srupts our elections, our ecomy and our health and how we must adapt. and 9 p.m. eastern o after words, west virginia university professor and writerer, the author of "love and wanted" a memoir of choice, children and womanhood how she was denied health and pre productive health care for her children. she's joined by the policy director. watch book tv on c-span2 this weekend. weekend. >> the u.s. senate today focused on two issues, the 2021 nation defense north sayings act and extending government funding through december 18th. current expires tonight. and we expect debate on the funding could happen anytime. now to live coverage of the u.s. senate.

the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. black, will open the senate in prayer. the chaplain: l us pr. eternal god, our hope for the years to come, we come to you with a tangled mass of motives, seeking through prayer to make sense of life. guide our lawmakers as they seek to unravel the good from the bad, the sweet from the bitter,

and the harmony from the discord. teach them how to seek and find you during this challenging season of our national life. lord, give them calm strength and patient wisdom to do what is best for our nation and world. vanquish the darkness through the power of your celestial brightness. turn your face toward us and show us your glory. we pray in your sovereign name. amen. the presidt pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance

to the flag of the uted states of america, and the republic for which stands, e nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr. grassley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. sorry. i was not looking at the rig person. the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: thank you ry much. one minute f morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: i would speak about iowans who are well noted

for things wherever they lived in iowa, but i'm particularly proud to speak about a person from cedar falls, iowa, a town i know well because i've lived my entire 87 years eight miles on a farm from cedar falls. so this week, nasa announced that raja shari from cedar falls, iowa, has been selected for team of astronauts that will go to the moon as part of the artemis mission. the artemis mission will land astronauts on the moon in the year 2024, with the goal of establishing a long-term presence. raja shari will be a part of this effort that will assure americans continue leadership and preeminence in space.

i congratulate raja on his accolishments and wish him and all the astronauts that are part of this mission great success i yield the floor. mcconnell mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: the senate needs to pass a stopgap funding measure today. we need to advance what will be the 60th annual defense authorization bill. this year's ndaa will cement the historic steps that congress and the trump administration have taken over the past four years to rebuild and reequip a 21st century fighting force. it directs investments in technologies to maintain our

strategic edge. it makes critical supply chains more secure, and the pentagon more accountable. and in the face of threats ranging from adversaries to this pandemic, it expands efforts to keep our men and women in uniform safe. i remain hopeful that essential progress on these items will continue. we ought to pass a full-year funding measure, and i hope our committees in the senate and the house can cplete their work and deliver legislation next week that said, mr. president, we know the american people's eyes are trained on the capitol for another reason as well. struggling families, exhausted health workers, and anxious small business owners are waiting, waiting for the senate to do what i have tried to accomplish over and over for months -- pass a significant, targeted covid relief bill, a bill for all the areas where bipartisan consensus already

exists. we know what that common ground looks like. a new second round of the paycheck protection program so hard-hit small businesses can keep paying their people. the necessary investments in distribution to get lifesaving vaccines out to our people. an extension of some unemployment programs that will otherwise expire in just a matter of days. republicans have been crystal clear about the sort of urgent and unobjectionable relief we're ready to deliver. i even offered to temporarily set aside one of our side's major requests, commonsense legal protections. and by the way, mr. president, 6,500 lawsuits have already been filed. to set aside commonsense legal protections to aid the reopening if democrats drop their own controversial outstanding demands, but day after day, the democratic leader finds new reasons not to compromise, new ways to avoid taking yes for an answer. in what universe should emergency aid for small

businesses be contingent, contingent on massive bailouts for state governments with no linkage to actual needs? democrats are acting like it's more important to supply the governor of california with a spial slush fund than to help restaurant workers in california keep their jobs. oh, and by the way, these demands for state and local government giveaways are blocking urgent aid for struggling famies at a time when many states' tax revenues have largely gone up, up. in november, california admitted their tax revenue for this fiscal year was running about 19% ahead of what they had predicted. the governor said earlier this week that he perceives a tax windfall, windfall, not a horrible budget crunch, but a windfall of nearly $16 billion. state lawmakers are preparing to argue over where to put all this unexpected tax money.

according to the "l.a. times," they are considering topping up the state's cash reserves. they aren't just getting by. they are putting more money away. here's another headline from a few days back, a state the occupant of the chair is familiar with. massachusetts tax revenues eclipse total for last november, despite covid-driven recession. another state where revenues are actually up over last year. whatever future problems, democrats may think they see around the corner, it is preposterous to claim that these blue states that are bragging about their tax windfalls must receive another federal handout right this instant, before working families can get a penny more. small businesses need saving right now. unemployed people need relief extended right now. vaccine distribution networks

need funding right now. none of that should be held hostage over intergovernmental bailouts for states that are currently raking in revenue faster than they can spend it. and yet the speaker and the democratic leader have persuaded their entire conference that nothing should pass unless the governors of california and new york get to cut the line and jump in front of millions of americans who are trying to figure out how to pay their bills each and every month. then there is democrats' apparently strong opposition to enacting any kind of legal protections to aid the reopening , targeted, temporary liability reforms are a common feature of national emergencies or strange events. the y2k mess, september 11, this is not some new concoction. it's what congress has done in the past. but this time, democrats say the

trial lawyers' interests must come first. they are threatening to kill any compromise whatsoever unless congress leaves small businesses, universities, and health care workers as sitting ducks, sitting ducks for frivolous lawsuits. my colleagues across the aisle want to present this stance as some bold crusade against evil corporations. well, mr. president, for one thing, it's the big corporations who can afford the massive legal departments. lawsuits are not exactly alien from the perspective of the fortune 100. no, it is small business advocates who have been pleading congress to pass legal protections since last may. it has been college presidents and higher education experts who have sounded this alarm the whole time. about seven in ten small business owners set a second -- said a second pandemic of lawsuits was a major concern. university administrators told us liability is, quote, a

national problem requiring a national solution that could produce a chilling effect on american education if not addressed. but democrats are threatening to walk away all together if republicans refuse to give these institutions what they need. so look, mr. president, a legislator's true position lies in what they do, not what they say. what republicans are done since july is make one attempt after another to generate a consensus package that can actually be signed into law. what senate democrats have done is recite an endless, endless chain of changing stories about why nothing that anyone proposes is any good. if my friends actually oppose p.p.p. funding, vaccine distribution money or extending some expiring unemployment aid,

let's hear why, but if they do not oppose these things, let's get them out the door. i propose setting aside both liability protections and state and local bailouts and making law where we can agree. democrats have thus far declined , but at the same time they are blocking an agreement on these issues. so unless something changes, they will get to explain to a restaurant owner that democrats didn't l her get a second p.p.p. loan to save her business because her governor neede a special slush fund. or explain to a laidoff worker that his relief program may expire completely because democrats didn't feel it was urgent. or explain to an older couple who have hunkered down and

survived this long year that their vaccines will arrive later than necessary because democrats wouldn't let us fund distribution. my democratic friends don't want to explain these inexplicable things, then they need to let us act now. mr. mcconnell:r. predent. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 931.

