>> historically the community is not a big fan of the military. and for good reason. the majority of humanitarian suffering around the world is as a result of armed conflict so it's almost as though, you know, career human terrence despise the military almost out of it, you know an obligation and so, we knew that we had been, you know, trained with all of these skills and we'd scheduled all of these experiences in the military that were directly applicable to these disaster zones and we quickly discerned that none of these humanitarian agencies were recruiting those men and women into their ranks at least not at large scale. and we thought that was really just a waste of incredible human capital. >> team rubicon's jake wood. sunday night 8 p.m. eastern on c-span's q and a.

>> the u.s. senate is about to gavel in as congress faces a midnight deadline to keep the government funded and avoid a shutdown. the house, senate and white house continue negotiations behind the scenes on a spending bill and a covid-19 relief package. a weekend session is expected. now live coverage here on c-span2. the chaplain: let us pray. o god, our shield and fortress, we thank you for your unfailing love. look with favor upon our senators to guide them around the obstacles that hinder their progress, uniting them for the common good of this great land. lord, enable them to go from

strength to strength as they fulfill your purposes for their lives in this generation. striving to please you. help them to stand for right and lead the consequences to you. lord, give them a sense of partnership with you in seeking your best for all phases of our national life. we pray in your mighty name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

mr. grassley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: there has been a lot of finger wagging across the aisle by both senate and house democrats about accepting election results. most of that has been related to

whether or not trump would concede the results of the election to biden. but obviously there's somewhat of a double standard because these same democrats are mum about a looming challenge to the certified results of the election of iowa's second congressional district. representative-elect miller meeks won by six votes and that was after careful recounts conducted and certified on a bipartisan basis, according to iowa law. on election night, the democratic candidate lost. a few days later, two counties were recounted and the democratic candidate still lost. then the democratic candidate

asked for a recount of all 24 counties, and after that recount, the democratic candidate lost. a day later, the secretary of state of iowa certified the election just like the secretaries of states of our 50 states certified their election in the presidential election. now the democrat opponent chose not to make a case under iowa law to a judicial panel headed by the chief justice of iowa, presumably because there was no legal case. now what happens? the next step is that candidate, under a 1969 federal law, can ask the house of representatives to set aside iowa's election law and overturn iowa's certified

election results through a purely political process which could presumably have a democrat majority of 222 in the u.s. house -- and have the u.s. house overturn the votes of over 400,000 iowans. now, getting back to what seems to be a double standard. if democrat leaders do not nip this in the bud now, they have no room to point fingers at any other member of congress. i yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: our bipartisan discussions are continuing to make significant headway toward another relief package for the american people. democratic leaders, speaker pelosi, leader mccarthy and i

have been working around the clock. i'm even more optimistic now than i was last night that a bipartisan, bicameral framework for a major rescue package is very close at hand. well, let's face it, though, mr. president, it doesn't help struggling americans keep their jobs or endure unemployment or pay their rent or get vaccines any faster to keep hearing that we're having good discussions. what families across the country deserve, what they have needed and deserve for months now is an outcome, another targeted relief package to get more assistance into the hands as fast as possible. struggling small business owners have already waited too long for a targeted second round of p.p.p. laid-off workers have waited too long to have expiring programs

extended, kids, teachers, parents, have waited too long to have schools reopen safely. we already waited too long to fully fund vaccine solution so the sprint toward a vaccine is followed up by an equally important logistical effort. this has been an unbelievable hard year for the country. we have seen the economy go down. even as we watched doctors, nurses and researchers make lifesaving history, we lost more than 300,000 americans entirely too soon. like i've said, the senate will be right here until an agreement is passed, whenever that may be. we'll just continue voting. there are some more

well-qualified nominees for important posts that we can confirm in the meantime so let's finish our business for the american people. now, on a completely different matter, mr. president. i jump at any opportunity to praise my incredible staff. i'm just sorry that one natural occasion is when great people head toward the exits. bill maxon of lexington, kentucky, has mastered one of the toughest jobs on capitol hill. he oversees the operation that delivers for kentucky families and kentucky priorities. here's what the role of chief of staff means in our tight-knit organization. it's like being the player coach on an old baseball team. who is also a utility player at the same time. phil wears about ten hats each day orchestrating a seamless operation. he's mastered policy, political

strategy, messaging, quint services, he -- constituent services, managed the budget office, and he is a liaison and colleague to my leadership office here in the capitol. he is the linkage between the two sides of my operation, the single person most responsible for helping me harmonize home state priorities with my national duties and keep the commonwealth at the center of all i do. it's a tall order and it takes the best of the best, someone who is so capable that every important issue will involve them but so humble that situations never become about them, enter phil maxon, a kind, cheerful and unbelievably competent servant leader who i'm convinced nobody on this planet dislikes. phil climbed the capitol hill ladder the old fashioned way.

he joined my team as an intern a decade ago. i think he snuck into a last-minute opening. if i'm right about that, then his good fortune was ours as well. he's done every job, legislative correspondent, legislative assistant, legislative director, and then one of the top spots. his old boss reminded me, every time a gap in the office appeared, phil was the natural choice to fill it. it is not that he elbowed his way up, it's that natural circumstances had a need for him to this move up. he has walked into every markup, every normal day in the office and every far-flung codel with complete professionalism and the score of the latest u.k. game. another former supervisor of his put it this way, i don't think i

asked fill a single question to that he didn't find the answer within ten minutes. that's how it is when you go from burma relations to bill grants that approve our roads and everything in between. it helps that phil is a kentucky thorough bred through and through. the man really is dyed in the bluegrass. he found part-time work giving tours at henry clay's ashland estate. he also graduated from henry clay high school. you could say the senate was a natural destination. here he met u.k. coach cal perry, president netanyahu and families from kentucky's smallest towns and they all got the same attention, enthusiasm and warmth from phil maxon. he clicks with everyone. he is as affable as intelligent.

he stands out because he doesn't try to stand out. for the better part of a decade virtually every significant win we've notched for our commonwealth has had phil at its nucleus. if you hear phil drop by the staff room, you will hear him say why everyone else deserves more credit than he does. whether it's my leadership or his peers' efforts, or the hard work of the junior folks beneath him. you would have to go to everyone else to learn that phil was the human glue that held it will all together. it would take all day to name every win phil helped to quarterback, the state of the art weapons destruction facility, the transfer of the rochester dam, a new wildlife refuge in henderson county,

environmental cleanup and health benefits for nuclear works, the planned construction of a new v.a. hospital in louisville, freedom to fish and the raising of lake cumberland and many more. but alas, he and his wife sarah beth have decided they don't want to raise their family anywhere else. so bee and phil on capitol hill, plus their two boys, barbara and theodore, are home ward bound. i made the same decision as a young man, trading in the life of a senate staffer for a move back home so i can't exactly fault his decision. phil needs to spend fewer breakfasts and dinners with me and more with his own burgeoning clan. i get it, but i'm sure sorry to see him go. phil is the kind of senate all

star who deserves a full-dressed curtain call, he deserves toasts and dinner and a farewell party, but in pandemic times a floor speech will have to suffice for now. phil, thank you for your dedication to a state we both love. we'll miss your brain, we'll miss your heart. you've leaving behind one heck of a fan club throughout the united states senate. we wish you all the best in the chapters ahead. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. inhofe: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i ask that the

quorum call in progress now be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, fernando l. aenlle-rocha of california to be united states district judge for the central district of california. mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i want to make an observation here because i've been serving for quite sometime in the united states senate. and a lot of the things that are said on the senate floor are not really all that significant, and yet the members who are delivering messages believe they are or they wouldn't be doing it. so that's what this is all about. this is a deliberative body.

and some things are maybe not all that significant. what i am about to say is significant, so i would like to have the attention of anyone who wants to know in the midst of all the problems that we're facing now, some good things are happening. i want to mention something that is significant that i don't think you've thought of, i say to the presiding officer. that is, that tomorrow is the 153rd day of the year. that's very significant. that is december 19. people have not stopped to realize the significant things that have happened on december 19 throughout our history, and the history of the world, going all the way back to december 19 of the year 1154. that was when henry ii became king of england. we haven't really thought about the fact that -- what that does

mean to us today. but we will before long. in 1843, december 19, charles dickens wrote "the christmas carol." the most watched and sung-to event. in 1932, the british broadcasting corporation -- in 19-- it began transmitting overseas. that was the beginning of a whole new world of knowledge and understanding. in 1950, december 19, nato named general dwight d. eisenhower as supreme commander of the western european defense forces. then in 1972, december 19, apollo 17, the last of the apollo moon landings, returned to earth.

then in 1984, december 19, i remember this well because i was there when this happened -- i was in hong kong when this happened. that was when china signed an accord returning hong kong to the chinese sovereignty. a lot of people thought it was a good idea at the time to accept the people from hong kong. i was there and look what has happened now after all these years. i would have to say that that created an hysteria that has continued to this day. then the united states president bill clinton was impeached. i was there for that one, too. that was december 19, 1998. but the event that is more significant by a landlied is what happened -- by a landslide is what happened on december 19, 1959. december 19, 1959, my wife kay

and i got married. that makes tomorrow our 61st wedding anniversary. just look at all of the beauty that has followed us -- 20 kids and grandkids. all of that in a 61-year period of time. what i want to say is the beautiful life that we are still having together, and, kay, i love you more now than i did 61 years ago. i say to the senate leadership that you better get this last vote done by tonight or you'll have to do it without me because i'm going to be with kay on our anniversary on saturday, the 61st wedding anniversary. to everyone else out there, as you celebrate the birth of christ at christmastime, i'm going to say to you, merry christmas and god bless you. and i yield the floor.

