources they need
to get into and succeed in school.
In Alaska and around the country,
the COVID–19 pandemic and economic
downturn have increased the strain on
our families and the need for services.
Too many of the kids have left their
homes, been pushed out of their homes,
sometimes many of them to escape a
dangerous situation. They are dealing
with the challenges of virtual learning.
These kids are worrying about where
to sleep at night, how they are going to
eat dinner, if they are going to be safe.
This amendment ensures that these
kids, no matter the trauma and the
challenges they face outside of the
classroom, will have a safe place to
sleep and access to the wraparound
services that they need. We have a re-
sponsibility to ensure that this vulner-
able population, many of whom will be
subject to predation, violence, or traf-
ficking, is not forgotten or left behind.
I would like to yield to my friend and
my colleague Senator MANCHIN.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from West Virginia.
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I also
proudly rise with my colleague on this
piece of legislation.
There is not one of us in this room
who doesn’t have rising homelessness
for our children in your State, not one
of us. We are all experiencing that
right now. We are 10,000 in the State of
West Virginia alone.
These are children—basically, if you
look at it, it is estimated that there
are one in four homeless children. That
is about 420,000 kids who are poten-
tially unidentified and not even con-
nected with a school system, not even
connected. They are couch surfing. It is
horrible what is going on.
I am so proud. This is such a bipar-
tisan piece of legislation. Less than 1
percent, $800 million, is all we asked
for to use for this, and everyone sup-
ported it. Thank you very much. I ap-
preciate it.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 1233
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time
has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the
amendment.
The amendment (No. 1233) was agreed
to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Montana.
MOTION TO COMMIT WITH INSTRUCTIONS
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I have a
motion to commit at the desk.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
clerk will report the motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk
read as follows:
The Senator from Montana [Mr. DAINES]
moves to commit the bill H.R. 1319 to the
Committee on Foreign Relations with in-
structions.
The motion is as follows:
MOTION TO COMMIT WITH INSTRUCTIONS
Mr. Daines moves to commit the bill H.R.
1319 to the Committee on Foreign Relations
with instructions to report the same back to
the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day
on which the Senate is not in session, with
changes that—
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such com-
mittee; and
(2) would support American jobs and en-
ergy security by directing a portion of the
funds appropriated for Department of State
Operations to be used to review and approve
international cross border permits pursuant
to Executive Order 13337 (69 Fed. Reg. 25299
(May 5, 2004)), including the Keystone XL
pipeline.
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, this mo-
tion to commit will send this bill back
to the Foreign Relations Committee to
include authorization of the Keystone
XL Pipeline in the final bill. In fact, as
we saw earlier this morning, the Key-
stone XL Pipeline has bipartisan sup-
port.
Here is the difference. This morning’s
amendment vote was a 60-vote thresh-
old. This is a simple majority. This is
good for union jobs. It is great for our
rural communities. It reduces emis-
sions.
It is time to get this done. I urge my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support this motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, col-
leagues, this amendment is meant for
one purpose and one purpose only and
that is to kill the American Rescue
Plan, to kill all the work that has
brought us to this moment, to kill the
$1,400 checks to American families that
will help them stay in their homes and
put food on the table, to kill the ex-
tended unemployment checks that mil-
lions are depending upon us not to let
lapse next week, to kill the ability to
put more vaccine in the arms of our
families, to kill the desperate aid that
small businesses need to stay alive, to
kill the chance to lift 50 percent of all
of those children in poverty into the
sunlit plains of opportunity.
The Senate has already expressed
itself today on Keystone. The com-
mittee rule could not accommodate
this referral in the timeframe offered.
Enough is enough. It is time to defeat
this amendment and pass the American
Rescue Plan.
VerDate Sep 11 2014
06:53 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\G05MR6.093
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1261
March 5, 2021
I urge my colleagues to vote against
it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Montana.
Mr. DAINES. The only thing that has
been killed is the Keystone XL Pipe-
line by President Biden. This resur-
rects the Keystone XL Pipeline.
The union jobs are needed. The rural
communities need these tax revenues
for their schools. This is what we want
to do. We had bipartisan support for
that this morning. Let’s do it again. I
urge passage of this motion to commit.
VOTE ON MOTION TO COMMIT
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
question is on agreeing to the motion.
Mr. BARRASSO. I ask for the yeas
and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a
sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient sec-
ond.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk
proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is
necessarily absent: The Senator from
Alaska (Mr. SULLIVAN).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there
any other Senators in the Chamber de-
siring to vote?
The result was announced—yeas 49,
nays 50, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 108 Leg.]
YEAS—49
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS—50
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Luja´n
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING—1
Sullivan
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Virginia.
AMENDMENT NO. 1391 TO AMENDMENT NO. 891
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I call
up amendment No. 1391 and ask that it
be reported by number.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
clerk will report the amendment by
number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Virginia [Mr. WARNER],
for himself and Mr. RUBIO, propose an
amendment numbered 1391 to amendment
No. 891.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To extend the authority for Fed-
eral contractors to reimburse employees
unable to perform work due to the COVID–
19 pandemic from March 31, 2021, to Sep-
tember 30, 2021)
At the end of title IV, add the following:
SEC. 4015. EXTENSION OF REIMBURSEMENT AU-
THORITY FOR FEDERAL CONTRAC-
TORS.
Section 3610 of the CARES Act (Public Law
116–136; 134 Stat. 414) is amended by striking
‘‘September 30, 2020’’ and inserting ‘‘Sep-
tember 30, 2021’’.
Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous con-
sent that there be 2 minutes equally di-
vided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. My colleagues, I think
this may be the last amendment. It is
broadly bipartisan. This amendment
simply continues provisions that were
included in the earlier COVID relief
packages.
It was called section 3610, and it en-
sures that our classified government
contracting
workforce—a
workforce
that oftentimes takes many years to
receive top-level security clearance—
continues to be compensated through
the balance of the fiscal year. Failure
to do this would lose this workforce to
private sector and other competitors
and seriously put our national security
at risk.
I point out this is an independent bill
of this nature that cleared unani-
mously earlier this week on this side of
the aisle.
I yield the balance of my time to
Senator RUBIO.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Florida.
Mr. RUBIO. This is important to the
intelligence community. I ask that no
one be a fly in the ointment here.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Kentucky.
Mr.
PAUL.
Mr.
President,
this
amendment is an insult to every cash-
ier at Walmart or bagger at Kroger
who comes to work every day in per-
son. This amendment is an insult to
every meatpacker or waiter or waitress
who comes to work every day in per-
son.
Supporters of this amendment care
more about government contractors
making $100,000 a year than they do
about the people who serve your food.
If food servers and grocery store clerks
can go to work in person, I think gov-
ernment contractors can, too.
I urge a ‘‘no’’ vote.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 1391
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask
for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a
sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is
necessarily absent: the Senator from
Alaska (Mr. SULLIVAN).
The result was announced—yeas 93,
nays 6, as follows:
[Rolllcall Vote No. 109 Leg.]
YEAS—93
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Kaine
Kelly
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Luja´n
Manchin
Markey
Marshall
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NAYS—6
Braun
Johnson
Lee
Lummis
Paul
Tuberville
NOT VOTING—1
Sullivan
The amendment (No. 1391) was agreed
to.
PRAYER
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Pur-
suant to rule IV, paragraph 2, the hour
of 12 noon having arrived, the Senate
having been in continuous session since
yesterday, the Senate will suspend for
a prayer from the Senate Chaplain.
The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, of-
fered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
Eternal God, who guides us through
life’s marathons, we praise Your power-
ful Name. Have compassion on us and
answer our prayers. Lord, You control
our destiny. You have promised to do
for us all that You have planned.
May our lawmakers confidently face
the future, believing that their times
are in Your hand. Guided by Your lov-
ing providence, may our Senators
refuse to depart from the path on
which You have placed them. Grant
that Your blessings will rest on Your
people now and always.
We pray in Your great Name. Amen.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
majority leader.
AMENDMENT NO. 1398 TO AMENDMENT NO. 891
(Purpose: To improve the bill)
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am
pleased that we have finally come to
this point. This amendment makes a
series of conforming and technical
changes. It strikes provisions that the
VerDate Sep 11 2014
09:12 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\G05MR6.099
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1262
March 5, 2021
Parliamentarian advised were extra-
neous. It makes a series of perfecting
changes on behalf of reconciled com-
mittees while preserving the will that
the Senate has worked over this long
day.
I call up my amendment No. 1398 and
ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New York [Mr. SCHU-
MER], proposes an amendment numbered 1398
to amendment No. 891.
(The amendment is printed in today’s
RECORD under ‘‘Text of Amendments.’’)
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent for 2 minutes of de-
bate, equally divided.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, this
amendment comes after about 24 hours
of discussion here as a surprise because
we are just looking at it for the first
time.
But there are two things that are
very disturbing about it. One is it com-
pletely distorts workers’ compensation
for Federal employees, which has sub-
stantially increased costs to taxpayers,
of course. It also sets a terrible prece-
dent in terms of how workers’ comp
works.
Workers’ comp, of course, is for peo-
ple who are injured on the job, and you
have to show you have been injured on
the job. That is how it works. It is a
basic principle for workers’ comp.
In this case, this amendment changes
the rules to require compensation for
COVID–19 lost wages no matter how
risky the Federal employees’ behavior
might have been outside of the work-
place. In other words, no questions
asked. If you are a Federal worker and
you get COVID–19, you get this.
That is not the way workers’ comp
works. So this is a big change in work-
force policy and establishes, again, a
dangerous new precedent in workers’
comp policy, generally.
It also creates a wrong incentive—
think about it—for the employee and
for the employer. So we oppose this.
For Federal workers, the statute is
very explicit. It says: Federal workers’
compensation ‘‘for the disability or
death . . . resulting from personal in-
jury sustained while in the perform-
ance of . . . duty.’’
Second—I ask unanimous consent for
an additional 30 seconds.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PORTMAN. Second, we are just
finding out there is another $10 billion
added through this amendment to
State and local governments. I don’t
know if everybody was listening when
Senator ROMNEY gave his explanation
during his amendment of what is hap-
pening with regard to our States, but a
lot of our States don’t need the money.
Some do and some don’t. And there is
no requirements here that if you have
got a surplus or if you otherwise don’t
have COVID–19 expenses that you don’t
get the money, and yet we are adding
another $10 billion to that pot through
this one amendment. So, of course, we
object to this amendment, and there
may be other stuff in there too. I hope
everybody gets a chance to look at it
because we have not had a chance to do
so yet.
But I hope we do not create the
wrong incentives. I hope we do not cre-
ate this situation where we are sub-
stantially increasing costs to the tax-
payer through changes in workers’
comp and adding another $10 billion to
a category where it has been shown, in
many cases, not to be needed.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
Senator’s time has expired.
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise
in support of the technical amendment
and in very strong support of the over-
all bill, the American Rescue Plan.
Let’s be clear. This bill that we are
completing now is the most significant
piece of legislation that benefits work-
ing people in the modern history of
this country. Not only are we going to
go forward to crush this pandemic, to
rebuild our economy, and to get our
kids back to school safely, we are going
to do something even more important.
We are going to help restore faith in
the U.S. Government among the people
of our country. The people are hurting,
and today we responded.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. All
time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the
amendment.
The amendment (No. 1398) was agreed
to.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 891, AS AMENDED
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
question is on agreeing to amendment
No. 891, as amended.
The amendment (No. 891), as amend-
ed, was agreed to.
The amendments were ordered to be
engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill was read the third time.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I
rise today in support of provisions in
this bill that support socially disadvan-
taged farmers and ranchers.
One-fifth of all rural Americans—10.5
million people—are people of color. For
Black, Native American, Hispanic and
Latinx, and Asian American farm fami-
lies, their experience in the agricul-
tural economy is markedly different
than their White counterparts. This
has been particularly true when it
comes to the interactions between
farmers of color and the U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture. This history of
longstanding systemic discrimination
against farmers of color is well docu-
mented. Congress has long recognized
this discrimination against farmers of
color by USDA and, through various
mechanisms, has sought to remedy and
alleviate systemic barriers that pre-
vented socially disadvantaged farmers
and ranchers from fully participating
in the American farm economy. How-
ever, those efforts have fallen short,
and Congress is now providing addi-
tional assistance.
Various factors have contributed to
the historic loss of farmland owned and
operated by farmers of color. According
to the Economic Research Service, a
century ago, Black farmers owned
more than 15 million acres of agricul-
tural land and operated almost 1 mil-
lion farms. A century later, data from
the 2017 Census of Agriculture indi-
cated that Black farmers own fewer
than 2.9 million acres, less than a fifth
of what they owned in 1920. A Tufts
University
analysis
estimated
the
value of that lost farmland at more
than $120 billion in lost opportunities.
According to a 2019 article in the At-
lantic, ‘‘The Great Land Robbery,’’ in
the recovery from the Great Depres-
sion, the New Deal Farm Security Ad-
ministration at the U.S. Department of
Agriculture denied loans to poor Black
farmers that were available to their
White neighbors.
In 1830, the Indian Removal Act for-
malized Native American removal as a
federally sanctioned practice, remov-
ing tens of thousands of original inhab-
itants from their traditional lands
within existing State borders to land
west of the Mississippi River. The re-
moval disrupted land ownership and
tenure and reoriented traditional farm
production techniques. The Homestead
Act, enacted in 1862, allowed settlers to
claim 160 acres of surveyed government
land. Records in the National Archive
show that land had been inhabited by
Native Americans, but Native Ameri-
cans were not eligible to participate in
the program.
The California Alien Land Laws of
1913 and 1920 denied Asian immigrants
the opportunity to purchase farmland
or enter into long-term lease contracts
until a 1952 court decision held the law
to be unconstitutional. During World
War II, tens of thousands of first and
second generation Japanese American
families were forced off their farms and
into internment camps. For perspec-
tive, an estimated half of Japanese
Americans living in California at the
time were involved in agriculture ac-
cording to a February 12, 2021, article
in ‘‘Civil Eats.’’
Hispanic farmers have faced a par-
ticularly difficult time with discrimi-
nation at the U.S. Department of Agri-
culture because demographic informa-
tion about Hispanic farmers wasn’t
even collected separately by the Census
of Agriculture until 1974. According to
USDA, the Census of Agriculture start-
ed collecting demographic information
about minority farmers in 1900 and
published the first record of minority
farmers in 1920 but neglected to include
Hispanic farmers. This lack of histor-
ical documentation has resulted in
many Hispanic farmers being left out
of critical farm programs and has made
it difficult to resolve issues of discrimi-
nation and civil rights. A 2001 article in
the Natural Resources Journal entitled
‘‘Livestock Racism and Traditional
VerDate Sep 11 2014
06:53 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\G05MR6.113
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1263
March 5, 2021
Culture in Northern New Mexico’’
noted additional struggles Hispanic
farmers and ranchers have had with
grazing issues and Federal land man-
agement, including USDA programs.
American institutions both public
and private have thoroughly docu-
mented this discrimination. Numerous
reports issued since the Civil Rights
Era in the 1960s have shown a con-
sistent pattern of discrimination, in
particular by USDA, against Black, In-
digenous, and other farmers of color.
Much of the following history was laid
out by House Agriculture Committee
Chairman DAVID SCOTT during his floor
statement in support of the American
Rescue Plan provisions on February 26,
2021.
A 1965 report by the United States Com-
mission on Civil Rights found that Federal,
state,
and
local
officials
discriminated
against Black farmers in agricultural pro-
grams and that this discrimination actively
contributed to the decline in the Black own-
ership of farmland.
In 1968, a follow up report from the
United States Commission on Civil
Rights found that Black farmers con-
tinued to face discrimination when
seeking farm loans and other forms of
assistance.
In 1970, the United States Commission on
Civil Rights again found that discrimination
continued in USDA program administration.
The 1970 report indicated that prior to 1968,
no Black farmer had ever been elected to any
former Agricultural Stabilization and Con-
servation Service committee at the county
level in the South. In 1970, two out of more
than 4,100 committee members in the South
were Black farmers, even though there were
58 counties in the South, where Black farm-
ers comprised a majority of the farm oper-
ator population. It is hard to view as coinci-
dence then that half a million Black-owned
farms in the U.S. failed between 1950 and
1975.
In 1982, the United States Commission on
Civil Rights issued another report on the
rapid decline of Black-operated farms. The
report noted that between 1970 and 1980, the
Black farm population declined 65 percent,
compared to a 22 percent decline in the white
farm population. The report also documented
numerous discrimination complaints filed
against USDA field offices regarding the ad-
ministration of farm loan programs and
noted that for many of these complaints,
USDA’s Office of Equal Opportunity inves-
tigated and found equal opportunity viola-
tions at those field offices. The report con-
cluded that racial discrimination was con-
tinuing within the USDA, at USDA head-
quarters, and in the network of field offices
that implement USDA programs. Instead of
responding to recommendations of the re-
port, President Ronald Reagan and Agri-
culture Secretary John Block closed the Of-
fice in 1983, and it would remain closed for
another 13 years until reopened under Presi-
dent Bill Clinton and Secretary Dan Glick-
man in 1996.
A 1995 U.S. Government Accountability Of-
fice (GAO) report found that socially dis-
advantaged
producers
were
significantly
underrepresented on the county and commu-
nity committees of the former Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service. Spe-
cifically, the report found that while minor-
ity producers accounted for nearly 5 percent
of the producers eligible to vote for com-
mittee members, minority producers only
represented 2.1 percent of county committee
members in the United States.
In 1997, the USDA formed a Civil Rights
Action Team to hold nationwide listening
sessions to hear from socially disadvantaged
and minority farmers. A report published
after the listening sessions documented
Black, Hispanic, Asian-American, and Amer-
ican Indian farmers who told stories of
USDA hurting minority farmers more than
helping them. Minority farmers described
how their discrimination complaints were
caught in the backlog of appeals or if suc-
cessfully appealed, were given findings of
discrimination that were not enforced. The
report acknowledged that discrimination in
USDA program delivery continued to exist
to a large degree unabated.
Also in 1997, the USDA Office of the Inspec-
tor General (OIG) issued a report to the
USDA Secretary that noted ‘‘a climate of
disorder within the civil rights staff at the
Farm Service Agency.’’ It was difficult for
the OIG to even determine the number and
status of civil rights complaints at the agen-
cy and department because of that climate.
A 1998 OIG report noted the OIG had issued
44 recent recommendations to USDA to im-
prove its civil rights complaints and improve
relations with minority farmers and stated
that several of those recommendations had
yet to be implemented.
In 1998, the USDA National Commission on
Small Farms further described and docu-
mented the longstanding discrimination of
USDA towards socially disadvantaged pro-
ducers. And, it observed that ‘‘discrimina-
tion has been a contributing factor in the de-
cline of Black farmers over the last several
decades.’’ The Commission’s report also
notes the ‘‘history of under-allocation of re-
sources to institutions that have served mi-
nority farmers,’’ the ‘‘disgraceful’’ ‘‘failure
to elect minority farmers to positions on
Farm Service Agency County Committees,’’
and more.
During the period between 1997 and 2000,
Black farmers, Native American farmers,
and Hispanic farmers filed lawsuits alleging
USDA discriminated against them on the
basis of race in processing their farm pro-
gram applications and that USDA failed to
investigate their complaints of discrimina-
tion.
In 2001, a report by the U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights documented the continued dis-
criminatory lending practices against minor-
ity farmers. The Commission found that
Black farmers waited four times longer than
white farmers for USDA farm loans. The
Commission recommended that USDA re-
solve the backlog of civil rights complaints
and document and alleviate discriminatory
lending practices. However, USDA continued
to struggle with resolving its backlog of civil
rights complaints.
In a 2005 audit the OIG stated in a report,
‘‘it took 12 days longer to complete minority
applications, delinquencies were higher for
minority borrowers than non-minority bor-
rowers, and minority borrowers were reluc-
tant to enter into Farm Service Agency of-
fices to apply for loans.’’
In 2008, GAO reported that USDA’s difficul-
ties in resolving discrimination complaints
persisted and that the USDA had not
achieved its goal of preventing future back-
logs of discrimination complaints.
The 2010 Jackson Lewis report provided
over 200 recommendations to USDA on civil
rights issues, including recommendations re-
lated to civil rights issues in USDA’s farm
lending program and minority farmer access
to other USDA programs.
Recent studies and reports continue to
document the challenges and barriers faced
by farmers of color due to race or ethnic dis-
crimination or the legacy of such discrimi-
nation. A September 20, 2017, study in the
Agriculture and Human Values journal de-
scribed the challenges faced by Latinx farm-
ers due to failure of agricultural agencies to
engage in appropriate outreach or account
for language barriers.
Most recently in 2019, a GAO report ob-
served that despite specific preference, so-
cially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers
had proportionately fewer Farm Service
Agency direct and guaranteed loans than
non-socially
disadvantaged
farmers
and
ranchers. This report found that farmers and
ranchers of color continued to face more dif-
ficulties in obtaining farm loans and high-
lighted the historic, systemic discrimination
against such farmers.
The record of discriminatory conduct
at USDA, as well as the library of stud-
ies and reports chronicling that dis-
crimination is indeed long and details
many of the barriers between farmers
of color and the Department that pre-
vent these farm families from access-
ing the same programs and experi-
encing the same success as their White
counterparts.
To address long and well-documented
history of systemic discrimination,
successive Congresses have worked in a
bicameral and bipartisan manner over
the years to authorize and oversee im-
plementation of programs at USDA.
During the agriculture credit crisis
in the 1980s, Congress addressed this
well-documented systemic discrimina-
tion at USDA and began to target as-
sistance at the U.S. Department of Ag-
riculture to ‘‘socially disadvantaged
farmers or ranchers,’’ a farmer or
rancher who has been subjected to ra-
cial or ethnic prejudice because of
their identity as a member of a socially
disadvantaged group without regard to
their individual qualities. Congress
provided support that targeted and
prioritizes USDA resources to ensure
farmers of color have the same oppor-
tunities as White farmers. Today, this
support has grown to include a broad
range of set-asides, special programs,
and incentives for socially disadvan-
taged farmers.
In 1987, Congress passed the Agricul-
tural Credit Act of 1987. Section 617 of
this bill required the USDA to estab-
lish annual target participation rates,
on a countywide basis, that would en-
sure that members of socially dis-
advantaged groups receive direct or
guaranteed farm ownership loans. Con-
gress amended this requirement in 1996
to ensure that USDA’s implementation
was consistent with the holding of the
Supreme Court in Adarand Construc-
tors, Inc. v. Federico Pena, Secretary
of Transportation, 515 U.S. 200 (1995),
which held that race-based actions by
the government is within constitu-
tional constraints when it is necessary
to further a compelling interest such
as the ‘‘unhappy persistence of both
the practice and lingering effects of ra-
cial discrimination against minority
groups.’’
In the 1990 farm bill, Congress took
additional steps to recognize socially
disadvantaged farmers and ranchers
and created a landmark new program,
the 2501 Socially Disadvantaged Farm-
er and Rancher Outreach program,
VerDate Sep 11 2014
09:12 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.081
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1264
March 5, 2021
which is designed specifically to im-
prove outreach and technical assist-
ance to farmers of color.
In section 741 of the Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Ad-
ministration, and Related Agencies Ap-
propriations Act, 1999 (7 U.S.C. 2279
note), Congress took the extraordinary
step of suspending the application of
the then-2-year statute of limitations
regarding Equal Credit Opportunity
Claims. This allowed claimants in dis-
crimination suits against USDA, in-
cluding Black farmers in Pigford v.
Glickman and Native American farm-
ers in Keepseagle v. Veneman, to cite
at times decades-old instances of dis-
crimination to qualify for payments
under the respective settlements.
In the 2002 farm bill, Congress cre-
ated the Office of the Assistant Sec-
retary for Civil Rights, with statutory
authority to ensure compliance of all
civil rights laws and incorporation of
civil rights activities into the strategic
planning of the U.S. Department of Ag-
riculture.
A sense of Congress in the 2008 farm
bill stated that claims and class ac-
tions brought against USDA by so-
cially disadvantaged farmers or ranch-
ers, including Native American, His-
panic, and female farmers or ranchers,
on racial, ethnic, or gender discrimina-
tion in farm program participation
should be quickly and fairly resolved.
Congress reacted to USDA’s discrimi-
natory history and provided $100 mil-
lion to help settle the Pigford discrimi-
nation claims and established a mora-
torium on acceleration and foreclosure
proceedings by USDA against any
farmer or rancher who filed a discrimi-
nation
claim.
To
further
support
Pigford, Congress provided an addi-
tional $1.15 billion in funding in the
Claims Resolution Act of 2010 to settle
the additional claims in the Pigford II
class action lawsuit.
The 2014 farm bill created a perma-
nent Office of Tribal Relations under
the Secretary of Agriculture.
Because of the continuing and sys-
temic nature of these concerns, the
2018 farm bill permanently funded the
section 2501 Socially Disadvantaged
Farmer and Rancher Outreach Pro-
gram and provided new support to ad-
dress longstanding heirs property and
farmland ownership issues. Addition-
ally, because Congress recognized that
discrimination is both pervasive and
ongoing, the 2018 farm bill also re-
quired the production of several re-
ports by GAO on how both latent and
overt discrimination manifest in agri-
culture programs, including a report
specifically on bias-related to loan
credit issues for farmers of color within
the socially disadvantaged designation
to inform Congress for future legisla-
tion. As important as Congress’s ac-
tions have been, the remedies are still
not enough as there is still ongoing and
pervasive discrimination leaving so-
cially disadvantaged farmers signifi-
cantly behind.
Settlements
resulting
from
the
Pigford and Keepseagle lawsuits, along
with Garcia v. Vilsack that focused on
discrimination against Hispanic and
Latinx farmers, have not provided the
relief necessary for these farmers of
color to participate fully in the Amer-
ican agricultural economy. For exam-
ple, the Los Angeles Times reported in
2012 that payments made to Black
farmers under the Pigford settlements
were significantly eroded by State
taxes, as well as tax debt related to for-
given USDA farm loans. In Keepseagle
only a very small percentage of poten-
tial claimants even applied. This was
largely due to the older age of many
potential claimants and because they
were difficult to contact. Claims adju-
dication simply was not effective and
did not adequately remedy the dis-
crimination.
Specifically in the area of farm lend-
ing, as recently as 2 years ago, two
GAO reports showed that socially dis-
advantaged farmers and ranchers have
more difficulty getting loans and cred-
it from USDA. These loans can help be-
ginning farmers break into the busi-
ness and help existing farmers continue
running their operations. One of the
GAO reports focused on the specific
barriers of Tribal farmers accessing
credit and the other GAO report high-
lights the systemic discrimination that
has hindered farmers of color for gen-
erations continue today.
Similarly, a 2019 report from the Na-
tional Young Farmers Coalition on the
structural challenges facing farmers in
California shows that while White re-
spondents reported that they had no
gaps in access to resources like busi-
ness entity choice, credit lending, land
access and lease development, mar-
keting, policy advocacy, and regu-
latory navigation; non-White respond-
ents reported significantly impaired
access to those same resources, and Na-
tive American respondents reported re-
ceiving none of the listed resources.
The Farm Bill Law Enterprise re-
ported that 99.4 percent of USDA’s
Market
Facilitation
Program
pay-
ments went to White farmers. Simi-
larly,
the
Environmental
Working
Group reported that nonminority farm-
ers received nearly 97 percent of the
$9.2 billion provided through USDA’s
first Coronavirus Food Assistance Pro-
gram in 2020.
The
diminished
relationships
be-
tween socially disadvantaged farmers
and USDA as a result of both latent
barriers and historic discrimination
limits access of socially disadvantaged
farmers to USDA’s program, making it
more difficult or impossible for so-
cially disadvantaged farmers to par-
ticipate in USDA programs. The statis-
tics continue to bear this out: 73 per-
cent of Black farmers, when surveyed
by the Federation of Southern Co-
operatives/Land Assistance Fund, an
association of Black farmers and land-
owners, were not even aware of the ag-
ricultural
aid
provisions
of
the
coronavirus rescue programs at USDA.
Congress recognizes the longstanding
systemic discrimination against farm-
ers of color by USDA. Despite multiple
congressional efforts to address this
discrimination, these efforts, taken
mostly on a case-by case basis, have
still not remedied the discrimination.
Congress is now continuing to address
this
longstanding,
widespread,
and
well-documented
discrimination
against socially disadvantaged farmers
and ranchers, including systemic bar-
riers preventing socially disadvantaged
farmers and ranchers from fully par-
ticipating in the American farm econ-
omy, in recognition that our mostly
case-by-case efforts thus far have not
done enough. Because of discrimination
in USDA’s programs, particularly loan
programs, at USDA, socially disadvan-
taged farmers and ranchers are less
likely to have the same access to ade-
quate loan servicing and face other
barriers in USDA programs, as their
White counterparts. As a result, their
loans are more likely to be in default
or in a precarious situation.
Sections 1005 and 1006 of the Amer-
ican Rescue Plan contain narrowly tai-
lored provisions to address the dis-
crimination in credit and other pro-
grams at USDA, the effects of which
have been magnified by the pandemic,
as well as programmatic changes to
support socially disadvantaged farmers
and ranchers. The sections provide
funding
for
payments
on
existing
USDA direct and guaranteed loans held
by socially disadvantaged farmers and
ranchers. In addition, this legislation
is providing tools and funding for pro-
grams and systemic reforms at USDA
to undo the systemic racism that has
prevented socially disadvantaged farm-
ers and ranchers from getting access to
critical agricultural credit.
The
public
recognition
of
long-
standing discrimination against so-
cially
disadvantaged
farmers
and
ranchers and the accompanying broad
support for this work along the food
and agriculture supply chain is over-
whelming and represents every corner
of American food and farming. More
than 600 farm, food, and rural organiza-
tions, businesses, equity advocates, and
legal scholars have sent letters, docu-
ments and issued statements of sup-
port. Notably, each of these letters in-
cludes
both
acknowledgment
that
these ongoing barriers exist, and a
great many cite staggering examples of
the disadvantages many farmers of
color experience, as well as why the
provisions contained in sections 1005
and 1006 of the American Rescue Plan
are an appropriate remedy for these
important producers.
While earlier versions of this legisla-
tion included specific references to the
longstanding discrimination within the
Department of Agriculture, as noted in
Chairman Scott’s February 26, 2021,
statement for the record, the man-
ager’s amendment in the House Rules
Committee was purely to ensure that
these sections would meet the require-
ments of section 313 of the Congres-
sional Budget Act of 1974 for consider-
ation in the U.S. Senate. Congress in-
cludes these measures to address the
VerDate Sep 11 2014
06:53 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.083
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1265
March 5, 2021
longstanding and widespread systemic
discrimination within the USDA, par-
ticularly within the loan programs,
against socially disadvantaged farmers
and ranchers.
Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I rise
today to speak in support of sections
1005 and 1006 of the American Rescue
Plan Act.
These sections provide loan forgive-
ness and other critical assistance to
Black farmers and to other farmers
who are members of racial or ethnic
groups that have for many decades suf-
fered discrimination by the U.S. De-
partment of Agriculture.
According to USDA data, in 1920 in
the United States there were nearly 1
million Black farmers, and they rep-
resented nearly 15 percent of all farm-
ers in our country. Today, as a direct
result of a brutal legacy of discrimina-
tion by a Federal agency, there are less
than 50,000 Black farmers left and they
represent less than 2 percent of all
farmers in our country.
It is estimated that during the past
century, Black farmers have lost be-
tween 15 and 20 million acres of land
and the hundreds of billions of dollars
of generational wealth that land rep-
resented.
The cause of the loss of so much
Black-owned farmland and the loss of
so many Black farmers is not a mys-
tery. Federal court decisions, the U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights, and the
USDA itself have all told us that a pri-
mary cause of that loss was long stand-
ing, pervasive discrimination by the
USDA.
In his opinion in Pigford v. Glick-
man, Federal District Court Judge
Paul Friedman stated clearly that
USDA and their county commissioners
discriminated against Black farmers
when they denied, delayed, or other-
wise frustrated the applications of
those Black farmers for farm loans and
other credit and benefit programs and
that USDA and the county commis-
sioners bear much of the responsibility
for the dramatic decline in Black farms
and Black-owned farmland.
Judge Friedman wrote his decision in
1999, but the systemic discrimination
by USDA against Black farmers and
other farmers of color by USDA was
well documented beginning many dec-
ades earlier.
A 1965 report by the U.S. Commission
on Civil Rights found that Federal,
State, and local officials discriminated
against Black farmers in agricultural
programs and that this discrimination
actively contributed to the decline in
the Black ownership of farmland.
In 1968, a follow-up report from the
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights found
that Black farmers continued to face
discrimination
when
seeking
farm
loans and other forms of assistance.
In 1970, the U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights again found that discrimination
continued in USDA program adminis-
tration. The 1970 report stated that
only 2 out of more than 4,100 USDA
county committee members in the
South were Black farmers, even though
there were 58 counties in the South
where Black farmers comprised a ma-
jority of the farm operator population.
In 1982, the U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights issued another report entitled
‘‘The Decline of Black Farming in
America’’ which found that the pre-
vailing practice at the USDA was to
follow local patterns of racial segrega-
tion and discrimination when providing
assistance and that longstanding dis-
crimination in USDA programs con-
tributed to the decline in farms oper-
ated by African-American farmers.
In 1997, the USDA formed a Civil
Rights Action Team to hold nationwide
listening sessions to hear from socially
disadvantaged and minority farmers. A
report published after the listening ses-
sions
documented
Black,
Hispanic,
Asian-American, and indigenous farm-
ers who told story after story of USDA
hurting minority farmers more than
helping them. This 1997 report ac-
knowledged
that
discrimination
in
USDA program delivery continued to
exist to a large degree unabated and
recommended 92 changes to address ra-
cial bias at the USDA.
In 1998, the USDA National Commis-
sion on Small Farms further described
and documented the longstanding dis-
crimination of USDA towards socially
disadvantaged farmers. USDA stated
that ‘‘discrimination has been a con-
tributing factor in the decline of Black
farmers over the last several decades.’’
The Commission’s report also notes the
‘‘history of under-allocation of re-
sources
to
institutions
that
have
served minority farmers.’’
During the period between 1997 and
2000, Black farmers, Native American
farmers, and Latino/Latina farmers
filed lawsuits alleging USDA discrimi-
nated against them on the basis of race
in processing their farm program appli-
cations and that USDA failed to inves-
tigate their complaints of discrimina-
tion. But settlements resulting from
these lawsuits did not provide the re-
lief necessary for these farmers of color
to participate fully in the American
agricultural economy.
On March 2, 2021, a group of full-time
professors who work in agricultural,
food law, and related subjects wrote in
a letter to Majority Leader SCHUMER
and Minority Leader MCCONNELL that
these court settlements were severely
flawed because of the adversarial na-
ture of the settlement process and be-
cause they attempted to define the
problem in terms of discrete incidents
of individualized discrimination with-
out correcting the systemic problems
that led to that discrimination. These
professors noted that while some farm-
ers received a payment, many re-
mained indebted to the USDA, and the
system itself remained broken.
Mr. President, I would ask unani-
mous consent to have this letter print-
ed in the RECORD
following my re-
marks.
In 2001, we then have a report by the
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights docu-
menting the continued discriminatory
lending
practices
against
minority
farmers. The Commission found that
Black farmers waited four times longer
than White farmers for USDA farm
loans. The Commission recommended
that USDA resolve the backlog of civil
rights complaints and document and
alleviate discriminatory lending prac-
tices.
However, USDA continued to strug-
gle with resolving its backlog of civil
rights complaints. In 2008, the Govern-
ment Accountability Office, or GAO,
reported that USDA’s difficulties in re-
solving discrimination complaints per-
sisted and that the USDA had not
achieved its goal of preventing future
backlogs of discrimination complaints.
In 2019, a GAO report observed that
socially disadvantaged farmers and
ranchers had proportionately less agri-
cultural credit than non-socially dis-
advantaged farmers and ranchers. This
report found that farmers and ranchers
of color continued to face more dif-
ficulties in obtaining farm loans and
highlighted the historic, systemic dis-
crimination against such farmers.
So now let’s look at where we are
today.
USDA spends billions of dollars each
year to provide much needed support to
American farmers. The Market Facili-
tation Program and Coronavirus Food
Assistance Program are recent USDA
programs designed to bolster the farm
economy. In both programs the major-
ity of funds went to nonminority farm-
ers.
For
example,
the
Environmental
Working Group reported that non-
minority farmers received nearly 97
percent of the $9.2 billion provided by
the USDA’s Coronavirus Food Assist-
ance Program. Additionally, the Farm
Bill Law Enterprise reported that 99
percent of market facilitation pay-
ments went to nonminority farmers.
Just last week the USDA stated
‘‘there is a lot more that needs to be
done and accomplished at USDA to
make programming equitable and to
root out decades of systemic discrimi-
nation that disproportionately affects
Black, Hispanic, Indigenous and other
farmers of color.’’
Early this week Secretary of Agri-
culture Tom Vilsack recognized the re-
sidual harm that decades of discrimi-
nation have caused to farmers of color
when he stated: ‘‘Here’s the challenge:
We’re not only dealing with the spe-
cific issues of discrimination, but we’re
dealing with the cumulative effect of
that discrimination over a period of
time.’’
And what is the cumulative effect of
that discrimination over time? The cu-
mulative effect of all the past systemic
racism and discrimination is that
Black farmers and other farmers of
color were in a far more precarious fi-
nancial situation before the COVID–19
pandemic hit us, and so many of them
have simply not been able to weather
the storm.
VerDate Sep 11 2014
06:53 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.084
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1266
March 5, 2021
Approximately 13 percent of bor-
rowers with FSA direct loans are cur-
rently delinquent on their loans and
could lose their farms to foreclosure.
But for Black farmers, 35 percent of
those with FSA direct loans are in de-
fault and could soon lose their farms.
And it is not only Black farmers—ap-
proximately 24 percent of the FSA di-
rect loans to Hispanic, Asian-Amer-
ican, and Indigenous farmers are cur-
rently in default. What this means is
that we are facing yet another wave of
foreclosures and potential land loss by
farmers of color. But the debt forgive-
ness and other assistance in the bill we
are considering today can prevent this
and can begin to turn the page on this
shameful history of discrimination by
the Federal Government.
I want to close by giving you one spe-
cific example of the discrimination I
have been talking about.
Eddie and Dorothy Wise were resi-
dents of Whitakers, NC. A retired
Green Beret, Mr. Wise’s dream was to
own a pig farm, and so in 1991, Mr. Wise
purchased land and started to raise
swine. But then came the discrimina-
tory actions by USDA: failure to han-
dle his loan applications in a timely
manner, denial of loan applications,
change of interest rates and escalation
of monthly notes, and other misdeeds.
In 1997, a loan for improvements to
the property was approved, but the re-
ceipt of the funds was delayed for 7
months, and his 400 pigs froze to death,
destroying his operation. Later, he dis-
covered that his original plan had been
approved at the State level but that his
loan officer never told him.
In the early morning hours of Janu-
ary 20, 2016, at least 14 Federal mar-
shals descended with guns drawn on
Eddie’s farm and forcibly escorted him
and his wife, who was still in bed and
suffering from a debilitating medical
condition, out of their home and off
their property. Forcibly evicted from
their home and their land and forced to
live in a cheap motel, Dorothy Wise
died shortly thereafter. The 106-acre
farm was sold to an adjacent White
farmer for the miniscule price of
$260,000, and Eddie Wise had lost the
one thing that he had always wanted—
to own a pig farm.
This story is just one example of the
discrimination that literally destroyed
the lives of hundreds of thousands of
Black farmers and their families over
the last century.
Today we have the opportunity to
take a step towards justice for those
families.
I urge all of my colleagues to support
sections 1005 and 1006 of the bill before
the Senate today.
There being no objection, the mate-
rial was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
MARCH 2, 2021.
Re
Support
for
Socially
Disadvantaged
Farmers.
Hon. CHARLES SCHUMER,
Senate Majority Leader,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. MITCH MCCONNELL,
Senate Minority Leader
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. NANCY PELOSI,
House Majority Leader,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. KEVIN MCCARTHY,
House Minority Leader,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
DEAR LEADER SCHUMER, MINORITY LEADER
MCCONNELL, SPEAKER PELOSI, AND MINORITY
LEADER MCCARTHY: We write in support of
efforts to level the playing field for socially
disadvantaged American farmers as set forth
in §§ 1005 and 1006 of the House-passed Amer-
ican Rescue Plan. If enacted, these sections
will help to correct past injustices and cre-
ate new opportunities to build the diverse,
resilient food system that we all want and
need.
American agriculture’s history began with
slavery and the forced removal of tribes from
their land. It continued with myriad abuses,
including Jim Crow laws, the prohibition of
minority land ownership, property laws that
facilitated Black land loss, and deceptive
practices to entice Hmong farmers to incur
huge debts to build chicken houses. Each of
these predatory practices were instituted or
allowed by U.S. law. At every turn, govern-
ment policies have either intentionally or
inadvertently served to advantage white
farmers, creating the category of farmers
recognized by Congress and the USDA for
decades as ‘‘socially disadvantaged.’’
Cultural traditions in farming in America,
long romanticized in disregard of their dis-
criminatory consequences, have further con-
tributed to inequities. Farming is built on
relationships: handshake contracts, neigh-
bors helping neighbors, conversations at the
local coffee shop. These relationships work
well if you are a member of the group; if you
are not, they serve as a persistent barrier to
success. According to the 2017 Census of Ag-
riculture, of the 3.4 million farmers in the
United States, 3.2 million, 95.4% are white.
Only approximately 1.7% are American In-
dian or Alaskan Native; 1.3% are Black; and
.6% are Asian. For most of these farmers,
their farms are smaller, their sales are
smaller, and each year they fall further be-
hind.
The USDA should have served as the equal-
izer, supporting all farmers and assisting
those in need. But most often it has not. It
has instead reflected and perpetuated insti-
tutional racism since its inception. The
problems experienced by the farmers it has
disadvantaged have been repeatedly docu-
mented in government reports and investiga-
tions and in writings by scholars, journal-
ists, and others. While some tell of the dec-
ades-long pattern of discrimination, recent
reports, including a GAO Report released
just last week, confirm that the barriers still
exist today, expressly affirming that socially
disadvantaged farmers still have less access
to credit than other agricultural businesses.
Fair Lending, Access and Retirement Secu-
rity,
Government
Accountability
Office
(2021) (finding racial and income disparities
in access to financial services, availability of
credit,
and
the
ability
to
accumulate
wealth).
Congressionally enacted farm programs
have perpetuated and exacerbated the prob-
lem by distorting the farm economy. Federal
farm programs reward the largest farms the
most, providing staggering sums of money to
large landowners who produce the program-
favored crops. Not only are the vast majority
of these large landowners white, the pro-
gram-favored crops are not those most often
produced by socially disadvantaged farmers.
These government payments distort credit,
land, input costs, and markets by favoring
white farmers to the disadvantage of others,
most of whom are small or beginning farm-
ers.
The cumulative effect of decades of un-
equal treatment by the USDA coupled with
farm programs that favor large landowners
continues to negatively impact the economic
condition of beginning farmers and small
fanning operations, creating an extra burden
for socially disadvantaged farmers. Today,
disadvantaged farmers generally have less
access to credit than white farmers, less ac-
cumulated wealth, and smaller farming oper-
ations.
Congress and the USDA acknowledged this
racial discrimination and attempted to re-
solve it through the settlement of two land-
mark lawsuits—Pigford and Keepseagle. But
this approach was severely flawed. These set-
tlements attempted to define the problem in
terms of discreet incidents of individualized
discrimination without correcting the sys-
temic problems that led to that discrimina-
tion. The adversarial nature of the settle-
ment process served to further divide. While
some farmers received a payment, many re-
mained indebted to the government, and the
system itself remained broken. Providing
debt relief to disadvantaged farmers, will
help to correct the longstanding past injus-
tice, wiping the slate clean for USDA to
start over. Reforming the system will pro-
vide the necessary financial and educational
infrastructure to finally give these farmers
an opportunity to compete on an even play-
ing field.
We depend on our food system, and farming
is at the heart of that system. Natural disas-
ters and the COVID pandemic have revealed
significant systemic problems, and climate
change has and will produce additional chal-
lenges. We need strong regional food systems
to build the resilience that is necessary for
our very survival. We need diversity re-
flected in that network. We bemoan the
aging of our nation’s farmers and the high
barriers to entry for beginning and would-be
beginning farmers. The vast majority of
American farmers are white men over the
age of 50. We need to open farming to its full
potential by offering new opportunities for
diverse farmers, thus benefiting from their
help in creating a resilient regional food sys-
tem that is always able to meet our food se-
curity needs.
We are all full-time professors who work in
agricultural, food law, and related subjects.
The opinions expressed in this letter are our
own personal views and do not represent the
position or policies of the Universities with
which we are affiliated.
Sincerely,
Susan A. Schneider, William H. Enfield
Professor of Law, Director, LL.M. Pro-
gram in Agricultural & Food Law, Uni-
versity of Arkansas School of Law; Ni-
cole Civita, Sustainable Food Systems
Specialization Lead, Graduate Faculty,
Masters of the Environment Program,
University of Colorado; Josh Galperin,
Visiting Associate Professor of Law,
University of Pittsburgh School of
Law; Neil D. Hamilton, Emeritus Pro-
fessor of Law, Drake University Law
School; Christopher R. Kelley, Asso-
ciate Professor of Law, University of
Arkansas School of Law; Stacy Leeds,
Foundation Professor of Law and Lead-
ership, Sandra Day O’Connor College of
Law, Arizona State University; Emily
M. Broad Leib, Clinical Professor of
Law, Director, Food Law and Policy
VerDate Sep 11 2014
06:53 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\G05MR6.097
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1267
March 5, 2021
Clinic, Harvard Law School; Thomas
W. Mitchell, Professor of Law, Co-Di-
rector, Program in Real Estate and
Community Development Law, Texas
A&M
University
School
of
Law;
Michelle B. Nowlin, Clinical Professor
of Law, Co-Director, Environmental
Law and Policy Clinic, Duke Univer-
sity School of Law; Michael T. Roberts,
Executive Director, Resnick Center for
Food Law and Policy, Professor from
Practice, University of California, Los
Angeles; Anthony B. Schutz, Associate
Professor of Law, Associate Dean for
Faculty, Director, Rural Law Opportu-
nities Program, University of Nebraska
College of Law; Jessica A. Shoemaker,
Professor of Law, University of Ne-
braska
College
of
Law;
Jennifer
Zwagerman,
Assistant
Professor
of
Law, Director of the Agricultural Law
Center, Drake University Law School.
ATTACHMENT
EXAMPLES OF GOVERNMENT AND RELATED
REPORTS DOCUMENTING USDA DISCRIMINATION
Equal Opportunity in Farm Programs, An
Appraisal of Services Rendered by Agencies
of the USDA, U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights (1965) (finding discrimination in the
administration of federal farm programs,
contributing to the decline in Black owner-
ship of farmland);
Civil Rights Under Federal Programs: An
Analysis of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
(1968) (finding discrimination in the adminis-
tration of federal farm programs and in the
information services provided by Agricul-
tural Extension);
Federal Civil Rights Enforcement Effort,
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (1970) (find-
ing discrimination in the administration of
federal farm programs);
The Decline of Black Farming in America,
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (1982) (docu-
menting discrimination complaints at USDA
field offices, the lack of institutional support
provided to Black farmers, and legal struc-
tures geared to benefit large farming oper-
ations);
Hearing on the Decline of Minority Farm-
ing in the United States, Committee on Gov-
ernment Operations, U.S. House of Rep-
resentatives (1990) (documenting evidence of
discrimination in USDA programs);
Minorities and Women on Farm Commit-
tees, Govt Accountability Office (1995) (re-
porting on the lack of representation of mi-
nority farmers within the USDA committee
system);
D.J. Miller Disparity Study: Producer Par-
ticipation
and
EEO
Complaint
Process
Study), D.J. Miller & Associates report pre-
pared for the USDA Farm Services Agency
(1996) (finding inequities throughout the fed-
eral farm programs, with minority farmers
not receiving an equitable share of farm pay-
ments and loans and serious problems with
the USDA EEO Complaint Process);
Report for the Secretary on Civil Rights
Issues, USDA’s Inspector General (1997) (re-
porting that a ‘‘staffing problems, obsolete
procedures, and little direction from man-
agement have resulted in a climate of dis-
order’’);
Civil Rights at the United States Depart-
ment of Agriculture—A Report by the Civil
Rights Action Team, Report of the USDA
Civil Rights Action Team (1997) (docu-
menting widespread discrimination through-
out the USDA network of offices);
A Time to Act: A Report of the USDA Na-
tional Commission on Small Farms, USDA
Nat’l Commission on Small Farms (1998) (re-
porting on the ‘‘structural bias toward great-
er concentration of assets and wealth’’ and
on the importance of developing policies to
support and encourage small farms; noting
that ‘‘Black, Hispanic Native American,
Asian, women, and other minorities have
contributed immensely to our Nation’s food
production and their contributions should be
recognized and rewarded.’’);
USDA: Problems in Processing Discrimina-
tion Complaints, U.S. Govt Accountability
Office (2000) (reporting on the continuation
of ‘‘longstanding problems’’ in the USDA’s
discrimination complaint process);
Racial and Ethnic Tensions in American
Communities: Poverty, Inequality, and Dis-
crimination, Vol. VII: The Mississippi Delta
Report, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
(2001) (finding evidence that Black farmers
have unequal access to technical support and
financial assistance, with a wait that is four
times longer than white farmers to receive
farm loans);
USDA: Recommendations and Options to
Address Management Deficiencies in the Of-
fice of the Assistant Secretary for Civil
Rights, Government Accountability Office
(2008) (reporting that the USDA’s ‘‘difficul-
ties in resolving discrimination complaints
persist,’’ that its data on minority farmer
participation is ‘‘unreliable,’’ and that its
‘‘strategic planning does not address key
steps needed to ensure USDA provides fair
and equitable services’’);
Agricultural
Lending:
Information
on
Credit and Outreach to Socially Disadvan-
taged Farmers and Ranchers is Limited,
Government Accountability Office (2019) (ad-
dressing USDA survey data that shows that
‘‘socially disadvantaged farmers’’ receive a
disproportionately small share of farm loans
and noting lack of reliable data on program
services to this community; acknowledging
concerns of ongoing discrimination);
Indian Issues: Agricultural Credit Needs
and Barriers to Lending on Tribal Lands,
Government Accountability Office (2019) (re-
porting on the structural barriers to lending
to tribal members, including the difficulty in
using tribal land as security, long delays in
federal paperwork, lender hesitancy, lack of
credit history);
Fair Lending, Access and Retirement Secu-
rity,
Government
Accountability
Office
(2021) (finding racial and income disparities
in access to financial services, availability of
credit, and the ability to accumulate wealth;
specifically finding that ‘‘women and minor-
ity farmers and ranchers, including tribal
members, had less access to credit than
other agricultural businesses’’).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, to
most people back home in Tennessee,
‘‘business as usual’’ here in Washington
means a combination of partisan bick-
ering and reckless spending, usually
after someone up high decides not to
let a crisis go to waste. They are used
to watching this all play out on TV,
then looking at the receipt and seeing
a billion dollars’ worth of earmarks
and pork barrel spending they didn’t
order.