the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, thomas l. kirsch ii of india to be united states circuit judge for the seventh circuit. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senors, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 othe standing rules of the senate, dhereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of thomas l. kirsch iif indiana to be united states circuit judge for the seventh ccuit, signed by 17 senators as follows -- mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objectn. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the

question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all oosed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 932. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed say nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the cle -- the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: noirmings, the judiciary -- nomination, t judiciary, katherine a. crytzer to be united states district judge for t eastern district ofense ten. the clerk: cloture motn, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with e provisions of rule 22, do hereby bring to a close debate on of katherine a. crytzer, ofennessee, to be united states district judge for

the eastern district of tennessee. the presiding officer: i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to lislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding offir: the clerk will call theoll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. inhofe: mr.resident?

the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call in progress be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president, it's my understanding that the nority leader was going to be here, but we're getting very close to the time to actually cast our vote at 10:30. just 20 more minutes. so in the event that the minority leader comes, i would defer to him. my remarks and it's my honor to pent the 60th annualational defense authorization act for 59 straight years. you say this about any other piece of legislation all year or any time except the defense authorization bill. we passed this bill. we pass it every year for 59 years. this will be 60 years. i anticipate that we'll pass it now. there isn't much that happens around the capitol that has a

track record like that, but this is the bill. maybe i'm biased. maybe in some people's minds i'm wrong, but i think this is the most important bill of the year. i really believe that. i believed that since 1987. and this is something that we have to do. there's an old document nobody reads anymore called the constitution. in there it tells us what we need to be doing. that's exactly what we're going to be doing today. provide for our defense. so it's simple what this bill does. it makes our country more secure and supports our troops to defend it. right now this couldn't be more important as president trump's national defense strategy tells us. we're up against the most serious threats we've seen maybe forever. and it's coming from china and russia. these countries who stand against everything america stands for.

our building. you know, it bothers me that we went through the last five years of the obama administration that would have been from 2010 through 2015 where he criticized the military. we didn't have to have the military he felt. at this time i would suspend with my remarks. let me know and i'll be glad to suend. but fo -- during that time, during the obama administration, during those five years, he reduced the funding for the military by 25%. this has not happened in my hemry and hasn't happened -- memory and hajts happened since -- hasn't happened since world war ii. the tragedy is during that same time, china was increasing theirs by 83%. think about that, mr. president.

83% when you realize that we were reducing our expenditures by 25% while they're increasing theirs by 83%. now, that's serious enough and that's something that is very much of a concern to many of us. and so we know that they were increasing, we were decreasing. and as a result. things happen. there are some things that they did. hyper sonics, for example. that's one of the most recent exercises that's out there. th're actually today as we speak, they're ahead of us, both china and russia are ahead of the united states of america in hypersonics, that type of tech following that's out -- technology that's out there. i know there's a lot of controversy about this bill. i know that the president wanted to have something in there take

was having to do with language, had nothing to do with the military. and i agree wholeheartedly with him, but you can't -- you've got to have a defense authorization bill. our kids in the field demand it. and with the ndaa we're implementing the policies and programs to make sure that this doesn't happen. we ensure that america is able to prevent and if necessary win wars of today and tomorrow. and at this point i would like to defer to the minority leader and i do ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of his remarks, that i be recognized to makey remarks. the presiding offir: without objection. the esidinofficer: thedent? democrat leader. mr. schumer:irst, i want to thank the nator from oklahoma for, as usual, his courtesy which i very much appreciate. now, on -- now, mr. president, the cares act passed the senate on march 27, 2020. it was a rare moment in

bipartisanship and legislative triumph that saved our country from disaster in the very early days of the pandemic. as you know, i sat and negotiated a great deal of that with secretary of state mnuchin. and we all great it -- agreed it did a lot of good. a lot of good. but unfortunately for the past 259 days as the virus continues to spread, when we did the cares act, maybe it will be over by the summer. everyone thought that but obviously it wasn't. and so the virus has continued to spread. thousands of small businesses have closed their doors for good. tens of millions of americans lost their jobs and livelihoods, as american families waited in 21st century bread lines, cars snaking for miles down american highways, as tens of millions of americans fell behind on the rent and the mortgage and faced eviction, as 15 million

americans got sick and as 292,001 americans died, the senate republican majority, led by the majority leader, made sure the senate could not do anything of significance to help the american people. may, june, july, august, pause, we don't need to do anything, said the leader. let's wait and see what happens. democrats didn't say that. the leader did. waited and waited and waited. now it's december, and we still, because of the leader's intransigence, have nothing of significance to help the american people during the worst economic crisis in 75 years and the greatest public health crisis in a century. why? why can't we get together? why can't there be the bipartisanship that americans search for and yearn for at a time -- for?

at a time of such great crisis, there is one reason why america's two major parties have not gotten together during the time of acute natnal emergency, and that is because the republican leader has demanded a partisan poison pill, a sweeping corporate liability shield be included in any legislation, otherwise he won't let it pass. it sounds like an exaggerion, but that's what the leader has said. quote, he said, we're not negotiating over liability protection, the leader said on ly 28. quote, i will be responsible for putting the bill's final agreement on the floor. as i said, it will have liability protection in it. we're not negotiating with the democrats over that. that's the fact. that's the history. there is not equality here. bipartisan group of senators and house members were closing in on

a final agreement, what happened? yesterday, the republican leader's team told the other congressional leaders that the bipartisan gro would be unable to satisfy senate republicans. why? because it might not grant the exact sweeping liability protections for corporations that leader mcconnell has demanded. it's an unconscionable position. no relief for the american people unless corporations receivelanket immunity from lawsuits. that particular poison pill that has foiled bipartisan agreement for more than eight months is the nub of the problem. if we could just get past that, if the republican leader would only back off maximalist demands on corporate immunity, we could get something done. i mean it. we could actually get something done. now, i know the republican

leader will say wait a minute, democrats have partisan demands of their own like providing assistance to save state and local services. but to equate state and local aid, money for policemen and firefighters, bus drivers, sanitation workers to complete corporate immunity is false equivalence. we know the two policies are not equivalent. first of all, there is broad bipartisan support for state and localid. it's not a democratic demand. many republicans support i too. there are bipartisan bills on the floor of the senate demanding $500 billion in aid for the states. there are governors, democrat and republican, sending letters to all of us saying we need money, we need help. but the leader's corporate immunity provision doesn't have

