recount of winton -- winston churchill's leadership and mass incarceration in 2020 book the new jim crow to name just a few. book tv will continue to bring you new programs and publishing news, you can also watch all of our past programs any time at booktv.org. >> we are interrupting book tv's regular weekend schedule as the u.s. senate comes into session. we will return to book tv programming as soon as the senate finishes their business for the day. a reminder that all book tv programming is available to watch online at booktv.org >> the senate meets today to continue work on executive and judicial nominations. off the floor talks continue on the details of a

900 billion-dollar coronavirus aid bill. the house is not in session so a vote on that relief package may take place tomorrow. last night both bodies approved a short-term measure to keep the government open until midnight sunday the chaplain, dr. black, will open the senate with prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. o mighty god. our souls long for you for we find strength and joy in your presence. the heavens keep telling of your wonders and the skies declare what you have done. we thank you for the star of beth la helm.

that -- bethlehem, that our lawmakers put their trust in you, seeking in every undertaking to know and do your will. lord, when our senators go through difficulties, may they remember that with your help they can accomplish the seemingly impossible. inspire them to find strength and courage from your guidance as they trust you to direct their steps. we pray in your strong 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. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: one minute for morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: in this town political arguments often change places very quickly. actually, observers could get whiplash when that happens. now think about that a few months back. before this election, we had

elected democrats scaring voters with irresponsible conspiracy theories that president trump was somehow going to use his office to interfere with state elections or that he was in cahoots with the postal service not to deliver ballots. remember back after the 2016, the irresponsibly worded talking points was that russia hacked our elections leading to polls two years later showing that 67% of the democrats believed falsely that russia tampered with vote tallies in order to get donald trump elected. now let's turn to the 2020 election just completed. those same people are now

earnestly warning of the dangers of americans questioning certified election results. think just for a minute those who supported hashtag resist after trump's election are now lecturing others about the need for faith in the elections. it's kind of disturbing to me the chutzpah some of the people around here versus what they are saying now. i yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator martial. mr. mcconnell: our nation stands at a crossroads in our months-long battle with the new coronavirus. tracking recent developments lately has been like watching a split-screen television. on the one hand operation warp

speed has fostered a modern medical miracle. the genius of science brought a vaccine that many claimed would be impossible. for about nine months our nation has been treading water all together, now the road to victory is in sight. but at the same time, even as we see this hopeless sunrise on the horizon in the here and now we're still facing an ongoing five alarm national crisis. the virus is surging across our country. two days ago my home state of kentucky set another bleak new record that most kentuckians lost in a single day of this pandemic so far. nationwide since start of december, we lost around 3,000 of our fellow americans to this disease every single day. meanwhile, although the american people have built our economic recovery with more speed and

resilience than anyone -- than anyone anticipated wee knew prosperity would come hand in hand with defeating the virus, thus millions of families across the nation are still under terrible strain. last week, economists thought we'd see a slight downward tick in new unemployment claims. instead the numbers shot up, logging 885,000 new claims in just one week. almost 900,000 newly laid-off americans in one week alone. senators on both sides know what we need to do. in the spring time when the country needed a bridge, we passed the largest rescue pack yj in american history on a unanimous bipartisan basis. now what americans need is another bridge. fortunately this time we do not need a bridge over an unknown and frightening future, but a bridge through the next several months while lifesaving vaccines

with flow throughout our country. front line health care workers are receiving the vaccine as we speak. yesterday vice president pence, speaker pelosi and i all received doses of the vaccine. these vaccines are safe. they are effective. they are our nation's path out of this hellish chapter. so the first lines of the cav -- cavalry are already arriving. we need to hold off while the new vaccines flow in. more direct unemployment aid, more direct assistance for families, a lot more funding for k through k schools to open swiftly to get our kids' education back on track. perhaps most important of all, a hiewblg amount of funding for vaccine distribution so we aren't just helping americans