Right now, Democrats are doing
their best to spin the scandal their
absurb $1.9 trillion bailout bill has
caused as ‘‘business as usual’’ but Ten-
nesseans aren’t stupid. They know the
spin is a lie because over the past year
they have seen what ‘‘business as
usual’’ looks like when it comes to
passing COVID relief funding.
Since last March, the Senate has
passed five separate relief laws with
overwhelming bipartisan support, 96–1,
90–8, 96–0, 100–0, and 92–6.
But what happened with last month’s
vote on the budget resolution? Why did
it end in a tiebreaker? For the same
reason the House passed their version
of the bill we are considering today in
the dead of night. No amount of good
PR could ever make the American peo-
ple forget that this little exercise the
Democrats are leading us through has
almost nothing to do with providing
emergency COVID relief.
Nine percent. That is how much of
this package Democrats want to dedi-
cate to a national vaccination pro-
gram, expanded testing, and public
health jobs. They slapped a ‘‘COVID
RELIEF’’ label on one of the largest
transfers of wealth ever proposed in the
history of the U.S. Congress and tried
to sneak it through reconciliation be-
fore anyone caught on.
This bill is so far over the line that
my friends across the aisle have spent
the past week fighting over the very
provisions House Democrats and the
White House used to pitch it. The bill
is fatally flawed, right down to the for-
mula it employs to allocate State fund-
ing. The previous, bipartisan relief
packages used population to determine
this. It very straightforward. But this
time, Democrats ran the numbers and
decided they could benefit by making
unemployment rate the deciding fac-
tor. And, wouldn’t you know it, this
new system disproportionately benefits
poorly mannaged blue States at the ex-
pense of well-managed red ones. New
Jersey, New York, and California,
whose destructive shutdowns led to
high unemployment rates, will walk
away with a combined gain of almost
$9 billion. Tennessee, on the other
hand, is still one of the best fiscally
managed States in the country. We will
lose $164 million for doing the right
thing. Alabama will lose almost $900
million. Both Florida and Georgia will
lose over $l.2 billion each.
If this body mandates a transfer of
wealth based solely on Democrats’ de-
sire to clean up their prepandemic mis-
takes, we will scare off investment and
hamper innovation in every State long
after we are able to fully reopen. This
isn’t a hypothetical—leaders on the
State level know what is coming. Last
week, 22 Governors, including Ten-
nessee Governor Bill Lee, released a
joint statement pointing out the fool-
ish premise driving the new formula. I
would like to associate myself with
what they said: ‘‘A state’s ability to
keep businesses open and people em-
ployed should not be a penalizing fac-
tor when distributing funds.’’
If this happens, small towns and
mom-and-pop shops will suffer. Those
budding tech hubs you hear so much
about will suffer. The unemployed peo-
ple my colleagues on the left are using
as leverage against their political ri-
vals will suffer.
So I would ask my colleagues wheth-
er fulfilling campaign
promises
is
worth what it will cost the families
and small business owners stuck hold-
ing the bill. And to the Democratic
Senators representing States losing
out, I would say that we will be happy
VerDate Sep 11 2014
06:53 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.087
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1268
March 5, 2021
to remind your constituents that you
voted to send their tax dollars to New
York and California and Illinois and
other
States
that
intentionally
dragged their economies off a cliff.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
majority leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, it has
been a long day, a long night, a long
year, but a new day has come, and we
tell the American people: Help is on
the way.
When Democrats assumed the major-
ity in this Chamber, we promised to
pass legislation to rescue our people
from the depths of the pandemic and
bring our economy and our country
roaring back. In a few moments, we are
going to deliver on that promise.
This bill will deliver more help to
more people than anything the Federal
Government has done in decades. It is
broader, deeper, and more comprehen-
sive in helping working families and
lifting people out of poverty than any-
thing Congress has seen or accom-
plished in a very long time.
The pandemic has affected nearly
every aspect of American life. So this
bill spans the gamut and provides sup-
port to every part of our country. For
Americans who doubted that the gov-
ernment can help them in this time of
crisis,
you
will
be
getting
direct
checks. Your schools will receive as-
sistance to reopen quickly and safely;
your local businesses will get another
lifeline; and the day when you receive
the vaccine will be a lot sooner.
The American Rescue Plan will go
down as one of the most sweeping Fed-
eral recovery efforts in history. It is
never easy to pass legislation as mo-
mentous as this, but it will all and
soon be worth it.
Now, I know that on Saturday morn-
ing the American people aren’t watch-
ing our proceedings here. They are
probably out walking the dog or sitting
down at breakfast with the kids. But I
want them to know help is on the way;
that their government is going to give
one final push to get us over the finish
line.
I want the American people to know
that we are going to get through this,
and someday soon our businesses will
reopen; our economy will reopen; and
life will reopen. We will end this ter-
rible plague, and we will travel again
and send our kids to school again and
be together again.
Our job right now is to help our coun-
try get from this stormy present to
that hopeful future, and it starts with
voting aye on the legislation before us.
Vote yes on the American Rescue Plan.
Vote yes.
And before I yield the floor, one final
note. Let us all express our deepest
gratitude to all of my colleagues who
went through a long, long period in the
last day; to the staffs of the commit-
tees and the personnel in Senate offices
who have worked so hard to put this
legislation together, and especially let
us thank the great floor staff: the
clerks, the cafeteria workers, the cus-
todial staff, and the Capitol Police.
(Applause, Senators rising.
This bill includes important support
for state and local governments, allow-
ing them to not only provide services
that are needed to fight the pandemic
and support the economy, but also en-
suring that teachers and first respond-
ers don’t need to be laid off and serv-
ices don’t need to be cut.
We also know that this crisis is going
to have lasting consequences for State
and local budgets, that many of the im-
pacts won’t just be felt this year, but
going forward given how disruptive the
last year was.
So in designing this funding, we split
the money for localities into two
tranches, half to be delivered this year
and half next year. For States, the
money is delivered up front, with the
Secretary given the discretion to cali-
brate timing of payments for some
States based on their unemployment
rate. For States with lower unemploy-
ment rates, the bill creates a structure
for Treasury to work with States to
spread the funding out over the course
of this recovery.
That will allow States and localities
to get the money that they need, but
over a timeline that will best support
the economy as it recovers.
Additionally, below are names of the
staff who worked tirelessly towards the
passage of this bill. I want to thank
them for their service, and I ask unani-
mous consent that their names be
printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the mate-
rial was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
COMMITTEE
Joe Shultz, Mary Beth Shultz, Jacqlyn
Schneider, Kyle Varner, Katie Naessens,
Claire Borzner, Susan Keith, Adam Tarr,
Julia Rossman, Khadija Jahfiya.
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
Charles Kieffer, Chanda Betourney, Dianne
Nellor, Jean Toal Eisen, Doug Clapp, Ellen
Murray, Scott Nance, Melissa Zimmerman,
Alex
Keenan,
Meghan
Mott,
Michelle
Dominguez, Tim Rieser, Dabney Hegg, Jenny
Winkler.
BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE
Beth Cooper, Homer Carlisle, Megan Che-
ney,
Phil
Rudd,
Elisha
Tuku,
Jeremy
Hekhuis, Colin McGinnis, Drew Martineau,
Ben Lockshin, Laura Swanson.
COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
COMMITTEE
David Strickland, Melissa Porter, Ronce
Almond, Mary Guenther, Gabrielle Slais,
John
Branscome,
Shawn
Bone,
Brian
McDermott, Betsy McIntyre, Kara Fischer,
Michael
Davisson,
Alex
Hall,
Nikky
Teutschel,
Matthew
Bobbink,
Jimmy
Bromley, Eric Vryheid, Elle Wibisono, Jared
Bomberg, John Beezer, Noam Kantor, Jordan
Blue, Lucy Koch, Hunter Blackburn.
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
Mary Frances Repko, Greg Dotson, Ken-
neth Martin, Laura Gillam, Elizabeth Mabry,
Rebecca Higgins, John Kane, Caroline Jones,
Layla Brooks, Rachel Levitan, Jake Abbott,
Gil Connolly.
FINANCE COMMITTEE
Isaiah Akin, Robert Andres, Christopher
Arneson, Shawn Bishop, Sarah Bittleman,
Adam Carasso, Ryan Carey, Ursula Clausing,
Drew Crouch, Anne Dwyer, Michael Evans,
Jonathan Goldman.
Rachael Kauss, Virginia Lenahan, Kristen
Lunde, Marisa Morin, Ian Nicholson, Sarah
Schaefer, Joshua Sheinkman, Tiffany Smith,
Lavanya Sridharan, Kelly Szafara, Beth
Vrabel, Jayme White.
FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE
Ruchi Gil, Andrew Keller, Jessica Lewis.
HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS
COMMITTEE
Evan
Schatz,
John
Righter,
Kendra
Isaacson, Yeongsik Kim, Tiffany Haas, Nick
Bath, Colin Goldfinch, Laurel Sakai, Katlin
McKelvie Backfield, Garrett Devenney, Es-
ther Yoon, Kara Marchione.
Amanda Beaumont, Bryce McKibben, Leila
Schochet,
Manuel
Contreras,
Jennifer
Stiddard, Helen Hare, Madeleine Russak,
Ryan Myers, Anali Alegria, Carly Rush, Eliz-
abeth Letter, Michael Huggins.
Michelle Sa´nchez, Vanessa Lobo, Monica
Vela, Daniel Elchert, Nimit Jindal, Kimi
Chemoby, Sarah Mueller Rob Jones, Andi
Fristedt,
Kimberly
Knackstedt,
Nikki
McKinney, Joseph Shantz.
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENT
AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
Michelle
Benecke,
Lena
Chang,
Chris
Mulkins,
Annika
Christensen,
Yelena
Tsilker, Marie Talarico, Chelsea Davis, Katie
Conley, Corban Ryan, Jeff Rothblum, David
Weinberg.
INDIAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
Kim Moxley, Manu Tupper, Jennifer Ro-
mero.
SMALL BUSINESS COMMITTEE
Therese Meers, Jacob Press, Ron Storhaug,
Kevin Wheeler, Justin Pelletier, Kylie Pat-
terson,
Natalie
George,
Fabion
Seaton,
DeMarcus Walker, Sean Moore.
VETERANS AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
Dahlia Melendrez, Shauna Rust, Tony
McClain.
DPCC
Matt
Williams,
Christian
Graf,
Eliza
Duckworth, Amy Brown, Gabby Borg, Rob
Curis.
LEADER SCHUMER STAFF
Abdelhaq,
Yazeed,
Achibar,
Kathleen,
Aleman, Jasmin, Armwood, Garrett, Babin,
Reggie. Banez, Robert, Barjon, Didier, Bar-
ton, Steve, Battle, Sharon, Benavides, Jack-
ie Biasotti, Allison, Bluitt, Tinae, Bodian,
Lane Bowman, Quinn, Brennan, Martin,
Burns, Caroline, Byrne, Sean, Cardinal, Jon,
Cardona, Selena, Carranza, Ramon.
Chang Prepis, Joyce, Charlery, Kristen,
Cole, Emily, Contes, Helena, Cook, Andrew,
Cooke, Dave. Coutavas, Sophie, Daly, Annie,
Dayal, Tushar, Deveny, Adrian, Dickson,
Jeff, Dirienzo, Lindsay, Donovan, Patrick,
Eagan, Ryan, Ellsworth, Charlie, Emanuel,
Marissa, Engle, Tricia, Fado, Kelly Flood,
Sam.
Fuentes, Matt, Geertsma, Joel, Glander,
Megan,
Goodman,
Justin,
Gray-Hoehn,
Hayley, Gutmaker, Joshua, Haberl, Gunnar,
Harris, Jasmine, Hawley, Marisa, Hickman,
Rob, Housley, Jon, Huus, Amber, Iannelli,
Mike. Ileka, Steven, Jackson, Rachel, Ja-
maica, Jessica, Jean, Mike, Kazibwe, Rod-
ney, Kiandoli, Cietta, Kuiken, Mike.
Lee, Monica, Lopez, Julietta, Lynch, Mike,
Magaletta, Grace, Mann, Steve, Mannering,
Amy Marcojohn, Anneliese, Martin, Ryan
Mehta, Hemen, Meyer, Ken, Molofsky, Josh
Moore, Catey Moreno-Silva, Michelle, Mor-
gan, Rachel, Murphy Vlasto, Megan, Myrick
Gary, Najafi, Leela, Nam, Alice, Nehme, Joe,
Nguyen, Alex, Nicholson, Jordan.
Nunez, Diana, Odgren, Andrew, Olvera,
Lorenzo,
Orlove,
Suzan,
Ortega,
Sol,
VerDate Sep 11 2014
17:29 Jun 03, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\RECORD21\MARCH\S05MR1.REC
S05MR1
sradovich on DSKJLST7X2PROD with CONG-REC-ONLINE
CORRECTION

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1269
March 5, 2021
Osmolski, Rebecca, Oursler, Nate, Paone,
Stephanie, Patel, Vandan, Patterson, Liza,
Patterson, Mark, Petrella, Gerry, Pina,
Oriana, Reese, William, Revelle, Justine, Ri-
vera, Tony, Robinson, Alexandra, Rodarte,
Sam, Rodman, Scott, Rodriguez, Crisitian.
Roefaro, Angelo, Rosenblum, Zac, Ryder,
Tim, Seijas, Nelson, Shah, Raisa, Sharbaugh,
Tyson, Sinpatanasakul, Leeann Skapnit,
Amanda, Sledge, Alexa, Smith, Hannah,
Sonnier-Thompson, Bre, Spellicy, Amanda,
Sundaramoorthy, Dili, Sweda, Emily, Talley,
Hanna, Taira, Meghan, Tam, Catalina, Tay-
lor, Anna, Taylor, Terri, Tepke, Paige, Tim-
othy, Kimarah.
Tinsley, Dan, Vaughn, Erin, Sager, Velez,
Cyre, Virgona, Nicole, Vogel, Kai, Vorperian-
Grillo,
Karine,
Watt,
Brad,
Watters,
Veronica,
Weir,
Emma,
Yoken,
Dan,
Younkin,
Nora,
Zeltmann,
Chris,
Zomorrodian, Reza.
SENATOR DURBIN’S OFFICE
Maalik Simmons, Miriam Wheatley, Corey
Tellez, Jasmine Hunt, Joe Bushong, Emily
Hampsten
CLOAKROOM STAFF
Gary Myrick, Tricia Engle, Dan Tinsley,
Brad Watt, Stephanie Paone, Nate Oursler,
Rachel Jackson, Liza Patterson.
CHAMBER ASSISTANTS
Lauren Cavagnano, Drew Erickson, Vir-
ginia Brown, Brennan Leach, Layne Dono-
van, Juliana Surprenant.
Mr. SCHUMER. Many of them have
worked for as many as 36 hours
straight. My notes here say: ‘‘Let’s
give them a round of applause.’’
And, of course, one more thank-you
to my great and wonderful staff. I will
thank all of them by name at a later
date because I want them to be awake
and alert when I do.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
Republican leader.
Mr. MCCONNELL. The Senate has
never spent $2 trillion in a more hap-
hazard way or through a less rigorous
process.
Voters gave Senate Democrats the
slimmest possible majority. Voters
picked a President who promised unity
and bipartisanship.
Democrats’
response
is
to
ram
through what they call ‘‘the most pro-
gressive domestic legislation in a gen-
eration’’ on a razor-thin majority in
both Houses.
The right path was obvious. We fol-
lowed it five times last year—five res-
cue packages totaling $4 trillion, and
none of them got fewer than 90 votes.
The Senate wrote the CARES Act,
Republicans and Democrats, shoulder
to shoulder. That was the road to real
pandemic relief, but Democrats actu-
ally wanted something else. They ex-
plained their intent very clearly: to ex-
ploit this crisis as ‘‘a tremendous op-
portunity to restructure things to fit
our vision.’’
That is how you get this massive bill
with only 1 percent—1 percent for vac-
cinations, that ignores the science on
reopening schools, that is stuffed with
non-COVID-related spending that even
top liberal economists say is wrong for
the recovery.
Democrats inherited a tide that is al-
ready turning—2021 was already set to
be our comeback year—because of the
American people’s resilience and the
bipartisan foundation that we laid last
year.
We could have worked together to
speed up victory, but our Democratic
colleagues made a decision. Their top
priority wasn’t pandemic relief. It was
their Washington wish list.
So,
Mr.
President,
colleagues,
I
strongly recommend a ‘‘no’’ vote.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
bill having been read the third time,
the question is, Shall the bill pass?
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask
for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is
there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk
called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is
necessarily absent: the Senator from
Alaska (Mr. SULLIVAN).
Further, if present and voting, the
Senator from Alaska (Mr. SULLIVAN)
would have voted ‘‘nay.’’
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are
there any Senators in the Chamber
wishing to change their vote?
The result was announced—yeas 50,
nays 49, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 110 Leg.]
YEAS—50
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Luja´n
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS—49
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NOT VOTING—1
Sullivan
The bill (H.R. 1319), as amended, was
passed.
(Applause.)
Mr. SCHUMER. I just want to thank
everybody. We are a great team. We are
a great team.
Ms. DUCKWORTH. Thank you, Geor-
gia.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER
(Mr.
HICKENLOOPER). The majority leader.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
f
EXECUTIVE CALENDAR
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I
move to proceed to executive session to
consider Calendar No. 12.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I sug-
gest 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. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
clerk will report the nomination.
The senior assistant legislative clerk
read the nomination of Marcia Louise
Fudge, of Ohio, to be Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development.
CLOTURE MOTION
Mr. SCHUMER. I send a cloture mo-
tion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clo-
ture motion having been presented
under rule XXII, the Chair directs the
clerk to read the motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk
read as follows:
CLOTURE MOTION
We, the undersigned Senators, in accord-
ance with the provisions of rule XXII of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby
move to bring to a close debate on the nomi-
nation of Executive Calendar No. 12, Marcia
Louise Fudge, of Ohio, to be Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development.
Charles E. Schumer, Sherrod Brown,
Richard Blumenthal, Christopher A.
Coons, Patty Murray, Chris Van Hol-
len, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley,
Brian Schatz, Cory A. Booker, Amy
Klobuchar, Benjamin L. Cardin, Angus
S. King, Jr., Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Tim
Kaine, Tammy Baldwin.
f
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I
move to proceed to legislative session.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
f
EXECUTIVE SESSION
f
EXECUTIVE CALENDAR
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I
move to proceed to executive session to
consider Calendar No. 27.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
The clerk will report the nomination.
The senior assistant legislative clerk
read the nomination of Merrick Brian
Garland, of Maryland, to be Attorney
General.
CLOTURE MOTION
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I send
a cloture motion to the desk.
VerDate Sep 11 2014
09:05 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.097
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1270
March 5, 2021
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clo-
ture motion having been presented
under rule XXII, the Chair directs the
clerk to read the motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk
read as follows:
CLOTURE MOTION
We, the undersigned Senators, in accord-
ance with the provisions of rule XXII of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby
move to bring to a close debate on the nomi-
nation of Executive Calendar No. 27, Merrick
Brian Garland, of Maryland, to be Attorney
General.
Charles E. Schumer, Richard J. Durbin,
Richard Blumenthal, Christopher A.
Coons, Patty Murray, Chris Van Hol-
len, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley,
Brian Schatz, Cory A. Booker, Debbie
Stabenow, Amy Klobuchar, Jon Ossoff,
Alex Padilla, Benjamin L. Cardin,
Sherrod Brown, Angus S. King, Jr.,
Tim Kaine.
f
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I
move to proceed to legislative session.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the manda-
tory quorum calls with respect to these
motions be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
f
EXECUTIVE SESSION
f
EXECUTIVE CALENDAR
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I
move to proceed to executive session to
consider Calendar No. 15.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
The clerk will report the nomination.
The senior assistant legislative clerk
read the nomination of Michael Stan-
ley Regan, of North Carolina, to be Ad-
ministrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency.
CLOTURE MOTION
Mr. SCHUMER. I send a cloture mo-
tion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clo-
ture motion having been presented
under rule XXII, the Chair directs the
clerk to read the motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk
read as follows:
CLOTURE MOTION
We, the undersigned Senators, in accord-
ance with the provisions of rule XXII of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby
move to bring to a close debate on the nomi-
nation of Executive Calendar No. 15, Michael
Stanley Regan, of North Carolina, to be Ad-
ministrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency.
Charles E. Schumer, Thomas R. Carper,
Richard Blumenthal, Christopher A.
Coons, Patty Murray, Chris Van Hol-
len, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley,
Brian Schatz, Cory A. Booker, Amy
Klobuchar,
Benjamin
L.
Cardin,
Sherrod Brown, Angus S. King, Jr.,
Kirsten
E.
Gillibrand,
Tim
Kaine,
Tammy
Baldwin,
Martin
Heinrich,
Maria Cantwell.
f
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I
move to proceed to legislative session.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
f
PROVIDING FOR AN EXCEPTION TO
A
LIMITATION
AGAINST
AP-
POINTMENT
OF
PERSONS
AS
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE WITH-
IN
SEVEN
YEARS
OF
RELIEF
FROM ACTIVE DUTY AS A REG-
ULAR
COMMISSIONED
OFFICER
OF THE ARMED FORCES—MOTION
TO PROCEED
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I
move to proceed to Calendar No. 1, S.
11.
The
PRESIDING
OFFICER.
The
clerk will report the motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk
read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 1, S. 11,
a bill to provide for an exception to a limita-
tion against appointment of persons as Sec-
retary of Defense within seven years of relief
from active duty as a regular commissioned
officer of the Armed Forces.
Mr. SCHUMER. I suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk
proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
f
ORDER OF PROCEDURE
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that on Tuesday,
March 9, at 5:30 p.m., cloture ripen on,
one, Executive Calendar No. 12, MARCIA
FUDGE, to be Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development, and Executive
Calendar No. 27, Merrick Garland, to be
Attorney General; that the Senate pro-
ceed to vote on cloture on the Fudge
nomination; that if cloture is invoked,
postcloture time expire on Wednesday,
March 10, at 12 noon; further, that not-
withstanding rule XXII, following the
cloture vote on the Fudge nomination,
the Senate vote on cloture on the Gar-
land nomination; that if cloture is in-
voked on the Garland nomination,
postcloture time expire on Wednesday,
March 10, at 2:15; further, that cloture
on the Regan nomination ripen fol-
lowing disposition of the Garland nom-
ination.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
f
MORNING BUSINESS
AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT OF
2021
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, to-
day’s legislation takes a very impor-
tant step in providing financial assist-
ance to multiemployer pension plans,
particularly those plans that have al-
ready had to suspend benefits in order
to save the plans from going insolvent.
That has been a very painful step for
some plans in New York because it re-
sulted in retiree benefit cuts of as
much as 60 percent.
This legislation will allow those
plans to restore painful cuts and ensure
others on the brink do not have to take
similar steps.
I will be watching how the adminis-
tration implements this new program
very closely to ensure plans receiving
financial assistance under the new pro-
gram are not placed in a worse long-
term funding position than they are
today or are projected to be into the
future. This new program is intended
to be a long-term solution for these ail-
ing plans, a solution that protects re-
tiree benefits as well as the health of
the plans themselves.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, Sec-
tion 605 of the State and Local section
of the American Rescue Plan requires
further
explanation
on
its
intent.
Below is the salient language of Sec-
tion 605, Local Assistance and Tribal
Consistency Fund:
‘‘(b) AUTHORITY TO MAKE PAYMENTS.—
‘‘(1) Payments to eligible revenue sharing
counties.—For each of fiscal years 2022 and
2023, the Secretary shall reserve $750,000,000
of the total amount appropriated under sub-
section (a) to allocate and pay to each eligi-
ble revenue sharing county in amounts that
are determined by the Secretary taking into
account economic conditions of each eligible
revenue sharing county, using measurements
of poverty rates, household income, land val-
ues, and unemployment rates as well as
other economic indicators, over the 20-year
period ending with September 30, 2021.
‘‘(l) ELIGIBLE REVENUE SHARING COUNTY.—
The term ‘eligible revenue sharing county’
means—
‘‘(A) a county, parish, or borough—
‘‘(i) that is independent of any other unit
of local government; and
‘‘(ii) that, as determined by the Secretary,
is the principal provider of government serv-
ices for the area within its jurisdiction; and
‘‘(iii) for which, as determined by the Sec-
retary, there is a negative revenue impact
due to implementation of a Federal program
or changes to such program; and
‘‘(B) the District of Columbia, the Com-
monwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the
United States Virgin Islands. . . . ‘‘
Folks may wonder: ‘‘What are the
revenue
sharing
counties?’’;
‘‘Why
Treasury?’’; and ‘‘How is my new pro-
gram different from existing county
support programs?’’
Let me explain my thinking in put-
ting this language together. In every
state, but especially the West, there
are counties with tracts of federal
lands that have unique impacts on the
local economy. These counties are re-
ferred to in Section 605 as ‘‘revenue
sharing counties’’—counties that have
a direct fiscal relationship with public
lands and public resources. These coun-
ties help pay for roads, schools, and
other services that directly benefit
and, in many cases, support federal
lands. They get payments for the tax-
VerDate Sep 11 2014
06:53 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\G05MR6.106
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1271
March 5, 2021
exempt status of those public lands, or
payments intended to split the revenue
from the commercial use of public
lands. This relationship between the
counties and those lands and extractive
industries usually means they are
boom-and-bust counties—falling faster
into recession and slower to climb out
of recession when changes occur to par-
ticular federal programs or when, for
example, a massive global pandemic
hits without warning.
I, and many of my colleagues, have
worked for years on programs attempt-
ing to stabilize those local economies—
primarily through two laws: the Secure
Rural Schools and Community Self De-
termination Act, which is largely ad-
ministered by the Secretary of Agri-
culture through the U.S. Forest Serv-
ice and the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment; and the Payment in Lieu of
Taxes Program, administered through
the Secretary of the Interior.
So, why implement a new and sepa-
rate program assigned to the Secretary
of Treasury? Treasury is the agency
with the best and most complete
knowledge of the economic workings of
our nation. Therefore, it is right up its
alley to ‘‘tak[e] into account economic
conditions of each eligible revenue
sharing county, using measurements of
poverty rates, household income, land
values, and unemployment rates as
well as other economic indicators, over
the 20-year period ending with Sep-
tember 30, 2021.’’ In addition, my 20
years of experience in this arena, com-
bined with what I’ve heard from Orego-
nians in rural counties, adds up to the
conclusion that it is time to try some-
thing new to stabilize the local econo-
mies of these revenue-sharing counties.
I am not expecting Treasury to do
this work on its own. I will work with
the Department, as will my colleague
and long-time partner on this issue,
Senator CRAPO. I also fully expect
Treasury to consult with others in gov-
ernment who have history in this arena
on the creation of this new formula
such as the Secretaries of Agriculture
and Interior, as well as the National
Association of Counties, state county
associations, including the Association
of O&C Counties Oregon, and many
other groups with a deep understanding
of these impacts across the United
States. These entities will help Treas-
ury stand up this new program at
Treasury because they provide historic
context to the entirely new program in
its analysis of the needs of the coun-
ties, for the first time taking into ac-
count economic conditions on the
ground. The new program will include
$1.5 billion for eligible counties and
$500 million for Tribes over the next
two years.
So, now that I have covered the ques-
tions of ‘‘What are the revenue sharing
counties?’’;
‘‘Why
Treasury?’’;
and
‘‘How is my new program different?’’; I
want to provide an answer to ‘‘What
has happened in the revenue sharing
county to warrant a payment?’’
Revenue sharing counties have suf-
fered economic loss due to the imple-
mentation of, or changes in, a federal
program. For example, necessary envi-
ronmental and wildlife protection laws
have reduced the revenue sharing pay-
ments to counties that host U.S. For-
est Service lands and timberlands man-
aged by the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment.
Over the last half century, revenue
sharing counties have seen their budg-
ets fluctuate wildly based on incon-
sistent
revenue
sharing
payments
caused, in part, by the boom and bust
nature of resource extraction indus-
tries.
Additionally,
current
federal
county payments laws meant to sta-
bilize this cycle, such as PILT and
SRS, are often inconsistently funded
and leave counties on an economic roll-
er coaster each year waiting for incon-
sistent reauthorizations.
The purpose of my new program is to
help stabilize the budgets and econo-
mies of counties that have historically
hosted extractive industry on private
or public lands and where downturns in
those extractive industries, caused by
government action, affected the county
economically and budgetarily.
Unfortunately, due to the nature of
the reconciliation process in the Sen-
ate, the final language of the new coun-
ty payments program did not make
this perfectly clear. Instead, the final
language referred simply to revenue
sharing counties, but requires Treasury
to establish a formula that helps both.
Let me touch on a couple of the other
key provisions in the section. First,
while the money provided is for a coun-
ty to use as it sees fit, a county cannot
use any of the funds to lobby anyone
for any reason at any level of govern-
ment. If a county does use the money
in this unauthorized manner, the coun-
ty must return the improperly used
money to the treasury.
The county that takes money under
this section must report to the Treas-
ury Secretary about the use of that
money. The Secretary has the discre-
tion to make the reporting require-
ments more detailed. And lastly, if the
county does not make a timely report,
then the county must pay a penalty.
And lastly, let me talk about the
$500,000,000 in this section destined for
the Tribes. The section reads:
‘‘(2) PAYMENTS TO ELIGIBLE TRIBAL GOVERN-
MENTS.—For each of fiscal years 2022 and
2023, the Secretary shall reserve $250,000,000
of the total amount appropriated under sub-
section (a) to allocate and pay to eligible
Tribal governments in amounts that are de-
termined by the Secretary taking into ac-
count economic conditions of each eligible
Tribe.
‘‘(2) ELIGIBLE
TRIBAL
GOVERNMENT.—The
term ’eligible Tribal government’ means the
recognized governing body of an eligible
Tribe.
‘‘(3) ELIGIBLE
TRIBE.—The term ’eligible
Tribe’ means any Indian or Alaska Native
tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, commu-
nity, component band, or component res-
ervation, individually identified (including
parenthetically) in the list published most
recently as of the date of enactment of this
section pursuant to section 104 of the Feder-
ally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994
(25 U.S.C. 5131).’’
This section of the bill would estab-
lish a new Tribal economic stabiliza-
tion fund, which would allow the De-
partment of Treasury to make pay-
ments to Tribal governments for any
governmental
purpose
deemed
nec-
essary by the Tribe. This language is
intended for the Department of Treas-
ury to work with the Tribal Govern-
ments defined in the bill to determine
a formula ensuring equitable distribu-
tion of the funding each year. This
funding could be used to repair critical
drinking water infrastructure, fund
Tribal healthcare services, or other
critical Tribal needs.
Madam President, I am thrilled to be
on the new path of providing stabilized
aid to these counties. I look forward to
working with my colleagues in stand-
ing up this program.
f
BUDGETARY REVISIONS
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, sec-
tion 3001 of S. Con. Res. 5, the fiscal
year 2021 congressional budget resolu-
tion, allows the chairman of the Senate
Budget Committee to revise the alloca-
tions, aggregates, and levels in the
budget resolution for legislation con-
sidered under the resolution’s rec-
onciliation instructions.
I find that Amendment 891 fulfills the
conditions found in section 3001 of S.
Con. Res. 5. Accordingly, I am revising
the allocations for the reconciled com-
mittees and other enforceable budg-
etary levels to account for the budg-
etary effects of the amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that the ac-
companying tables, which provide de-
tails about the adjustments, be printed
in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the mate-
rial was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
REVISION TO ALLOCATION TO SENATE COMMITTEES
(Pursuant to Section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and Sec-
tion 3001 of S. Con. Res. 5, The Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for
Fiscal Year 2021)
$ in billions
2021
2021–2025
2021–2030
Current Allocation:
Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry:
Budget Authority
240.315
831.870
1,562.654
Outlays ................
202.027
733.208
1,388.412
Adjustments:
Budget Authority
22.602
22.712
22.712
Outlays ................
18.858
22.553
22.712
Revised Allocation:
Budget Authority
262.917
854.582
1,585.366
Outlays ................
220.885
755.761
1,411.124
Current Allocation:
Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs:
Budget Authority
¥463.909
¥378.485
¥269.169
Outlays ................
¥10.918
3.158
6.455
Adjustments:
Budget Authority
92.231
92.231
92.231
Outlays ................
32.544
87.170
88.820
Revised Allocation:
Budget Authority
¥371.678
¥286.254
¥176.938
Outlays ................
21.626
90.328
95.275
Current Allocation:
Commerce, Science,
and Transportation:
Budget Authority
345.609
417.066
507.766
Outlays ................
314.473
381.777
449.022
Adjustments:
Budget Authority
35.882
35.762
35.162
Outlays ................
22.427
35.696
35.155
Revised Allocation:
Budget Authority
381.491
452.828
542.928
Outlays ................
336.900
417.473
484.177
Current Allocation:
Environment and Public
Works:
Budget Authority
68.678
264.412
510.612
VerDate Sep 11 2014
06:53 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.086
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1272
March 5, 2021
REVISION TO ALLOCATION TO SENATE COMMITTEES—
Continued
(Pursuant to Section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and Sec-
tion 3001 of S. Con. Res. 5, The Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for
Fiscal Year 2021)
$ in billions
2021
2021–2025
2021–2030
Outlays ................
21.964
34.852
55.646
Adjustments:
Budget Authority
3.205
3.205
3.205
Outlays ................
0.812
3.005
3.205
Revised Allocation:
Budget Authority
71.883
267.617
513.817
Outlays ................
22.776
37.857
58.851
Finance:
Budget Authority
2,993.294
14,655.178
34,329.717
Outlays
2,980.805
14,587.196
34,246.494
Adjustments:
Budget Authority
1,006.500
1,240.377
1,240.687
Outlays ................
936.776
1,237.467
1,230.626
Revised Allocation:
Budget Authority
3,999.794
15,895.555
35,570.404
Outlays ................
3,917.581
15,824.663
35,477.120
Current Allocation:
Foreign Relations:
Budget Authority
51.566
229.018
447.704
Outlays ................
41.156
215.099
433.745
Adjustments:
Budget Authority
10.000
10.000
10.000
Outlays ................
1.159
9.248
9.526
Revised Allocation:
Budget Authority
61.566
239.018
457.704
Outlays ................
42.315
224.347
443.271
Current Allocation:
Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions:
Budget Authority
17.289
132.371
268.697
Outlays ................
27.594
121.193
244.258
Adjustments:
Budget Authority
304.706
304.664
304.573
Outlays ................
40.802
286.814
303.904
Revised Allocation:
Budget Authority
321.995
437.035
573.270
Outlays ................
68.396
408.007
548.162
Current Allocation:
Homeland Security and
Governmental Af-
fairs:
Budget Authority
155.755
816.524
1,737.240
REVISION TO ALLOCATION TO SENATE COMMITTEES—
Continued
(Pursuant to Section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and Sec-
tion 3001 of S. Con. Res. 5, The Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for
Fiscal Year 2021)
$ in billions
2021
2021–2025
2021–2030
Outlays ................
154.534
809.992
1,720.393
Adjustments:
Budget Authority
53.610
53.610
53.610
Outlays ................
12.521
42.169
50.439
Revised Allocation:
Budget Authority
209.365
870.134
1,790.850
Outlays ................
167.055
852.161
1,770.832
Current Allocation:
Indian Affairs:
Budget Authority
0.873
2.868
5.004
Outlays ................
0.968
3.180
4.987
Adjustments:
Budget Authority
8.804
8.804
8.804
Outlays ................
1.976
8.186
8.579
Revised Allocation:
Budget Authority
9.677
11.672
13.808
Outlays ................
2.944
11.366
13.566
Current Allocation:
Small Business and
Entrepreneurship:
Budget Authority
¥N144.559
¥144.559
¥144.559
Outlays ................
1.941
2.146
2.146
Adjustments:
Budget Authority
50.000
50.000
50.000
Outlays ................
44.950
46.340
46.340
Revised Alloca-
tion:.
Budget Authority
¥94.559
¥94.559
¥94.559
Outlays ................
46.891
48.486
48.486
Current Allocation:
Veterans’ Affairs
Budget Authority
135.958
726.288
1,581.379
Outlays ................
136.349
727.702
1,583.336
Adjustments:
Budget Authority
17.080
17.080
17.080
Outlays ................
10.510
16.642
16.668
Revised Allocation:
Budget Authority
153.038
743.368
1,598.459
Outlays ................
146.859
744.344
1,819.031
Current Allocation:
Unassigned:
Budget Authority
662.249
¥4,019.387
¥11,161.327
REVISION TO ALLOCATION TO SENATE COMMITTEES—
Continued
(Pursuant to Section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and Sec-
tion 3001 of S. Con. Res. 5, The Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for
Fiscal Year 2021)
$ in billions
2021
2021–2025
2021–2030
Outlays ................
189.750
¥4,045.408
¥11,073.561
Adjustments:
Budget Authority
¥65.441
12.667
¥18.065
Outlays ................
¥115.602
5.567
¥40.245
Revised Allocation:
Budget Authority
596.808
¥4,006.720
¥11,179.392
Outlays ................
74,147
4,039,841
11,113,806
Note: The total adjustment for reconciled committees is $1,838.064 billion
in budget authority and $1,815.974 in outlays over ten years.
BUDGET AGGREGATES—BUDGET AUTHORITY AND
OUTLAYS
(Pursuant to Section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and Sec-
tion 3001 of S. Con. Res. 5, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for
Fiscal Year 2021)
$ in billions
2021
Current Aggregates:
Spending:
Budget Authority ...............................................................
5,868.572
Outlays ..............................................................................
5,998.437
Adjustment:
Budget Authority ...............................................................
¥65.441
Outlays ..............................................................................
¥115.602
Revised Aggregates:
Budget Authority ...............................................................
5,803.131
Outlays ..............................................................................
5,882.835
Note: The adjustment represent the difference between 2021 amounts as-
sumed in the budget resolution for fiscal year 2021 and amounts included
in Senate amendment 891.
(Pursuant to Section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and Section 3001 of S. Con. Res. 5, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2021)
$ in billions
2021
2021–2025
2021–2030
Current Aggregates:
Revenue .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
2,S38.727
15,347.1S8
35,107.728
Adjustment:
Revenue .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
¥34.820
¥62.567
¥33.186
Revised Aggregates:
Revenue .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
2,503.907
15,284.591
35,074.542
Note: The adjustment for revenues represents the difference between revenues assumed in the budget resolution for budget reconciliation and the revenue impact of Senate amendment 891. The total reduction in on-budget revenues re-
sulting from the amendment is $50.490 billion in 2021, $95.083 billion over five years, and $65.778 billion over ten years.
PAY-AS-YOU-GO SCORECARD FOR THE SENATE
Pursuant to Section 4106 of H. Con. Res. 71, the Concurrent Resolution on
the Budget for Fiscal Year 2018)
$ in billions
Balances
Starting Balance:
Fiscal Year 2021 ...............................................................
0
Fiscal Years 2021–2025 ...................................................
0
Fiscal Years 2021–2030 ...................................................
0
Adjustments:
Fiscal Year 2021 ...............................................................
1,173.825
Fiscal Years 2021–2025 ...................................................
1,890.373
Fiscal Years 2021–2030 ...................................................
1,881.752
Revised Balance:
Fiscal Year 2021 ...............................................................
1,173.825
Fiscal Years 2021–2025 ...................................................
1,890.373
Fiscal Years 2021–2030 ...................................................
1,881.752
f
WOMEN’S HISTORY MONTH
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, this
month we are celebrating Women’s His-
tory Month, which is a time for us to
look back on history and recognize all
of the barriers women have overcome,
honor women’s rights champions, and
strategize on the work we still have
ahead of us. Our country has made
great strides and progress in recent
decades. We cannot let previous gen-
erations’ hard work and sacrifices go to
waste.
Dating back to the 1800s, women’s
history of philanthropists, suffragists,
and activists in my home State of
Maryland is rich. Margaret Briggs
Gregory Hawkins, born in 1887, was in-
strumental in the long-haul efforts of
women earning the right to vote. Her
dedicated efforts for women’s rights
and civil rights were evident at the
local level in my hometown of Balti-
more. Through her membership in
women’s grassroots organizations, such
as the Druid Hill Branch of the YWCA,
Civilian Defense Mobilization, and the
Progressive Women’s Suffrage Club,
she focused on cultivating meaningful
relationships, leadership skills, and ad-
vancing civil rights and voting rights
for women of color. We commemorate
Margaret this Women’s History Month
as she is inducted into the 2021 Mary-
land Women’s Hall of Fame.
Women’s History Month is a time for
us to remember the fearless women
who shaped history as we know it. In
2020, we lost Supreme Court Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Affectionately
known as the ‘‘notorious RBG,’’ Jus-
tice Ginsburg paved the way for mil-
lions of women in her relentless fight
for justice and equality. She was a war-
rior in guaranteeing women had a
sound voice in the arena. Justice Gins-
burg challenged us to ‘‘think about
how you would like the world to be for
your daughters and granddaughters.’’
While 2020 was tumultuous, it also
brought anniversaries that are worth
noting. In August, we celebrated the
milestone of the 100th anniversary of
women’s suffrage. The right to vote is
a central to the heart of our democ-
racy. I cannot think of a better way to
ring in this milestone than by electing
our first female Vice President, Vice
President KAMALA HARRIS.
It was a privilege and a joy to serve
with my friend KAMALA in the Senate.
She has been pivotal in women’s his-
tory. Aside from her groundbreaking
role as our first female Vice President,
she is the first woman, first South
Asian American, and first African
American to serve as attorny general
in California’s history. When looking
back on her achievements, she often
quotes her mother, who would tell her,
‘‘Kamala, you may be the first to do
many things, but make sure you are
not the last.’’ I could not agree more.
While Vice President HARRIS made
history and shattered the glass ceiling
with her election victory this past No-
vember, there is still work we must do.
The first step in leveling the playing
field between men and women, today
and for future generations, is to pass
the Equal Rights Amendment, ERA.
Justice Ginsburg once said that if she
could choose an amendment to add to
the Constitution, it would be the Equal
Rights Amendment. That is because
she would like her granddaughters,
VerDate Sep 11 2014
06:53 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.099
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1273
March 5, 2021
when they pick up the Constitution, to
see that notion—that women and men
are persons of equal stature—as a basic
principle of our society.
To this day, the Constitution of the
United States, our Nation’s key docu-
ment and supreme law, does not con-
sider men and women of equal stature.
For example, the Constitution does not
protect equal pay under the law.
Women, especially women of color, are
earning significantly less than their
male counterparts for the same work.
Women make up a majority of the pop-
ulation, yet are underrepresented in
our government institutions and the
business world.
The ERA has reached the necessary
38-State ratification threshold for this
landmark legislation to be added to the
Constitution of the United States. The
ERA would solidify and protect the
rights of women where our legislation
currently falls short. The ERA would
raise the standard of scrutiny with
which the courts analyze cases of dis-
crimination on the basis of sex and
send the vital message that women and
men are citizens of equal stature in the
United States.
I have introduced bipartisan legisla-
tion in the Senate, S.J. Res. 1, with the
senior Senator from Alaska, Ms. MUR-
KOWSKI, that would remove the existing
deadline and allow us to bring this
meaningful legislation to the finish
line once and for all.
f
CRIS
ALLEN
MULTIEMPLOYER
PENSION
RECAPITALIZATION
AND REFORM PLAN
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the
multiemployer
pension
system
has
been in need of a major overhaul for
years. More than 300 plans are criti-
cally underfunded. Moreover, the Pen-
sion Benefit Guaranty Corporation,
PBGC, multiemployer insurance fund,
which is a backstop for these plans, is
projected to become insolvent in the
next 5 years.
If this occurs, 1.5 million retirees,
due to no fault of their own, could see
their hard-earned retirement benefits
slashed to pennies on the dollar. This is
unacceptable, and it is one of the rea-
sons that, when I took over as chair-
man of the Senate Finance Committee
in 2019, I made it a priority to fix the
failing multiemployer pension system.
To me, this has always meant helping
secure the retirement benefits of mil-
lions of retirees and ensuring that this
retirement system is sustainable over
the long term. Working with former
Senator and HELP Committee Chair-
man Lamar Alexander, I immediately
got to work on a draft proposal, which
was released for public input and
stakeholder feedback in November of
2019. We received numerous comments
from workers, retirees, unions, employ-
ers, actuaries, academics, plan offi-
cials, and members of the general pub-
lic that helped me refine my approach
and create a balanced plan.
Yesterday,
I
reintroduced
this
version of my plan, which is titled the
‘‘Chris Allen Multiemployer Pension
Recapitalization
and
Reform
Act.’’
This legislation recognizes that, given
the severity of the underfunding issue,
some Federal dollars will be necessary
to shore up severely troubled plans in
the short term. But, this limited as-
sistance must be coupled with struc-
tural reforms intended to address the
root causes of our current situation.
This includes reforms to multiem-
ployer funding rules to ensure plans
are adequately capitalized to make
good on promises made to plan partici-
pants. Furthermore, it would increase
PBGC oversight of troubled plans and
enhance transparency for plan partici-
pants. Critically, it also overhauls the
financing of the PBGC multiemployer
insurance fund so that it can resume
its role as the insurer of last resort for
these plans without additional tax-
payer funding.
The fundamental tenet of my plan is
that all stakeholders have a role in fix-
ing the multiemployer pension system.
The American taxpayer shouldn’t be
expected to simply write a blank
check. Stakeholders need to have skin
in the game if the system is to be sus-
tainable moving forward.
I understand that this is an ex-
tremely complex situation. There is no
perfect solution. From the start, I have
let it be known I want to work with my
Democratic colleagues to find a bipar-
tisan compromise. In June of last year,
I came to the floor to plead with my
Democratic colleagues to come to the
table in hopes we could work toward a
bipartisan agreement prior to the end
of last Congress. Unfortunately, for
months I heard nothing. Then, with
only a few weeks left in the 116th Con-
gress, my Democratic colleagues took
me up on my offer and negotiations
began in earnest. Several weeks of bi-
partisan negotiations ensued, but there
simply was not enough time to iron out
all our differences to ensure we had
sufficient Member support before the
end of the year. However, I found our
discussions constructive. They were fo-
cused correctly on securing the retire-
ment benefits of participants in the
failing plans in the near term, while
also ensuring the long-term sustain-
ability of the multiemployer pension
system without a Federal takeover.
I hoped our negotiations would pro-
vide a foundation for continuing to
work toward a bipartisan solution this
Congress. Instead I am disappointed to
see that the majority has include an
unprecedented $86 billion no-strings
bailout of troubled multiemployer pen-
sion plans in the reconciliation bill
currently before the Senate.
As I have discussed, I recognize that
Federal funds will be needed to solve
the pension crisis in the short term,
but it is equally as important that es-
sential reforms are enacted to ensure
the system can be self-sustaining in
the long term. Otherwise, taxpayers
will be perpetually subsidizing a pri-
vate sector system of employee-benefit
promises. That is exactly what will
occur if my Democratic colleagues in-
sist on going forward with the reform-
free bailout included in this package.
As is, this proposal has been stripped of
even the most rudimentary of reforms
or accountability measures. In fact,
one provision even bars the PBGC from
issuing regulations to provide for such
measures. As a result, the proposal is
likely to breed what economists call
‘‘moral hazard’’ as plan managers and
sponsors realize that there are no con-
sequences to underfunding and over-
promising. In the end, the American
taxpayer will be left footing the bill for
a private sector retirement system.
I hope my Democratic colleagues will
reconsider moving forward with their
no-holds-bared
bailout.
Fundamen-
tally, it does not belong in the current
package. The issues plaguing the mul-
tiemployer system long predate the
pandemic and are not COVID related.
But if it is to be included, at a min-
imum, essential reforms along the
lines of what I have proposed must be
included. They are essential to protect
the American taxpayer and to ensure
the long-term sustainability of the
multiemployer system.
Toward this end, I intend to offer a
motion to commit the reconciliation
bill to the Finance Committee with in-
structions to report it back with crit-
ical reforms to ensure multiemployer
plans are adequately funded and the
PBGC’s insurance fund is adequately fi-
nanced. Without such reforms, the cur-
rent proposal would set the precedent
that the American taxpayer, not the
PBGC, is the ultimate guarantor of pri-
vate-employer pension promises. If this
is the case, the burden on the Amer-
ican taxpayer will not be the $86 billion
in this package or even hundreds of bil-
lions of dollars. It will be limitless.
f
TRIBUTE TO CHIEF JUDGE SIDNEY
R. THOMAS
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President,
today I recognize Chief Judge Sidney
R. Thomas, a dedicated public servant
who is celebrating 25 years on the Fed-
eral bench on March 11.