the support of a democrat. not a single person voted for it. it's expressly partisan. there is not equivalence. i know the media likes to say on the one hand, on the other. there is not equivalence here. one is helping people who desperately need help. the other is a partisan demand that's been around for a long time that simply does not get bipartisan support. state and local aid is a solution to a real and urgent problem. corporate immunity from lawsuits is not. they are not equivalent. state and local budgets are deeply in the red. since the beginning of the pandemic, state and municipalities have laid off 1.3 million public employees -- firefighters, police, first responders, teachers. we're talking about jobs, jobs in red states as well as be states. the leader likes to cite one

statistic about tax revenue in one blue state to argue that no state, no state deserves federal aid. not wyoming or alaska or north dakota who have each seen sharp declines in tax revenue. not florida or nevada or louisiana who depend on tourism and face revenue declines of 10% or more. state and local aid is a real and you areient problem. it's not abstract. it's people and it's workers. p.p.p. that helps small businesses, one of its main rationales, an important one, something i agree with, prevent workers who work for small businesses from being laid off. what is the difference between a worker being laid off by a small business because they don't have funding or a worker being laid off from a state and local government because they don't have funding? there is no difference. there is no difference. and the leader's corporate immunity provision, on the other hand, is a solution ideological

in search of a problem. almost a year into this pandemic, 15 million americans infected, 290,000 lives lost to covid-19. there have been only 23 personal injury suits from exposure to the coronavirus, 23 in the entire cntry over the entire year. and that's why senate republicans can't reach a bipartisan agreement to help the unemployed feed the hungry, fund a vaccine, or support our schools. corporations who want protection from a few dozen lawsuits is equivalent to millions of workers from state and local governments being laid off. give me a break. and again, there are a few states who don't need the help, but many more states do. many more. this is mind-boggling. the republican leadership is blocking a solution for the entire country until they get a

favor for corporations who don't even need it. the american people, all of us are sick of this ridiculous gamesmanship by the majority leader. we need to come together. we need to get something done. the american people deser an outcome, and it's not going to happen if the republican majority insists on getting 100% of its partisan demands. i yield the floor and once again thank the senator from oklahoma for his courtesy. mr. inhofe: mr. president. the presiding office the senator from oklahoma.

mr. inhofe: first of all, i did want to get some final comments. i mentioned a minute ago, and of course it's the right of the leaders, democrat and republican leaders, to have the first time, and it's fine with me, but i just want to make one comment about it. the minority leader was talking about what's going on right now an who would be favored and all that. i think one of the things we don't talk about, we should talk about. i know the media doesn't like our president. a lot of the things that he has done. he didn't get credit for it. and one of the major things -- and this is all going to come out -- unfortunately this didn't come out before the election, but it should have, because there is this -- what did they call that? warp speed, is that right? yeah, this operation warp speed. this was back in june. the president came out with this. there was general perna was put in charge of it. the reason i -- and i wasn't prepared to talk about this, but i think it's important right now

that we do because i want to follow up with what the minority leader talked about because everyone is concerned aut it. they are all concerned about the coronavirus. this never happened in this country before, but it has happened. it had nothing to do with this administration. they did a great job. to demonstrate what a great job they did, they had the operation warp speed. this was back in june of this year. and they put general perna in charge of it. they wanted me to -- i share the senate armed services committee. they wanted us to have a -- a hearing on this. and i was so really excited. no one could have sat through that hearing last je without coming to the conclion that this thing is going to be behind us. we're winning on this thing. and you come to the conclusion that we're going to have the virus under control, we're going to have this system. we all know that's happening today, right now, as we are speaking. we have several companies, five

companies who have come to the -- come so close, and they are now distributing the necessary equipment so the people would become immune to this thing. that's happening right now. and it happens that even though this was last june, it was last june that we had the hearing in my committee, that everything that they predicted, general perna predicted at that time is happening. and they said by december, we would have it. well, here it is. december, and we have got it. then we said it's going to take about three months to be able to make the distribution around the country, and that time is coming up. it's getting close to that time, and that's going to happen. i mean, we are looking right now at april as the time that we have got this thing defeated, and right now this administration -- i wt to give them credit for this. they have got this distribution system set up so it's going to be going around the country, and this thing is going to come to an end. i have to tell you that the

president is responsible for putting this in place it's right now on the schedule. i know that there isn't -- i don't want to take a lot of time. i see that we have -- senat reed has some in. senator jack reed is the ranking member on the senate armed services committee. let me just tell you that i -- i can' think of anyone i would rather have as a partner in putting together the defense authorization bill, the most important bill of this -- of all year than senator jack reed. he has been there by my side with me working together. we had a big four meeting. we always end up with a big four meeting. to tell you what that is, that's the ranking democrat and republican in the house, the democrat and republican in the senate, and the four of us get together and decide what are we going to do? what is this going to look like? then we pass it.

we passed this bill, it's a good bill. it's one that we have an opportunity to vote on today, the most important bill of the year. and in voting against it, you have to stop and think about those kids that are out there in harm's way and the threats that they are facing on a regular basis. this is the problem. this is a serious thing that's out there. and i can't imagine wanting to have to face these people in the field in harm's way and say well, we didn't pass a defense authorization bill. we're going to pass it. these kids are going to get the right treatment that they need. they are going to get the resources they need. and i do -- i did mention just a few minutes ago about the previous administration. i don't want people to misunderstand what i'm saying. i'm not saying this critically of the obama administration. i'm saying that he didn't have the same priorities that many of us had. his top priority was not defending america, in spite of what the constitution tells us what should be the top priority.

and so we -- we went through that time, as i mentioned, between the two years of 2010 and 2015, five years, reduced the funding for the military by 25%. at the same time china was increasing their funding for their military by 83%. this is what we looked at, and that's what our president was faced with, and that's why -- i don't know who is ill advising the president to be concerned about an issue that has nothing to do with the military. and i know the president has been the strongest -- i don't know if there has ever been a president that has been a stronger supporter of our military and our kids in harm's way than president trump. and i -- i'm just looking at this now, and i'm thinking we're now one minute away from passing a bill that's going to be the most significant bill. at this time i would ask if the minority would like to make any comments at all because i can

tell you right now, i mentioned the names of all the people that had worked on this bill for the last year, and right side by side, it's been senator jack reed and me in the leadership of this bill, and it's going to be a reality. i -- i want to thank you because we're goingo vote on this thing in less than a mute. the presiding officer: the setor from rhode iand. mr. reed: let me commend the chairman. i don't think we'd be here without chairman inhofe's leadership. i've never seen anyone work so diligently and so constructively. we want to thank the staff. they do a remarkable amount of work and also we have to recognize our colleagues in the house, chairman adam smith, who did a good job and the ranking member whose name is on this bill. i urge passage and i commend the chairman.

