approved by the senate budget committee since 1990. a key focus of budget process reform is to make congressional budgets easier to pass and harder to ignore. while encouraging regular order in the normal funding pross. if budgets are going to be a useful governing tool, they must matter. budgets be the town gaition by which we govern. the way we establish what matters most to our nation and where we agree limited resources should be focused we've seen time and again that when budgets a treated as an afterthought or as a wish list, our abili to legislate affectively and fulfill our mos basic constitutional duties is made more difficultf not impossible. to restore budgets to their proper role, they must be enforceable and they should increase fiscal accountability in congress. if lawmakers appro a budget, they should stick to it. to that end my bipartisan budget

process reform legislation would make a number of important reforms, including creating a new enforcement tool that could be usednly for reducing the defici i realize that we may not get before i complete my service,ine but i hope others will take up the efforts and ensure that the key parts, including fiscal accountability, are included in future reforms. and i have had t assurance from bot members on this side of the aisle and the other side of the aisle that that is a possibility and a priority. next year lawmakers will be confronted wh the construction of a new budget and spending bills and for the first time in almost aecade, it will be without spending caps. we've had some self-imposed limits on our spending before called spending caps, and it has been very irrating to people

that want to spend money. but now they can do that because this will be the first time in almost a decade without the spending caps contained in the budget control act. one course even under the budget control act congress regularly ignored the fisca limits it contained but starting next year, there will be no budget caps to guide over all funding levels or curb federal discretionary spending, no limits. this cou be and should be a cause for great concern but it's also the chance for us to work together to find a way to begin the process to address our fiscal cllenges. of course i mentioned that that's just curbing the federal discretionary spending. that's the little dab of money that the appropriators actually get to make decision o 70% of what we do is already passed without a sgle vote from this body and that number

we keep trying to shift discretionary things over to mandatory so people can be assured that they will be -- the money will be spent. but seldom do we ever put any money with the new mandatory item. but beyond the annual funding fight, our country facing an even more daunting fiscal crisis. the rapidly approaching depletion of several federal trust funds. that includes the highway trust fund next year. it also includes medicare's hospital insurance trust fd. we get four years on that. 2024. or the disability insurance trust fund, 2026. and the old age and survivors insurance trust fund, 2031. those are trust funds tt are approachin depletion, running

out of money. okay. the c.o.'s baseline total spending for all federal trust fund programs will exceed their dedicated revenues by 12.3 trillion over the next ten years. this accounts for the majority of 13 trillion in the current projects c.b.o. projects will run over this period. depletion of the trust funds now what happens? when these trust funds run dry, current law requires their spending to automatically be reduced to match their income. this means real cuts to crucial programs. i mentioned social security. it would have to go down to the amount of money that we actually received going out to recipients of social security. that cld be a big and

immediate hurt. so again the real challge awaits next congress. as my tenure comes to a close, i'm proud of what the senate budget committee accomplished. we helped to improve the fiscal health of millions of americans passing the most comprehensive tax reform in a generation. we've al committed ourselves to working to improve the congressional budget process so washington and coness can get a better handle on what we're including a new tool that could be used only for reducing the deficit. we have worked to boost fiscal transparency to improve federal financial management, to identify duplication of federal programs, and t improve federal information technology, but there's much more that needs to be done. and now those challenges will be passed to the next chairman. while i've highlighted the problems, i am also leaving a

road map with possible paths forward. i would ask all of my colleagues to work closely together to address these issues. as we can no longer push them off for someone else to fix later. need to find the common ground. tomorrow is here. and we have t start making those choices not only for ourselves but for our kids and our grandkids and our country. mr. president, i yield the floor. and sugst the absencef a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. staben: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: i a suspense of the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: thank you. mr. president, i rise today to

remind all of my colleagues about the urgent, urgent need to pass coronavirus legislation. people need help and they need it right now. i'm glad that bipartisan discussions are continuing. i think it's very positive and i know that many of us are involved in those negotiations, and i commend all of my colleagues that are working very hard to get this done. it's critical that we come to an agreement that will help families, that will help businesses and communities get through this rough time, but time is running out as we know. our nation is facing a crisis. our states and local governments are facing a crisis as they are trying to gear up for an effective and rapid distribution of vaccines. our local police officers, firefighters, public health

workers, other essential workers face layoffs. the only real possibility that i see of defunding the police is the unwillingness so far by the majority leader to support funding local law enforcement in the covid-19 emergency package that we're trying to get done. and we all know that businesses and workers and families are facing a crisis. we simply can't wrap up this session, he can't end this session and go home without responding to the urgent needs of the american people. it's now been one week since the last time i was on the floor speaking about the need for more help. in the past week more than one million additional people in the united states have become

infected. and an additional 13,000 people in the united states have died because of covid-19, 13,000. moms and dads, grandpas and grandmas and friends and neighbors. we've now seen nearly 290,000 of our family members and friends and neighbors die of this horrible disease. that's like if the entire populations of grand rapids and flint, michigan simply disappeared. meanwhile, million, of families -- millions of families at risk of eviction are one week closer to finding themselves without a home in the winter, in the middle of a health pandemic. millions of small business owners have spent one more week

scrambling to keep their workers on the payroll and families don't have enough to eat, and they've spent one more week wondering where their next meal is going to come from for themselves and for their children. a week is a long time to wait when you're in danger of being homeless or losing your job or being hungry or watching your child who's hungry. we're running out of time. we are running out of time. and so many american businesses, workers, and families are running out of time. on december 26, only 16 days from now, 16 days from now, the day after christmas, vital unemployment programs will end cutting off benefits that

millions of workers need to provide for their families. for somebody who's self-employed, a contract worker, a gig worker, they will receive zero help after that. to feed their families and put a roof over their head and pay the bills through this pandemic. five days after that, on december 31, the federal reserve's emergency lending programs end. that'll cut off crucial credit that is keeping businesses open and helping state and local governments provide necessary services. also on december 31, the center for disease control and prevention eviction moratorium ends, putting more people on the street. and the federal foreclosure moratorium and some

opportunities for forebearance expire. it's cold in michigan right now, and it's going to get colder. imagine how frightening it would be to know that your family is losing your home in the middle of a pandemic in the middle of the winter. the truth is, our nation is not just facing a health crisis. we're facing an economic crisis. we're facing a housing crisis. we're facing a hunger crisis. all at the same time. these expiring programs have been a lifeline for families, for communities, for businesses during the pandemic. that lifeline is now fraying. and a lack of action here in washington could cause it to completely snap. there's a lot of talk about numbers right now, and numbers are important, but much more

important are the people who need help, because they are not numbers. i'm thinking of a michigan mom of two growing boys who's been waiting hours in a line of cars week after week to bring home a box of food. i'm thinking of a michigan dad who's been looking so hard for a new job but nobody wants to be hiring right now, and his unemployment help is almost out. i'm thinking of the owner of a michigan business who had no choice but to lay off half of her workers right before the holidays. i'm thinking of a michigan retiree who is behind on her rent but -- and she could move in with her daughter's family, but then their home is already crowded, and she doesn't want to be a burden, and we're in the middle of a pandemic where we're telling people to socially

distance to be safe. while we are debating, people are suffering and panicking because they're not sure what they're going to do. people can't wait another week, and we cannot either. this is the united states of america. it's not like we don't have the capacity to fix this right now. it's all about political will. it's about do we get it? do we care about people? do we understand what's happening to people? and are we willing to support the bipartisan effort going on right now that can do something? at least provide a bridge for a few months, through the winter months, into the new year. there is an opportunity going on. there is a lot of hard work going on. there is no excuse not to take

this moment and to come together and to provide help in what is a covid survival package for people in michigan and across the country. that's what this is. and we are at a moment where it's up to us to make sure that we get this done. and, if not, we should not end this session until we do. thank you, mr. president. i yield e floor. i suest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum cl:

mr. cotton: mr. president? e presiding officer: the senator for arkansas. mr. cotton: i ask consent to end thquorumall. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cotton: arkansas is known as the natural state and few have been more dedicated to preserving earg and all of its natural beauty than joe morgan. he passed away last month at the age of 76. joe was a lifelong arkansan. he studied at little rock university now the university of arkansas little rock. and he worked for many years as a car dealer for great american companies like general motors and achieve lay.

he -- chevrolet. he also served on the arkansas motor vehicle commission. but joe will probably be remembered most for his tireless advocacy on behalf of arkansas' natural heritage and environment. governor hutchinson appointed joe to the arkansas game and fish commission where he quickly established himself as a champion for arkansas duck hunterhunters and the wildernesn which they rely. joe hunted and fished in the duck capital of the world. as a member of the commission he made it his mission to ensure duck hunting remained a gentleman's sport. and to preserve the hunting grounds he knew and loved so they would be available to future generations of arkansans. he was especially passionate about preserving biometa, one of the crown jewels of duck hunting in arkansas. he was instrumental in implementing safe boating regulations to protect hunters and waterfowl populations alike. he imposed time limits on when

boats could be out on the water to preserve the health and sustainability of the duck population. and joe's first priority was always to his fellow arkians. -- arkansans. he pressed for limits on when nonresidents could hunt to ensure that locals were never pushed down -- out of the hunting spots they grew up. his fellow commissioners will remember him as a dogged defender of hunting and fishing in arkansas. his wife of 56 years, judy, and his son brent will remember him as a loving husband and father who was always ready with a joke and always ready for a good shoot, a round of golf or even a jaunt in his trusty cessna 182. as for me i remember joe as a friend i met joe when my early campaigns and we became fast friends. we talked and texted often. he even hosted me with friends in north carolina to speak about

republic politics. joe morgan may have left us but he left his heart in arkansas and the well stocked flooded timber of biometta which he helped to pserve. in a fitting tribute to his legacy, joe passed away on the opening day for duc hunting in arkansas. every hunter who enjoys arkansas' natural beauty this season and every season in the future can thank joe for the experience. may he res in peace. mr. president, i yie the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk ll call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. mr. johnson: mr. president, i come today to the floor -- the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call. mr. johnson: i ask that the quorum calle vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. johnson: mr. president, i come to the floor today 71 days into the fiscal year, 71 days

to a continuing resolution. it is unfortunate i'm placing no blame but it's unfortunate that we have not considered on the floor of the united states senate not one of the 12 regular order appropriation bills. the appropriations process is completely broken. and quite honestly, it's been broken since i arrived here in the senate in 2011. i ran for the united states senate primarily because i was concerned about the fact that we were mortgaging our children's future. back then we were $14 trillion in debt. and that was extremely concerning to me. ten years later, 71 years into th 2021 fiscal year, we are $27.4 trillion in debt, an increase of $13.4 trillion,