endure this battle but we're helping them win the battle as fast as possible. last night we extended government funding for two additional days. the senate and house need to finalize another rescue package describing all the policies i just named and more. we need to finalize government funding for next year and we need to pass these measures with a big bipartisan vote and get them undersigned law without further delay. we'd need cooperation and focus from all sides -- we need cooperation and focus from all sides. there is a kind of gravitational pull here in congress, unless we're careful, where this could slide into disagreements. let's guard against that. the american people have waited for more assistance longer than they could afford. in my judgment they waited far too long for a relief package of the same general size and scope

that the senate republicans have been proposing literally since last summer. every one of us in the senate and the house represent american families who simply cannot wait any longer for congress to conclude these discussions. every day that we delay may very well cause more small businesses their survival, cost more american workers their jobs, and, yes, cost more americans their very lives. we've had productive discussions this week. i appreciate the good-faith spirit that has characterized my talks with speaker pelosi, leader mccarthy, secretary mnuchin, but the american people cannot feed their families or pay their bills with congress's good-faith discussions. they need us to act. we need to conclude our talks, draft legislation, and land this plane.

the presiding officer: under the previous order the previous order, leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination which the clerk shall report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, thompson michael dietz, of new jersey, to be a judge of the united states court of federal claims. mr. mcconnell: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: then the clerk should call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: now you mr. president, ever since a remarkable bipartisan rescue package in march, the cares act, a understand a subsequent bill to re-- and a subsequent bill replenish those programs, getting further aid to the american people has been a long and arduous effort. it's no secret that for much of the year, our republican colleagues were opposed to spending anymore money to help the american people during a once-in-a-century pandemic. thankfully, the republican

leadership recently accepted the bipartisan gang of eight's framework as the basis for negotiations for an emergency bill, which speaker pelosi and i had suggested, unlocking the current round of talks. even now at the end of this painstaking process, there have been some final hurdles crafting a $1 billion relief package was always going to have its difficulties. but we are running out of time. after passing yet another continuing resolution yesterday evening, we have until sunday at midnight to secure a final agreement, draft the legislation, and move it through both chambers of congress with alacrity. i agree with the republican leader on this. we need to deliver an outcome and deliver it quickly. now, we continue to make progress. i believe there is good faith from all four corners of congressional leadership to finalize an agreement very soon.

even though there are several issues that haven't been close out yet, we continue to make good progress on all issues but one. the number-one outstanding issue is a proposal by the republican senator from pennsylvania. this proposal is a new entrant. it hadn't been an important feature of our negotiations over the past few weeks. only in the past few days have senator toomey and senator mcconnell introduced this specific provision and made it clear they feel strongly about it. senator toomey's new proposal would potentially prohibit the treasury and the fed from setting up new emergency lending facilities moving forward, greatly reducing their ability to respond to economic crises. again, this is something that only materialized in the past few days and would leave the treasury and the fed with less authority than it had even prior to the pandemic. quite simply, senator toomey's

proposal would do more than just prevent the next treasury secretary and fed chair from using the emergency lending programs that saved our economy and stabilized markets back in march and april. it could prevent -- it could potentially prevent them from setting up new facilities -- it could potentially prevent them from setting up new facilities that look or even smell like those programs moving forward. democrats do not agree with it. economists from across the political spectrum warned that senator toomey's legislation would cause a deteriorating economy k the chair of the federal reserve, jay powell is likewise strongly opposed to the toomey provision. senator toomey's proposal goes way beyond what leader mcconnell proposed in his

heals act. the worry that this toomey proposal is supposed to address is the need to prevent the treasury and fed from using their authority willy-nilly to do whatever the new president wanted. that worry is unfounded. in order to create a new emergency facility under the present law, you would need the support of chairman powell, a conservative man, and the five members of the fed board, a conservative body. under current law, an emergency lending facility could only get approval in a true emergency. senator toomey's legislation creates barriers to emergency lending that go far beyond current law and tries to solve a problem that doesn't exist. now, publicly, senator toomey -- i read an article in "politico" -- he's expressed his concern