Born and raised in Montana, Judge
Thomas’s skill as a decisionmaker was
evident from the start. Even as a high
school debater, he earned the respect of
competing schools with the combina-
tion of his success at meets and affable
spirit. Both his tenacity and good na-
ture would be enduring legacies. Judge
Thomas went on to attend Montana
State University and obtain his J.D.
from the University of Montana School
of Law. He was twice appointed to the
Board of Regents of Higher Education
as a student member.
After graduating, Judge Thomas en-
tered private practice. A quick learner
with a deft ability to understand even
the most complex cases, he became a
senior partner. During his tenure in
private practice, Judge Thomas spe-
cialized in commercial litigation, along
with
bankruptcy,
government,
and
media law. He further applied his ex-
pertise as the standing bankruptcy
VerDate Sep 11 2014
09:05 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.093
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1274
March 5, 2021
trustee for all bankruptcy cases filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District
of Montana’s Billings Division. Judge
Thomas also helped shape future law-
yers by serving at Rocky Mountain
College for over a decade as an adjunct
instructor in law.
On July 19, 1995, recognizing Judge
Thomas’s outstanding record, Presi-
dent Bill Clinton nominated him to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. The U.S. Senate confirmed
Judge Thomas in January 1996, and he
served as a judge for nearly two dec-
ades, before becoming chief judge on
December 1, 2014.
Throughout his impressive career,
Judge Thomas has earned the con-
fidence of his colleagues and the Amer-
ican people. He is a respected leader
who is trusted for his sound judgment
and integrity, as well as beloved for his
warm personality and wit. These quali-
ties landed Judge Thomas on President
Barack Obama’s short list of can-
didates to replace Justice John Paul
Stevens on the U.S. Supreme Court in
2010.
Thanks to his extraordinary commit-
ment public service, his intelligence
and legal acumen, and his commitment
to justice, Judge Thomas is a credit to
our Nation’s judiciary. His fairness on
the bench, along with his tireless work
ethic and compassion, sets a model for
all of us.
I applaud his many accomplishments
and hope my colleagues will join me in
congratulating Chief Judge Sidney R.
Thomas on attaining 25 years on the
Federal bench.
f
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
VERMONT STATE OF THE UNION
ESSAY CONTEST FINALISTS
∑Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask
to have printed in the RECORD some of
the
finalists’
essays
written
by
Vermont high school students as part
of the 11th annual ‘‘State of the Union’’
essay contest conducted by my office.
The material follows:
FINALISTS
ALEXANDER SHRIVER, BRATILEBORO UNION HIGH
SCHOOL, SENIOR
On November 8th, 2016, the American peo-
ple exercised their most basic democratic
freedom and decided to elect Hillary Clinton
as their President. According to CNN Poli-
tics, Clinton won the majority of the 138 mil-
lion votes cast. If U.S. democracy stayed
true to its ideal of equality, Clinton would
have been elected. Instead, the 2.9 million
votes which gave Clinton the edge meant
nothing—those
voices
unheard
and
disrespected. Donald Trump was placed in of-
fice.
Writing the Constitution, the founding fa-
thers struggled to find a fair way to elect a
President and ultimately created the Elec-
toral College. Instead of relying on a popular
vote, this system, along with the infamous
Three-fifths Compromise, was built to ap-
pease the opposition of southern slaveholders
worried the more populous North would con-
trol the country and outlaw slavery. Since
its inception, it has contradicted the peoples’
decision in five elections, including 2016.
As horrible as its origins are, some argue
that the Electoral College still protects the
interests of smaller states where people
might not otherwise be heard. They argue
the antiquated system forces candidates to
campaign in less populous areas, protecting
their importance. However, the Electoral
College does not fulfill this purpose. Con-
sider the areas Donald Trump visited in his
2020 campaign: he never traveled to states
like Vermont, Wyoming, North Dakota,
Rhode Island, or Montana. This is the kind
of disproportionate attention the Electoral
College is supposed to prevent, but because
of their low vote count and poll’s suggesting
a large polarization towards one candidate,
these states were not prioritized.
330 million people live in the U.S., almost
none of whom have had any sort of inter-
action with a presidential candidate. Most
citizens learn about presidential campaigns
through the media, online campaigning, and
events like nationally televised debates.
Therefore, even if the Electoral College did
force equal attention to every state, it
makes no difference because of the manner
in which citizens make their voting deci-
sions.
In the Electoral College, some votes count
for more than others. Each state has two
voting delegates from the Senate and at
least one member in the House of Represent-
atives regardless of their population, auto-
matically giving smaller states more voting
power. According to the University of North
Carolina, a vote in Alaska is about 2.42 times
more valuable than the average vote, while a
Californian vote is only 87% as valuable as
the average. Furthermore, in states where
the vast majority of people vote the same
way, each individual vote is less important
than in a more politically diverse state. Be-
cause its original purpose of protecting small
states is unnecessary, the Electoral College
only serves to devalue some votes.
The best solution to promote a more pure
democracy is to amend the Constitution to
replace the Electoral College with a popular
vote. The only factor in determining the
President would be the will of the people.
There are many ways the American democ-
racy needs to improve, so let’s start with its
most fundamental institution.
STEPHIE SIKI, WINOOSKI HIGH SCHOOL, SENIOR
ANTIRACISM
‘‘To be black and conscious of anti black
racism is to stare into the mirror of your
own extinctions’’ by lbram X. Kendi. The as-
sassination of George Floyd showed me that
my life could also be taken away at the
knees of a police officer. As a black woman,
it felt as if I had a danger in my chest, that
I couldn’t pull out, I could only watch it
bleed for nine and a half minutes. Despite
the horrendous police brutality, I believe
that our generation has the power to remove
racist thoughts, beliefs, and actions in this
world. The only way to remove racism is to
become an antiracist.
My definition of antiracist is someone that
actively chooses to be against racism. It
takes learning about structural racism and
one’s own implicit bias and privilege. Ac-
cording to PNAS, Between the ages of 25 and
29, black men are killed by police at a rate
between 2.8 and 4.1 per 100,000. Stephan
Clark, a young man that was standing in his
grandmother’s yard, holding a mobile phone.
The police shot him 20 times, they assumed
Clark was holding a weapon because his skin
is seen as a weapon. This type of scenario is
not the first nor is it the last unless we
change it as a country. Based on the Na-
tional
Equity
Project,
Structural
racialization refers to institutional practices
and structural arrangements that lead to
racialized inequities Equity is when every
individual or group of people receives the
right amount of support based on their
needs. We need to work on providing racial
equity in our country.
Since the minority communities have been
built to be inferior to be majority commu-
nities, it is hard to survive in a crisis. We
have to understand the 400 years of night-
mares black people have lived through be-
cause it impacts our lives. Based on The
Washington Post, black Americans were 37%
more likely to die from Covid19 than whites.
As a black woman, this statistic scares me
because it is implying that my race will be
the reason I am more likely to die from
Covid19 and not my health. As a member of
The Winooski Students for Anti Racism, we
are demanding that SRO officers be removed
from our school because of the institutional
racism the police system was built on. Two
thousand twenty was the last march to de-
mand BLACK LIVES MATTER, my life mat-
ters.
We have to mandate Culture and Commu-
nity class for middle and high school. That
class will focus on teaching students about
race, racism, identity, equity, biases, privi-
lege, and slavery. We need social workers ac-
companying police officers to a situation be-
lieved to be racially motivated. We also need
to support anti racist organizations in the
U.S.A. Encourage states to at least have one
organization that prioritizes anti racism. In
order to save the world from this racist pan-
demic, we have focused on targeting racism.∑
f
MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT
Messages from the President of the
United States were communicated to
the Senate by Ms. Roberts, one of his
secretaries.
f
EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED
As in executive session the Presiding
Office laid before the Senate messages
from the President of the United
States submitting sundry nominations
which were referred to the Committee
on Armed Services.
(The messages received today are
printed at the end of the Senate pro-
ceedings.)
f
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND
JOINT RESOLUTIONS
The following bills and joint resolu-
tions were introduced, read the first
and second times by unanimous con-
sent, and referred as indicated:
By Mr. PORTMAN (for himself, Ms.
WARREN, Mr. DURBIN, and Mr. VAN
HOLLEN):
S. 612. A bill to require the Under Sec-
retary for Health of the Department of Vet-
erans Affairs to provide certain information
to medical center staff and homelessness
service providers of the Department regard-
ing the coordinated entry processes for hous-
ing and services operated under the Con-
tinuum of Care Program of the Department
of Housing and Urban Development, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Vet-
erans’ Affairs.
By
Mr.
TILLIS
(for
himself,
Ms.
SINEMA, Mr. CRAMER, and Mrs. FEIN-
STEIN):
S. 613. A bill to direct the Secretary of Vet-
erans Affairs to carry out a pilot program on
dog training therapy and to amend title 38,
United States Code, to authorize the Sec-
retary to provide service dogs to veterans
VerDate Sep 11 2014
06:53 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\G05MR6.096
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1275
March 5, 2021
with mental illnesses who do not have mobil-
ity impairments; to the Committee on Vet-
erans’ Affairs.
By Mr. CARDIN (for himself and Mr.
WICKER):
S. 614. A bill to amend title 23, United
States Code, to improve the transportation
alternatives program, and for other pur-
poses; to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
By Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself and
Mr. RISCH):
S. 615. A bill to establish an interagency
program to assist countries in North Africa
and West Africa to improve immediate and
long-term capabilities to counter terrorist
threats, and for other purposes; to the Com-
mittee on Foreign Relations.
By Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr.
RUBIO, Mr. KAINE, Mr. CASSIDY, and
Mr. CARDIN):
S. 616. A bill to authorize the tenth general
capital increase for the Inter-American De-
velopment Bank and to strengthen recovery
efforts in Latin America and the Caribbean
related to the COVID–19 pandemic, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
f
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 50
At the request of Mr. MENENDEZ, the
names of the Senator from Massachu-
setts (Ms. WARREN), the Senator from
Oregon (Mr. MERKLEY), the Senator
from Maryland (Mr. CARDIN), the Sen-
ator from New York (Mrs. GILLIBRAND)
and the Senator from Massachusetts
(Mr. MARKEY) were added as cosponsors
of S. 50, a bill to temporarily designate
Venezuela under section 244(b) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act to
permit eligible nationals of Venezuela
to be granted temporary protected sta-
tus.
S. 171
At the request of Mr. DAINES, the
name of the Senator from Montana
(Mr. TESTER) was added as a cosponsor
of S. 171, a bill to authorize the Key-
stone XL Pipeline.
S. 255
At the request of Mr. WICKER, the
names of the Senator from Massachu-
setts (Mr. MARKEY), the Senator from
Washington (Mrs. MURRAY), the Sen-
ator from Hawaii (Ms. HIRONO), the
Senator from Virginia (Mr. WARNER),
the Senator from Maryland (Mr. VAN
HOLLEN), the Senator from Montana
(Mr. TESTER), the Senator from Maine
(Mr. KING), the Senator from New
Hampshire (Mrs. SHAHEEN), the Sen-
ator from New Mexico (Mr. HEINRICH),
the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
LUJA´ N), the Senator from New Hamp-
shire (Ms. HASSAN), the Senator from
Georgia (Mr. WARNOCK), the Senator
from Massachusetts (Ms. WARREN) and
the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr.
REED) were added as cosponsors of S.
255, a bill to establish a $120,000,000,000
Restaurant Revitalization Fund to pro-
vide structured relief to food service or
drinking establishments, and for other
purposes.
S. 306
At the request of Mr. VAN HOLLEN,
the name of the Senator from Colorado
(Mr. HICKENLOOPER) was added as a co-
sponsor of S. 306, a bill to provide a
process for granting lawful permanent
resident status to aliens from certain
countries who meet specified eligibility
requirements, and for other purposes.
S. 369
At the request of Mr. TESTER, the
name of the Senator from Montana
(Mr. DAINES) was added as a cosponsor
of S. 369, a bill to authorize and appro-
priate funding for grants to Amtrak for
the restoration of long-distance routes
and the rehiring of employees fur-
loughed as a result of the COVID–19
pandemic.
S. 381
At the request of Mr. WICKER, the
name of the Senator from Mississippi
(Mrs. HYDE-SMITH) was added as a co-
sponsor of S. 381, a bill to establish the
National Ocean Mapping, Exploration,
and Characterization Council, and for
other purposes.
S. 408
At the request of Mr. TOOMEY, the
name of the Senator from Kansas (Mr.
MARSHALL) was added as a cosponsor of
S. 408, a bill to require the Secretary of
Health and Human Services to publish
guidance for States on strategies for
maternal care providers participating
in the Medicaid program to reduce ma-
ternal mortality and severe morbidity
with respect to individuals receiving
medical assistance under such pro-
gram.
S. 437
At the request of Mr. SULLIVAN, the
names of the Senator from Maryland
(Mr. VAN
HOLLEN) and the Senator
from Idaho (Mr. CRAPO) were added as
cosponsors of S. 437, a bill to amend
title 38, United States Code, to concede
exposure to airborne hazards and tox-
ins from burn pits under certain cir-
cumstances, and for other purposes.
S. 488
At the request of Mr. HAGERTY, the
name of the Senator from Maine (Ms.
COLLINS) was added as a cosponsor of S.
488, a bill to provide for congressional
review of actions to terminate or waive
sanctions imposed with respect to Iran.
S. 597
At the request of Mr. CARDIN, the
name of the Senator from Virginia (Mr.
KAINE) was added as a cosponsor of S.
597, a bill to eliminate racial, religious,
and other discriminatory profiling by
law enforcement, and for other pur-
poses.
S. 605
At the request of Mrs. GILLIBRAND,
the name of the Senator from New
Mexico (Mr. HEINRICH) was added as a
cosponsor of S. 605, a bill to reduce the
number of preventable deaths and inju-
ries caused by underride crashes, to im-
prove motor carrier and passenger
motor vehicle safety, and for other pur-
poses.
S.J. RES. 7
At the request of Mr. LEE, the name
of the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
THUNE) was added as a cosponsor of
S.J. Res. 7, a joint resolution dis-
approving the action of the District of
Columbia Council in approving the
Minor
Consent
for
Vaccinations
Amendment Act of 2020.
S. RES. 72
At the request of Mr. COTTON, the
name of the Senator from Maine (Ms.
COLLINS) was added as a cosponsor of S.
Res. 72, a resolution opposing the lift-
ing of sanctions imposed with respect
to Iran without addressing the full
scope of Iran’s malign activities, in-
cluding its nuclear program, ballistic
and cruise missile capabilities, weap-
ons
proliferation,
support
for
ter-
rorism, hostage-taking, gross human
rights violations, and other desta-
bilizing activities.
S. RES. 88
At the request of Mr. SCOTT of Flor-
ida, the name of the Senator from Ten-
nessee (Mrs. BLACKBURN) was added as
a cosponsor of S. Res. 88, a resolution
requesting that the President transmit
to the Senate not later than 14 days
after the date of the adoption of this
resolution documents in the possession
of the President relating to the amount
of funding previously enacted under
certain
public
laws
and
currently
unspent.
AMENDMENT NO. 901
At the request of Mr. HAGERTY, the
name of the Senator from North Caro-
lina (Mr. TILLIS) was added as a co-
sponsor of amendment No. 901 intended
to be proposed to H.R. 1319, a bill to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5.
AMENDMENT NO. 902
At the request of Mr. GRASSLEY, the
name of the Senator from North Da-
kota (Mr. HOEVEN) was added as a co-
sponsor of amendment No. 902 proposed
to H.R. 1319, a bill to provide for rec-
onciliation pursuant to title II of S.
Con. Res. 5.
AMENDMENT NO. 944
At the request of Mrs. FISCHER, the
names of the Senator from Texas (Mr.
CORNYN) and the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. TILLIS) were added as co-
sponsors of amendment No. 944 pro-
posed to H.R. 1319, a bill to provide for
reconciliation pursuant to title II of S.
Con. Res. 5.
AMENDMENT NO. 946
At the request of Mr. THUNE, the
name of the Senator from Nebraska
(Mr. SASSE) was added as a cosponsor
of amendment No. 946 intended to be
proposed to H.R. 1319, a bill to provide
for reconciliation pursuant to title II
of S. Con. Res. 5.
AMENDMENT NO. 960
At the request of Mr. DAINES, the
name of the Senator from North Da-
kota (Mr. HOEVEN) was added as a co-
sponsor of amendment No. 960 intended
to be proposed to H.R. 1319, a bill to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5.
AMENDMENT NO. 965
At the request of Mr. CRAMER, the
names of the Senator from Kansas (Mr.
VerDate Sep 11 2014
06:53 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.137
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1276
March 5, 2021
MARSHALL) and the Senator from Kan-
sas (Mr. MORAN) were added as cospon-
sors of amendment No. 965 intended to
be proposed to H.R. 1319, a bill to pro-
vide for reconciliation pursuant to title
II of S. Con. Res. 5.
AMENDMENT NO. 971
At the request of Mr. CORNYN, his
name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 971 intended to be pro-
posed to H.R. 1319, a bill to provide for
reconciliation pursuant to title II of S.
Con. Res. 5.
At the request of Mrs. HYDE-SMITH,
the name of the Senator from North
Dakota (Mr. HOEVEN) was added as a
cosponsor of amendment No. 971 in-
tended to be proposed to H.R. 1319,
supra.
AMENDMENT NO. 985
At the request of Mr. RISCH, the
name of the Senator from Arkansas
(Mr. BOOZMAN) was added as a cospon-
sor of amendment No. 985 intended to
be proposed to H.R. 1319, a bill to pro-
vide for reconciliation pursuant to title
II of S. Con. Res. 5.
AMENDMENT NO. 992
At the request of Mr. BRAUN, the
name of the Senator from South Caro-
lina (Mr. SCOTT) was added as a cospon-
sor of amendment No. 992 intended to
be proposed to H.R. 1319, a bill to pro-
vide for reconciliation pursuant to title
II of S. Con. Res. 5.
AMENDMENT NO. 996
At the request of Mrs. BLACKBURN,
the names of the Senator from South
Carolina (Mr. SCOTT), the Senator from
Mississippi (Mrs. HYDE-SMITH) and the
Senator from Indiana (Mr. BRAUN) were
added as cosponsors of amendment No.
996 proposed to H.R. 1319, a bill to pro-
vide for reconciliation pursuant to title
II of S. Con. Res. 5.
AMENDMENT NO. 1010
At the request of Mr. TOOMEY, the
name of the Senator from Montana
(Mr. DAINES) was added as a cosponsor
of amendment No. 1010 proposed to
H.R. 1319, a bill to provide for reconcili-
ation pursuant to title II of S. Con.
Res. 5.
AMENDMENT NO. 1031
At the request of Mr. BRAUN, his
name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 1031 proposed to H.R.
1319, a bill to provide for reconciliation
pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 5.
AMENDMENT NO. 1197
At the request of Mr. TESTER, the
name of the Senator from West Vir-
ginia (Mr. MANCHIN) was added as a co-
sponsor of amendment No. 1197 pro-
posed to H.R. 1319, a bill to provide for
reconciliation pursuant to title II of S.
Con. Res. 5.
AMENDMENT NO. 1313
At the request of Ms. MURKOWSKI, the
name of the Senator from Alaska (Mr.
SULLIVAN) was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 1313 intended to be pro-
posed to H.R. 1319, a bill to provide for
reconciliation pursuant to title II of S.
Con. Res. 5.
AMENDMENT NO. 1369
At the request of Mr. GRAHAM, the
name of the Senator from Tennessee
(Mr. HAGERTY) was added as a cospon-
sor of amendment No. 1369 proposed to
H.R. 1319, a bill to provide for reconcili-
ation pursuant to title II of S. Con.
Res. 5.
f
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND
PROPOSED
SA 1001. Mr. MORAN submitted an amend-
ment intended to be proposed to amendment
SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for him-
self, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN,
Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms.
STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to provide for
reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con.
Res. 5; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1002. Mr. MORAN submitted an amend-
ment intended to be proposed to amendment
SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for him-
self, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN,
Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms.
STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1003. Mrs. BLACKBURN submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1004. Mr. TOOMEY (for himself and Mr.
DAINES) submitted an amendment intended
to be proposed to amendment SA 891 pro-
posed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr.
WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1005. Mr. TOOMEY (for himself and Mr.
RUBIO) submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed to amendment SA 891 proposed
by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN,
Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr.
TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr.
CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the
bill H.R. 1319, supra; which was ordered to lie
on the table.
SA 1006. Mr. TOOMEY (for himself, Mr.
YOUNG, and Mr. BRAUN) submitted an amend-
ment intended to be proposed to amendment
SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for him-
self, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN,
Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms.
STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1007. Mr. TOOMEY submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1008. Mr. TOOMEY submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1009. Mr. TOOMEY submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1010. Mr. TOOMEY proposed an amend-
ment to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MUR-
RAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN,
Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER,
Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra.
SA 1011. Mr. TOOMEY submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1012. Mr. TOOMEY submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1013. Mr. TOOMEY (for himself and
Mrs. FISCHER) submitted an amendment in-
tended to be proposed to amendment SA 891
proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr.
WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1014. Mr. PAUL proposed an amend-
ment to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MUR-
RAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN,
Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER,
Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra.
SA 1015. Mr. PAUL submitted an amend-
ment intended to be proposed to amendment
SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for him-
self, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN,
Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms.
STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1016. Mr. TILLIS submitted an amend-
ment intended to be proposed to amendment
SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for him-
self, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN,
Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms.
STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1017. Mr. TILLIS submitted an amend-
ment intended to be proposed to amendment
SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for him-
self, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN,
Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms.
STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1018. Mr. LANKFORD submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
VerDate Sep 11 2014
06:53 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.139
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1277
March 5, 2021
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1019. Mr. LANKFORD submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1020. Mr. LANKFORD submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1021. Mr. SULLIVAN submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1022. Mr. SULLIVAN submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1023. Mr. SULLIVAN submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1024. Mr. SULLIVAN submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1025. Mr. SULLIVAN submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1026. Mr. RUBIO (for himself, Mr. SCOTT
of South Carolina, Mr. HAGERTY, Ms. ERNST,
Mr. TILLIS, Mr. DAINES, Mr. CRAMER, Mr.
BLUNT, Mrs. BLACKBURN, and Mr. KENNEDY)
proposed an amendment to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra.
SA 1027. Mr. RUBIO (for himself, Mr. SCOTT
of South Carolina, Mr. HAGERTY, Ms. ERNST,
Mr. TILLIS, Mr. DAINES, Mr. CRAMER, and Mr.
BLUNT) submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed to amendment SA 891 proposed
by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN,
Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr.
TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr.
CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the
bill H.R. 1319, supra; which was ordered to lie
on the table.
SA 1028. Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina (for
himself and Mr. CRAMER) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1029. Mr. SCOTT, of South Carolina (for
himself and Mr. CRAMER) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1030. Mr. SCOTT, of South Carolina (for
himself, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. DAINES, and Mr.
LANKFORD)
proposed
an
amendment
to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra.
SA 1031. Mr. LANKFORD (for himself and
Mr. DAINES) proposed an amendment to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra.
SA 1032. Mr. WICKER (for himself, Mr.
LANKFORD, and Mr. DAINES) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1033. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1034. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1035. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1036. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1037. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1038. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1039. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1040. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1041. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1042. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1043. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1044. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
VerDate Sep 11 2014
06:53 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.103
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1278
March 5, 2021
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1045. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1046. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1047. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1048. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1049. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1050. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1051. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1052. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1053. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1054. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1055. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1056. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1057. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1058. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1059. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1060. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1061. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1062. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1063. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1064. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1065. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1066. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1067. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1068. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1069. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1070. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
VerDate Sep 11 2014
06:53 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.105
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1279
March 5, 2021
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1071. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1072. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1073. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1074. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1075. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1076. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1077. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1078. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1079. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1080. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1081. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1082. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1083. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1084. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1085. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1086. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1087. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1088. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1089. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1090. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1091. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1092. Mr. PORTMAN (for himself, Mr.
BRAUN, Mr. CASSIDY, Mr. YOUNG, Ms. COL-
LINS, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. ROMNEY, Mr.
ROUNDS, Mr. TILLIS, and Mrs. CAPITO) pro-
posed an amendment to amendment SA 891
proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr.
WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra.
SA 1093. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1094. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1095. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1096. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
VerDate Sep 11 2014
06:53 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.107
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1280
March 5, 2021
SA 1097. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1098. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1099. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1100. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1101. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1102. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1103. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1104. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1105. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1106. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1107. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1108. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1109. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1110. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1111. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1112. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1113. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1114. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1115. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1116. Mr. TILLIS submitted an amend-
ment intended to be proposed to amendment
SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for him-
self, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN,
Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms.
STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1117. Mr. DAINES (for himself and Mr.
LANKFORD) submitted an amendment in-
tended to be proposed to amendment SA 891
proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr.
WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1118. Mr. GRAHAM (for himself and Mr.
MARSHALL) submitted an amendment in-
tended to be proposed to amendment SA 891
proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr.
WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1119. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1120. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1121. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1122. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1123. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
VerDate Sep 11 2014
06:53 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.109
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1281
March 5, 2021
SA 1124. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1125. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1126. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1127. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1128. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1129. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1130. Ms. HASSAN (for herself and Mrs.
SHAHEEN) submitted an amendment intended
to be proposed to amendment SA 891 pro-
posed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr.
WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1131. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1132. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1133. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1134. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1135. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1136. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1137. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1138. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1139. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1140. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1141. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1142. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1143. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1144. Mr. TOOMEY submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1145. Mr. TOOMEY submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1146. Mr. MARSHALL submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1147. Mr. MARSHALL submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1148. Mr. GRAHAM submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1149. Mr. TOOMEY submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1150. Mr. CARPER (for himself, Mr.
WYDEN, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. KELLY, Mr. REED,
and Mrs. SHAHEEN) submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1151. Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr.
PORTMAN, Mr. CASSIDY, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr.
ROMNEY, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. ROUNDS, Mr.
YOUNG, Mr. TILLIS, and Mr. CRAPO) sub-
mitted an amendment intended to be pro-
posed to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MUR-
RAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN,
Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER,
Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
VerDate Sep 11 2014
06:53 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.111
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1282
March 5, 2021
SA 1152. Mr. MORAN submitted an amend-
ment intended to be proposed to amendment
SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for him-
self, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN,
Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms.
STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1153. Mr. MORAN submitted an amend-
ment intended to be proposed to amendment
SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for him-
self, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN,
Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms.
STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1154. Mr. MORAN (for himself and Mr.
TILLIS) proposed an amendment to amend-
ment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for
himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra.
SA 1155. Mr. SCOTT, of South Carolina (for
himself and Ms. LUMMIS) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1156. Mr. RISCH submitted an amend-
ment intended to be proposed to amendment
SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for him-
self, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN,
Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms.
STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1157. Mr. BRAUN submitted an amend-
ment intended to be proposed to amendment
SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for him-
self, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN,
Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms.
STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1158. Mrs. BLACKBURN submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1159. Mrs. BLACKBURN submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1160. Mrs. BLACKBURN submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1161. Mr. CASSIDY (for himself, Mr.
SCOTT of South Carolina, and Mr. TILLIS)
proposed an amendment to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra.
SA 1162. Mr. CASSIDY (for himself and Mr.
COTTON) proposed an amendment to amend-
ment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for
himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra.
SA 1163. Mr. PORTMAN (for himself, Mr.
SCOTT of South Carolina, and Mr. MORAN)
submitted an amendment intended to be pro-
posed to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MUR-
RAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN,
Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER,
Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1164. Mr. PORTMAN submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1165. Mr. TUBERVILLE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1166. Mr. TUBERVILLE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1167. Mr. TUBERVILLE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1168. Mr. TUBERVILLE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1169. Mr. TUBERVILLE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1170. Mr. TUBERVILLE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1171. Mr. TUBERVILLE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1172. Mr. TUBERVILLE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1173. Mr. TUBERVILLE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1174. Mr. TUBERVILLE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1175. Mr. TUBERVILLE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1176. Mr. TUBERVILLE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1177. Mr. TUBERVILLE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1178. Mr. TUBERVILLE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
VerDate Sep 11 2014
06:53 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.114
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1283
March 5, 2021
SA 1179. Mr. TUBERVILLE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1180. Mr. TUBERVILLE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1181. Mr. TUBERVILLE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1182. Mr. TUBERVILLE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1183. Mr. TUBERVILLE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1184. Mr. TUBERVILLE (for himself,
Mr. GRAHAM, and Mr. MARSHALL) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1185. Mr. TUBERVILLE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1186. Mr. TUBERVILLE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1187. Mr. TUBERVILLE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1188. Ms. MURKOWSKI submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1189. Mr. CRAMER (for himself and Mr.
PORTMAN) submitted an amendment intended
to be proposed to amendment SA 891 pro-
posed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr.
WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1190. Ms. MURKOWSKI submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1191. Ms. MURKOWSKI submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1192. Mrs. BLACKBURN submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1193. Mrs. BLACKBURN submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1194. Mr. TOOMEY submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1195. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1196. Ms. MURKOWSKI submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1197. Mr. TESTER proposed an amend-
ment to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MUR-
RAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN,
Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER,
Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra.
SA 1198. Mr. CASSIDY (for himself, Mr.
SCOTT of South Carolina, and Mr. TILLIS)
submitted an amendment intended to be pro-
posed to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MUR-
RAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN,
Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER,
Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1199. Mr. SCOTT, of South Carolina
submitted an amendment intended to be pro-
posed to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MUR-
RAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN,
Ms. CANTWELL, Ms . STABENOW, Mr. TESTER,
Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1200. Mr. SCOTT, of South Carolina
submitted an amendment intended to be pro-
posed to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MUR-
RAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN,
Ms. CANTWELL, Ms . STABENOW, Mr. TESTER,
Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1201. Mr. SCOTT, of South Carolina
submitted an amendment intended to be pro-
posed to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MUR-
RAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN,
Ms. CANTWELL, Ms . STABENOW, Mr. TESTER,
Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1202. Mr. SCOTT, of South Carolina
submitted an amendment intended to be pro-
posed to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MUR-
RAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN,
Ms. CANTWELL, Ms . STABENOW, Mr. TESTER,
Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1203. Mr. SCOTT, of South Carolina (for
himself, Mr. MORAN, and Mr. LANKFORD) sub-
mitted an amendment intended to be pro-
posed to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MUR-
RAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN,
Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER,
Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1204. Mr. SCOTT, of South Carolina (for
himself, Mr. MORAN, and Mr. LANKFORD) sub-
mitted an amendment intended to be pro-
posed to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MUR-
RAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN,
Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER,
Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1205. Mr. SCOTT, of South Carolina (for
himself, Mr. COTTON, Mr. MORAN, and Mr.
VerDate Sep 11 2014
06:53 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.116
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1284
March 5, 2021
LANKFORD) submitted an amendment in-
tended to be proposed to amendment SA 891
proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr.
WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1206. Mr. SCOTT, of South Carolina (for
himself, Mr. COTTON, Mr. MORAN, and Mr.
LANKFORD) submitted an amendment in-
tended to be proposed to amendment SA 891
proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr.
WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1207. Mr. SCOTT, of South Carolina
submitted an amendment intended to be pro-
posed to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MUR-
RAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN,
Ms. CANTWELL, Ms . STABENOW, Mr. TESTER,
Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1208. Mr. TILLIS submitted an amend-
ment intended to be proposed to amendment
SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for him-
self, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN,
Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms.
STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1209. Mr. TILLIS submitted an amend-
ment intended to be proposed to amendment
SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for him-
self, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN,
Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms.
STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1210. Mr. TILLIS submitted an amend-
ment intended to be proposed to amendment
SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for him-
self, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN,
Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms.
STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1211. Mr. TILLIS (for himself and Mr.
TOOMEY) submitted an amendment intended
to be proposed to amendment SA 891 pro-
posed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr.
WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1212. Mr. BLUNT submitted an amend-
ment intended to be proposed to amendment
SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for him-
self, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN,
Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms.
STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA
1213.
Mr.
HOEVEN
submitted
an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1214. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1215. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1216. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1217. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1218. Mr. LEE (for himself and Mr.
TOOMEY) submitted an amendment intended
to be proposed to amendment SA 891 pro-
posed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr.
WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1219. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1220. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1221. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1222. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1223. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1224. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1225. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1226. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1227. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1228. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1229. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1230. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1231. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1232. Mr. DAINES (for himself, Mr.
CRAMER, and Mr. TOOMEY) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1233. Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself, Mr.
PORTMAN, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. MANCHIN, Ms.
COLLINS, and Ms. SINEMA) proposed an
amendment to amendment SA 891 proposed
by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN,
VerDate Sep 11 2014
09:23 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.118
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1285
March 5, 2021
Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr.
TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr.
CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the
bill H.R. 1319, supra.
SA 1234. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1235. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1236. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1237. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1238. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1239. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1240. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1241. Mrs. HYDE–SMITH submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1242. Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr.
PORTMAN, Mr. CASSIDY, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr.
ROMNEY, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. ROUNDS, Mr.
TILLIS, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. YOUNG, and Mr.
GRASSLEY)
proposed
an
amendment
to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra.
SA 1243. Ms. HASSAN (for herself, Mrs.
SHAHEEN,
and
Mr.
KING)
submitted
an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1244. Mr. YOUNG submitted an amend-
ment intended to be proposed to amendment
SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for him-
self, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN,
Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms.
STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1245. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1246. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1247. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1248. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1249. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1250. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1251. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1252. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1253. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1254. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1255. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1256. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1257. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1258. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1259. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1260. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
VerDate Sep 11 2014
06:53 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.120
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1286
March 5, 2021
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1261. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1262. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1263. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1264. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1265. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1266. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1267. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1268. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1269. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1270. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1271. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1272. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1273. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1274. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1275. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1276. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1277. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1278. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1279. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1280. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1281. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1282. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1283. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1284. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1285. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1286. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
VerDate Sep 11 2014
09:39 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.122
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1287
March 5, 2021
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1287. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1288. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1289. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1290. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA
1291.
Mr.
ROUNDS
submitted
an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1292. Mr. RUBIO (for himself and Mr.
GRASSLEY) submitted an amendment in-
tended to be proposed to amendment SA 891
proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr.
WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1293. Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr.
THUNE, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. RUBIO, and Mr. MAR-
SHALL) submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed to amendment SA 891 proposed
by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN,
Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr.
TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr.
CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the
bill H.R. 1319, supra; which was ordered to lie
on the table.
SA 1294. Mr. RUBIO submitted an amend-
ment intended to be proposed to amendment
SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for him-
self, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN,
Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms.
STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1295. Mr. RUBIO submitted an amend-
ment intended to be proposed to amendment
SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for him-
self, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN,
Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms.
STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1296. Mr. RUBIO submitted an amend-
ment intended to be proposed to amendment
SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for him-
self, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN,
Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms.
STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1297. Mr. RUBIO submitted an amend-
ment intended to be proposed to amendment
SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for him-
self, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN,
Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms.
STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1298. Mr. BURR submitted an amend-
ment intended to be proposed to amendment
SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for him-
self, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN,
Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms.
STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1299. Mr. BURR submitted an amend-
ment intended to be proposed to amendment
SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for him-
self, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN,
Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms.
STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1300. Mr. BURR submitted an amend-
ment intended to be proposed to amendment
SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for him-
self, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN,
Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms.
STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1301. Mr. BURR submitted an amend-
ment intended to be proposed to amendment
SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for him-
self, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN,
Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms.
STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1302. Mr. BURR submitted an amend-
ment intended to be proposed to amendment
SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for him-
self, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN,
Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms.
STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1303. Mr. BURR submitted an amend-
ment intended to be proposed to amendment
SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for him-
self, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN,
Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms.
STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1304. Mr. BURR submitted an amend-
ment intended to be proposed to amendment
SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for him-
self, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN,
Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms.
STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1305. Mr. SCOTT, of South Carolina (for
himself and Mr. DAINES) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA
1306.
Ms.
LUMMIS
submitted
an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA
1307.
Ms.
LUMMIS
submitted
an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA
1308.
Ms.
LUMMIS
submitted
an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA
1309.
Ms.
LUMMIS
submitted
an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA
1310.
Ms.
LUMMIS
submitted
an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA
1311.
Ms.
LUMMIS
submitted
an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1312. Ms. LUMMIS (for herself and Mrs.
BLACKBURN) submitted an amendment in-
tended to be proposed to amendment SA 891
proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr.
WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1313. Ms. MURKOWSKI submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1314. Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and
Mr. SULLIVAN) submitted an amendment in-
tended to be proposed to amendment SA 891
proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr.
VerDate Sep 11 2014
09:39 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.124
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1288
March 5, 2021
WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1315. Mr. THUNE (for himself and Mr.
SCOTT
of South Carolina) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1316. Mr. THUNE (for himself, Mr.
CRAMER, and Mr. MARSHALL) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1317. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1318. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1319. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1320. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1321. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1322. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1323. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1324. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1325. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1326. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1327. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1328. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1329. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1330. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1331. Mr. LEE proposed an amendment
to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHU-
MER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY,
Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms.
CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra.
SA 1332. Mrs. BLACKBURN submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1333. Mr. TILLIS submitted an amend-
ment intended to be proposed to amendment
SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for him-
self, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN,
Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms.
STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1334. Mr. TILLIS (for himself, Mr.
CRAMER, and Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina)
submitted an amendment intended to be pro-
posed to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MUR-
RAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN,
Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER,
Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1335. Mr. SULLIVAN (for himself, Ms.
ERNST, and Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina)
submitted an amendment intended to be pro-
posed to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MUR-
RAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN,
Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER,
Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1336. Mr. MORAN submitted an amend-
ment intended to be proposed to amendment
SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for him-
self, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN,
Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms.
STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1337. Mr. TOOMEY submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1338. Mr. TOOMEY submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1339. Mr. RUBIO (for himself and Mr.
LEE) submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed to amendment SA 891 proposed
by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN,
Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr.
TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr.
CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the
bill H.R. 1319, supra; which was ordered to lie
on the table.
SA 1340. Mr. MARSHALL submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1341. Mr. MARSHALL submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1342. Mr. MORAN (for himself, Mr. CAR-
PER, Mr. CASSIDY, and Mr. LANKFORD) pro-
posed an amendment to amendment SA 891
VerDate Sep 11 2014
09:39 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.126
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1289
March 5, 2021
proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr.
WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra.
SA 1343. Mr. MORAN (for himself, Mr.
TOOMEY, and Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina)
submitted an amendment intended to be pro-
posed to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MUR-
RAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN,
Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER,
Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1344. Ms. HASSAN (for herself and Mrs.
MURRAY) proposed an amendment to amend-
ment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for
himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra.
SA 1345. Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr.
TILLIS, Mr. CRAMER, and Mr. PORTMAN) sub-
mitted an amendment intended to be pro-
posed to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MUR-
RAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN,
Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER,
Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1346. Ms. COLLINS submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1347. Mr. TOOMEY submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1348. Mr. RISCH submitted an amend-
ment intended to be proposed to amendment
SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for him-
self, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN,
Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms.
STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1349. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1350. Mr. HAGERTY submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1351. Mr. HAGERTY submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1352. Mr. TILLIS submitted an amend-
ment intended to be proposed to amendment
SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for him-
self, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN,
Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms.
STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1353. Mr. CRAPO submitted an amend-
ment intended to be proposed to amendment
SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for him-
self, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN,
Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms.
STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA
1354.
Ms.
LUMMIS
submitted
an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1355. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1356. Ms. ROSEN submitted an amend-
ment intended to be proposed to amendment
SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for him-
self, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN,
Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms.
STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1357. Mr. BRAUN submitted an amend-
ment intended to be proposed to amendment
SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for him-
self, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN,
Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms.
STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1358. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1359. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1360. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1361. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1362. Mr. ROMNEY submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1363. Mr. ROMNEY (for himself and Mr.
MARSHALL) submitted an amendment in-
tended to be proposed to amendment SA 891
proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr.
WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1364. Mr. ROMNEY proposed an amend-
ment to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MUR-
RAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN,
Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER,
Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra.
SA 1365. Mr. LEE (for himself and Mr.
SCOTT
of South Carolina) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1366. Mr. LEE (for himself and Mr.
SCOTT
of South Carolina) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1367. Mr. LANKFORD submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1368. Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr.
THUNE, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. RUBIO, and Mr. MAR-
SHALL) submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed to amendment SA 891 proposed
by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN,
Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms . STABENOW, Mr.
TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr.
CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the
bill H.R. 1319, supra; which was ordered to lie
on the table.
SA 1369. Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr.
THUNE, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. RUBIO, and Mr. MAR-
SHALL) proposed an amendment to amend-
ment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for
himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
VerDate Sep 11 2014
09:39 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.129
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1290
March 5, 2021
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra.
SA 1370. Mr. BARRASSO submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1371. Mr. BARRASSO submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1372. Mr. BARRASSO submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1373. Mr. BARRASSO submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1374. Mr. BARRASSO submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1375. Mr. BARRASSO submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1376. Mr. BARRASSO (for himself and
Ms. LUMMIS) submitted an amendment in-
tended to be proposed to amendment SA 891
proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr.
WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1377. Mr. BARRASSO (for himself and
Ms. LUMMIS) submitted an amendment in-
tended to be proposed to amendment SA 891
proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr.
WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1378. Mr. WYDEN proposed an amend-
ment to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MUR-
RAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN,
Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER,
Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra.
SA 1379. Mr. BRAUN submitted an amend-
ment intended to be proposed to amendment
SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for him-
self, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN,
Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms.
STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1380. Mr. LEE (for himself and Mr.
RUBIO) submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed to amendment SA 891 proposed
by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN,
Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms . STABENOW, Mr.
TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr.
CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the
bill H.R. 1319, supra; which was ordered to lie
on the table.
SA 1381. Mr. LEE (for himself and Mr.
RUBIO) proposed an amendment to amend-
ment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for
himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra.
SA 1382. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1383. Mr. YOUNG proposed an amend-
ment to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MUR-
RAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN,
Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER,
Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra.
SA 1384. Mr. YOUNG submitted an amend-
ment intended to be proposed to amendment
SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for him-
self, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN,
Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms.
STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1385. Mr. YOUNG submitted an amend-
ment intended to be proposed to amendment
SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for him-
self, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN,
Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms.
STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1386. Mr. TUBERVILLE (for himself,
Mr. GRAHAM, and Mr. MARSHALL) proposed
an amendment to amendment SA 891 pro-
posed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr.
WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra.
SA 1387. Mr. TUBERVILLE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1388. Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and
Mrs. CAPITO) submitted an amendment in-
tended to be proposed to amendment SA 891
proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr.
WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1389. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1390. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1391. Mr. WARNER (for himself and Mr.
RUBIO) proposed an amendment to amend-
ment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for
himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra.
SA 1392. Mr. HAGERTY submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1393. Mr. HAGERTY submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1394. Mr. DAINES (for himself and Mr.
LANKFORD) submitted an amendment in-
tended to be proposed to amendment SA 891
proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr.
WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1395. Mr. SCOTT, of Florida proposed
an amendment to amendment SA 891 pro-
posed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr.
WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STA-
BENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr.
SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, supra.
SA 1396. Mr. HAGERTY submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1397. Mr. GRAHAM submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
VerDate Sep 11 2014
09:39 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.131
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1291
March 5, 2021
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr.
LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R.
1319, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1398. Mr. SCHUMER proposed an
amendment to amendment SA 891 proposed
by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN,
Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr.
TESTER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr.
CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the
bill H.R. 1319, supra.
f
TEXT OF AMENDMENTS
SA 1001. Mr. MORAN submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the fol-
lowing:
SEC. lll. FUNDING FOR IDEA.
In addition to amounts otherwise avail-
able, there is appropriated to the Depart-
ment of Education for fiscal year 2021, out of
any money in the Treasury not otherwise ap-
propriated,
$78,755,412,000,
for
grants
to
States under part B of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1411 et
seq.), to remain available through september
30, 2023.
In section 2001(a), strike ‘‘$128,554,800,000’’
and insert ‘‘$49,799,388,000’’.
SA 1002. Mr. MORAN submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end of section 2001(e)(2), add the fol-
lowing:
(T) Paying the utility bills of the local
educational agency.
SA 1003. Mrs. BLACKBURN sub-
mitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 891 pro-
posed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr.
WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL,
Ms.
STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER,
Mr. LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the
bill H.R. 1319, to provide for reconcili-
ation pursuant to title II of S. Con.
Res. 5; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
Strike section 2605 and insert the fol-
lowing:
SEC. 2605. ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR YOUTH
SUICIDE PREVENTION.
In addition to amounts otherwise avail-
able, including under this title, there is ap-
propriated to the Secretary for fiscal year
2021, out of any money in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated, $50,000,000, to remain
available until expended, for carrying out
section 520E and 520E–2 of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290bb–36, 290bb–36b).
SA 1004. Mr. TOOMEY (for himself
and Mr. DAINES) submitted an amend-
ment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
Strike section 9661 and insert the fol-
lowing:
SEC. 9661. IMPROVING AFFORDABILITY BY EX-
PANDING
PREMIUM
ASSISTANCE
FOR CONSUMERS.
(a) IN
GENERAL.—Section 36B(b)(3)(A) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended
by adding at the end the following new
clause:
‘‘(iii) TEMPORARY
PERCENTAGES
FOR
2021
AND 2022.—In the case of a taxable year be-
ginning in 2021 or 2022—
‘‘(I) clause (ii) shall not apply for purposes
of adjusting premium percentages under this
subparagraph, and
‘‘(II) the following table shall be applied in
lieu of the table contained in clause (i):
‘‘In the case of household
income (expressed as
a percent of poverty line)
within the following income tier:
The initial
premium
percentage
is—
The final
premium
percentage
is—
Up to 150.0 percent ...................................................................................................................................................
0.0
0.0
150.0 percent up to 200.0 percent ...............................................................................................................................
0.0
2.0
200.0 percent up to 250.0 percent ...............................................................................................................................
2.0
4.0
250.0 percent up to 300.0 percent ...............................................................................................................................
4.0
6.0
300.0 percent up to 400.0 percent ...............................................................................................................................
6.0
8.5
400.0 percent up to 750.0 percent ...............................................................................................................................
8.5
8.5’’.
(b)
CONFORMING
AMENDMENT.—Section
36B(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
is amended by adding at the end the fol-
lowing new subparagraph:
‘‘(E) TEMPORARY RULE FOR 2021 AND 2022.—
In the case of a taxable year beginning in
2021 or 2022, subparagraph (A) shall be ap-
plied by substituting ‘750 percent’ for ‘400
percent’.’’.
(c) EFFECTIVE
DATE.—The amendments
made by this section shall apply to taxable
years beginning after December 31, 2020.
SA 1005. Mr. TOOMEY (for himself
and Mr. RUBIO) submitted an amend-
ment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
Strike section 9661 and insert the fol-
lowing:
SEC. 9661. IMPROVING AFFORDABILITY BY EX-
PANDING
PREMIUM
ASSISTANCE
FOR CONSUMERS.
(a) IN
GENERAL.—Section 36B(b)(3)(A) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended
by adding at the end the following new
clause:
‘‘(iii) TEMPORARY PERCENTAGES FOR 2021.—
In the case of a taxable year beginning in
2021—
‘‘(I) clause (ii) shall not apply for purposes
of adjusting premium percentages under this
subparagraph, and
‘‘(II) the following table shall be applied in
lieu of the table contained in clause (i):
‘‘In the case of household
income (expressed as
a percent of poverty line)
within the following income tier:
The initial
premium
percentage
is—
The final
premium
percentage
is—
Up to 150.0 percent ...................................................................................................................................................
0.0
0.0
150.0 percent up to 200.0 percent ...............................................................................................................................
0.0
2.0
200.0 percent up to 250.0 percent ...............................................................................................................................
2.0
4.0
VerDate Sep 11 2014
12:13 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.133
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1292
March 5, 2021
‘‘In the case of household
income (expressed as
a percent of poverty line)
within the following income tier:
The initial
premium
percentage
is—
The final
premium
percentage
is—
250.0 percent up to 300.0 percent ...............................................................................................................................
4.0
6.0
300.0 percent up to 400.0 percent ...............................................................................................................................
6.0
8.5
400.0 percent and higher ...........................................................................................................................................
8.5
8.5’’.
(b)
CONFORMING
AMENDMENT.—Section
36B(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
is amended by adding at the end the fol-
lowing new subparagraph:
‘‘(E) TEMPORARY
RULE
FOR 2021.—In the
case of a taxable year beginning in 2021, sub-
paragraph (A) shall be applied without re-
gard to ‘but does not exceed 400 percent’.’’.
(c) EFFECTIVE
DATE.—The amendments
made by this section shall apply to taxable
years beginning after December 31, 2020.
SA 1006. Mr. TOOMEY (for himself,
Mr. YOUNG, and Mr. BRAUN) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed
to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
Strike section 9816.
SA 1007. Mr. TOOMEY submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end of part 1 of subtitle A of title
IX, insert the following:
SEC. ll. CAP ON TEMPORARY INCREASED UN-
EMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BEN-
EFITS AT PRIOR WAGES.