almost doubled since i've been here in just ten years. again, the appropriations process is so broken, during that time frame we have passed, we've had to pass 36 continuing resolutions. the debt limit has no power in terms of controlling our out-of-control spending. we've either raised or suspended the debt limit nine times. and unfortunately, during that time, that ten years, we've also, because of the broken process, we've shut down the government three times, costing our economy, costing our government billions of dollars and hurting real people. now, i come from from a state, wisconsin, that if the legislature can't get its act together and we don't ps appropriations bills and we are at an impasse, we don't shut down the government. we don't even shut down a

particular agency. what we do is we do something that's pretty practical, the type of commonsense leglation that wisconsinites would embrace. we just fund the agencies or the entire state government at the previous year's level. doesn't that make sense? it makes all the way in the world. here we are, 71 days into the fiscal year, we haven't passed an appropriations bill. we're going to have to pass within the next 24 hours or so our 37th continuing resolution to kick the can another week so we can get our act together and pass some kind of massive omnibus that nobody is going to be able to read before they actually vote for it. it's a completely broken process. so i recognize that as chairman of homeland security governmental affairs, certain part of the government shutdown, this broken process,

some of these elements weren't in my committee's jurisdiction. wead a number of pieces of legislation, one by senator portman, one by senator paul, one by senator lankford who had been working on a similar piece of legislation from being in the house, to end government shutdowns forever. so as chairman of the committee, i had to take a look at these pieces of legislation and decide which one did i want to bring up to my committee, pass out of my committee, and bring to the floor of the senate. i chose senator lankford's because he had done a lot of hard work with senator maggie hassan on a bipartisan bill. very simple. it didn't automatically increase spending, it didn't automatically decrease spending. it did exactly what we do in wisconsin. it said if we don't get our act together and pass any appropriations bill or a single or two appropriations bills, we don't shut down the government, we don't shut down that agency. we just appropriate enough funds at last year's level, and we

continue until we actually do pass appropriations bill. now i know members of the appropriations committee have all the respect in the world for the chairman and the realm, i know they don't -- and the realm, i know they don't like c.r.'s. they will be our 37th c.r. since i've been here for ten years. it's broken. just in case they're concerned about these c.r.'s, i can give you wisconsin's history in this. since we passed this commonsense reform, the longest c.r. we've ever had in wisconsin since we've had this anti-government that's a lock -- long time ago and it's only fowler -- four months. we're approaching four months now. took office.7th c.r. since i we passed out of my committee, only two dissenting votes, two

no votes -- those came from two senators who had an alternate version of an end government shutdown act. we passed this out of my committee 12-2. and we've been working now for the last year trying to find some vehicle to add it on asn amendment to end this insanity. and we thought with a group of us here, this would be a good time. it's a very simple bill. if you don't pass eight of the appropriations bills or all the appropriations bills, you fund at last year's level but we have a few little disciplines to force the senators in congress to do their job. the first discipline is we don't allow any federal or campaign moneys to be spent on travel, which basicallyind of forces members of congress to stay here in washington until we do get our act together, until we do pass appropriations bills and fund the government that's necessary. the other thing we do is we only

allow congress, each chamber to only bring up appropriations bill into their chamber. and there is an exception, of course, for any bill that had to do with an immediate national security emergency. that's pretty much it. now in committee, senator scott had an amendment which i'll turn to him and have him describe the final discipline to force members of congress to do their jobs, pass appropriations bills and fund government without shutting the government down. senatoscott. mr. scott: tnk you, chairman johnson. mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. scott: thank you chairman johnson. first of all, i want to tha the senator for hisffort to figure out how we can stop shutting down government. when i came up here with senator braun two years ago we were in a government shutdown, and nobody wins. it doesn't work for any part of

the government if the government gets shut down. i know that talking to the appropriations chair and the ranking member, that they are also focused on making sure what he can we do to make sure we pass budgets, pass our spending bills and don't shut down government. like a lot of us, i came up here and i came up two yearsing a, i want to fight the way washington has been working, make sure it works for all florida families, not just for career politicians. i've got a background in business like chairman johnson does. in the real world, if you don't do your job, you don't get paid. it's pretty simple. if congress can't accomplish its most basic task, which i believe is passing a budget and appropriations bills in an orderly fashion, why should we get paychecks? i think it's pretty simple. when you listen to what chairman johnson just said, the current system in washington is clearly broken. there's no, you know, a lot of people, you know, care about this but there is no one that ultimately has responsibility and there is no consequences, and it costs our system a lot of money.

so congress doesn't pass a budget. instead they just pass temporary measures and it kicks the can down the road. the other thing that's been surprising to me since i got up here is how little of the bblg we actually -- of the budget we actually review every year. about 70% of the budget we don't even look at every year. i think all these things are unacceptable. if congress -- and congress can't continue to get away with not doing its basic job and creating a burden. we've got to do something different. that's why i'm proud to join my colleagues today to call on congress to pass the prevent government shutdown act. it includes my no budget, no pay proposal. withholding paychecks from members of congress who frail to pass a -- who fail to pass a budget will help prevent government shutdowns. it will promote fiscal responsibility in the face of what senator johnson said, $27.4 trillion worth of debt. i believe we need to pass no budget, no pay now to show we are serious about getting

spending under control and we're serious about the future of this nation. members of congress make significantly more than the average american makes. we make $174,000 a year and we're asking them to do the most basic function. pass a budget. i think every member of congress rich or poor can greal -- agree congress should pass a budget each year and everyone who can't shouldn't have a job. when the american people can't do their job, there's consequences. it's time we make washington look a little bit like what the real world looks like. so let's pass the prevent government shutdown act and get the no budget, no pay done. i'll refer to my colleague from indiana. the presiding ofcer: the senator from indiana. mr. braun: rick manchin, back

in 2018, we ran on what we're talking about today. we wouldn't be honest to the people that elected u to come here. i had eight pages of prepared remarks. this is something i've talked about so often, i'm going to cover some new terrain to make it relatable to the citizens across this country of how this place works and how it's so different from how anything else wos. a few of us come from the world of accountability. the business world,here you don't have the luxury of doing what we do here in the federal government. and listen to this closely because this is what most citizens don't understand. we are given the revenues here in this place, and our only job, number one, should be to not spend more than what we're

given. we don't do that. we borrow 23% roughly of what we spend. try taking that to your banker running a business, see if you get a loan doing that. that's just a real simpleay to look at how we do this year after year. on main street, whether you're running a business, whether it's your household -- i served in state government for three years. we were smart enough to have a balanced budget amendment. we believed in things like a rainy day fund. it was in our d.n.a. we didn't have to think about it, that in the long run you're not going to succeed if you spend more than what you take in. coming out of world war ii was the highest level of national debt we ever had.

roughly where we are now. that generation, we know what they went through. they were savers. they were investors. and not only in government, we are now spenders and consumers. you'd think that in the biggest business in the world, we spend abou $4.5 trillion a year, we take in maybe about $3.5 trillion, of course in a year like this you had a pandemic, added another $3 trillion or so to the national debt. and structurally we will be marching over the next five to seven years to where that goes to $1.5 trillion a year. start adding all that up. here's what's going to happen. when we're in a position like we are now, where youan borrow money for nearly nothing, wheree

only reserve currency in the world that allows us to do it. that doesn't mean you should do it, because we're piling up obligations on our kids and our grandkids, and we might as well admit it. and how we evolved to get to where we are now, i don't think that's as much a issue as we know where we are now. it is not sustainable. here's what's going to happen. two of the most important programs we've got that everybody likes -- social security, medicare -- medicare has been around since the mid 1960's. all of us have been paying into it, employers and employees. every penny will be exhausted out of the trust fund, and that was about five to five and a half years. now it's advanced, due to our currentinancial situation, to maybe four or five. what happens? this will be the first reality,

the shock that comes to the american public, especially elderly that depend on medicare for their health care. 18% across-the-board cuts. think the static and the uproar we'll hear then. but we can stop it if we just have a little discipline. that i mostly about embracing something like i put forward, the fair care act, which is the most comehensive addressing of heal care costs in this country. and as a c.e.o. from main street, and c.e.o.'s across the country -- small business owners -- the biggest problem we deal with is the high cost of health care. of course we here protect the health care industry that's broken, and you've got another side that wts to get more government invved. and really all it takes there is to have transparency, competition, have a consumer that's engaged in his or her own

well-being, and you'd have those are tough decisions. you take on three of the four biggest lobbies in the country -- pharma, hospitals, insurance -- that's another thing that doe't make this place work. social security. we have got some time there, but that was crafted back when life spans were a lot shorter than what they are now. have we -- we knew that actuarially. it has been coming at us for years. we have got until maybe 2032 or 2033. been paying into that sincehe great depression. every penny out of the trust fund will be gone. i think you get theicture when i came here, senator johnson from wisconsin, senator scott from florida, a few fiscal conservatives like senator lee and a few others tha will weigh in on this talk about what's

uncomfortable. well, to me, we have had all this time ande have done nothing about it. we have got the perfect opportunit we know we're in the current dynamic, and we know we'll have to get through it, but what we're here todays to get a vote on a simple bill that says do not shut the government down when we're trying to get through these issues, put a little bit of rigor and discipline into the process with the no budget, no pay, and then maybe we can get to the point where we give the american public a better product. we give them a product that imagine, if everything was given to you in terms of your revenues, first of all, don't end more than what you take in. when you have got a year to do someing start on day one.

