day and that's when they would happen and then as soon as the president-elect is sworn in and becomes the president, he signs the papers that send up the nominations formally and the senate would vote on them and it's not-- look, i think in most administrations, there's a handful or two, maybe, maybe it's a handful, that are confirmed the day after that are quickly confirmed by a voice vote or a roll call vote right after inauguration day, but there are always a couple that drag out. there are a couple that drag out because it gets more complicated or run into problems or as sara mentions there are tax issues that slow things down or a senator puts a hold on it and decides they want a roll call vote. >> the u.s. senate will be gavelling in shortly. today lawmakers will be working on executive nominations and resolutions to ban arms sales

to the united arab emirates. this week they're expected to extend government funding past this friday's midnight deadline. now, live to the floor of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. black, will open the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, we praise you that you continue to rescue us from ourselves. we will tell about the wonders you have worked on our behalf.

we are born in sin and formed by iniquity, but your power continues to transform. lord, you have kept us from stumbling and disgrace. continue to provide our senators with the blessings of your mercy and peace. lead them not into temptation but deliver them from evil. use our lawmakers to restore health and unity to a nation desperately desiring your purposes to prevail. may your favor keep us all secure. we pray in your loving name.

amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr. grassley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask for one minute for morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: on november 27,

it was an announced that the iowa international guard 158th air refueling wing in sioux city, iowa, has been awarded the air force outstanding unit award. this award was earned for the wing's exceptional service to the air force in 2019 which included the usual thousands of flying hours, refueling. but it also included things like the humanitarian efforts of this wing's effort in the multiple puerto rico natural disasters. in addition, the 185th wing has been working tirelessly to support clean up efforts from this great wind storm in iowa called the did -- duratio which

wiped out crops through the middle of iowa. but it also included such things that they may not be recognized for enough -- helping with the covid-19 testings in the state of iowa. so i say congratulations to the 185th wing, and most importantly, thank you for your dedication toking serving our state -- dedication to serving our state and country. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, the american people are hurting. we're in the thick of one of the worst national crises in modern memory, and people's eyes are fixed on congress. they need the house and senate to stop chasing our tails and make a law. there are small business employees who have held on to their jobs all this time because of the paycheck protection program but are facing the prospect they might be laid off now with vaccines just around the corner because washington fumbles the ball in the red zone. there are medically vulnerable americans who watched operation warp speed appear to succeed at an historic pace, but congress can't even agree to fully fund the distribution efforts that will get the vaccines to people.

there are americans who have been thrown out of work through no fault of their own, who are watching federal aid programs tick toward expiration in a few weeks even though neither side in congress opposes extending them. senate republicans have made one offer after another after another to try and make law on all the significant areas where nobody even disagrees. we spent july, august, september, october, and november trying different ways to create common ground, but the speaker of the house and the senate democratic leader have been just as consistent. at every turn they've delayed, deflected, moved the goalpost, and made the huge number of places where congress agrees into a hostage, into a hostage for the few places where we do not agree.

back in the summertime i pointed out the obvious. i said leading democrats simply simply -- they just didn't want any more help to reach american families before the election occurred. the other side claimed great offense. how insulting to even suggest such cynicism might be at play. and now they are admitting it out loud. yesterday on cnn the democratic whip was asked point-blank by the speaker and the democratic leader request they were willing to play ball in the autumn. the number-two democrat responded, quote, there was some exuberance involved because an election was coming. he gets points for candor. because an election was coming. a few days ago speaker pelosi told reporters why she reversed months of statements and suddenly began discussing comparatively more reasonable sums of money. her answer was simple.

she thinks the presidential election went the way she wanted the speaker of the house views it as a success that she de -- denied struggling people relief they badly needed for months because she thinks she got the political result she was after. i count no fewer than ten times that democrats refused to jump-start the process. here is a partial sampling. in july republicans sketched a comprehensive plan for safe schools, jobs and health care. we could have made law in july, but the democratic leader wouldn't even engage with it. just before august republicans tried to at least extend unemployment aid before it expired. democrats blocked that as well. in september we tried something else, a targeted effort to spend hundreds of billions of dollars for p.p.p., vaccine

development and other priorities. every democrat voted to block us from even debating it. and they did it a second time a month later, in october. last week, after speaking with the administration, i made yet another overture. the democratic leader said no thanks. and just yesterday the speaker and the democratic leader brushed off two different overtures in the space of about two hours. i suggested both sides drop what seemed to be the most controversial demand in the eyes of our counterparts. democrats continue to oppose commonsense legal protections that university presidents having begging for, and republicans see no need to send huge sums of money to state and local governments whose tax revenues have actually gone up. gone up. negotiating 101 suggests we set those two controversial pieces aside and plow ahead with a huge pile of things that we agree

on, but that would require both sides to truly want to get an outcome. just hours after democrats poured cold water on that, secretary mnuchin tried another new tact and sent over an offer. and in a bizarre and schizophrenic press release, the speaker and the leader said the administration was obstructing negotiations by negotiating. two more brush offs in about two hours. more deflection, more delay, and more suffering for innocent americans. can anyone point to a single sign, a single sign from april through now that democratic leaders have seriously wanted another bipartisan deal to become law? can anybody name one way? just one. the democratic leaders would have based differently if their

singular goal was to kill any compromise. that hypothetical world looks suspiciously like the world we've been living in. we have the speaker of the house from san francisco who spent months ensuring that unemployed californians can't have jobless aid extended and california restaurants can't get another round of p.p.p. unless the governor of california gets a federal slush fund out of proportion to any proven need. the working families agree they should not get any more help themselves unless the governors and state legislatures get a controversial bailout? are struggling americans saying thank goodness the democrats are bravely, bravely blocking health care for me hand my family unless state politicians gets more cash? i'd say not. our people need more help. it is a huge list of helpful policies that both sides agree

