vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 71, the nays are 21. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i think we're waiting for somebody on the other side.

i'll yield, but i want to thank everybody for joining senator shelby and i on this vote. it's going to help us move forward, where i noted, as i said earlier in my remarks, republicans and democrats came together and worked extraordinarily hard on these appropriations bills. it shows what can be done when we do that. i think the vote here is an indication that -- if nobody is seeking recognition, i will suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. thune: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: i understand the national? a quorum call. the presiding officer: it is. mr. thune: i would ask it be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, today the senate is taking the final step to send much-needed legislation to protect consumers from robocalls to the president's desk. i think we had hoped this would be able to be packaged with a couple of other bills coming out of the commerce bill. i think the chairman of that committee, senator wicker, will address those later. data mapping bill, security communications bill that deals with ensuring that we protect our technology from harmful elements, huawei and those sorts of things. today we want to proceed with the robocall bill, and i will just start by saying that robocalls flooded americans' phones to the point that many don't want to answer. a poll found 47% of calls

americans received are actually answered. this means consumers aren't answering legitimate calls that could be alerting you of fraud on your crashed, notifying you -- on your credit card, noiferg you that your flight has been canceled, all calls that are important to consumers. it is clear that no one is immune to these annoying and potentially dangerous calls. scammers use these calls to successfully prey on vulnerable populations especially elderly americans, and they target the kind of personal information that can be used to steal your money or your identity. and when scammers are successful, the consequences for their victims can be devastating. while there are laws and fines in place now to prevent scam artists on preying on americans through the telephones these measures have been insufficient. when i served as chairman of the commerce committee --. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. thune: thank you, mr. president. when i served as chairman of the commerce committee i subpoenaed the mass robe caller abromovich

to testify about his situation. on to have of this, the federal communication enforcement efforts are hampered by a tight time commission. i introduced legislation before us today, the telephone robocall abuse criminal enforcement and deterrence act or the traced act with senator markey. the traced act provides tools to discourage illegal robocalls, protect consumers and crack down on offenders. it expands the window in which the f.c.c. can pursue intentional scammers and levy fines from one year to four years. the legislation also requires telephone service providers to adopt call verification technologies that would help prevent illegal robocalls from reaching consumers in the first place. the traced act also recognizes the importance of legitimate calls and ensures important calls like emergency public safety calls are not wrongly blocked. and importantly, it convenes a

working group of representatives from the department of justice, the f.c.c., the federal trade commission, the department of commerce, the consumer financial protection bureau, state attorneys general and others to identify ways to criminally prosecute illegal robecalling. traced addresses the issue of so-called one ring scams where international scammers try to get individuals to return their calls so they can charge them exorbitant fees and it directs the federal communications commission to convene a working group to address the problem of illegal robocalls being made to hospitals. i'm very pleased that the traced act received bipartisan support in both houses of congress and i'm especially grateful to senator markey for partnering with me on this legislation and i appreciate chairman wicker and ranking member cantwell for quickly advancing this legislation through the commerce committee this year. i also appreciate the work of our house colleagues, representatives palone, and

data for their work in the house. i'm pleased this bill attracted tremendous support from state governments, industry and consumer groups. while the traced act won't prevent all illegal robocalling, it's a big step in the right direction. as "the washington post" editorial board stated the traced act, and i quote, is what good old-fashioned ledges -- legislating looks like. today i'm excited the senate will be sending the traced act to the president's desk. before i close i'd like to thank staff members whose efforts helped get us here today. in my office i appreciate the work of alex sochin, lauren greenwood, jessica mcbride and nick rossi. i'd like to extend thanks to dan bald, john keist who worked tirelessly to help develop and advance this legislation. as i mentioned before, i appreciate the great work of senator markey, his partnership