(a)
PANDEMIC
UNEMPLOYMENT
ASSIST-
ANCE.—Section 2102(d) of the CARES Act (15
U.S.C. 9021(d)) is amended—
(1) in paragraph (1), in the matter pre-
ceding subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘The
assistance’’ and inserting ‘‘Subject to para-
graph (4), the assistance’’;
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘In the
case’’ and inserting ‘‘Subject to paragraph
(4), in the case’’; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
‘‘(5) LIMITATION.—For weeks of unemploy-
ment ending after March 14, 2021, and ending
on or before August 29, 2021, the total
amount of the weekly assistance applicable
to an individual under paragraph (1) or (2)
(including the increase under section 2104)
may not exceed—
‘‘(A) in the case of paragraph (1), the
amount of the individual’s average weekly
wages on which the individual’s weekly ben-
efit is based; and
‘‘(B) in the case of paragraph (2), the
amount of the individual’s average weekly
wages for an appropriate period prior to the
receipt of assistance under such section, as
determined by the Secretary of Labor.’’.
(b)
FEDERAL
PANDEMIC
UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION.—Section
2104(b)
of
the
CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 9023(b)) is amended—
(1) in paragraph (1), in the matter pre-
ceding subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘Any
agreement’’ and inserting ‘‘Subject to para-
graph (4), any agreement’’; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(4) LIMITATION.—For weeks of unemploy-
ment ending after March 14, 2021, and ending
on or before August 29, 2021, the sum of the
weekly amount described in subparagraphs
(A) (regular compensation), (B) (Federal pan-
demic unemployment compensation), and (C)
(Mixed Earner Unemployment Compensa-
tion) of paragraph (1) with respect to an indi-
vidual may not exceed the amount of the in-
dividual’s average weekly wages on which
the amount described in such subparagraph
(A) is based.’’.
(c) PANDEMIC EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION.—Section
2107(b)(3)
of
the
CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 9025(b)(3)) is amended
by adding at the end the following new sen-
tence:
‘‘The
limitation
under
section
2104(b)(4) shall apply for purposes of deter-
mining the weekly benefit amount under the
preceding sentence.’’.
(d) SHORT-TIME COMPENSATION.—
(1) STATES
WITH
PROGRAMS
IN
LAW.—Sec-
tion 2108(a) of the CARES Act (15 U.S.C.
9026(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
‘‘(4) TOTAL PAYMENT MAY NOT EXCEED WEEK-
LY WAGES.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—For weeks of unemploy-
ment ending after March 14, 2021, and ending
on or before August 29, 2021, the sum of the
amounts described in subparagraph (B) with
respect to an individual for a week may not
exceed the amount of the individual’s aver-
age weekly wages on which the amount de-
scribed in subparagraph (B)(ii) is based.
‘‘(B) AMOUNTS.—The amounts described in
this subparagraph are the following with re-
spect to a week:
‘‘(i) The amount of the wages the indi-
vidual receives from the employer for the
week for the reduced hours under the short-
time compensation program.
‘‘(ii) The amount of the regular compensa-
tion (including dependents’ allowances) pay-
able to such individual for the week under
the short-time compensation program.
‘‘(iii) The amount of Federal Pandemic Un-
employment Compensation under section
2104 payable to such individual for the week
under the short-time compensation pro-
gram.’’.
(2) AGREEMENTS.—Section 2109(b)(2) of the
CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 9027(b)(2)) is amended
by adding at the end the following new para-
graph:
‘‘(C) TOTAL
PAYMENT
MAY
NOT
EXCEED
WEEKLY WAGES.—
‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—For weeks of unemploy-
ment ending after March 14, 2021, and ending
on or before August 29, 202, the sum of the
amounts described in clause (ii) with respect
to an individual for a week may not exceed
the amount of the individual’s average week-
ly wages on which the amount described in
clause (ii)(II) is based.
‘‘(ii) AMOUNTS.—The amounts described in
this clause are the following with respect to
a week:
‘‘(I) The amount of the wages the indi-
vidual receives from the employer for the
week for the reduced hours under the short-
time compensation plan under the agree-
ment.
‘‘(II) The amount of the regular compensa-
tion (including dependents’ allowances) pay-
able to such individual for the week under
such short-time compensation plan.
‘‘(III) The amount of Federal Pandemic Un-
employment Compensation under section
2104 payable to such individual for the week
under such short-time compensation plan.’’.
SA 1008. Mr. TOOMEY submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
In section 2001(a) strike ‘‘$125,804,800,000’’
and insert ‘‘$6,500,000,000’’.
SA 1009. Mr. TOOMEY submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
Strike section 4001.
SA 1010. Mr. TOOMEY proposed an
amendment to amendment SA 891 pro-
posed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr.
WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL,
Ms.
STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER,
Mr. LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the
bill H.R. 1319, to provide for reconcili-
ation pursuant to title II of S. Con.
Res. 5; as follows:
Strike section 1005.
SA 1011. Mr. TOOMEY submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
VerDate Sep 11 2014
12:13 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.142
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1293
March 5, 2021
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
In subsection (a)(2) of section 1005 (relating
to farm loan assistance for socially dis-
advantaged farmers and ranchers), in the
matter preceding subparagraph (A), strike
‘‘120 percent’’ and insert ‘‘100 percent’’.
SA 1012. Mr. TOOMEY submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
In subsection (a)(2) of section 1005 (relating
to farm loan assistance for socially dis-
advantaged farmers and ranchers), in the
matter preceding subparagraph (A), strike
‘‘indebtedness of each socially disadvantaged
farmer or rancher as of January 1, 2021,’’ and
insert ‘‘indebtedness incurred during the pe-
riod beginning on March 13, 2021, and ending
on the date of enactment of this Act of each
socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher’’.
SA 1013. Mr. TOOMEY (for himself
and
Mrs.
FISCHER)
submitted
an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 346, between lines 16 and 17, insert
the following:
‘‘(3) ELIMINATION
OF
CREDIT
FOR
INDIVID-
UALS WITH NO REDUCTION IN INCOME.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any tax-
payer whose adjusted gross income for the
first taxable year beginning in 2020 is equal
to or greater than such taxpayer’s adjusted
gross income for the first taxable year begin-
ning in 2019, the amount of the credit al-
lowed by subsection (a) shall be reduced to
zero.
‘‘(B) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary shall
issue such regulations or other guidance as
the Secretary determines necessary or ap-
propriate to carry out the purposes of sub-
paragraph (A), including regulations or other
guidance which provides for the application
of such subparagraph where the filing status
of the taxpayer for the first taxable year be-
ginning in 2019 is different from the status of
such taxpayer for the first taxable year be-
ginning in 2020.’’.
SA 1014. Mr. PAUL proposed an
amendment to amendment SA 891 pro-
posed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr.
WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL,
Ms.
STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER,
Mr. LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the
bill H.R. 1319, to provide for reconcili-
ation pursuant to title II of S. Con.
Res. 5; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
Strike section 5001.
SA 1015. Mr. PAUL submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
Strike section 9704.
SA 1016. Mr. TILLIS submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
Beginning on page 581, strike line 20 and
all that follows through page 582, line 15, and
insert the following:
‘‘(6) TIMING.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subparagraph
(D), to the extent practicable, with respect
to each State and territory allocated a pay-
ment under this subsection, the Secretary
shall make the payment required for the
State or territory not later than 60 days
after the date on which the certification re-
quired under subsection (d)(1) is provided to
the Secretary.
‘‘(B) TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS.—To the extent
practicable, with respect to each Tribal gov-
ernment for which an amount is allocated
under this subsection, the Secretary shall
make the payment required for the Tribal
government not later than 60 days after the
date of enactment of this section.
‘‘(C) INITIAL PAYMENT TO DISTRICT OF CO-
LUMBIA.—The
Secretary
shall
pay
the
amount allocated under paragraph (3)(B)(ii)
to the District of Columbia not later than 15
days after the date of enactment of this sec-
tion.
‘‘(D) WITHHOLDING
OF
PAYMENT.—In the
case of a State, the Secretary shall withhold
50 percent of the amount otherwise payable
to the State under this section if, for the
most recent month for which data is avail-
able on the date of enactment of this section,
the unemployment rate for the State is less
than 7 percent, and shall only pay such with-
held amount to such State if the unemploy-
ment rate for the State for any month dur-
ing the period beginning on such date and
ending on December 31, 2024, is at least 7 per-
cent.
SA 1017. Mr. TILLIS submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
Beginning on page 581, strike line 20 and
all that follows through page 582, line 15, and
insert the following:
‘‘(6) TIMING.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subparagraph
(D), to the extent practicable, with respect
to each State and territory allocated a pay-
ment under this subsection, the Secretary
shall make the payment required for the
State or territory not later than 60 days
after the date on which the certification re-
quired under subsection (d)(1) is provided to
the Secretary.
‘‘(B) TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS.—To the extent
practicable, with respect to each Tribal gov-
ernment for which an amount is allocated
under this subsection, the Secretary shall
make the payment required for the Tribal
government not later than 60 days after the
date of enactment of this section.
‘‘(C) INITIAL PAYMENT TO DISTRICT OF CO-
LUMBIA.—The
Secretary
shall
pay
the
amount allocated under paragraph (3)(B)(ii)
to the District of Columbia not later than 15
days after the date of enactment of this sec-
tion.
‘‘(D) WITHHOLDING OF PAYMENT.—The Sec-
retary shall withhold 50 percent of the
amount otherwise payable to each State
under this section if, for the most recent
month for which data is available on the
date of enactment of this section, the na-
tional unemployment rate is less than 7 per-
cent, and shall only pay such withheld
amount to each State if the national unem-
ployment rate for any month during the pe-
riod beginning on such date and ending on
December 31, 2024, is at least 7 percent.
SA 1018. Mr. LANKFORD submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed
to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end of subtitle M of title IX, insert
the following:
SEC. 9902. LIMITATION ON OUTLAYS.
Title VI of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 801 et seq.), as amended by this title,
is further amended by adding at the end the
following:
‘‘SEC. 605. LIMITATION ON OUTLAYS.
‘‘If the Secretary, acting on the basis of
issued court opinions, determines that a
State (including the District of Columbia) or
other government imposes limits on the con-
tent of speech, or the religious exercise or
belief, of houses of worship and faith-based
organizations that are more restrictive than
the corresponding limits for secular organi-
zations, and the Secretary makes a payment
to that government under section 602, 603, or
604, the Secretary shall make that payment
at one-half the usual outlay rate.’’.
SA 1019. Mr. LANKFORD submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed
to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place in title V, insert
the following:
SEC. ll. PAYCHECK PROTECTION PROGRAM
FOR FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) ELIGIBILITY.—For purposes of deter-
mining the eligibility of a faith-based orga-
nization (including a house of worship) for
VerDate Sep 11 2014
11:18 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.143
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1294
March 5, 2021
assistance under the paycheck protection
program in section 7(a)(36) of the Small Busi-
ness Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)(36)), the Adminis-
trator of the Small Business Administration
shall apply section 121.103 of title 13, Code of
Federal Regulations and related provisions
of part 121 of that title, as in effect on the
date of enactment of this section.
(b) FREE EXERCISE
OF RELIGION.—In car-
rying out the paycheck protection program,
the Administrator of the Small Business Ad-
ministration may not require that receipt of
funding under section 5001(d)(2) or section
7(a)(36) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
636(a)(36))—
(1) limits the authority of a faith-based or-
ganization to define the standards, respon-
sibilities, and duties for membership in the
organization;
(2) limits the freedom of a faith-based or-
ganization to select individuals to perform
work connected to the organization’s free ex-
ercise of religion; or
(3) constitutes a waiver of any right under
Federal law, including rights to religious au-
tonomy and religious exercise, under the Re-
ligious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42
U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.), section 702 of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e–1(a)), or
the First Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States.
SA 1020. Mr. LANKFORD submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed
to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
Strike section 2605 (relating to family
planning).
SA 1021. Mr. SULLIVAN submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed
to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
In subsection (b) of section 6002 (relating to
funding for pollution and disparate impacts
of the COVID–19 pandemic), strike paragraph
(1) and insert the following:
(1) Of the funds made available pursuant to
subsection (a)(1), the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency shall re-
serve—
(A) 33 percent for grants, contracts, and
other agency activities that identify and ad-
dress disproportionate environmental or pub-
lic health harms and risks in rural popu-
lations; and
(B) 2 percent for administrative costs nec-
essary to carry out activities funded pursu-
ant to such subsection.
SA 1022. Mr. SULLIVAN submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed
to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
Beginning on page 578, strike line 22 and
all that follows through page 579, line 15, and
insert the following:
‘‘(iii) an amount equal to the remainder of
the amount reserved under subparagraph (A)
after the application of clauses (i) and (ii) of
this subparagraph shall be allocated by the
Secretary as an additional amount to each of
the 50 States and the District of Columbia in
an amount which bears the same proportion
to such remainder as the relative loss in tax
revenue of the State or District of Columbia
during the 12-month period ending on Feb-
ruary 28, 2021 (as determined by the Sec-
retary based on the most recent available
data from the Department of the Treasury)
bears to the sum of the relative losses in tax
revenue for all 50 States and the District of
Columbia during such period (as so deter-
mined).
SA 1023. Mr. SULLIVAN submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed
to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 578, line 12, strike ‘‘$25,500,000,000’’
and insert ‘‘$63,750,000,000’’.
SA 1024. Mr. SULLIVAN submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed
to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end of subtitle G of title II, add the
following:
SEC. 2606. FUNDING FOR COVID–19 MITIGATION
INSTRUCTIONS FOR CRUISE SHIPS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section
2403, of the amounts appropriated under that
section, $1,000,000 shall be made available to
the Secretary to develop and provide instruc-
tions for activities to detect, diagnose, trace,
monitor, and report on SARS–CoV–2 and
COVID–19 infections, and related strategies
to mitigate the spread of SARS–CoV–2,
aboard cruise ships.
(b) USE
OF FUNDS.—From amounts made
available under subsection (a), the Sec-
retary, through the Director of the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, shall
issue all technical instructions or orders for
cruise ships covered by the order entitled
‘‘No Sail Order and Suspension of Further
Embarkation’’ issued by the Director effec-
tive on March 14, 2020 (85 Fed. Reg. 16628), or
any modification to or extension of such
order, to resume operating in waters of the
United States in compliance with the order
entitled ‘‘Framework for Conditional Sailing
and Initial Phase COVID–19 Testing Require-
ments for Protection of Crew’’, issued by the
Director effective on October 30, 2020, under
sections 361 and 365 of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 264; 268).
(c) TIMELINE.—Not later than 30 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Direc-
tor of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention shall publish the technical in-
structions or orders issued under subsection
(b). The Director may update or modify such
technical instructions or orders as necessary
based on specific public health or other con-
siderations.
SA 1025. Mr. SULLIVAN submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed
to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
Beginning on page 227, strike line 15 and
all that follows through page 228, line 2, and
insert the following:
(a) IN GENERAL.—In addition to amounts
otherwise available, there is appropriated to
the Environmental Protection Agency for
fiscal year 2021, out of any money in the
Treasury
not
otherwise
appropriated,
$99,500,000, to remain available until ex-
pended, to address health outcome dispari-
ties from pollution and the COVID–19 pan-
demic, of which—
(1) $49,500,000, shall be for grants, con-
tracts, and other agency activities that iden-
tify and address disproportionate environ-
mental or public health harms and risks in
minority
populations,
low-income
popu-
lations, and rural populations under—
SA 1026. Mr. RUBIO (for himself, Mr.
SCOTT,
of
South
Carolina,
Mr.
HAGERTY, Ms. ERNST, Mr. TILLIS, Mr.
DAINES, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. BLUNT, Mrs.
BLACKBURN, and Mr. KENNEDY) pro-
posed an amendment to amendment SA
891 proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for him-
self, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms.
CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER,
Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CAR-
PER, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to
the bill H.R. 1319, to provide for rec-
onciliation pursuant to title II of S.
Con. Res. 5; as follows:
Strike section 2001 and insert the fol-
lowing:
SEC.
2001.
ELEMENTARY
AND
SECONDARY
SCHOOL EMERGENCY RELIEF FUND.
(a) IN GENERAL.—In addition to amounts
otherwise available, there is appropriated to
the Department of Education for fiscal year
2021, out of any money in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated, $125,804,800,000, to re-
main available through September 30, 2023,
to carry out this section.
(b) GRANTS.—From funds provided under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall make
grants to each State educational agency in
accordance with this section.
(c) ALLOCATION TO STATES.—The amount of
each grant under subsection (b) shall be allo-
cated by the Secretary to each State in the
same proportion as each State received
under part A of title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 in the most
recent fiscal year.
(d) SUBGRANTS
TO
LOCAL
EDUCATIONAL
AGENCIES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Each State shall allocate
not less than 95 percent of the grant funds
awarded to the State under this section as
subgrants to local educational agencies (in-
cluding charter schools that are local edu-
cational agencies in the State) in proportion
VerDate Sep 11 2014
11:18 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.144
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1295
March 5, 2021
to the amount of funds such local edu-
cational agencies and charter schools that
are local educational agencies received under
part A of title I of the Elementary and Sec-
ondary Education Act of 1965 in the most re-
cent fiscal year.
(2) AVAILABILITY
OF
FUNDS.—Each State
shall make allocations under paragraph (1)
to local educational agencies in accordance
with the following:
(A) A local educational agency shall re-
ceive 25 percent of its allocation under para-
graph (1) not later than 30 days after the
date of enactment of this title.
(B) A local educational agency shall re-
ceive an additional 15 percent of its alloca-
tion under paragraph (1) for each school day
in a 5-day school week that public elemen-
tary and secondary schools served by the
local educational agency are open for in-per-
son instruction for 100 percent of students
within the local educational agency, as cer-
tified by the local educational agency to the
State.
(e) STATE FUNDING.—With funds not other-
wise allocated under subsection (d), a State
may carry out, directly or through grants or
contracts, activities necessary to support
the safe reopening of schools.
(f) EQUITABLE SERVICES.—Each local edu-
cational agency that receives funds from a
subgrant under subsection (d) shall reserve
funds to provide equitable services in the
same manner as provided under section 1117
of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6320) to students and
teachers in non-public schools, as deter-
mined in consultation with representatives
of non-public schools.
(g) PUBLIC CONTROL OF FUNDS.—The con-
trol of funds for the services or assistance
provided to a non-public school under sub-
section (f), and title to materials, equip-
ment, and property purchased with such
funds, shall be in a public agency, and a pub-
lic agency shall administer such funds, serv-
ices, assistance, materials, equipment, and
property.
(h) REALLOCATION.—A State shall return to
the Secretary any funds received under this
section that the State does not award within
1 year of receiving such funds and the Sec-
retary shall reallocate such funds to the re-
maining States in accordance with sub-
section (c).
SA 1027. Mr. RUBIO (for himself, Mr.
SCOTT,
of
South
Carolina,
Mr.
HAGERTY, Ms. ERNST, Mr. TILLIS, Mr.
DAINES, Mr. CRAMER, and Mr. BLUNT)
submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed to amendment SA 891 pro-
posed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr.
WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL,
Ms.
STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER,
Mr. LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the
bill H.R. 1319, to provide for reconcili-
ation pursuant to title II of S. Con.
Res. 5; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
At the end of section 7104, insert the fol-
lowing:
SEC. 7105. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR
A FEDERALLY MANDATED DOMES-
TIC
TRAVEL
BAN
WITHIN
THE
UNITED STATES.
None of the funds made available by this
Act shall be used by the Secretary of Trans-
portation or the Administrator of the Fed-
eral Aviation Administration to plan, de-
velop, carry out, or enforce, or assist in the
planning, development, carrying out, or en-
forcement of a Federally mandated domestic
travel ban within the United States.
SA 1028. Mr. SCOTT, of South Caro-
lina (for himself and Mr. CRAMER) sub-
mitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 891 pro-
posed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr.
WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL,
Ms.
STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER,
Mr. LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the
bill H.R. 1319, to provide for reconcili-
ation pursuant to title II of S. Con.
Res. 5; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
In section 2001(g)(1), strike ‘‘(e)(1)’’ and in-
sert ‘‘(e)’’.
SA 1029. Mr. SCOTT, of South Caro-
lina (for himself and Mr. CRAMER) sub-
mitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 891 pro-
posed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr.
WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL,
Ms.
STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER,
Mr. LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the
bill H.R. 1319, to provide for reconcili-
ation pursuant to title II of S. Con.
Res. 5; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
In section 2001(d), add at the end the fol-
lowing:
(3) LIMITATION.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—None of the funds made
available under this section may be provided
to a local educational agency unless in-per-
son instruction is available to all students at
each of the public elementary and secondary
schools under the jurisdiction of the local
educational agency.
(B) EDUCATION
SAVINGS
ACCOUNTS.—Each
State that receives a grant under this sec-
tion shall establish an education savings ac-
count for each student enrolled in a public
elementary or secondary school served by a
local educational agency that does not meet
the requirement under subparagraph (A).
From the funds that are prohibited from
being provided to a local educational agency
under subparagraph (A), the State shall de-
posit a per-pupil amount in the account of
each such student. The State shall provide
each such student with the funds in the ac-
count of the student, which such student
shall use for educational expenses.
SA 1030. Mr. SCOTT, of South Caro-
lina (for himself, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr.
DAINES, and Mr. LANKFORD) proposed
an amendment to amendment SA 891
proposed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN,
Mr. PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANT-
WELL, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER,
Mr. LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the
bill H.R. 1319, to provide for reconcili-
ation pursuant to title II of S. Con.
Res. 5; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
Strike section 9818 and insert the fol-
lowing:
SEC. 9818. FUNDING FOR STATE STRIKE TEAMS
FOR
RESIDENT
AND
EMPLOYEE
SAFETY IN NURSING FACILITIES.
Section 1919 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1396r) is amended by adding at the end
the following new subsections:
‘‘(k) FUNDING FOR STATE STRIKE TEAMS.—
In addition to amounts otherwise available,
there is appropriated to the Secretary, out of
any monies in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, $250,000,000, to remain avail-
able until expended, for purposes of allo-
cating such amount among the States (in-
cluding the District of Columbia and each
territory of the United States) for such a
State to establish and implement a strike
team that will be deployed to a nursing facil-
ity in the State with diagnosed or suspected
cases of COVID–19 among residents or staff
for the purposes of assisting with clinical
care, infection control, or staffing during the
emergency
period
described
in
section
1135(g)(1)(B) and the 1-year period imme-
diately following the end of such emergency
period.
‘‘(l) LIMITATION.—The Secretary shall not
make an allocation under subsection (k) to a
State unless the State, for each month that
occurs during the period that begins on Octo-
ber 1, 2020, and ends on the last day of the 1-
year period described in such subsection,
provides accurate monthly reporting to the
Secretary on the number of COVID–19 deaths
of residents of nursing facilities and skilled
nursing facilities (as defined in 1819(a)) and
certifies that such deaths are not included in
counts of COVID–19 deaths in other settings.
The Secretary shall rescind any amounts
previously allocated to a State under sub-
section (k) if the State fails to comply with
the requirement of this subsection.’’.
SA 1031. Mr. LANKFORD (for himself
and Mr. DAINES) proposed an amend-
ment to amendment SA 891 proposed
by Mr. SCHUMER
(for himself, Mr.
WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL,
Ms.
STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER,
Mr. LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the
bill H.R. 1319, to provide for reconcili-
ation pursuant to title II of S. Con.
Res. 5; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
Strike section 2204 and all that follows
through the end of subtitle H of title II and
insert the following:
SEC. 2204. PROGRAMS FOR SURVIVORS.
Section 301 of division BB of the Consoli-
dated Appropriations Act, 2021, as amended
by this Act, is amended by adding at the end
the following subsection:
‘‘(g) PROGRAMS FOR SURVIVORS.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 303 of the Fam-
ily Violence Prevention and Services Act (42
U.S.C. 10403) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
‘‘ ‘(d) ADDITIONAL FUNDING.—For the pur-
poses of carrying out this title, in addition
to amounts otherwise made available for
such purposes, there are appropriated, out of
any amounts in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, for fiscal year 2021, to remain
available until expended except as otherwise
provided in this subsection, each of the fol-
lowing:
‘‘ ‘(1) $180,000,000 to carry out sections 301
through 312, to be allocated in the manner
described in subsection (a)(2), except that—
‘‘ ‘(A) a reference in subsection (a)(2) to an
amount appropriated under subsection (a)(1)
shall be considered to be a reference to an
amount appropriated under this paragraph;
‘‘ ‘(B) the matching requirement in section
306(c)(4) and condition in section 308(d)(3)
shall not apply; and
‘‘ ‘(C) each reference in section 305(e) to
‘‘the end of the following fiscal year’’ shall
be considered to be a reference to ‘‘the end of
fiscal year 2025’’; and
‘‘ ‘(D) funds made available to a State in a
grant under section 306(a) and obligated in a
timely manner shall be available for expend-
iture, by the State or a recipient of funds
VerDate Sep 11 2014
09:39 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.101
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1296
March 5, 2021
from the grant, through the end of fiscal
year 2025.
‘‘ ‘(2) $18,000,000 to carry out section 309.
‘‘ ‘(3) $2,000,000 to carry out section 313, of
which $1,000,000 shall be allocated to support
Indian communities.’.
‘‘(2) GRANT
PROGRAMS.—The Family Vio-
lence Prevention and Services Act is amend-
ed by inserting after section 314 of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 10414) the following:
‘‘ ‘SEC. 315. GRANTS TO SUPPORT CULTURALLY
SPECIFIC
POPULATIONS
AND
GRANTS TO SUPPORT SURVIVORS
OF SEXUAL ASSAULT.
‘‘ ‘(a) COVID–19 PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY
DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘COVID–
19 public health emergency’’ means the pub-
lic health emergency declared by the Sec-
retary of Health and Human Services under
section 319 of the Public Health Service Act
(42 U.S.C. 247d) on January 31, 2020, with re-
spect to COVID–19, including any renewal of
the declaration.
‘‘ ‘(b) GRANTS TO SUPPORT CULTURALLY SPE-
CIFIC POPULATIONS.—
‘‘ ‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In addition to amounts
otherwise made available, there is appro-
priated, out of any amounts in the Treasury
not otherwise appropriated, to the Secretary
of Health and Human Services (in this sec-
tion
referred
to
as
the
‘‘Secretary’’),
$49,500,000 for fiscal year 2021, to be available
until expended, to carry out this subsection
(excluding Federal administrative costs, for
which funds are appropriated under sub-
section (d)).
‘‘ ‘(2) USE OF FUNDS.—From amounts appro-
priated under paragraph (1), the Secretary
acting through the Director of the Family
Violence Prevention and Services Program,
shall—
‘‘ ‘(A) support culturally specific commu-
nity-based organizations to provide cul-
turally specific activities for survivors of
sexual assault and domestic violence, to ad-
dress emergent needs resulting from the
COVID–19 public health emergency and other
public health concerns; and
‘‘ ‘(B) support culturally specific commu-
nity-based organizations that provide cul-
turally specific activities to promote stra-
tegic partnership development and collabo-
ration in responding to the impact of
COVID–19 and other public health concerns
on survivors of sexual assault and domestic
violence.
‘‘ ‘(c) GRANTS
TO SUPPORT SURVIVORS
OF
SEXUAL ASSAULT.—
‘‘ ‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In addition to amounts
otherwise made available, there is appro-
priated, out of any amounts in the Treasury
not otherwise appropriated, to the Sec-
retary, $198,000,000 for fiscal year 2021, to be
available until expended, to carry out this
subsection (excluding Federal administrative
costs, for which funds are appropriated under
subsection (d)).
‘‘ ‘(2) USE
OF
FUNDS.—From the amounts
appropriated under paragraph (1), the Sec-
retary, acting through the Director of the
Family Violence Prevention and Services
Program, shall assist rape crisis centers in
transitioning to virtual services and meeting
the emergency needs of survivors.
‘‘ ‘(d) ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.—In addition
to amounts otherwise made available, there
is appropriated to the Secretary, out of any
amounts in the Treasury not otherwise ap-
propriated, $2,500,000 for fiscal year 2021, to
remain available until expended, for the Fed-
eral administrative costs of carrying out
subsections (b) and (c).’.
SEC.
2205.
CHILD
ABUSE
PREVENTION
AND
TREATMENT.
Section 301 of division BB of the Consoli-
dated Appropriations Act, 2021, as amended
by this Act, is amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
‘‘(h) ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR CHILD ABUSE
PREVENTION
AND
TREATMENT.—The
Child
Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (42
U.S.C. 5101 et seq.) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
‘‘ ‘TITLE III—ADDITIONAL FUNDING
‘‘ ‘SEC. 301. CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION AND
TREATMENT.
‘‘ ‘In addition to amounts otherwise avail-
able, there is appropriated to the Secretary
of Health and Human Services for fiscal year
2021, out of any money in the Treasury not
otherwise
appropriated,
the
following
amounts, to remain available through Sep-
tember 30, 2023:
‘‘ ‘(1) $250,000,000 for carrying out the pro-
gram authorized under section 201, which
shall be allocated without regard to section
204(4) and shall be allotted to States in ac-
cordance with section 203, except that—
‘‘ ‘(A) in subsection (b)(1)(A) of section 203,
‘‘70 percent’’ shall be deemed to be ‘‘100 per-
cent’’; and
‘‘ ‘(B) subsections (b)(1)(B) and (c) of sec-
tion 203 shall not apply; and
‘‘ ‘(2) $100,000,000 for carrying out the State
grant program authorized under section 106,
which shall be allocated without regard to
section 112(a)(2).’.
SEC. 2206. CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND
COMMUNITY SERVICE AND THE NA-
TIONAL SERVICE TRUST.
Section 301 of division BB of the Consoli-
dated Appropriations Act, 2021, as amended
by this Act, is amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
‘‘(i) CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COM-
MUNITY SERVICE AND THE NATIONAL SERVICE
TRUST.—Title V of the National and Commu-
nity Service Act of 1990 is amended by in-
serting after section 501 (42 U.S.C. 12681) the
following:
‘‘ ‘SEC. 502. ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS.
‘‘ ‘(a) CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COM-
MUNITY
SERVICE.—In addition to amounts
otherwise made available, there is appro-
priated for fiscal year 2021, out of any money
in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated,
to the Corporation for National and Commu-
nity Service, $852,000,000, to remain available
through September 30, 2024, to carry out sub-
section (b), except that amounts to carry out
subsection (b)(7) shall remain available until
September 30, 2026.
‘‘ ‘(b) ALLOCATION
OF AMOUNTS.—Amounts
provided by subsection (a) shall be allocated
as follows:
‘‘ ‘(1) AMERICORPS
STATE
AND
NATIONAL.—
$620,000,000 shall be used—
‘‘ ‘(A) to increase the living allowances of
participants in national service programs;
and
‘‘ ‘(B) to make funding adjustments to ex-
isting (as of the date of enactment of this
section) awards and award new and addi-
tional awards to entities to support pro-
grams described in paragraphs (1)(B), (2)(B),
(3)(B), (4)(B), and (5)(B) of subsection (a), and
subsection (b)(2), of section 122, whether or
not the entities are already grant recipients
under such provisions on the date of enact-
ment of this Act, and notwithstanding sec-
tion 122(a)(1)(B)(vi), by—
‘‘ ‘(i) prioritizing entities serving commu-
nities
disproportionately
impacted
by
COVID–19 and utilizing culturally competent
and multilingual strategies in the provision
of services; and
‘‘ ‘(ii) taking into account the diversity of
communities and participants served by such
entities, including racial, ethnic, socio-
economic, linguistic, or geographic diver-
sity.
‘‘ ‘(2) STATE COMMISSIONS.—$20,000,000 shall
be used to make adjustments to existing (as
of the date of enactment of this section)
awards and new and additional awards, in-
cluding awards to State Commissions on Na-
tional and Community Service, under sec-
tion 126(a).
‘‘ ‘(3)
VOLUNTEER
GENERATION
FUND.—
$20,000,000 shall be used for expenses author-
ized under section 501(a)(4)(F), which, not-
withstanding section 198P(d)(1)(B), shall be
for grants awarded by the Corporation for
National and Community Service on a com-
petitive basis.
‘‘ ‘(4) AMERICORPS
VISTA.—$80,000,000 shall
be used for the purposes described in section
101 of the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of
1973 (42 U.S.C. 4951), including to increase the
living allowances of volunteers, described in
section 105(b) of the Domestic Volunteer
Service Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4955(b)).
‘‘ ‘(5) NATIONAL
SENIOR
SERVICE
CORPS.—
$30,000,000 shall be used for the purposes de-
scribed in section 200 of the Domestic Volun-
teer Service Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 5000).
‘‘ ‘(6)
ADMINISTRATIVE
COSTS.—$73,000,000
shall be used for the Corporation for Na-
tional and Community Service for adminis-
trative expenses to carry out programs and
activities funded by subsection (a).
‘‘ ‘(7) OFFICE
OF
INSPECTOR
GENERAL.—
$9,000,000 shall be used for the Office of In-
spector General of the Corporation for Na-
tional and Community Service for salaries
and expenses necessary for oversight and
audit of programs and activities funded by
subsection (a).
‘‘ ‘(c) NATIONAL SERVICE TRUST.—In addi-
tion to amounts otherwise made available,
there is appropriated for fiscal year 2021, out
of any money in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, $148,000,000, to remain avail-
able until expended, for administration of
the National Service Trust, and for payment
to the Trust for the provision of educational
awards pursuant to section 145(a)(1)(A).’.
Subtitle D—Public Health
SEC. 2301. PUBLIC HEALTH.
Section 301 of division BB of the Consoli-
dated Appropriations Act, 2021, as amended
by this Act, is amended by adding at the end
the following new subsections:
‘‘(j) PHSA.—Title II of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 202 et seq.) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
‘‘ ‘PART E—MISCELLANEOUS FUNDING
‘‘ ‘Subpart 1—Vaccines and Therapeutics
‘‘ ‘SEC. 281A. FUNDING FOR COVID–19 VACCINE
ACTIVITIES AT THE CENTERS FOR
DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVEN-
TION.
‘‘ ‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In addition to amounts
otherwise available, there is appropriated to
the Secretary of Health and Human Services
(in this part referred to as the ‘‘Secretary’’)
for fiscal year 2021, out of any money in the
Treasury
not
otherwise
appropriated,
$7,500,000,000, to remain available until ex-
pended, to carry out activities to plan, pre-
pare for, promote, distribute, administer,
monitor, and track COVID–19 vaccines.
‘‘ ‘(b) USE OF FUNDS.—The Secretary, act-
ing through the Director of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, and in con-
sultation with other agencies, as applicable,
shall, in conducting activities referred to in
subsection (a)—
‘‘ ‘(1) conduct activities to enhance, ex-
pand, and improve nationwide COVID–19 vac-
cine distribution and administration, includ-
ing activities related to distribution of ancil-
lary medical products and supplies related to
vaccines; and
‘‘ ‘(2) provide technical assistance, guid-
ance, and support to, and award grants or co-
operative agreements to, State, local, Tribal,
and territorial public health departments for
enhancement of COVID–19 vaccine distribu-
tion and administration capabilities, includ-
ing—
VerDate Sep 11 2014
09:39 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.101
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1297
March 5, 2021
‘‘ ‘(A) the distribution and administration
of vaccines licensed under section 351 or au-
thorized under section 564 of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.
360bbb–3) and ancillary medical products and
supplies related to vaccines;
‘‘ ‘(B) the establishment and expansion, in-
cluding staffing support, of community vac-
cination centers, particularly in underserved
areas;
‘‘ ‘(C) the deployment of mobile vaccina-
tion units, particularly in underserved areas;
‘‘ ‘(D) information technology, standards-
based data, and reporting enhancements, in-
cluding improvements necessary to support
standards-based sharing of data related to
vaccine distribution and vaccinations and
systems that enhance vaccine safety, effec-
tiveness, and uptake, particularly among un-
derserved populations;
‘‘ ‘(E) facilities enhancements;
‘‘ ‘(F) communication with the public re-
garding when, where, and how to receive
COVID–19 vaccines; and
‘‘ ‘(G) transportation of individuals to fa-
cilitate vaccinations, including at commu-
nity vaccination centers and mobile vaccina-
tion units, particularly for underserved pop-
ulations.
‘‘ ‘(c) SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING
FOR STATE
VACCINATION GRANTS.—
‘‘ ‘(1) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection:
‘‘ ‘(A) BASE FORMULA.—The term ‘‘base for-
mula’’ means the allocation formula that ap-
plied to the Public Health Emergency Pre-
paredness cooperative agreement in fiscal
year 2020.
‘‘ ‘(B) ALTERNATIVE ALLOCATION.—The term
‘‘alternative allocation’’ means an allocation
to each State, territory, or locality cal-
culated using the percentage derived from
the allocation received by such State, terri-
tory, or locality of the aggregate amount of
fiscal year 2020 Public Health Emergency
Preparedness cooperative agreement awards
under section 319C–1 of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d–3a).
‘‘ ‘(2) SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING.—
‘‘ ‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 21 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall use amounts described in
subsection (a) to provide supplemental fund-
ing to any State, locality, or territory that
received less of the amounts that were ap-
propriated under title III of division M of
Public Law 116–260 for vaccination grants to
be issued by the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention than such State, locality, or
territory would have received had such
amounts been allocated using the alternative
allocation.
‘‘ ‘(B) AMOUNT.—The amount of supple-
mental funding provided under this sub-
section shall be equal to the difference be-
tween—
‘‘ ‘(i) the amount the State, locality, or ter-
ritory received, or would receive, under the
base formula; and
‘‘ ‘(ii) the amount the State, locality, or
territory would receive under the alternative
allocation.
‘‘ ‘SEC.
281B.
FUNDING
FOR
VACCINE
CON-
FIDENCE ACTIVITIES.
‘‘ ‘In addition to amounts otherwise avail-
able, there is appropriated to the Secretary
for fiscal year 2021, out of any money in the
Treasury
not
otherwise
appropriated,
$1,000,000,000, to remain available until ex-
pended, to carry out activities, acting
through the Director of the Centers for Dis-
ease Control and Prevention—
‘‘ ‘(1) to strengthen vaccine confidence in
the United States, including its territories
and possessions;
‘‘ ‘(2) to provide further information and
education with respect to vaccines licensed
under section 351 or authorized under section
564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb–3); and
‘‘ ‘(3) to improve rates of vaccination
throughout the United States, including its
territories
and
possessions,
including
through activities described in section 313, as
amended by section 311 of division BB of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Pub-
lic Law 116–260).
‘‘ ‘SEC. 281C. FUNDING FOR SUPPLY CHAIN FOR
COVID–19
VACCINES,
THERA-
PEUTICS, AND MEDICAL SUPPLIES.
‘‘ ‘In addition to amounts otherwise avail-
able, there is appropriated to the Secretary
for fiscal year 2021, out of any money in the
Treasury
not
otherwise
appropriated,
$6,050,000,000, to remain available until ex-
pended, for necessary expenses with respect
to research, development, manufacturing,
production, and the purchase of vaccines,
therapeutics, and ancillary medical products
and supplies to prevent, prepare, or respond
to—
‘‘ ‘(1) SARS–CoV–2 or any viral variant mu-
tating therefrom with pandemic potential;
and
‘‘ ‘(2) COVID–19 or any disease with poten-
tial for creating a pandemic.
‘‘ ‘SEC. 281D. FUNDING FOR COVID–19 VACCINE,
THERAPEUTIC, AND DEVICE ACTIVI-
TIES AT THE FOOD AND DRUG AD-
MINISTRATION.
‘‘ ‘In addition to amounts otherwise avail-
able, there is appropriated to the Secretary
for fiscal year 2021, out of any money in the
Treasury
not
otherwise
appropriated,
$500,000,000, to remain available until ex-
pended, to be used for the evaluation of the
continued performance, safety, and effective-
ness, including with respect to emerging
COVID–19 variants, of vaccines, therapeutics,
and diagnostics approved, cleared, licensed,
or authorized for use for the treatment, pre-
vention, or diagnosis of COVID–19; facilita-
tion of advanced continuous manufacturing
activities related to production of vaccines
and related materials; facilitation and con-
duct of inspections related to the manufac-
turing of vaccines, therapeutics, and devices
delayed or cancelled for reasons related to
COVID–19; review of devices authorized for
use for the treatment, prevention, or diag-
nosis of COVID–19; and oversight of the sup-
ply chain and mitigation of shortages of vac-
cines, therapeutics, and devices approved,
cleared, licensed, or authorized for use for
the treatment, prevention, or diagnosis of
COVID–19 by the Food and Drug Administra-
tion.
‘‘ ‘Subpart 2—Testing
‘‘ ‘SEC. 282A. FUNDING FOR COVID–19 TESTING,
CONTRACT TRACING, AND MITIGA-
TION ACTIVITIES.
‘‘ ‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In addition to amounts
otherwise available, there is appropriated to
the Secretary for fiscal year 2021, out of any
money in the Treasury not otherwise appro-
priated, $47,800,000,000, to remain available
until expended, to carry out activities to de-
tect, diagnose, trace, and monitor SARS–
CoV–2 and COVID–19 infections and related
strategies to mitigate the spread of COVID–
19.
‘‘ ‘(b) USE
OF FUNDS.—From amounts ap-
propriated by subsection (a), the Secretary
shall—
‘‘ ‘(1) implement a national, evidence-based
strategy for testing, contact tracing, surveil-
lance, and mitigation with respect to SARS–
CoV–2 and COVID–19, including through ac-
tivities authorized under section 319(a);
‘‘ ‘(2) provide technical assistance, guid-
ance, and support, and award grants or coop-
erative agreements to State, local, and terri-
torial public health departments for activi-
ties to detect, diagnose, trace, and monitor
SARS–CoV–2 and COVID–19 infections and
related strategies and activities to mitigate
the spread of COVID–19;
‘‘ ‘(3) support the development, manufac-
turing, procurement, distribution, and ad-
ministration of tests to detect or diagnose
SARS–CoV–2
and
COVID–19,
including
through—
‘‘ ‘(A) support for the development, manu-
facture, procurement, and distribution of
supplies necessary for administering tests,
such as personal protective equipment; and
‘‘ ‘(B) support for the acquisition, construc-
tion, alteration, or renovation of non-Feder-
ally owned facilities for the production of
diagnostics and ancillary medical products
and supplies where the Secretary determines
that such an investment is necessary to en-
sure the production of sufficient amounts of
such supplies;
‘‘ ‘(4) establish and expand Federal, State,
local, and territorial testing and contact
tracing capabilities, including—
‘‘ ‘(A) ‘‘through investments in laboratory
capacity, such as—
‘‘ ‘(i) academic and research laboratories,
or other laboratories that could be used for
processing of COVID–19 testing;
‘‘ ‘(ii) community-based testing sites and
community-based organizations; or
‘‘ ‘(iii) mobile health units, particularly in
medically underserved areas; and
‘‘ ‘(B) with respect to quarantine and isola-
tion of contacts;
‘‘ ‘(5) enhance information technology, data
modernization, and reporting, including im-
provements necessary to support sharing of
data related to public health capabilities;
‘‘ ‘(6) award grants to, or enter into cooper-
ative agreements or contracts with, State,
local, and territorial public health depart-
ments to establish, expand, and sustain a
public health workforce; and
‘‘ ‘(7) to cover administrative and program
support costs necessary to conduct activities
related to subparagraph (a).
‘‘ ‘SEC. 282B. FUNDING FOR SARS-COV-2 GENOMIC
SEQUENCING AND SURVEILLANCE.
‘‘ ‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In addition to amounts
otherwise available, there is appropriated to
the Secretary for fiscal year 2021 out of any
money in the Treasury not otherwise appro-
priated, $1,750,000,000, to remain available
until expended, to strengthen and expand ac-
tivities and workforce related to genomic se-
quencing, analytics, and disease surveil-
lance.
‘‘ ‘(b) USE
OF FUNDS.—From amounts ap-
propriated by subsection (a), the Secretary,
acting through the Director of the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, shall—
‘‘ ‘(1) conduct, expand, and improve activi-
ties
to
sequence
genomes,
identify
mutations, and survey the circulation and
transmission of viruses and other organisms,
including strains of SARS–CoV–2;
‘‘ ‘(2) award grants or cooperative agree-
ments to State, local, Tribal, or territorial
public health departments or public health
laboratories—
‘‘ ‘(A) to increase their capacity to se-
quence genomes of circulating strains of vi-
ruses and other organisms, including SARS–
CoV–2;
‘‘ ‘(B) to identify mutations in viruses and
other organisms, including SARS–CoV–2;
‘‘ ‘(C) to use genomic sequencing to iden-
tify outbreaks and clusters of diseases or in-
fections, including COVID–19; and
‘‘ ‘(D) to develop effective disease response
strategies based on genomic sequencing and
surveillance data;
‘‘ ‘(3) enhance and expand the informatics
capabilities of the public health workforce;
and
‘‘ ‘(4) award grants for the construction, al-
teration, or renovation of facilities to im-
prove genomic sequencing and surveillance
capabilities at the State and local level.
VerDate Sep 11 2014
09:39 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.101
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1298
March 5, 2021
‘‘ ‘SEC. 282C. FUNDING FOR GLOBAL HEALTH.
‘‘ ‘In addition to amounts otherwise avail-
able, there is appropriated to the Secretary
for fiscal year 2021, out of any amounts in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated,
$750,000,000, to remain available until ex-
pended, for activities to be conducted acting
through the Director of the Centers for Dis-
ease Control and Prevention to combat
SARS–CoV– 2, COVID–19, and other emerging
infectious disease threats globally, including
efforts related to global health security,
global disease detection and response, global
health protection, global immunization, and
global coordination on public health.
‘‘ ‘SEC. 282D. FUNDING FOR DATA MODERNIZA-
TION AND FORECASTING CENTER.
‘‘ ‘In addition to amounts otherwise avail-
able, there is appropriated to the Secretary
for fiscal year 2021, out of any money in the
Treasury
not
otherwise
appropriated,
$500,000,000, to remain available until ex-
pended, for activities to be conducted acting
through the Director of the Centers for Dis-
ease Control and Prevention to support pub-
lic health data surveillance and analytics in-
frastructure modernization initiatives at the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
and establish, expand, and maintain efforts
to modernize the United States disease warn-
ing system to forecast and track hotspots for
COVID–19, its variants, and emerging bio-
logical threats, including academic and
workforce
support
for
analytics
and
informatics infrastructure and data collec-
tion systems.
‘‘ ‘Subpart 3—Public Health Workforce
‘‘ ‘SEC. 283A. FUNDING FOR PUBLIC HEALTH
WORKFORCE.
‘‘ ‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In addition to amounts
otherwise available, there is appropriated to
the Secretary for fiscal year 2021, out of any
money in the Treasury not otherwise appro-
priated, $7,660,000,000, to remain available
until expended, to carry out activities re-
lated to establishing, expanding, and sus-
taining a public health workforce, including
by making awards to State, local, and terri-
torial public health departments.
‘‘ ‘(b) USE OF FUNDS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH DE-
PARTMENTS.—Amounts made available to an
awardee pursuant to subsection (a) shall be
used for the following:
‘‘ ‘(1) Costs, including wages and benefits,
related to the recruiting, hiring, and train-
ing of individuals—
‘‘ ‘(A) to serve as case investigators, con-
tact tracers, social support specialists, com-
munity health workers, public health nurses,
disease intervention specialists, epidemiolo-
gists, program managers, laboratory per-
sonnel, informaticians, communication and
policy experts, and any other positions as
may be required to prevent, prepare for, and
respond to COVID–19; and
‘‘ ‘(B) who are employed by—
‘‘ ‘(i) the State, territorial, or local public
health department involved; or
‘‘ ‘(ii) a nonprofit private or public organi-
zation with demonstrated expertise in imple-
menting public health programs and estab-
lished relationships with such State, terri-
torial, or local public health departments,
particularly in medically underserved areas.
‘‘ ‘(2) Personal protective equipment, data
management and other technology, or other
necessary supplies.
‘‘ ‘(3) Administrative costs and activities
necessary for awardees to implement activi-
ties funded under this section.
‘‘ ‘(4) Subawards from recipients of awards
under subsection (a) to local health depart-
ments for the purposes of the activities fund-
ed under this section.
‘‘ ‘SEC. 283B. FUNDING FOR MEDICAL RESERVE
CORPS.
‘‘ ‘ In addition to amounts otherwise avail-
able, there is appropriated to the Secretary
for fiscal year 2021, out of any money in the
Treasury
not
otherwise
appropriated,
$100,000,000, to remain available until ex-
pended, for carrying out section 2813.
‘‘ ‘Subpart 4—Public Health Investments
‘‘ ‘SEC. 284A. FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY HEALTH
CENTERS AND COMMUNITY CARE.
‘‘ ‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In addition to amounts
otherwise available, there is appropriated to
the Secretary for fiscal year 2021, out of any
money in the Treasury not otherwise appro-
priated, $7,600,000,000, to remain available
until expended, for necessary expenses for
awarding grants and cooperative agreements
under section 330 to be awarded without re-
gard to the time limitation in subsection
(e)(3)
and
subsections
(e)(6)(A)(iii),
(e)(6)(B)(iii), and (r)(2)(B) of such section 330,
and for necessary expenses for awarding
grants to Federally qualified health centers,
as described in section 1861(aa)(4)(B) of the
Social
Security
Act
(42
U.S.C.1395x(aa)(4)(B)),
and
for
awarding
grants or contracts to Papa Ola Lokahi and
to qualified entities under sections 4 and 6 of
the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improve-
ment Act (42 U.S.C. 11703, 11705). Of the total
amount appropriated by the preceding sen-
tence, not less than $20,000,000 shall be for
grants or contracts to Papa Ola Lokahi and
to qualified entities under sections 4 and 6 of
the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improve-
ment Act (42 U.S.C. 11703, 11705).