on. this need not be rocket science. but we can't do a thing unless the democrats decide they actually want to make a law. now, mr. president, on another matter entirely, last week the struggle to preserve freedom and autonomy in hong kong was dealt another disturbing blow. on thursday gym jimmy lye a pro-democracy activist was denied bail. the chinese communist party continues to crack down on free speech. unfortunately, the c.c.p. has just marshaled new tools for making its oppression even more stifling. internationally, we've seen the chinese communist party find more success exporting its warped vision into the global public square than the free world has had getting beijing to

respect the rules of the road. in the last four years, thanks to the administration's leadership and this senate, we have begun exchanging the old nay -- naive for a smarter approach. the u.s. is committed to deter a new wave of threats from peer competitors like china and russia. reforms to our budgets and policies are under a way. we've used ndaa's and appropriations to invest in a military that is prepared to meet and defeat these athletes. maintaining our edge will mean sustaining these reforms along with strong diplomacy to counter china's influence. in coordination with the executive branch, our intelligence committee has highlighted the need for everyone to strengthen their defenses against the c.c.p.'s espionage, intellectual property theft and political influence campaigns. senators cornyn and feinstein in particular have led bipartisan

efforts to reform cfius and protect against predatory foreign investments l aimed at threatening or stealing high-tech and critical infrastructure. allied countries are following our lead. and public and private sector cooperation has improved. to defend the institutions, alliances, and international orders, the c.c.p. wants to disrupt. the administration's worked with international partners to ensure the security of 5g, reassert freedom of navigation in the south china sea, and block harmful elements of china's exploitive belt and road initiative. of course, more needs to be done. particularly on human rights, the treatment of hong kongers, and the spotlight reminds the world of the ways we know beijing is treating uighurs and tibetans in the shadows. and if china treats its own citizens with brutal violence, just think how it plans to treat

its neighbors. so i welcome the latest sanctions imposed by the administration and the latest authorities granted by congress. we are raising the stakes for china's repression, but our work isn't over. our partners will continue to look to us to lead with a tone of zero tolerance for this behavior. the united states must continue to work alongside china's peaceful neighbors and our democratic allies like japan and australia. we must give voice to those in hong kong and tibet who have been repressed and jailed. we must stand against the worst instincts and actions of the communist party. now, on one final matter. last week, students and families in kentucky were met with tragic news. on friday, manny caulk, the superintendent of fayette county schools, passed away unexpectedly. manny was the first member of his family to graduate from college. in 2015, he assumed

responsibility for the second largest school district in kentucky. an education had changed his life, literally, and he wanted to share that gift with others, and by all accounts, he did just that. manny encouraged his students to aim high, help them -- helped them exceed expectations, starting with his first students in a county detention center. and in 2018, his colleagues chose him as kentucky's superintendent of the year. i was glad to have manny's partnership as we worked to protect kentucky families from covid-19. at every step, he kept focused on the well-being of lexington students. over the weekend, condolences poured in as we reflected on manny's lasting contributions. i'd like to add the senate's gratitude for this top tier educator. our prayers are with manny's wife, crystal, and their children at this very difficult time.

i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: mr. thune: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. than you thune mauck -- mr. thune: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the leadership time is reserve. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the

senate will resume consideration of the following nomination which the clerk will report. the presiding officer: nomination, federal election commission, allen dickerson, of the district of columbia to be a member. mr. thune: mr. president, i'm hoping that we will be able to pass a covid relief bill before christmas. as the leader has said earlier, we don't need to resolve all of our differences to pass a bill. we can pass targeted legislation that focuses on the priorities that we all agree need to be addressed. as the leader pointed out earlier this morning on the floor, mr. president, republicans here in the senate have tried repeatedly going back to last summer to move legislation that is targeted, that is fiscally responsible, that addresses the key needs that are being experienced and challenges that are being felt by the american people during the pandemic. in fact, as recently as october, we had a majority of united states senators here on the floor that attempted to get on a

bill, a targeted fiscally responsible bill that addressed the needs of our small businesses -- that our small businesses have with additional funding fosh the p.p.p. -- funding for the p.p.p. program and provided funding for people unemployed, provided funding for vaccine distribution and funding for frontline workers and funding for schools and universities. it was a very targeted fiscally responsible bill. and, mr. president, it was voted on here in the senate not just once but twice, both in september and october we brought a bill to the floor and couldn't even get on it because the democrat leadership decided to block that bill. and so we didn't even have a debate. not only could we not get a vote on something that represented a good-faith effort at addressing the key needs that are being felt by the american people as a result of the pandemic, we couldn't even get on the bill to

debate it. so, mr. president, we are trying yet one more time and i hope this time we will meet with success because i do believe that we need to pass covid relief before the end of the year and i hope members of the democrat leadership will decide that they are willing to move forward to meet our country's most critical covid priorities. on the subject of covid relief, there is another issue we should address before the end of the year and that is tax relief for remote and mobile workers. the complex tax situation facing mobile workers has been an issue for al while. as everyone knows medical professionals from around the country have traveled to hard-hit areas this year to deal with the influx of covid cases. but what many people don't realize is these medical professionals, like other mobile workers, are likely to face a complicated tax situation this year as a result.

for the majority of americans tax income taxes are fairly uncomplicated. most don't have a question as to what state will tax their income. for mobile workers, however, like traveling nurses or technicians or the medical professionals who responded to covid in hard-hit areas, the situation is a lot more complicated. like most americans, their income is subject to tax in a state where their home is located. but any income earned other than their state of residence is also subject to taxation in state in which they earned it. now individuals can generally receive a tax credit in their home state for income tax paid to another state thus avoiding double taxation of their income. i would add, however, that for states that don't have an income tax and there are many of those across the country, including my home state of south dakota, there is no tax credit against income tax paid because there is no income tax paid in the home

state. but mobile workers income tax situation is extremely complicated as they generally have to file tax returns in multiple states. and it's made even more complicated by the fact that states have a multitude of different rules governing just when income earned in their state starts to be taxed. some states give up to a 60-day window before income earned by mobile workers in their state is subject to taxation, other states start taxing mobile workers immediately. navigating states taxes -- can also be a real burden for their employers. it's particularly challenging for smaller businesses who frequently lack the in-house tax staff and tracking capabilities of larger organizations. the situation, mr. president, has long cried out for a solution. for the last four congresses i introduced legislation, the mobile tax simplification act to