on this bill, and i want to thank the work of daniel green, joy winder and bennett butler on his staff. this truly was, mr. president, a team effort. so i thank you. i look forward to the president's signature on the traced act in the near future and hope that as this bill gets implemented that it will once again be safe to answer your phone in this country. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: thank you, mr. president. this is a big day for our consumers in the united states, and i want to begin first by thanking my friend, senator thune, for his tremendous partnership on this legislation and the issue that we are discussing today robocalls. and that's because there are no blue robocalls. there are no red robocalls. there are only despised

robocalls. that is what is bringing this chamber together today. and so i thank senator thune for his great leadership. i thank senator wicker and senator cantwell for helping us to navigate this political pathway. today is a big day. the daily deluge of robocalls that americans experience is more than a nuisance in 2019. it is a consumer protection crisis. and so today the united states senate is sending americans a holiday gift on everyone's list, stopping the playing of robocalls. americans across the country face an epidemic of illegal and fraudulent robocalls bombarding their phones. and while their telephones were once a reliable means of communications, they have been

turned against us. there are now mechanisms for scammers and fraudsters who wish to cheat and to defraud. the numbers are staggering. in 2019 consumers have received an estimated 54 billion robocalls, and that's 6 billion more than 2018, and we still have two more weeks to go. the year isn't even over. in november alone an estimated five billion robocalls were made to americans. that's 167 million robocalls per day. that's seven million robocalls an hour. that's 2,000 every second in our country. in the time it takes me to make these remarks, 10,000 robocalls will have been placed across this country. in 2019 already almost 600 million robocalls have been placed to my constituents in massachusetts.

enough is enough. the reality is that we no longer have confidence in our phones. our phones have become tools for fraud, for scams, for harassment mechanisms by which those with bad intent can access our homes, our purses, or even our pockets at any time. caller i.d. is not trusted. important calls go unanswered. innocent americans are defrauded. our seniors in particular are targeted. years ago scammers needed expensive, sophisticated equipment to robocall and robotext consumers en masse. today they just need a smartphone to target thousands of phones an hour at relatively little expense and readily available software permits them to spoof their numbers, which means their true caller i.d. is in fact concealed from the person picking up the phone.

these new technologies allow illegal robocallers to conduct fraud anonomously both depriving federal regulators and consumers the ability to identify and to punish the culprit. today the united states senate is putting robocall relief in sight, and i have been proud again to partner with senator thune on the telephone robocall abuse criminal enforcement and deterrence act or traced act for short. we introduced it earlier this year, and today is a culmination of that work in partnership with the house of representatives. stopping robocalls requires a simple formula which we have included in the traced act. one, authentication. two, blocking. three, enforcement. first, this bill requires carriers to adopt call authentication technologies so they can verify that incoming

calls are legitimate before they reach consumers' phones. this will be mandatory for phone carriers. second, the federal communications commission will require phone companies to block unverified calls at no charge to consumers. and, third, we will increase from one year to four years the time for the federal communications commission to pursue penalties for robocallers that intentionally violate the rules. this is a recipe for success, and that is what our traced act does. and at the same time this bill also ensures that emergency public safety calls still go through. the bill we will vote on today has enormous support across the country. 54 state and territory attorneys general all commissioners at the federal communications commission and the federal trade commission, major industry associations, and leading consumer groups endorse the legislation and agree that the

traced act is an essential weapon in combatting the rice of illegal fraudulent -- rise of illegal fraudulent robocalls. this is a political haley's comet, something we can all gather around and learn from. the robocalls we receive every day are neither democrat nor republican. they are a universal menace. they impact the elderly, the young, the small business owner, and the student. our grandparents and neighbors, our teachers and our coworkers today. no one is spared from this consumer protection pandemic. senator thune and my efforts would not have been possible without the great work of groups like the national consumer law center, aarp, consumer reports, consumer federation of america, consumer action, the national association of attorneys general, u.s. telecom , ctia, ntca, and so many more groups. these groups join the chorus of