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the assistant minority leader. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: we're not in a quorum call. mr. durbin: thank you, mr. president. i'm sorry i didn't come to the floor quickly enough to wish my friend jim inhofe and his wife the best. he is one of the real contributors in the united states senate, has been for

years. he's a special individual. he decided to take an interest in the continent of africa. i don't know that there's another senator who knows as much about that continent as he does. he's been there so many times. his stories, many of them, relate to countries which few people have heard of. he's made a special point to understand that continent, the people on it in addition to his responsibilities serving the state of oklahoma and, of course, now, as chairman of the armed services committee, his responsibility for funding the department of defense. he and our democratic colleague, senator jack reed of rhode island, have done a remarkable bipartisan job on that defense appropriation -- authorization, let me add. and i sincerely hope that the president will sign that bill. his objections to it have nothing to do with the military

or the defense of our country. they relate to issues which are thorny, political issues which shouldn't slow down our authorization of these critical programs. and this authorization bill comes at an exceptional time. we have been learning over the last few weeks about a massive cybersecurity breach of our government, probably by the russians, as all the earmarks and fingerprints of the vladimif vladimir putin to compromise our national security and to create chaos whenever possible. we listened of it four years ago in the -- we learned of it four years ago in the 23016 election when every intelligence agency of our government agreed that the russians were meddling in our elections and doing their best to subvert the will of the

american people. we took action, some of it has been publicly reported and some of it has been disclosed to members of congress in a classified setting. we were success until in thwarting their elections in the 2014 election and i want to a lieutenant all of those responsible in that effort. in 20 i believe the same -- in 2020 i believe the same can be said. this latest disclosure is really troubling. we've been -- we believe that beginning in march of this year that the russians started compromising our cybersecurity network in many different ways. every day there is a new disclosure of another agency that reports that they have somehow weedled their way into this important critical information. how much they know, what they've gained, how much they've compromised us we don't know

yet. it certaincy is unnerving -- it certainly is unnerving and deserves a very thorough, thorough investigation as to how we failed. you see, the united states was not taking anything for granted. we were literally spending billions -- billions of dollars -- for the safety of these security systems and we knew that included in those systems was information which is essential for the protection of the united states. to think that that has been compromised at the hands of one of our implacable foes is certainly unnerving. i believe that we should initiate a thorough and complete investigation. let the chips fall where they may. establish where we have failed from the technology viewpoint and if any individuals are responsible, that they be held accountable. at the same time, i have to say that i join the presiding officer in commenting on one

particular aspect of this that i just can't understand. the white house has been virtually silent as all of these facts have unfolded by the day. i cannot understand that, why the commander in chief of the united states of america has not spoken out forcefully against the russians for their involvement in this cybersecurity breach, why he has not likened this to a virtual invasion of the united states when it comes to our own national security. i believe that we should have been firm from the beginning and honest with the american people as well about the nature of this threat. but instead this president has been silent. i recall not that long ago -- a few months ago -- we disclosed, we found evidence that the russians were offering bounties on the heads of american soldiers in afghanistan. outrageous and unthinkable, and yet the white house was silent, refused to respond to what i know -- because i've seen it --

was credible evidence that this was linked directly to moscow and the operatives of the russian government. the attempted assassination of novalny has been well-documented and yet again our white house, our president are silent. i don't understand it. i'm hopeful that the new president, joe biden, when he takes office january 20 will make it a priority to establish a new understanding and relationship with vladimir putin. the united states cannot be a victim of putin over and over again without speaking out and more. i'm counting on joe biden to do that. i believe he will. he is a realist. i know he wants peace in the world, and i do, too, but we also must defend this country. and the men and women in uniform who risk their lives every single day should be our highest priority. i'm heartened by joe biden's

closing that he's using in all of his public speeches now. he, of course, says it more artfully than i will. but he calls on god to bless america but also god to keep our troops safe. i'm sure it has special meaning to him, since the death of his son beau is a reminder of the sacrifices that not only the men and women in uniform but their families make for us every single day. i hope that that continues to be the watchword of his administration. mr. president, there's not much activity on the floor of the senate today. i hope there will be before end of the day. the leaders in the senate and house, democrat and republican, as well as the white house with treasury secretary mnuchin, are fast at work we're told establishing a covid-19 relief bill. i was part of an effort which the presiding officer also shared in a volunteer activity

that involved about three weeks of endless telephone conferences and zoom calls. staff supported us all the way or we couldn't have done it. but it started off with eight of us eating dinner one night and deciding to come together as a group to see if we could break the logjam. you see, the whole notion of covid-19 relief was dead in the water. for some -- for some reason no activity. we remembered back in march when congress, and particularly i remember the senate by a vote of 96-0, passed on a bipartisan basis the largest relief bill in the history of the united states. over $3 trillion in the cares act which was for addressing and fighting the pandemic as its first priority but secondly trying to rescue our floundering economy. thank goodness we did that and

came together and we hoped that it would be a short-lived requirement, but it turned out to be much longer. many of us anticipated by the middle of this year that things would have come under control, but we know, sadly, that's not the case. so there's been a call ever since to step back into this theater of confrontation with this pandemic and the -- the weakening economy, but for some reason, and i won't point fingers, we've been unable to reach any bipartisan agreement. well, eight of us willful senators, four democrats and four republicans, set out to try and get the conversation started and see what we could agree on. it was a great experience even though there were parts of it where we could not agree and there was a lot of frustration, there was also a lot that was constructive and encouraging. at the end of the day we produced two documents.

one of these documents was a $748 billion consensus document that we thought were essential as part of any covid relief package, extending unemployment benefits for 16 weeks, including about 160,000 people in my state who claim the pandemic unemployment assistance and 248,000 pandemic emergency unemployment compensation. millions of americans, 12 million americans -- 12 million americans would have lost their unemployment compensation on the day after christmas. imagine that. we also, in this bill, provided assistance for small businesses, including a second round of paycheck protection program loans for the smallest businesses, extended the eviction moratorium through january 31, 2021, providing emergency rental assistance to help families stay in their

homes, providing money for hospitals and clinics for testing and to quickly distribute vaccines, including $550 million to illinois for vaccine testing and $100 million to health care providers many we provided $182 billion, $54 billion for k through 12, 128 billion, and we have -- through april 30, 2021, we provided dz every -- $10 billion nationwide to the struggling child care sector. we increased snap benefits for near two million individuals in my state and millions more across the united states. by providing funding for food banks and senior nutrition programs serving more than 1.5 million people in illinois. we provided billions for transit

including $100 billion for transit and amtrak. we include billions of dollars for your airline relief as well. provided more than $100 billion for amtrak to prevent further furloughs, more in payroll support to provide support for illinois airline workers and to provide funding for illinois bus companies to keep their workers on the job the part of the money that we put in here was for the logistics of the vaccineses that will now take place across the united states. we provided some -- i think the negotiators are adding to the amount and i plawd them for that. what we -- applaud them for that. what we left out is significant too. we did not provide any direct assistance to state and local governments. this morning i got on the telephone with a group that has been kind enough to volunteer for many years to -- to consider the applications of individuals in illinois who want to attend

our service academies. some of these people have been doing this for 20 years. i really respect them and thank them for doing it. i try to take myself out of that consideration so no one can ever claim political contribution was taken in any way. one of the persons who did in part of the meeting this morning was skip lee, skip is the mayor of serlg, illinois, he said do provide help for towns like sterling, illinois, he said i think there be some help but not the kind i wanted. we don't want to help local state and governments. every state is not the same, every localitity is not the same. some have suffered real losses directly from covid-19 and some have prospered. it just depends on the circumstances.