i yield the floor. mr. infe: iield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, morning business is close under the previous ord, the senate will resume consideration the conference report to accompany h.r. 6395. the clerk: h.r. 6395, an act to authorize appropriations f fiscal year 21 for military activities for the department of defense, for militaryy construction and for defense activities for the dartment of energy to prescribe military personnel strength for such fiscal year and for other purposes. mr. inho: i waive the mandatory quorum call. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection.

the clerk wi report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: clotu motion, we, the undersigned senators, accordance with the provisions of rule 22, do herebbring to a close debate on the conferenc report to accompany h.r. 6395, an act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year the department of defense and for militar construction to and for other purposes. year signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: i ask unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waive. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that date to accompany h.r. 6395, anct to -- 2021 for military activities for the department of defense and for military cotruction to prescribe

personal military strengths for such fiscal year and for other purposes? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will callhe roll. vote:

vote:

vo:

the presiding officer: are there ansenators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? seeing none, on this vote, the yeas are 84, the nays are 13. chos and sworn havin voted inly the affirmative, the motion is

agreed t mr. inhofe: madam predent? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: p in, i ask unimous consent that the postclure time on conference report to accompany h.r. 6395 expire at 12:30 today. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i suggest the the esiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. murphy: madam president the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: i ask that the quorum call be waived. the presidingfficer: without jection. mr. murphy: thank you, madam president. colleagues, we're in the middle of a whole bumping of reay important -- bunch of really important debates right now about the national defense authorization act, trying to avoid a shutdown by the end of the day, and of course trying to find a path forward to authorize funding to continue to combat this pandemic. but it is worth noting today that an effort to overturn the 2020 election continues, and in many ways is picking up steam, and we need to talk about the consequences for the nation.

democracies are really fragile things. ours only continues because we make choices so is that itan remain. our government isn't really the piece of paper upon which the constitution is written. our government, where voters, citizens -- not kings or monarchs or oligarchs -- decide who governs. it's made possible by a series of decisions that we make every single day to put the rule of law ahead of our own political power or the position of our political party. that is the history of america. our decision that democracy comes first, not the perpetuation of our own political power. right now the most serious

attempt to overthrow our democracy in the history of this country is under way. those who are pushing to make donald trump president for a second term, no matter the outcome of the election, are engaged in a treachery against their nation. you cannot at the same time love america and hate democracy. but as we speak, a whole lot of flag-waving republicans are nakedly trying to invalidate millions of legal votes because that is the only way that they can make donald trump president again. it is the only way they can make donald trump president again because he didn't win. our democracy, the citizens of this country, chose joe biden to be president of the united

states. he won the popular vote in a landslide, and he won the electoral college by a substantial margin. but now republicans have decided -- not all republicans, but far too many have decided that if democracy can't keep trump in power, then democracy ceases to have any real purpose. because to republicans who are supporting these continued efforts to invalidate the election, their loyalty is to donald trump, not to the nation or our system of government. their number-one goal is to keep trump in power. and if that means throwing out the election, turning america into something other than a democracy in which the voters get to choose their leaders, then so be it.

here's the latest. this lawsuit is support by 106 house republicans. that's more than half of the republicans who serve in the house of representatives. it is supported apparently by many senate republicans as well. this lawsuit is an attempt to overthrow democracy. now, you can laugh at it. you can scoff at it. you can suggest that it has no chance to prevail if it reaches the nine supreme court justices. but let's be clear about what it argues, and let's be clear about the consequences for so many elted officials at the highest level of american government supporting this lawsuit. what it argues is that the votes in four states -- pennsylvania, georgia, wisconsin, and michigan

-- should be thrown out because trump didn't win. and it asks for the state legislatures controlled by republicans to appoint elect terse instead -- electors instead. now, there are a burj of unsourced -- there are a bunch of unsourced claims about voter fraud but there is not a shred of evidence. and all of the individual lawsuits trying to allege voter fraud, trying to create contests about how laws were modified regarding voting in these states have all lost. importantly, the lawsuit doesn't ask for another canvas or another count, it just asks for the votes in these states to be disregarded and for republican politicians in these states to make the choice instead. now, already in pennsylvania the states legislatures republican

leadership has expressed support for appointing electors that would choose donald trump. let me say that again. this lawsuit says that in pennsylvania the state legislature should chiewr -- choose the electors, not the people and the leadership in the republican party has expressed support appointing electors that would support donald trump and not joe biden despite joe biden winning by 80,000 votes. the qf this lawsuit is -- the request of this lawsuit is clear. throw out the votes in these four states that joe biden won and just give the election to donald trump instead. some of my republican senate colleagues send out statements

supporting the general right to count every legal vote and to contest illegal votes. but that's not what this lawsuit is about. it just asks for the whole vote to be thrown out. it asks for every vote in these states to be disregarded. now, other republicans who haven't signed to this sui suggest that it won't succeed in the supreme court. it's a side show, so why really care? well, we have to care. the majority of republican members of congress believe that donald trump should be named president again despite the fact that he lost and lost by a lot. it wasn't close in the popular vote or electoral college. we should care bause this attempt to overthrow democracy, it won't be successful this time. joe biden is going to be president, but it plainly shows us the direction that the

republican party is heading, and they control governments in a lot of really important states and jurisdictions. the majority of republicans in the house of representatives apparently believe that if a democrat wins an election, it's illegitimate by definition. there is no evidence of fraud or stolen votes or vote rigging in the 2020 election. you can be mad about the fact that states allow for mail-in voting, but republican and democratic states allowed for it. you can be angry that the majority of those votes this year were cast in favor of joe biden in many of these states, but in previous years the majority of mail-in votes have been favoring republicans. but no matter the lack of evidence about voter fraud, republicans, including the president, have just come to the

conclusion that democrats must have cheated because, you know, democrats are evil and lots of people show up to trump rallies and there's just no way that all those people could have voted for joe biden because fox news and news max and r.t. tell us trump is so popular. this mind-set won't win out this time. joe biden's going to be president. but what about next time? what if the next presidential election is closer? what if 2024 comes down to just one state? it's a lot easier to steal one state. what if these radical anti-democrats get control of more secretary of state offices or election boards and there's a close race for governor in 2022 or the u.s. senate and these