that's the way it works in the real world. that's the way it works in a household. that's the way it worked on a school board that i served on for ten years. and that's the way it works in a place like indiana that balances its budget every year, has a rainy d fund, and lives responsibly. i yield the floor. a sator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, article 1, section 9, clause 7 of the constitution makes clear that no money will be drawn from the treasury except by an appropriation passed by congress article 1, section 7 of the constitution likewise makes sure that you can't pass an appropriation or any other form of legislation without the same document, the same bill, the same proposal passing the house of represeatives and passing the senate and then being submitted to the president for signature, veto, or acquiescence. over time, partilarly in the last decade, it's become

increasingly common for congress , recognizeing the cumbersome nature of that process, which is cumberse by design, it's sometimes easier t just sur couple vent the procs, technically complying with its demands but doing so in a way that doesn't even invite or even allow for individual members or their constituents to know what they are voting for whenhey vote on a spending bill. this is what we have come to refer to as governing by cliff in the spending context, and it's sadly become the status quo in washington. it often provides members with a simple binary choice when they areacing a spending bill. when you come up against a spending cliff, meaning a deadline, almost always one arbitrarily imposed by the previous spending bill, when you come up close to that and there is no spending bill on the floor

until maybe a day or two or sometimes an hour or two or sometimes more like a minute or two, and then something that has been negotiated behind closed doors by only a small handful of members of congress, excluding everyone else in the house, everyone in the senate, and the hundreds of millions of people they clectively represent. sometimes that kind of legislation is brought forth, not just sometimes. basically every time. as my friend and colague, the senator from wisconsin noted a minute ago, i think this will mark the 37th consecutive time that congress has passed the 37th time congress has least passed something like this since senator johnson and i came to the senate and were sworn into office in 2011. the problem with this is that when members can't reasonably know what they are voting on in advance and then they are given

the simple binary choice of take it or leave i you won't have any opportunity to amend it, you won't even really have the opportunity to read it or understand it, much less communicate its contents t your constituents who will have to pay for it, you can vote for that in its entirety, or you can vote against it, but if you vote against it and it doesn't pass, you will be blamed single-handedly for shutting down the government, regardless of whether y would have preferred it, in fact tried for a long period of time to bring up spending bills prior to that last posble moment. thisuts the amerin people and their elected lawmakers in the house and in the senate in an untenable position, one that i would analogize to a circumstance of an individual who lives in an outing area. let's suppose that you move to an outlying area, one that is distant from any other town. let's suppose that on your first day of work after moving to that town, you're about to leave home and you speak to your

significant other on the phone who informs you bring homebred, milk, and eggs after you stop by the store. make sure you get those on your way home. don't come home without them. so you go to the grocery store in this outlying area, distant from any other town. the only store in town, the only store in fact for hours in any direction. you go to the store and you get your cart, put in your bread, you ge the milk, and then you put in the eggs. you get to the checkout counter. the checkout person says okay, this is how much the eggs cost, the bread, and the milk, but there's a problem. what's the problem? well, you can't buy just these items. well, why can't i buy just these items? i'm not going to let y buy the bread or the milk or the eggs unss you also buy a half ton of iron ore and a bucket of nails and a book about cowboy poetry. in fact, now that i think about it, you are going to have to buy one of every item in the store. nobody would want to live that

way. nobody would want to shop that way. of course that's never the way we would want to do business in our government, and yet in some ways it kind of is. because a small handful of people putogether that shopping list so to speak and put it together in one bill. those bills are often hundreds and in some cases thousands of pages long. we usually have no more than a few hours to read them before they are passed into law. that's where this legislation comes about. the ending government shutdowns act would force congress to abandon this barbaric binary form of appropriations. perhaps more importantly, it ends the threat of the shutdown, which is very often the propellant, the fuel for perpetuating this barbaric form of alienization, this barbaric form of disenfranchisement, of most of the people represented by most democrats and most republicans in the senate and in the house of representatives.

look, i understand none of this is easy, and i have nothing but profound respect and affection for my colleagues who were involved in writing these bills. that respect and affection should cut both ways, and it should mean that we have the opportunity to vote on spending bills before they hit us and that we're not left with this awful, untenable binary choice between funding everything that a small handful of members have foreordained and voting for nothing and be blamed for a shutdown. we've got to end the process of spending by cliff. this and only this, i believe, is something that can bring certainty to americans and will allow for more time to bring these bills to the floor and to allow for the kind of transparency that the american people need, expect, and

deserve, but for the last decade or two have not received. and now, mr. president, i'd like to yield my time back to my friend and colleague, senator johnson, from wisconsin. mr. johnson: i yield time to mr. leahy: mr. president, i have founso much of what i can agree in in what i have heard, but unfortunately, i certainly agree that we ought to be able to pass our annual appropriations bills. i certainly agree we should prevent federal government shutdowns which waste billions upon billions upon billions of dollars' worth of taxpayers' money. plus all the burden they put on american families, federal

employees, and so forth. but i'm afraid that my good friends on the other side of the aisle are kind of letting rhetoric get ahead of reality. the reality is the majority in the senate, they control the calendar in the senate. all these appropriations bills could have been brought up in june or july, september. voted piece by piece, up and down, have amendments, things you don't like. everybody would have plenty of time to read every line of it, to have amendments to strike things or add things that they wanted. i mentioned this can be done. the house of representatives under democratic control -- i don't mean that as being partisan, but to show the

difference -- they actually passed all their appropriations bills and their covid bill, the so-called heroes act by some time in june. in the appropriations committee, we have been working very hard. senator shelby's staff has, mine has. we've given up a lot of time with my colleagues, and for all good reasons, ready to go home for the holidays and recesses and everything else. many of us stayed here working on those appropriations committees, but we couldn't bring the bills up. now, the republican leader, the majority leader, could have brought up any one of them at any time he wanted. we could have done it if one had a time -- in a one-hour time agreement, have an hour for amendments. after all, republicans in the

majority have nothing to fear about that. if they don't like an amendment, they can vote it down. if there is something they don't like in the bill, this would give the senator from utah and everybody else a chance to read each one of these bills. if they don't like it, bring up an amendment to strike it. that could have been done. it wasn't, and one of the reasons it wasn't done, we had to take up senate time to day after day after day put through nominees mostly backed by special interest groups on the federal bench and elsewhere, and we had to vote on those. why? vote on those but also take the time to vote on these things. bring up the bills, vote on them one by one, the appropriations bills. amend them if you want, vote them down if you want. i say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, you have the majority, you could vote them all down or vote them all up.

but what happens, you enact an automatic c.r., which i would oppose, it means you don't work out the parts of a full-year appropriations bills. there would be no incentive for members to negotiate full-year appropriations bills. we are not elected to put the government on auto pilot. we are elected to make careful choices. i would argue the reason we're here is that people were afraid to actually stand up and vote up or down on appropriations bills earlier this year when they had the chance. it's easy to say golly gee, let's have an automatic continuing resolution. sounds good. what it says is and then we can take all our weekends off, we

can have the government fly us home, we can pay for all these things, but we don't do our work. what i'm saying is we should have stayed here a few weekends, and i'd say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, the republican side, allow the bills to come up one by one and vote them up or down. if you don't like parts of it, vote to take it out. vote it up or down. again, you have got the majority. if you don't like what's in there, you can do it. but to simply try to put government on auto pilot. you know, full-year bills, the actual appropriations bills give congress the opportunity to address the needs of today rather than continue the priorities of the past. i have been here long enough to know that things that looked great two or three years ago are not the priorities today because things change.

certainly under covid, we have seen in many ways the 15-year change in society, education, business, industries and all that, a 15-year change in 15 weeks. so each year in the annual appropriation bills, congress adjusts spending levels to deal with emerging issues facing the american people. we can eliminate funding for projects that have been completed or no longer needed. we can direct funding to higher priority programs. it's detailed, exacting work. it's nice to talk in slogans and generalities, but i invite those senators to sit down and go through day by day the kind of work and the superb staff, both republican and democrat, work on

in putting together this legislation. it's detailed, exacting work, but it's what the american people expect, it's what we all do, thoughtful and smart decisions about how to invest their hard-earned tax dollars. if you're offering an automatic c.r. none-these adjustments can be made and you can say bye-bye, we're headed home for the holidays. oh, emergency and covid came up, well, it's not in the automatic c, so, tough, we -- c so, -- c.r., tough, we didn't have time to do anything about it. there's flooding in florida or nebraska or fires in the west or anything else, well, we -- our c.r. didn't cover it because we didn't have money for it the year before.

no, that's not the way to do. the congress and the white house have a responsibility to work together to enact funding bills to keep the government open. automatic c.r.'s might save face and time and allow us to do other things that we might like to do back home, but in doing so, they relieve us of our obligations of the constitution and to the american taxpayer. we shouldn't be relieved of these obligations. i know the last time we had a government shutdown, it was over -- it was a bill where the president felt that it didn't give enough for a wall along the border between the u.s. and mexico, a wall that is being built at great expense and accomplishing very little, but it -- that's -- it -- that's why

it stopped. it didn't have enough. so for a month and a half we sat there, parts of the government closed down, our states, our people, our federal government losing billions upon billions upon billions of dollars. you know how it finally got reopened, we started off a series of meetings on a monday. the house was in session, the senate was in session. it was a good time to begin. we began in senator shelby's office and then we continued it in my office here in the capitol as a perk, as a dean of the senate, you do get a nice office in the capitol. halfway between the house and the senate, we had two house members the chair of the senate

appropriations committee, and the ranking member and one democrat and one republican. we had two senators, my good friend, and he is a good and close friend, dick shelby, the chairman of the appropriations committee, and myself as vice chairman. and the four of us sat there for three or four hours. we talked about everything from photography to travel and then went in line by line of the areas and we came to an agreement. we were able to explain to the house and the senate, brought back, and it was voted through and the government reopened. incidentally, the president praised it. said that he had gone through it

and it was so good. and i thank him for doing that because it gave hill a lot less money -- gave him a lot less money for the wall than the bill that he vetoed had given him. but the government reopened. i mention this because it seems that those billions of dollars were spent more as a political stunt than something that benefits hard-earned taxpayer dollars. so what i would do, i would say instead of -- instead of rhetoric that ignores reality, let's go over the reality. let's pledge whoever is in the majority in the end we will go

to them and say, in the summer of any year, bring up each of the appropriations bills, vote them up or down or amend them. in june when we could have or july. by the time we're here in august, or september, or october or november, we wouldn't be where we are now. it was a missed opportunity. if we say let's have an automatic c.r. no matter what happens, whether we have earthquakes, floods, fires, covid, attacks on the united states, anything else, we can just sit back and relax and not have to do all the weekends and

holidays and late-night work that many of us in both parties do on appropriations because we've got an automatic c.r. when i came to the senate, both the republican and democratic leaders told me, and i was the junior most member of the senate at the time, that we should be the conscience of the nation, it meant doing your work. i never expected to be the dean of the senate, the most senior one here. but i've seen both republicans and democrats do that work. times it's been into late friday night and early saturday morning, but we've done it and passed it. where did those days go? where did those days go? so i -- you know, we passed -- senator shelby became chair and i became vice chair, we passed a