any state of illinois, the state has paid a heavy price as a state and localities. we do not include direct relief for state and local governments. i hope we can return to that issue soon, very quickly, after the first of the year, and perhaps with a new president and find a way to provide this relief. the alternative is awful. i know what's going to happen to a lot of the local budgets. police officers are going to be furloughed, firefighters, teachers, health care workers, just at a moment in time when we need them the most, many of these communities will be unable to continue providing those very fundamental services to keep us safe. so i hope we can get back to that as quickly as possible. finally, mr. president, let me say that we're all anxious to fund this government at midnight tonight the continuing resolution which we passed several months ago expires. it would be a real tragedy if we saw this government come to a close for any reason at any time

and certainty at -- certainly at this moment when our economy is so tenuous and our worries are so large over the health care of our nation, we shouldn't allow this to occur. i pray that the negotiators will be able to spend good time today and report to us soon that they have reached an agreement. it is time for us to get our work done, and like senator inhofe is going home for his 61st anniversary, many of us are anxious to return home to our families. we won't have the expansive christmas that year that we had in the past, won't be reuniting with the children and grandchildren who really make the holiday. we're looking at the long run run -- long run, we we want to make up for it next year. instead of one tree we'll have two. i yield the floor and note

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

mr. cruz: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: we are not in a quorum call. we are in a quorum call. without objection. mr. cruz: mr. president, in a few moments, i'm going to ask

unanimous consent for the senate to pass s. 2800, which is the bipartisan nasa authorization act. before doing so, i want to make some brief remarks about how important this legislation is to american leadership in space and to our continued space exploration efforts. well over a year ago, joined with chairman wicker, ranking member cantwell and aviation space subcommittee member sin -- sinema. we began writing the act. with senator rubio, markey, and senator bill nelson from the last congress as our starting point. we solicited information from hundreds of stakeholders, from individuals and academics, to industry partners, an even our international allies.

hundreds of pages of suggestions, proposed edits, and comments were submitted, and over many months, our staffs worked diligently through each and every submission, trying to incorporate the feedback to the greatest extent possible, and what resulted is this bill which was marked up last year and unanimously reported. what we have achieved together is legislation that enjoys deep and broad bipartisan support and that sets bold goals for nasa and the united states in space. it provides the direction and the infrastructure necessary to meet them. i'm very proud of the work that we've done together and of this legislation that we've assembled. and i want to express particular thanks to senator wicker, cantwell, and sinema, and to

their staffs for their hard work. our bill strengthens the united states' leadership in space, ensuring that we remain the default space exploration partner of the world. it extends the life of the international space station through to 2030, and it challenges us to be the international leader for lunar and mars exploration and to reach new horizons. it's not just human exploration, though, mr. president. by working in a collegial and good-faith manner, we were able to craft a product that strengthens all of nasa's core missions, something which benefits not just states with strong nasa equities but every american. it is amazing what strong, unified leadership can do to bring the members of this body together, working to pass

vitally important legislation that advances science and technology and national security and the interests of our nation. so, mr. president, inwant to say again how grateful i am to my colleagues who worked on this bill with me, and to state just how proud i am that the senate is speaking with one unified voice in passing this legislation. this is following a tradition that we have seen the past eight years i have served in this body where on the question of space we have seen over and over and over again strong bipartisan cooperation, even at a time when partisan division pulls us apart in so many other areas. on the question of america leading the world in space, the united states senate speaks with one voice. we have a real opportunity here to boldly shape the nation's space exploration efforts to

inspire new generations of little boys and little girls gazing up at the stars and wondering what's out there, and to make the united states a true space-faring nation. while this bill is not going to pass the house of representatives during the remainder of this congress, i look forward to the beginning of the next congress where we can use this unanimously approved legislation as the starting point to move quickly to pass a comprehensive nasa authorization act across the finish line and get it signed into law. therefore, mr. president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 525, s. 2800. the presiding officer: the clerk will report.

the clerk: calendar number 525, s. 2800, a bill to authorize programs of national aeronautics and space administration, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. cruz: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute be withdrawn, the cruz substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill as amended be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. cruz: thank you, mr. president, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. hawley: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hawley: mr. president, i am here on behalf of the millions of working people in this country who are out of time, who are out of luck, and who are just about out of hope. i'm here on behalf of the millions of working people who have borne the worst of this pandemic, the people who got sent home back in march and april and may when other businesses got to stay open, when companies like amazon and facebook were making billions of

dollars, these are the workers who lost their jobs, the workers who lost their pay, the workers who said too bad for you. these are the people who right now are missing shifts at work to try to care for kids who are distance learning because of covid, who are trying to care for a relative who may be sick. these are the people who are always asked to make it work, who are always asked to hold it together. and you know what, mr. president? they do. these are proud people, the working people of our nation. these are strong people. these are the people who have rallied to this nation's defense at every hour of need and every moment of danger, who have sent their sons and daughters to go fight our wars, who have given their time and their talents and their treasure at every opportunity for this nation, and now, mr. president, they're in

need. they're the backbone of this nation, and now they are in crisis. i'm talking about the eight million americans who have fallen into poverty since this summer. 12 million families, working families who are now behind on their rent. the 35% of working families in america who have had to go ask for food assistance in the last couple of months because of this pandemic. those are the people i'm talking about. i'm talking about people like susan who's a single mother, working mother from my state, northeast missouri is where she lives. she wrote to me the other day that she is trying to home school her kids who are home because of covid. she doesn't have internet because she is in a rural part of the state. she doesn't have broadband. she is trying to feed her family. she is trying to stay up with her job, but she has to miss shifts at work because she has kids at home who she is trying to home school and supervise.

now she has fallen behind on her rent. she told me -- and these are her words -- i'm not asking for a handout. i'm just asking for a chance to get back on my feet. earlier this week, a friend of mine was down in southeast missouri, the boot heel of missouri, a town called charleston, helping distribute food to families in need. he said that there were 30 church groups, 30 who lined up to come get food for their congregations, and over 60 families -- this is a small town, mr. president -- over 60 families who stood in line. and as they were leading food into the trunks of people's cars, many of them were crying. what these people ask for, what these americans ask for is not for government to solve all their problems. it's not for government to give

them a handout. it's a chance to get back on their feet, a chance to provide for themselves, a chance to recover when they have been asked again to sacrifice so much. and that is why the least this body can do is to provide direct relief to every working american who needs it. what we did back in march that every senator voted for, $1,200 for every working individual. $2,400 for working couples. $500 for kids and dependents. it's the least that we can do. it should be the first thing that we could do. as these negotiations drag on and on, fixated and focused and hung up on who knows what issues, let's start with this. let's send a message to working families that they are first, not last, that they are the most important consideration, not some afterthought.

let's send that message today. surely we can agree that the working people of this country deserve relief. and if we are going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on bailing out this, that, and the other, surely, surely we could start with reasonable, modest relief to the working people in need in this nation. what i'm proposing is what every senator has supported already this year. what i am proposing is modest compared to the scope of the need. what i am proposing will give working families in my state and across this country a shot, a shot here before christmas at getting back up on their feet, getting back to work, and getting back into position to be able to provide for themselves. these folks who are the backbone of this nation.