‘‘ ‘(b) USE OF FUNDS.—Amounts made avail-
able to an awardee pursuant to subsection
(a) shall be used—
‘‘ ‘(1) to plan, prepare for, promote, dis-
tribute, administer, and track COVID–19 vac-
cines, and to carry out other vaccine-related
activities;
‘‘ ‘(2) to detect, diagnose, trace, and mon-
itor COVID–19 infections and related activi-
ties necessary to mitigate the spread of
COVID–19, including activities related to,
and equipment or supplies purchased for,
testing, contact tracing, surveillance, miti-
gation, and treatment of COVID–19;
‘‘ ‘(3) to purchase equipment and supplies
to conduct mobile testing or vaccinations for
COVID–19, to purchase and maintain mobile
vehicles and equipment to conduct such test-
ing or vaccinations, and to hire and train
laboratory personnel and other staff to con-
duct such mobile testing or vaccinations,
particularly in medically underserved areas;
‘‘ ‘(4) to establish, expand, and sustain the
health care workforce to prevent, prepare
for, and respond to COVID–19, and to carry
out other health workforce-related activi-
ties;
‘‘ ‘(5) to modify, enhance, and expand
health care services and infrastructure; and
‘‘ ‘(6) to conduct community outreach and
education activities related to COVID–19.
‘‘ ‘(c) PAST
EXPENDITURES.—An awardee
may use amounts awarded pursuant to sub-
section (a) to cover the costs of the awardee
carrying out any of the activities described
in subsection (b) during the period beginning
on the date of the declaration of a public
health emergency by the Secretary under
section 319 on January 31, 2020, with respect
to COVID–19 and ending on the date of such
award.
‘‘ ‘SEC. 284B. FUNDING FOR NATIONAL HEALTH
SERVICE CORPS.
‘‘ ‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In addition to amounts
otherwise available, there is appropriated to
the Secretary for fiscal year 2021, out of any
money in the Treasury not otherwise appro-
priated, $800,000,000, to remain available
until expended, for carrying out sections
338A, 338B, and 338I with respect to the
health workforce.
‘‘ ‘(b) STUDENT
LOAN
REPAYMENT
PRO-
GRAMS.—
‘‘ ‘(1) IN
GENERAL.—Of the amount made
available
pursuant
to
subsection
(a),
$100,000,000 shall be made available for pro-
viding
primary
health
services
through
grants to States under section 338I(a).
‘‘ ‘(2) CONDITIONS.—With respect to grants
described in paragraph (1) using funds made
available under such paragraph:
‘‘ ‘(A) Section 338I(b) shall not apply.
‘‘ ‘(B) Notwithstanding section 338I(d)(2),
not more than 10 percent of an award to a
State from such amounts, may be used by
the State for costs of administering the
State loan repayment program.
‘‘ ‘SEC. 284C. FUNDING FOR NURSE CORPS.
‘‘ ‘In addition to amounts otherwise avail-
able, there is appropriated to the Secretary
for fiscal year 2021, out of any money in the
Treasury
not
otherwise
appropriated,
$200,000,000, to remain available until ex-
pended, for carrying out section 846.
‘‘ ‘SEC. 284D. FUNDING FOR TEACHING HEALTH
CENTERS
THAT
OPERATE
GRAD-
UATE MEDICAL EDUCATION.
‘‘ ‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In addition to amounts
otherwise available, and notwithstanding the
capped
amount
referenced
in
sections
340H(b)(2) and 340H(d)(2), there is appro-
priated to the Secretary for fiscal year 2021,
out of any money in the Treasury not other-
wise appropriated, $330,000,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2023, for the
program of payments to teaching health cen-
ters that operate graduate medical education
under section 340H and for teaching health
center development grants authorized under
section 749A.
‘‘ ‘(b) USE OF FUNDS.—Amounts made avail-
able pursuant to subsection (a) shall be used
for the following activities:
‘‘ ‘(1) For making payments to establish
new approved graduate medical residency
training
programs
pursuant
to
section
340H(a)(1)(C).
‘‘ ‘(2) To provide an increase to the per resi-
dent amount described in section 340H(a)(2)
of $10,000.
‘‘ ‘(3) For making payments under section
340H(a)(1)(A) to qualified teaching health
centers for maintenance of filled positions at
existing approved graduate medical resi-
dency training programs.
‘‘ ‘(4) For making payments under section
340H(a)(1)(B) for the expansion of existing ap-
proved graduate medical residency training
programs.
‘‘ ‘(5) For making awards under section
749A to teaching health centers for the pur-
pose of establishing new accredited or ex-
panded primary care residency programs.
‘‘ ‘(6) To cover administrative costs and ac-
tivities necessary for qualified teaching
health centers receiving payments under sec-
tion 340H to carry out activities under such
section.
‘‘ ‘SEC. 284E. FUNDING FOR FAMILY PLANNING.
‘‘ ‘In addition to amounts otherwise avail-
able, there is appropriated to the Secretary
for fiscal year 2021, out of any money in the
Treasury
not
otherwise
appropriated,
$50,000,000, to remain available until ex-
pended, for necessary expenses for making
grants and contracts under section 1001.
‘‘ ‘PART F—MENTAL HEALTH AND
SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER
‘‘ ‘SEC. 286A. FUNDING FOR BLOCK GRANTS FOR
COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERV-
ICES.
‘‘ ‘In addition to amounts otherwise avail-
able, there is appropriated to the Secretary
of Health and Human Services (in this part
referred to as the ‘‘Secretary’’) for fiscal
year 2021, out of any money in the Treasury
not otherwise appropriated, $1,500,000,000, to
remain available until expended, for car-
rying out subpart I of part B of title XIX,
subpart III of part B of title XIX, and section
505(c) with respect to mental health. Not-
withstanding
section
1952,
any
amount
VerDate Sep 11 2014
09:39 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.101
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1299
March 5, 2021
awarded to a State out of amounts appro-
priated by this section shall be expended by
the State by September 30, 2025.
‘‘ ‘SEC. 286B. FUNDING FOR BLOCK GRANTS FOR
PREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF
SUBSTANCE ABUSE.
‘‘ ‘In addition to amounts otherwise avail-
able, there is appropriated to the Secretary
for fiscal year 2021, out of any money in the
Treasury
not
otherwise
appropriated,
$1,500,000,000, to remain available until ex-
pended, for carrying out subpart II of part B
of title XIX, subpart III of part B of title
XIX, section 505(d) with respect to substance
abuse, and section 515(d). Notwithstanding
section 1952, any amount awarded to a State
out of amounts appropriated by this section
shall be expended by the State by September
30, 2025.
‘‘ ‘SEC. 286C. FUNDING FOR MENTAL HEALTH AND
SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER TRAIN-
ING FOR HEALTH CARE PROFES-
SIONALS,
PARAPROFESSIONALS,
AND PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS.
‘‘ ‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In addition to amounts
otherwise available, there is appropriated to
the Secretary for fiscal year 2021, out of any
money in the Treasury not otherwise appro-
priated, $80,000,000, to remain available until
expended, for the purpose described in sub-
section (b).
‘‘ ‘(b) USE OF FUNDING.—The Secretary, act-
ing through the Administrator of the Health
Resources
and
Services
Administration,
shall, taking into consideration the needs of
rural and medically underserved commu-
nities, use amounts appropriated by sub-
section (a) to award grants or contracts to
health professions schools, academic health
centers, State or local governments, Indian
Tribes and Tribal organizations, or other ap-
propriate public or private nonprofit entities
(or consortia of entities, including entities
promoting multidisciplinary approaches), to
plan, develop, operate, or participate in
health professions and nursing training ac-
tivities for health care students, residents,
professionals,
paraprofessionals,
trainees,
and public safety officers, and employers of
such individuals, in evidence-informed strat-
egies for reducing and addressing suicide,
burnout, mental health conditions, and sub-
stance use disorders among health care pro-
fessionals.
‘‘ ‘SEC. 286D. FUNDING FOR EDUCATION AND
AWARENESS
CAMPAIGN
ENCOUR-
AGING HEALTHY WORK CONDITIONS
AND USE OF MENTAL HEALTH AND
SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER SERV-
ICES BY HEALTH CARE PROFES-
SIONALS.
‘‘ ‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In addition to amounts
otherwise available, there is appropriated to
the Secretary for fiscal year 2021, out of any
money in the Treasury not otherwise appro-
priated, $20,000,000, to remain available until
expended, for the purpose described in sub-
section (b).
‘‘ ‘(b) USE OF FUNDS.—The Secretary, act-
ing through the Director of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention and in con-
sultation with the medical professional com-
munity, shall use amounts appropriated by
subsection (a) to carry out a national evi-
dence-based education and awareness cam-
paign directed at health care professionals
and first responders (such as emergency med-
ical service providers), and employers of
such professionals and first responders. Such
awareness campaign shall—
‘‘ ‘(1) encourage primary prevention of
mental health conditions and substance use
disorders and secondary and tertiary preven-
tion by encouraging health care profes-
sionals to seek support and treatment for
their own mental health and substance use
concerns; and
‘‘ ‘(2) help such professionals to identify
risk factors in themselves and others and re-
spond to such risks.
‘‘ ‘SEC. 286E. FUNDING FOR GRANTS FOR HEALTH
CARE
PROVIDERS
TO
PROMOTE
MENTAL
HEALTH
AMONG
THEIR
HEALTH
PROFESSIONAL
WORK-
FORCE.
‘‘ ‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In addition to amounts
otherwise available, there is appropriated to
the Secretary for fiscal year 2021, out of any
money in the Treasury not otherwise appro-
priated, $40,000,000, to remain available until
expended, for the purpose described in sub-
section (b).
‘‘ ‘(b) USE OF FUNDS.—The Secretary, act-
ing through the Administrator of the Health
Resources
and
Services
Administration,
shall, taking into consideration the needs of
rural and medically underserved commu-
nities, use amounts appropriated by sub-
section (a) to award grants or contracts to
entities providing health care, including
health care providers associations and Feder-
ally qualified health centers, to establish,
enhance, or expand evidence-informed pro-
grams or protocols to promote mental health
among their providers, other personnel, and
members.
‘‘ ‘SEC. 286F. FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY-BASED
FUNDING FOR LOCAL SUBSTANCE
USE DISORDER SERVICES.
‘‘ ‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In addition to amounts
otherwise available, there is appropriated to
the Secretary for fiscal year 2021, out of any
money in the Treasury not otherwise appro-
priated, $30,000,000, to remain available until
expended, to carry out the purpose described
in subsection (b).
‘‘ ‘(b) USE OF FUNDS.—
‘‘ ‘(1) IN
GENERAL.—The Secretary, acting
through the Assistant Secretary for Mental
Health and Substance Use and in consulta-
tion with the Director of the Centers for Dis-
ease Control and Prevention, shall award
grants to support States; local, Tribal, and
territorial governments; Tribal organiza-
tions; nonprofit community-based organiza-
tions; and primary and behavioral health or-
ganizations
to
support
community-based
overdose prevention programs, syringe serv-
ices programs, and other harm reduction
services.
‘‘ ‘(2) USE OF FUNDS.—Grant funds awarded
under this section to eligible entities shall
be used for preventing and controlling the
spread of infectious diseases and the con-
sequences of such diseases for individuals
with substance use disorder, distributing
opioid overdose reversal medication to indi-
viduals at risk of overdose, connecting indi-
viduals at risk for, or with, a substance use
disorder to overdose education, counseling,
and health education, and encouraging such
individuals to take steps to reduce the nega-
tive personal and public health impacts of
substance use or misuse.
‘‘ ‘SEC. 286G. FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY-BASED
FUNDING FOR LOCAL BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH NEEDS.
‘‘ ‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In addition to amounts
otherwise available, there is appropriated to
the Secretary for fiscal year 2021, out of any
money in the Treasury not otherwise appro-
priated, $50,000,000, to remain available until
expended, to carry out the purpose described
in subsection (b).
‘‘ ‘(b) USE OF FUNDS.—
‘‘ ‘(1) IN
GENERAL.—The Secretary, acting
through the Assistant Secretary for Mental
Health and Substance Use, shall award
grants to State, local, Tribal, and territorial
governments, Tribal organizations, nonprofit
community-based entities, and primary care
and behavioral health organizations to ad-
dress
increased
community
behavioral
health needs worsened by the COVID–19 pub-
lic health emergency.
‘‘ ‘(2) USE
OF
GRANT
FUNDS.—Grant funds
awarded under this section to eligible enti-
ties shall be used for promoting care coordi-
nation among local entities; training the
mental and behavioral health workforce, rel-
evant stakeholders, and community mem-
bers; expanding evidence-based integrated
models of care; addressing surge capacity for
mental and behavioral health needs; pro-
viding mental and behavioral health services
to individuals with mental health needs (in-
cluding
co-occurring
substance
use
dis-
orders) as delivered by behavioral and men-
tal health professionals utilizing telehealth
services; and supporting, enhancing, or ex-
panding mental and behavioral health pre-
ventive and crisis intervention services.
‘‘ ‘SEC. 286H. FUNDING FOR THE NATIONAL CHILD
TRAUMATIC STRESS NETWORK.
‘‘ ‘In addition to amounts otherwise avail-
able, there is appropriated to the Secretary
for fiscal year 2021, out of any money in the
Treasury
not
otherwise
appropriated,
$10,000,000, to remain available until ex-
pended, for carrying out section 582 with re-
spect to addressing the problem of high-risk
or medically underserved persons who expe-
rience violence-related stress.
‘‘ ‘SEC. 286I. FUNDING FOR PROJECT AWARE.
‘‘ ‘In addition to amounts otherwise avail-
able, there is appropriated to the Secretary
for fiscal year 2021, out of any money in the
Treasury
not
otherwise
appropriated,
$30,000,000, to remain available until ex-
pended, for carrying out section 520A with
respect to advancing wellness and resiliency
in education.
‘‘ ‘SEC. 286J. FUNDING FOR YOUTH SUICIDE PRE-
VENTION.
‘‘ ‘In addition to amounts otherwise avail-
able, there is appropriated to the Secretary
for fiscal year 2021, out of any money in the
Treasury
not
otherwise
appropriated,
$20,000,000, to remain available until ex-
pended, for carrying out sections 520E and
520E–2.
‘‘ ‘SEC. 286K. FUNDING FOR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
WORKFORCE
EDUCATION
AND
TRAINING.
‘‘ ‘In addition to amounts otherwise avail-
able, there is appropriated to the Secretary
for fiscal year 2021, out of any money in the
Treasury
not
otherwise
appropriated,
$100,000,000, to remain available until ex-
pended, for carrying out section 756.
‘‘ ‘SEC. 286L. FUNDING FOR PEDIATRIC MENTAL
HEALTH CARE ACCESS.
‘‘ ‘In addition to amounts otherwise avail-
able, there is appropriated to the Secretary
for fiscal year 2021, out of any money in the
Treasury
not
otherwise
appropriated,
$80,000,000, to remain available until ex-
pended, for carrying out section 330M of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254c–19).
‘‘ ‘SEC. 286M. FUNDING FOR EXPANSION GRANTS
FOR
CERTIFIED
COMMUNITY
BE-
HAVIORAL HEALTH CLINICS.
‘‘ ‘In addition to amounts otherwise avail-
able, there is appropriated to the Secretary,
acting through the Assistant Secretary for
Mental Health and Substance Use, for fiscal
year 2021, out of any money in the Treasury
not otherwise appropriated, $420,000,000, to
remain available until expended, for grants
to communities and community organiza-
tions that meet the criteria for Certified
Community Behavioral Health Clinics pursu-
ant to section 223(a) of the Protecting Access
to Medicare Act of 2014 (42 U.S.C. 1396a note).
’.
Subtitle E—Reduced Cost Sharing
SEC. 2401. REDUCED COST-SHARING.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1402 of the Pa-
tient Protection and Affordable Care Act is
amended by redesignating subsection (f) as
subsection (g) and by inserting after sub-
section (e) the following new subsection:
‘‘(f) SPECIAL RULE
FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO
RECEIVE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION DUR-
ING 2021.—For purposes of this section, in the
VerDate Sep 11 2014
09:39 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.101
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1300
March 5, 2021
case of an individual who has received, or
has been approved to receive, unemployment
compensation for any week beginning during
2021, for the plan year in which such week be-
gins—
‘‘(1) such individual shall be treated as
meeting the requirements of subsection
(b)(2), and
‘‘(2) for purposes of subsections (c) and (d),
there shall not be taken into account any
household income of the individual in excess
of 133 percent of the poverty line for a family
of the size involved.’’.
(b)
EFFECTIVE
DATE.—The
amendment
made by this section shall apply to plan
years beginning after December 31, 2020.
SA 1032. Mr. WICKER (for himself,
Mr. LANKFORD, and Mr. DAINES) sub-
mitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 891 pro-
posed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr.
WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL,
Ms.
STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER,
Mr. LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the
bill H.R. 1319, to provide for reconcili-
ation pursuant to title II of S. Con.
Res. 5; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
Strike section 1002 and insert the fol-
lowing:
SEC. 1002. EMERGENCY RURAL DEVELOPMENT
GRANTS FOR RURAL HEALTH CARE.
Section 301 of division BB of the Consoli-
dated Appropriations Act, 2021 is amended by
adding at the end the following new sub-
section:
‘‘(f)
EMERGENCY
GRANTS
FOR
RURAL
HEALTH CARE.—Subtitle A of the Consoli-
dated Farm and Rural Development Act is
amended by inserting after section 306E (7
U.S.C. 1926e) the following:
‘‘ ‘SEC. 306F. EMERGENCY RURAL DEVELOPMENT
GRANTS FOR RURAL HEALTH CARE.
‘‘ ‘(a) GRANTS.—The Secretary of Agri-
culture (in this section referred to as the
‘‘Secretary’’) shall use the funds made avail-
able by this section to establish an emer-
gency pilot program for rural development
not later than 150 days after the date of en-
actment of this section to provide grants to
eligible applicants (as defined in section
3570.61(a) of title 7, Code of Federal Regula-
tions) to be awarded by the Secretary based
on rural development needs related to the
COVID–19 pandemic.
‘‘ ‘(b) USES.—An eligible applicant to whom
a grant is awarded under this section may
use the grant funds for costs, including those
incurred prior to the issuance of the grant,
as determined by the Secretary, of facilities
which primarily serve rural areas (as defined
in section 343(a)(13)(C)), which are located in
a rural area, the median household income of
the population to be served by which is less
than the greater of the poverty line or the
applicable percentage (determined under sec-
tion 3570.63(b) of title 7, Code of Federal Reg-
ulations) of the State nonmetropolitan me-
dian household income, and for which the
performance of any construction work com-
pleted with grant funds shall meet the condi-
tion set forth in section 9003(f) of the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7
U.S.C. 8103(f)), to—
‘‘ ‘(1) increase capacity for vaccine dis-
tribution;
‘‘ ‘(2) provide medical supplies to increase
medical surge capacity;
‘‘ ‘(3) reimburse for revenue lost during the
COVID–19 pandemic, including revenue losses
incurred prior to the awarding of the grant;
‘‘ ‘(4) increase telehealth capabilities, in-
cluding underlying health care information
systems;
‘‘ ‘(5) construct temporary or permanent
structures to provide health care services,
including vaccine administration or testing;
‘‘ ‘(6) support staffing needs for vaccine ad-
ministration or testing; and
‘‘ ‘(7) engage in any other efforts to support
rural development determined to be critical
to address the COVID–19 pandemic, including
nutritional assistance to vulnerable individ-
uals, as approved by the Secretary.
‘‘(c) FUNDING.—In addition to amounts oth-
erwise available, there is appropriated to the
Secretary for fiscal year 2021, out of any
money in the Treasury not otherwise appro-
priated, $500,000,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2023, to carry out this
section, of which not more than 3 percent
may be used by the Secretary for adminis-
trative purposes and not more than 2 percent
may be used by the Secretary for technical
assistance as defined in section 306(a)(26).’’.
SA 1033. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 10 of the amendment, line 10
‘‘$4,000,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$3,744,000,000’’.
SA 1034. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page
of the amendment, line 24
‘‘$500,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$200,000,000’’.
SA 1035. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 15 of the amendment, line 9, strike
‘‘$47,500,000’’ and insert ‘‘$41,000,000’’.
SA 1036. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 17 of the amendment, line 21,
strike
‘‘$1,010,000,000’’
and
insert
‘‘$475,000,000’’.
SA 1037. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 21 of the amendment, line 7, strike
‘‘$800,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$128,000,000’’.
SA 1038. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 21 of the amendment, line 22,
strike
‘‘$1,150,000,000’’
and
insert
‘‘$345,000,000’’.
SA 1039. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 23 of the amendment, line 14 strike
‘‘$75,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$3,000,000’’.
SA 1040. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 24 of the amendment, line 24,
strike
‘‘$1,000,000,000’’
and
insert
‘‘$500,000,000’’.
SA 1041. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 25 of the amendment, line 10,
strike ‘‘$37,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$11,000,000’’.
SA 1042. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
VerDate Sep 11 2014
11:18 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.101
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1301
March 5, 2021
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 28 of the amendment, line 21,
strike ‘‘$390,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$59,000,000’’.
SA 1043. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 33 of the amendment, line 12,
strike
‘‘$125,804,800,000’’
and
insert
‘‘$6,427,000,000’’.
SA 1044. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 44 of the amendment, line 5, strike
‘‘$39,584,570,000’’ and insert ‘‘$5,938,000,000’’.
SA 1045. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 56 of the amendment, line 13,
strike ‘‘$15,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$1,000,000’’.
SA 1046. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 57 of the amendment, line 25,
strike ‘‘$135,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$30,000,000’’.
SA 1047. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 58 of the amendment, line 22,
strike ‘‘$135,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$30,000,000’’.
SA 1048. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 60 of the amendment, line 16,
strike ‘‘$200,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$97,000,000’’.
SA 1049. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 61 of the amendment, line 21,
strike
‘‘$14,990,000,000’’
and
insert
‘‘$2,998,000,000’’.
SA 1050. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 62 of the amendment, line 16,
strike ‘‘$35,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$4,000,000’’.
SA 1051. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 53 of the amendment, line 8, strike
‘‘$850,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$43,000,000’’.
SA 1052. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 54 of the amendment, line 8, strike
‘‘$91,130,000’’ and insert ‘‘$9,000,000’’.
SA 1053. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 55 of the amendment, line 24,
strike ‘‘$100,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$1,000,000’’.
SA 1054. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 63 of the amendment, line 20,
strike
‘‘$23,975,000,000’’
and
insert
‘‘$4,555,000,000’’.
SA 1055. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 69 of the amendment, line 22,
strike
‘‘$1,000,000,000’’
and
insert
‘‘$300,000,000’’.
SA 1056. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 75 of the amendment, line 9, strike
‘‘$852,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$200,000,000’’.
SA 1057. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
VerDate Sep 11 2014
11:18 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.146
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1302
March 5, 2021
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 78 of the amendment, line 22,
strike ‘‘$7,500,000’’ and insert ‘‘$1,500,000,000’’.
SA 1058. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 82 of the amendment, line 18,
strike
‘‘1,000,000,000’’
and
insert
‘‘$200,000,000’’.
SA 1059. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 83 of the amendment, line 18,
strike
‘‘$6,050,000,000’’
and
insert
‘‘$2,033,000,000’’.
SA 1060. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 84 of the amendment, line 9, strike
‘‘$500,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$165,000,000’’.
SA 1061. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 89 of the amendment, line 1, strike
‘‘$1,750,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$350,000,000’’.
SA 1062. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 90 of the amendment, line 11,
strike ‘‘750,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$150,000,000’’.
SA 1063. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 90 of the amendment, line 24,
strike ‘‘$500,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$100,000,000’’.
SA 1064. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 91 of the amendment, line 17,
strike
‘‘$7,660,000,000’’
and
insert
‘‘$1,532,000,000’’.
SA 1065. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 93 of the amendment, line 11,
strike ‘‘$100,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$20,000,000’’.
SA 1066. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 93 of the amendment, line 22,
strike
‘‘$7,600,000,000’’
and
insert
‘‘$1,520,000,000’’.
SA 1067. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 96 of the amendment, line 6, strike
‘‘$800,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$160,000,000’’.
SA 1068. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 77 of the amendment, line 7, strike
‘‘$200,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$46,000,000’’.
SA 1069. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 97 of the amendment, line 19,
strike ‘‘$330,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$66,000,000’’.
SA 1070. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 99 of the amendment, line 25,
strike
‘‘$1,500,000,000’’
and
insert
‘‘$315,000,000’’.
SA 1071. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 100 of the amendment, line 15,
strike
‘‘$1,500,000,000’’
and
insert
‘‘$315,000,000’’.
SA 1072. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 101 of the amendment, line 9,
strike ‘‘$80,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$18,000,000’’.
SA 1073. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
VerDate Sep 11 2014
09:39 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.134
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1303
March 5, 2021
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 102 of the amendment, line 20,
strike ‘‘$20,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$4,000,000’’.
SA 1074. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 103 of the amendment, line 13,
strike ‘‘$40,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$9,000,000’’.
SA 1075. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 104 of the amendment, line 7,
strike ‘‘$30,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$6,000,000’’.
SA 1076. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 105 of the amendment, line 13,
strike ‘‘$50,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$9,000,000’’.
SA 1077. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 107 of the amendment, line 21,
strike ‘‘$100,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$23,000,000’’.
SA 1078. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 114 of the amendment, line 18,
strike
‘‘$4,500,000,000’’
and
insert
‘‘$1.508,000,000’’.
SA 1079. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 115 of the amendment, line 11,
strike ‘‘$500,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$50,000,000’’.
SA 1080. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 716 of the amendment, line 18,
strike
‘‘$1,444,000,000’’
and
insert
‘‘$745,000,000’’.
SA 1081. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 121 of the amendment, line 1,
strike
‘‘$10,000,000,000’’
and
insert
‘‘$2,600,000,000’’.
SA 1082. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 123 of the amendment, line 10,
strike
‘‘$21,550,000,000’’
and
insert
‘‘$12,025,000,000’’.
SA 1083. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 134 of the amendment, line 16,
strike
‘‘$5,000,000,000’’
and
insert
‘‘$250,000,000’’.
SA 1084. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 138 of the amendment, line 22,
strike ‘‘$100,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$35,000,000’’.
SA 1085. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 141 of the amendment, line 11,
strike ‘‘$5,000,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$0’’.
SA 1086. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 147 of the amendment, line 4,
strike
‘‘$9,961,000,000’’
and
insert
‘‘$9,925,000,000’’.
SA 1087. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 156 of the amendment, line 24,
strike ‘‘$39,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$29,000,000’’.
SA 1088. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
VerDate Sep 11 2014
11:18 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.149
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1304
March 5, 2021
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 163 of the amendment, line 14,
strike
‘‘$10,000,000,000’’
and
insert
‘‘$825,000,000’’.
SA 1089. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 172 of the amendment, line 4,
strike
‘‘$30,461,355,534’’
and
insert
‘‘$10,100,000,000’’.
SA 1090. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 186 of the amendment, line 15,
strike ‘‘$570,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$230,000,000’’.
SA 1091. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 191 of the amendment, line 15,
strike
‘‘$50,000,000,000’’
and
insert
‘‘$11,480,000,000’’.
SA 1092. Mr. PORTMAN (for himself,
Mr. BRAUN, Mr. CASSIDY, Mr. YOUNG,
Ms. COLLINS, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. ROM-
NEY, Mr. ROUNDS, Mr. TILLIS, and Mrs.
CAPITO) proposed an amendment to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; as follows:
Strike parts 1 and 2 of subtitle A of title IX
and insert the following:
PART 1—EXTENSION OF CARES ACT
UNEMPLOYMENT PROVISIONS
SEC. 9011. EXTENSION OF PANDEMIC UNEMPLOY-
MENT ASSISTANCE.
(a) IN
GENERAL.—Section 2102(c) of the
CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 9021(c)) is amended—
(1) in paragraph (1)—
(A) by striking ‘‘paragraphs (2) and (3)’’
and inserting ‘‘paragraph (2)’’; and
(B) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking
‘‘March 14, 2021’’ and inserting ‘‘July 18,
2021’’; and
(2) by striking paragraph (3) and redesig-
nating paragraph (4) as paragraph (3).
(b) INCREASE IN NUMBER OF WEEKS.—Sec-
tion
2102(c)(2)
of
such
Act
(15
U.S.C.
9021(c)(2)) is amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘50 weeks’’ and inserting
‘‘74 weeks’’; and
(2) by striking ‘‘50-week period’’ and insert-
ing ‘‘74-week period’’.
(c) HOLD HARMLESS FOR PROPER ADMINIS-
TRATION.—In the case of an individual who is
eligible to receive pandemic unemployment
assistance under section 2102 of the CARES
Act (15 U.S.C. 9021) as of the day before the
date of enactment of this Act and on the
date of enactment of this Act becomes eligi-
ble for pandemic emergency unemployment
compensation under section 2107 of the
CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 9025) by reason of the
amendments made by section 9016(b) of this
title, any payment of pandemic unemploy-
ment assistance under such section 2102
made after the date of enactment of this Act
to such individual during an appropriate pe-
riod of time, as determined by the Secretary
of Labor, that should have been made under
such section 2107 shall not be considered to
be an overpayment of assistance under such
section 2102, except that an individual may
not receive payment for assistance under
section 2102 and a payment for assistance
under section 2107 for the same week of un-
employment.
(d) EFFECTIVE
DATE.—The amendments
made by subsections (a) and (b) shall apply
as if included in the enactment of the
CARES Act (Public Law 116–136), except that
no amount shall be payable by virtue of such
amendments with respect to any week of un-
employment commencing before the date of
the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 9012. EXTENSION OF EMERGENCY UNEM-
PLOYMENT RELIEF FOR GOVERN-
MENTAL ENTITIES AND NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 903(i)(1)(D) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1103(i)(1)(D)) is
amended by striking ‘‘March 14, 2021’’ and in-
serting ‘‘July 18, 2021’’.
(b) INCREASE
IN REIMBURSEMENT RATE.—
Section 903(i)(1)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1103(i)(1)(B)) is amended—
(1) in the first sentence, by inserting ‘‘and
except as otherwise provided in this subpara-
graph’’ after ‘‘as determined by the Sec-
retary of Labor’’; and
(2) by inserting after the first sentence the
following: ‘‘With respect to the amounts of
such compensation paid for weeks of unem-
ployment beginning after March 31, 2021, and
ending on or before July 18, 2021, the pre-
ceding sentence shall be applied by sub-
stituting ‘75 percent’ for ‘one-half’.’’.
SEC. 9013. EXTENSION OF FEDERAL PANDEMIC
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2104(e)(2) of the
CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 9023(e)(2)) is amended
by striking ‘‘March 14, 2021’’ and inserting
‘‘July 18, 2021’’.
(b) AMOUNT.—Section 2104(b)(3)(A) of such
Act (15 U.S.C. 9023(b)(3)(A)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
‘‘(iii) For weeks of unemployment ending
after March 14, 2021, and ending on or before
July 18, 2021, $300.’’.
SEC. 9014. EXTENSION OF FULL FEDERAL FUND-
ING OF THE FIRST WEEK OF COM-
PENSABLE
REGULAR
UNEMPLOY-
MENT FOR STATES WITH NO WAIT-
ING WEEK.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2105(e)(2) of the
CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 9024(e)(2)) is amended
by striking ‘‘March 14, 2021’’ and inserting
‘‘July 18, 2021’’.
(b) FULL REIMBURSEMENT.—Paragraph (3)
of section 2105(c) of such Act (15 U.S.C.
9024(c)) is repealed and such section shall be
applied to weeks of unemployment to which
an agreement under section 2105 of such Act
applies as if such paragraph had not been en-
acted.
SEC. 9015. EXTENSION OF EMERGENCY STATE
STAFFING FLEXIBILITY.
If a State modifies its unemployment com-
pensation law and policies, subject to the
succeeding sentence, with respect to per-
sonnel standards on a merit basis on an
emergency temporary basis as needed to re-
spond to the spread of COVID–19, such modi-
fications shall be disregarded for the pur-
poses of applying section 303 of the Social
Security Act and section 3304 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to such State law. Such
modifications shall only apply through July
18, 2021, and shall be limited to engaging of
temporary staff, rehiring of retirees or
former employees on a non-competitive
basis, and other temporary actions to quick-
ly process applications and claims.
SEC. 9016. EXTENSION OF PANDEMIC EMER-
GENCY
UNEMPLOYMENT
COM-
PENSATION.
(a) IN
GENERAL.—Section 2107(g) of the
CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 9025(g)) is amended to
read as follows:
‘‘(g) APPLICABILITY.—An agreement en-
tered into under this section shall apply to
weeks of unemployment—
‘‘(1) beginning after the date on which such
agreement is entered into; and
‘‘(2) ending on or before July 18, 2021.’’.
(b) INCREASE IN NUMBER OF WEEKS.—Sec-
tion
2107(b)(2)
of
such
Act
(15
U.S.C.
9025(b)(2)) is amended by striking ‘‘24’’ and
inserting ‘‘48’’.
(c) COORDINATION OF PANDEMIC EMERGENCY
UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION
WITH
EX-
TENDED COMPENSATION.—Section 2107(a)(5)(B)
of such Act (15 U.S.C. 9025(a)(5)(B)) is amend-
ed by inserting ‘‘or for the week that in-
cludes the date of enactment of the Amer-
ican Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (without regard
to the amendments made by subsections (a)
and (b) of section 9016 of such Act)’’ after
‘‘2020)’’.
(d) EFFECTIVE
DATE.—The amendments
made by this section shall apply as if in-
cluded in the enactment of the CARES Act
(Public Law 116–136), except that no amount
shall be payable by virtue of such amend-
ments with respect to any week of unem-
ployment commencing before the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 9017. EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY FINANC-
ING OF SHORT-TIME COMPENSATION
PAYMENTS IN STATES WITH PRO-
GRAMS IN LAW.
Section 2108(b)(2) of the CARES Act (15
U.S.C. 9026(b)(2)) is amended by striking
‘‘March 14, 2021’’ and inserting ‘‘July 18,
2021’’.
SEC. 9018. EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY FINANC-
ING OF SHORT-TIME COMPENSATION
AGREEMENTS FOR STATES WITHOUT
PROGRAMS IN LAW.
Section 2109(d)(2) of the CARES Act (15
U.S.C. 9027(d)(2)) is amended by striking
‘‘March 14, 2021’’ and inserting ‘‘July 18,
2021’’.
PART 2—EXTENSION OF FFCRA
UNEMPLOYMENT PROVISIONS
SEC. 9021. EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY ASSIST-
ANCE FOR STATES WITH ADVANCES.
Section 1202(b)(10)(A) of the Social Secu-
rity Act (42 U.S.C. 1322(b)(10)(A)) is amended
by striking ‘‘March 14, 2021’’ and inserting
‘‘July 18, 2021’’.
SEC. 9022. EXTENSION OF FULL FEDERAL FUND-
ING OF EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION.
Section
4105
of
the
Families
First
Coronavirus Response Act (26 U.S.C. 3304
note) is amended by striking ‘‘March 14,
VerDate Sep 11 2014
09:39 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.150
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1305
March 5, 2021
2021’’ each place it appears and inserting
‘‘July 18, 2021’’.
SA 1093. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 205 of the amendment, line 16,
strike ‘‘$15,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$14,800,000’’.
SA 1094. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 221 of the amendment, line 14,
strike ‘‘$100,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$31,430,000’’.
SA 1095. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 222 of the amendment, line 21,
strike ‘‘$75,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$23,572,000’’.
SA 1096. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 223 of the amendment, line 5,
strike
‘‘$1,250,000,000’’
and
insert
‘‘$810,000,000’’.
SA 1097. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 225 of the amendment, line 10,
strike ‘‘$840,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$307,500,000’’.
SA 1098. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 225 of the amendment, line 20,
strike ‘‘$460,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$168,378,000’’.
SA 1099. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 226 of the amendment, line 18,
strike
‘‘$3,000,000,000’’
and
insert
‘‘$750,000,000’’.
SA 1100. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5. ; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 227 of the amendment, line 18,
strike ‘‘$100,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$10,000,000’’.
SA 1101. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 86 of the amendment, line 9, strike
‘‘$47,800,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$9,524,000,000’’.
SA 1102. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 231 of the amendment, line 11,
strike ‘‘$970,388,160’’ and insert ‘‘$742,500,000’’.
SA 1103. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 231 of the amendment, line 19,
strike ‘‘$729,611,840’’ and insert ‘‘$607,500,000’’.
SA 1104. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 235 of the amendment, line 11,
strike
‘‘$8,000,000,000’’
and
insert
‘‘$2,640,000,000’’.
SA 1105. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 255 of the amendment, line 17,
strike
‘‘$3,000,000,000’’
and
insert
‘‘$2,000,000,000’’.
SA 1106. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 267 of the amendment, line 19,
strike ‘‘$50,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$4,000,000’’.
SA 1107. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 271 of the amendment, line 14,
strike
‘‘$7,171,000,000’’
and
insert
‘‘$1,140,000,000’’.
SA 1108. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
VerDate Sep 11 2014
09:39 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.135
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1306
March 5, 2021
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 276 of the amendment, line 16,
strike ‘‘$150,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$25,000,000’’.
SA 1109. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 276 of the amendment, line 25,
strike ‘‘$600,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$100,000,000’’.
SA 1110. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 301 of the amendment, line 15,
strike
‘‘$2,000,000,000’’
and
insert
‘‘602,000,000’’.
SA 1111. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 306 of the amendment, line 19,
strike
‘‘$1,000,000,000’’
and
insert
‘‘$375,000,000’’.
SA 1112. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 313 of the amendment, line 6,
strike ‘‘$276,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$40,000,000’’.
SA 1113. Mr. JOHSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 532 of the amendment, line 20,
strike
‘‘$3,047,000,000’’
and
insert
‘‘$73,000,000’’.
SA 1114. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 612 of the amendment, line 21,
strike
‘‘$8,675,000,000’’
and
insert
‘‘$1,159,000,000’.
SA 1115. Mr. JOHNSON submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 59 of the amendment, line 19,
strike ‘‘$200,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$16,000,000’’.
SA 1116. Mr. TILLIS submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the fol-
lowing:
On page 17, strike lines 9 through 13 and in-
sert the following:
(3) SOCIALLY
DISADVANTAGED
FARMER
OR
RANCHER.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘socially dis-
advantaged farmer or rancher’’ has the
meaning given the term in section 355(e) of
the Consolidated Farm and Rural Develop-
ment Act (7 U.S.C. 2003(e)).
(B) INCLUSION.—The term ‘‘socially dis-
advantaged farmer or rancher’’ includes a
veteran farmer or rancher (as defined in sec-
tion 2501(a) of the Food, Agriculture, Con-
servation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C.
2279(a))).
On page 20, strike lines 11 through 21 and
insert the following:
(2)
SOCIALLY
DISADVANTAGED
FARMER,
RANCHER, OR FOREST LANDOWNER.—The term
‘‘socially disadvantaged farmer, rancher, or
forest landowner’’ means a farmer, rancher,
or owner or operator of nonindustrial private
forest land who is—
(A) a member of a socially disadvantaged
group; or
(B) a veteran farmer or rancher (as defined
in section 2501(a) of the Food, Agriculture,
Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C.
2279(a))).
(3) SOCIALLY
DISADVANTAGED
GROUP.—The
term ‘‘socially disadvantaged group’’ has the
meaning given the term in section 355(e) of
the Consolidated Farm and Rural Develop-
ment Act (7 U.S.C. 2003(e)).
SA 1117. Mr. DAINES (for himself
and
Mr.
LANKFORD)
submitted
an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
Strike section 9901 and all that follows
through title X and insert the following:
SEC. 9901. CORONAVIRUS STATE AND LOCAL FIS-
CAL RECOVERY FUNDS.
Section 301 of division BB of the Consoli-
dated Appropriations Act, 2021, as amended
by this Act, is amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
‘‘(k) CORONAVIRUS STATE AND LOCAL FISCAL
RECOVERY FUNDS.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Title VI of the Social Se-
curity Act (42 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
‘‘ ‘SEC. 602. CORONAVIRUS STATE FISCAL RECOV-
ERY FUND.
‘‘ ‘(a)
APPROPRIATION.—In
addition
to
amounts otherwise available, there is appro-
priated for fiscal year 2021, out of any money
in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated—
‘‘ ‘(1) $219,800,000,000, to remain available
through December 31, 2024, for making pay-
ments under this section to States, terri-
tories, and Tribal governments to mitigate
the fiscal effects stemming from the public
health
emergency
with
respect
to
the
Coronavirus Disease (COVID–19); and
‘‘ ‘(2) $50,000,000, to remain available until
expended, for the costs of the Secretary for
administration of the funds established
under this title.
‘‘ ‘(b) AUTHORITY TO MAKE PAYMENTS.—
‘‘ ‘(1) PAYMENTS TO TERRITORIES.—
‘‘ ‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall re-
serve $4,500,000,000 of the amount appro-
priated under subsection (a)(1) to make pay-
ments to the territories.
‘‘ ‘(B) ALLOCATION.—Of the amount re-
served under subparagraph (A)—
‘‘ ‘(i) 50 percent of such amount shall be al-
located by the Secretary equally to each ter-
ritory; and
‘‘ ‘(ii) 50 percent of such amount shall be al-
located by the Secretary as an additional
amount to each territory in an amount
which bears the same proportion to 1⁄2 of the
total amount reserved under subparagraph
(A) as the population of the territory bears
to the total population of all such terri-
tories.
‘‘ ‘(C) PAYMENT.—The Secretary shall pay
each territory the total of the amounts allo-
cated for the territory under subparagraph
(B) in accordance with paragraph (6).
‘‘ ‘(2) PAYMENTS TO TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS.—
‘‘ ‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall re-
serve $20,000,000,000 of the amount appro-
priated under subsection (a)(1) to make pay-
ments to Tribal governments.
‘‘ ‘(B) ALLOCATION.—Of the amount re-
served under subparagraph (A)—
‘‘ ‘(i) $1,000,000,000 shall be allocated by the
Secretary equally among each of the Tribal
governments; and
‘‘ ‘(ii) $19,000,000,000 shall be allocated by
the Secretary to the Tribal governments in a
manner determined by the Secretary.
VerDate Sep 11 2014
09:39 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.151
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1307
March 5, 2021
‘‘ ‘(C) PAYMENT.— The Secretary shall pay
each Tribal government the total of the
amounts allocated for the Tribal government
under subparagraph (B) in accordance with
paragraph (6).
‘‘ ‘(3) PAYMENTS TO EACH OF THE 50 STATES
AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.—
‘‘ ‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall re-
serve $195,300,000,000 of the amount appro-
priated under subsection (a)(1) to make pay-
ments to each of the 50 States and the Dis-
trict of Columbia.
‘‘ ‘(B) ALLOCATIONS.—Of the amount re-
served under subparagraph (A)—
‘‘ ‘(i) $25,500,000,000 of such amount shall be
allocated by the Secretary equally among
each of the 50 States and the District of Co-
lumbia;
‘‘ ‘(ii) an amount equal to $1,250,000,000 less
the amount allocated for the District of Co-
lumbia pursuant to section 601(c)(6) shall be
allocated by the Secretary as an additional
amount to the District of Columbia; and
‘‘ ‘(iii) an amount equal to the remainder of
the amount reserved under subparagraph (A)
after the application of clauses (i) and (ii) of
this subparagraph shall be allocated by the
Secretary as an additional amount to each of
the 50 States and the District of Columbia in
an amount which bears the same proportion
to such remainder as the average estimated
number of seasonally-adjusted unemployed
individuals (as measured by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics Local Area Unemployment
Statistics program) in the State or District
of Columbia over the 3-month period ending
with December 2020 bears to the average esti-
mated number of seasonally-adjusted unem-
ployed individuals in all of the 50 States and
the District of Columbia over the same pe-
riod.
‘‘ ‘(C) PAYMENT.—
‘‘ ‘(i) IN
GENERAL.—Subject to clause (ii),
the Secretary shall pay each of the 50 States
and the District of Columbia, from the
amount reserved under subparagraph (A), the
total of the amounts allocated for the State
and District of Columbia under subparagraph
(B) in accordance with paragraph (6).
‘‘ ‘(ii) MINIMUM PAYMENT REQUIREMENT.—
‘‘ ‘(I) IN GENERAL.—The sum of—
‘‘ ‘(aa) the total amounts allocated for 1 of
the 50 States or the District of Columbia
under subparagraph (B) (as determined with-
out regard to this clause); and
‘‘ ‘(bb) the amounts allocated under section
603 to the State (for distribution by the
State to nonentitlement units of local gov-
ernment in the State) and to metropolitan
cities and counties in the State;
shall not be less than the amount paid to the
State or District of Columbia for fiscal year
2020 under section 601.
‘‘ ‘(II) PRO
RATA
ADJUSTMENT.—The Sec-
retary shall adjust on a pro rata basis the
amount of the allocations for each of the 50
States and the District of Columbia deter-
mined under subparagraph (B)(iii) (without
regard to this clause) to the extent necessary
to comply with the requirement of subclause
(I).
‘‘ ‘(4) PRO RATA ADJUSTMENT AUTHORITY.—
The amounts otherwise determined for allo-
cation and payment under paragraphs (1), (2),
and (3) may be adjusted by the Secretary on
a pro rata basis to the extent necessary to
ensure that all available funds are allocated
to States, territories, and Tribal govern-
ments in accordance with the requirements
specified in each such paragraph (as applica-
ble).
‘‘ ‘(5) POPULATION
DATA.—For purposes of
determining allocations for a territory under
this section, the population of the territory
shall be determined based on the most recent
data available from the Bureau of the Cen-
sus.
‘‘ ‘(6) TIMING.—
‘‘ ‘(A) IN
GENERAL.—To the extent prac-
ticable, with respect to each State and terri-
tory allocated a payment under this sub-
section, the Secretary shall make the pay-
ment required for the State or territory not
later than 60 days after the date on which
the certification required under subsection
(d)(1) is provided to the Secretary.
‘‘ ‘(B) TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS.—To the extent
practicable, with respect to each Tribal gov-
ernment for which an amount is allocated
under this subsection, the Secretary shall
make the payment required for the Tribal
government not later than 60 days after the
date of enactment of this section.
‘‘ ‘(C) INITIAL PAYMENT TO DISTRICT OF CO-
LUMBIA.—The
Secretary
shall
pay
the
amount allocated under paragraph (3)(B)(ii)
to the District of Columbia not later than 15
days after the date of enactment of this sec-
tion.
‘‘ ‘(c) REQUIREMENTS.—
‘‘ ‘(1) USE OF FUNDS.—Subject to paragraph
(2), and except as provided in paragraph (3),
a State, territory, or Tribal government
shall only use the funds provided under a
payment made under this section, or trans-
ferred pursuant to section 603(c)(4), to cover
costs incurred by the State, territory, or
Tribal government, by December 31, 2024—
‘‘ ‘(A) to respond to the public health emer-
gency with respect to the Coronavirus Dis-
ease 2019 (COVID–19) or its negative eco-
nomic
impacts,
including
assistance
to
households, small businesses, and nonprofits,
or aid to impacted industries such as tour-
ism, travel, and hospitality;
‘‘ ‘(B) for the provision of government serv-
ices to the extent of the reduction in revenue
of such State, territory, or Tribal govern-
ment due to such emergency; or
‘‘ ‘(C) to make necessary investments in
water, sewer, or broadband infrastructure.
‘‘ ‘(2) FURTHER
RESTRICTION
ON
USE
OF
FUNDS.—
‘‘ ‘(A) IN
GENERAL.—A State or territory
shall not use the funds provided under this
section or transferred pursuant to section
603(c)(4) to either directly or indirectly offset
a reduction in the net tax revenue of such
State or territory resulting from a change in
law, regulation, or administrative interpre-
tation during the covered period that re-
duces any tax (by providing for a reduction
in a rate, a rebate, a deduction, a credit, or
otherwise) or delays the imposition of any
tax or tax increase.
‘‘ ‘(B) PENSION FUNDS.—No State or terri-
tory may use funds made available under
this section for deposit into any pension
fund.
‘‘ ‘(3) TRANSFER AUTHORITY.—A State, terri-
tory, or Tribal government receiving a pay-
ment from funds made available under this
section may transfer funds to a private non-
profit organization (as that term is defined
in paragraph (17) of section 401 of the McKin-
ney-Vento
Homeless
Assistance
Act
(42
U.S.C. 11360(17)), a Tribal organization (as
that term is defined in section 4 of the In-
dian Self-Determination and Education As-
sistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304)), a public benefit
corporation involved in the transportation of
passengers or cargo, or a special-purpose
unit of State or local government.
‘‘ ‘(d) CERTIFICATIONS AND REPORTS.—
‘‘ ‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In order for a State or
territory to receive a payment under this
section, or a transfer of funds under section
603(c)(4), the State or territory shall provide
the Secretary with a certification, signed by
an authorized officer of such State or terri-
tory, that such State or territory requires
the payment or transfer to carry out the ac-
tivities specified in subsection (c) of this sec-
tion and will use any payment under this
section, or transfer of funds under section
603(c)(4), in compliance with subsection (c) of
this section.
‘‘ ‘(2) REPORTING.—Any State, territory, or
Tribal government receiving a payment
under this section shall provide to the Sec-
retary periodic reports providing a detailed
accounting of—
‘‘ ‘(A) the uses of funds by such State, terri-
tory, or Tribal government, including, in the
case of a State or a territory, all modifica-
tions to the State’s or territory’s tax rev-
enue sources during the covered period; and
‘‘ ‘(B) such other information as the Sec-
retary may require for the administration of
this section.
‘‘ ‘(e) RECOUPMENT.—Any State, territory,
or Tribal government that has failed to com-
ply with subsection (c) shall be required to
repay to the Secretary an amount equal to
the amount of funds used in violation of such
subsection, provided that, in the case of a
violation of subsection (c)(2)(A), the amount
the State or territory shall be required to
repay shall be lesser of—
‘‘ ‘(1) the amount of the applicable reduc-
tion to net tax revenue attributable to such
violation; and
‘‘ ‘(2) the amount of funds received by such
State or territory pursuant to a payment
made under this section or a transfer made
under section 603(c)(4).