series of appropriations bills, and i think we got, 80, 9095 -- 90, 95 and sometimes 100 senators vote from the senators. we usually can't get a vote with that many to say the sunrises in the east. the majority gave us time to bring those votes up and debate them and vote them. i will have more comments to make. i don't question the good intentions of any senator here. but what i'm saying is, we could have done this in june, we could have done it in july, we could have done it in august, we could have done it in september, we could have done it in november. and to now complain, well, up to the last few days, we've got to

change everything and now let's pledge instead that we'll follow regular order in the coming days. yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. mrjohnson: mr. president, i appreciate the comments of the senator from vermont. i think what senator lee and i was talking about is opposed to the way it used to be, when we got here in 20, the appropriations process was completely broken and it is still broken. it has been a bipartisan failure. i arrive in 2011 under democratic leadership, nowe're under republican leadership. it's broken. the good news is preventing government shutdown act is a bipartisan solution. it passed 12-2 out of my committee. it's cosponsored largely by senator lankford and senator hassan. and the concerns the senator from vermont expressed about an

automatic c.r. in passage of this bill is addressed in the bill. the bill has the disciplines to force us to only work on appropriation bills of we can leave town but not on the federal dime, not on campaign money. we'll have to pay for that ourselves. and i don't know what we're going to pay for it with because we're not going to get paid until we actually pass the appropriation bill. so the discipline is already set in here. that's what so beautiful about this bill, that's what so eloquent about it. as i said in wisconsin, once they enforced this discipline, the most we ever had was a 40-day c.r. we're 71 days into this c.r. and we're going to have it another week. preventing the government shutdown act is a solution that will force us back to the good old days when we bring up appropriations bills.

because my guess is not many members of congress aren't going to want to not get paid and not be able to go back to our districts. it will focus our minds and work on appropriation bills other than in a nional emergency, that's what happened in wisconsin. this is a solution. so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 304,. 1877. i ask that the committee-reported substitute amendment be withdrawn, the braun substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered 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. shelby: mr. president, reserving the right to object. my colleagues i believe here today are promoting legislation that they cim will spur

congress to pass approiation bills in the event of a government government shutdown. in other words, -- of a government shutdown. in other words to avoid it. i think they have a good idea. will that do the job? i doubt it. will this debate go on, and it should. i agree with so much of the frustration that so many of you have, including the presiding officer. my colleague and i, senator leahy and i, for two straight years were able to pass these appropriations bills, most of them, first time in years. this slowed down this year, absolutely. i know it's a big presidential race and everybody running this year and that throws it into it. but we would like to pass these bills before october 1, just as you would. but i don't believe this legislation would do what you think would do, and i think it

deserves further inquiry and i believe it would exacerbate in some ways the problem that we try to resolve here. we're, right now, closed to closing out hopefully all of our appropriation bills. we call it an omnibus. i agree with their frustration. we should, as a body, both parties, every member of the senate should have had the priority, number one, to do this before october 1, each year as we used to do it. so unless this legislation somehow prohibits political partisanship, wow, i don't believe it will increase the probability that we get our work done, shutdown or not. i think the key is to work together. senator leahy and i have

demonstrated that in a few years, but we need all of us to come together on this and place the rules first, place the government, don't shut down. i stand before you every day the worst thing we can do is shut down the governmen the specter of a shutdown is bad in itself, which we face right today. so i believe the most important incentive rig now for any of us to do is try to work together. if we can't, we're going to have to do something. you're talking about, but iwhat think it deserves further debate and further inquiry and there's a political downside to all of this, i know, but if we work together, we'll get these bills passed. nobody is more acutely aware of that than -- acutely aware of that than my colleague from vermont that has been on the appropriations committee for many years before i came on there. but the american people, as someone said here today, elected

us to do our job and they are absolutely right. we should do our job. we should do it promptly, pungsly, -- punctually, and we can. i know this situation will not go away unless we do our job like we should, but i object to the unanimous consent request at this point. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. a senator: i appreciate the words of the senator from alabama and i really would like to work with you. i think all of us would like to work with you on a solution to this problem. mr. johnson: i appreciate those words and look forward to working with you in the future on this. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, i have -- mr. leahy: for the senator from wisconsin, am ienator from

mississippi you were referring to? mr. johnson: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: thank you. mr. lee: mr. president, i have profound respect and admiration for both the senator from alabama and the senator from vermont. you can tell from their remarks they're congenial, collegial, delightful people. they also have many decades of legislative experience between of two of them. the country has been blessed by their gifts, their talents, and their willingness to work hard. i want to respond to a couple of points made a moment ago, points suggesting perhaps that the answer to all of this is simply a desire to work together as if that were somehow not what we have in mind. we were also told a moment ago

that they're almost finished with the appropriation process, that it's almost complete. now, if that's the case, then i would ask the question, why haven't we been permitted to see it? why haven't the other members of the united states senate been able to see that? it is a little bit hard for some of us to hear that if we all work together, that we can get this done when that is literally all we're asking. now, i don't think any one of us supporting senator johnson's legislation is hear saying that it's perfect or here saying that it would magically solve every problem in the world or even evy problem in the united states senate having to do with the spending process. we're not saying that. but what we are saying is that

without it, we will stay stuck in the same closed loop system. so to suggest that there's somehow a lack of desir on our part or on the part of anyone who is not an appropriator or anyone who is not the chairman or ranking member of the propriations committee, that this is somehow a product of the lack of desire and willingness to work together, that's not fair. that's not accurate. that's quite the opposite of the truth. what we're asking for is for a seat at the table. now, article 5 of the constitution outlines the procedure for amending the constitution, for making changes to the structure of government that we have, what it may and may not do. articl 6 of the constitution preemptively disposes of any

proposed constitutional amendment that wou alter the principle of equal representation in the senate. it's the one rule that cannot be changed. it's so fundamental to our system of government, to this system of government that has helped foster the development of the greatest civilization the world has ever known, is -- it is in this chamber that every state has to be represented equally. it can't happen whe you have some of the most significant measures that will ever come before this body that are commandeered by one committee, the committee on appropriations. now granted, as has been suggested in the last couple of speeches we've heard, we've got some great talent among our members on the appropriations committee. we've got great talent among the staffers on the appropriations committee. they work really hard. they're really smart. they're really determined, and they're highly specialized. that isn't the problem. the problem is that in most

circumstances because of the way we bring things up, most of us disenfranchised from the, process. this doesn't mean that it's the fault of the appropriations committee. i don't believe that it is. it is instead the fault of the way in which we schedule votes and the fact that these things aren't brought up until the last possible minute. and then we're given this awful choice of vote for a whole bunch of things that you don't necessarily support and cannot even completely know about or vote against it and be blamed for a government shutdown. that's all this bill is trying to do is to get out out of that toxic loop, a loop that is the opposite of collegial, the opposite of respectful, and that is utterly incompatible with the principle of equal representation in the senate, a principle that cannot be undone, even by a constitutional amendment.

mr. leahy: will the senator yield for a question? mr. lee: yes, i will. mr. leahy: should we be able to represent our constituents? of course. you and i agree and he and i have agreed on a lot of different things, especially constitutional issues in this body. and i share concern, instead of being handing a piece of legislation on this we're going to vote on this in ten minutes or an hour or so. would you agree with me that if the leader said tuesday of next week, instead of earlier in the year, tuesday we'll bring up this part of the appropriations bill from the committee, the committee having voted on it, republicans and democrats -- i think it's close to a third of the u.s. senate is on that

committee, having voted on it, and it will be open to amendments. when we finish that one, we'll bring up the next one. would that cover much of the problems that the senator from utah has? mr. lee: in response to the questition, the answer is yes, absolutely yes. that's exactly what we want. that is exactly what we deserve. and this is one of many manifestations of the fact that my friend, distinguished colleague, the senior senator from vermont, as the benit of many decades o experience in this body. he's been here at times when the senate has functioned precisely like that as it should. that's exactly what we want. that's how the senate is supposed to function. that's how it has functioned for most of the existence of our great republic. that in and of itself would not only help address the problem, it would be the solution to the problem. and that's why i insist ts is not a problem that can be fairly late at the feet of the

individual members of the appropriation committee or even necessarily the chairman and ranking member of the appropriations committee. this is a problem with the way in which we schedule votes and it's also a problem we lated to the first -- related to the first with a lack of willingness to allow amendments to be brought. the fill brusser -- the filibuster is itself maligned and often misunderstood but the purpose of the filibuster from the very origins of this institution was to allow for theoretically unlimited debate, discussion, and opportunities for amendments to legislation. nowhere would that be more important than in the case of where we are spending the public's money. that's what we're supposed to be doing. that's how it always did work in the past. it's the very reason why we have the filibuster rule to begin

with is to allow for, facilitate, encourage unlimit debate, discussion, and amendments. yes, i wish this legislati weren't necessary. but it is with precisely that objective in mind that we pushed this legislation. why? well, some of us have been here for many years. in the case of senator johnson and myself, we've been here now for a decade. we have hoped for that exact type of scenario that senator leahy just described to come about. and i don't doubt senator leahy's sincerity one bit in raising that point. that is exactly what we need. the incentives aren't there. the incentives on the part of those making these decisions to bring these things up with too little time for debate, amendment, or even reading the bill and discussing it with our

constituents. those making that decision have forced off the kind of debate and discussion that needs to occur. the incentive structure is such that those making that very decision are not going to want to relinquish that immense power, particularly if they can be a part of and even control what goes into that bill, who knows about it when and virtually guarantee passage on the senate floor. something has to change in order to alter that incentive structure to bring about exactly the kind of dynamic that senator leahy described. look, we can do this. it's not that hard. but we're going to have to adopt some changes to our procedures and ultimately we owe it on our -- owe it to our constituents not to bend unflinchingly and reflexively every single time somebody brings forward a

spending bill at the very last minute. i remember one of many moments in which this has occurred, a rose in -- arose in march of 2018. we'd been anticipating for many months a spending bill. we had a lot of conversations among and between members about the nd to debate, discuss, and amend spending legislation before it was brought to the floor. we had been assured that we would have more of an opportunity than we had had in previous congresses. and then one wednesday evening in march of 2018 we received an e-mail. the e-mail arrived at i believe about 8:30, 8:45 in the evening. it told us attached is a copy of a spending bill. we'll be voting on this sometime in the senate. we worked until when. i opened the attachment.