and so, mr. president, i'm here today to ask that this body take up and pass this relief measure, $1,200 for individuals, $2,400 for couples, $500 for kids, and as if in legislative session, i now ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill at the desk. i further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. mr. johnson: reserving the right to object, mr. president. first of all, i want to say to my colleague from missouri that i certainly share -- i think every senator in this chamber shares his concern for people who are hurting because of this covid pandemic. businesses have closed. people are on unemployment. people are in need through no fault of their own. this is an act of god, and

that's one of the reasons why i certainly supported the cares act. that was over $2 trillion. in total, this body has passed well over $3 trillion, 15% to 16% of last year's g.d.p. in terms of financial relief. my comments here are really not directed specifically at the senator from missouri's proposal because he makes many good points. we do have working men and women. we have households that gp again through no fault of their own are struggling, and we need to provide financial support. i think my comments are in some respect more general from the standpoint of how we've done that. and as i have explained to my colleagues in conference, by and large, the initial relief packages here were a shotgun approach. we had to move fast. we had to do something big. we had to make sure that markets wouldn't seize, that financial

relief could be sent to people very quickly. and so we passed over $3 trillion in financial relief. i knew it would be far from perfect. it was far from perfect. but now we've had a lot more time, and anything we consider for this additional package that we're considering now, that is being debated, that is being discussed, that's being negotiated, ought to be far more targeted. one of the reasons we are currently $27.4 trillion in debt, which is about 128% of last year's g.d.p. if we do this bipartisan deal, another trillion dollars, we will be $28.4 trillion in debt in the next three or four months. that's 132% of g.d.p. when i came to the senate, we were a little over $14 trillion. our g.d.p. was over $15 trillion. we were actually below 100% of g.d.p. i know i'm using a lot of

numbers right now, and i'm going to use more because that's part of the problem. and one of the reasons we are $27.4 trillion in debt is we only speak about need, we only talk in terms of compassion. we all have compassion. we all want to fulfill those needs. we just don't talk in numbers very often. we don't analyze the data. we don't take a look at what we did in the past and see did it work or didn't it work. what was spent well, what was wasted. i didn't have enough time to do charts. it would be a little easier. let me go through some numbers. i will go through slowly so people can understand at least my perspective of why i am so concerned about our nation's debt, the fact that we are mortgaging our children's future, and i think we need to be very careful about mortgaging it further when we aren't doing it in a targeted fashion.

so again, before the covid recession hit, in december 2019, we hit a record number of people employed in this country. it was a record. our economy was humming because of president trump's administration putting forward a reasonable level of regulation and a competitive tax. that brought back entrepreneurial spirit, that supercharged our economy. we were at 3.35% unemployment. when i took econ 5% was considered unemployment. we were at 3.5% unemployment. then covid hit. and by april, we'd gone from almost 159 million people employed in this country to just a little over 133 million people. so that was a reduction in employment of a little more than 25 million people. again, from 159 million to 133

million, 25 million people less employed in this nation. now, the good news, even though the pandemic is still not over, but the vaccine is being administered, it is being administrated, i think the end is in sight, we've already gained 16 million people employed. so now employment stands at 149.7 million people. 150 million people are employed. down to about 9 million jobs, 9 million. okay? so i want you to keep those numbers in mind because they're important. and our unemployment rate stands at.7%. -- at 6.7%. by the way, the number of people unemployed according to the bureau of labor statistics is about 10%. now, in the cares act -- again, which i supported -- we did provide economic impact payments, what senator hawley wants to duplicate. no changes, no modifications, no further targeting.

what those economic impact payments were is about $275 billion to 166 million people. again, remember ... 25 million people lost their jobs. we sent sour checks to 166 -- we sent our checks to 166 million people, averaging about $1,673% person. what's more relative is how many households do you send those checks to? we sent them out to about 115 million households, about $2400 per household. so again, $275 billion to 115 million households. that was about 4.5 more house homeds than the number of -- households than the number of jobs lost. today with only 9 million jobs lost, not only -- i mean, that's a big number. i'm not minimizing that.

but with nine million jobs lost, if we just repeated, sent it out to another 115 million households, that's 12.6 times the number of jobs lost. and if we double it, it goes from $275 billion to $550 billion. that's a half a trillion dollars. i know a trillion doesn't sound like much anymore. it seems like hundreds of billions seems like more. but now we're dealing in one 0 two trillion dollars. it's pocket change, apparently. how is that money spent? did it really -- was it really spent on essentials? was this money really needed? was there any hope of actually that money being stimulative to our economy? well, we have one study from the federal reserve bank in new york they issued it on october 13, 2020. what they did is they -- since 2013 they've been sending out an

internet national survey to 1,300 households called the survey of expectations. they sent out one in june and one in august. and here's what those survey results said. of the 2 $ $-- of the $2,400 sent out, 18% was sent on essential items. 8% was spent on nonessential. 3% on donations. for a total of 29% spent is what they call the marginal propensity consumed. 29%. the other 71% equally divided, 36% of that was saved, so our nation's savings rate has increased, and 35% went to pay off debt. credit card ebbet did. -- credit card debt. they also asked the question of what happened to the

unemployment payment? very similar results, 24% of the plus-up, the $ 600 per week to state unemployment benefits, 25% was spent on essential, 4% on nonessential. 1% on donations. 29% was the morningal in propensity to consume from the unemployment payment. 71% for savings and for debt repayment. now, they also looked ahead, assuming that we're going to do another round of stimulus checks. this time they asked their respondents, how would you spend $100 if you got -- $1,500 if you got a check. this time they said they'd spend about 14% on essential, 7% 0 on nonessential, 3% on donations, a total of 24% would be the marginal propensity consumed. 76% on savings and debt

repayment. so i don't think you can take a look at these direct payments to individuals as stimulative. obviously, 18% to 24% is spent on essential items. we ought to figure out how to provide that money so that people can spend it on essentials. again, that's only 18% to 24%. maximum. i do want to talk a little bit about past stimuluses. i personally don't believe they do much to stimulate the economy. i think the best way to stimulate the economy is again what this administration has done -- lower regulation to a reasonable level. nobody argues for no regulation. we need a reasonable level. and have a competitive tax system. i fear the next administration we may just repeat the mistakes of the obama-biden administration, and here's the proof of their mistakes. again, remember those employment numbers. a record of about 159 million.

currently 150 million people being employed. back in the great recession, we did have an employment of about 146 million people in january of 2008. by december 2009 that this dropped to 138 million people employed. but when president obama took office, he had total control of congress, a filibuster-proof majority here in the senate. and within a month, they enacted the american recovery and reinvestment act, $786 billion of proposed spending. in february of 2009, there were 141.6 million americans working. the unemployment rate was 8.3%. again, it continued to dip to december 2009 when it got down to 138 million. it took us three years from february of 2009 to get back to

141.6 million americans working. and that's with an $800 billion stimulus package that did not work, but it further mortgaged our children's future by another $800 billion. i wish these things worked. a quick aside, part of that american recovery reinvestment act -- again, democrats had total control, filibuster-proof majority in the senate. do you know how much they plussed-up state unemployment benefits to help the unemployed, those 8.3% of americans? they plussed it up by a whopping $25 per week. now they're arguing that $300 per week, which i believe is the current proposal, isn't enough. kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it? so in summary, kind of reviewing

these numbers, we currently are at 6.7% unemployment. i don't recall ever in the united states history where we've even begun to think that we should even spend $100 billion to stimulate an economy at 6.% unemployment. but this is different. we have underemployed. we have families in need. there's no doubt about it. i completely support some kind of program targeted for small businesses so they can reemploy, so they can reopen, to restore capital. their life savings have been wiped out. i have proposals. they have been ignored. so what i fear we're going to do with this bipartisan package and what the senator from missouri is talking about is the same thing -- a shotgun approach. we will not have learned the lessons from our very hurried, very rushed, very middle classive earlier relief packages. we're just going to do more of the same, another $1 trillion.

it takes our debt from $27.4 trillion to $28.4 trillion in a couple months. doing virtually no revisions, no improvements. and certain will i what the senator from missouri is talking -- and certainly what the senator from missouri is talking about with respect to these economic impact payments, no revisions at all. just spend another $275 billion. send it out to 115 million households when we are currently at about nine million jobs less than we were in a record economy before the covid recession. so for all those reasons, i not only object to what senator hawley is proposing here, but i'm certainly lodging my objection to what's barreling through here. the train has left the station on the package that's being negotiated right now that is way too big, that authorizes more money even though we've got $600

billion that's there just for repurposing -- no reauthorization required -- 52 republicans supported it. but that's not good enough. we've got to three another $300 billion to $400 billion on top, which is more that we are mortgaging our children's future, without reforms, without targeting. so, mr. president, i object. mr. hawley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the senator from missouri. mr. hawley: mr. president, i thank the senator from wisconsin for his perspective, which i always appreciate and of course i appreciate working with senator johnson on so many issues. on this issue, i'm afraid, we are just going to have to differ. and i just with aens to say this -- -- and i just want to say this. nothing could be more targeted. no relief could be more important than relief for working people. the senator is right. this body has spent trillions of dollars this year alone on covid relief. we're getting ready to spend apparently mother $1 trillion

more -- another $1 trillion more. and yet working people are told, they may be last -- if they get relief at all. i don't think the american people understand that. i know people in missouri don't understand this. go home and trying explaining that to the people of youtube state. go ahead. just try. try telling them why this body can bail out the banks -- we bailed out the banks to such a tune that they now have money left over. now we're going to take money back because we spent so much on wall street and the banks in the first part of this year. that's right. now i understand that my democratic colleagues don't want to shutdown all of the bank money because mo knows what we might be able to do with that in the future. oh, they're fine. they're more than fine. they're doing great. now, wall street is doing great. big tech, they're doing great. the big multinational corporations, fan it is a sticks. working people -- working people are living in their cars. working people can't go to the doctor. working people can't pay their rent.