same people who support the texas lawsuit decide again that there's no way a democrat could have won our state, and so by definition it's got to be fraudulent, despite the lack of evidence. so let's throw out the result and choose a republican. i know this sounds kind of far fetched, but this is exactly what this lawsuit is asking for. it is asking for this to be thrown out and that donald trump be president despite the fact that he lost with no voter fraud or illegal behavior. there is the majority of the republican caucus who supports this, so it stands to reason that this all of a sudden won't stop being their position two years ago and four years ago. if this happens, and the voters'

will is thrown out, not just in a presidential election but in a governor's race or a u.s. senate race or a congressional race, then our country is no longer a democracy. if that happens, the american experiment is done. it's over, and that's why this moment is so frightening no matter the fact that it's not going to be successful to keep donald trump barricaded in the white house. that's why more republicans than just a handful in this country need to be standing up to this lawsuit and this claim that the votes should be thrown out because you have a majority of republicans in this country who believe that joe biden won the election fraudulently when there's no evidence that that happened, and that belief as it festers and it grows, this idea

that if democrats win it has to be because of fraud, it does eventually lead to the voters' will being overturned and that is the end of american democracy. don't just assume that this system is going to be around for another 240 years. this is a miracle that we have held this together thus far. it is just a series of choices that we make, the constitution itself is not strong enough, is not durable enough without all of us making a decision that even if we lose an election, even if that means tha temporarily our political power is lessened that we accept the result because what matters most in this country is what the ters choose not how it affects us. it's not enough to just punt here and say, ah, the

president's got a right to go to court, let's just see what happens. because when the overthrow of democracy beginning and you're sitting on the sidelines, your a collaborator and there are way too many high-profile republicans who march around the world giving speeches about protecting the importance of democracy who are awfully silent when the attempted overthrow is happening in their country. nobody can stay silent right now. there are a lot of other important things happening in the senate today. i'm engaged in those as well. it is true this effort to overthrow the 2020 election is not going to bare fruit and it is it tempting to ignore the other things because this time

it won't be successful. but all of this effort supported by so many mainstream republicans, it's setting a precedent and creating conditions that could easily overthrow the next election. and if the republican party just allows for this assault on the 2020 election to continue no matter whether it ultimatel is successful, then by 2022 or 2024, i'm telling you, it might be too late to save our democracy. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a sator: mr. president? the presidingfficer: the senator from texas. mr. cnyn: mr. president, are in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. cornyn: i'd ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. objection.ing officer: without mr. cornyn: mr. president, since last fall, right after the new year, our country, like the rest of the planet, became impaled embroiled in a pandemic, sending fear, shock, illness, fatalities, and as we tried to

respond, we were forced to make hard decisions -- i'm talking about a collective we in terms of economic activity, children going to school, businesses staying open, and many businesses simile could not, and -- simply could not, and many of the workers who work at those locatis simply were out of luck. and you can imagine the anxiety and the fear of many americans who through no fault of their own found themselves fearful for the possibility that their loved ones -- let's say a parent or grandparent who is especially vulnerable because of their age or somebody because of their underlying chronic health conditions was more likely to be a fatality, to lose their life

if they were infected with the virus. this is something we haven't experienced perhaps in the last 100 years, since the great flu epidemic at the turn of the last century. congress responded the best we could. we knew we had to act quickly, and we knew we had to act in a big way. and i'm proud of the fact that in the face of this pandemic, congress cameogether, setting aside partisan agendas, and we passed fou pieces of legislation to address, first of all, the public health crisis but, secondly you the economic fallout associated with mitigation efforts. in other words, we did what americans always do in a time of

crisis -- we pulled together. and i'm proud of what we were able to accomplish. but at the end of march of last year when this -- when we pasd the last cares act legislation, we didn't have any idea how long this was going to last. we had no idea that we would be here now in december of 2020 and still grappling with how to contain this virus. and dealing with the economic fallout associated with it. thank goodness -- thank goodness we made a priority of providing resources to our medical scientists, the pharmaceutical industry that has now come up with therapies and treatments which is saving more lives. fewer people who actually get the virus are actually dying

thanks to the experse of our health care providers and the therapeuti that they are able to administer. it is saving many,any lives. but the golden bullet in all this is the vaccine. and i'm hopef that we in america, the food and drug administration will promptly -- and i expect they will -- approve the use of some of the vaccines that have been developed once they're determined they are safe and effective. so i think this is like the cavalry arriving, and the cavalry is nearby. and it will soon be here. then we'll prioritize the pooh emin the country who will get -- then we'll prioritize the people in the country who will get the vaccine, as we should. i think the folks who have been on the front lines, the so-called essential workers -- i

tend to thi of all workers being essential. but certainly the health care workers that had to show up. they couldn't hunkser down at home. theyad to show up f work, because we needed them to do that in order to protect the rest of us. but then we ought to go through the elderly, people with underlying health diseases, schoolteachers, and others to help us get our children back to school. the list goes on and on. but wt i am not proud of is the embarrassing insensitivity of our democratic colleagues, starting with the senator from new york, the democratic leader, what when it comes to people's fear about the consequences associated with the pandemic

that relate to the liability they may ultimately be -- may ultimately be imposed upon them because they didn't guess it right the first time. i'm talking about lawsuits by people who will sue, claiming i'm sure many with some merit, that they he suffered as a result of this virusnd attempt to pin responsibity on some business,ome school, some church, some synagogue, some mosque, anywhere where they might have gotten the virus, anybody with a liability insurance policy i'm sure will be fair game by the trial lawyers. and i'm not here to disparage members of the legal profession. i hapn to be one. but i do know that we ought to be focused on what is the greatest good for the greatest number and we shouldn't let the tail wag the dog when it comeso

providing commonsense liability protection. which is what brings me to the floor this afternoon. i heard the senator from new york give a fevered speech about what he called corporate immunity, as if our desire to provide some predictability and some fairness in the context of civil liability was somehow a desire to proct nameless, faceless corporations. and that's wrong. and that's why iame to the floor, to say it is wrong and to explain why it is wrong. the minority leader tries to frame this as a green light for big, bad businesses to ignore public health guidelines and to put every person who walks through their doors in danger of contracting covid-19. that's a false narrative. that's not true. for starters, what we have