create a standard for mobile workers. as it bipartisan bill and under that bill if you spend 30 days or fewer workerring in a -- working in a different state you would be taxed as normal by your home state. if you spend more than 30 days working in a state other than home state you would be subject to income tax from that state. i introduced an updated version of my mobile workforce bill, the remote worker relief act. like my original bill, the remote mobile and worker leaf act would have a 30-day standard governing state tax liability for mobile workers. my new bill goes further and addresses some of the issues faced by mobile workers as a result of the covid virus. this would establish a special 90-day standard for health care workers who travel to another state to help during the pandemic. this should ensure that these

workers don't face an unexpected tax bill for the contributions that they make to fighting the coronavirus. my new bill also addresses the possible tax complications that could face remote workers as a result of the pandemic. during the coronavirus crisis, many workers who usually travel to their offices every day have ended up working from home. it presents a possible problem for workers who live in a different state than the one they work in. under current state laws these workers pay most or call of -- all of their state income taxes to the state they earn their income rather than their state of residence. some workers who usually work in a different state who work from home, there is a risk that their state could have the working income allocated to and taxed by it as well. that could mean a higher tax bill for a lot of workers, mr. president. my bill would preempt this

problem by codifying the prepandemic status quo. under my bill, if you plan to work in north carolina but had to work from home in south carolina during the pandemic, your income would still be taxed as if you were going into the office in north carolina every day just as it would have been if the pandemic had never happened. mr. president, relief for mobile workers is a bipartisan idea. a version of my original mobile workforce bill has passed the house of representatives multiple times and the only reason it hasn't advanced so far in the united states senate is because of the opposition of a handful of states like in new york that aggressive tax temporary workers. new york, of course, was the epicenter of pandemic of the united states early on and medical professionals from across the country came to new york to work and to help out. one would think, mr. president, that their presence would be an indication for -- occasion for

profound gratitude, but new york governor andrew cuomo apparently also regards them as an opportunity for a tax windfall. that's right, despite the fact that these workers provided indispensable help to new york during the worst period during the pandemic, in may governor cuomo announced that these workers would be subject to new york's substantial income tax for the time they spent working in the state. mr. president, it's unconscionable that we would allow health care professionals who risked their lives, risked their own lives, mr. president, to care for individuals in coronavirus-stricken states to be punished with unexpected tax bills. and we need to make sure that americans who work from home to help slow the spread of the virus don't face a complicated tax situation or an unexpectedly high tax bill as a result.

it will be -- would be wonderful to see the democrat leader, who, of course, hails from new york, speak up to endorse remote and mobile worker relief. he should make it clear, whether he greece -- agrees with governor cuomo's decision to cash in on relief workers assistance or if they should be spared unexpected tax bills. i really hope that he is not actively standing in the way of my bill in order to protect governor cuomo's efforts to boost new york coffers at health care workers' expense. i encourage him to make it clear where he stands on this issue. mr. president, i intend to do everything i can to ensure that my bill receives a vote in the senate before christmas. passing this legislation would spare a lot of workers a lot of misery when april comes around. mr. president, americans have

been through enough this year. let's not add unexpected tax bills to the equation. mr. president, as if in legislation session, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on help be discharged from further consideration of s. 3451, and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: a bill to improve the health and safety of americans living with food allergies related disorders and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. thune: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the scott, of south carolina, amendment be tbreed to, the -- agreed to, the bill, as amended

be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: thank you, mr. president.

mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: we're not in a quorum call. mr. durbin: thank you, mr. president. march 23 -- march 23 has been a long time from this date, and a lot of things have happened in

america since march 23. over 200,000 american lives have been lost. millions of americans have been infected with the covid virus. our families have changed, our lives have changed. we've tried to adjust to the worst pandemic america has seen. we know that we've fallen short many times providing the resources that were needed in a timely way. i can remember in the early stages of this pandemic when in my state of illinois, there were desperate phone calls from the governor asking if i could find some way to help in washington or any other place to provide protective equipment for the people in the health care field. we know as well that many people have seen businesses close in their communities. in my hometown of springfield,

illinois, our favorite restaurant is clinging to its business life, and we're finding excuses to order food out as often as possible to keep them open. others haven't been so lucky. their businesses have closed and their jobs have disappeared. millions of americans are drawing unemployment. many are waiting in long lines for food. desperate decisions are being made because people are in desperate circumstances. a lot has happened since march 23. the reason i mention that date was that was the day we passed the cares act. it was a momentous, historic effort. $3 trillion to try to rescue this economy to help the american people through this crisis, to provide resources where needed. and it was overwhelmingly bipartisan. it passed the senate by 96-0.

since then many things have happened, but we've also learned that the cares act was not enough. we thought this crisis would end long ago, and it didn't. perhaps now with vaccines coming on line, we'll see some dramatic changes in the few months ahead. but what are we going to do in the meantime? are we going to continue to help those drawing unemployment? are we going to continue to help the businesses that are struggling to survive and to help their employees make it through another week or another month? are we going to do what's necessary to help state and local governments who have seen losses in their revenues in historic terms? are we going to take care to provide the logistical support for the actual vaccinations that are necessary across america?