countless americans who raised their voices and called on congress to pass this bipartisan commonsense legislation, and we thank you. and so, what i would like to do as well, as senator thune, is to thank my staff joey with winder, sitting on the floor with me now and bennett butler over my shoulder and daniel green who worked on it. alex sachin, daniel ball, owe owe -- olivia trusty, all partnered to make today possible. so -- and i just want to say that again. we can't thank alex sachin enough for all the work that was done. so i thank you, senator thune, and i thank the entire senate

for their support for this legislation and i yield back. mr. thune: i appreciate the senator from massachusetts. he and his staff were helpful in working on this. it's nice when we have an opportunity to work in a bipartisan way on something this meaningful in people's lives. this has a tremendous impact on the daily lives of americans who are bombarded in many cases not just with annoying and nuisance calls but also with calls that are very predatory and particularly when it comes to some of our vulnerable populations. mr. president, i have a unanimous consent request i need to get in here. i would ask consent that this be separate from the discussion that we're now having. but i would ask unanimous consent that at 12:10 today the postcloture time on the motion to concur in the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 1865 expire, that the other pending motions and amendments be withdrawn, and senator enzi or his designee be recognized to raise a point of order followed by senator shelby or his designee to make a motion to waive a point of order. if the motion to waive is agreed

to the senate vote on a motion to concur on the house amendment to the senate amendment with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. enzi: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: reserving the right to object, does that mean that i won't get to give the comments before we vote? there has to be some comments about the point of order. and looking at the clock and the number of people waiting, it looks like i'm being cut out of that time. would that be a correct interpretation? mr. thune: i guess my view would be that the gentleman from wyoming wants to explain his point of order, i suspect -- i don't think there would be any objection to allowing him to do that. mr. enzi: then i have no objection. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, notwithstanding rule 22 i ask the chair to lay before the

senate the message to accompany s. 151. the presiding officer: the chair lays before the senate the following message from the house of representatives. the clerk: resolved, an act to deter criminal robocall violations and and so forth andr other purposes do pass with an amendment. mr. thune: mr. president, i move to concur in the house amendment and i know of no further debate on the motion. the presiding officer: is there further debate on the motion to concur? if not, all in favor say aye. opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. thune: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president.

the presiding officer: i recognize the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: mr. president, time is fleeting. the distinguished republican whip is correct. we had hoped that the robocall bill could be included in the unanimous consent with two other very important pieces of legislation, one being the broadband data act, s. 1822, which is designed to tell the f.c.c., go back, get the maps right, show us where we have coverage and where we do not have coverage, and we are making great progress with that. i do believe we'll get that bill passed in just a moment. the other issue being -- being the -- the huawei data security act, and i understand we're going to have some trouble with that. let me talk briefly before i make my unanimous consent request. china is up to no good with

their government-controlled companies huawei and z.t.e. they are required by chinese law to do the bidding of the chinese communist dictatorship and that means using their equipment to spy on americans. this is an undisputed act and it is recognized not only by americans but also by other countries, our allies who are taking steps to protect themselves, japan, australia, new zealand, they have begun the process of removing this dangery z.t.e. and huawei equipment from their networks. we had legislation that we thought was going to be included in this three-bill package, h.r. 4998 to authorize this in the united states. earlier this year the president signed an executive order declaring a national emergency.

and i agree with the president. a national emergency because of the dangerous effects of keeping chinese equipment in our nation's critical infrastructure. given these threats -- we have an opportunity today to remove this huawei and z.t.e. equipment from american telecommunication networks so we can protect americans. we're going to have some trouble with that on a unanimous consent. i think with the broadband data we will not, and so at this pointer, madam president, i -- first dealing with the broadband data act. notwithstanding rule 22, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 328, s. 1822. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 328, s. 1822, a bill to require the

federal communications commission to issue rules relating to the collection of data and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. wicker: and then, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the committee amendment be withdrawn, the wicker substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. wicker: thank you, madam president. and now with regard to the so-called rip and replace act that would facilitate the united states joining our allies and protecting us, notwithstanding rule 22, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the

immediate consideration of h.r. 4998, which was received from the house. i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: madam president, reserving the right to object. this is clearly an effort to push through last-minute changes on a single bill. these changes are, in my view, reckless, unnecessary, unwise, and any event they were made without debate by members of this body. specifically contrary to the manner in which this very same legislation was reported out of the senate commerce committee. i'm glad to see that passage of a couple of pieces of legislation just now, including the traced act, which will help us fight damaging robocalls. this is good legislation.