proposed is not blanket liability. no one wants to give, let's say somebody running a meatpacking plant -- one of the workers shows up and say boss, i don't feel good tay. i think i m have something. he says, you shut up. go to work. and they end up infecti all their peers and fellow employees. that's reckless and intentional misconduct. and we do not limit that, lawsuits based on intentional misconduct at all. so this is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. this will not protect people who recklessly put people in danger of this virus. in cases of gross negligence or willful misconduct where the applicable public health guidance is not followed, the person who suffered a harm has every right to sue and be made whole, and no one -- no one --

wants to change that. but what we do need to acknowledge is that we are all living through what i hope i a once-in-a-lifetime catastrophe for everybody involved. so i don't thinke should be creating an opportunity for people who want to profit off of this pandemic to do so, particularly when a handful of people will presumably benefit from what the democratic leader is proposing -- no liability shield -- and hundreds of millions ofmericans will benefit from it. these are unprecedented times, to be sure. much like we owe the american people more support, and that's part of what's being blocked by the demands of the democratic

leader to eliminate any sort of liability shield. we need to put some safeguards in place to ensure that those who are operating in good faith and following all the relevant public health guidelines cannot be sued out of existence. imagine if you are a small business hanging on by a thread. somehow you have appli for your p.p.p. loan, your paycheck protection program loan, and you've been able to hang on to your business and kp your employees on the payroll. somehow, some way. well, if you face the prospect of limitless liability, opportunistic litigation that's going to cost you a lot of money and all of your energy just to defend -- even if the claim is meritless, you might think twice -- probably more than twice -- about whether you want to stay in business, whether you want to keep those jobs, whether you want to contribute to our

economy. we need those people. we need those businesses and those jobs, and i'm not talking about the trial lawyers. they'll be fine. they're not disadvantaged by havingo hunker down and wondering where the next paycheck will come from. they'll be fine. but there are a lot of people who are hurting, and it causes me great distress to see us -- at least some of us -- oblivious to the pain, the anguish, the desperation of so many amerans. you know, number of suicides is up dramatically. the number of reports of child sexual abuse are down because kids aren't going to school where their teachers hopefully will be trained to help identify those. people are self-medicating with drugs, alcohol.

peoplere suffering mental health crises. and some folks here in congress act like that doesn't affect me. it's not my problem. it's shocking to me that there are some who seem to have that approach. the minority leader knows the fas when he talks about corporate immunity. he wants to frame it in the most negative light possible, which of course is why he said that. what we are proposing will help people. they'll help medical workers, doctors, nurses, aids at hospitals -- those who have been on the front lines trying to save lives. they didn't have any choice but to show up.

they didn't ask well, on your liability insurance premiums paid up at the hospital? or maybe i need to up my limits because i know i'm going to get sued after this. they didn't ask those kind of questions. they went and did the job we wanted them to do. and god bless them for it. but what we're also proposing will help a lot more people, a lot more organizations and by that i mean not just businesses. it will help nonprofits. it will help restaurants who have tried to follow the guidelines and opened at limited capacity as they've gotten guidance from the local and state and national officials. this will help everybody. first, it will help, as i said, our health care heroes, the brave men and women who led in this battle for months. they have made tremendous physical and menl sacrifices to save lives. but without some liability

protection from congress, they should confine themselves staring down the barrel of a wave of medical malpractice lawsuits. i hope the minority leader will see why this can't happen. new york state did. his state acted to provide medical liability protection for health care workers in his state. we need to make sure that the kinds of things that his state did for health care workers in new york are expanded to include others around the country. we need to ensure that our health care workers aren't taken to the cleaners for doing everything in their power in good faith to respond to the crisis. again, the protections his state has provided said a -- set a willful misconduct standard for medical liability suits to ensure only legitimate cases are

brought against health care workers in new york. so if that's good enough for new yorkers for his constituents, why deny the same protection to my constituents or the presiding officer's constituents? or everybody else who is on the battle during theseting this unprecedented times? i know the minority leader got a letter this summer from a long list of national medical associations which represent hundreds of thousands of health care workers calling for these very same types of protections. that letter detailed the challenges these workers were up against. you can imagine scarce personal protective equipment. it wou be the easiest thing in the world to blame those health care workers for not adequately providingersonal protective equipment and somehow contributing to the spread of the disease when we know that due to china's actions, hoarding a lot of the p.p.e. that they

themselves manufactured when they didn't tell the rest of the world that the virus was running camp participant in china, -- rampant in china, they were hoardi that p.p.e. making it less available to hospitals and doctors for the benefit of their patien. so it would be easy to see now looking back with the benefit of hindsight that somebody says, well, you knew or should have known. you didn't have adequate p.p.e. to take care of your patients. it's easy to -- as my dad always liked to say, he said hindsight is 20/20. well, that's just one example but these groups who wrote to the democratic leader said these physicians and other health care professionals are now facing the threat o years of costly litigation due to the extrod marry circumstances -- extraordinary circumstances. and these are the same institutions, the doctors and the hospitals, that we have sent hundreds of billions of dollars to. now we want to throw them to the

wolves? we can't allow our health care heroes to wake up from this pandemic only to find themselves facing a legal nightmare. but as i said, it's not just health care workers who need our help. list of organizations and institutions to rely on this legislation is a long one. there are, for example, our public schools, our colleges, our universities which have tried to adapt in trying circumstances and trying to allow our k-12 students and young people who attend our colleges and universities as opportunity to continue their education safely, to the best of their ability. a number of national groups representing education leaders, including superintendents, school boards, and other leaders sent a letter to senator schumer and other congressional leaders about the urgent need for these protections.

they said we believe any protection should be limited in scope and preserve recourse for those truly bad actors, those armed -- harmed by truly bad actors who engage in egregious misconduct. and i agree with that. that's exactly the type of protection that we have proposed. i'm looking here, mr. president, at a letter. it's dated may 28, 2020, from the american council on education, which i think does a pretty good job of summing up what i just described, the challenges that our educators and our students and our administrators are facing trying to get back to some semblance of normalcy because we all understand the importance of providing our next generation of leaders a good education. but in this letter from the

a.c.e., american council on education, tim mitchell, its president writes unfortunately colleges and universities, two and four-year public and private nonprofits are facing unprecedented challenges as a result of the covid-19 pandemic. the impact on operations and revenuesf many institutions has been catastrophic. for some even existential which has had a terrible ripple effect in communities large and small. the pandemic is also causing massive disruption to students and families. many are grappling with sudden changes to their financial circumstances. in the wake of prior crises he says, congress came together to pass timely and targeted liability protections with strong bipartisan support. because lawmakers understood the acute economic threat of lawsuits at moments of maximum

economic vulnerability. while congress has acted to provide some limited covid-19 liability protections for volunteer health care providers and some manufacturers of p.p.e. in the cares act, much more needs to be done. while some governors and state legislatur have enacted covid-19 limited liability legislation, this is a national problem, national problem calling for a national solution. mr president, i'd ask unanimous consent that this letter be made part of the record flowing my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: the president and executive director of the national -- of the american dental association wrote a letter thanking the judiciary committee for reviewing liability protections and asking ngress to pass these reforms. similar to the other comments

that have been made from other organizations, they said while safeguarding their patients, their staff and themselves from the spread of covid-19, dental practices must also safeguard their businesses from bad-faith actor pursuing frivolous financial gain for coronavirus juries. we've -- injuries. we've heard from a long list of groups and it's not the fortune 500 like the democratic leader has proposed. this isn't corporate protection. this is common sense. this is what we have done before. in connection with y2k, in connection with 9/11, in connection with providing some limited liability protection to pharmaceutical companies that we depend upon to produce vaccines that will save lives, those are all examples where congress has come togher with a national response to a national crisis.