that question is unanswered because we have done nothing, nothing since march 23. so a group of senators several weeks ago met for a socially distanced, safe dinner at one of the homes of my colleagues and talked about another approach, a new approach, a bipartisan approach to try to deal with covid relief. if the leaders were unable to act, perhaps we could start the conversation. i signed up for that effort with a number of republican senators and democratic senators, and we set out to write a covid relief bill with our staff help, of course. i didn't realize what i was getting into in terms of time commitment. we have spent literally hours after hour after hour, day after day after day, multiple

times in a day sometimes dealing with the difficult issues of what america needs now in emergency relief because of this covid-19 crisis. we've come to a general conclusion on all but one issue as to what we would propose, and we believe it should be dob quickly. you see, on december 26, 12 million americans will lose their unemployment insurance. businesses struggling now will close between now and then if we don't do something. unfortunately the speech given by the republican leader on the floor this morning suggests that whatever we came up with and proposed is not going to be taken seriously. that's unfortunate. i think there's real wisdom,

bipartisan compromise in our proposal. it is within the power of the republican leader to call this matter to the floor, and that's all we ask. make it subject to amendment if you wish, but let's get this debate underway. this silent, empty chamber is no answer to the cries of american people who are desperate for help in the midst of this pandemic. political posturing and press releases from one side or the other won't put food on the table, won't give a father peace of mind, won't give a mother the help she needs in child, won't give a student the broadband service they need to continue their education. there's an issue that still is unresolved, and it's the issue of liability. we don't know what to do washington, but we -- what to do with that but we ought to look at the evidence. with 15 million people infected

with covid-19, fewer than three lawsuits per state -- three per state -- have been filed in medical malpractice or personal injury claims. there are a lot other lawsuits between businesses with insurance companies by prisoners in jail saying their confinement is dangerous to their health, people filing lawsuits against governors for issuing orders to stay at home and close down businesses. but when it comes to the personal injury claims, there are very few, very few. we know why, those of us who have been involved in the practice of law. one of the things that you have to prove to recover in a case is causation. that is rare in a case dealing with coronavirus, to be able to pinpoint exactly when you became infected and what the circumstances are. that's why so few lawsuits have been filed. the senator from kentucky is insisting that there be immunity

to liability as part of any agreement. it is a thorny topic, a difficult topic, a controversial topic, but i plead with him to hold to another day the overall issue of liability. accept this emergency bill that we have put together as a bipartisan group of senators to address this issue in the reality of the world that we live. to hold it back because of some other major issue that has not been resolved is unfair to american families and workers and students and health workers. we owe it to them to do everything in our power to help them now. how can we in good conscience go home for christmas knowing that the day after christmas 12 million americans will see their unemployment insurance disappear because of our inability to act? what kind of spirit is that of any holiday season?

i think we need to be mindful of the fact that there are a lot of helpless people counting on us to do something. i hope we realize that this bipartisan effort put together by a group of senators which i've been honored to be a part of is a good-faith effort to answer the basic questions of what is needed now in america and what is needed on an emergency basis. it's a good bill, far from perfect. it deserves a vote on the floor of the united states senate. if senator mcconnell has another proposal that he wants to put on the floor as well, he certainly has that right as the majority leader. but to close the door on this bipartisan effort is to reject a good-faith undertaking by senators from both sides of the aisle, democrats and republicans. i plead with the majority leader, let's not claim some political victory when this is all over at the expense of a lot

of helpless people across america who are battling this pandemic. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. hawley: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hawley: in a few minutes

we'll be voting on nominations to the federal election commission, one of which is of personal interest to me. it is the nomination of sean j. cooksey to be a commissioner of that body. i know sean personally because i have had the great privilege of working with sean for the last two years while he has served as the general counsel in my office. sean is a native missourian. he comes from the eastern part of the state, just north of st. louis. he's a proud graduate of truman state university in the state of missouri. he comes from a working family there in the state. his family still lives there. sean has rendered exceptional service to me this last year and a half. in fact, when i came to the senate, mr. president, not even two years ago, i have to say sean had more experience than i did, having served in this body for several years before on the office, on the staff of senator ted cruz of texas. sean has done absolutely outstanding work in the last year and a half in my office, helping us pass important

legislation, including my first bill signed ney law in the senate -- signed into law in the senate, the supporting and treating officers in crisis act. this is a law that will direct new funding to police officers, other law enforcement all across the state of missouri and across the nation to get the help and support they need when they're exposed to violence, when they're exposed to situations that require follow up help, counseling, gets them the resources especially in small and rural areas like those across my state. sean was instrumental in drafting this legislation, in getting it passed. and it was a proud day almost a year and a half ago when president trump signed that bill into law. this is just one example of the outstanding service sean has rendered not just to my office, but to the people of missouri. and not just to the people of missouri, but to the people of the united states. and that's why while i am sorry to see sean go on a personal level, i'm absolutely delighted for the country, because my

loss is going to be the gain of the united states of america. so i want to congratulate sean on this nomination on what i think will soon be his confirmation in just a few moments' time. i want to congratulate his family. this is a proud day for them. i believe sean will be the youngest member of the federal election commission, maybe in the history of that body, and, mr. president, i can't think of anyone more deserving, and i know that he will render distinguished service to the country in this capacity. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question is on the dickerson nomination. mr. hawley: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: is there any senator in the chamber wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not, the yeas are 49, the nays are 47. the nomination is confirmed. the clerk will report the next nomination. the clerk: federal election commission, shana m. broussard

of louisiana to be a member. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question occurs on the broussard nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: have all senators voted? does any senator wish to change their vote? the yeas are 92, the nays are 4.

the nomination is confirmed. the clerk will report the next nomination. the clerk: nomination, federal election commission, sean j. cooksey, of virginia, to be a member. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question occurs on the cooksey nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: have all senators voted?

any senator wish to change their vote? the yeas are 50, the nays are 46. the nomination sl qirld. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. the senate will resume legislative session.

mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senate minority leader. mr. schumer: now, the most important item on the senate's to-do list before the end of the year is a bipartisan emergency relief package for a nation

suffering the worst month of the covid-19 pandemic. negotiations continue between a bipartisan group of senate and house members who last week agreed in principle 0en a $900 -- on a $900 billion-plus emergency relief proposal. as the details continue to get sorted, speaker pelosi and i have encouraged everyone to use this bipartisan proposal as a framework for negotiations. yesterday the white house presented us an offer of similar size, around $900 billion, an enccurringing sign that the republican leadership is moving in the right direction by endorsing the size of the gang of eight's bill. but the president's proposal must not be allowed to supersede or obstruct the bipartisan congressional talks that are under way. that is where the real action is. and where bipartisan agreement on the basic concepts will ultimately be forged. the president's proposal, for instance, completely misses the mark on unemployment benefits and aid to american families.