i'm supportive of s. 1822, the broadband data act which will require much-needed updates to our broadband acts. these are good pieces of legislation. i'm glad they passed. i'm supportive of the subject of the immediate unanimous consent request, that is the commerce committee's reported version of the 5g leadership act. it's an important bill. it would help us identify huawei equipment, posing an espionage risk in the united states, it would ban the use of dollars to purchase the equipment and help reimburse small companies with replacing equipment. it received carefuls consideration in the conference committee's markup. the version of this bill that passed the committee was supported unanimously by democrats and republicans on

both sides of the aisle. that version required $700 million to be set aside in a fund to help reimburse companies for huawei equipments. the bill specified the source of this was to come from spectrum auctions. this was a smart and carefully tailored pay for that did not add to our out of control federal spending. so the bill, as written, contains a reference to a reimbursement fund and assumes there will be reimbursement, but the bill does not specify how much is allocated or the source of the funds. i canle only assume that the house and senate appropriations committees will default to using new funds rather than using the smart pay for that the senate conference committee wisely agreed to in july. for these reasons, i object.

the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from utah. mr. lee: notwithstanding rule 22, i ask unanimous consent that the commerce committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 1625, and the senate proceed to its consideration, i ask unanimous consent that the amendments ordered reported by the conference committee be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. wicker: reserving the right to object. mr. wicker: mup, the -- the senator, my good friend from utah has asked unanimous consent that we pass the version of the bill that i authored and ordinarily i would very much appreciate that. the problem with his request is that it prevents us from acting

in this congress, acting today to get to this z.t.e. and huawei problem. we have a solution and we need to get started on it. let me also make the point. some things are worth paying for, and protecting americans, protecting our electronic system, our broadband communications from the chinese-owned huawei and z.t.e. is worth paying for. what my unanimous consent request would have done, had the senator not objected, is pass the bill, leave the issue of how we fund it to another day. perhaps the appropriators would have decided to appropriate money for it. had they done so, they would have -- they would have operated within the budget caps, as the appropriations committee has done, and found room -- found some offsets and paid for it that way.

the proposal that i had made that was objected to by my friend from utah would have also left open the possibility of having it paid for by the sale of some spectrum. so i regret that the gentleman is objecting based on how we will pay for this very needed expenditure down the road, and so i'm -- i'm compelled, madam president, to object to my good friend's unanimous consent request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from utah. mr. lee: where i come from in utah $700 million is a lot of money. $700 million is where we ought to worry about where we get it. it is not enough to agree to the language that we passed out of the senate conference committee. we are allowing the house of representatives unwarranted demand, demand that the chairman of the conference committee acknowledges is one they

shouldn't object to and to rue the day and prevent this legislation from becoming law. thank you. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. ms. baldwin: i rise today with -- i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to six minutes. the presiding officer: is there toks? -- is there objection? without objection. ms. baldwin: madam president, i rise today with great pride to recognize and honor my chief of staff and dear friend bill moratt, who will retire at the end of this year after 21 years of working in congress. you know, it's a rare thing in washington to work side by side with the same person for more than 20 years. so on the eve of your retirement, bill, i want to share a few words about how much you have meant to me and the countedless others that you have encountered during your long and

storied career. bill morratt is a proud son of stevens point, wisconsin. he graduated from high school and college there, earned his j.d. from u.w. law school and his m.b.a. from columbia university. civically engaged since his youth, he served as district attorney for portage county, wisconsin, prior to his election to the wisconsin state assembly in 1994. it was there that bill and i grew a friendship as colleagues in the wisconsin state assembly in the 1990's. i found him to be earnest, hardworking, and a brilliant strategist and lovely storyteller. he also knew when to add good humor or a note of levity. i remember fondly one night during a midnight session of the assembly when bill and i and a few of our republican colleagues