we've heard concerns everything from u.s. youth soccer worried about their volunteers being sued, the american heart association worried about their fund-raisers, churches worried about their ability to serve their communities with this cloud hanging over their heads. so who is acting in bad faith here? not the schools. not the charities. not the health care providers who are calling for the limited protections this legislation would provide. no, it's the trial bar. it's the trial lawyers who are trying to use this pandemic to make money. now, i don't -- i'm not here again to disparage members of the legal profession. i'm just saying who are we here going to bat for? are we going to bat for a small group of wealthy lawyers?

or are we going t bat for 330 million americans? that's the choice, it seems to me. and the democratic leader's carrying water for that wealthy elite minority, the members of the trial bar, by mischaracterizing this effort and blocking relief for his own constituents. and again, governor cuomo apparently was able to do this by some form of executive action, was able to provide some liability protections for medical malpractice lawsuits in new york. i wonder if the democratic leader would come to the floor and call that corporate protection. no, it made sense, good for governor cuomo and shame on us if we don't do something simil similar. well, i want to close on another

ironic statement by the democratic leader this morning. he said the american people deserve an outcome. i agree with that. but he said it's not going to happen if the republican majority insists o getting a hundred percent of its partin demands. well, we're not insisting on a hundred percentbut how about -- how about the 80% we can agree on? that just makes sense to me. they are the ones that are killing a covid-19 relief bill by their insistence that no liability protections be included in this bill. it's the wild wild west, and they want to keep it just like that. well, the democratic leader has been the one who's held up negotiations ovethe last several months. by my count our democratic colleagues have blocked at least three, maybe four pieces of covid-19elief. and that's at a time when they

could have wked with us to make the bills better and to provide timely relief to our constituents, but, no, they refused to accept anything short of a partisan multitrillion dollar bill that passed the house earlier this year, that nancy pelosi knew would never have a prayer of passing because it included such unrelated matters as tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires in places like nework and california. on the marijuana industry.dies what in the heck does that have to do with covid-19? they claim that anything less than that $3 trillion white elephant was unworkable. so they gave our efforts the heisman and allowed the distress from the pandemic to ge on for nths and months and months while they blocked every attempt to deliver relief to the american people.

well, liability protections, commonsense liability protections for a limited period of time which are not designed to take over state tort law on a permanent basis, we can agree on that the time frame should be. but liability protections will allow our most important and vulnerable institutions and people to recover from this crisis, and i believe the democratic leader would be we to acknowledge that and work with us and get a result.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, all postcloture time has expired. the question is on the aption of the conference report. is there a sufficient second? and e clerk will cal the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

te:

vote the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 84, t nays are 13. the conference report is agreed to. the presiding officer: thent. majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 8900. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 8900, an act making further continuing

appropriations for fiscal year 2021, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? mr. sanders: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, it is no great secret that the american people understand how far removed the united states congress is, and both political parties are, from their needs. they do polls out there, depending on the month, and congress gets a 10% approval rating. on a good day, maybe a 20% approval rating. people understand that to a shameful degree what congress does is worry about the needs of wealthy campaign contributors to both political parties and turns their backs on the needs of

working people. a few months ago, in burlington, vermont, not far from where i live, they shut down a road so that people could line up in their cars to get emergency food distributed by the vermont national guard. hundreds and hundreds of people in burlington and true all over the state of vermont -- and by the way, vermont is probably in better shape than most states in this country. we have more hunger in america today than at any time in the modern history of this country. this pandemic has been a disaster, not only from a public health perspective, but from an economic perspective. and economists tell us that working families today are in worse shape right now than any time since the great depression. and it's not just the children

in america, the richest country on earth, are going hungry. if it you have millions and millions of families who are scared to death that they're going to be evicted from their homes and join the half a million people in america who are already homeless. we have half of our population working day to day, living paycheck to paycheck, trying to survive. this congress must address the economic emergency facing the american people. we cannot go back to our families during the christmas holidays while tens of millions of families are suffering. they are looking toward us and

their government, their government to provide the emergency assistance that they need. yesterday, senator hawley and i introduced a very simple amendment. not a radical idea. in fact, we're way, way behind what other countries around the world are doing to protect their workers. all that we want to do is to once again provide the same benefits that are provided in the cares bill that unanimously, unanimously, democrats, republicans, president trump signed it, supported it. we all came together in march to say that every working class adult in this country would get $1,200 and their kids would get $500. if you had a husband and wife

and two kids, that's 3400 bucks. maybe they could use that money to pay a couple months' rent, buy some food, go to the doctor. you're looking at a horrible pandemic. now you have 90 million people who are uninsured or underinsured. that's all we are asking is to do what we unanimously did in march. to make sure that our unemployed workers get the benefits they need to make sure that working families get their $1,200 check per person. now, mr. president, i have been here for a while. i am not one of the members of the senate who shuts down, does this or does that and keeps you here for the weekend. i don't do that. but this i want to say right now, i am prepared to withdraw my objection at this moment, but i will not be prepared to

withdraw an objection next week. we will deal with the financial crisis facing tens of millions of americans, and if i have anything to say about it -- and i guess i do -- we're not going to go home for the christmas holidays unless we make sure that we provide for the millions of families in this country who are suffering. and with that, i would yield to senator hawley. the presidg officer: the senator from missouri. mr. hawley: reserving the right to object, mr. president, this is a very simple thing that we're talking about, and i can boil it down real easily. if the senate of the united states can find hundreds of billions of dollars to give to big government and big business, surely it can find some relief for working families and working individuals, and i would just submit to you that it is working families and working people who

should be first in line for covid relief, not last, and that is why the amendment, as senator sanders and i have proposed, is so common sense. $1,200 for individuals, $2,400 for families, $500 for every child. and as senator sanders rightly says, every member of this body has voted yes in favor of this relief before. what's more, i can't figure out who exactly is opposed to it. tp the president has said that he is in favor of -- the president of the united states has said he is in favor of direct assistance. i thank the speaker for his support of direct assistance. the speaker of the house has said she is in favor of direct assistance. and why there is no reason that this body should leave next week before we vote on and approve direct assistance to working families. now, let me just say one other thing. let me tell you about a phone call i had with a friend of mine at home when this congress approved direct assistance back in march.