in order to include $600 stimulus checks, it actually cuts proposed unemployment benefits by greater than a factor of four, from $180 billion to just $40 billion, an unacceptably low amount while tens of millions of americans remain out of work. almost all of whom have lost their jobs because of covid. economists from every end of the spectrum, including the conservative u.s. chamber of commerce, are warning us that the united states faces the prospect of a double-dip recession without another around of emergency stimulus. earlier in the pandemic, it helped keep 12 million americans out of poverty and propped up consumer spending. we shouldn't be cutting unemployment benefits now as the president's team proposes. we should be extending them. now, the republican leader, as usual, gave a very angry speech

this this morning accusing democrats of all manner of things including blocking aid to thwart president trump. i don't know what evidence he has of that, but there are actual reports -- honest-to-god reports -- in the "washington times" and "washington post" that the president was willing to cut a deal before the election. mcconnell warns white house against making stimulus deal as pelosi and mnuchin inch closer, unquote. that's from october 20, two weeks before the election. meanwhile, democrats have continually lowered our proposals, now by over $2 trillion, to move closer to our republican colleagues in the spirit of compromise and for the sake of getting something done for the american people. it would do a whole lot of good if the republican leader would drop the daily tirades and diatribes which seem to be based on some alternative reality and join the rest of the senate in

urging the bipartisan negotiations now underway to continue. families all over the country are nearing a point of desperation, unable to put food on the table, a roof over their children's heads. by january, nearly 12 million renters will owe an average of nearly $6,000 in back rent and utilities, a shocking figure. we need to deliver an emergency relief package to keep american families, workers, and businesses afloat until the crisis finally begins to subside. the only way to get that done is in a bipartisan fashion -- the sooner the republican leader realizes it, the better. now, on biden nominations, president biden continues to roll out an impressive slate of secretaries-designate to lead cabinets in his administration a yesterday he selected you astin

to lead the largest cabinetnation our government. secretary austin, secretary-designate austin is a familiar face to many of us on capitol hill. he is a familiar face to many in the north country, in new york. he's the former commander of the 10th mountain division at fort drum, the pride of jefferson county. like all of president bindis designees, secretary austin is deeply experienced and familiar with our nation's national security, as well as many issues that face our service members and their families each and every day. lloyd austin served our nation for more than four decades and his willingness to serve his country again is admirable. he will make an excellent secretary of defense. now, an hour ago, i met with president biden-elect's economic team by tellly conference, including secretary designate of treasury janet yellen to discuss

priorities for the incoming administration. how to get our economy back on track. i urged them, once president biden becomes president, to go bold. austerity is not what america needs, but a bold program to stimulus lawsuit our economy and get things moving, to help get people jobs, good-paying jobs, because our economy is suffering. i look forward to our continued conversations. a few weeks ago i predicted that we'd see some crocodile tears from the republican majority about biden's cabinet nominees, but i didn't think it would occur this fast. it began when several republican senators raised some objections over neera tanden's sweirt feed. after four years of pretending that they didn't see president trump's latest online outburst, it seems that senate republicans have rediscovered their twitter passwords now that joe biden is the president-elect.

this week, after president-elect biden announced that javier besir a is his next pick to be the secretary of h.h.s., republican senators raised concerns in their minds about becerra's qualifications. the senior senator from texas said, i'm not sure what his health and human service credentials are. it's not like alex azar who worked for pharma. with all due respect to the senior senator from texas, working for the pharmaceutical industry is not the only way to get experience in health care. some might argue it's exactly the wrong kind of experience for an h.h.s. secretary. the truth is, xavier javier bess eminently qualified. he has a particularly long track record as an advocate of women's health. as attorney general of california, he became one of the foremost legal experts on our nation's health care laws.

i must say, it's particularly rich for this republican majority to raise concerns about whether biden cabinet nominees have every last pristine qualification for their posts. not so long ago, every -- nearly every republican in this chamber lined up to make an oil executive the secretary of state. i don't remember too many republican concerns when president trump nominated a retired neurosurgeon to be secretary of h.u.d. or when he put rick perry in charge of the department of energy, an agency he wanted to abolish before learning it maintained the nation's nuclear stockpile and that he would be in charge of it. if memory serves, this senate republican majority confirmed a secretary of education whose only qualification for the job was she used her inherited fortune to try and privatize american schooling. look, the country needs to move past -- move on from the past four years.

but senate republicans can't pretend like it never happened. after the sordid caliber of nominees that this republican majority confirmed over the past four years, it will be impossible -- impossible -- to take these complaints about biden's nominees very seriously. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator for new jersey. mr. menendez: is there a quorum call, mr. president? i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, first, pursuant to the arms export control act of 1976, i move to discharge the foreign relations committee from further consideration of s.j. res. 77, a joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale to the united emirates of certain defense articles and services. the presiding officer: the motion is pending. mr. menendez: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, today i am asking our colleagues to stand up for two very important principles.

one is the congressional oversight over arms sales abroad, and secondly, to ensure that these sales, in fact, promote and protect the long-term national security of the united states. now, colleagues, i wish we didn't find ourselves in the position of having to discuss our concerns with this sale in this kind of form. the united arab emirates has, indeed, been an important partner in the fight against terrorism across the region and i believe will continue to do so. however, a sale of this magnitude requires the appropriate due diligence. for the past few decades -- decades -- the executive branch has respective congressional

oversight of the armed sales process, a critical piece which is an informal review period where we get answers to pressing questions. we have an opportunity to review sensitive information so that when sales come up with a formal notification, which is what we have before us now, we have a clearer path forward. unfortunately, in this case, the trump administration decided to simply ignore congressional rights here in the review process, formally notifying the sales of these complex weapons systems along with other weaponry totaling $23 billion. beyond obliterating the congressional review process, the administration also seems to have rush through the interagency review of a sale of this magnitude. whereas a sale of this scope would normally merit months and