only about winding down the emergency end willing facilities established in the cares act. if that's what he's genuinely concerned about, there's a path to compromise. but his proposal goes much further and includes prohibitions on the treasury and the fed's authority that would handy cap our responsible efforts moving forward, not just during this crisis but any future crisis. we cannot agree to that, nor is it what the senator from pennsylvania says he cares about. what he's proposing is not about covid or helping the american people. it's about tying the hands of the next treasury secretary and the next fed chairman in a true emergency. so i hope our republican friends can agree to compromise here. senator toomey's legislation is the only significant hurdle to completing an agreement, and republicans need to make a decision. we're quickly approaching an

all-or-nothing situation. everybody needs to make a decision about whether we're going to pass this much-needed relief or not. and about 11th hour demands and whether they are worth holding up the entire bill. we -- we made grade strides. you can use whatever football analg ji you -- analogy you want. the of we are close to an agreement but we need to finalize. we need to finalize it and only really the toomey provision stands in the way. we are ready to deliver a desperately needed stoangs the historic -- extension to the historic unemployment benefits that democrats secured in march, direct survival checks to millions of american families on the brink of financial collapse, crucial relief to our schools, our small businesses, our health care system, and funding to support the production and

distribution of a vaccine. if we do our jobs, we will deliver the second-largest federal stimulus in our nation's history, second only to the cares act earlier this year. it's still not as large or as comprehensive as the country needs or as our sides wants but it will be larger than even the recovery act always aria in the wake of the last financial crisis. we've given ourselves already an extension to finish our work. let's not ask for another one. it's time for a conclusion. we have two days to cross the t's, dot the i's and come to an agreement. the country expects us to finish our work and deliver a result for the american people. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: then the clerk should call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: mr. president. i ask to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: i ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in

accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of thompson michael dietz of new jersey to be a judge of the united states court of federal claims, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of thompson michael dietz of new jersey to be a judge of the united states court of federal claims shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any members in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not on this the yeas are 50, the nays are 37 and the motion is agreed to.

the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, the senate is not in -- is not in order. the presiding officer: the the senate will be in order. senators, please take your conversations off the floor. the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, as we all know by now, yesterday brought even more great news on the vaccine front. the f.d.a. is now -- has now

issued and emergency approval for a second covid-19 vaccine. this one will be developed by an american biotech company, moderna, and millions of doses will be distributed -- i should say millions more doses will be distributed across the country in the coming days. as we know the first vaccine approved, which was created by pfizer, was released a week ago and over a thousand health care workers have been vaccinated. in my state we expect a million texans to be vaccinated by the end of the month which is a remarkable achievement and one we ought to celebrate. both of these vaccines will be effective. about 95% effective. if you think about the flu vaccine, it is generally no more than 50% effective and many

times far less to 95% represents an amazing accomplishment. so the american people have every reason to be optimistic about the ability to put this virus in the rear-view mirror once and for all. as we now know, the first round of pfizer vaccines were sent to major hospitals across the country, including more than 100 in my state. and, unfortunately, rural areas were almost entirely excluded. this is largely because of the infrastructure required to use the pfizer vaccine which must be kept at a negative 94-degrees fahrenheit, which is significantly cooler than the average freezer. while you may see these freezers in hospitals and research labs, they are less likely to be found in smaller rural hospitals. when the first round of vaccine went out the doors, they were

only going to hospitals with the necessary equipment and a large number of workers who needed the vaccine. as a result, the health care heroes in rural areas who have been fighting the same virus, often with fewer staff, fewer resources, and fewer treatments were left waiting. but we have every reason to believe that this will change with the approval of the moderna vaccine. this doesn't require the same low-temperature storage and can be kept around 40-degrees fahrenheit for 30 days. this will make it easier to safely transfor the these vaccines from manufacturing sites to rural parts of texas and the rest of the country and ensure that all of our health care heroes, our frontline workers and eventually the general public, will not be left behind. there's no reason why rural health care workers in texas or anywhere should is be denied this lifesaving vaccine when