the attachment contained a 2,232-page spending bill, spending well over a trillion dollars. we immediately started reviewing that. i divided up that legislation by section among my staff and then spent the entire night and the entire following day reviewing that legislation. we got a basic understanding of what it did, but only rudimentary. you know, a 2,232-page omnibus spending bill doesn't exactly read like a fast-paced novel. to my great astonishment, before we were even finished reading that bill, much less before we had the opportunity to even conceive of or draft amendment, much less propose them, the house of representatives passed

that bill without amendment before lunch the next day. the senate passed the same legislation about 12 or 13 hours later. this process has repeated itself over and over again. we can't fool ourselves into believing that it's going to change without some alter ration -- alter ration to procedure and to the set of incentives that perpetuate that vicious cycle, one is no respect of person, republicans vary social security democrat, liberals versus representatives. it's just a fundamentally anti-american and undemocratic way of doi things. we can do better and we must. thank you, mr. predent.

a senator: mr. presint? thpresiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blt: mr. president, i want toalk today for a few minutes about something i don't think has gotten the attention it successes in foreign policy over th lastour years. i think at the top of my list of foreign policy successes in terms of unanticipat accomplishments that we would not have -- thought would happen would be the abraham accords that were signed by the -- at the white house in september. this agreement paves the way for normalized relations between israel and the unitearab emirates and israel and bahrain. and i believe really establishes a way where the rest of the follow this step in the right direction.

i think not only is this one of the most significant mes in decade to promote peace and understanding in the middle east but frankly, probably wouldn't have happened if we hadn't had a president who hadn't spent years hearing how something like this wasmpossible. the president believed it was impossible, anit was because of his strong leadership that the countries iolved made it it a priority to bridge the gap that everyone thought was unbridgeable that really had separated these neighbors by generations. what we see is tt when our friends become friends with each other, we win. the unitedtates wins when our friends also become friends with each other. this agreement can be a model for future progress in the region. it's the first time in four

decades that any arab country has recognized israel, and you can see it's already making a difference. we had a debate on the floor yesterday about ourontinued partnership, our defense partnership, with the united arab emirates, and this was obviously an element in that debate, that that partnership over three different administtions produced something that nobody would ha anticipated in any of the earlier decades. the president started his middle east efforts by acknowledging jerusalem as the capital of israel his first year i office. a few months later, he moved the u.s. embassy there. now, was this a new idea? absolutely not a new idea. ameran presidents have been saying for years that this was a good idea. party platforms have said for

yearshat israel should be able to move -- have their capital in jerusalem acknowledged, but congress has said repeatedly this should happen, but it hasn't hapned and didn't happen until the trump administtion decided to make it happen. critics actually said that moving our embassy would hur our credibility in the region. three years later, the abraham accords proved that that was 100% wrong. another reason american credibility has soared in the mile east is president trump took a strong stance against iran. he did that by dealing with the nuclr agreement that president obama and the obama administration struck. it allowed iran to eventually get a nuclear weapon and reduce sanctions is on the couries'

leaders as they continued to sponsor terrorism around the world. in fact, even return substantial amounts of money that we now know went in large part into terror-building network efforts. the agreement was badly handled from the start. it didn't work after we entered into it. we dn't enter into it with in any kind of binding way because it was clear at the time that if this agreement would have been presented as a treaty, it had no chance of being approved by the senate. and so i think it was entered into thinking this is such a great idea that the president will have to do it, wheth the country is bound to it or not. the hard work of doing our work the right way makes difference. and, in fact, that agreement would have been changed before a senate would hav considered ever approving it, but it would

have been either approved or not approved rather thanhe process wence th through, which was a -- the process we went through, which was a lot o opposition, but no response to that opposion. the president took a spotlight on the deal's failure to protect our national security. he took a strong, new aprofess to -- approach to applying pressuren the iranian rime. and it's had impact. eventually, tt new view led to eliminating qasem soleimani, who was clearly the architect o iran's terrorist activities and the attacks on americans. there's been no doubt about that for a long time. this was the number-one -- iran, the number-one state sponsor of terrorism. soleimani, genal soleimani, the number-one architect of that state sponsorship of terrorism.

and the president wasilling to do what needed to be done there. the world is a safer place with him gone, and iran knows that we will not turn a blind eye on aggression or on false promises or often even things being said that on the face of them are clearly not true and the world community is expected to agree with them. and, frankly, in the case of iran, often decides the best course is to agree that tngs that you know are not true are presented as if they're true and accepted as if they're true. this doesn't get you where you want to do. accommodating and rewarng our enemies doesn't advance peace in the middle east or anywhere else. building stronger alliances and holding terrorists accountable does. stronger allianc are also a

goal of the trump administration's new focus on the indo-pacific region. e president recognid that china is the greatest threat to democracy and freedom from the world. cannot counter that threata alone, and because of that has reached out i meaningfulays. while other administrions have said thewould pivot to the pacific, the trump administration actually oversaw a period of renewed engagement in the area, renewed branding of the area that iicated that the indo-pacific is now that command, the indo-pacific is now that focus. we have strengthened our allices with india and with austlia and other countries in the region. we began working to fost a multilateral community, one that will protect the free a open nature of the region from the threat of china. i was justeading in the news

today that china clearly i sending a message in hong kong. if you don't want to be in jail and you're for hong kong freedom, you just need to leave right now. and apparently theyre willing to help you get to where your are willing to live under ando maybe have no choice but to live under the repressn of china. the president also talkction to strengthen global security and stability by asking our ales to pull their weight. r too many years other countries seemed content to let american taxpayers bea the cost of defending freedom everywher in the world. president ump challenged the other members of nato to meet the organization's guideline of spending 2% of their gross domestic product on defense. our allies stepped up in my

cases and did bette than they'd been doing. in 2016, just four of the 28 countries in nato met the 2% guideline. four out of 28, mr. psident. today that number is stillot at 28, but it's at ten countries that now exceed the gueline -- rememberfour countries met the guideline thre years and ten months ago. ten countries have now exceeded the guideline, and every country in the alliance with a military has increased its defense ending. -- defense spending. that's important progress, and it wouldn't have happened if the president of the united states had not been willing to say the obvious and frankly be very direct about it and make himself an uncomfortable partner at the negotiatg table. but if what you're uncomfortable about is you're willing to say, do what you've agreed to do,

it's about time somebody not only said do what you agree to do but said it in a way that other countries took it seriously. the president sought to addss imbalances and protect u.s. interests in the area of global trade. the trump administration placed the nafta agreement with a new trade deal with mexico and canada. countries, but it needed to be improved. it need to bepdated. and now it has been. in my state, missouri, the top two countries --hose two countrieare our two biggest trading partners, and that's the case for the united states. mexico, then canada, dwarf trade with almost every other country in the world, as theyrade with the united states. and the new agreement will lead to more jobs and bigger paychecks in all thr

countries. r goal in our neiborhood should be not just to make ourselves stronger but to make our neighbors stronger, because we're stronger when our neighbors are stronger. nationwide, exportsre expected to grow by $2.2 billion under usmca. and our trade relationship with japan is even stronger thanks to a new agreement that went into effect at the start of the year. it's clear that there's been lots of activity in america's foreign policy over the past four years. been a lot of iortant progress and a lot of success stories. an awful lot was done in an unconventional way, so it frankly doesn't get covered by the traditional trade press or the traditionaloreign policy press or the traditional defense press that real in ways the results should produce. these are not areas thattest go the attention -- these are not

areas that get the attention that they deserve. i think when people look back at the four years that we've just completed in foreign policy, they're going to look at what has happened, understand it in the context of wha was happening and i'm sure they will believe that tse items that i've talked about today led to a stronger and saferountry, as we approach the years ahead of us. with that, mr. president, i that there i an absence of ate quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. inhofe: mr. president. the esiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i ask unimous consent the quorum call in process be vitiated. the presiding ficer: without objection. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent that after the remarks of the next speaker that i be recognized for such time as i may consume. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. romney: mr. president, i rise today to celebrate the career of a remarkable public servant whose accomplishments have left an indelible mark upon our state and upon our country. congressman rob bishop has earned his place among the greats in utah in political

history and we thank him for his service. rob has dedicated his political career to fighting the tough battles over issues that matter to the people of my state, from the virtue of federalism, states rights and protecting individual liberty to promoting a strong national defense and sound public lands policy. and fight he did. four years ago puerto rico was fast approaching a fiscal cliff when rob, as chairman of the house natural resources committee, led a successful bipartisan effort to pass a complicated rescue package and restructure puerto rico's debt before it was too late. while rob will never rush to take credit or seek the spotlight, his legislative achievements are enduring and deserve our full praise and recognition. his accomplishments manifest closer to home as well. the brave men and women of our military and civilian workforce at our air force base know rob as a tremendous advocate.

through the war on terror, improvements and changes to our aircraft and updates to nuclear arsenal rob defended our hill air force base valiantly. at doug way proving ground he has completed an emergency aircraft runway. his steady leadership raised utah's profile for our national defense. so too is his advocacy for the utah test and training range. so it makes sense that this key to our nation's military readiness should bear his name. next congress i intend to introduce a bill to rename it the bishop utah test and training range. rare is a man with such professional distinction, intellect and personal conviction for the well-being of family, neighbors and strangers alike, who carries himself with such humility as rob. if used the -- if you had the pleasure of being with rob at a gathering you know he will stay

behind to help gather the chairs. most of all rob is a teacher. from his time as a public schoolteacher to his career in school service he ensures the next generation of young leaders has access to educational opportunities. not only by securing revenue for public schools as an elected official, but also by devoting his time to host students in the capital and teach them about politics, policy and our government. it's an honor to recognize my friend rob bishop as he begins his next chapter with his wife jeralyn, five children and nine grandchildren. for anyone who has not had the great pleasure of meeting rob you will likely easily recognize him on the street as maybe the last man in washington who wears an impeccable three-piece suit. thank you, rob, and good luck.

mr. inhofe: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i have mr. speaker asked unanimous consent that i be recognized for such time as i may consume. this is what i want to do, mr. president. something happened today that is deeply troubling to me, and i have a written response to what happened today. i'm going to go ahead and read that written response, then i want to talk about it. my written response is -- and i will take it so everyone will have the benefit of this. i'm talking about people here in this country, people in africa, people all around the world that are interested in this issue, okay. this is the written response. i think all the countries should recognize israel and applaud the president's unprecedented efforts to foster recognition between israel and the arab nations through the abraham accords. today's white house announcement

alleging morocco's sovereignty over western sahara is shocking and deeply disappointing. i'm saddened that the rights of the western saharan people have been traded away. in 1966, as west africa was being decolonized, the united nations general assembly agreed -- this is 1966 -- agreed that sahara deserves a referendum of self-determination for itswn future. the united states has supported this policy for decades and has worked to accomplish the referendum of self-determination. until today, this administration has continued our long history, one that has remained consistent across administrations, democrat and republican. we're not alone in this position. the african union, the united nations, the international court of justice, the european union have all agreed the sahari people have the right to decide what their own future is going to be. the president has been poorly advised by his team.