months of detailed deliberations between the departments of defense and state, this sale was announced with more missing than a few dotted i's and crossed t's. i'll go into more detail later before we vote, but the bottom line is that there are many outstanding issues critical to u.s. -- u.s. national security that have not been addressed, including by way of example the united arab emirates' present and future military relationships with russia and china. my understanding is that there's negotiations to have with china an airstrip for chinese military off of the u.a.e. is that in the national interests and security of the united states? should we not have a definitive commitment from the u.a.e. that that will not move forward, if these arms sales move forward,

including the most sophisticated stealth jet fighter that we have? how do we work to saab u.s. technology -- to safeguard u.s. technology? the guarantees we will have in place about how u.s.-origin weapons will be used given the emiratis history of transferring weapons to a terrorist organization and violating the u.n. arms embargo in libya. the longer-term implications of an arms race in the region and then, yes, the impact that could have on both hour and israel's qualitative military edge. if we aren't going to be willing to ask these questions, then we have to think about the magnitude of the sale without caring about the consequences. now, i have heard a number of my colleagues advocate in support of these sales because they believe that it will help our like-minded partners better

posture against iran. now, no one is more clear-eyed in this chamber or has pursued iran and its threat of nuclear weapons more than i, and we are career-eyed about the threat iran continues to pose to u.s. national security interests. but we have yet to understand exactly what military threat the f-35's or armed drones will be addressing vis-a-vis iran. furthermore, according to the trump administration, as recently as last year the u.a.e. continued to host a number of companies who facilitate -- facilitate -- iranian financial transactions in violation of various u.s. sanctions. so iran is a threat, but you're helping them facilitate u.s. financial transactions. not that i said so, but the trump administration said so. meanwhile, iran over the past year has ramped up its nuclear

exacts amidst american diplomatic fallout. so if we really want to talk about countering iran, we need a comprehensive diplomatic strategy. arming partners with complex weapon systems that could take years -- years -- to come online is not a serious strategy to confront the very real and timely threats from iran. i've also heard from some of our colleagues who are argue that if we do not sell these weapons, the u.a.e. will turn to china and russia. well, let's be clear. they already do. they already do. our own department of defense inspector general recently reported that the u.a.e. may be funding the russian mercenary wagner group in libya. u.n. reporting implicates the

u.a.e.'s use of chinese chinese-manufactured drones in violation of the u.n. arms embargo also in libya. so while i absolutely agree that we have to counter chinese and russian influence in the region, again, this requires a real strategy; not simply more arms. isn't this a conversation and a commitment that we should get from the u.a.e. in write being as part of -- in writing as part of such an arms sale? we don't have that. furthermore, if we did forward with these sales yet deny similar requests to countries such as qatar and saudi arabia, where there they go for their advanced weaponry to keep pace? and what reaction will iran have to them? and do we really think that we can sell this just to the u.a.e. and not have those other countries come knocking on our door and start a very sophisticated arms race in the

tinder box of the world? final i will let me be very clear. i applaud the abraham accords as a turning point for israel and the arab world. these new foreign relationships have the possibility to transform the region much more broadly, bringing peace, stability, and prosperity for people who desperately want and deserve it. but as the administration and the emiratis have continued to stress, these sales are not a reward, nor are they part of these accords. so why can't we take a little more time to really assess the best way forward? you know, we are in the midst of promoting a sale -- this is the

administration -- that has some of the most significant transfer of advanced u.s. technology without clarity of a number of the key details regarding the sale or sufficient answers to critical national security questions. this is far more than about congressional prerogative, although i would argue that that is a critical element our policies on arms sales. this is about national security concerns that we should have an answer to before those arms sales move forward. again, colleagues, the bottom line is this -- there are far too many outstanding questions and very serious questions about long-term u.s. national security interests. perhaps after considerable engagement with the executive, we would assess that all these sales do in fact advance our national security. given the lengths of time it will take for delivery of these

systems, it would seem quite reasonable -- quite reasonable -- to expect 40 days to evaluate these questions. so i urge my colleagues to stand up for congress' role in the process of determining arms sales as well as for having a clear answer to the critical questions that are posed to long-term u.s. national security interests. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. i observe the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator for connecticut. mr. murphy: we are in a quorum call. i ask that it be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: thank you very much, mr. president. mr. president, i'm on the floor today to speak to resolutions upon which we will begin voting today regarding arms sales proposed by the administration to the united arab emirates, and i'm on the floor today to ask my colleagues to support these resolutions of disapproval upon

two grounds. one, the protection of congressional prerogative. and two, the question of u.s. national security. first, let me cover the question of congressional prerogative. we have traditionally debated arms sales here on occasion, and the reason why we don't have constant debates in this body on arms sales, the reason why we don't have resolutions on every sale that is noticed by the administration is because we have built into our practice an ability for the senate to consult with the administration beforehand on a bipartisan basis. over the years, since the passage of the law allowing for congress to have a role in the sale of arms to foreign nations, administration after administration, republicans and democrats, has observed a period

of consultation with congress in which the administration comes to the senate foreign relations committee, comes to the house foreign relations committee, presents the reasons for the sale, and then addresses concerns raised often in a bipartisan manner by republicans and democrats. again this has happened in both democratic and republican administrations with democratic and republican congresses, and often that consul at a timive process results -- consultative process results in the issue being resolved so you never have to have a vote on the senate floor. something different happened with this sale. the administration was so desperate to rush through the sale before the end of their administration that they blew through the consultation process. it just didn't happen. there was no ability for the senate foreign relations committee to weigh in on this particular sale. it was rushed to notice, and our only option was to bring it before the full senate.