‘‘ ‘(f) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary shall
have the authority to issue such regulations
as may be necessary or appropriate to carry
out this section.
‘‘ ‘(g) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
‘‘ ‘(1) COVERED PERIOD.—The term ‘‘covered
period’’ means, with respect to a State, terri-
tory, or Tribal government, the period that—
‘‘ ‘(A) begins on March 3, 2021; and
‘‘ ‘(B) ends on the last day of the fiscal year
of such State, territory, or Tribal govern-
ment in which all funds received by the
State, territory, or Tribal government from
a payment made under this section or a
transfer made under section 603(c)(4) have
been expended or returned to, or recovered
by, the Secretary.
‘‘ ‘(2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’
means the Secretary of the Treasury.
‘‘ ‘(3) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means
each of the 50 States and the District of Co-
lumbia.
‘‘ ‘(4) TERRITORY.—The term ‘‘territory’’
means the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Is-
lands, and American Samoa.
‘‘ ‘(5)
TRIBAL
GOVERNMENT.—The
term
‘‘Tribal Government’’ means the recognized
governing body of any Indian or Alaska Na-
tive tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, com-
munity, component band, or component res-
ervation, individually identified (including
parenthetically) in the list published most
recently as of the date of enactment of this
Act pursuant to section 104 of the Federally
Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25
U.S.C. 5131).
‘‘ ‘SEC. 603. CORONAVIRUS LOCAL FISCAL RECOV-
ERY FUND.
‘‘ ‘(a)
APPROPRIATION.—In
addition
to
amounts otherwise available, there is appro-
priated for fiscal year 2021, out of any money
in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated,
$120,200,000,000, to remain available through
December 31, 2024, for making payments
under this section to metropolitan cities,
nonentitlement units of local government,
and counties to mitigate the fiscal effects
stemming from the public health emergency
with respect to the Coronavirus Disease
(COVID–19).
‘‘ ‘(b) AUTHORITY TO MAKE PAYMENTS.—
‘‘ ‘(1) METROPOLITAN CITIES.—
‘‘ ‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Of the amount appro-
priated under subsection (a), the Secretary
shall reserve $42,070,000,000 to make pay-
ments to metropolitan cities.
VerDate Sep 11 2014
09:39 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.148
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1308
March 5, 2021
‘‘ ‘(B) ALLOCATION AND PAYMENT.—From the
amount reserved under subparagraph (A), the
Secretary shall allocate and, in accordance
with paragraph (7), pay to each metropolitan
city an amount determined for the metro-
politan city consistent with the formula
under section 106(b) of the Housing and Com-
munity Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C.
5306(b)), except that, in applying such for-
mula, the Secretary shall substitute ‘‘all
metropolitan cities’’ for ‘‘all metropolitan
areas’’ each place it appears.
‘‘ ‘(2) NONENTITLEMENT UNITS OF LOCAL GOV-
ERNMENT.—
‘‘ ‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Of the amount appro-
priated under subsection (a), the Secretary
shall reserve $18,030,000,000 to make pay-
ments to States for distribution by the State
to nonentitlement units of local government
in the State.
‘‘ ‘(B) ALLOCATION AND PAYMENT.—From the
amount reserved under subparagraph (A), the
Secretary shall allocate and, in accordance
with paragraph (7), pay to each State an
amount which bears the same proportion to
such reserved amount as the total popu-
lation of all nonentitlement units of local
government in the State bears to the total
population of all nonentitlement units of
local government in all such States.
‘‘ ‘(C) DISTRIBUTION
TO
NONENTITLEMENT
UNITS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT.—
‘‘ ‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days
after a State receives a payment under sub-
paragraph (B), the State shall distribute to
each nonentitlement unit of local govern-
ment in the State an amount that bears the
same proportion to the amount of such pay-
ment as the population of the nonentitle-
ment unit of local government bears to the
total population of all the nonentitlement
units of local government in the State, sub-
ject to clause (iii).
‘‘ ‘(ii) DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS.—
‘‘ ‘(I) EXTENSION
FOR
DISTRIBUTION.—If an
authorized officer of a State required to
make distributions under clause (i) certifies
in writing to the Secretary before the end of
the 30-day distribution period described in
such clause that it would constitute an ex-
cessive administrative burden for the State
to meet the terms of such clause with re-
spect to 1 or more such distributions, the au-
thorized officer may request, and the Sec-
retary shall grant, an extension of such pe-
riod of not more than 30 days to allow the
State to make such distributions in accord-
ance with clause (i).
‘‘ ‘(II) ADDITIONAL EXTENSIONS.—
‘‘ ‘(aa) IN
GENERAL.—If a State has been
granted an extension to the distribution pe-
riod under subclause (I) but is unable to
make all the distributions required under
clause (i) before the end of such period as ex-
tended, an authorized officer of the State
may request an additional extension of the
distribution period of not more than 30 days.
The Secretary may grant a request for an ad-
ditional extension of such period only if—
‘‘ ‘(AA) the authorized officer making such
request provides a written plan to the Sec-
retary specifying, for each distribution for
which an additional extension is requested,
when the State expects to make such dis-
tribution and the actions the State has
taken and will take in order to make all
such distributions before the end of the dis-
tribution period (as extended under sub-
clause (I) and this subclause); and
‘‘ ‘(BB) the Secretary determines that such
plan is reasonably designed to distribute all
such funds to nonentitlement units of local
government by the end of the distribution
period (as so extended).
‘‘ ‘(bb) FURTHER ADDITIONAL EXTENSIONS.—If
a State granted an additional extension of
the distribution period under item (aa) re-
quires any further additional extensions of
such period, the request only may be made
and granted subject to the requirements
specified in item (aa).
‘‘ ‘(iii) CAPPED AMOUNT.—The total amount
distributed to a nonentitlement unit of local
government under this paragraph may not
exceed the amount equal to 75 percent of the
most recent budget for the nonentitlement
unit of local government as of January 27,
2020.
‘‘ ‘(iv) RETURN
OF
EXCESS
AMOUNTS.—Any
amounts not distributed to a nonentitlement
unit of local government as a result of the
application of clause (iii) shall be returned
to the Secretary.
‘‘ ‘(D) PENALTY FOR NONCOMPLIANCE.—If, by
the end of the 120-day period that begins on
the date a State receives a payment from the
amount allocated under subparagraph (B) or,
if later, the last day of the distribution pe-
riod for the State (as extended with respect
to the State under subparagraph (C)(ii)),
such State has failed to make all the dis-
tributions from such payment in accordance
with the terms of subparagraph (C) (includ-
ing any extensions of the distribution period
granted in accordance with such subpara-
graph), an amount equal to the amount of
such payment that remains undistributed as
of such date shall be booked as a debt of such
State owed to the Federal Government, shall
be paid back from the State’s allocation pro-
vided under section 602(b)(3)(B)(iii), and shall
be deposited into the general fund of the
Treasury.
‘‘ ‘(3) COUNTIES.—
‘‘ ‘(A) AMOUNT.—From the amount appro-
priated under subsection (a), the Secretary
shall reserve and allocate $60,100,000,000 of
such amount to make payments directly to
counties in an amount which bears the same
proportion to the total amount reserved
under this paragraph as the population of
each such county bears to the total popu-
lation of all such entities and shall pay such
allocated amounts to such counties in ac-
cordance with paragraph (7).
‘‘ ‘(B) SPECIAL RULES.—
‘‘ ‘(i) URBAN COUNTIES.—No county that is
an ‘‘urban county’’ (as defined in section 102
of the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5302)) shall receive less
than the amount the county would otherwise
receive if the amount paid under this para-
graph were allocated to metropolitan cities
and urban counties under section 106(b) of
the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5306(b)).
‘‘ ‘(ii) COUNTIES THAT ARE NOT UNITS OF GEN-
ERAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT.—In the case of an
amount to be paid to a county that is not a
unit
of
general
local
government,
the
amount shall instead be paid to the State in
which such county is located, and such State
shall distribute such amount to each unit of
general local government within such county
in an amount that bears the same proportion
to the amount to be paid to such county as
the population of such units of general local
government bears to the total population of
such county.
‘‘ ‘(iii) DISTRICT
OF
COLUMBIA.—For pur-
poses of this paragraph, the District of Co-
lumbia shall be considered to consist of a
single county that is a unit of general local
government.
‘‘ ‘(4) CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENTS.—A unit
of general local government that has formed
a consolidated government, or that is geo-
graphically contained (in full or in part)
within the boundaries of another unit of gen-
eral local government may receive a dis-
tribution under each of paragraphs (1), (2),
and (3), as applicable, based on the respective
formulas specified in such paragraphs.
‘‘ ‘(5) PRO RATA ADJUSTMENT AUTHORITY.—
The amounts otherwise determined for allo-
cation and payment under paragraphs (1), (2),
and (3) may be adjusted by the Secretary on
a pro rata basis to the extent necessary to
ensure that all available funds are distrib-
uted to metropolitan cities, counties, and
States in accordance with the requirements
specified in each paragraph (as applicable)
and the certification requirement specified
in subsection (d).
‘‘ ‘(6) POPULATION.—For purposes of deter-
mining allocations under this section, the
population of an entity shall be determined
based on the most recent data are available
from the Bureau of the Census or, if not
available, from such other data as a State
determines appropriate.
‘‘ ‘(7) TIMING.—
‘‘ ‘(A) FIRST TRANCHE AMOUNT.—To the ex-
tent practicable, with respect to each metro-
politan city for which an amount is allocated
under paragraph (1), each State for which an
amount is allocated under paragraph (2) for
distribution to nonentitlement units of local
government, and each county for which an
amount is allocated under paragraph (3), the
Secretary shall pay from such allocation the
First Tranche Amount for such city, State,
or county not later than 60 days after the
date of enactment of this section.
‘‘ ‘(B) SECOND TRANCHE AMOUNT.—The Sec-
retary shall pay to each metropolitan city
for which an amount is allocated under para-
graph (1), each State for which an amount is
allocated under paragraph (2) for distribu-
tion to nonentitlement units of local govern-
ment, and each county for which an amount
is allocated under paragraph (3), the Second
Tranche Amount for such city, State, or
county not earlier than 12 months after the
date on which the First Tranche Amount is
paid to the city, State, or county.
‘‘ ‘(c) REQUIREMENTS.—
‘‘ ‘(1) USE OF FUNDS.—Subject to paragraph
(2), and except as provided in paragraphs (3)
and (4), a metropolitan city, nonentitlement
unit of local government, or county shall
only use the funds provided under a payment
made under this section to cover costs in-
curred by the metropolitan city, nonentitle-
ment unit of local government, or county, by
December 31, 2024—
‘‘ ‘(A) to respond to the public health emer-
gency with respect to the Coronavirus Dis-
ease 2019 (COVID–19) or its negative eco-
nomic
impacts,
including
assistance
to
households, small businesses, and nonprofits,
or aid to impacted industries such as tour-
ism, travel, and hospitality;
‘‘ ‘(B) for the provision of government serv-
ices to the extent of the reduction in revenue
of such metropolitan city, nonentitlement
unit of local government, or county due to
such emergency; or
‘‘ ‘(C) to make necessary investments in
water, sewer, or broadband infrastructure.
‘‘ ‘(2) PENSION
FUNDS.—No metropolitan
city, nonentitlement unit of local govern-
ment, or county may use funds made avail-
able under this section for deposit into any
pension fund.
‘‘ ‘(3) TRANSFER AUTHORITY.—A metropoli-
tan city, nonentitlement unit of local gov-
ernment, or county receiving a payment
from funds made available under this section
may transfer funds to a private nonprofit or-
ganization (as that term is defined in para-
graph (17) of section 401 of the McKinney-
Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.
11360(17)), a public benefit corporation in-
volved in the transportation of passengers or
cargo, or a special-purpose unit of State or
local government.
‘‘ ‘(4)
TRANSFERS
TO
STATES.—Notwith-
standing paragraph (1), a metropolitan city,
nonentitlement unit of local government, or
county receiving a payment from funds made
available under this section may transfer
such funds to the State in which such entity
is located.
VerDate Sep 11 2014
09:39 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.148
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1309
March 5, 2021
‘‘ ‘(d) REPORTING.—Any metropolitan city,
nonentitlement unit of local government, or
county receiving funds provided under a pay-
ment made under this section shall provide
to the Secretary periodic reports providing a
detailed accounting of the uses of such funds
by such metropolitan city, nonentitlement
unit of local government, or county and in-
cluding such other information as the Sec-
retary may require for the administration of
this section.
‘‘ ‘(e)
RECOUPMENT.—Any
metropolitan
city, nonentitlement unit of local govern-
ment, or county that has failed to comply
with subsection (c) shall be required to repay
to the Secretary an amount equal to the
amount of funds used in violation of such
subsection.
‘‘ ‘(f) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary shall
have the authority to issue such regulations
as may be necessary or appropriate to carry
out this section.
‘‘ ‘(g) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
‘‘ ‘(1) COUNTY.—The term ‘‘county’’ means a
county, parish, or other equivalent county
division (as defined by the Bureau of the
Census).
‘‘ ‘(2) COVERED PERIOD.—The term ‘‘covered
period’’ means, with respect to a metropoli-
tan city, nonentitlement unit of local gov-
ernment, or county receiving funds under
this section, the period that—
‘‘ ‘(A) begins on March 3, 2021; and
‘‘ ‘(B) ends on the last day of the fiscal year
of the metropolitan city, nonentitlement
unit of local government, or county in which
all of the funds received by the metropolitan
city, nonentitlement unit of local govern-
ment, or county under this section have been
expended or returned to, or recovered by, the
Secretary.
‘‘ ‘(3) FIRST
TRANCHE
AMOUNT.—The term
‘‘First Tranche Amount’’ means, with re-
spect to each metropolitan city for which an
amount is allocated under subsection (b)(1),
each State for which an amount is allocated
under subsection (b)(2) for distribution to
nonentitlement units of local government,
and each county for which an amount is allo-
cated under subsection (b)(3), 50 percent of
the amount so allocated to such metropoli-
tan city, State, or county (as applicable).
‘‘ ‘(4) METROPOLITAN CITY.—The term ‘‘met-
ropolitan city’’ has the meaning given that
term in section 102(a)(4) of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974 (42
U.S.C. 5302(a)(4)) and includes cities that re-
linquish or defer their status as a metropoli-
tan city for purposes of receiving allocations
under section 106 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 5306)
for fiscal year 2021.
‘‘ ‘(5) NONENTITLEMENT UNIT OF LOCAL GOV-
ERNMENT.—The term ‘‘nonentitlement unit
of local government’’ means a ‘‘city’’, as
that term is defined in section 102(a)(5) of the
Housing and Community Development Act of
1974 (42 U.S.C. 5302(a)(5))), that is not a met-
ropolitan city.
‘‘ ‘(6) SECOND TRANCHE AMOUNT.—The term
‘‘Second Tranche Amount’’ means, with re-
spect to each metropolitan city for which an
amount is allocated under subsection (b)(1),
each State for which an amount is allocated
under subsection (b)(2) for distribution to
nonentitlement units of local government,
and each county for which an amount is allo-
cated under subsection (b)(3), an amount not
to exceed 50 percent of the amount so allo-
cated to such metropolitan city, State, or
county (as applicable).
‘‘ ‘(7) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’
means the Secretary of the Treasury.
‘‘ ‘(8) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means
each of the 50 States, the District of Colum-
bia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
United States Virgin Islands, Guam, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Is-
lands, and American Samoa.
‘‘ ‘(9) UNIT
OF
GENERAL
LOCAL
GOVERN-
MENT.—The term ‘‘unit of general local gov-
ernment’’ has the meaning given that term
in section 102(a)(1) of the Housing and Com-
munity Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C.
5302(a)(1)).
‘‘ ‘SEC. 604. CORONAVIRUS CAPITAL PROJECTS
FUND.
‘‘ ‘(a)
APPROPRIATION.—In
addition
to
amounts otherwise available, there is appro-
priated for fiscal year 2021, out of any money
in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated,
$10,000,000,000, to remain available until ex-
pended, for making payments to States, ter-
ritories, and Tribal governments to carry
out critical capital projects directly ena-
bling work, education, and health moni-
toring, including remote options, in response
to the public health emergency with respect
to the Coronavirus Disease (COVID–19).
‘‘ ‘(b) PAYMENTS TO EACH OF THE 50 STATES
AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.—
‘‘ ‘(1)
MINIMUM
AMOUNTS.—From
the
amount appropriated under subsection (a)—
‘‘ ‘(A) the Secretary shall pay $100,000,000 to
each State;
‘‘ ‘(B) the Secretary shall pay $100,000,000 to
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and
$100,000,000 to the District of Columbia;
‘‘ ‘(C) the Secretary shall pay $100,000,000 of
such amount in equal shares to the United
States Virgin Islands, Guam, American
Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, the Republic of the Mar-
shall Islands, the Federated States of Micro-
nesia, and the Republic of Palau; and
‘‘ ‘(D) the Secretary shall pay $100,000,000 of
such amount to Tribal governments and the
State of Hawaii (in addition to the amount
paid to the State of Hawaii under subpara-
graph (A)), of which—
‘‘ ‘(i) not less than $50,000 shall be paid to
each Tribal government; and
‘‘ ‘(ii) not less than $50,000 shall be paid to
the State of Hawaii for the exclusive use of
the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands
and the Native Hawaiian Education Pro-
grams to assist Native Hawaiians in accord-
ance with this section.
‘‘ ‘(2) REMAINING AMOUNTS.—
‘‘ ‘(A) IN
GENERAL.—From the amount of
the appropriation under subsection (a) that
remains after the application of paragraph
(1), the Secretary shall make payments to
States based on population such that—
‘‘ ‘(i) 50 percent of such amount shall be al-
located among the States based on the pro-
portion that the population of each State
bears to the population of all States;
‘‘ ‘(ii) 25 percent of such amount shall be al-
located among the States based on the pro-
portion that the number of individuals living
in rural areas in each State bears to the
number of individuals living in rural areas in
all States; and
‘‘ ‘(iii) 25 percent of such amount shall be
allocated among the States based on the pro-
portion that the number of individuals with
a household income that is below 150 percent
of the poverty line applicable to a family of
the size involved in each State bears to the
number of such individuals in all States.
‘‘ ‘(B) DATA.—In determining the alloca-
tions to be made to each State under sub-
paragraph (A), the Secretary of the Treasury
shall use the most recent data available from
the Bureau of the Census.
‘‘ ‘(c) TIMING.—The Secretary shall estab-
lish a process of applying for grants to access
funding made available under section (b) not
later than 60 days after enactment of this
section.
‘‘ ‘(d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
‘‘ ‘(1) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’
means the Secretary of the Treasury.
‘‘ ‘(2) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means 1 of
the 50 States.
‘‘ ‘(3)
TRIBAL
GOVERNMENT.—The
term
‘‘Tribal government’’ has the meaning given
such term in section 603(g).’.
‘‘(2) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—The heading
for title VI of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 801 et seq.) is amended by striking
‘FUND’ and inserting ‘AND FISCAL RECOV-
ERY FUNDS’.’’.
Subtitle N—Other Provisions
SEC. 9911. FUNDING FOR PROVIDERS RELATING
TO COVID–19.
Section 301 of division BB of the Consoli-
dated Appropriations Act, 2021, as amended
by this Act, is amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
‘‘(l) FUNDING FOR PROVIDERS RELATED TO
COVID–19.—Part A of title XI of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘ ‘SEC. 1150C. FUNDING FOR PROVIDERS RELAT-
ING TO COVID–19.
‘‘ ‘(a) FUNDING.—In addition to amounts
otherwise available, there is appropriated to
the Secretary, for fiscal year 2021, out of any
monies in the Treasury not otherwise appro-
priated, $8,500,000,000 for purposes of making
payments to eligible health care providers
for health care related expenses and lost rev-
enues that are attributable to COVID–19.
Amounts appropriated under the preceding
sentence shall remain available until ex-
pended.
‘‘ ‘(b) SPECIAL RULE REGARDING PARENT OR-
GANIZATIONS.—In the case of any payment
made under this section to an eligible health
care provider, but which is received by a par-
ent organization of such provider, such par-
ent organization shall allocate all of such
payment to such provider.
‘‘ ‘(c) APPLICATION REQUIREMENT.—To be el-
igible for a payment under this section, an
eligible health care provider shall submit to
the Secretary an application in such form
and manner as the Secretary shall prescribe.
Such application shall contain the following:
‘‘ ‘(1) A statement justifying the need of
the provider for the payment, including doc-
umentation of the health care related ex-
penses attributable to COVID–19 and lost
revenues attributable to COVID–19.
‘‘ ‘(2) The tax identification number of the
provider.
‘‘ ‘(3) Such assurances as the Secretary de-
termines appropriate that the eligible health
care provider will maintain and make avail-
able such documentation and submit such re-
ports (at such time, in such form, and con-
taining such information as the Secretary
shall prescribe) as the Secretary determines
is necessary to ensure compliance with any
conditions imposed by the Secretary under
this section.
‘‘ ‘(4) Any other information determined
appropriate by the Secretary.
‘‘ ‘(d) LIMITATION.—Payments made to an
eligible health care provider under this sec-
tion may not be used to reimburse any ex-
pense or loss that—
‘‘ ‘(1) has been reimbursed from another
source; or
‘‘ ‘(2) another source is obligated to reim-
burse.
‘‘ ‘(e)
APPLICATION
OF
REQUIREMENTS,
RULES,
AND
PROCEDURES.—The Secretary
shall apply any requirements, rules, or pro-
cedures as the Secretary deems appropriate
for the efficient execution of this section.
‘‘ ‘(f) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
‘‘ ‘(1) ELIGIBLE
HEALTH
CARE
PROVIDER.—
The term ‘‘eligible health care provider’’
means—
‘‘ ‘(A) a provider of services (as defined in
section 1861(u)) or a supplier (as defined in
section 1861(d)) that—
‘‘ ‘(i) is enrolled in the Medicare program
under title XVIII under section 1866(j), in-
cluding temporarily enrolled during the
VerDate Sep 11 2014
09:39 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.148
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1310
March 5, 2021
emergency
period
described
in
section
1135(g)(1)(B) for such period;
‘‘ ‘(ii) provides diagnoses, testing, or care
for individuals with possible or actual cases
of COVID–19; and
‘‘ ‘(iii) is located in a rural area or treated
as located in a rural area pursuant to section
1886(d)(8)(E); or
‘‘ ‘(B) a provider or supplier that—
‘‘ ‘(i) is enrolled with a State Medicaid plan
under title XIX (or a waiver of such plan) in
accordance with subsections (a)(77) and (kk)
of section 1902 (including enrolled pursuant
to section 1902(a)(78) or section 1932(d)(6)) or
enrolled with a State child health plan under
title XXI (or a waiver of such plan) in ac-
cordance with subparagraph (G) of section
2107(e)(1) (including enrolled pursuant to sub-
paragraph (D) or (Q) of such section);
‘‘ ‘(ii) provides diagnoses, testing, or care
for individuals with possible or actual cases
of COVID–19; and
‘‘ ‘(iii) is located in a rural area.
‘‘ ‘(2) HEALTH CARE RELATED EXPENSES AT-
TRIBUTABLE TO COVID–19.—The term ‘‘health
care related expenses attributable to COVID–
19’’ means health care related expenses to
prevent, prepare for, and respond to COVID–
19, including the building or construction of
a temporary structure, the leasing of a prop-
erty, the purchase of medical supplies and
equipment, including personal protective
equipment and testing supplies, providing for
increased workforce and training, including
maintaining staff, obtaining additional staff,
or both, the operation of an emergency oper-
ation center, retrofitting a facility, pro-
viding for surge capacity, and other expenses
determined appropriate by the Secretary.
‘‘ ‘(3)
LOST
REVENUE
ATTRIBUTABLE
TO
COVID–19.—The term ‘‘lost revenue attrib-
utable to COVID–19’’ has the meaning given
that term in the Frequently Asked Questions
guidance released by the Department of
Health and Human Services in June 2020, in-
cluding the difference between such pro-
vider’s budgeted and actual revenue if such
budget had been established and approved
prior to March 27, 2020.
‘‘ ‘(4) PAYMENT.— The term ‘‘payment’’ in-
cludes, as determined appropriate by the
Secretary, a pre-payment, a prospective pay-
ment, a retrospective payment, or a payment
through a grant or other mechanism.
‘‘ ‘(5) RURAL AREA.—The term ‘‘rural area’’
means—
‘‘ ‘(A) a rural area (as defined in section
1886(d)(2)(D)); or
‘‘ ‘(B) any other rural area (as defined by
the Secretary).’.
SEC. 9912. EXTENSION OF CUSTOMS USER FEES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 13031(j)(3) of the
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(j)(3)) is amended—
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘Octo-
ber 21, 2029’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30,
2030’’; and
(2) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking ‘‘Oc-
tober 21, 2029’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30,
2030’’.
(b) RATE
FOR
MERCHANDISE
PROCESSING
FEES.—Section 503 of the United States-
Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementa-
tion Act (Public Law 112–41; 19 U.S.C. 3805
note) is amended by striking ‘‘October 21,
2029’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2030’’.
TITLE X—COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN
RELATIONS
SEC. 10001. ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THE DE-
PARTMENT OF STATE AND FOR FOR-
EIGN ASSISTANCE.
Part I of the Foreign Assistance Act (22
U.S.C. 2151 et seq.) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
‘‘CHAPTER 13—MISCELLANEOUS FUNDING
‘‘SEC.
500A.
DEPARTMENT
OF
STATE
OPER-
ATIONS.
‘‘In addition to amounts otherwise avail-
able, there is authorized and appropriated to
the Secretary of State for fiscal year 2021,
out of any money in the Treasury not other-
wise appropriated, $204,000,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2022, for nec-
essary expenses of the Department of State
to carry out the authorities, functions, du-
ties, and responsibilities in the conduct of
the foreign affairs of the United States, to
prevent,
prepare
for,
and
respond
to
coronavirus domestically or internationally,
which shall include maintaining Department
of State operations.
‘‘SEC. 500B. UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTER-
NATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
OPER-
ATIONS.
‘‘In addition to amounts otherwise avail-
able, there is authorized and appropriated to
the Administrator of the United States
Agency for International Development for
fiscal year 2021, out of any money in the
Treasury
not
otherwise
appropriated,
$41,000,000, to remain available until Sep-
tember 30, 2022, to carry out the provisions of
section 667 for necessary expenses of the
United States Agency for International De-
velopment to prevent, prepare for, and re-
spond to coronavirus domestically or inter-
nationally, and for other operations and
maintenance
requirements
related
to
coronavirus.
‘‘SEC. 500C. GLOBAL RESPONSE.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In addition to amounts
otherwise available, there is authorized and
appropriated to the Secretary of State for
fiscal year 2021, out of any money in the
Treasury
not
otherwise
appropriated,
$8,675,000,000, to remain available until Sep-
tember 30, 2022, for necessary expenses to
carry out the provisions of section 531 of
chapter 4 of part II as health programs to
prevent,
prepare
for,
and
respond
to
coronavirus, which shall include recovery
from the impacts of such virus and shall be
allocated as follows—
‘‘(1) $905,000,000 to be made available to the
United States Agency for International De-
velopment for global health activities to pre-
vent,
prepare
for,
and
respond
to
coronavirus, which shall include a contribu-
tion to a multilateral vaccine development
partnership to support epidemic prepared-
ness;
‘‘(2) $3,750,000,000 to be made available to
the Department of State to support pro-
grams for the prevention, treatment, and
control of HIV/AIDS in order to prevent, pre-
pare for, and respond to coronavirus, includ-
ing to mitigate the impact on such programs
from coronavirus and support recovery from
the impacts of the coronavirus, of which not
less than $3,500,000,000 shall be for a United
States contribution to the Global Fund to
Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria;
‘‘(3) $3,090,000,000 to be made available to
the United States Agency for International
Development to prevent, prepare for, and re-
spond to coronavirus, which shall include
support for international disaster relief, re-
habilitation, and reconstruction, for health
activities, and to meet emergency food secu-
rity needs; and
‘‘(4) $930,000,000 to be made available to
prevent,
prepare
for,
and
respond
to
coronavirus, which shall include activities to
address economic and stabilization require-
ments resulting from such virus.
‘‘(b) WAIVER OF LIMITATION.—Any contribu-
tion to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tu-
berculosis and Malaria made pursuant to
subsection (a)(2) shall be made available not-
withstanding section 202(d)(4)(A)(i) of the
United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS,
Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (22
U.S.C. 7622(d)(4)(A)(i)), and such contribution
shall not be considered a contribution for the
purpose
of
applying
such
section
202(d)(4)(A)(i).
‘‘SEC. 500D. HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In addition to amounts
otherwise available, there is authorized and
appropriated to the Secretary of State for
fiscal year 2021, out of any money in the
Treasury
not
otherwise
appropriated,
$500,000,000, to remain available until Sep-
tember 30, 2022, to carry out the provisions of
section 2(a) and (b) of the Migration and Ref-
ugee Assistance Act of 1962 (22 U.S.C. 2601(a)
and (b)) to prevent, prepare for, and respond
to coronavirus.
‘‘(b) USE
OF FUNDS.—Funds appropriated
pursuant to this section shall not be made
available for the costs of resettling refugees
in the United States.
‘‘SEC. 500E. MULTILATERAL ASSISTANCE.
‘‘In addition to amounts otherwise avail-
able, there is authorized and appropriated to
the Secretary of State for fiscal year 2021,
out of any money in the Treasury not other-
wise appropriated, $580,000,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2022, to carry
out the provisions of section 301(a) to pre-
vent,
prepare
for,
and
respond
to
coronavirus, which shall include support for
the priorities and objectives of the United
Nations Global Humanitarian Response Plan
COVID–19 through voluntary contributions
to international organizations and programs
administered by such organizations.’’.
SA 1118. Mr. GRAHAM (for himself
and
Mr.
MARSHALL)
submitted
an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
Strike section 9901 and insert the fol-
lowing:
SEC. 9901. CORONAVIRUS STATE AND LOCAL FIS-
CAL RECOVERY FUND.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Title VI of the Social Se-
curity Act (42 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
‘‘SEC. 602. CORONAVIRUS FISCAL RECOVERY
FUND.
‘‘(a) APPROPRIATION.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Out of any money in the
Treasury of the United States not otherwise
appropriated, there are appropriated for
making payments to States, Tribal govern-
ments, and units of local government under
this section, $350,000,000,000 for fiscal year
2021.
‘‘(2)
RESERVATION
OF
FUNDS.—Of
the
amount appropriated under paragraph (1),
the Secretary shall reserve—
‘‘(A) $4,500,000,000 for making payments to
the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Is-
lands, Guam, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, and American
Samoa; and
‘‘(B) $20,000,000,000 for making payments to
Tribal governments.
‘‘(b) AUTHORITY TO MAKE PAYMENTS.—Not
later than 30 days after the date of enact-
ment of this section, the Secretary shall pay
each State and Tribal government the
amount determined for the State or Tribal
government for fiscal year 2021 under sub-
section (c).
VerDate Sep 11 2014
09:39 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.148
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1311
March 5, 2021
‘‘(c) PAYMENT AMOUNTS.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2),
the amount paid under this section for fiscal
year 2021 to a State that is 1 of the 50 States
shall be the amount equal to the relative
population proportion amount determined
for the State under paragraph (3) for such
fiscal year.
‘‘(2) MINIMUM PAYMENT.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—No State that is 1 of the
50 States shall receive a payment under this
section for fiscal year 2021 that is less than
$2,927,000,000.
‘‘(B) PRO
RATA
ADJUSTMENTS.—The Sec-
retary shall adjust on a pro rata basis the
amount of the payments for each of the 50
States determined under this subsection
without regard to this subparagraph to the
extent necessary to comply with the require-
ments of subparagraph (A).
‘‘(3)
RELATIVE
POPULATION
PROPORTION
AMOUNT.—For purposes of paragraph (1), the
relative population proportion amount de-
termined under this paragraph for a State
for fiscal year 2021 is the product of—
‘‘(A) the amount appropriated under para-
graph (1) of subsection (a) for fiscal year 2021
that remains after the application of para-
graph (2) of that subsection; and
‘‘(B) the relative State population propor-
tion (as defined in paragraph (4)).
‘‘(4) RELATIVE STATE POPULATION PROPOR-
TION
DEFINED.—For purposes of paragraph
(3)(B), the term ‘relative State population
proportion’ means, with respect to a State,
the quotient of—
‘‘(A) the population of the State; and
‘‘(B) the total population of all States (ex-
cluding the District of Columbia and terri-
tories specified in subsection (a)(2)(A)).
‘‘(5) DISTRICT
OF
COLUMBIA
AND
TERRI-
TORIES.—The amount paid under this section
for fiscal year 2021 to a State that is the Dis-
trict of Columbia or a territory specified in
subsection (a)(2)(A) shall be the amount
equal to the product of—
‘‘(A) the amount set aside under subsection
(a)(2)(A) for such fiscal year; and
‘‘(B) each such District’s and territory’s
share of the combined total population of the
District of Columbia and all such territories,
as determined by the Secretary.
‘‘(6)
TRIBAL
GOVERNMENTS.—From
the
amount set aside under subsection (a)(2)(B)
for fiscal year 2021, the amount paid under
this section for fiscal year 2021 to a Tribal
government shall be the amount the Sec-
retary shall determine, in consultation with
the Secretary of the Interior and Indian
Tribes, that is based on increased expendi-
tures of each such Tribal government (or a
tribally-owned entity of such Tribal govern-
ment) relative to aggregate expenditures in
fiscal year 2019 by the Tribal government (or
tribally-owned entity) and determined in
such manner as the Secretary determines ap-
propriate to ensure that all amounts avail-
able under subsection (a)(2)(B) for fiscal year
2021 are distributed to Tribal governments.
‘‘(7) DATA.—For purposes of this sub-
section, the population of States shall be de-
termined based on the most recent year for
which data are available from the Bureau of
the Census.
‘‘(d) USE OF FUNDS.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2),
a State or Tribal government shall use the
funds provided under a payment made under
this section to cover only those costs of the
State or Tribal government that—
‘‘(A) are necessary expenditures incurred
due to the public health emergency with re-
spect
to
the
Coronavirus
Disease
2019
(COVID–19);
‘‘(B) were not accounted for in the budget
most recently approved as of the date of en-
actment of this section for the State or gov-
ernment; and
‘‘(C) were incurred during the period that
begins on March 1, 2020, and ends on Decem-
ber 31, 2022.
‘‘(2) STATE
DISTRIBUTIONS
TO
UNITS
OF
LOCAL GOVERNMENT.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Each State (other than
the District of Columbia) shall distribute 45
percent of the amount allocated and paid to
the State under this section to units of local
government in the State in accordance with
this paragraph.
‘‘(B) MANNER
OF
DISTRIBUTION.—A State
shall allocate the amount that the State is
required to distribute among units of local
government in the State based on the popu-
lation of each such unit of local government
(as determined by the State) relative to the
population of all units of local government
in the State.
‘‘(C) APPLICATION OF USES OF FUNDS.—The
limitations on the uses of funds described in
paragraph (1) shall apply to amounts distrib-
uted to a unit of local government under this
paragraph in the same manner that such
limitations apply to a payment to a State
under this subsection.
‘‘(e)
INSPECTOR
GENERAL
OVERSIGHT;
RECOUPMENT.—
‘‘(1) OVERSIGHT AUTHORITY.—The Inspector
General of the Department of the Treasury
shall conduct monitoring and oversight of
the receipt, disbursement, and use of funds
made available under this section.
‘‘(2) RECOUPMENT.—If the Inspector General
of the Department of the Treasury deter-
mines that a State, Tribal government, or
unit of local government has failed to com-
ply with subsection (d), the amount equal to
the amount of funds used in violation of such
subsection shall be booked as a debt of such
entity owed to the Federal Government.
Amounts recovered under this subsection
shall be deposited into the general fund of
the Treasury.
‘‘(3) FUNDING.—The Inspector General of
the Department of the Treasury may use
amounts appropriated under section 601(f)(3)
to carry out oversight and recoupment ac-
tivities under this subsection.
‘‘(4) AUTHORITY
OF
INSPECTOR
GENERAL.—
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed
to diminish the authority of any Inspector
General, including such authority as pro-
vided in the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5
U.S.C. App.).
‘‘(f) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The terms ‘Indian Tribe’,
‘Secretary’, ‘State’, and ‘Tribal government’
shall have the meaning given such terms in
section 601(g).
‘‘(2) UNIT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT.—The term
‘unit of local government’ means a county,
municipality, town, township, village, par-
ish, borough, or other unit of general govern-
ment below the State level.’’.
(b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—The heading
for title VI of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 801 et seq.) is amended by striking
‘‘FUND’’ and inserting ‘‘AND FISCAL RE-
COVERY FUNDS’’.
SA 1119. Mr. LEE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
Strike section 9901 and insert the fol-
lowing:
SEC. 9901. CORONAVIRUS STATE AND LOCAL FIS-
CAL RECOVERY FUNDS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Title VI of the Social Se-
curity Act (42 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
‘‘SEC. 602. CORONAVIRUS STATE FISCAL RECOV-
ERY FUND.
‘‘(a)
APPROPRIATION.—In
addition
to
amounts otherwise available, there is appro-
priated for fiscal year 2021, out of any money
in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated—
‘‘(1) $219,800,000,000, to remain available
through December 31, 2024, for making pay-
ments under this section to States, terri-
tories, and Tribal governments to mitigate
the fiscal losses directly caused by the public
health
emergency
with
respect
to
the
Coronavirus Disease (COVID–19); and
‘‘(2) $50,000,000, to remain available until
expended, for the costs of the Secretary for
administration of the funds established
under this title.
‘‘(b) AUTHORITY TO MAKE PAYMENTS.—
‘‘(1) PAYMENTS TO TERRITORIES.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall re-
serve $4,500,000,000 of the amount appro-
priated under subsection (a)(1) to make pay-
ments to the territories.
‘‘(B) ALLOCATION.—Of the amount reserved
under subparagraph (A)—
‘‘(i) 50 percent of such amount shall be al-
located by the Secretary equally to each ter-
ritory; and
‘‘(ii) 50 percent of such amount shall be al-
located by the Secretary as an additional
amount to each territory in an amount
which bears the same proportion to 1⁄2 of the
total amount reserved under subparagraph
(A) as the population of the territory bears
to the total population of all such terri-
tories.
‘‘(C) PAYMENT.—The Secretary shall pay
each territory the total of the amounts allo-
cated for the territory under subparagraph
(B) in accordance with paragraph (6).
‘‘(2) PAYMENTS TO TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall re-
serve $20,000,000,000 of the amount appro-
priated under subsection (a)(1) to make pay-
ments to Tribal governments.
‘‘(B) ALLOCATION.—Of the amount reserved
under subparagraph (A)—
‘‘(i) $1,000,000,000 shall be allocated by the
Secretary equally among each of the Tribal
governments; and
‘‘(ii) $19,000,000,000 shall be allocated by the
Secretary to the Tribal governments in a
manner determined by the Secretary.
‘‘(C) PAYMENT.— The Secretary shall pay
each Tribal government the total of the
amounts allocated for the Tribal government
under subparagraph (B) in accordance with
paragraph (6).
‘‘(3) PAYMENTS TO EACH OF THE 50 STATES
AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall re-
serve $195,300,000,000 of the amount appro-
priated under subsection (a)(1) to make pay-
ments to each of the 50 States and the Dis-
trict of Columbia.
‘‘(B) ALLOCATIONS.—Of the amount re-
served under subparagraph (A)—
‘‘(i) $25,500,000,000 of such amount shall be
allocated by the Secretary equally among
each of the 50 States and the District of Co-
lumbia;
‘‘(ii) an amount equal to $1,250,000,000 less
the amount allocated for the District of Co-
lumbia pursuant to section 601(c)(6) shall be
allocated by the Secretary as an additional
amount to the District of Columbia; and
‘‘(iii) an amount equal to the remainder of
the amount reserved under subparagraph (A)
after the application of clauses (i) and (ii) of
this subparagraph shall be allocated by the
Secretary as an additional amount to each of
the 50 States and the District of Columbia in
an amount which bears the same proportion
VerDate Sep 11 2014
09:39 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.153
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1312
March 5, 2021
to such remainder as the average estimated
number of seasonally-adjusted unemployed
individuals (as measured by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics Local Area Unemployment
Statistics program) in the State or District
of Columbia over the 3-month period ending
with December 2020 bears to the average esti-
mated number of seasonally-adjusted unem-
ployed individuals in all of the 50 States and
the District of Columbia over the same pe-
riod.
‘‘(C) PAYMENT.—
‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Subject to clause (ii), the
Secretary shall pay each of the 50 States and
the District of Columbia, from the amount
reserved under subparagraph (A), the total of
the amounts allocated for the State and Dis-
trict of Columbia under subparagraph (B) in
accordance with paragraph (6).
‘‘(ii) MINIMUM PAYMENT REQUIREMENT.—
‘‘(I) IN GENERAL.—The sum of—
‘‘(aa) the total amounts allocated for 1 of
the 50 States or the District of Columbia
under subparagraph (B) (as determined with-
out regard to this clause); and
‘‘(bb) the amounts allocated under section
603 to the State (for distribution by the
State to nonentitlement units of local gov-
ernment in the State) and to metropolitan
cities and counties in the State;
shall not be less than the amount paid to the
State or District of Columbia for fiscal year
2020 under section 601.
‘‘(II) PRO
RATA
ADJUSTMENT.—The Sec-
retary shall adjust on a pro rata basis the
amount of the allocations for each of the 50
States and the District of Columbia deter-
mined under subparagraph (B)(iii) (without
regard to this clause) to the extent necessary
to comply with the requirement of subclause
(I).
‘‘(4) PRO
RATA
ADJUSTMENT
AUTHORITY.—
The amounts otherwise determined for allo-
cation and payment under paragraphs (1), (2),
and (3) may be adjusted by the Secretary on
a pro rata basis to the extent necessary to
ensure that all available funds are allocated
to States, territories, and Tribal govern-
ments in accordance with the requirements
specified in each such paragraph (as applica-
ble).
‘‘(5) POPULATION DATA.—For purposes of de-
termining allocations for a territory under
this section, the population of the territory
shall be determined based on the most recent
data available from the Bureau of the Cen-
sus.
‘‘(6) TIMING.—
‘‘(A) IN
GENERAL.—To the extent prac-
ticable, with respect to each State and terri-
tory allocated a payment under this sub-
section, the Secretary shall make the pay-
ment required for the State or territory not
later than 60 days after the date on which
the certification required under subsection
(d)(1) is provided to the Secretary.
‘‘(B) TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS.—To the extent
practicable, with respect to each Tribal gov-
ernment for which an amount is allocated
under this subsection, the Secretary shall
make the payment required for the Tribal
government not later than 60 days after the
date of enactment of this section.
‘‘(C) INITIAL PAYMENT TO DISTRICT OF CO-
LUMBIA.—The
Secretary
shall
pay
the
amount allocated under paragraph (3)(B)(ii)
to the District of Columbia not later than 15
days after the date of enactment of this sec-
tion.
‘‘(c) REQUIREMENTS.—
‘‘(1) USE OF FUNDS.—Subject to paragraph
(2), and except as provided in paragraph (3),
a State, territory, or Tribal government
shall only use the funds provided under a
payment made under this section, or trans-
ferred pursuant to section 603(c)(4), to cover
costs incurred by the State, territory, or
Tribal government, by December 31, 2024—
‘‘(A) to respond to the public health emer-
gency with respect to the Coronavirus Dis-
ease 2019 (COVID–19) or its negative eco-
nomic
impacts,
including
assistance
to
households, small businesses, and nonprofits,
or aid to impacted industries such as tour-
ism, travel, and hospitality; or
‘‘(B) for the provision of government serv-
ices to the extent of the reduction in revenue
of such State, territory, or Tribal govern-
ment due to such emergency.
‘‘(2) FURTHER
RESTRICTION
ON
USE
OF
FUNDS.—
‘‘(A) IN
GENERAL.—A State or territory
shall not use the funds provided under this
section or transferred pursuant to section
603(c)(4) to either directly or indirectly offset
a reduction in the net tax revenue of such
State or territory resulting from a change in
law, regulation, or administrative interpre-
tation during the covered period that re-
duces any tax (by providing for a reduction
in a rate, a rebate, a deduction, a credit, or
otherwise) or delays the imposition of any
tax or tax increase.
‘‘(B) PENSION FUNDS.—No State or territory
may use funds made available under this sec-
tion for deposit into any pension fund.
‘‘(3) TRANSFER AUTHORITY.—A State, terri-
tory, or Tribal government receiving a pay-
ment from funds made available under this
section may transfer funds to a private non-
profit organization (as that term is defined
in paragraph (17) of section 401 of the McKin-
ney-Vento
Homeless
Assistance
Act
(42
U.S.C. 11360(17)), a Tribal organization (as
that term is defined in section 4 of the In-
dian Self-Determination and Education As-
sistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304)), a public benefit
corporation involved in the transportation of
passengers or cargo, or a special-purpose
unit of State or local government.
‘‘(d) CERTIFICATIONS AND REPORTS.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In order for a State or
territory to receive a payment under this
section, or a transfer of funds under section
603(c)(4), the State or territory shall provide
the Secretary with a certification, signed by
an authorized officer of such State or terri-
tory, that such State or territory requires
the payment or transfer to carry out the ac-
tivities specified in subsection (c) of this sec-
tion and will use any payment under this
section, or transfer of funds under section
603(c)(4), in compliance with subsection (c) of
this section
‘‘(2) REPORTING.—Any State, territory, or
Tribal government receiving a payment
under this section shall provide to the Sec-
retary periodic reports providing a detailed
accounting of—
‘‘(A) the uses of funds by such State, terri-
tory, or Tribal government, including, in the
case of a State or a territory, all modifica-
tions to the State’s or territory’s tax rev-
enue sources during the covered period; and
‘‘(B) such other information as the Sec-
retary may require for the administration of
this section.
‘‘(e) RECOUPMENT.—Any State, territory, or
Tribal government that has failed to comply
with subsection (c) shall be required to repay
to the Secretary an amount equal to the
amount of funds used in violation of such
subsection, provided that, in the case of a
violation of subsection (c)(2)(A), the amount
the State or territory shall be required to
repay shall be lesser of—
‘‘(1) the amount of the applicable reduction
to net tax revenue attributable to such vio-
lation; and
‘‘(2) the amount of funds received by such
State or territory pursuant to a payment
made under this section or a transfer made
under section 603(c)(4).
‘‘(f) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary shall
have the authority to issue such regulations
as may be necessary or appropriate to carry
out this section.
‘‘(g) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
‘‘(1) COVERED
PERIOD.—The term ‘covered
period’ means, with respect to a State, terri-
tory, or Tribal government, the period that—
‘‘(A) begins on March 3, 2021; and
‘‘(B) ends on the last day of the fiscal year
of such State, territory, or Tribal govern-
ment in which all funds received by the
State, territory, or Tribal government from
a payment made under this section or a
transfer made under section 603(c)(4) have
been expended or returned to, or recovered
by, the Secretary.
‘‘(2)
SECRETARY.—The
term
‘Secretary’
means the Secretary of the Treasury.
‘‘(3) STATE.—The term ‘State’ means each
of the 50 States and the District of Columbia.
‘‘(4)
TERRITORY.—The
term
‘territory’
means the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Is-
lands, and American Samoa.
‘‘(5) TRIBAL GOVERNMENT.—The term ‘Trib-
al Government’ means the recognized gov-
erning body of any Indian or Alaska Native
tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, commu-
nity, component band, or component res-
ervation, individually identified (including
parenthetically) in the list published most
recently as of the date of enactment of this
Act pursuant to section 104 of the Federally
Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25
U.S.C. 5131).
‘‘SEC. 603. CORONAVIRUS LOCAL FISCAL RECOV-
ERY FUND.
‘‘(a)
APPROPRIATION.—In
addition
to
amounts otherwise available, there is appro-
priated for fiscal year 2021, out of any money
in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated,
$120,200,000,000, to remain available through
December 31, 2024, for making payments
under this section to metropolitan cities,
nonentitlement units of local government,
and counties to mitigate the fiscal losses di-
rectly caused by the public health emer-
gency with respect to the Coronavirus Dis-
ease (COVID–19).
‘‘(b) AUTHORITY TO MAKE PAYMENTS.—
‘‘(1) METROPOLITAN CITIES.—
‘‘(A) IN
GENERAL.—Of the amount appro-
priated under subsection (a), the Secretary
shall reserve $42,070,000,000 to make pay-
ments to metropolitan cities.
‘‘(B) ALLOCATION AND PAYMENT.—From the
amount reserved under subparagraph (A), the
Secretary shall allocate and, in accordance
with paragraph (7), pay to each metropolitan
city an amount determined for the metro-
politan city consistent with the formula
under section 106(b) of the Housing and Com-
munity Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C.
5306(b)), except that, in applying such for-
mula, the Secretary shall substitute ‘all
metropolitan cities’ for ‘all metropolitan
areas’ each place it appears.
‘‘(2) NONENTITLEMENT UNITS OF LOCAL GOV-
ERNMENT.—
‘‘(A) IN
GENERAL.—Of the amount appro-
priated under subsection (a), the Secretary
shall reserve $18,030,000,000 to make pay-
ments to States for distribution by the State
to nonentitlement units of local government
in the State.
‘‘(B) ALLOCATION AND PAYMENT.—From the
amount reserved under subparagraph (A), the
Secretary shall allocate and, in accordance
with paragraph (7), pay to each State an
amount which bears the same proportion to
such reserved amount as the total popu-
lation of all nonentitlement units of local
government in the State bears to the total
population of all nonentitlement units of
local government in all such States.