he could have made this deal without trading away the rights of the -- of voiceless people. during my most recent visit to the sahari refugee camps, i have visited with children that lived there. they were joyous, happy, ordinary children who didn't know yet that they were part of a frozen, forgotten conflict where their hopes and freedoms were dying a cruel death. i'm thinking about them and all the saharis today. i won't stop fighting for them. i won't let the world forget them. today's announcement does not change the united nations or the e.u. positions nor charter of the -- of the african union nor the opinion of the international court of justice. a referendum must still happen. i urge these organizations to stand strong and to support sahara's -- western sahara's right to self-determination, and i am confident the united states will be able to return to the policy that we've had since

1966. let me tell you what this is all about. since the colonization period in africa when different countries had colonies there, spain was the colony that had the colony of the land that is in question today. it was called the spanish sahara.if you remember in your history, franco was president at that time. this was back when things were falling apart for spain. franco was losing a lot of the control. they were not in a position to hold onto their colonies, not just in africa but anyplace else in the world. and so at that time, the u.n. came in in 1966. this goes all the way back to 1966. the u.n. asked for a referendum for self-determination for those people. so they recognized all the way

back -- that's the united nations recognized the sovereignty of the western sahara people. and that's been consistent then. that was 1966. in 1975 when there was a lot of people lining up to see who could get control, morocco jumped in with all their resources and did all they can -- they could at that time to capture the -- that area and to absorb that within morocco. in other words, take away from the free people of western sahara their land, and they did -- they did that. and so the international court of justice went in and said well, if the united nations couldn't do it, let's at least give them the right to have -- for a referendum for self-determination. that was 1975. immediately after that, morocco invaded western sahara.

now, you have got to keep in mind. this is morocco, with all of the resources, all of the wealth that they had, taking on a country that had -- that are armed with crude instruments. these are the people who rightfully owned and have lived in western sahara. western sahara -- if i had time, if i had known about this, i would bring the charts down to show where this land was and where it is today, but in 1975, the international court of justice made it very clear that they had the right to the territory, that morocco had no right to the territory of western sahara. now they invaded western sahara. spain and france were complicit at that time. spain had already had that -- colonized that area, and france had desires to do that. but today, today, as we speak today, there is not a country out there that recognizes the

right of morocco over western sahara. until today when this statement came out that we are trying to recognize those rights, nobody -- and i'm talking about i already listed all the people in the african american union, the united nations, the international court of justice, the european union. all of them, they recognize sahari as the people that had the right to decide their own future. everyone's in agreement. i can remember talking to -- at one time to netanyahu over in israel and explaining to them why morocco should not be trading -- able to trade and somehow get control of land that they are not entitled to in order just to say we recognize israel. yeah, we want all arab nations to recognize israel. this is something that the president has done, but this is

the area that involves not just two countries, morocco and israel. it's all the countries in africa, virtually everybody in east and west africa and all the surrounding area, they all agree that that is territory, that is the territory of western sahara. and that they should have a referendum of self-determination. we all have agreed with that for years, not just to -- we're talking about back to 1966, and everyone is in agreement that they are the ones who are entitled to that. and so in 1991, they had a cease-fire and a mission began to provide a referendum for self-determination. that was the united nations and virtually everybody else. everyone is in agreement on that. it certainly was initiated from the united nations. that was to have a cease-fire in

1991 by the u.n. and work toward that self-determination. then in 2004, the united states and morocco signed a free trade agreement. now, this is kind of interesting because this is a joint effort between our country, the united nations and morocco, for a free trade agreement. in that free trade agreement, they agreed explicitly to exclude western sahara because morocco does not have sovereignty over it. now, that was the agreement in 2004 that was signed by both the united states and morocco. so they agreed at that time, as everyone else did, that that should be an independent country with the right of self-determination. then the african union, they came along. so far you have got the united nations, you have got the united states and morocco in a signed free trade agreement, but then you also had the -- morocco when

it joined the a.u. signing a document. this is what came from the african union. they recognized western sahara as its own country. this is the african union. now, this is -- we're talking about 52 nations in the african union that all agree on this. no one is in disagreement on this. and so they have recognized -- morocco when it joined the a.u. signed a document. when they joined the african union -- and we're talking about morocco now up on the north -- northeast edge of that territore a.u., the african union, they signed a document acknowledging all member states and their borders, and that is acknowledging the western sahara area as not a part of morocco. now, this is morocco agreeing to this. so you have the united nations in 1991, you have the u.s. and

morocco in the free trade agreement in 2004. you have an agreement explicitly stating where the lines should be. then you have the african union coming along and recognizing ths all of the countries, 52 nations in the african union, have all of them in agreement with this. south africa is the present chair of the a.u. and one of their priorities is to resolve the western sahara issue. now, all of that happened prior to today. as i say, in my written statement, i really believe, i know that -- our president has a big heart. i have argued for him and to benefit him. the various times that we have had conflicts out there, and one of them when they came out with a statement, they are going to immediately -- this is a couple of years ago -- move the people out of germany, move them back to the united states.

it's going to be done before the end of the year. i made the public statement. that was not the president talking. that was a policy that came out of the white house that i seriously doubted that he even knew about and certainly would not agree with. there is one thing the president is compassionate about is the families. you can't just up the families that were stationed in germany and move them back to the united states, kids in school, all these things. he is a compassionate person. he is the first one in line to take care of our troops every time there is a problem. this is the same situation. in this case, he is not the type of person that would bag the freedom-loving people of western sahara to morocco. and so that's what happened. this is not -- this is an old issue. this dates back to 1966. i can remember -- and this is highly unusual -- as a member of the united states senate, there was a hearing in the house. this is about three or -- maybe

five or six years ago. and i served -- i asked to be a witness in that hearing, and the hearing was about western sahara and morocco. now, keep in mind, morocco is a very wealthy country. they -- they have virtually every lobbyist in washington is paid by them. they have a -- and at that time i can remember standing there in that hearing in the house of representatives and listening to all the lobbyists that they had hired. against a country that doesn't have any money. they don't have really any formal armaments. they are heroic people. they are fighters. they continue to fight for their freedom, but they don't have the resources. and so this is way back then, and pointed out that morocco has used all of their wealth to try to get the land that justly belongs to the western saharan

people. that's not anything new. that has been happening for a long time. and they -- at that time i remember i took the transcript at that time. i think it was six or seven years ago, in that hearing. i said that morocco owns every lobbyist in washington, d.c., and it's kind of the giant out there against this small group of people who are being thrown out of their land that they justly own. it's self-determination -- who can fight and argue against self-determination? certainly our president is not the type of person who would fight against self-determination. he would be for self-determination. that's the kind of person that he is. that's why this thing -- i just think that some poor advice from some advisors that threw in that thing. as i said in my formal statement, he could have done that with them without giving away some of the rights of the land of the western saharan

peoples. so i just wanted to make sure that everyone knows that this it everything that this president successfully has been doing in bringing the arab world into the israeli world and doing something for peace in the middle east. everybody else has tried. every democrat and republican president i can think of in memory has tried to do this and has not been successful until this president did it. it's just in this case, i don't think it was necessary to give away to -- to stand up to people, the just people in the area where they don't have any resources, they have been living in the desert. three generations now have come and gone, and all of them know that at one time, there was peace and they owned their land, and that day would come that they would get their land back. that hasn't happene yet. but i think with this mistake

that was made, it is certainly not in the interest of all of our friends. and i say that without any exceptions. they are all on our side on this thing. our policies have been clear fo. since 1966. i remember when i was sometime ago in 1994, i came from the house to the senate, and i had a long visit at that time with jim baker, who had been the secretary of state in the previous administrations. and i called him up and said, this is such a huge injustice of what has happened, what morocco has done to these people of western sahara, and yet -- and he said, you're right and we've done everything. i said we've got to change that and i'm going to make that commitment. this was back in 1994. and he said, well, i admire you for doing that. this is jim baker talking. he said, i don't think you will

be able to do it because they have too many resources, too much money in the -- and the western saharan people don't have any money, they don't have any resources and they are the ones who have been abused in this. he said, good luck. i will do everything i can to help you. that was back when jim baker was secretary of state, that was a long time ago. since that time, every administration -- and not just republican administrations, democrat administrations, they say this is unfair, we can't allow that giant to take over the righteous people and that's what has happened. so it's not over yet. and i can assure you that i will make every effort i can to make sure that we will go back to the policy that we had and that ultimately we'll achieve, maybe this will be just the thing. this shock treatment for the american people and for the people around the world might be just the thing that is going to

offer them an opportunity for a referendum for self-determination. who can be against a referendum for self-determination? certainly no americans that i know. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. anduggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding offir: the clerk will call the roll.

a senor: mr. president. the esiding officer: the senior senator from indiana. a senator: thank you mr. president. i rise tay to commend an outstanding -- the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call. a senator: i ask csent to vitiate the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. young: mr. president, i rise today to commend an outstanding hoosier whose work in indiana's child and family welfare system has touched countless lives, including my own. sharon pierce, president and c.e.o. of the villages, a nonprofit family services agency will soon be retiring after a distinguished 47 year career of serving our children and our families. sharon also happens to be my

aunt and i've seen first hand her love and dedication to indiana's children. her call to service started early in life. when she was young, sharon's mother volunteered at a youth home in fort wayne. she and her siblings would help her mother with holiday parties and it was there that she first learned how important the family is to a child. a graduate of ball state university, sharon's entire career since then has been dedicated to public service. prior to her work at the villages, she worked for several work advocacy programs in illinois. she also served as a deputy director at the indiana division of family and children, the forerunner of today's indiana department of child services. while at the division of family and children, she helped create a 1-800 number to report

suspected child abuse and she also established the healthy families initiative which still today provides resources to first-time, at-risk parents to prevent abuse and neglect. in 1992 she became the c.e.o. and president of the villages where she has created a culture of compassion and a deep commitment to supporting families in need. at the villages, children are enrolled in family and child support services with the goal of helping to keep family members together. the villages also provides foster care and offers support for relatives and family friends who are helping to raise a child, including education and child abuse prevention services. sharon has said even though the villages is probably best known for high-quality foster care,

the reality is we want to do anything we can to keep families together. anything we can to keep families together. it's hard to imagine a mission more critical than this. i'm not the only one to offer my praise for sharon pease. indiana's governor eric holcomb said the following, sharon's saintly efforts over the decades touched the lives of countless hoosier children. she taught, inspired, led so many others over the years to invest in those who needed it the most. indiana department of child services director terry stigden said she ex useds -- she has dedicated her professional life to ensuring children have a bright future regardless of their circumstances. her work has inspired countless

others, including me, and the policies i choose to focus on here in the senate. i know my aunt sharon is looking forward to spending more time with her husband, my uncle steve, their four children and now their seven grandchildren, and she's more than earned this next chapter in her life. but as a point of personal privilege and on behalf of the people of indiana, i offer my heartfelt thanks for her decades of service and i wish her very well in this next chapter. thank you, mr. president. mrs.lackburn: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. president. i have to tell you every day i am hearing from tennesseans who are asking what we're going to do about covid relief.