now, under any circumstances, i would argue that the senate should stand up for our right to have a role. the reason that we built in this consultative process was because the senate was unhappy with the amount of input it had decades ago and was threatening to dramatically expand its oversight role on arm sales, and instead a deal was worked out in which the administration said they would come for this consultation. now it appears that those consultations are no longer the practice. that reduces our role as a foreign policy-making body. and remember, we have abdicated all sorts of responsibilities over the years when it comes to what should be a coequal responsibility to set the broad direction of u.s. foreign policy with the executive branch. this would be yet another chip at -- away at congress' participation in the setting of u.s. national security policy. i'm not sure we will ever get it

back, but on this sale in particular, the consultative process was really important because this sale is as big and as hairy and as come complicates you get. we are for the first time selling f-35's, and mq-9 reaper drones into the heart of the middle east. we have never done it before. there are only 14 countries that currently operate the f-35, and almost all of them are nato allies. turkey was on the list for a period of time, but because they ended up making a choice to go with the russian missile defense system, they were taken out of the program, so the partners that remain are the ones that you would suspect -- britain, italy, the netherlands, australia, denmark, canada. there are even fewer countries that we have sold reaper drones

to -- australia, france, italy, the netherlands, spain, u.k., and india. this is the first time that we would sell these incredibly lethal, incredibly complicated technologies into the heart of the middle east. a region that arguably is not in need of more weapons. what we risk doing here is fueling an arms race. today we may be selling the f-35's and the mq-9's to the u.a.e., but the saudis are going to want it, the qataris have already requested it, and it just fuels iran's interest in building up its own military programming. but more specifically to this sale, we have to ask ourselves whether the u.a.e. is ready for this technology or whether their behavior over the past several years makes them an unworthy

partner for this set of highly complicated u.s. defense technology. i will stipulate, as i think every member of this body will, that the u.a.e. is often a very important ally of the united states. there is an important cooperative relationship that exists between the united states and the u.a.e. we share counterterrorism information together, we were both involved in the fight against isis, we worked together to counter iranian influence in the region. and of course the u.a.e.'s recognition of israel is good for the united states as well. but for as many places as we corroborate with u.a.e., there are many points of division, and those points of division often involve the use of u.s. military technology against the interests of the united states. the u.a.e. has been for years involved in a civil war in yemen

that is terrible for u.s. national security interests. they may not be as involved as they were a couple of years ago, but they are still a barrier to peace. they still refuse to make humanitarian contributions to help the situation on the ground. so far in 2020, zero dollars from the u.a.e. put into the u.n. appeal to try to fight off star vision and cholera inside yemen. at one point, they took u.s. equipment and they handed it to extremist militias inside yemen. that's open source reporting. the u.a.e. copped to it when the reporters asked them whether they had done it. they gave our equipment to militias inside a theater of war. other reports that they were dropping american-made tow missiles out of the sky into areas of that country that were controlled by al qaeda-aligned

elements. and they are right now, as we speak, in violation of the libya arms embargo. the u.n. panel of experts came to the conclusion that the majority of arms transfers into libya to the hafnar armed forces were either from jordan or the united arab emirates. the panel found that the u.a.e. was in repeated noncompliance with the arms embargo. and guess what's on the list of the weapons that the u.a.e. was transferring into libya in violation of a u.s.-supported arms embargo -- armed drones. we are talking about selling the u.a.e. the most lethal, most advanced armed drone technology in the world today, and as we speak, u.a.e. is in violation of the arms embargo to libya

fueling that civil war, specifically sending drones into that theater. and so i'm not here to say that we shouldn't be in the security business with u.a.e. there are a lot of important common projects. but the question is with a country that is part of a problem more often than part of the solution in yemen, a country that is in existing violation of an arms embargo in libya, a country that has just within the last several years transferred our weapons to al qaeda-aligned militias, without resolving those issues, is this the moment to be selling, for the first time ever, f-35's, armed drones into the heart of the middle east? one last caution. the countries that i mentioned on this list are by and large in business with the united states,

and not with china and russia. the u.a.e. has pretty deep and complicated defense relationships with china, russia, and chinese and russian companies. query whether we can be absolutely certain that the technology on board those fighter jets, those drones are going to stay in the right hands. there arguably is no other country on the list for the f-35's that does as much business with china and russia as the u.a.e. does. in fact, as i mentioned, we pulled the f-35 program from turkey because they are involved with russia on a very complicated and important antimissile -- excuse me --

ground defense system. and we're just learning about the nature of the partnerships that the u.a.e. has with the chinese and the russians. it stands to reason that this would be one of the issues that a consultative process with congress would resolve. and it also stands to reason that we could probably come to a conclusion during that consultative process if the u.a.e. really wants these weapons, wants to be the first country in the heart of the middle east to get the f-35's or the reaper drones, then i assume they would want to be able to assure congress and the administration that there is no chance of technology transfer into the wrong hands. that's what the congressional consultative process would have gotten us, but it didn't happen in this case. and so we are stuck with this vote, a means for congress to stand up for its right to participate in this question of arms sales. and believe me, my republican colleagues are going to want

that right when a democratic administration comes into office. you are not going to want to send a signal today to the biden administration that they don't have to consult with you as the majority party potentially in 2021. but if you vote against these resolutions, then you are essentially saying the biden administration doesn't need to consult with congress either. they probably will because they want to do the right thing. but anybody who votes against these resolutions is essentially endorsing an end around of congress by any administration, republican or democratic. but it's also important to say that on a policy grounds, it's not time to do these sales. there are too many outstanding questions about who the u.a.e. transfers weapons to, what they're doing in libya, why they haven't been part of the solution in yemen and what their relationship is with some of our most important adversaries

around the globe. until we satisfy the answers to those questions, we should not move forward with the sale. and finally, there is no threat to the accords between u.a.e. and israel unwinding if we simply press pause on this sale until those questions are answered. i do want to be in business with the u.a.e. i think they're an posh defense partner -- an important defense partner, but i think there's too much at stake with the sale of these weapons right now to rush it through. and i don't think there's any down side risk if we were to say not now until we get all of our t's crossed and all of our i's dotted. let's stand up for congress' prerogative on the sale of arms to foreign countries. let's slow down a process that has been rushed foanlt -- potentially to the great detriment of the great national security.