were on the floor waiting for a vote while many of our colleagues were still in their respective caucuses trying to hash out an agreement on an issue, and bill, being a big fan of broadway, was reflecting on how this moment felt like a particular song from the musical "oklahoma," and there on the floor of the wisconsin state assembly while in recess in the wee hours on a bipartisan basis, we broke out in song, singing the farmer and the common can be friends. now, because this is a speech about bill moratt, this won't be the last time that i mention show tunes. after i was elected to the house of representatives, bill came to work with me, first as my district director and then starting in 2001 as chief of staff. bill's steady hand of leadership has helped me weather the storms

that washington brings and stay focused on what matters most, the people we serve in wisconsin. i remember the days after september 11, 2001. it was chaotic, weighty, and, frankly, a scary time in washington and across our nation. i had to get back to wisconsin, but the planes were still grounded. so bill walked into my office and simply said, need a ride? and so together we made that 14-hour trip home from washington, d.c., to madison, wisconsin, noting the american flags that were hung from nearly every highway bridge we passed under and considering the gravity of the new world we were seeing emerge. bill has been by my side for the highs and the lows of my time in congress. i'm so proud of what we've done together.

working to do right by the people of wisconsin and to pass on to the next generation a country that is more equal, not less. his generosity of spirit extends to every constituent in wisconsin, every colleague in congress, and every staffer who has worked for him. his door is always open, and he's been a mentor to so many people who have worked in the baldwin offices over the years. in fact, i know there are several former staff members of mine who have bill to thank for their love of broadway. since he used to host better living through show tunes as evening staff events. and to be honest, i am still jealous that these show tune nights always happen as i was headed home to wisconsin. on a more serious note, bill is a fierce advocate and ardent

supporter of our team tammy family. and he has led by example, encouraging young people to pursue their passions, doling out career advice to those who need it, and listening to the concerns of others whether they are a senate employee or a wisconsinite looking for some assistance. bill, we've spent over three decades working on behalf of the great state of wisconsin. you and i have accomplished much together. i would not be here today without you, and i am grateful for your friendship. so thank you from the bottom of my heart, for the years of service. and i wish you the most fabulous retirement. thank you, and i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: i rise to raise a

point of order on the further consolidated appropriations act of 2020 which provides funding for eight appropriations subcommittees and includes numerous tax and health care provisions and other new legislation called authorizations -- that's code for bills that haven't been debated on the senate floor, christmas presents for everyone all put on the federal credit card, which is overspent already. this legislation was unveiled monday afternoon. it totals more than 1,800 pages. and here we are on thursday with hours to go before a government shutdown being asked to vote on a bill which has not been subject to amendment or debate and which the congressional budget office tells us will increase deficits by more than $400 billion over the next ten years. actually by the time you add in interest costs to this debt,

it's $500 billion in ten years and $2.1 trillion on 20 years. that's according to committee for responsible federal budget who added in that interest, added it up. so that will be $500 billion of new overspending in one vote. and what makes it so expensive is that we're trying to do something here to buy everybody's vote. this bill was completely bypassed regular order and violates nearly all the senate's self-imposed budget rules with billions of dollars in giveaways and tax policy changes. we are legislating on funding bills. legislation is supposed to be scrutinized differently, especially if they pay out real money. i remind my colleagues that our national debt stands at just over $23 trillion, and the

congressional budget office tells us that the federal deficits are already on track to exceed $1 trillion this year and every year thereafter. that's besides this $2.1 trillion add-on. we should be talking about how to address the budgetary mess we're in the, not pressing the gas on unsustainable fiscal trajectory which is exactly what this bill does. we're making promises that can't be fulfilled. some people will mention the tax cuts and jobs bill, but i need to emphasize and remind you that that boosted the economy. it created jobs and it increased wages and is bringing in more revenue than ever before. ever before. but we're spending it faster than it's coming in. so it's not a revenue problem. it's a spending problem. rather than an aberration, budget busting has become commonplace. this is the second time this