working people can't feed their children. they should be first, mr. president, not last. and it is no answer for this body to tell them, go get in an unemployment line. really? there's the response? go get in an unemployment line. now, the working people of this country, frankly, deserve better. they deserve to be the top priority, just like they have made this country the top priority in their lives and their families'. this is not the end of this fight, mr. president. i'm here right now on this floor. senator sanders will be back in a matter of hours to ask again for the same measure. again, i've been proud to partner with him on this effort. and i will keep working with whomever it takes for however long it takes until we get the working people of this country relief. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

mr. hawley: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorumcall: quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. a senator: thank you, mr. president. three days ago i came to the floor and spoke in honor of the life of --. the presiding officer: senator, we are in a quorum call. mr. tillis: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, sir. mr. tillis: thank you, mr. president. three days ago i came to the floor and spoke in hoon of the life of tyler herndon, a police officer who lost his life days before his 26th birthday last week. he was laid to rest this week. five days after his murder and three days after my remarks, a devastating report -- another officer in north carolina has lost his life in the line of duty. wednesday night concord police department received a call about a crashed abandoned car on i-85 outside of charlotte. responding officers were alerted that the suspect attempted to steal a woman's car what i will she was still in it.

officers jason shuping and kalob robinson tracked and identified the suspect on foot. as they approached the suspect, he pulled out a handgun and he shot both of these brave officers. tragically, officer shuping died at the scene. thankfully officer robinson is recovering at the hospital. officer shuping was just 25 years old, the same age as the officer we memorialized this week, tyler herndon. i'm just devastated by this. these brave officers had begun their careers in law enforcement and had nowhere to go but up. they were serving our community and they were doing it with honor. we talk a lot about the sacrifice given by law enforcement officers who in day in and day out are serving our community and putting themselves in harm's way. and it's disspiritting to think

that the fallen officers at the very beginning of their careers have already made the ultimate sacrifice in the name of public safety and community safety. families in north carolina and each of our states are about to endure their first christmas without their loved ones. we owe so much to these families whose parents, spouses, siblings, children and grandchildren have given everything in the line of duty. now last -- on tuesday when i spoke on officer herndon, i said that in the next congress, i would be moving forward with the protect and serve act again. this act increases penalties for people who murder or assault police officers. but in light of another police officer's death, the second one a week in north carolina, in the suburbs of just around the corner from where i live, 10 or

15 minutes away, i think we have to elevate the discussion now and send a very clear message to those who would harm police officers. if you do, then there are going to be dire consequences to pay for it. we owe it to the police officers to let them know that congress cares about them and that we should send this message. this is a simple bill. it only focuses on those who are so brazen that they would murder a police officer in the line of duty, assault them, ambush them, all the things you've seen. 48 murders in this year alone. the most -- the best thing that we can do is just pass this commonsense legislation, send a message to these people who are taking away the men and women serving our communities. mr. president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of senate 4605 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, reserving the right to object. mr. president, the protect and serve act of 2020 that's been offered by my colleague and friend, senator tillis, creates a new federal crime that would punish assaults on law enforcement officers, including state and local officers, by up to 10 years and up to life if death results from the offense or the offense involves a kidnapping, attempted kidnapping or attempt to kill. mr. president, let me say at the outset that i have a few seconds to communicate with my colleague before this official colloquy on the floor. i sensed in your voice, and what you told me, how personal

this is to you, this just isn't the killing of a law enforcement which is a tragedy all in itself, it's your neighborhood, it's your community. as you said, some of these officers, you know their families, and it's very personal. and i want to say first i offer my condolences to the families and colleagues of officer jason shuping, who was, lost his life in concord, north carolina; and officer tyler avery herndon who lost his life in mount holly in the line of duty in north carolina in the last few weeks. these are terrible tragedies. we had a similar situation, of all places, in the loop in chicago just a couple of years ago. commander paul bower. what a spectacular man he was, in service to the city of chicago and the state of illinois. he was murdered in the loop. unfortunately, his poor young family had to go through the ordeal not only of the funeral

but also then of the trial of the suspect. i only raise that because paul bower's assailant was successfully prosecuted by the state of illinois and was given a life sentence just recently, as is the case in most of these situations. to my knowledge, i'd say to the senator from north carolina, every state, including his own, takes this very seriously and prosecutes cases of harm involving law enforcement officers. the individual responsible for shooting officer shuping is dead. if he had lived he would have been prosecuted for capital offense in north carolina. the individual who allegedly shot officer herndon has been indicted for first degree murder in north carolina. it raises the question of why is it necessary to create a federal crime for something already being successfully prosecuted in every state in the nation? assaults on police officers are

already criminalized with enhanced penalties, as they should be. and assaults on federal officers are already federal offenses. i have a lengthy list here which i will not read to you of all of the federal statutes that alreay provide for punishment up to death and life sentences for those federal officers who would be shot or harmed in any way. so let me say this to my friend and colleague from north carolina. i thank you for standing up on the floor and bringing this matter to our attention. we should never overlook the fact that these men and women serve us selflessly and risk their lives in the process. i.d.'s happened here in the -- it's happened here in the capitol and every corner in america, sadly. let's save this for another day, in the new congress which is about to start in a few days. let's address this issue as well as how to make the plight of our law enforcement officers safer and more effective, to deal with issues involving that, i

think would be a balanced approach to this which would serve justice. and for those reasons, i will object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. tillis: mr. president, i'm obviously disappointed in the objection from my friend and colleague from illinois, but i do believe that we've got to start recognizing something bad is happening. 48 murders, hundreds of assaults, ambushes, premeditated attacks. i do understand the idea that maybe you can prosecute it through existing law, federal or state law. but we've got an epidemic of abolish the police, defund the police, marginalizing the police that suggests to me that even if there are pathways now to properly prosecute these brazen criminals, that we've

got to cut through some of the rhetoric that honestly i believe is the responsibility for some of these unprecedented numbers on murders and assaults. so although i'm disappointed with the objection today, mr. president, i look forward to working with my colleague on judiciary and others to do everything we can to pass the protect and serve act and to send a very clear message to these p increasingly less safe communities and more threatened law enforcement officers that we're going to do everything we can to make our communities safe and to make a police officer's job as safe as it can be. thank you, mr. president. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i'd ask consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, there's a lot going on, and not enough of some things we really need to go on. -- going on. but i think it's worth noting again, lest the moment be lost somehow in all the back-and-forth and all the chaos that we have reached a watershed moment in the war against covid-19. as you know, the first successful vaccine was approved last week. i watched online as the vice president of the united states and his wife received the vaccine, and i applaud them for demonstrating their confidence, which should be all of our

confidence, that this vaccine is not only effective but also safe. and in my state of texas, it's estimated that there will be a million people vaccinated by the end of this month. that is a modern medical and logistical miracle. and yesterday the news keeps getting better -- the f.d.a.'s expert advisory panel recommended that they approve a second vaccine. meaning several million more doses above the pfizer vaccine, millions more doses could be headed out the door in a matter of days, if not hours. so the light at the end of the tunnel is getting bigger and brighter every day. but we're not out of the dark yet. as we know, tragically, more than 300,000 americans have lost

their lives to this virus. millions have lost their jobs and their livelihood. countless small businesses have permanently closed their doors, and the devastating impact of the virus across country is growing day by day. earlier in year we were able to come together in four separate pieces of legislation in a bipartisan, nearly unanimous manner and respond with the sort of alacrity and speed and with the scope that i think our constituents expected us. we didn't exactly know how big we needed to go. we just knew we needed to go big and we needed to go fast. and so we appropriated more than $3 trillion of coronavirus relief. we didn't know how long the virus was going to last. and when we tried to offer

additional aid to the american people, unfortunately, the partisan dysfunction that sometimes creeps in -- particularly in the days leading up to a national election -- prevented us from providing that relief. but the election is over, and it's time for us to do our jobs. really, we need to build on our past success. the bills culminating in the cares act in march bolstered our health care respond by making testing free of charge. remember that used to be the watchword, what people would continue to say day after day after day -- testing, testing, testing. well, you're not hearing that anymore because testing is ubiquitous. we provided vital funding for hospitals and armed our medical workers with the personal protective equipment they needed to sustain this fight. -- on the front line. we poured funding into research and development of vaccines,

therapeutics and treatmentsment and by any measure, those efforts have been a success. and while, as i said, the number of people testing positive has gone up pretty dramatically, the death rate has remained much lower than it was in the early days of the virus, and that's because, i believe, the treatments have improved, the therapeutics are working, and our health care providers are learning how to treat people with the virus in ways that are saving lives. the work we did up through march buoyed the workers and who needed the help. bolstered insurance benefits, and even gave the option to defer student loan payments with no penalty. we knew people needed help, and we acted responsibly, i believe.