let's support these resolutions of disapproval this afternoon. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: mr. president, i come to the floor today to really highlight the important work that's been underway by members on both sides of the aisle in the senate and members on both sides of the aisle in the house to try and come up with an agreement to deliver urgently needed relief to address the challenges from the covid -- the coronavirus that people are facing across this country. i also hope that we can work together to get this across the

finish line and that senate leadership will be willing to join in that effort. i think most of us are painfully aware of the devastating impact that this pandemic has had in communities across our nation, but the numbers do bear l repeating. more than 15 million americans have been infected with the virus. more than 285,000 americans have now died from covid. and we recently hit a new record high of 102,000 people hospitalized with covid. and just to provide some context, our largest city in new hampshire is manchester. it has 112,000 residents. so we have enough people in the hospital across this country to fill the city of manchester. the situation is dire. people need help.

and every one of those numbers that i've referenced is much more than a number. it reflects an american livment livment -- life. an american family. our communities. the human toll of this crisis is crushing and we are up against the clock as our hospitals run out of beds. this crisis has been all encompassing. in addition to the severe strains on our health care system, so many others are being battered by this pandemic. small businesses are closing and even more on the verge of collapsing if we don't get them some help. our transportation networks from buses to airplanes have been forced to lay off staff, cut routes, and in some cases just discontinue service altogether. american families are going hungry. we've all seen the long lines on news at night showing the number of people waiting to get food from food banks.

too many people are facing homelessness. in new hampshire, in the city of manchester alone, we have 35 homeless encampments. 35. two years ago we would not have had that number of homelessness, of homeless. parents are struggling to help their children continue their education at home, sometimes with no access to broadband or really bad access. and we know that women are leaving the workforce because of the strains of trying to provide support to their children and deal with the other challenges of covid. state and local governments have been stretched to the maximum. in new hampshire we are facing severe budgetary shortfalls, and many of our communities may have to make some difficult decisions to cut first responders or teachers or other municipal workers if they don't get help.

we hear every day the number of people who need our help, and they can't wait any longer. this is the holiday season, the end of the year. we're headed into the worst months of winter. in new hampshire, we have restaurants that can no longer be open because they don't have outdoor seating. we have small businesses that are worried about getting through the next few months. but for the past three weeks we've had a group of bipartisan lawrmts -- lawmakers in both the house and senate, bipartisan and bicameral, engaged in good-faith negotiations to get a relief package out the door as swiftly as possible. we were able to reach an agreement on a broad bipartisan framework last week, and we've continued negotiations around the clock since that was announced. in new hampshire and throughout this country, our small businesses have been some of the hardest hit by this pandemic.

in new hampshire, we're a small business state. they are the lifeblood of our economy. they account for 99% of all of our businesses and more than 50% of our workforce. in the country as a whole, two-thirds of our jobs are created by small businesses. in the bipartisan framework that we're negotiating, we have another round of the paycheck protection program which has been instrumental for so many of our small businesses, since back in march when we passed it and created the program in the cares act. overall, our bipartisan relief proposal would provide significant financial assistance for our small businesses, for our restaurants, for our live venues, which in many cases have been shut down completely, for our child care centers. in new hampshire, if we don't get some help for our child care centers, at the end of this pandemic we will lose fully 50%

of our child care centers. that means the families that depend on that child care so that they can go to work are not going to have any safe place for their kids. i hear frequently from new hampshire businesses that have used the p.p.p. program effectively to keep workers on payroll and to make rent that they still need more assistance if they're going to get through this winter. our tourism and hospitality industries are particularly hard hit, and they are vital to new hampshire's economy. they are our second-biggest industry. restaurants in new hampshire account for nearly 70,000 jobs and for $3 billion in sales, according to the national restaurant association. we've got to provide some help for them. and the future of our small businesses in new hampshire and throughout the country hang in the balance. if we fail to act, we fail them. for many american families, the past nienl months have been the most -- nine months have been

the most difficult economic challenges of their lives and the bleak jobs report last week reaffirmed what we have been seeing in our communities. nearly ten million jobs have been lost since the start of the pandemic. that means people are out of work, struggling to put food on the table for themselves and their families, struggling to keep a roof over their head. the eviction moratorium is about to expire. that's the story for ten million families. in the bipartisan framework that we've been negotiating, we have urgently needed funding for additional unemployment insurance. we provide rental assistance to help not just those people who might lose their housing, but also the landlords who have been hit very hard because people haven't been able to pay their rent. it also increases funding for food assistance programs to combat the surging food insecurity in our comiewbts.

-- communities. we can't afford further delay to deliver these resources. noivment benefits -- unemployment benefits are due to expire at the end of the month and time is of the essence. one of the areas of concern is the need for federal funding to help our states and our local communities. they are facing massive revenue shortfalls, at least in my home state of new hampshire, and that threatens their ability to provide essential services. we can't afford to lose those people who provide those services, who if they're laid off may be forced to go someplace else and won't be available when we have the money to rehire them. we can't afford to lose the teachers, and already we're seeing too many teachers who are retiring or leaving the profession because they're worried about safety and exposure or they don't have the resources to be able to do the online teaching that's required

now. if we don't get this funding out the door, we're going to see more of those losses. in new hampshire and in our cities and towns, they're being stretched to the limits. we're at the precipice of this crisis. cases are continuing to go up. hospitalizations are going up. the death toll is going up. people need help, and they need it now. in new hampshire, our nursing homes have been especially devastated by this crisis. we have the highest percentage of covid deaths in our long-term care facilities of any state in the country. 81% of our death toll has been tied to nursing homes. our bipartisan relief framework includes necessary federal support for the provider relief fund, and it allocates urgently needed help for our nursing homes that are on the front lines. we also provide help to address

substance use disorders and mental health. what we've seen across the country is that covid-19 has exacerbated what already existed in the opioid epidemic. we were beginning to make some progress in new hampshire and in many states across the country until the coronavirus hit, and now we're seeing that progress being lost. our plan bolsters support for federal investments and a number of programs that respond to the substance use disorder crisis in our communities, and it also addresses suicide prevention. this pandemic has created significant burdens for those who are struggling with substance use disorders, and of course we've heard the number of mental health issues has been greatly exacerbated. our bipartisan plan addresses three of the most important pieces of the strategy to get on the