week that i've come to the floor to raise a point of order against legislation that violates the budget. but to be fair, from a budget perspective, this bill is exponentially worse than the defense authorization bill that we considered earlier this year. it's at least 50 times worse. i oppose this legislation. i oppose adding to the already massive debt burden being placed on future generations. madam president, the pending measure of the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 1865, further consolidated appropriations act of 2020 would cause a deficit increase of more than $5 million in each of four consecutive ten-year periods beginning in fiscal year 2030. this increase violates section 3101 of the 2016 budget resolution. therefore, i raise a point of order under section 3101-b of s. con res. 11, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2016. i've been here long enough to

know that you will now hear a list of wonderful things that are on this bill. you won't hear how to pay for all these christmas presents. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. shelby: madam president, pursuant to section 904 of the congressional budget act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, i move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions for the purposes of consideration of the message to accompany h.r. 1865, and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. under the previous order, the motion to concur with the amendment is withdrawn. the question is on the motion to waive. the clerk will call the roll.

vote: vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? seeing none, on this vote the yeas are 64, the nays are 30. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. the question is on the motion to concur. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 71, the nays are 23. the motion to concur is agreed to. a senator: mr. president.

the presiding officer: the senator for pennsylvania. mr. toomey: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule 22, the senate resume consideration of the singal nomination and the senate vote on the confirmations of the nominations under the previous order. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, anuraag singhal, of florida, to be united states district judge for the southern district of florida. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for hawaii. mr. schatz: as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent the committee on homeland security and governmental affairs be discharged from the

federal employees technical correction act and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. i further ask the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for persons pens. -- pennsylvania. mr. toomey: reserving the right to object. let me explain what's going on here. my colleague from hawaii has an amendment that he'd like to make to the ndaa legislation that we passed recently. it's been described from our democratic colleagues as a technical correction. well, i've got a technical correction i'd like to have considered as well. i think we've got a good solution here where we can both get the technical corrections that we'd like. mine we've been waiting on for two years, but the good news is

we've got broad bipartisan support for mine, every republican senator supports it, 13 democrats are supporting to make the technical correction, that means 66 senators support doing this. there's huge bipartisan support in the house. so i say let's fix both problems. the fix i have in mind is fix the draft reform bill from two years ago and specifically it would be to restore the ability of who make leasehold improvements to fully expense that at the time it occurs. that was always the intent. nobody disputes that that was the i intent. but because of a dwrafting error, when someone makes a leasehold improvement, not only are they not able to expense it in the year it occurs, they have deappreciate it over 39 years. the exact opposite of our intention. this is a huge probe for restaurants and retailers

generally, and every one of our states has how many retailers, how many restaurants that are adversely affected today by this technical error? and it's having an economic impact. this category of business investment is the only category that's declined over the last year. it was down almost 4% in the third quarter. and that's because of the adverse tax treatment. so that's not good for any of us. not good for the united states. it's not good for our states. in the omni bill that we just passed, we had all kinds of tax provisions. $427 billion actually worth of tax provisions announced at 2:00 in the morning on tuesday, by the way. it has things including a resurrection of special tax rules that were supposed to die in 2017. so we're going to send checks to people for what they did in 2018 which will have no impact whatsoever obviously on changing incentives since it's the past. we did that. we reversed a deal that was