we also supported our wobbly economy with the assistance from the main street businesses through the paycheck protection program and loans for the industries that our state and country rely on. but as time has gone on, much of the funding provided by those bills has run out. as i said, we didn't know in march how long this was going to last. either the public health challenges or the economic challenges associated with it. but we have a better picture of what's needed now, and we need to act and act soon. money for schools, vaccine distribution, or airlines through no fault of their own are seeing their ridership plummet -- they need help. each of these are worthy of our best efforts to help. and critical provisions that supported everything from employment to the paycheck

protection program have already lapsed or are within just a fewation of doing so. -- just a few days of doing so. i know people are wondering, why does congress wait so long, until the 11th hour to act? well, call it human nature, call it stubbornness, call it politics, call it what you will -- but deadlines do force action, especially here in the congress. and so i believe we are on the cusp of positive results for the american people. for months now disagreements on what the next relief bill should look like have stopped us from making progress. unfortunately, i think it was more about the election and stoking the fears and anxiety of the american electorate in the run-up to the election. i think that's what prevented us from passing additional bills after the cares bill in march. and then nancy pelosi and the

house pass the heroes act, which everyone recognized -- the mainstream media and even democrats noticed it was not going to go anywhere. that was another $3 trillion that helped the nascent marijuana industry, provided tax cuts to the wealthy people living in high-tax jurisdictions like new york and san francisco. it was clearly not designed to pass but, rather, to send a message. well, we knew we needed a targeted bill to send relief to those who needed it most without driving up government spending higher than necessary. too much of the discussion has focused on places, on the areas in which we disagree. and truthfully, there is no such thing as a perfect bill. you can always find a reason to say no, but i don't believe that's the reason our constituents have sent us here.

they want us to be responsible. they want us to be careful with their tax dollars. but they do want us to act in their best interest, and by trying to find ways to build consensus, even when we can't agree on everything, so at least agree on the things that we agree on, i think they expect us to do that. we all understand that our workers, many people have had the rug pulled out from under them. they had no money coming in the front door. they're worried about paying their rent or mortgage. their kids are at home going through virtual schooling. i mean, it's tough on a lot of people. it's not so tough if you're a member of congress and receiving a paycheck. but for millions of our constituents back home, they have been waiting and waiting, and they've been hurting because we have not been able to get our act together.

the second round of job-saving paycheck protection program would help a lot, help our small businesses, throw them another lifeline. that was really one of the most popular parts of what we were able to do in march. as the presiding officer will remember, we appropriated $350 billion, and it went in two weeks. and so we appropriated another $320 billion to provide loans to small businesses and incentives for them to maintain their payroll, so people would have income, and that those small businesses, once we got the virus in the rearview mirror, would still be appeared and -- still be around and help rebandsaw economy. in texas alone, there are 417,000 paycheck protection program loans. $41 billion worth. the average loan was $115,000,

although i was on a zoom call with some of the texas bankers association and one told me that their smallest loan was $300. i'm sure there is an interesting story behind that. but the point is this was needed help, and it's run out. and then we need another investment in vaccine distribution. the logistical challenge of getting this vaccine around the country is just -- is mind-boggling, but we can see it's already working because of thorough planning and good execution. but they need more money to make sure that we get the job done, and we need to make sure that schools, particularly as people feel more comfortable going back to school in person, that they get additional support so they can bring the children back into the classroom and keep them and teachers and other employees at the school healthy. we know virtual learning has been a disaster, particularly

for low-income students. unfortunately, broadband is not universally available in the united states, and there are parts of my state where as many as a third of the students have -- don't have access to broadband, so how in the world are they going to get to continue their education? local officials and state officials have tried to help, leaving parking lots outside of the school library available so you can drive up and gain access to the wi-fi from the school, or they have distributed hot spots that if you get access to cellular service, you can actually tie into wi-fi and you can -- you can get online and continue your studies. but for many of our young people, these school lockdowns have been a disaster in terms of their education. so we need to continue to -- we need to do more in that area as

well. so, mr. president, common sense tells you that when you're sitting across the table negotiating with somebody, if 80% of what you are talking about is agreed to, the process should move along pretty quickly, because nobody gets 100% of what they want around here. it's just not possible. and while it's unfortunate it's taken us so long to reach this point, i'm encouraged that maybe, just maybe now with the deadline for government funding running out tonight at midnight, maybe this is forcing action and a deal is in sight. there has been no more bipartisan cooperation and communication over the last several days than there has been in the last several months. a lot of people have put a lot

of effort into this on a bipartisan basis, and now the decision is with what we call the four corners. members of the -- rank-and-file members of the house and senate, we're not going to have a chance to amend this deal. it's going to be proposed by speaker pelosi, democratic leader schumer, leader mccarthy, majority leader mcconnell, and the white house so i'm sure it's not going to be perfect. and unfortunately, we will not have a chance to make it better, but i hope that the partisan divisions that have paralyzed congress for much of the year do not rear their ugly heads in these final hours at this critical stage of negotiations. there's too much at stake for us to go home for the holidays empty-handed.

there are too many people hurting, too many people who are anxious. you know, the number of people who have overdosed by self-medicating since the virus hit, it's i think about 80,000 people i read havoided just since the -- have overdosed just since the virus hit. you can imagine people self-medicating, whether it's with alcohol or drugs, people who are trapped with an abuser, either a spousal abuser or child abuser. because they're not going to school, their teachers can't look for signs of that abuse and get them help. and reports of child sexual abuse are down 40%. it's not because it's not happening. it's because kids aren't in school where teachers and others can come to their aid. and i can only imagine a single

mom, say, with three kids of different ages at home trying to continue their education where she is worried where do i -- how do i keep working, maybe you're an essential worker, so i can pay the bills, put food on the table, pay the rent. can you imagine the chaos and stress? well, there's too much at stake for us to go home for the kids empty-handed. we need to remember, we are not here for our benefit. we are here for the benefit of the people we are honored to represent. in my case, 29 million texans. we have a fiduciary responsibility. we are in a position of trust. they have entrusted us with their welfare.

the american people have waited long enough. we can't let them down again. mr. president, we're on the five-yard line, and we need to deliver. we need to get this done and get this done soon. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. durbin: i ask to suspend the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: we had a committee hearing in the senate judiciary committee and senator blumenthal with there with me and others,

and we listened to people from hong kong tell the people what's happening because of the oppressive regime and what is happening to those in hong kong who are demonstrating for democracy. this hearing also raised a lot of questions about the united states, our own immigration and refugee policy towards those who are being persecuted. at the hearing there was some powerful testimony. i recall one of the witnesses, mr. chu, who said that he was aware of students -- chinese students currently in the united states who have already been designated as enemies of the state by china who, if they are forced to return to china, face prosecution, imprisonment, and who knows. it was a very personal story

because these people are friends of his who through no fault of their own, only speaking out against the regime in beijing, now face long prison sentences if forced to return to china. i'm amazed, as i meet these people from china and hong kong at the courage they show. mr. chu, for example, had come to the united states -- had been sent to the united states by his father at the age of 12 because his father had made a practice of helping chinese who demonstrated in tiananmen square and created an underground railroad for them to escape china. i guess the government was on their heels and to protect his family, he sent his son to the united states, who lived here for many years and is an

american citizen now. this oppression is appalling. thousands of protesters in hong kong has been persecuted fighting for the liberties that we americans routinely say we enjoy, freedom for assembly, free speech. the chinese communist party in june allowed -- journalists and teachers, despite its name, the national security law is not about security, it's about fear. fear of the voices in hong kong calling for reform of democracy and freedom. i believe my colleagues on both sides of the aisle share my feelings about the crisis in hong kong. but the question today is, what are we willing to do about it? last week on a unanimous voice