it is coming up in nearly every conversation that i have with our county mayors, with citizens, with employers and employees. conversations with those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. why can't we get something done? the phones really started ringing last week when we had speaker pelosi, the speaker of the house, accidentally revealed that it was politics and not principle that convinced her to spend months -- months standing between the american people and targeted relief that they are asking for and that they desperately need. it was politics -- all politics to her. people were pawns that she was

moving around trying to get her way. it is disgusting, it's a tragedy, but i will tell you this, it is nothing new. in fact, since july democrats have continuously blocked efforts to provide targeted relief. the minority leader obstructed these efforts in the hopes of passing a $3 trillion bill. that's right. $3 trillion bill. it was filled to the brim with partisan proposals that had nothing to do with the pandemic and a bailout for fiscally irresponsible states and cities. tennesseans are very much opposed to having their hard-earned dollars that are tax dollars that come to the federal

government used to bail out states who have chosen not to be fiscally responsible. they say above all else, do not bail out these states, these cities, these pension funds. let's be clear to the american people. it is the speaker of the house and the minority leader who are holding noncontroversial relief. they are holding it hostage. there should be another round of p.p.p. there should be an increase of plus-up with unemployment. there should be more money for vaccines and testing and getting children back to school. but, oh, no. for mobtsds, what -- for months, what did they want to do? play politics. play politics with people's lives. if that isn't the most tone deaf

thing that i have ever heard, i don't know what is. perhaps some of my friends across the aisle should check their mail and make certain that their office phones are being answered. people are quite upset with them. it doesn't stop there. i wish it did. it only gets worse. in the fall the democrats filibustered targeted relief proposals not once but twice and rejected a much-needed extension of the paycheck protection program almost as soon as it was proposed. this month more of the same. their refusal to negotiate in good faith has made it abundantly clear to the business owners, the health care providers, and millions of other struggling americans that partisan grandstanding is more of a priority for democrats than

doing their jobs. mr. president, the american people are not pawns and it's time my colleagues in the minority stopped treating them as such. the house speaker and senate democrats might have all the time in the world to stall. maybe they are pretty comfortable with where they are, but outside of this chamber, for a lot of our families and small businesses that are struggling, it's the 11th hour. now is not the moment to strong arm the u.s. senate into rubber-stamping a radical liberal wish list. it's time to step up and deliver relief, targeted relief, relief we all agree will mean the difference between survival for many of these small businesses and economic collapse. money and support for vaccines and -- another full round of

p.p.p. funding for the businesses that need it most and support for our front line heroes and essential workers. this bullet list of absolute essentials must also include reasonable, responsible liability protections for small businesses and health care workers. these protections are the flip side of relief funding. without them, we take these business owners and workers out of one bad situation and put them right into another one. and without them, we've effectively forced entire industries to choose between economic survival or in the case of health care workers, literal survival and death by opportunistic lawsuits. we can't allow this to happen. one of the things that i have noticed this past year is how

critical it is for us to be able to articulate problems and lay the foundation to address them before an emergency strikes. in tennessee like in many other states, the number of people who live in rural and remote areas post challenges when it comes to providing a variety of services that we all consider essential. chiefly among them, health care delivery and access to high-speed internet. i have worked with health care practitioners and advocates to cut a path forward for the widespread use of telemedicine. last year i introduced the rural health agenda to increase access to health care for the 60 million americans who live in rural areas. a crucial component of that legislative package was a set of provisions that lifted unnecessary regulatory barriers standing in the way of access to

telemedicine, as always it is the red tape that slows up progress. the pandemic only highlighted the importance of opening up contact-free access to health care. fortunately in march, after a lot of meetings with the white house and medicare and medicaid services administrator seema verma, we were able to roll back a particularly frustrating regulation preventing the use of telemedicine by medicare enrolees. provisions i supported as part of the cares act further expanded access to telemedicine by removing even more of that red tape and providing funding for reimbursement to frontline health care providers. of course, access to telehealth and access to high-speed

internet go hand in hand. you can't really have one without the other. this week i learned that the f.c.c. as a result of the recent rural digital opportunity fund auction, they have now made some great steps. and tennessee is going to receive about $150 million to help close the digital divide over the next decade. these new connections will be a game changer for rural and underserved communities. not only will it open up access to telehealth, distance learning, and remote work opportunities, it will open up the local economy and encourage growth and outside investment because these dollars are targeted to unserved areas. this award coupled with cares act funding put to work earlier

this year will help us build on our prepandemic work on behalf of rural and unserved americans. the internet exchange act, a bipartisan bill i sponsored to provide grant funding for broadband infrastructure recently reported out of our commerce committee. the pieces are indeed falling into place and hopefully we can keep the momentum going and finally get this job done. closing the digital divide, providing everyone with access to high-speed internet. allowing communities that have been cut off from economic development, from telehealth, from remote learning, to enhance law enforcement -- to enhanced law enforcement, allowing them

to benefit. it's not just a matter of connectively or convenience. it is an investment and a better quality of life for all americans who call the rural parks of this country home. i yield the floor. i note the absen of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk ll call the roll. quorum call:

senator fromansas.cer: the a senator: those of us -- the presiding officer: we are a quorum call. a senato thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous conse the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: mr. president, those of us who have the privilege of working in the united states senate, it allows us the opportunity to meet wonderful people who care about their country, who go to work every day and make sure that the

country is safe and secure. one of those individuals that i've met over the last year, met a year ago and now has worked in my office as -- he's an army lieutenant. his name is colonel kevin ryan. he's a member of my staff as an army fellow, participating if the united states army congressional fellowship program. and i want to take a moment to recognize lieutenant colonel kevin ryan's contribution certainly to my office, to my capabilities of representing kansans in the united states senate, but his commitment to the country as well. before he departs my office to return to the big army at the start of the new year, i want to express my appreciation to colonel ryan for all of his hard work, his dedication and service to our country. his 14 years in service in the united states army have developed his leadership abilities and shaped his perspective on major defense issues of national significance. these assets and attributes have made him an invaluable asset for

our team as we work to serve kansans, members of the military, and our veterans. before joining our office, kevin's assignments have taken him around the world in service to his country. kevin earned his commission from norwich university, the military college of vermont. he served four combat tour, two in afghanistan and two in iraq and he also has been deployed to korean, italy and germany. his recent deployment took him to iraq in 2017 where he served as the senior intelligence officer for the brigade that assisted iraqi forces in the liberation of mosul from the islamic state. kevin is lucky to have his wife lindsey, daughter colleen, son john by his side and blessed to have their unwavering support. kevin joined our team in january 2019 and from day one, he embraced kansas, its people and the challenges they face day in and day out. he is well known for displaying his love of kansas outwardly, often wearing a kansas necktie

in the meetings and on zoom calls. he has made it a priority to spend time in our state and learn from kansans so he can bring their thoughts and ideas back to the nation's capital. these personal conversations with kansans and kevin's experience in the army have helped drive meaningful policy. he has led the efforts to recognize the important work of the 688th directory battalion, the only all african american, all female battalion to be deployed overseas during world war ii. the six triple 8 as this battalion has come to be known sorted millions of pieces of backlogged mail so that troops serving on the front lines could hear from their families and loved ones. their efforts boosted morale and directed -- directly contributed to our service members' fighting spirit toward the end of the war. kevin has been a tireless add cat for these women -- advocate for these women and i commend his dedication to this cause. though i'm sad he will be leaving our office at the end of the month, i know he will serve

the army well in the army's program office where i'm confident he will be highly effective ambassador to congress for the army. kevin is one of the most impressive military officers i've had the honor of knowing and i hold him in the highest regard personally and professionally. he is a significant asset to our country and to the united states army. kevin represents the best the army has to offer and i know he will continue to benefit the future of our nation. there is no group of people i hold in higher regard than those who serve our nation, and i want to reiterate any gratitude to kevin and to his family for their dedication and service to our nation. once again, kevin, thank you for all you've done for kansans, all you've done for our team as we serve those kansans. you have been a model of selfless service and leadership. i know that you will continue to do great things throughout your army career and your life of service wherever that path may lead. mr. president, i notice the absence a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: mr. president, we are currently in the midst of the worst moment of the pandemic up to now. we have record-breaking numbers of deaths, of diagnoses of people with covid-19, of hospitals unable to accommodate even more people. and in the midst of this pandemic, obviously we are also in a severe economic meltdown,

and there are economists who are telling us that the desperation of working families in this country today, right now, is worse than at any time since the great depression. in vermont and all over this country, we have workers who have lost their jobs and their income. people who are by the millions behind in their rent and are afraid of being evicted, afraid of losing their homes, people who have lost their health insurance, unable to go to a doctor, in the midst of a terrible pandemic, they don't have health insurance, can't go to a doctor when they get sick, and what we are seeing today is a record number of americans who are struggling literally with

hunger, unable to feed their kids. i know in vermont and all over this country, there are lines of automobiles, cars, of people who would never, never receive governmental help in lines for emergency bags of groceries. that is what is going on in this country today. now, back in march, in the beginning of the pandemic, this congress came together, democrats and republicans, and president trump came together and virtually unanimously passed a cares act, $2.2 trillion, which, among many other features, provided a $600 supplement to unemployment benefits for four months and $1,200 direct payments for every

working class adult in this country, plus $500 for their children. and here is the truth. is that is that program, that care program saved lives, gave dignity to people who are at their wit's end and saved this economy from further downfall. well, today, we are where we are, which is at another terrible moment in this pandemic. and this congress must act. we cannot leave here to go home to our families for the christmas holidays while other families throughout this country by the millions are wondering how they're going to pay the rent or feed their kids. we cannot do that.