struck in 2015 to phase out expensive renewable energy credits. we made two changes to the tax reform of 2017. but we weren't able to include the technical fix that 66 senators want that would cost zero. what we were told by our democratic colleagues is if you want to do that, there's a price you have to pay. and the price would be tens of billions of dollars of increases and refundable tax credits. that's checks being sent to people who don't pay taxes. the ranking member of the finance committee, senator wyden said just this week and i quote, democrats have long said the republicans need to negotiate on broader issues. if they want to fix all of the mistake, in their tax giveaway. so in other words, there has to be a price. well, if i were adopting the approach of my democratic colleagues, then when my colleague from hawaii comes down and makes this request, i could say, well, you need to come up with $50 billion worth of

republican priorities. maybe $50 billion worth of capital gains tax cuts. or $50 billion in reduction in some kind of mandatory spending or something. that's what i would do if i were taking the exact same approach that our democratic colleagues took. i'm not going to do that. i'm going to suggest that we both get what we're after here and the american people get the benefit. so here's what i'm going to do. i'm going to modify the unanimous consent request and i'm going to take the bill advocated by the senator from hawaii, drop it into a legislative vehicle, add the technical fix that i and 66 senators support, and by the way 297 house members have cosponsored the companion legislation, including 145 democrat house members. i'm going to put them together in an otherwise empty legislative vehicle so that we can do both fnlgt and when -- do both. and when we pass it here in the

senate by unanimous consent in just a moment if we do, then the house would virtually be assured of passage since 297 house members have cosponsored this legislation. so, mr. president, my suggestion is we modify this unanimous consent request so that the senator from hawaii gets the provision that he wants and i get the provision that 66 senators want. so i ask that the senator modify his request so the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 157, h.r. 748. i further ask that the toomey amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, the bill as amended be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: does the senator so modify his request? mr. schatz: reserving the right to object. let's just get clear about what's happening here. the first thing is we did something momentous as a congress. we on a bipartisan basis decided to provide paid parental leave

of 12 weeks for the federal workforce. 2.1 million federal workforce so that individuals who are parents, new parents don't have to make that impossible choice between receiving a paycheck and being a new dad or a new mom. now, this is catching us up with the rest of the world. the rest of the industrialized world understands that this isn't just a humane thing to do for families. this is the right way to manage a workforce because you get higher productivity. you get better morale. and you get lower turnover. so this is the smart thing to do. so there were 2.1 million people covered by this momentous change in federal policy agreed upon over the last 48 hours on a bipartisan basis. but there was a technical problem. and so the following federal employees are not going to be covered unless we make this technical fix. employees of the d.c. courts, public defenders, presidential

appointees, f.a.a. and t.s.a. employees, and article 1 judges. everybody else will get 12 weeks of paid parental leave except for these people and we can solve that today. that's what my unanimous consent request is all about. what the senator from pennsylvania has decided to do is take a hostage and say these are the only federal employees who are not growing to get this benefit because of a technical drafting error because i didn't get something totally unrelated that has to do with a tax bill that was passed on purely partisan lines in a hurry, written primarily by lobbyists in the middle of the night. now, i don't mind entertaining a change to the tax code to deal with this question of how you expense the renovation of restaurants and retail operations. but i think senator wyden is exactly right. i guess the senator from pennsylvania thought this was a talking point on the republican side to say i -- heaven for fend

there should be a negotiation. heaven for fend that something that is important to the republicans that is as a result of their screw-up and would cost tens of billions of dollars would not be given away for free. now, the argument being made is hey, technical for technical. this is an actual technical fix. this is a bill we just enacted in the last 48 hours. i'm not even shower if the -- even sure if the president has signed it yet. but it's about to be enacted into law. and nobody is arguing that we should not cover some small portion of the federal workforce. nobody is arguing it was the legislative intent. nobody is arguing that that's public policy. what the senator from pennsylvania is saying is if i don't get my thing, then these people don't get the help that they deserve. these people by happenstance of a drafting error don't get paid parental leave. now, this has human consequences. and so i object to the senator's

modification of my unanimous consent request, and i am deeply disappointed that we can't fix this simple thing. i'm happy to work with the senator from pennsylvania on a quick fix. i think we will get there at some point next year, but this has to be part of a broader bipartisan deal and he knows that. this is going to cost tens of billions of dollars and nobody gives away tens of billions of dollars for nothing. everything of that magnitude has to be negotiated on a bipartisan, bicameral basis. and that's not what he's trying to do. he's trying to say because we made a technical error that's monumentally wrong and as a result of a flawed process, that why don't we trade technical fixes. this is a relatively small technical fix. and he wants to trade it for a massive technical fix that is now two years old. the other thing i would say, this may be small in the context of how we operate in the united states senate. it's not small if you work for the f.a.a. and you're a new dad.