‘‘(C)
DISTRIBUTION
TO
NONENTITLEMENT
UNITS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT.—
VerDate Sep 11 2014
09:39 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.153
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1313
March 5, 2021
‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days
after a State receives a payment under sub-
paragraph (B), the State shall distribute to
each nonentitlement unit of local govern-
ment in the State an amount that bears the
same proportion to the amount of such pay-
ment as the population of the nonentitle-
ment unit of local government bears to the
total population of all the nonentitlement
units of local government in the State, sub-
ject to clause (iii).
‘‘(ii) DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS.—
‘‘(I) EXTENSION
FOR
DISTRIBUTION.—If an
authorized officer of a State required to
make distributions under clause (i) certifies
in writing to the Secretary before the end of
the 30-day distribution period described in
such clause that it would constitute an ex-
cessive administrative burden for the State
to meet the terms of such clause with re-
spect to 1 or more such distributions, the au-
thorized officer may request, and the Sec-
retary shall grant, an extension of such pe-
riod of not more than 30 days to allow the
State to make such distributions in accord-
ance with clause (i).
‘‘(II) ADDITIONAL EXTENSIONS.—
‘‘(aa) IN
GENERAL.—If a State has been
granted an extension to the distribution pe-
riod under subclause (I) but is unable to
make all the distributions required under
clause (i) before the end of such period as ex-
tended, an authorized officer of the State
may request an additional extension of the
distribution period of not more than 30 days.
The Secretary may grant a request for an ad-
ditional extension of such period only if—
‘‘(AA) the authorized officer making such
request provides a written plan to the Sec-
retary specifying, for each distribution for
which an additional extension is requested,
when the State expects to make such dis-
tribution and the actions the State has
taken and will take in order to make all
such distributions before the end of the dis-
tribution period (as extended under sub-
clause (I) and this subclause); and
‘‘(BB) the Secretary determines that such
plan is reasonably designed to distribute all
such funds to nonentitlement units of local
government by the end of the distribution
period (as so extended).
‘‘(bb) FURTHER ADDITIONAL EXTENSIONS.—If
a State granted an additional extension of
the distribution period under item (aa) re-
quires any further additional extensions of
such period, the request only may be made
and granted subject to the requirements
specified in item (aa).
‘‘(iii) CAPPED AMOUNT.—The total amount
distributed to a nonentitlement unit of local
government under this paragraph may not
exceed the amount equal to 75 percent of the
most recent budget for the nonentitlement
unit of local government as of January 27,
2020.
‘‘(iv) RETURN
OF
EXCESS
AMOUNTS.—Any
amounts not distributed to a nonentitlement
unit of local government as a result of the
application of clause (iii) shall be returned
to the Secretary.
‘‘(D) PENALTY FOR NONCOMPLIANCE.—If, by
the end of the 120-day period that begins on
the date a State receives a payment from the
amount allocated under subparagraph (B) or,
if later, the last day of the distribution pe-
riod for the State (as extended with respect
to the State under subparagraph (C)(ii)),
such State has failed to make all the dis-
tributions from such payment in accordance
with the terms of subparagraph (C) (includ-
ing any extensions of the distribution period
granted in accordance with such subpara-
graph), an amount equal to the amount of
such payment that remains undistributed as
of such date shall be booked as a debt of such
State owed to the Federal Government, shall
be paid back from the State’s allocation pro-
vided under section 602(b)(3)(B)(iii), and shall
be deposited into the general fund of the
Treasury.
‘‘(3) COUNTIES.—
‘‘(A) AMOUNT.—From the amount appro-
priated under subsection (a), the Secretary
shall reserve and allocate $60,100,000,000 of
such amount to make payments directly to
counties in an amount which bears the same
proportion to the total amount reserved
under this paragraph as the population of
each such county bears to the total popu-
lation of all such entities and shall pay such
allocated amounts to such counties in ac-
cordance with paragraph (7).
‘‘(B) SPECIAL RULES.—
‘‘(i) URBAN COUNTIES.—No county that is an
‘urban county’ (as defined in section 102 of
the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5302)) shall receive less
than the amount the county would otherwise
receive if the amount paid under this para-
graph were allocated to metropolitan cities
and urban counties under section 106(b) of
the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5306(b)).
‘‘(ii) COUNTIES THAT ARE NOT UNITS OF GEN-
ERAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT.—In the case of an
amount to be paid to a county that is not a
unit
of
general
local
government,
the
amount shall instead be paid to the State in
which such county is located, and such State
shall distribute such amount to each unit of
general local government within such county
in an amount that bears the same proportion
to the amount to be paid to such county as
the population of such units of general local
government bears to the total population of
such county.
‘‘(iii) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.—For purposes
of this paragraph, the District of Columbia
shall be considered to consist of a single
county that is a unit of general local govern-
ment.
‘‘(4) CONSOLIDATED
GOVERNMENTS.—A unit
of general local government that has formed
a consolidated government, or that is geo-
graphically contained (in full or in part)
within the boundaries of another unit of gen-
eral local government may receive a dis-
tribution under each of paragraphs (1), (2),
and (3), as applicable, based on the respective
formulas specified in such paragraphs.
‘‘(5) PRO
RATA
ADJUSTMENT
AUTHORITY.—
The amounts otherwise determined for allo-
cation and payment under paragraphs (1), (2),
and (3) may be adjusted by the Secretary on
a pro rata basis to the extent necessary to
ensure that all available funds are distrib-
uted to metropolitan cities, counties, and
States in accordance with the requirements
specified in each paragraph (as applicable)
and the certification requirement specified
in subsection (d).
‘‘(6) POPULATION.—For purposes of deter-
mining allocations under this section, the
population of an entity shall be determined
based on the most recent data are available
from the Bureau of the Census or, if not
available, from such other data as a State
determines appropriate.
‘‘(7) TIMING.—
‘‘(A) FIRST TRANCHE AMOUNT.—To the ex-
tent practicable, with respect to each metro-
politan city for which an amount is allocated
under paragraph (1), each State for which an
amount is allocated under paragraph (2) for
distribution to nonentitlement units of local
government, and each county for which an
amount is allocated under paragraph (3), the
Secretary shall pay from such allocation the
First Tranche Amount for such city, State,
or county not later than 60 days after the
date of enactment of this section.
‘‘(B) SECOND
TRANCHE
AMOUNT.—The Sec-
retary shall pay to each metropolitan city
for which an amount is allocated under para-
graph (1), each State for which an amount is
allocated under paragraph (2) for distribu-
tion to nonentitlement units of local govern-
ment, and each county for which an amount
is allocated under paragraph (3), the Second
Tranche Amount for such city, State, or
county not earlier than 12 months after the
date on which the First Tranche Amount is
paid to the city, State, or county.
‘‘(c) REQUIREMENTS.—
‘‘(1) USE OF FUNDS.—Subject to paragraph
(2), and except as provided in paragraphs (3)
and (4), a metropolitan city, nonentitlement
unit of local government, or county shall
only use the funds provided under a payment
made under this section to cover costs in-
curred by the metropolitan city, nonentitle-
ment unit of local government, or county, by
December 31, 2024—
‘‘(A) to respond to the public health emer-
gency with respect to the Coronavirus Dis-
ease 2019 (COVID–19) or its negative eco-
nomic
impacts,
including
assistance
to
households, small businesses, and nonprofits,
or aid to impacted industries such as tour-
ism, travel, and hospitality; or
‘‘(B) for the provision of government serv-
ices to the extent of the reduction in revenue
of such metropolitan city, nonentitlement
unit of local government, or county due to
such emergency.
‘‘(2)
PENSION
FUNDS.—No
metropolitan
city, nonentitlement unit of local govern-
ment, or county may use funds made avail-
able under this section for deposit into any
pension fund.
‘‘(3) TRANSFER AUTHORITY.—A metropolitan
city, nonentitlement unit of local govern-
ment, or county receiving a payment from
funds made available under this section may
transfer funds to a private nonprofit organi-
zation (as that term is defined in paragraph
(17) of section 401 of the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11360(17)),
a public benefit corporation involved in the
transportation of passengers or cargo, or a
special-purpose unit of State or local govern-
ment.
‘‘(4)
TRANSFERS
TO
STATES.—Notwith-
standing paragraph (1), a metropolitan city,
nonentitlement unit of local government, or
county receiving a payment from funds made
available under this section may transfer
such funds to the State in which such entity
is located.
‘‘(d) REPORTING.—Any metropolitan city,
nonentitlement unit of local government, or
county receiving funds provided under a pay-
ment made under this section shall provide
to the Secretary periodic reports providing a
detailed accounting of the uses of such funds
by such metropolitan city, nonentitlement
unit of local government, or county and in-
cluding such other information as the Sec-
retary may require for the administration of
this section.
‘‘(e) RECOUPMENT.—Any metropolitan city,
nonentitlement unit of local government, or
county that has failed to comply with sub-
section (c) shall be required to repay to the
Secretary an amount equal to the amount of
funds used in violation of such subsection.
‘‘(f) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary shall
have the authority to issue such regulations
as may be necessary or appropriate to carry
out this section.
‘‘(g) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
‘‘(1) COUNTY.—The term ‘county’ means a
county, parish, or other equivalent county
division (as defined by the Bureau of the
Census).
‘‘(2) COVERED
PERIOD.—The term ‘covered
period’ means, with respect to a metropoli-
tan city, nonentitlement unit of local gov-
ernment, or county receiving funds under
this section, the period that—
‘‘(A) begins on March 3, 2021; and
‘‘(B) ends on the last day of the fiscal year
of the metropolitan city, nonentitlement
VerDate Sep 11 2014
09:39 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.153
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1314
March 5, 2021
unit of local government, or county in which
all of the funds received by the metropolitan
city, nonentitlement unit of local govern-
ment, or county under this section have been
expended or returned to, or recovered by, the
Secretary.
‘‘(3) FIRST
TRANCHE
AMOUNT.—The term
‘First Tranche Amount’ means, with respect
to each metropolitan city for which an
amount is allocated under subsection (b)(1),
each State for which an amount is allocated
under subsection (b)(2) for distribution to
nonentitlement units of local government,
and each county for which an amount is allo-
cated under subsection (b)(3), 50 percent of
the amount so allocated to such metropoli-
tan city, State, or county (as applicable).
‘‘(4) METROPOLITAN CITY.—The term ‘met-
ropolitan city’ has the meaning given that
term in section 102(a)(4) of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974 (42
U.S.C. 5302(a)(4)) and includes cities that re-
linquish or defer their status as a metropoli-
tan city for purposes of receiving allocations
under section 106 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 5306)
for fiscal year 2021.
‘‘(5) NONENTITLEMENT UNIT OF LOCAL GOV-
ERNMENT.—The term ‘nonentitlement unit of
local government’ means a ‘city’, as that
term is defined in section 102(a)(5) of the
Housing and Community Development Act of
1974 (42 U.S.C. 5302(a)(5))), that is not a met-
ropolitan city.
‘‘(6) SECOND
TRANCHE
AMOUNT.—The term
‘Second Tranche Amount’ means, with re-
spect to each metropolitan city for which an
amount is allocated under subsection (b)(1),
each State for which an amount is allocated
under subsection (b)(2) for distribution to
nonentitlement units of local government,
and each county for which an amount is allo-
cated under subsection (b)(3), an amount not
to exceed 50 percent of the amount so allo-
cated to such metropolitan city, State, or
county (as applicable).
‘‘(7)
SECRETARY.—The
term
‘Secretary’
means the Secretary of the Treasury.
‘‘(8) STATE.—The term ‘State’ means each
of the 50 States, the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
United States Virgin Islands, Guam, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Is-
lands, and American Samoa.
‘‘(9) UNIT OF GENERAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT.—
The term ‘unit of general local government’
has the meaning given that term in section
102(a)(1) of the Housing and Community De-
velopment Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5302(a)(1)).
‘‘SEC. 604. CORONAVIRUS CAPITAL PROJECTS
FUND.
‘‘(a)
APPROPRIATION.—In
addition
to
amounts otherwise available, there is appro-
priated for fiscal year 2021, out of any money
in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated,
$10,000,000,000, to remain available until ex-
pended, for making payments to States, ter-
ritories, and Tribal governments to carry
out critical capital projects directly ena-
bling work, education, and health moni-
toring, including remote options, in response
to the public health emergency with respect
to the Coronavirus Disease (COVID–19).
‘‘(b) PAYMENTS TO EACH OF THE 50 STATES
AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.—
‘‘(1) MINIMUM AMOUNTS.—From the amount
appropriated under subsection (a)—
‘‘(A) the Secretary shall pay $100,000,000 to
each State;
‘‘(B) the Secretary shall pay $100,000,000 to
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and
$100,000,000 to the District of Columbia;
‘‘(C) the Secretary shall pay $100,000,000 of
such amount in equal shares to the United
States Virgin Islands, Guam, American
Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, the Republic of the Mar-
shall Islands, the Federated States of Micro-
nesia, and the Republic of Palau; and
‘‘(D) the Secretary shall pay $100,000,000 of
such amount to Tribal governments and the
State of Hawaii (in addition to the amount
paid to the State of Hawaii under subpara-
graph (A)), of which—
‘‘(i) not less than $50,000 shall be paid to
each Tribal government; and
‘‘(ii) not less than $50,000 shall be paid to
the State of Hawaii for the exclusive use of
the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands
and the Native Hawaiian Education Pro-
grams to assist Native Hawaiians in accord-
ance with this section.
‘‘(2) REMAINING AMOUNTS.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—From the amount of the
appropriation under subsection (a) that re-
mains after the application of paragraph (1),
the Secretary shall make payments to
States based on population such that—
‘‘(i) 50 percent of such amount shall be al-
located among the States based on the pro-
portion that the population of each State
bears to the population of all States;
‘‘(ii) 25 percent of such amount shall be al-
located among the States based on the pro-
portion that the number of individuals living
in rural areas in each State bears to the
number of individuals living in rural areas in
all States; and
‘‘(iii) 25 percent of such amount shall be al-
located among the States based on the pro-
portion that the number of individuals with
a household income that is below 150 percent
of the poverty line applicable to a family of
the size involved in each State bears to the
number of such individuals in all States.
‘‘(B) DATA.—In determining the allocations
to be made to each State under subparagraph
(A), the Secretary of the Treasury shall use
the most recent data available from the Bu-
reau of the Census.
‘‘(c) TIMING.—The Secretary shall establish
a process of applying for grants to access
funding made available under section (b) not
later than 60 days after enactment of this
section.
‘‘(d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
‘‘(1)
SECRETARY.—The
term
‘Secretary’
means the Secretary of the Treasury.
‘‘(2) STATE.—The term ‘State’ means 1 of
the 50 States.
‘‘(3) TRIBAL GOVERNMENT.—The term ‘Trib-
al government’ has the meaning given such
term in section 603(g).’’.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The heading
for title VI of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 801 et seq.) is amended by striking
‘‘FUND’’ and inserting ‘‘, FISCAL RECOV-
ERY, AND CRITICAL CAPITAL PROJECTS
FUNDS’’.
SA 1120. Mr. LEE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
Strike subtitle M of title IX.
SA 1121. Mr. LEE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 602, strike line 10 and all that fol-
lows through page 605, line 20, and insert the
following:
‘‘(9) UNIT OF GENERAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT.—
The term ‘unit of general local government’
has the meaning given that term in section
102(a)(1) of the Housing and Community De-
velopment Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5302(a)(1)).’’.
SA 1122. Mr. LEE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
Beginning on page 578, strike line 22 and
all that follows through page 579, line 15, and
insert the following:
‘‘(iii) an amount equal to the remainder of
the amount reserved under subparagraph (A)
after the application of clauses (i) and (ii) of
this subparagraph shall be allocated by the
Secretary as an additional amount to each of
the 50 States and the District of Columbia in
an amount which bears the same proportion
to such remainder as the population of the
State or District of Columbia bears to the
total population of all 50 States and the Dis-
trict of Columbia.
SA 1123 Mr. LEE submited an amend-
ment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S.Con. Res 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 584, insert the following after line
17:
‘‘(4) REQUIREMENT TO AUTHORIZE IN-PERSON
STUDENT ATTENDANCE.—Notwithstanding any
other provision of this title, the Secretary
shall not make a payment of any amount
under this section to a State, territory, or
Tribal organization if, as of the date that the
payment would otherwise be required to be
made under this section, the State, terri-
tory, or Tribal organization has not author-
ized in-person student attendance at all pri-
mary and secondary schools in the State,
territory, or jurisdiction of the Tribal gov-
ernment.
SA 1124. Mr. LEE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
Strike section 9901 and insert the fol-
lowing:
VerDate Sep 11 2014
09:39 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.153
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1315
March 5, 2021
SEC. 9901. CORONAVIRUS STATE AND LOCAL FIS-
CAL RECOVERY FUNDS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Title VI of the Social Se-
curity Act (42 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
‘‘SEC. 602. CORONAVIRUS STATE FISCAL RECOV-
ERY FUND.
‘‘(a)
APPROPRIATION.—In
addition
to
amounts otherwise available, there is appro-
priated for fiscal year 2021, out of any money
in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated—
‘‘(1) $219,800,000,000, to remain available
through July 31, 2021, for making payments
under this section to States, territories, and
Tribal governments to mitigate the fiscal ef-
fects stemming from the public health emer-
gency with respect to the Coronavirus Dis-
ease (COVID–19); and
‘‘(2) $50,000,000, to remain available until
expended, for the costs of the Secretary for
administration of the funds established
under this title.
‘‘(b) AUTHORITY TO MAKE PAYMENTS.—
‘‘(1) PAYMENTS TO TERRITORIES.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall re-
serve $4,500,000,000 of the amount appro-
priated under subsection (a)(1) to make pay-
ments to the territories.
‘‘(B) ALLOCATION.—Of the amount reserved
under subparagraph (A)—
‘‘(i) 50 percent of such amount shall be al-
located by the Secretary equally to each ter-
ritory; and
‘‘(ii) 50 percent of such amount shall be al-
located by the Secretary as an additional
amount to each territory in an amount
which bears the same proportion to 1⁄2 of the
total amount reserved under subparagraph
(A) as the population of the territory bears
to the total population of all such terri-
tories.
‘‘(C) PAYMENT.—The Secretary shall pay
each territory the total of the amounts allo-
cated for the territory under subparagraph
(B) in accordance with paragraph (6).
‘‘(2) PAYMENTS TO TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall re-
serve $20,000,000,000 of the amount appro-
priated under subsection (a)(1) to make pay-
ments to Tribal governments.
‘‘(B) ALLOCATION.—Of the amount reserved
under subparagraph (A)—
‘‘(i) $1,000,000,000 shall be allocated by the
Secretary equally among each of the Tribal
governments; and
‘‘(ii) $19,000,000,000 shall be allocated by the
Secretary to the Tribal governments in a
manner determined by the Secretary.
‘‘(C) PAYMENT.— The Secretary shall pay
each Tribal government the total of the
amounts allocated for the Tribal government
under subparagraph (B) in accordance with
paragraph (6).
‘‘(3) PAYMENTS TO EACH OF THE 50 STATES
AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall re-
serve $195,300,000,000 of the amount appro-
priated under subsection (a)(1) to make pay-
ments to each of the 50 States and the Dis-
trict of Columbia.
‘‘(B) ALLOCATIONS.—Of the amount re-
served under subparagraph (A)—
‘‘(i) $25,500,000,000 of such amount shall be
allocated by the Secretary equally among
each of the 50 States and the District of Co-
lumbia;
‘‘(ii) an amount equal to $1,250,000,000 less
the amount allocated for the District of Co-
lumbia pursuant to section 601(c)(6) shall be
allocated by the Secretary as an additional
amount to the District of Columbia; and
‘‘(iii) an amount equal to the remainder of
the amount reserved under subparagraph (A)
after the application of clauses (i) and (ii) of
this subparagraph shall be allocated by the
Secretary as an additional amount to each of
the 50 States and the District of Columbia in
an amount which bears the same proportion
to such remainder as the average estimated
number of seasonally-adjusted unemployed
individuals (as measured by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics Local Area Unemployment
Statistics program) in the State or District
of Columbia over the 3-month period ending
with December 2020 bears to the average esti-
mated number of seasonally-adjusted unem-
ployed individuals in all of the 50 States and
the District of Columbia over the same pe-
riod.
‘‘(C) PAYMENT.—
‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Subject to clause (ii), the
Secretary shall pay each of the 50 States and
the District of Columbia, from the amount
reserved under subparagraph (A), the total of
the amounts allocated for the State and Dis-
trict of Columbia under subparagraph (B) in
accordance with paragraph (6).
‘‘(ii) MINIMUM PAYMENT REQUIREMENT.—
‘‘(I) IN GENERAL.—The sum of—
‘‘(aa) the total amounts allocated for 1 of
the 50 States or the District of Columbia
under subparagraph (B) (as determined with-
out regard to this clause); and
‘‘(bb) the amounts allocated under section
603 to the State (for distribution by the
State to nonentitlement units of local gov-
ernment in the State) and to metropolitan
cities and counties in the State;
shall not be less than the amount paid to the
State or District of Columbia for fiscal year
2020 under section 601.
‘‘(II) PRO
RATA
ADJUSTMENT.—The Sec-
retary shall adjust on a pro rata basis the
amount of the allocations for each of the 50
States and the District of Columbia deter-
mined under subparagraph (B)(iii) (without
regard to this clause) to the extent necessary
to comply with the requirement of subclause
(I).
‘‘(4) PRO
RATA
ADJUSTMENT
AUTHORITY.—
The amounts otherwise determined for allo-
cation and payment under paragraphs (1), (2),
and (3) may be adjusted by the Secretary on
a pro rata basis to the extent necessary to
ensure that all available funds are allocated
to States, territories, and Tribal govern-
ments in accordance with the requirements
specified in each such paragraph (as applica-
ble).
‘‘(5) POPULATION DATA.—For purposes of de-
termining allocations for a territory under
this section, the population of the territory
shall be determined based on the most recent
data available from the Bureau of the Cen-
sus.
‘‘(6) TIMING.—
‘‘(A) IN
GENERAL.—To the extent prac-
ticable, with respect to each State and terri-
tory allocated a payment under this sub-
section, the Secretary shall make the pay-
ment required for the State or territory not
later than 60 days after the date on which
the certification required under subsection
(d)(1) is provided to the Secretary.
‘‘(B) TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS.—To the extent
practicable, with respect to each Tribal gov-
ernment for which an amount is allocated
under this subsection, the Secretary shall
make the payment required for the Tribal
government not later than 60 days after the
date of enactment of this section.
‘‘(C) INITIAL PAYMENT TO DISTRICT OF CO-
LUMBIA.—The
Secretary
shall
pay
the
amount allocated under paragraph (3)(B)(ii)
to the District of Columbia not later than 15
days after the date of enactment of this sec-
tion.
‘‘(c) REQUIREMENTS.—
‘‘(1) USE OF FUNDS.—Subject to paragraph
(2), and except as provided in paragraph (3),
a State, territory, or Tribal government
shall only use the funds provided under a
payment made under this section, or trans-
ferred pursuant to section 603(c)(4), to cover
costs incurred by the State, territory, or
Tribal government, by July 31, 2021—
‘‘(A) to respond to the public health emer-
gency with respect to the Coronavirus Dis-
ease 2019 (COVID–19) or its negative eco-
nomic
impacts,
including
assistance
to
households, small businesses, and nonprofits,
or aid to impacted industries such as tour-
ism, travel, and hospitality;
‘‘(B) for the provision of government serv-
ices to the extent of the reduction in revenue
of such State, territory, or Tribal govern-
ment due to such emergency; or
‘‘(C) to make necessary investments in
water, sewer, or broadband infrastructure.
‘‘(2) FURTHER
RESTRICTION
ON
USE
OF
FUNDS.—
‘‘(A) IN
GENERAL.—A State or territory
shall not use the funds provided under this
section or transferred pursuant to section
603(c)(4) to either directly or indirectly offset
a reduction in the net tax revenue of such
State or territory resulting from a change in
law, regulation, or administrative interpre-
tation during the covered period that re-
duces any tax (by providing for a reduction
in a rate, a rebate, a deduction, a credit, or
otherwise) or delays the imposition of any
tax or tax increase.
‘‘(B) PENSION FUNDS.—No State or territory
may use funds made available under this sec-
tion for deposit into any pension fund.
‘‘(3) TRANSFER AUTHORITY.—A State, terri-
tory, or Tribal government receiving a pay-
ment from funds made available under this
section may transfer funds to a private non-
profit organization (as that term is defined
in paragraph (17) of section 401 of the McKin-
ney-Vento
Homeless
Assistance
Act
(42
U.S.C. 11360(17)), a Tribal organization (as
that term is defined in section 4 of the In-
dian Self-Determination and Education As-
sistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304)), a public benefit
corporation involved in the transportation of
passengers or cargo, or a special-purpose
unit of State or local government.
‘‘(d) CERTIFICATIONS AND REPORTS.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In order for a State or
territory to receive a payment under this
section, or a transfer of funds under section
603(c)(4), the State or territory shall provide
the Secretary with a certification, signed by
an authorized officer of such State or terri-
tory, that such State or territory requires
the payment or transfer to carry out the ac-
tivities specified in subsection (c) of this sec-
tion and will use any payment under this
section, or transfer of funds under section
603(c)(4), in compliance with subsection (c) of
this section
‘‘(2) REPORTING.—Any State, territory, or
Tribal government receiving a payment
under this section shall provide to the Sec-
retary periodic reports providing a detailed
accounting of—
‘‘(A) the uses of funds by such State, terri-
tory, or Tribal government, including, in the
case of a State or a territory, all modifica-
tions to the State’s or territory’s tax rev-
enue sources during the covered period; and
‘‘(B) such other information as the Sec-
retary may require for the administration of
this section.
‘‘(e) RECOUPMENT.—Any State, territory, or
Tribal government that has failed to comply
with subsection (c) shall be required to repay
to the Secretary an amount equal to the
amount of funds used in violation of such
subsection, provided that, in the case of a
violation of subsection (c)(2)(A), the amount
the State or territory shall be required to
repay shall be lesser of—
‘‘(1) the amount of the applicable reduction
to net tax revenue attributable to such vio-
lation; and
‘‘(2) the amount of funds received by such
State or territory pursuant to a payment
made under this section or a transfer made
under section 603(c)(4).
VerDate Sep 11 2014
11:18 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.154
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1316
March 5, 2021
‘‘(f) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary shall
have the authority to issue such regulations
as may be necessary or appropriate to carry
out this section.
‘‘(g) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
‘‘(1) COVERED
PERIOD.—The term ‘covered
period’ means, with respect to a State, terri-
tory, or Tribal government, the period that—
‘‘(A) begins on March 3, 2021; and
‘‘(B) ends on the last day of the fiscal year
of such State, territory, or Tribal govern-
ment in which all funds received by the
State, territory, or Tribal government from
a payment made under this section or a
transfer made under section 603(c)(4) have
been expended or returned to, or recovered
by, the Secretary.
‘‘(2)
SECRETARY.—The
term
‘Secretary’
means the Secretary of the Treasury.
‘‘(3) STATE.—The term ‘State’ means each
of the 50 States and the District of Columbia.
‘‘(4)
TERRITORY.—The
term
‘territory’
means the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Is-
lands, and American Samoa.
‘‘(5) TRIBAL GOVERNMENT.—The term ‘Trib-
al Government’ means the recognized gov-
erning body of any Indian or Alaska Native
tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, commu-
nity, component band, or component res-
ervation, individually identified (including
parenthetically) in the list published most
recently as of the date of enactment of this
Act pursuant to section 104 of the Federally
Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25
U.S.C. 5131).
‘‘(h) RESCISSION
OF
FUNDS.—Any funds
made available under this section that are
unobligated on August 1, 2021, shall be re-
turned to the general fund of the Treasury.
‘‘SEC. 603. CORONAVIRUS LOCAL FISCAL RECOV-
ERY FUND.
‘‘(a)
APPROPRIATION.—In
addition
to
amounts otherwise available, there is appro-
priated for fiscal year 2021, out of any money
in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated,
$120,200,000,000, to remain available through
July 31, 2021, for making payments under
this section to metropolitan cities, non-
entitlement units of local government, and
counties to mitigate the fiscal effects stem-
ming from the public health emergency with
respect to the Coronavirus Disease (COVID–
19).
‘‘(b) AUTHORITY TO MAKE PAYMENTS.—
‘‘(1) METROPOLITAN CITIES.—
‘‘(A) IN
GENERAL.—Of the amount appro-
priated under subsection (a), the Secretary
shall reserve $42,070,000,000 to make pay-
ments to metropolitan cities.
‘‘(B) ALLOCATION AND PAYMENT.—From the
amount reserved under subparagraph (A), the
Secretary shall allocate and, in accordance
with paragraph (7), pay to each metropolitan
city an amount determined for the metro-
politan city consistent with the formula
under section 106(b) of the Housing and Com-
munity Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C.
5306(b)), except that, in applying such for-
mula, the Secretary shall substitute ‘all
metropolitan cities’ for ‘all metropolitan
areas’ each place it appears.
‘‘(2) NONENTITLEMENT UNITS OF LOCAL GOV-
ERNMENT.—
‘‘(A) IN
GENERAL.—Of the amount appro-
priated under subsection (a), the Secretary
shall reserve $18,030,000,000 to make pay-
ments to States for distribution by the State
to nonentitlement units of local government
in the State.
‘‘(B) ALLOCATION AND PAYMENT.—From the
amount reserved under subparagraph (A), the
Secretary shall allocate and, in accordance
with paragraph (7), pay to each State an
amount which bears the same proportion to
such reserved amount as the total popu-
lation of all nonentitlement units of local
government in the State bears to the total
population of all nonentitlement units of
local government in all such States.
‘‘(C)
DISTRIBUTION
TO
NONENTITLEMENT
UNITS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT.—
‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days
after a State receives a payment under sub-
paragraph (B), the State shall distribute to
each nonentitlement unit of local govern-
ment in the State an amount that bears the
same proportion to the amount of such pay-
ment as the population of the nonentitle-
ment unit of local government bears to the
total population of all the nonentitlement
units of local government in the State, sub-
ject to clause (iii).
‘‘(ii) DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS.—
‘‘(I) EXTENSION
FOR
DISTRIBUTION.—If an
authorized officer of a State required to
make distributions under clause (i) certifies
in writing to the Secretary before the end of
the 30-day distribution period described in
such clause that it would constitute an ex-
cessive administrative burden for the State
to meet the terms of such clause with re-
spect to 1 or more such distributions, the au-
thorized officer may request, and the Sec-
retary shall grant, an extension of such pe-
riod of not more than 30 days to allow the
State to make such distributions in accord-
ance with clause (i).
‘‘(II) ADDITIONAL EXTENSIONS.—
‘‘(aa) IN
GENERAL.—If a State has been
granted an extension to the distribution pe-
riod under subclause (I) but is unable to
make all the distributions required under
clause (i) before the end of such period as ex-
tended, an authorized officer of the State
may request an additional extension of the
distribution period of not more than 30 days.
The Secretary may grant a request for an ad-
ditional extension of such period only if—
‘‘(AA) the authorized officer making such
request provides a written plan to the Sec-
retary specifying, for each distribution for
which an additional extension is requested,
when the State expects to make such dis-
tribution and the actions the State has
taken and will take in order to make all
such distributions before the end of the dis-
tribution period (as extended under sub-
clause (I) and this subclause); and
‘‘(BB) the Secretary determines that such
plan is reasonably designed to distribute all
such funds to nonentitlement units of local
government by the end of the distribution
period (as so extended).
‘‘(bb) FURTHER ADDITIONAL EXTENSIONS.—If
a State granted an additional extension of
the distribution period under item (aa) re-
quires any further additional extensions of
such period, the request only may be made
and granted subject to the requirements
specified in item (aa).
‘‘(iii) CAPPED AMOUNT.—The total amount
distributed to a nonentitlement unit of local
government under this paragraph may not
exceed the amount equal to 75 percent of the
most recent budget for the nonentitlement
unit of local government as of January 27,
2020.
‘‘(iv) RETURN
OF
EXCESS
AMOUNTS.—Any
amounts not distributed to a nonentitlement
unit of local government as a result of the
application of clause (iii) shall be returned
to the Secretary.
‘‘(D) PENALTY FOR NONCOMPLIANCE.—If, by
the end of the 120-day period that begins on
the date a State receives a payment from the
amount allocated under subparagraph (B) or,
if later, the last day of the distribution pe-
riod for the State (as extended with respect
to the State under subparagraph (C)(ii)),
such State has failed to make all the dis-
tributions from such payment in accordance
with the terms of subparagraph (C) (includ-
ing any extensions of the distribution period
granted in accordance with such subpara-
graph), an amount equal to the amount of
such payment that remains undistributed as
of such date shall be booked as a debt of such
State owed to the Federal Government, shall
be paid back from the State’s allocation pro-
vided under section 602(b)(3)(B)(iii), and shall
be deposited into the general fund of the
Treasury.
‘‘(3) COUNTIES.—
‘‘(A) AMOUNT.—From the amount appro-
priated under subsection (a), the Secretary
shall reserve and allocate $60,100,000,000 of
such amount to make payments directly to
counties in an amount which bears the same
proportion to the total amount reserved
under this paragraph as the population of
each such county bears to the total popu-
lation of all such entities and shall pay such
allocated amounts to such counties in ac-
cordance with paragraph (7).
‘‘(B) SPECIAL RULES.—
‘‘(i) URBAN COUNTIES.—No county that is an
‘urban county’ (as defined in section 102 of
the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5302)) shall receive less
than the amount the county would otherwise
receive if the amount paid under this para-
graph were allocated to metropolitan cities
and urban counties under section 106(b) of
the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5306(b)).
‘‘(ii) COUNTIES THAT ARE NOT UNITS OF GEN-
ERAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT.—In the case of an
amount to be paid to a county that is not a
unit
of
general
local
government,
the
amount shall instead be paid to the State in
which such county is located, and such State
shall distribute such amount to each unit of
general local government within such county
in an amount that bears the same proportion
to the amount to be paid to such county as
the population of such units of general local
government bears to the total population of
such county.
‘‘(iii) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.—For purposes
of this paragraph, the District of Columbia
shall be considered to consist of a single
county that is a unit of general local govern-
ment.
‘‘(4) CONSOLIDATED
GOVERNMENTS.—A unit
of general local government that has formed
a consolidated government, or that is geo-
graphically contained (in full or in part)
within the boundaries of another unit of gen-
eral local government may receive a dis-
tribution under each of paragraphs (1), (2),
and (3), as applicable, based on the respective
formulas specified in such paragraphs.
‘‘(5) PRO
RATA
ADJUSTMENT
AUTHORITY.—
The amounts otherwise determined for allo-
cation and payment under paragraphs (1), (2),
and (3) may be adjusted by the Secretary on
a pro rata basis to the extent necessary to
ensure that all available funds are distrib-
uted to metropolitan cities, counties, and
States in accordance with the requirements
specified in each paragraph (as applicable)
and the certification requirement specified
in subsection (d).
‘‘(6) POPULATION.—For purposes of deter-
mining allocations under this section, the
population of an entity shall be determined
based on the most recent data are available
from the Bureau of the Census or, if not
available, from such other data as a State
determines appropriate.
‘‘(7) TIMING.—
‘‘(A) FIRST TRANCHE AMOUNT.—To the ex-
tent practicable, with respect to each metro-
politan city for which an amount is allocated
under paragraph (1), each State for which an
amount is allocated under paragraph (2) for
distribution to nonentitlement units of local
government, and each county for which an
amount is allocated under paragraph (3), the
Secretary shall pay from such allocation the
First Tranche Amount for such city, State,
VerDate Sep 11 2014
09:39 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.154
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1317
March 5, 2021
or county not later than 60 days after the
date of enactment of this section.
‘‘(B) SECOND
TRANCHE
AMOUNT.—The Sec-
retary shall pay to each metropolitan city
for which an amount is allocated under para-
graph (1), each State for which an amount is
allocated under paragraph (2) for distribu-
tion to nonentitlement units of local govern-
ment, and each county for which an amount
is allocated under paragraph (3), the Second
Tranche Amount for such city, State, or
county not earlier than 12 months after the
date on which the First Tranche Amount is
paid to the city, State, or county.
‘‘(c) REQUIREMENTS.—
‘‘(1) USE OF FUNDS.—Subject to paragraph
(2), and except as provided in paragraphs (3)
and (4), a metropolitan city, nonentitlement
unit of local government, or county shall
only use the funds provided under a payment
made under this section to cover costs in-
curred by the metropolitan city, nonentitle-
ment unit of local government, or county, by
July 31, 2021—
‘‘(A) to respond to the public health emer-
gency with respect to the Coronavirus Dis-
ease 2019 (COVID–19) or its negative eco-
nomic
impacts,
including
assistance
to
households, small businesses, and nonprofits,
or aid to impacted industries such as tour-
ism, travel, and hospitality;
‘‘(B) for the provision of government serv-
ices to the extent of the reduction in revenue
of such metropolitan city, nonentitlement
unit of local government, or county due to
such emergency; or
‘‘(C) to make necessary investments in
water, sewer, or broadband infrastructure.
‘‘(2)
PENSION
FUNDS.—No
metropolitan
city, nonentitlement unit of local govern-
ment, or county may use funds made avail-
able under this section for deposit into any
pension fund.
‘‘(3) TRANSFER AUTHORITY.—A metropolitan
city, nonentitlement unit of local govern-
ment, or county receiving a payment from
funds made available under this section may
transfer funds to a private nonprofit organi-
zation (as that term is defined in paragraph
(17) of section 401 of the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11360(17)),
a public benefit corporation involved in the
transportation of passengers or cargo, or a
special-purpose unit of State or local govern-
ment.
‘‘(4)
TRANSFERS
TO
STATES.—Notwith-
standing paragraph (1), a metropolitan city,
nonentitlement unit of local government, or
county receiving a payment from funds made
available under this section may transfer
such funds to the State in which such entity
is located.
‘‘(d) REPORTING.—Any metropolitan city,
nonentitlement unit of local government, or
county receiving funds provided under a pay-
ment made under this section shall provide
to the Secretary periodic reports providing a
detailed accounting of the uses of such funds
by such metropolitan city, nonentitlement
unit of local government, or county and in-
cluding such other information as the Sec-
retary may require for the administration of
this section.
‘‘(e) RECOUPMENT.—Any metropolitan city,
nonentitlement unit of local government, or
county that has failed to comply with sub-
section (c) shall be required to repay to the
Secretary an amount equal to the amount of
funds used in violation of such subsection.
‘‘(f) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary shall
have the authority to issue such regulations
as may be necessary or appropriate to carry
out this section.
‘‘(g) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
‘‘(1) COUNTY.—The term ‘county’ means a
county, parish, or other equivalent county
division (as defined by the Bureau of the
Census).
‘‘(2) COVERED
PERIOD.—The term ‘covered
period’ means, with respect to a metropoli-
tan city, nonentitlement unit of local gov-
ernment, or county receiving funds under
this section, the period that—
‘‘(A) begins on March 3, 2021; and
‘‘(B) ends on the last day of the fiscal year
of the metropolitan city, nonentitlement
unit of local government, or county in which
all of the funds received by the metropolitan
city, nonentitlement unit of local govern-
ment, or county under this section have been
expended or returned to, or recovered by, the
Secretary.
‘‘(3) FIRST
TRANCHE
AMOUNT.—The term
‘First Tranche Amount’ means, with respect
to each metropolitan city for which an
amount is allocated under subsection (b)(1),
each State for which an amount is allocated
under subsection (b)(2) for distribution to
nonentitlement units of local government,
and each county for which an amount is allo-
cated under subsection (b)(3), 50 percent of
the amount so allocated to such metropoli-
tan city, State, or county (as applicable).
‘‘(4) METROPOLITAN CITY.—The term ‘met-
ropolitan city’ has the meaning given that
term in section 102(a)(4) of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974 (42
U.S.C. 5302(a)(4)) and includes cities that re-
linquish or defer their status as a metropoli-
tan city for purposes of receiving allocations
under section 106 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 5306)
for fiscal year 2021.
‘‘(5) NONENTITLEMENT UNIT OF LOCAL GOV-
ERNMENT.—The term ‘nonentitlement unit of
local government’ means a ‘city’, as that
term is defined in section 102(a)(5) of the
Housing and Community Development Act of
1974 (42 U.S.C. 5302(a)(5))), that is not a met-
ropolitan city.
‘‘(6) SECOND
TRANCHE
AMOUNT.—The term
‘Second Tranche Amount’ means, with re-
spect to each metropolitan city for which an
amount is allocated under subsection (b)(1),
each State for which an amount is allocated
under subsection (b)(2) for distribution to
nonentitlement units of local government,
and each county for which an amount is allo-
cated under subsection (b)(3), an amount not
to exceed 50 percent of the amount so allo-
cated to such metropolitan city, State, or
county (as applicable).
‘‘(7)
SECRETARY.—The
term
‘Secretary’
means the Secretary of the Treasury.
‘‘(8) STATE.—The term ‘State’ means each
of the 50 States, the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
United States Virgin Islands, Guam, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Is-
lands, and American Samoa.
‘‘(9) UNIT OF GENERAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT.—
The term ‘unit of general local government’
has the meaning given that term in section
102(a)(1) of the Housing and Community De-
velopment Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5302(a)(1)).
‘‘(h) RESCISSION
OF
FUNDS.—Any funds
made available under this section that are
unobligated on August 1, 2021, shall be re-
turned to the general fund of the Treasury.
‘‘SEC. 604. CORONAVIRUS CAPITAL PROJECTS
FUND.
‘‘(a)
APPROPRIATION.—In
addition
to
amounts otherwise available, there is appro-
priated for fiscal year 2021, out of any money
in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated,
$10,000,000,000, to remain available until ex-
pended, for making payments to States, ter-
ritories, and Tribal governments to carry
out critical capital projects directly ena-
bling work, education, and health moni-
toring, including remote options, in response
to the public health emergency with respect
to the Coronavirus Disease (COVID–19).
‘‘(b) PAYMENTS TO EACH OF THE 50 STATES
AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.—
‘‘(1) MINIMUM AMOUNTS.—From the amount
appropriated under subsection (a)—
‘‘(A) the Secretary shall pay $100,000,000 to
each State;
‘‘(B) the Secretary shall pay $100,000,000 to
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and
$100,000,000 to the District of Columbia;
‘‘(C) the Secretary shall pay $100,000,000 of
such amount in equal shares to the United
States Virgin Islands, Guam, American
Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, the Republic of the Mar-
shall Islands, the Federated States of Micro-
nesia, and the Republic of Palau; and
‘‘(D) the Secretary shall pay $100,000,000 of
such amount to Tribal governments and the
State of Hawaii (in addition to the amount
paid to the State of Hawaii under subpara-
graph (A)), of which—
‘‘(i) not less than $50,000 shall be paid to
each Tribal government; and
‘‘(ii) not less than $50,000 shall be paid to
the State of Hawaii for the exclusive use of
the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands
and the Native Hawaiian Education Pro-
grams to assist Native Hawaiians in accord-
ance with this section.
‘‘(2) REMAINING AMOUNTS.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—From the amount of the
appropriation under subsection (a) that re-
mains after the application of paragraph (1),
the Secretary shall make payments to
States based on population such that—
‘‘(i) 50 percent of such amount shall be al-
located among the States based on the pro-
portion that the population of each State
bears to the population of all States;
‘‘(ii) 25 percent of such amount shall be al-
located among the States based on the pro-
portion that the number of individuals living
in rural areas in each State bears to the
number of individuals living in rural areas in
all States; and
‘‘(iii) 25 percent of such amount shall be al-
located among the States based on the pro-
portion that the number of individuals with
a household income that is below 150 percent
of the poverty line applicable to a family of
the size involved in each State bears to the
number of such individuals in all States.
‘‘(B) DATA.—In determining the allocations
to be made to each State under subparagraph
(A), the Secretary of the Treasury shall use
the most recent data available from the Bu-
reau of the Census.
‘‘(c) TIMING.—The Secretary shall establish
a process of applying for grants to access
funding made available under section (b) not
later than 60 days after enactment of this
section.
‘‘(d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
‘‘(1)
SECRETARY.—The
term
‘Secretary’
means the Secretary of the Treasury.
‘‘(2) STATE.—The term ‘State’ means 1 of
the 50 States.
‘‘(3) TRIBAL GOVERNMENT.—The term ‘Trib-
al government’ has the meaning given such
term in section 603(g).’’.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The heading
for title VI of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 801 et seq.) is amended by striking
‘‘FUND’’ and inserting ‘‘, FISCAL RECOV-
ERY, AND CRITICAL CAPITAL PROJECTS
FUNDS’’.
SA 1125. Mr. LEE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
Strike section 9901 and insert the fol-
lowing:
VerDate Sep 11 2014
09:39 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.154
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1318
March 5, 2021
SEC. 9901. CORONAVIRUS STATE AND LOCAL FIS-
CAL RECOVERY FUNDS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Title VI of the Social Se-
curity Act (42 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
‘‘SEC. 602. CORONAVIRUS STATE FISCAL RECOV-
ERY FUND.
‘‘(a)
APPROPRIATION.—In
addition
to
amounts otherwise available, there is appro-
priated for fiscal year 2021, out of any money
in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated—
‘‘(1) $219,800,000,000, to remain available
through July 31, 2021, for making payments
under this section to States, territories, and
Tribal governments to mitigate the fiscal ef-
fects stemming from the public health emer-
gency with respect to the Coronavirus Dis-
ease (COVID–19); and
‘‘(2) $50,000,000, to remain available until
expended, for the costs of the Secretary for
administration of the funds established
under this title.
‘‘(b) AUTHORITY TO MAKE PAYMENTS.—
‘‘(1) PAYMENTS TO TERRITORIES.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall re-
serve $4,500,000,000 of the amount appro-
priated under subsection (a)(1) to make pay-
ments to the territories.
‘‘(B) ALLOCATION.—Of the amount reserved
under subparagraph (A)—
‘‘(i) 50 percent of such amount shall be al-
located by the Secretary equally to each ter-
ritory; and
‘‘(ii) 50 percent of such amount shall be al-
located by the Secretary as an additional
amount to each territory in an amount
which bears the same proportion to 1⁄2 of the
total amount reserved under subparagraph
(A) as the population of the territory bears
to the total population of all such terri-
tories.
‘‘(C) PAYMENT.—The Secretary shall pay
each territory the total of the amounts allo-
cated for the territory under subparagraph
(B) in accordance with paragraph (6).
‘‘(2) PAYMENTS TO TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall re-
serve $20,000,000,000 of the amount appro-
priated under subsection (a)(1) to make pay-
ments to Tribal governments.
‘‘(B) ALLOCATION.—Of the amount reserved
under subparagraph (A)—
‘‘(i) $1,000,000,000 shall be allocated by the
Secretary equally among each of the Tribal
governments; and
‘‘(ii) $19,000,000,000 shall be allocated by the
Secretary to the Tribal governments in a
manner determined by the Secretary.
‘‘(C) PAYMENT.— The Secretary shall pay
each Tribal government the total of the
amounts allocated for the Tribal government
under subparagraph (B) in accordance with
paragraph (6).
‘‘(3) PAYMENTS TO EACH OF THE 50 STATES
AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall re-
serve $195,300,000,000 of the amount appro-
priated under subsection (a)(1) to make pay-
ments to each of the 50 States and the Dis-
trict of Columbia.
‘‘(B) ALLOCATIONS.—Of the amount re-
served under subparagraph (A)—
‘‘(i) $25,500,000,000 of such amount shall be
allocated by the Secretary equally among
each of the 50 States and the District of Co-
lumbia;
‘‘(ii) an amount equal to $1,250,000,000 less
the amount allocated for the District of Co-
lumbia pursuant to section 601(c)(6) shall be
allocated by the Secretary as an additional
amount to the District of Columbia; and
‘‘(iii) an amount equal to the remainder of
the amount reserved under subparagraph (A)
after the application of clauses (i) and (ii) of
this subparagraph shall be allocated by the
Secretary as an additional amount to each of
the 50 States and the District of Columbia in
an amount which bears the same proportion
to such remainder as the average estimated
number of seasonally-adjusted unemployed
individuals (as measured by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics Local Area Unemployment
Statistics program) in the State or District
of Columbia over the 3-month period ending
with December 2020 bears to the average esti-
mated number of seasonally-adjusted unem-
ployed individuals in all of the 50 States and
the District of Columbia over the same pe-
riod.
‘‘(C) PAYMENT.—
‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Subject to clause (ii), the
Secretary shall pay each of the 50 States and
the District of Columbia, from the amount
reserved under subparagraph (A), the total of
the amounts allocated for the State and Dis-
trict of Columbia under subparagraph (B) in
accordance with paragraph (6).
‘‘(ii) MINIMUM PAYMENT REQUIREMENT.—
‘‘(I) IN GENERAL.—The sum of—
‘‘(aa) the total amounts allocated for 1 of
the 50 States or the District of Columbia
under subparagraph (B) (as determined with-
out regard to this clause); and
‘‘(bb) the amounts allocated under section
603 to the State (for distribution by the
State to nonentitlement units of local gov-
ernment in the State) and to metropolitan
cities and counties in the State;
shall not be less than the amount paid to the
State or District of Columbia for fiscal year
2020 under section 601.
‘‘(II) PRO
RATA
ADJUSTMENT.—The Sec-
retary shall adjust on a pro rata basis the
amount of the allocations for each of the 50
States and the District of Columbia deter-
mined under subparagraph (B)(iii) (without
regard to this clause) to the extent necessary
to comply with the requirement of subclause
(I).