vote, the house of representatives passed the bipartisan hong kong people's freedom and choice act, which would grant temporary protected status to hong kong residents currently in the united states and provide an opportunity for refugee status to hong kongers facing persecution. at wednesday's judiciary committee hearing, we received a clear message, congress needs to pass hong kong's freedom of choice act in the senate now. we can do it. in fact, we can do it today. think about the message it would send from the united states to hong kong and to the world if we sent this bill to the president's desk to be signed into law. it's bipartisan. it was unanimous in the house. it's timely and it addresses a real problem. under the bill, hong kong would be designated for t.p.s. for 18

months. to qualify for t.p.s. status, eligible hong kongers in the u.s. would need to first clear a national security screening and pay a $360 filing fee. some of the critics said we can't trust the chinese in the united states of they may be spies. that is why we required under the t.p.s. that anyone applying for this t.p.s. status has to go through a criminal background check and a national security screening. i want america to be safe. we all do. but just to categorically say that if you're from china or from hong kong, you're a suspicious character and we don't want you to stay here isn't fair and it isn't realistic. 6,700 people are here now legal in the united states from hong kong and china and they were admitted to the united states under standards and

investigations. they are students at our universities, for example, and they would qualify for this important temporary humanitarian protection so they aren't forced to return to a literally dangerous situation. t.p.s. can be granted by the president, if he wishes, but the trump administration has failed to protect hong kongers in need. this bill also establishes expedited refugee and asylum access for qualified individuals and their family members. this would enable persecuted hong kongers to register with any u.s. embassy or consulate or with the department of homeland security if they are in the u.s. refugees would have to meet all legal requirements and pass background checks. that is not a minor administrative chore. we're serious about it. if you want to come to the united states as a refugee or --

we want to be sure you won't do danger to anyone in the united states. hong kongers are at risk fleeing chinese persecution not to mention millions of other vulnerable refugees. since the enactment of the refugee act in 1980, the united states has resettled on average 80,000 refugees a year. that's our annual average since 1980. however, in the midst of the worst refugee crisis in history, the current trump administration has set record low refugee admissions figures four years in a row, culminating in the lowest level in history this year, 15,000. from 80,000 to 15,000. how many refugees has the united states admitted from hong kong in the last year? zero. not one. when you look at what the communist chinese party is doing in china, threatening these

demonstrators who are marching in the streets for things that we say over and over again are the underpinnings of our democracy, and to think that we have not granted one single person in hong kong refugee status, it's hard to imagine. the trump administration has decimated legal protections for hong kongers and other innocent victims of persecution. for example, in a ruling issued last week, hong kongers can be denied asylum if they transit other countries on the way to the united states. if persecutors detain them for only a brief period. if persecutors were not able to carry out their threats before the activists fled. according to the testimony of a hong kong democracy council executive director samuel chu, on wednesday, i mentioned earlier, the people most immediately at risk in hong kong are the approximately 10,000 individuals who have been arrested by the chinese government crackdown. make no mistake. we know what the chinese

communist party is up to. these concentration camps -- they call them reeducation campd for people of the muslim religion, we know what they're doing. they characterize them in many different ways, but we have seen this throughout history. and the question is what are we going to do about it? we're going to protest what's happening to the people in hong kong, but will we take one step, even one small step to provide them security and safety? not all of them are going to wish to leave hong kong, i understand that. some of them can't. some of them may receive assistance from another country. the british prime minister has offered overseas passports to up to three million hong kongers. the australian government has stepped in with visa options to students and workers from hong kong. canada announced multiple new immigration measures supporting hong kong residents, including measures to help hong kong students in canada. i have a basic question. what are we going to do? you hear this about the british stepping up. the australians stepping up. the canadians stepping up.

where is the united states? this is our chance today. senator blumenthal is going to make a unanimous consent request to actually have the united states do something. one country cannot take in all of the refugees from hong kong, nor should it be interested to, but surely the united states of america, the most powerful nation on earth, we hope a model for democracy in the world cannot protest what's happening to the innocent people of hong kong and the repressive regime of beijing and then do nothing. passing the hong kong people's freedom of choice act is urgently needed. the situation continues to deteriorate. we need to do it and do it quickly. we need to protect hong kongers in need. think about the message that sends to the world that the united states agrees with senator blumenthal's request today, passes the measure that's already passed the house of representatives, and it becomes a policy in this land. how will the chinese government

pass that off as insignificant? when all of these countries are basically saying their treatment of the people in hong kong is abominable? we should act quickly. the senate judiciary committee has failed to raise another bill, the hong kong safe harbor act sent to it six months ago, so they have had their opportunity in the committee to do something. under a democratic majority, the house did their job, acted quickly with a bipartisan bill. we have seen a lot of speeches from both sides of the aisle about how mad we are at the chinese government. the question today in the next few minutes is are we mad enough to do something? do something significant. i ask the senate to join the house in passing the hong kong people's freedom of choice act now. let's accepted this bill to the president and send a strong message to the people of hong kong that they are not in this alone. how fortunate i am to have a colleague like dick blumenthal. we see eye to eye on this issue.

he jumped on the measure and said he wanted to move on it. i said darn, i wish i had been the first one. i'm happy to accompany him and be his partner in this effort. i sincerely hope that this is truly bipartisan. if our protest against the communist party of china is meaningful and bipartisan, it will be powerful. i yield to my colleague from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i'm really honored to follow senator durbin, a staunch and steadfast champion of refugees and immigration reform who year after year has shown the courage to stand up on this issue and to emphasize a point that he has made. there is an urgency to our acting. there is a sense that time is

not on our side for the lives at stake here. the world has watched in horror as china has cracked down on the incipient democracy movement in hong kong. we've seen the yellow umbrellas. we've seen the marchers in the streets and the brutality and the cruelty of the chinese communist party and chinese authority using clubs and guns with the kind of thuggishness that it has come to characterize the chinese antidemocracy movement there and around the world. we have an opportunity to take a stand and speak out and do something in defense of the brave protesters who are risking their lives.

we've seen this kind of democracy movement before. we know it's in the great tradition of our country to stand with those protesters and those marchers who are paying for the chinese government. we will not let you break the agreement that you did in 1984 with the united kingdom to preserve these freedoms and to make hong kong an outpost of democracy in the repressive regime of china. we will not let you chip away at our rights or extradite our people to china. that law was the spark that ignited these protesters. we will not let you mock our demand for freedom and democracy. the hong kong people's freedom and choice act of 2020 was passed unanimously in the house

of representatives. overwhelming bipartisan support. and it would very simply give those protesters protected status in this country. the greatest nation in the history of the world saying to them we will give you a safe harbor, we will give you a place where you can be protected. and remember, what the chinese are saying is you can be indicted, you can be arrested no matter where you are in the world. if you violated our laws, we will bring you back. and we would pay to those protesters who are simply demanding fundamental freedoms that we often take for granted here, we will give you protected status. we'll give you temporary

protected status right away. we will make sure that you have that safe harbor. now, i know that my colleague, senator rubio and senator menendez have a bill that's actually called the hong kong safe harbor act. we had a hearing on it the other day in the judiciary committee. all of my colleagues expressed support for the individuals who came to us asking us to act on that measure, and the hong kong people's freedom in choice act of 2020 in fact would go beyond that measure only to say that you don't have tobacco formally charged in china, you don't have to be in specific categories of qoaforts. you can be a journalist, and you

can get temporary protected status. and it would also say that you don't have to demonstrate individually a fear of persecution, but, but you do have to be screened. you do have to demonstrate you're not going to be a national security threat. and my colleague, senator durbin, is absolutely right to make this point. nobody wants chinese spies in this country. there would be a background check and a screening just as there is for other refugees under this measure. the other day at this hearing, we heard from samuel chu and nathan law. we heard from joey su. these activists are fighting for freedom. we heard their stories so

powerful and moving, their faces and voices should be heard and heeded in this body. we are far removed here in this sedate setting from the clamor and the cruelty of those streets in hong kong where men and women have stood bravely against the physical brutality and force of the chinese regime, but we should send a message to the world. we're going to stand with those refugees who come here heeding the lady who stands in new york harbor with a message of hope and freedom, the same lady many of our forebears in this chamber saw when they came to this