he texted me and then he called me. he said i'm seeing this news about relief that we're going to maybe get a check. he said is that real? and i said yeah, that's real. he said i don't know, i'm worried about taking it. what if we spend the money. we could use the money. i can't pay it back. it comes back and i have to pay it back. i said you don't have to pay it back. it's relief because you need it. this is a guy who works in concrete. that's his business. and he said you're serious now? you're serious that we can keep this money, i can use this for my family? i said that's exactly what it's for. his comment to me was, his words were, man, this is a godsend. there are families like that not just all over missouri, not just all over vermont, but all over this nation, and they are in need today like they were in need in march, and it is incumbent upon this body to act, and we should not leave until we do that. so having reserved the right to object, mr. president, today i do not object, and i yield the

floor. mr. sanders: mr. president, i withdraw my objection. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the bill be considered read a third time. objection?ing officer: is there without objection. mr. mcconnell: i know of no further debate on the bill. the presiding officer: if there is no further debate, the question is on passage of the bill. all in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. and the bill is passed. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection.

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

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i understand

there is a bill at the desk and i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: s. 5014, a bill to amend title 31, united states code, to provide for automatic continuing resolutions. mr. mcconnell: i now ask for a second reading. in order to place the bl on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i tock my own request. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will receive its second reading on the next legislative day. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senior senator from alaska and the senior senator from nebraska be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions on friday, december 11. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask the chair to lay before the senate the message to accompany s. 461. the presiding officer: the chair lays before the senate a messagfrom the house. bill from theenate, s. 461 is entitled an act to strengthen the capacity and competitiveness

of historically black colleges and universities through robust public sector and private sector and community engagement and othe purposes do pass with the following amendment. mr. mcconnell: i move to concur in it the house amendment and i know of no further debate on the motio the presiding officer: if there is no further debate, the question is on the motion. all those in favor, say aye. those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is disagreed to. -- the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the motions to consider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of railroad 4764 which was received from the house. e presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 64, an act to reauthorize the stem cell therapeutic act of 2005 and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the alexander

substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to and the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i know of no further debate on bill. the presiding officer: if there is no further debate, the question is son passage of the bill -- the question is on passage of the bill, as amended. all those in favor, say aye. those opposed, say n the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bill, as amended, is passed. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate itsst completes its business today you it adjourn until 3:00 p.m. monday, december 14. following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the t leaders be reserved for their use later in the d, and morning business be closed. furthe following leader remarks, the senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the kirsch nomination. cloture motions filed in today's

session ripen at 5:30 p.m. on monday. the presiding officer: without objection. cloth if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until >> by a vote of 84-13 the senate approved the 2021 defensive programs and policy bill known as the nda. and now goes to the president for his signature but president trump said he would veto the legislation over the lack of language repealing section 230 of the communications decency which protects social media companies from being sued for the content published on their platforms. this appears to be a veto proved majority but the senate leading a two thirds vote to override. lawmakers approved a one-week extension of government funding which was set to expire tonight at midnight eastern and the house and senate now have through december 18 to negotiate

a formal government funding agreement. more live senate coverage when th needo next he on c-span2. >> sunday night on q&a the 100 17th congress begins with at least one of 41 women servi in the most ever. we talk with two milleial's in the freshman class republican representative elect of florida and democratic representative elect sarah jacobs of california about their background and what they hope to accomplish in office. >> i tend to side with the amican people in the worki clas i think government operates best when it is small and accountable and transparent and people have the power to control that. i don'think people should work to serve the goverent and build bigger bureaucratic programs. as far as where i find myself i'm a pretty conservativ member so i will work with members and those that want to make our country a better place and

preserve the concept of equal opportunity rather than equ outcomes. >> i am of the generationhat it never known a day inur adult slide tt the united states has not been at war. i was in mdle school on september 11 and so, i think the idea of ending the forever wars takes a speal important for us. we know the cost that that has had on us here domestically and on our generation and, you know one of the things i want to focus on is rebuilding ameca's standing around the world and making sure that we are ending the fororever or wars responsiby and that we think about how we can craft a foreignolicy that will address the challenges in the future and that we are real bidding for those future challenges, this like global pandemics like climate change. >> representatives elect freshman women of the 100 17th congress and sunday night and 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a.

>> american tv on c-span3 exploring the people and events that tell the american story every weekend and cing up this weekend saturday at 8:30 a.m. live on american history tv and washington journal a look back on bush v gore 20 years later. we discussed the landmark decision with washington post columnist in the bulwark editor at large william kristol. they are coeditors of the book bush v gore and the court cases and the commentary. at 6:00 p.m. on the civil war the gettysburg college civil war institute hosts a discussion on the one-time career of union general george meade. at 8:00 p.m. on lectures and story university of texas of arlington professor stephanie cole on the life and work o antebellum socialeformer a leading advocate in the number of mid- 19th century classes including abolition and women's rights. on sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern

on the presidency historian douglas friendly discusses jacqueline kennedy's tenure at legacy as first lady with businessman and philanthropist david rubenstein who focus on the historical preservation and historical work especially the white house elevation. watch american history tv on c-span3. >> now is the perfect time to buy a c-span product for holiday gifts with a 15% discount. go to c-span store .org. >> the supreme court hurled oral arguments in a casehat questions whether the structure of the federal housing finance is uncstitutional and the fha eight was created byongress in response to the 2008 mortgage crisis to oversee fannie mae and freddie mac. those two companies entered into agreement with thereasury department to be propped up

financially and that agreent was lar amended to require fannie mae and freddie mac to pay the departmt dividends and fees. private shareholders argue t companies overpaid and that the fh aa overstepped its authority. th are changeling restrictions that protect the agency's director from being fired by the esident without cause. >> the honorable chief justice and the associate of justice of the supreme court of the united states. all persons bringing business before the honorable supreme court of the united states are admonished to give their attentio and god save the united states in this honorable court. >> we will hear arguments this morning in case number 19422 collins versus newton in the consolidated case. >> y