‘‘(4) PRO
RATA
ADJUSTMENT
AUTHORITY.—
The amounts otherwise determined for allo-
cation and payment under paragraphs (1), (2),
and (3) may be adjusted by the Secretary on
a pro rata basis to the extent necessary to
ensure that all available funds are allocated
to States, territories, and Tribal govern-
ments in accordance with the requirements
specified in each such paragraph (as applica-
ble).
‘‘(5) POPULATION DATA.—For purposes of de-
termining allocations for a territory under
this section, the population of the territory
shall be determined based on the most recent
data available from the Bureau of the Cen-
sus.
‘‘(6) TIMING.—
‘‘(A) IN
GENERAL.—To the extent prac-
ticable, with respect to each State and terri-
tory allocated a payment under this sub-
section, the Secretary shall make the pay-
ment required for the State or territory not
later than 60 days after the date on which
the certification required under subsection
(d)(1) is provided to the Secretary.
‘‘(B) TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS.—To the extent
practicable, with respect to each Tribal gov-
ernment for which an amount is allocated
under this subsection, the Secretary shall
make the payment required for the Tribal
government not later than 60 days after the
date of enactment of this section.
‘‘(C) INITIAL PAYMENT TO DISTRICT OF CO-
LUMBIA.—The
Secretary
shall
pay
the
amount allocated under paragraph (3)(B)(ii)
to the District of Columbia not later than 15
days after the date of enactment of this sec-
tion.
‘‘(c) REQUIREMENTS.—
‘‘(1) USE OF FUNDS.—Subject to paragraph
(2), and except as provided in paragraph (3),
a State, territory, or Tribal government
shall only use the funds provided under a
payment made under this section, or trans-
ferred pursuant to section 603(c)(4), to cover
costs incurred by the State, territory, or
Tribal government, by July 31, 2021—
‘‘(A) to respond to the public health emer-
gency with respect to the Coronavirus Dis-
ease 2019 (COVID–19) or its negative eco-
nomic
impacts,
including
assistance
to
households, small businesses, and nonprofits,
or aid to impacted industries such as tour-
ism, travel, and hospitality;
‘‘(B) for the provision of government serv-
ices to the extent of the reduction in revenue
of such State, territory, or Tribal govern-
ment due to such emergency; or
‘‘(C) to make necessary investments in
water, sewer, or broadband infrastructure.
‘‘(2) FURTHER
RESTRICTION
ON
USE
OF
FUNDS.—
‘‘(A) IN
GENERAL.—A State or territory
shall not use the funds provided under this
section or transferred pursuant to section
603(c)(4) to either directly or indirectly offset
a reduction in the net tax revenue of such
State or territory resulting from a change in
law, regulation, or administrative interpre-
tation during the covered period that re-
duces any tax (by providing for a reduction
in a rate, a rebate, a deduction, a credit, or
otherwise) or delays the imposition of any
tax or tax increase.
‘‘(B) PENSION FUNDS.—No State or territory
may use funds made available under this sec-
tion for deposit into any pension fund.
‘‘(3) TRANSFER AUTHORITY.—A State, terri-
tory, or Tribal government receiving a pay-
ment from funds made available under this
section may transfer funds to a private non-
profit organization (as that term is defined
in paragraph (17) of section 401 of the McKin-
ney-Vento
Homeless
Assistance
Act
(42
U.S.C. 11360(17)), a Tribal organization (as
that term is defined in section 4 of the In-
dian Self-Determination and Education As-
sistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304)), a public benefit
corporation involved in the transportation of
passengers or cargo, or a special-purpose
unit of State or local government.
‘‘(4) REQUIREMENT TO SPEND ALL PREVIOUS
CORONAVIRUS RELIEF FUNDING.—
‘‘(A) IN
GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any
other provision of this title, the Secretary
shall not make a payment of any amount
under this section to a State, territory, or
Tribal organization if, as of the date that the
payment would otherwise be required to be
made under this section, the State, terri-
tory, or Tribal organization has not obli-
gated all of the funds previously provided to
the State, territory, or Tribal under any
coronavirus response law.
‘‘(B) APPLICATION TO LOCALITIES.—Subpara-
graph (A) shall apply to any funds provided
to a metropolitan city, nonentitlement unit
of local government, or county under section
603 in the same manner such subparagraph
applies to funds provided to a State, terri-
tory, or local government under this section.
‘‘(d) CERTIFICATIONS AND REPORTS.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In order for a State or
territory to receive a payment under this
section, or a transfer of funds under section
603(c)(4), the State or territory shall provide
the Secretary with a certification, signed by
an authorized officer of such State or terri-
tory, that such State or territory—
‘‘(A) requires the payment or transfer to
carry out the activities specified in sub-
section (c) of this section and will use any
payment under this section, or transfer of
funds under section 603(c)(4), in compliance
with subsection (c) of this section; and
‘‘(B) has obligated all of the funds pre-
viously provided to the State or territory
under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Eco-
nomic Security Act (Public Law 116–136) and
divisions M and N of the Consolidated Appro-
priations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–260).
‘‘(2) REPORTING.—Any State, territory, or
Tribal government receiving a payment
VerDate Sep 11 2014
09:39 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.155
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1319
March 5, 2021
under this section shall provide to the Sec-
retary periodic reports providing a detailed
accounting of—
‘‘(A) the uses of funds by such State, terri-
tory, or Tribal government, including, in the
case of a State or a territory, all modifica-
tions to the State’s or territory’s tax rev-
enue sources during the covered period; and
‘‘(B) such other information as the Sec-
retary may require for the administration of
this section.
‘‘(e) RECOUPMENT.—Any State, territory, or
Tribal government that has failed to comply
with subsection (c) shall be required to repay
to the Secretary an amount equal to the
amount of funds used in violation of such
subsection, provided that, in the case of a
violation of subsection (c)(2)(A), the amount
the State or territory shall be required to
repay shall be lesser of—
‘‘(1) the amount of the applicable reduction
to net tax revenue attributable to such vio-
lation; and
‘‘(2) the amount of funds received by such
State or territory pursuant to a payment
made under this section or a transfer made
under section 603(c)(4).
‘‘(f) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary shall
have the authority to issue such regulations
as may be necessary or appropriate to carry
out this section.
‘‘(g) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
‘‘(1)
CORONAVIRUS
RESPONSE
LAW.—The
term ‘coronavirus response law’ means—
‘‘(A) the Coronavirus Preparedness and Re-
sponse Supplemental Appropriations Act,
2020 (Public Law 116–123);
‘‘(B) the Families First Coronavirus Re-
sponse Act (Public Law 116–127);
‘‘(C) the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Eco-
nomic Security Act (Public Law 116–136);
‘‘(D) the Paycheck Protection Program
and Health Care Enhancement Act (Public
Law 116–139);
‘‘(E) the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2021 (Public Law 116–260); and
‘‘(F) any other law that appropriates or
otherwise makes available funds, estab-
lishes, amends, or expands a program, or au-
thorizes activities or assistance for a purpose
that is expressly related to responding to, or
mitigating the effects of, a coronavirus pub-
lic health emergency.
‘‘(2) COVERED
PERIOD.—The term ‘covered
period’ means, with respect to a State, terri-
tory, or Tribal government, the period that—
‘‘(A) begins on March 3, 2021; and
‘‘(B) ends on the last day of the fiscal year
of such State, territory, or Tribal govern-
ment in which all funds received by the
State, territory, or Tribal government from
a payment made under this section or a
transfer made under section 603(c)(4) have
been expended or returned to, or recovered
by, the Secretary.
‘‘(3)
SECRETARY.—The
term
‘Secretary’
means the Secretary of the Treasury.
‘‘(4) STATE.—The term ‘State’ means each
of the 50 States and the District of Columbia.
‘‘(5)
TERRITORY.—The
term
‘territory’
means the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Is-
lands, and American Samoa.
‘‘(6) TRIBAL GOVERNMENT.—The term ‘Trib-
al Government’ means the recognized gov-
erning body of any Indian or Alaska Native
tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, commu-
nity, component band, or component res-
ervation, individually identified (including
parenthetically) in the list published most
recently as of the date of enactment of this
Act pursuant to section 104 of the Federally
Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25
U.S.C. 5131).
‘‘(h) RESCISSION
OF
FUNDS.—Any funds
made available under this section that are
unobligated on August 1, 2021, shall be re-
turned to the general fund of the Treasury.
‘‘SEC. 603. CORONAVIRUS LOCAL FISCAL RECOV-
ERY FUND.
‘‘(a)
APPROPRIATION.—In
addition
to
amounts otherwise available, there is appro-
priated for fiscal year 2021, out of any money
in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated,
$120,200,000,000, to remain available through
July 31, 2021, for making payments under
this section to metropolitan cities, non-
entitlement units of local government, and
counties to mitigate the fiscal effects stem-
ming from the public health emergency with
respect to the Coronavirus Disease (COVID–
19).
‘‘(b) AUTHORITY TO MAKE PAYMENTS.—
‘‘(1) METROPOLITAN CITIES.—
‘‘(A) IN
GENERAL.—Of the amount appro-
priated under subsection (a), the Secretary
shall reserve $42,070,000,000 to make pay-
ments to metropolitan cities.
‘‘(B) ALLOCATION AND PAYMENT.—From the
amount reserved under subparagraph (A), the
Secretary shall allocate and, in accordance
with paragraph (7), pay to each metropolitan
city an amount determined for the metro-
politan city consistent with the formula
under section 106(b) of the Housing and Com-
munity Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C.
5306(b)), except that, in applying such for-
mula, the Secretary shall substitute ‘all
metropolitan cities’ for ‘all metropolitan
areas’ each place it appears.
‘‘(2) NONENTITLEMENT UNITS OF LOCAL GOV-
ERNMENT.—
‘‘(A) IN
GENERAL.—Of the amount appro-
priated under subsection (a), the Secretary
shall reserve $18,030,000,000 to make pay-
ments to States for distribution by the State
to nonentitlement units of local government
in the State.
‘‘(B) ALLOCATION AND PAYMENT.—From the
amount reserved under subparagraph (A), the
Secretary shall allocate and, in accordance
with paragraph (7), pay to each State an
amount which bears the same proportion to
such reserved amount as the total popu-
lation of all nonentitlement units of local
government in the State bears to the total
population of all nonentitlement units of
local government in all such States.
‘‘(C)
DISTRIBUTION
TO
NONENTITLEMENT
UNITS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT.—
‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days
after a State receives a payment under sub-
paragraph (B), the State shall distribute to
each nonentitlement unit of local govern-
ment in the State an amount that bears the
same proportion to the amount of such pay-
ment as the population of the nonentitle-
ment unit of local government bears to the
total population of all the nonentitlement
units of local government in the State, sub-
ject to clause (iii).
‘‘(ii) DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS.—
‘‘(I) EXTENSION
FOR
DISTRIBUTION.—If an
authorized officer of a State required to
make distributions under clause (i) certifies
in writing to the Secretary before the end of
the 30-day distribution period described in
such clause that it would constitute an ex-
cessive administrative burden for the State
to meet the terms of such clause with re-
spect to 1 or more such distributions, the au-
thorized officer may request, and the Sec-
retary shall grant, an extension of such pe-
riod of not more than 30 days to allow the
State to make such distributions in accord-
ance with clause (i).
‘‘(II) ADDITIONAL EXTENSIONS.—
‘‘(aa) IN
GENERAL.—If a State has been
granted an extension to the distribution pe-
riod under subclause (I) but is unable to
make all the distributions required under
clause (i) before the end of such period as ex-
tended, an authorized officer of the State
may request an additional extension of the
distribution period of not more than 30 days.
The Secretary may grant a request for an ad-
ditional extension of such period only if—
‘‘(AA) the authorized officer making such
request provides a written plan to the Sec-
retary specifying, for each distribution for
which an additional extension is requested,
when the State expects to make such dis-
tribution and the actions the State has
taken and will take in order to make all
such distributions before the end of the dis-
tribution period (as extended under sub-
clause (I) and this subclause); and
‘‘(BB) the Secretary determines that such
plan is reasonably designed to distribute all
such funds to nonentitlement units of local
government by the end of the distribution
period (as so extended).
‘‘(bb) FURTHER ADDITIONAL EXTENSIONS.—If
a State granted an additional extension of
the distribution period under item (aa) re-
quires any further additional extensions of
such period, the request only may be made
and granted subject to the requirements
specified in item (aa).
‘‘(iii) CAPPED AMOUNT.—The total amount
distributed to a nonentitlement unit of local
government under this paragraph may not
exceed the amount equal to 75 percent of the
most recent budget for the nonentitlement
unit of local government as of January 27,
2020.
‘‘(iv) RETURN
OF
EXCESS
AMOUNTS.—Any
amounts not distributed to a nonentitlement
unit of local government as a result of the
application of clause (iii) shall be returned
to the Secretary.
‘‘(D) PENALTY FOR NONCOMPLIANCE.—If, by
the end of the 120-day period that begins on
the date a State receives a payment from the
amount allocated under subparagraph (B) or,
if later, the last day of the distribution pe-
riod for the State (as extended with respect
to the State under subparagraph (C)(ii)),
such State has failed to make all the dis-
tributions from such payment in accordance
with the terms of subparagraph (C) (includ-
ing any extensions of the distribution period
granted in accordance with such subpara-
graph), an amount equal to the amount of
such payment that remains undistributed as
of such date shall be booked as a debt of such
State owed to the Federal Government, shall
be paid back from the State’s allocation pro-
vided under section 602(b)(3)(B)(iii), and shall
be deposited into the general fund of the
Treasury.
‘‘(3) COUNTIES.—
‘‘(A) AMOUNT.—From the amount appro-
priated under subsection (a), the Secretary
shall reserve and allocate $60,100,000,000 of
such amount to make payments directly to
counties in an amount which bears the same
proportion to the total amount reserved
under this paragraph as the population of
each such county bears to the total popu-
lation of all such entities and shall pay such
allocated amounts to such counties in ac-
cordance with paragraph (7).
‘‘(B) SPECIAL RULES.—
‘‘(i) URBAN COUNTIES.—No county that is an
‘urban county’ (as defined in section 102 of
the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5302)) shall receive less
than the amount the county would otherwise
receive if the amount paid under this para-
graph were allocated to metropolitan cities
and urban counties under section 106(b) of
the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5306(b)).
‘‘(ii) COUNTIES THAT ARE NOT UNITS OF GEN-
ERAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT.—In the case of an
amount to be paid to a county that is not a
unit
of
general
local
government,
the
amount shall instead be paid to the State in
which such county is located, and such State
shall distribute such amount to each unit of
general local government within such county
VerDate Sep 11 2014
09:39 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.155
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1320
March 5, 2021
in an amount that bears the same proportion
to the amount to be paid to such county as
the population of such units of general local
government bears to the total population of
such county.
‘‘(iii) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.—For purposes
of this paragraph, the District of Columbia
shall be considered to consist of a single
county that is a unit of general local govern-
ment.
‘‘(4) CONSOLIDATED
GOVERNMENTS.—A unit
of general local government that has formed
a consolidated government, or that is geo-
graphically contained (in full or in part)
within the boundaries of another unit of gen-
eral local government may receive a dis-
tribution under each of paragraphs (1), (2),
and (3), as applicable, based on the respective
formulas specified in such paragraphs.
‘‘(5) PRO
RATA
ADJUSTMENT
AUTHORITY.—
The amounts otherwise determined for allo-
cation and payment under paragraphs (1), (2),
and (3) may be adjusted by the Secretary on
a pro rata basis to the extent necessary to
ensure that all available funds are distrib-
uted to metropolitan cities, counties, and
States in accordance with the requirements
specified in each paragraph (as applicable)
and the certification requirement specified
in subsection (d).
‘‘(6) POPULATION.—For purposes of deter-
mining allocations under this section, the
population of an entity shall be determined
based on the most recent data are available
from the Bureau of the Census or, if not
available, from such other data as a State
determines appropriate.
‘‘(7) TIMING.—
‘‘(A) FIRST TRANCHE AMOUNT.—To the ex-
tent practicable, with respect to each metro-
politan city for which an amount is allocated
under paragraph (1), each State for which an
amount is allocated under paragraph (2) for
distribution to nonentitlement units of local
government, and each county for which an
amount is allocated under paragraph (3), the
Secretary shall pay from such allocation the
First Tranche Amount for such city, State,
or county not later than 60 days after the
date of enactment of this section.
‘‘(B) SECOND
TRANCHE
AMOUNT.—The Sec-
retary shall pay to each metropolitan city
for which an amount is allocated under para-
graph (1), each State for which an amount is
allocated under paragraph (2) for distribu-
tion to nonentitlement units of local govern-
ment, and each county for which an amount
is allocated under paragraph (3), the Second
Tranche Amount for such city, State, or
county not earlier than 12 months after the
date on which the First Tranche Amount is
paid to the city, State, or county.
‘‘(c) REQUIREMENTS.—
‘‘(1) USE OF FUNDS.—Subject to paragraph
(2), and except as provided in paragraphs (3)
and (4), a metropolitan city, nonentitlement
unit of local government, or county shall
only use the funds provided under a payment
made under this section to cover costs in-
curred by the metropolitan city, nonentitle-
ment unit of local government, or county, by
July 31, 2021—
‘‘(A) to respond to the public health emer-
gency with respect to the Coronavirus Dis-
ease 2019 (COVID–19) or its negative eco-
nomic
impacts,
including
assistance
to
households, small businesses, and nonprofits,
or aid to impacted industries such as tour-
ism, travel, and hospitality;
‘‘(B) for the provision of government serv-
ices to the extent of the reduction in revenue
of such metropolitan city, nonentitlement
unit of local government, or county due to
such emergency; or
‘‘(C) to make necessary investments in
water, sewer, or broadband infrastructure.
‘‘(2)
PENSION
FUNDS.—No
metropolitan
city, nonentitlement unit of local govern-
ment, or county may use funds made avail-
able under this section for deposit into any
pension fund.
‘‘(3) TRANSFER AUTHORITY.—A metropolitan
city, nonentitlement unit of local govern-
ment, or county receiving a payment from
funds made available under this section may
transfer funds to a private nonprofit organi-
zation (as that term is defined in paragraph
(17) of section 401 of the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11360(17)),
a public benefit corporation involved in the
transportation of passengers or cargo, or a
special-purpose unit of State or local govern-
ment.
‘‘(4)
TRANSFERS
TO
STATES.—Notwith-
standing paragraph (1), a metropolitan city,
nonentitlement unit of local government, or
county receiving a payment from funds made
available under this section may transfer
such funds to the State in which such entity
is located.
‘‘(d) REPORTING.—Any metropolitan city,
nonentitlement unit of local government, or
county receiving funds provided under a pay-
ment made under this section shall provide
to the Secretary periodic reports providing a
detailed accounting of the uses of such funds
by such metropolitan city, nonentitlement
unit of local government, or county and in-
cluding such other information as the Sec-
retary may require for the administration of
this section.
‘‘(e) RECOUPMENT.—Any metropolitan city,
nonentitlement unit of local government, or
county that has failed to comply with sub-
section (c) shall be required to repay to the
Secretary an amount equal to the amount of
funds used in violation of such subsection.
‘‘(f) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary shall
have the authority to issue such regulations
as may be necessary or appropriate to carry
out this section.
‘‘(g) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
‘‘(1)
CORONAVIRUS
RESPONSE
LAW.—The
term ‘coronavirus response law’ has the
meaning given such term in section 602(g).
‘‘(2) COUNTY.—The term ‘county’ means a
county, parish, or other equivalent county
division (as defined by the Bureau of the
Census).
‘‘(3) COVERED
PERIOD.—The term ‘covered
period’ means, with respect to a metropoli-
tan city, nonentitlement unit of local gov-
ernment, or county receiving funds under
this section, the period that—
‘‘(A) begins on March 3, 2021; and
‘‘(B) ends on the last day of the fiscal year
of the metropolitan city, nonentitlement
unit of local government, or county in which
all of the funds received by the metropolitan
city, nonentitlement unit of local govern-
ment, or county under this section have been
expended or returned to, or recovered by, the
Secretary.
‘‘(4) FIRST
TRANCHE
AMOUNT.—The term
‘First Tranche Amount’ means, with respect
to each metropolitan city for which an
amount is allocated under subsection (b)(1),
each State for which an amount is allocated
under subsection (b)(2) for distribution to
nonentitlement units of local government,
and each county for which an amount is allo-
cated under subsection (b)(3), 50 percent of
the amount so allocated to such metropoli-
tan city, State, or county (as applicable).
‘‘(5) METROPOLITAN CITY.—The term ‘met-
ropolitan city’ has the meaning given that
term in section 102(a)(4) of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974 (42
U.S.C. 5302(a)(4)) and includes cities that re-
linquish or defer their status as a metropoli-
tan city for purposes of receiving allocations
under section 106 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 5306)
for fiscal year 2021.
‘‘(6) NONENTITLEMENT UNIT OF LOCAL GOV-
ERNMENT.—The term ‘nonentitlement unit of
local government’ means a ‘city’, as that
term is defined in section 102(a)(5) of the
Housing and Community Development Act of
1974 (42 U.S.C. 5302(a)(5))), that is not a met-
ropolitan city.
‘‘(7) SECOND
TRANCHE
AMOUNT.—The term
‘Second Tranche Amount’ means, with re-
spect to each metropolitan city for which an
amount is allocated under subsection (b)(1),
each State for which an amount is allocated
under subsection (b)(2) for distribution to
nonentitlement units of local government,
and each county for which an amount is allo-
cated under subsection (b)(3), an amount not
to exceed 50 percent of the amount so allo-
cated to such metropolitan city, State, or
county (as applicable).
‘‘(8)
SECRETARY.—The
term
‘Secretary’
means the Secretary of the Treasury.
‘‘(9) STATE.—The term ‘State’ means each
of the 50 States, the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
United States Virgin Islands, Guam, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Is-
lands, and American Samoa.
‘‘(10) UNIT
OF
GENERAL
LOCAL
GOVERN-
MENT.—The term ‘unit of general local gov-
ernment’ has the meaning given that term in
section 102(a)(1) of the Housing and Commu-
nity Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C.
5302(a)(1)).
‘‘(h) RESCISSION
OF
FUNDS.—Any funds
made available under this section that are
unobligated on August 1, 2021, shall be re-
turned to the general fund of the Treasury.
‘‘SEC. 604. CORONAVIRUS CAPITAL PROJECTS
FUND.
‘‘(a)
APPROPRIATION.—In
addition
to
amounts otherwise available, there is appro-
priated for fiscal year 2021, out of any money
in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated,
$10,000,000,000, to remain available until ex-
pended, for making payments to States, ter-
ritories, and Tribal governments to carry
out critical capital projects directly ena-
bling work, education, and health moni-
toring, including remote options, in response
to the public health emergency with respect
to the Coronavirus Disease (COVID–19).
‘‘(b) PAYMENTS TO EACH OF THE 50 STATES
AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.—
‘‘(1) MINIMUM AMOUNTS.—From the amount
appropriated under subsection (a)—
‘‘(A) the Secretary shall pay $100,000,000 to
each State;
‘‘(B) the Secretary shall pay $100,000,000 to
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and
$100,000,000 to the District of Columbia;
‘‘(C) the Secretary shall pay $100,000,000 of
such amount in equal shares to the United
States Virgin Islands, Guam, American
Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, the Republic of the Mar-
shall Islands, the Federated States of Micro-
nesia, and the Republic of Palau; and
‘‘(D) the Secretary shall pay $100,000,000 of
such amount to Tribal governments and the
State of Hawaii (in addition to the amount
paid to the State of Hawaii under subpara-
graph (A)), of which—
‘‘(i) not less than $50,000 shall be paid to
each Tribal government; and
‘‘(ii) not less than $50,000 shall be paid to
the State of Hawaii for the exclusive use of
the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands
and the Native Hawaiian Education Pro-
grams to assist Native Hawaiians in accord-
ance with this section.
‘‘(2) REMAINING AMOUNTS.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—From the amount of the
appropriation under subsection (a) that re-
mains after the application of paragraph (1),
the Secretary shall make payments to
States based on population such that—
‘‘(i) 50 percent of such amount shall be al-
located among the States based on the pro-
portion that the population of each State
bears to the population of all States;
VerDate Sep 11 2014
09:39 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.155
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1321
March 5, 2021
‘‘(ii) 25 percent of such amount shall be al-
located among the States based on the pro-
portion that the number of individuals living
in rural areas in each State bears to the
number of individuals living in rural areas in
all States; and
‘‘(iii) 25 percent of such amount shall be al-
located among the States based on the pro-
portion that the number of individuals with
a household income that is below 150 percent
of the poverty line applicable to a family of
the size involved in each State bears to the
number of such individuals in all States.
‘‘(B) DATA.—In determining the allocations
to be made to each State under subparagraph
(A), the Secretary of the Treasury shall use
the most recent data available from the Bu-
reau of the Census.
‘‘(c) TIMING.—The Secretary shall establish
a process of applying for grants to access
funding made available under section (b) not
later than 60 days after enactment of this
section.
‘‘(d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
‘‘(1)
SECRETARY.—The
term
‘Secretary’
means the Secretary of the Treasury.
‘‘(2) STATE.—The term ‘State’ means 1 of
the 50 States.
‘‘(3) TRIBAL GOVERNMENT.—The term ‘Trib-
al government’ has the meaning given such
term in section 603(g).’’.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The heading
for title VI of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 801 et seq.) is amended by striking
‘‘FUND’’ and inserting ‘‘, FISCAL RECOV-
ERY, AND CRITICAL CAPITAL PROJECTS
FUNDS’’.
SA 1126. Mr. LEE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
Section 2001(a) is amended by striking
‘‘September 30, 2023, to carry out this sec-
tion.’’ and inserting ‘‘the date that is 1 year
after the date of enactment of this Act, to
carry out this section. Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, funding under this
section shall not be made available to any
State until every State has received and ex-
pended the funding appropriated under sec-
tion 18003 of title VIII of Division B of the
CARES Act (Public Law 116–136) and the
funding appropriated under section 313 of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Pub-
lic Law 116–260). A State shall not be eligible
to receive funds under this section unless the
State agrees to ensure that such funds will
only be used to provide assistance to schools
that are open for in-person academic instruc-
tion.’’
SA 1127. Mr. LEE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
Section 2003 is amended by striking ‘‘to re-
main available through September 30, 2023,
for making allocations to institutions of
higher education in accordance with the
same terms and conditions of section 314 of
Coronavirus Response and Relief Supple-
mental Appropriations Act, 2021(division M
of Public Law 116–260), except that—’’ and in-
serting ‘‘to remain available through the
date that is 1 year after the date of enact-
ment of this Act, for making allocations to
institutions of higher education in accord-
ance with the same terms and conditions of
section 314 of Coronavirus Response and Re-
lief
Supplemental
Appropriations
Act,
2021(division M of Public Law 116–260), except
that—
(1) funding under this section shall not be
made available to any institution of higher
education until all of the funding appro-
priated under section 18004 of the CARES Act
(division B of Public Law 116–136) and the
funding appropriated under section 314 of the
Coronavirus Response and Relief Supple-
mental Appropriations Act, 2021 (division M
of Public Law 116–260) has been expended;
(2) an institution of higher education shall
not be eligible to receive funds under this
section unless the institution of higher edu-
cation is open for in-person academic in-
struction;
SA 1128. Mr. LEE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
Strike section 10005.
SA 1129. Mr. LEE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
Strike section 4004.
SA 1130. Ms. HASSAN (for herself and
Mrs. SHAHEEN) submitted an amend-
ment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end of subtitle B of title II, add the
following:
SEC. 2102. SENSE OF SENATE.
It is the sense of the Senate that—
(1) all Americans who work full time
should make a living and be able to support
themselves and their families;
(2) for more than a decade, the minimum
wage has remained at $7.25 an hour, or about
$15,000 a year; and
(3) the Senate must act to increase the
minimum wage over time to give millions of
workers a raise and lift families out of pov-
erty.
SA 1131. Mr. LEE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
Strike section 2023.
SA 1132. Mr. LEE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
Strike section 7101.
SA 1133. Mr. LEE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
Strike subtitle D of title III.
SA 1134. Mr. LEE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
Strike subtitle F of title VII.
SA 1135. Mr. LEE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end of title VIII, add the following:
SEC. 8lll. WAIVER OF INCOME LIMITATIONS
THAT PRECLUDE VETERANS FROM
RECEIVING
COST-FREE
COVID–19
VACCINE AT FACILITIES OF DEPART-
MENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.
(a) WAIVER OF INCOME LIMITATIONS.—Dur-
ing the period specified in subsection (b), the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs—
VerDate Sep 11 2014
09:39 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.155
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1322
March 5, 2021
(1) for purposes of providing cost-free vac-
cines for COVID–19 to veterans, shall waive
any income limitation that would otherwise
preclude a veteran from receiving such a
cost-free vaccine at a facility of the Depart-
ment of Veterans Affairs; and
(2) may not charge a copayment or other
cost sharing for a veteran to receive such a
vaccine at a facility of the Department.
(b) PERIOD SPECIFIED.—The period specified
in this subsection is the period that—
(1) begins on the date of the enactment of
this Act; and
(2) ends on the date on which the national
emergency terminates under section 202 of
the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C.
1622).
(c) NATIONAL EMERGENCY.—The term ‘‘na-
tional emergency’’ means the national emer-
gency declared by the President under the
National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et
seq.) with respect to COVID–19.
SEC. 8lll. FLEXIBILITY FOR SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS TO USE HEALTH
CARE ENROLLMENT PRIORITY SYS-
TEM FOR PROVISION OF COVID–19
VACCINE.
In distributing the vaccine for COVID–19 to
veterans during any period in which the sup-
ply of such vaccine is limited, as determined
by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the
Secretary may use the priority groups for
enrollment of veterans in the patient enroll-
ment system of the Department of Veterans
Affairs under section 1705(a) of title 38,
United States Code, in determining priority
for receipt of such vaccine.
SA 1136. Mr. LEE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
Strike section 9704.
SA 1137. Mr. LEE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
In section 1007 (relating to the use of the
Commodity Credit Corporation for commod-
ities and associated expenses), insert ‘‘, sub-
ject to the condition that section 55305 of
title 46, United States Code, shall not apply
to the use of those amounts’’ before the pe-
riod at the end.
SA 1138. Mr. LEE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
Strike subtitle F of title IX.
SA 1139. Mr. LEE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
Section 9501(a)(1)(A) is amended by insert-
ing before the period at the end the fol-
lowing: ‘‘if such individual pays (or any per-
son other than such individual’s employer
pays on behalf of such individual) 50 percent
of the amount of such premium’’.
SA 1140. Mr. LEE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
Section 9501(a)(1)(A) is amended by insert-
ing before the period at the end the fol-
lowing: ‘‘if such individual pays (or any per-
son other than such individual’s employer
pays on behalf of such individual) 30 percent
of the amount of such premium’’.
SA 1141. Mr. LEE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
Strike section 9707.
SA 1142. Mr. LEE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
Strike section 2901(a) and insert the fol-
lowing:
(a) IN
GENERAL.—Section 2(a)(5) of the
Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (45
U.S.C. 352(a)(5)) is amended—
(1) in subparagraph (A)—
(A) in the first sentence—
(i) by striking ‘‘March 14, 2021’’ and insert-
ing ‘‘August 29, 2021’’;
(ii) by striking ‘‘or July 1, 2020’’ and insert-
ing ‘‘July 1, 2020, or July 1, 2021’’; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘For registration periods beginning after
March 14, 2021, but on or before August 29,
2021, the recovery benefit payable under this
subparagraph shall be in the amount of the
applicable described in subparagraph (C).’’;
and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(C) The applicable amount described in
this subparagraph is as follows:
‘‘(i) For registration periods beginning
after March 14, 2021, but on or before March
31, 2021, $800.
‘‘(ii) For registration periods beginning
after March 31, 2021, but on or before April
30, 2021, $650.
‘‘(iii) For registration periods beginning
after April 30, 2021, but on or before May 31,
2021, $500.
‘‘(iv) For registration periods beginning
after May 31, 2021, but on or before June 30,
2021, $350.
‘‘(v) For registration periods beginning
after June 30, 2021, but on or before July 30,
2021, $200.
‘‘(vi) For registration periods beginning
after July 30, 2021, but on or before August
29, 2021, $50.’’.
SA 1143. Mr. LEE submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
Strike section 9013(b) and insert the fol-
lowing:
(b) AMOUNT.—Section 2104(b)(3)(A) of such
Act (15 U.S.C. 9023(b)(3)(A)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
‘‘(iii) For weeks of unemployment ending
after March 14, 2021, and ending on or before
March 31, 2021, $400.
‘‘(iv) For weeks of unemployment ending
after March 31, 2021, and ending on or before
April 30, 2021, $325.
‘‘(v) For weeks of unemployment ending
after April 30, 2021, and ending on or before
May 31, 2021, $250.
‘‘(vi) For weeks of unemployment ending
after May 31, 2021, and ending on or before
June 30, 2021, $175.
‘‘(vii) For weeks of unemployment ending
after June 30, 2021, and ending on or before
July 30, 2021, $100.
‘‘(viii) For weeks of unemployment ending
after July 30, 2021, and ending on or before
August 29, 2021, $25.’’.
SA 1144. Mr. TOOMEY submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
In section 3101(a), strike ‘‘notwithstanding
section 304(e) of the Defense Production Act
of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 4534(e)),’’.
SA 1145. Mr. TOOMEY submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
VerDate Sep 11 2014
09:39 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.156
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1323
March 5, 2021
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
In section 3101(b)(2), strike ‘‘, or any other
activity necessary to meet critical public
health needs of the United States, with re-
spect to any pathogen that the President has
determined has the potential for creating a
public health emergency’’.
SA 1146. Mr. MARSHALL submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed
to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
Strike part 2 of subtitle A of title II.
SA 1147. Mr. MARSHALL submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed
to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end of title V, add the following:
SEC. 5007. PROHIBITION ON INDIVIDUALS CON-
VICTED OF NONCONSENSUAL SEX
CRIMES FROM RECEIVING ASSIST-
ANCE FROM THE SMALL BUSINESS
ADMINISTRATION.
Section 2 of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 631) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
‘‘(k) PROHIBITION
ON
INDIVIDUALS
CON-
VICTED OF NONCONSENSUAL SEX CRIMES FROM
RECEIVING ASSISTANCE.—
‘‘(1) DEFINITION.—In this subsection, the
term ‘convicted of a nonconsensual sex
crime’ means been convicted of a mis-
demeanor or felony under Federal or State
law that involves conduct that, if it occurred
in the special maritime and territorial juris-
diction of the United States, would violate
section 2241 of title 18, United States Code.
‘‘(2) PROHIBITION.—The Administrator may
not provide a loan, guarantee, or any other
assistance under this Act, the Small Busi-
ness Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 661 et
seq.), the Economic Aid to Hard-Hit Small
Businesses, Nonprofits, and Venues Act (title
III of division N of Public Law 116–260), or
any other provision of law to, or with respect
to, an individual, or a concern owned or con-
trolled by an individual, who was convicted
of a nonconsensual sex crime during the 5-
year period ending on the date on which the
loan, guarantee, or other assistance would,
but for this subsection, be provided.’’.
SA 1148. Mr. GRAHAM submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
Strike section 4001 and insert the fol-
lowing:
SEC. 4001. ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR U.S. CUS-
TOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
FOR OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT.
In addition to amounts otherwise avail-
able, there is appropriated for fiscal year
2021, out of any money in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated, $300,000,000 for nec-
essary expenses of U.S. Customs and Border
Protection for operations and support.
SA 1149. Mr. TOOMEY submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr.
SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. PETERS, Mr.
CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ,
Mr.
SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. LEAHY, and
Mr. SANDERS) to the bill H.R. 1319, to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was or-
dered to lie on the table; as follows:
Beginning on page 34, strike line 16, and all
that follow through page 43, line 9, and insert
the following:
(e) USES
OF FUNDS.—A local educational
agency that receives funds under this sec-
tion—
(1) shall reserve not less than 20 percent of
such funds to address learning loss through
the implementation of evidence-based inter-
ventions, such as summer learning, extended
day, comprehensive afterschool programs, or
extended school year programs, and ensure
that such interventions respond to students’
academic, social, and emotional needs and
address the disproportionate impact of the
coronavirus on the student subgroups de-
scribed in section 1111(b)(2)(B)(xi)of the Ele-
mentary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)(B)(xi)), students ex-
periencing homelessness, and children and
youth in foster care;
(2) shall reserve such funds as needed to
make Education Recovery Grants under sub-
section (g); and
(3) shall use the remaining funds for any of
the following:
(A) Any activity authorized by the Ele-
mentary and Secondary Education Act of
1965.
(B) Any activity authorized by the Individ-
uals with Disabilities Education Act.
(C) Any activity authorized by the Adult
Education and Family Literacy Act.
(D) Any activity authorized by the Carl D.
Perkins Career and Technical Education Act
of 2006.
(E) Coordination of preparedness and re-
sponse efforts of local educational agencies
with State, local, Tribal, and territorial pub-
lic health departments, and other relevant
agencies, to improve coordinated responses
among such entities to prevent, prepare for,
and respond to coronavirus.
(F) Activities to address the unique needs
of low-income children or students, children
with disabilities, English learners, racial and
ethnic
minorities,
students
experiencing
homelessness, and foster care youth, includ-
ing how outreach and service delivery will
meet the needs of each population.
(G) Developing and implementing proce-
dures and systems to improve the prepared-
ness and response efforts of local educational
agencies.
(H) Training and professional development
for staff of the local educational agency on
sanitation and minimizing the spread of in-
fectious diseases.
(I) Purchasing supplies to sanitize and
clean the facilities of a local educational
agency, including buildings operated by such
agency.
(J) Planning for, coordinating, and imple-
menting activities during long-term clo-
sures, including providing meals to eligible
students, providing technology for online
learning to all students, providing guidance
for carrying out requirements under the
IDEA and ensuring other educational serv-
ices can continue to be provided consistent
with all Federal, State, and local require-
ments.
(K) Purchasing educational technology (in-
cluding
hardware,
software,
and
connectivity) for students who are served by
the local educational agency that aids in
regular and substantive educational inter-
action between students and their classroom
instructors, including low-income students
and children with disabilities, which may in-
clude assistive technology or adaptive equip-
ment.
(L) Providing mental health services and
supports.
(M) Planning and implementing activities
related to summer learning and supple-
mental afterschool programs, including pro-
viding classroom instruction or online learn-
ing during the summer months and address-
ing the needs of low-income students, chil-
dren with disabilities, English learners, mi-
grant students, students experiencing home-
lessness, and children in foster care.
(N) Addressing learning loss among stu-
dents, including low-income students, chil-
dren with disabilities, English learners, ra-
cial and ethnic minorities, students experi-
encing homelessness, and children and youth
in foster care, of the local educational agen-
cy, including by—
(i) administering and using high-quality
assessments that are valid and reliable, to
accurately
assess
students’
academic
progress and assist educators in meeting stu-
dents’ academic needs, including through
differentiating instruction;
(ii) implementing evidence-based activities
to meet the comprehensive needs of stu-
dents;
(iii) providing information and assistance
to parents and families on how they can ef-
fectively support students, including in a
distance learning environment; and
(iv) tracking student attendance and im-
proving student engagement in distance edu-
cation.
(O) School facility repairs and improve-
ments to enable operation of schools to re-
duce risk of virus transmission and exposure
to environmental health hazards, and to sup-
port student health needs.
(P) Inspection, testing, maintenance, re-
pair, replacement, and upgrade projects to
improve the indoor air quality in school fa-
cilities, including mechanical and non-me-
chanical heating, ventilation, and air condi-
tioning systems, filtering, purification and
other air cleaning, fans, control systems, and
window and door repair and replacement.
(Q)
Developing
strategies
and
imple-
menting public health protocols including,
to the greatest extent practicable, policies in
line with guidance from the Centers for Dis-
ease Control and Prevention for the reopen-
ing and operation of school facilities to ef-
fectively maintain the health and safety of
students, educators, and other staff.
(R) Other activities that are necessary to
maintain the operation of and continuity of
services in local educational agencies and
continuing to employ existing staff of the
local educational agency.
(f) STATE FUNDING.—With funds not other-
wise allocated under subsection (d), a State—
(1) shall reserve not less than 5 percent of
the total amount of grant funds awarded to
VerDate Sep 11 2014
09:39 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.157
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S1324
March 5, 2021
the State under this section to carry out, di-
rectly or through grants or contracts, activi-
ties to address learning loss by supporting
the implementation of evidence-based inter-
ventions, such as summer learning, extended
day, comprehensive afterschool programs, or
extended school year programs, and ensure
that such interventions respond to students’
academic, social, and emotional needs and
address the disproportionate impact of the
coronavirus on the student subgroups de-
scribed in section 1111(b)(2)(B)(xi) of the Ele-
mentary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)(B)(xi)), students ex-
periencing homelessness, and children and
youth in foster care, including by providing
additional support to local educational agen-
cies to fully address such impacts;
(2) shall reserve not less than 1 percent of
the total amount of grant funds awarded to
the State under this section to carry out, di-
rectly or through grants or contracts, the
implementation
of
evidence-based
com-
prehensive afterschool programs, and ensure
such programs respond to students’ aca-
demic, social, and emotional needs and ad-
dress the disproportionate impact of the
coronavirus on the student populations de-
scribed in section 1111(b)(2)(B)(xi) of the Ele-
mentary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)(B)(xi)), students ex-
periencing homelessness, and children and
youth in foster care;
(3) shall reserve 2.5 percent of the total
amount of grant funds awarded to the State
under this section to carry out, directly or
through grants or contracts, the purchase of
educational technology (including hardware,
software, and connectivity) for students who
are served by the local educational agencies
in the State that aids in regular and sub-
stantive educational interaction between
students and their classroom instructors, in-
cluding low-income students and children
with disabilities, which may include assist-
ive technology or adaptive equipment; and
(4) may reserve not more than one-half of
1 percent of the total amount of grant funds
awarded to the State under this section for
administrative costs and the remainder for
emergency needs as determined by the State
educational agency to address issues re-
sponding to coronavirus, which may be ad-
dressed through the use of grants or con-
tracts.
(g) EDUCATION RECOVERY GRANTS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—A local educational agen-
cy that receives funds under this section and
serves an elementary school or secondary
school identified and designated under para-
graph (2) shall deposit into Education Sav-
ings
Accounts
the
Education
Recovery
Grants to eligible claimants, by not later
than June 30, 2021, from funds available
under this section in the amount described
in paragraph (3).
(2) IDENTIFICATION
AND
DESIGNATION.—Not
later than 2 months after the date of enact-
ment of this title, and every 2 months there-
after, a local educational agency that re-
ceives funds under this section shall identify
and designate for school improvement any
elementary
school
or
secondary
school
served by the agency, that failed, during the
preceding 2-month period, to make available
in-person instruction for at a minimum 15
days each of such 2 months for all students
who wish to attend.
(3) EDUCATION RECOVERY GRANT AMOUNT.—
The amount described in this paragraph is
the product of $2,500, multiplied by the num-
ber of qualifying children of the eligible
claimant for the 2021 taxable year.
(4) ELIGIBLE CLAIMANT.—In this subsection,
the term ‘‘eligible claimant’’ means a parent
or guardian of a qualifying child who agrees
to use the funds deposited in their qualifying
child’s Education Savings Account for the
following qualifying expenses to educate the
qualifying child:
(A) Tuition and fees in connection with en-
rollment or attendance at an elementary or
secondary school.
(B) Tuition for tutoring or educational
classes outside of the home (but only if the
tutor or instructor is not related to the stu-
dent).
(C) Curriculum or instructional materials.
(D) Educational services or therapies for
students with disabilities.
(E) Any other related educational expenses
approved by the local educational agency.
(5) SPECIAL RULE.—Only one Education Re-
covery Grant shall be made on behalf of each
qualifying child, regardless of the number of
parents or legal guardians of such child.
(6) QUALIFYING CHILD.—In this subsection,
the term ‘‘qualifying child’’ means an indi-
vidual aged 5 through 17 who attends a
school identified and designated under para-
graph (2).
(7) ADMINISTRATION.—A local educational
agency that receives funds under this section
and serves an elementary school or sec-
ondary school identified and designated
under paragraph (2) shall—
(A) provide parents and guardians of quali-
fying children with a written explanation of
the allowable uses of Education Recovery
Grants; and
(B) require that eligible claimants main-
tain a record of how Education Recovery
Grant funds were spent.
(8) PROHIBITION OF CONTROL OVER NONPUBLIC
EDUCATION PROVIDERS.—
(A)
IN
GENERAL.—Education
Recovery
Grants shall not be considered assistance to
the school or other educational provider that
enrolls or provides educational services to
the qualifying child or the eligible claimant.
(B) RULE
OF
CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in
this Act shall be construed to permit, allow,
encourage, or authorize any Federal control
over any aspect of any private, religious, or
home education provider, whether or not a
home education provider is treated as a pri-
vate school or home school under State law.
(C) PROHIBITION ON RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINA-
TION.—No State or local educational agency
shall in any way exclude, discriminate
against, or otherwise disadvantage any edu-
cation provider with respect to programs or
services under this section based in whole or
in part on the provider’s religious education
character or affiliation, including religiously
or mission-based policies or practices.
(h) REALLOCATION.—A State shall return to
the Secretary any funds received under this
section that the State does not award within
1 year of receiving such funds and the Sec-
retary shall reallocate such funds to the re-
maining States in accordance with sub-
section (c).
(i) ESEA TERMS.—In this section:
(1)
ESEA
TERMS.—The
terms
‘‘child’’,
‘‘children with disabilities’’, ‘‘distance edu-
cation’’,
‘‘elementary
school’’,
‘‘English
learner’’, ‘‘evidence-based’’, ‘‘extended learn-
ing time’’, ‘‘secondary school’’, ‘‘local edu-
cational agency’’, ‘‘parent’’, ‘‘school leader’’,
‘‘Secretary’’, ‘‘State’’, ‘‘state educational
agency’’, and ‘‘technology’’ have the mean-
ings given those terms in section 8101 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
(2) FULL-SERVICE COMMUNITY SCHOOL.—The
term ‘‘full-service community school’’ has
the meaning given that term in section
4622(2) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7272(2)).
(3) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means each
of the 50 States, the District of Columbia,
and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
SA 1150. Mr. CARPER (for himself,
Mr. WYDEN, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. KELLY,
Mr. REED, and Mrs. SHAHEEN) sub-
mitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 891 pro-
posed by Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr.
WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr.
PETERS, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. CANTWELL,
Ms.
STABENOW,
Mr.
TESTER,
Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARPER,
Mr. LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) to the
bill H.R. 1319, to provide for reconcili-
ation pursuant to title II of S. Con.
Res. 5; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
Strike subtitle A of title IX and insert the
following:
Subtitle A—Crisis Support for Unemployed
Workers
PART 1—EXTENSION OF CARES ACT
UNEMPLOYMENT PROVISIONS
SEC. 9011. EXTENSION OF PANDEMIC UNEMPLOY-
MENT ASSISTANCE.
(a) IN
GENERAL.—Section 2102(c) of the
CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 9021(c)) is amended—
(1) in paragraph (1)—
(A) by striking ‘‘paragraphs (2) and (3)’’
and inserting ‘‘paragraph (2)’’; and
(B) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking
‘‘March 14, 2021’’ and inserting ‘‘October 4,
2021’’; and
(2) by striking paragraph (3) and redesig-
nating paragraph (4) as paragraph (3).
(b) INCREASE IN NUMBER OF WEEKS.—Sec-
tion
2102(c)(2)
of
such
Act
(15
U.S.C.
9021(c)(2)) is amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘50 weeks’’ and inserting
‘‘79 weeks’’; and
(2) by striking ‘‘50-week period’’ and insert-
ing ‘‘79-week period’’.
(c) HOLD HARMLESS FOR PROPER ADMINIS-
TRATION.—In the case of an individual who is
eligible to receive pandemic unemployment
assistance under section 2102 of the CARES
Act (15 U.S.C. 9021) as of the day before the
date of enactment of this Act and on the
date of enactment of this Act becomes eligi-
ble for pandemic emergency unemployment
compensation under section 2107 of the
CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 9025) by reason of the
amendments made by section 9016(b) of this
title, any payment of pandemic unemploy-
ment assistance under such section 2102
made after the date of enactment of this Act
to such individual during an appropriate pe-
riod of time, as determined by the Secretary
of Labor, that should have been made under
such section 2107 shall not be considered to
be an overpayment of assistance under such
section 2102, except that an individual may
not receive payment for assistance under
section 2102 and a payment for assistance
under section 2107 for the same week of un-
employment.
(d) EFFECTIVE
DATE.—The amendments
made by subsections (a) and (b) shall apply
as if included in the enactment of the
CARES Act (Public Law 116–136), except that
no amount shall be payable by virtue of such
amendments with respect to any week of un-
employment ending on or before March 14,
2021.
SEC. 9012. EXTENSION OF EMERGENCY UNEM-
PLOYMENT RELIEF FOR GOVERN-
MENTAL ENTITIES AND NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 903(i)(1)(D) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1103(i)(1)(D)) is
amended by striking ‘‘March 14, 2021’’ and in-
serting ‘‘October 4, 2021’’.
(b) INCREASE
IN REIMBURSEMENT RATE.—
Section 903(i)(1)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1103(i)(1)(B)) is amended—
(1) in the first sentence, by inserting ‘‘and
except as otherwise provided in this subpara-
graph’’ after ‘‘as determined by the Sec-
retary of Labor’’; and
VerDate Sep 11 2014
09:39 Mar 07, 2021
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 0637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A05MR6.152
S05MRPT1
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with SENATE

Full text truncated for size.

File and source

File

CREC-2021-03-05.pdf

Size

1,830,363 bytes

SHA-256

0393d9be2944d4d467b149895c7a28efd7af43dab13097c374dd002ff28c5256

Our copy

CREC-2021-03-05.pdf

Original

No public link identified.