country, like my dad in 1935 at the age of 17, aloan, seeking to escape persecution in germany, speaking no english, knowing virtually no one, having not much more than the shirt on his back, but believing, believing that america would offer him the safety of freedom as a refugee. that's our tradition in this country. it goes beyond party, geography, race, or religion. what makes america truly great, we are a nation of immigrants and refugees. and my hope is as i stand here that we will have the same

unanimity in this body as the house did. spite all the other divisions that persist at this point, that we will have the respect for the moral imperative to act now and make sure that we fulfill the message of america now that's more important than ever before in light of the progressive regimes, even in our own region, whether it is venezuela, guatemala, honduras, nicaragua, where we can say to the world we're going to stand by our principles and we're going to do it now because of the urgency of this moment and the need of these refugees for temporary protective status. let us act now. and so, mr. president, as if in

legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 8428, and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president, reserving the right to object, today we have good news and bad news. the bad news is that our democratic colleagues are finally discovering that the chinese communists are not our friends. they are finally acknowledging that the chinese communists are murdering, torturing, oppressive tyrants, and our democratic colleagues are likewise discovering that hong kong is a beacon for democracy, a beacon

for liberty. that is indeed good news. the bad news is the bill that they have put forth is not designed to do anything about it. this is not a hong kong bill. it is instead a democratic messaging bill, because house democrats made, i think, a cynical decision to try to exploit the crisis in hong kong to advance their long-standing goals on changing our immigration laws. it is not news to anyone who has been watching the political battles of recent years to discover that our democratic colleagues embrace open borders. that when it comes to illegal immigration, their preference is to make all immigration legal. this bill advances that long-time partisan political

agenda that the democrats have. when it comes to standing up for communist china for eight years i have led the fight in this senate to stand up to communist china. china is, i believe, the single greatest geopolitical threat faifg the united states -- facing the united states in history. i traveled hong kong throughout asia and met with the hong kong dissidents, these brave young students standing in the streets, dang for freedom, standing up against chinese tyrants. i did a satellite interview on an american sunday show from hong kong drefd in all -- dressed in all black in solidarity with those protesters because hong kong is, as i said many times, the new berlin. it is the front line in the battle against communist tyranny. this bill, however, is not

designed to fix that problem. right now today under current law individuals in hong kong are already eligible to become refugees under our immigration law. in fact, in july president trump explicitly expanded the number of refugee slots available and allocated to hong kong. this bill, instead, is designed -- and it would dramatically lower the standards for both refugee and asylum status to the point where individuals would qualify even if they cannot establish an individualized and credible fear of persecution. the senator from connecticut just listed that as a virtue of that bill, that no longer would you -- would you have to establish a credible fear of persecution. instead this bill would dramatically lower that

standard. there's no reason to lower that standard and there is particular risk when doing so we know would be used by the chinese communist to send even more chinese spies into the united states. now, the senator from connecticut assured us, well, don't worry, we'll do a background check. well, mr. president, the last i checked when the chinese communist government sends spies into our country, they are quite willing to congress con doc -- who do you think the chinese government would be see coming in. we recently had news of chinese spies targeting members of congress, targeting prominent democrats. this is an espionage threat america faces of our adversaries taking advantage of our laws and targeting our leadership.

the truth also is that china has confiscated passports, and i'm told stop issuing exit visas to persons deemed problematic. as a result, china is highly unlikely to let actual dissidents leave hong kong. so this bill isn't directed to help them, but i will say this. we urgently need to have a real substantive bipartisan conversation about countering the chinese communist party, about defending the united states of america, about standing up and winning this battle. this bill doesn't advance that objective, but what i'm going to do, is i'm going to give our democratic colleagues the opportunity to actually support legislation that would stand up to china. and so momentarily i'm going to ask unanimous consent for one bill and discuss a second bill

that i also later intend to ask unanimous consent to pass. but, first, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. blumenthal: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: mr. president, i -- i really regret this attack on a bill that was passed unanimously, republicans unanimously, democrats unanimously, a bipartisan bill by the house of representatives. if my colleagues are serious about moving a bill to the desk of the president, only this bill will do it because only this bill has been passed by the house of representatives, and there is an urgency to this

cause for the sake of these refugees who haven't been permitted to leave their country, haven't been sent by china, haven't simply come into this country as potential espionage agents. they've come here because they fought for freedom in their country. so to say that we have discovered that we need to stand up to china, sorry about that, but just preposterous. i yield to the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i would like to ask a question through the chair. isn't it true that the bill we are promoting that passed the house unanimously on a bipartisan basis, also protects the 6,700 chinese here in the united states in status like

student visas from being forced to return to hong kong when our state department is warning americans it's unsafe for them to travel to hong kong. is that not true? mr. blumenthal: the senator from illinois is absolutely right. and i was just going to, as a matter of fact, make that point because i think it is central to the objection that's been raised. in fact, the people who are danger here are already here, they are in danger if they were sent back without that temporary protective status. so i think that points refutes the argument that's just been made by our colleague from texas. mr. durbin: if the senator would further yield for a question. if this notion that the chinese in the united states are all suspect spies, is that the point you want to make? is that really the point you want to make? do we have background checks involved here? do we have screening involved

here? we're all intent on keeping america safe, but to categorize a group of people as all potential spies and therefore they are going to all be fed to the lions of beijing if they are are returned seems to me to be fundamentally unfair and not consistent with what america learned about immigration. there was suspicion in world war ii about those people coming from europe appeared they were turned away and many faced their death. if there is a suspect person, there is a way to determine that with screening, criminal background checks and the like. so the 6,700 that were here, and i think you were there, maybe a minute or two before you arrived, one is a student at georgetown, for example, who now has a price on his head from the chinese communist party, and the question is whether we're going to force him to return into

imprisonment. i don't think we want anyone who is suspect of spying on the united states at all, but to dismiss all of these people as possible spies, that doesn't sound to me -- does it sound to you as consistent with who we are as a people? mr. blumenthal: to answer your question, it is totally antithetical to the principle of the united states and totally abhorrent to the values of our constitutional nation, and it is, frankly, absurd. here we are, according to my colleague from texas, standing up, being tough on china, and we're doing what? we're sending back their opponents so they can imprison them and kill them, that's the notion of being tough on china

to enable them to imprison and kill their political opponents. i ask my colleague from texas to rethink the practical implications of this measure and to consider why the house of representatives unanimously passed this. it doesn't lower the standards for political refugees coming to this country, it doesn't eliminate any security checks. it takes people, many of them living here already, not spies by any means, and sends them back to the meat grinder of the chinese repressive communist party. it may sound like good rhetoric to oppose this bill but my colleague from texas heard the testimony of these freedom fighters and why they need

temporary protective status, why they support a safe harbor. and so i continue to insist that this bill, like the rubio-menendez bill, protects essential american values, and i ask him to reconsider his objection. mr. cruz: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: my colleague from connecticut just said that they were being tough on china. as i explained this bill is not being tough on china, but a bit of good news. they will have the opportunity, moments from now, to, in fact, be tough on china. i've introduced roughly a dozen separate pieces of legislation designed to do exactly that to stand up to the chinese

communist government and i'm glad to see my democratic colleagues discovering what is playing out in china. my family knows the oppression of communist governments. my father was imprisoned and tortured in cuba and my aunt was tortured by castro's thugs. there's a reason why i have come to the floor over and over to stand up for dissidents tortured and oppressed by communists and here is a chance for the democrats to join us in that regard. two separate bills. first, the bill called the script act. for years we have known that china's surveillance state and censorship practices are used to maintain its human rights violations.

and what this devastating pandemic has shown up is that china's surveillance state and its censorship practices are also a profound threat to our security, public debate as the chinese government hid information about the covid-19 pandemic that began in wuhan, china and allowed millions across the globe to be threatened their lives and their health to be threatened. in addition to the espionage activities, the chinese government uses american media outlets, telecommunications and movies and sports themes to spread their propaganda, from buying media outlets to he could wers -- qoarsing holiday -- he

coercing hollywood studios. the chinese communist party spends billions and billions of dollars to lead americans -- mislead americans about china. all of these activities are part of china's whole of state approach to a mass influence around the world through information warfare and we need to stand together to stop it. that's why i will be momentarily ask for unanimous consent on the script act which would cut off hollywood studios from the assistance they currently receive from the u.s. federal government if those studios allow the chinese communist government to censor what they are producing. we've seen this pattern over and over and over again, hollywood be complicit in chinese censorship. bohemian rhapsody,