and i'm proud to say that senator hawley from missouri and i have worked together on a pretty simple amendment, he will be talking about it in a second, which says that we must include in any legislation that is passed a direct payment of $1,200 for adults and $500 for kids. we cannot, we must not leave washington unless we do that. and next week, i am going to do everything that i can to make sure that that happens. we cannot, we will not leave washington unless we make certain that millions of families have the economic assistance that they need. so we are working on bipartisan legislation and on -- senator

hawley has done a very, very good job on this. i'm proud to yield the floor to him. mr. hawley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. hawley: i'm delighted to join with senator sanders in this important legislation. it's very simple legislation, and this is to my mind a very simple proposition. here's the proposition. that when it comes to covid relief in the midst of this crisis, working families and working people should be first to get relief, not last. their interests, their needs should be first on our to-do list, not last. now, i have heard some of my colleagues say that there just isn't enough left for working families, that once we take care of our other priorities and covid relief, there just isn't enough left to give direct assistance to individuals. i want to respectfully suggest that those priorities are exactly reversed.

we should begin with the working people of this country, and that's why the legislation that senator sanders and i are introducing, which i believe every senator voted for in march, it's simple legislation, $1,200 for each individual. $2,400 for a couple. and $500 for every dependent in the family. it's exactly what this congress approved overwhelmingly back in march, and it was indeed a lifeline. i know it was for missourians in my state, for working families in my state. i remember in the hours and days after congress passed this in march fielding call after call after call from friends, from people i didn't know in my state but whom i represent and called me to say, first of all, is it really true? are we actually glg to be getting this support? and then just to say thank you. i said don't thank me. thank you for being the ones who have built this country, the ones who sustained this country, the ones on whom this country

depends. and i will just say also as a matter of fairness, if the united states government is going to shut down your business, if it's going to tell you to go home for health reasons, if it's going to give you no choice in the matter, i think that there is an obligation to support and help the people who are affected through no fault of their own. let's be clear. the millions of americans who are out of work because of this pandemic, they haven't done anything wrong. the 853,000 americans who today the new numbers tell us filed for unemployment benefits, they're not at fault in this pandemic. we want to support and stand with working individuals and working families. i want the working people of missouri to know that they are first on the priority list, and when it comes to covid relief, we will not leave this town until we have voted up or down, until we have voted on direct relief for working people, in my state, in senator sanders'

state, and in every state in this union. with that, thank you, senator sanders, yield back. mr. sanders: thank you very much, senator. and let me just say this. in march, as senator hawley indicated, we came together, and i had the same experience in vermont. people in desperation called the office, when can we get the check? we desperately need it. i suspect it was the same thing in texas and the same thing in every other state in this country. people are hurting. we cannot go home unless we address the needs of those people. and the amendment that senator hawley and i are introducing could not be simpler. it is $1,200 in direct payment for adults up to a certain limit, the same limb as was in the cares act -- the same limit as was in the cares act of $500 for their children. we have already voted and passed that exact same provision in

march. and the situation today is not better. in some respects, it is worse. so i would hope that we would have bipartisan support for this legislation. look, it is no great secret that the -- republican, democrat, whatever, that people are losing faith in their government. we are hurting, their kids are hurting, their parents are hurting, and they look to washington and they say do you know that we exist or are you just worried about your rich friends and your campaign contributors? in this moment of economic crisis, we have got to do everything that we can to restore faith that this government works for ordinary people. so let us do the right thing. let us pass this amendment in a bipartisan way. let us show the working families

of america that we understand what they are going through and we are going to stand with them. and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i'm glad to be here on the floor of the senate with my friend, senator bob menendez, asking that the united states senate advance legislation to establish a national museum of the american latino. as a proud texan, i'm fortunate to grow up in a state steeped in

the contributions of hispanics and latinos. they are not monolithic, which is another reason why we need a museum to tell their stories. they are the tahanos, whose roots predate our statehood or even texas independence as well as those who have immigrated from other states or countries and chose to call texas home more recently. from the brave soldiers who fought in the texas revolution to activists, cultural icons like selena, generations of latinos have shaped our country as it is today. but as i suggested a moment ago many americans simply arnt aware of -- aren't aware of the vast

contributions made by the men and women who have come before us. one critical way to right this wrong is by providing a home for their store i whys in the nation's capitol. i heard somebody suggest, mr. president, that we don't need a separate museum for different racial groups and ethnic groups and the like but this is far more important than that because the story of american latinos is a story of america itself. many people simply aren't familiar with the vast contributions they've made. this particular effort has been under way for more than 25 years. nothing happens very quickly, particularly when it comes to establishing a new museum like this. but we're just two steps away and i hope the senate can take one big step this afternoon by passing this bipartisan legislation and sending it to the president's desk for his significant. i know there are some of our colleagues who have concerns

about the museum location, and i can assure them that congress will have a voice in the sight of this museum -- in the site of this museum. but before construction can begin, congressional committees will be consulted on site collection as laid out in the bill and i believe a colloquy. the smithsonian is chaired by the supreme court chief justice and come prizes -- comprises three sitting senators and the vice president. congress will also need to appropriate funds to supplement the private fundraising that will help finance this museum. but the appropriation requirement will be a de facto ratification selected by the smithsonian board of region. there will be a lot of input made into that decision of we're not making that decision here today. i believe there needs to be open lines of communication between members of congress and

smithsonian board of reagents as they undertake this project. it's been estimated if we pass this bill today, the doors to the new museum will not open for at least a decade. the national museum of the american latino will honor and preserve the stories of latinos throughout american history. so generations are view a more accurate and more complete history of the contributions made by these great americans. and i hope the senate will advance this critical legislation today. mr. menendez: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, i come to the floor today and will shortly ask for unanimous consent on h.r. 2420, the national museum for the american latino act. and let me just thank my colleague, distinguished colleague from texas, senator

cornyn. he's been a great partner throughout this entire process, strong advocate. helped us navigate some of the challenges we've had along the way and i'm thrilled to be on the floor with senator collins who will make a motion on the women's history museum, which i strongly support and i appreciate her support for the american latino museum. today the senate stands at the precipice of history. we have before us an opportunity to set in motion a process that will eventually culminate in the establishment of a national museum devoted to the history, struggles, and achievements of latinos and latinas in the united states. this is long overdue. some colleagues say, well, why do we need another museum? well, it was in 1994 when the smithsonian task force on latino issues published its report

entitled willful neglect. a report acknowledging the institution's own glaring omission of hispanic history and culture. the report found and i quote, the smithsonian institution, the largest museum complex in the world displays a pattern of willful neglect of latinos in the united states because of both indigenous roots and spanish heritage, latinos predate the british in the united states. they have contributed significantly to every phase and aspect of american history and culture, yet the institution almost entirely secludes and ignores latinos in nearly every aspect of its operation. latinos are absent from positions of power and authority within the institution which helps to perpetuate the seclusion of latino history and culture from the museum's collections, exhibitions and

programs, close quote. the report also acknowledges how the smithsonian's exclusion of latinos and latinas has not only harmed hispanic americans, but all americans. as the report says, and i quote, the failure of the smithsonian to reflect and respect hispanic contributions is twice damaging. it denies latinos their right to feel recognized and valued as part of the country's heritage and at the same time it perpetuates among the general population the inaccurate belief that latinos have contributed little to our country's development or culture rather than reflecting the multicultural history of the united states, close quote. mr. president, without treading into politics, i think it's important that we acknowledge this misconception is alive and well today. in recent years we have heard hispanic americans, immigrants and of used as scapegoats.

we have witnessed the rise of xieno phobia, we have seen this propel acts of horrific disebts. we latinos and latinas are not invaders. we have been here from the beginning. the oldest city in america well before pilgrims in jamestown was st. augustine, florida. founded by a menendez and our stories must be told. who here does not emerge from the smithsonian museum of american history more informed about the many movements that have shaped our country? who does not emerge from the museum of the -- of the indiana museum -- who does not emerge from the museum of

african american history inspired by the perseverance and the power of our black community? we all do. the smithsonian institution is truly a national treasure. mr. president, i am not white or black or native american. i am latino. i am one in five americans today. my grandchildren are one in four school children today. but when we walk through the national mall or should i say when anyone walks through the national mall, no one is inspired by the story of la teen yeses and la -- latinos an latinas in this country because that story is not being told. walk outside these halls and ask someone who the former spanish governor of louisiana before louisiana was a state who led an all-spanish division against the british against washington

who -- as they were approaching washington and helped in the revolutionary war. the congress gave him u.s. citizenship. his portrait was supposed to be hung in the congress of the united states. so much was the battle that he led. his portrait finally hangs in the senate foreign res.es room -- foreign relations room. go to gaut -- ask a child who the first settlers and where they hailed from, they won't say st. augustine, florida. the history of the american latino has been remained unknown. it has been nearly 30 years since the smithsonian task force recommended that the institution immediately begin laying, quote, the groundwork needed to assure the establishment of one or more museums portraying the

historical, cultural and artistic achievements of u.s. hispanics. close quote. 30 years. for nearly 30 years, those words have echoed on empty ears. my friends, that silence and inaction must end today. we hispanics are not a monolithic community. our families are as diverse as they come. we are puerto rican, mexican, cuban, colombia and more, we are left and right and everywhere in between. some of our ancestors settled before the dawn of the republic, others searched for freedom and opportunity. some of us grew up along our southern border in cities and communities borne out of blended cultures many some of us, myself included are first-generation americans. our parents uprooted their lives and came to this country with no connection at all in order to

give their children a brighter future. indeed, that story of hard work and boundless optimism is the common thread that runs throughout our latino community, all 60 million of us living in the united states. and i would argue that story is as american as they come. let us ensure that the story is told right here in the nation's capital where it belongs. let us pass h.r. 2420 and let us ensure that some day in the near future, latino and latino children and other children who walk through our national mall will no longer wonder why the story of their families are missing. i know i cannot wait for the day that i can take my granddaughters to the national museum of the american latino. so it's been a long and winding road for this bill, one of which i hope will complete its path today in congress. this has already been passed by the house of representatives by