it's not small if you're an article 1 judge and you're a new mom. it's not small for these people who deserve paid parental leave like every other federal employee will get soon. the presiding officer: the objection is heard to the modification. is there objection to the original request? mr. toomey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator for pennsylvania. mr. toomey: i'm kind of shocked by what i just heard. that i'm characterized as taking a hostage. let's just be very clear. i am the senator on the floor who is proposing that both senators get their way, that the outcome works for both sides. this is a democratic priority. some republicans support it. some don't. it's a democratic priority and a mistake that was made. and i'm suggesting let's fix it. and let's take the opportunity to also fix something that 66 senators have supported.

they've cosponsored it. there's even broader support, much broader in the house where it's like massive. i don't know what's more reasonable than a very broadly bipartisan technical fix that scores at zero and helps every single community in america and tying that with an opportunity to do something that's a very high priority for my colleague from hawaii. so since we -- my colleague from hawg refuses to -- from hawaii refuses to allow us both to accomplish this, i hope we can do it at another time and i object to his request. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator for oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, as -- on another subject, even though i'm very close to this subject in that i chair the armed services committee and that's where all this really began, i do want to mention one thing

about what happened this morning. i think our leader over here mitch mcconnell did a superb job. he made it very clear on the impeachment that took place last night, it's something that's not happened before. it's the first time it's happened and there's no impeachable offense and it's -- nonetheless, i think it was all driven by hatred. when you stop and think here it is right before christmas and hatred has driven that. it is wrong. but, you know, i want to mention something significant that you haven't thought of, i say to the president. and that is this 353rd day of the year is very significant. that's december 19. and people have not stopped to realize the significant things that have happened on december 19 throughout our history and the history of the world. go all the way back on december 19, at 11:54, henry ii became

king of england. we hadn't really thought about the fact what does that mean to us today but we will before long. in 1843, december 19, again charles dickens wrote what was it? "the christmas carol," right? it's the most watched, listened to event every christmas. and in 1932, december 19, the british broadcasting cooperation, the bbc began transmitting overseas. that was the beginning of a whole new world of knowledge and understanding. in 1950, december 19, nato named general dwight d. eisenhower as supreme commander of the western european defense forces. then in 1972, december 19, apollo 17, the last of the apollo moon landings returned to earth. and then december 19 of 1984,

and i remember this well because i was in hong kong when this happened. that was when china signed an accord returning hong kong to the chinese sovereignty, something that a lot of people thought was good at the time except the people from hong kong. and i was there and look what's happened now after all these years. anyway, i would have to say that hysteria has continued to this day. then in 1998, december 19, united states president bill clinton was impeached. i was there at that one, too. and we have something to compare it with now. but that was december 19, 1998. but the event that is more significant by a landslide is nothing -- is what happened on december 19, 1959. on december 19, 1959, my wife kay and i got married. that makes this the 60th

anniversary of our wedding. and just look at all the beauty that has followed us, 20 kids and grandkids. all of that in that 60-year period of time. so what i want to say is the beautiful life that we're still having together and i would like to say at this point that kay after 60 years, i still love you and i wish you a happy anniversary and to everyone else out there, as you celebrate the birth of jesus, merry christmas and god bless you. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator for michigan. a senator: mr. president, i rise today in support of judge stephanie dawkins davis for the u.s. district court for the eastern district of michigan. pete pete i had the honor of introducing judge davis at the senate judiciary