their peers in larger urban areas are already receiving it. mr. president, the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. please take your conversations off the floor. mr. cornyn: this is yet another reason to celebrate the approval of the second vaccine, and i'm anxious for the vaccine to arrive in health care facilities across texas. now, mr. president, that brings me to the business that remains before the senate today and likely for the next couple of days. after months of trying to come together on coronavirus legislation, months, the last several days have given the american people a lot of reason to help. -- hope. first of all, it seems like for the first time in months there's actually a bipartisan interest in achieving an agreement. that wasn't the runup to the

case -- runup to the election. mr. president, the senate is still not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will be order. please take your conversations off the floor. mr. cornyn: so for months additional coronavirus relief was defeated by our democratic colleagues who weren't even interested to the runup to the election on providing additional relief after the cares act passed last march. hopefully that has all changed now after the election. negotiators are working around the clock to reach an agreement that will gain the support of both parties and reach the president's desk before we gavel out for the holidays. but the days are dragging on and the clock is ticking and the time is running out. mr. president, i want to mention two things about -- one about the process and the other is about the substance included in

whatever the package will look like. first of all, given the way that this is being negotiated, basically there are four people who are negotiating this massive spending package on behalf of the 535 members of congress. and essentially because this has been pushed off until these last days of the 116th session of congress, the only thing most rank-and-file members will be able to do is to vote up or down. in other words, there's no opportunity to amend it through regular order. i just have to say this is a terrible way to do business. and in the future, i hope we do better because this is almost the worst of all worlds when it comes to legislating. but we know our back is against the wall because of the politics

leading up to the election where we weren't able to do more since more, and so we have to do what we have to do. the second thing i want to mention, which is more about substance, mr. president, is about the paycheck protection program and the deductibility of ordinary business expenses. i believe the paycheck protection program has been one of the most successful parts of our covid-19 economic relief. the goal, of course, is to provide small businesses access to low-interest loans which could be converted into grants based upon their willingness to maintain their payroll and keep their employees connected with the business. the hope was that these businesses would survive and would rebound after we got the virus in the rearview mirror. we didn't know how long that was going to last, and indeed it's lasted longer than any of us would have wanted or had

planned. but it's important that this paycheck protection program be revived because time is running out. in my state, roughly $41 billion has been granted -- or excuse me, loaned with potential for grants to other -- about 417,000 businesses. this has been an essential part of our response to the covid-19 and the economic fallout associated with it. but, mr. president, when we passed the p.p.p. program in march, we expected, the congress expected that businesses that got the loans that were converted to grants would be able to deduct their ordinary business expenses in the year 2020. now, i know that may not be the best tax policy in the world, but we can choose one of two ways to get financial relief to the small businesses. we can shovel money in the front door or we can allow them to

deduct their ordinary business expenses even though they have received a grant from the federal government. the reason why i say i know this is part of the understanding in march when we passed the bill is because i have now, because of treasury department opposition to the deductibility of ordinary business expenses, to the recipients of the p.p.p. grant because of the treasury department's position that those are not deductible, we've had the -- we've had to file legislation which will make sure treasury department guidance and allow for that deductibility. again, this is not an ideal way to write tax policy, but under the exigent circumstances here, i think it makes perfect sense. again, you can either write more checks on the front end or you can allow businesses financial relief by deducting their ordinary expenses on the back

end. what i fear will happen because of the opposition of the treasury department is that come january, the businesses that have received this incredibly important p.p.p. again will find themselves having to pick up -- having a tax bill which will reverse if not negate the benefit that we intended by developing the p.p.p. program in the first place. this will happen as early as january when business -- many businesses have to pay their estimated tax, and there will be an incredible backlash, i believe, because i think the recipients of the p.p.p. loans and grants have every reason to expect, as congress intended, that they would be able to deduct their ordinary business expenses. so what's going to happen if we

don't fix that in this underlying bill? well, we're going to end up doing it next year, i promise you, because i think the backlash we're going to feel here from the businesses that have been suffering, been hanging on like a thread, that all of a sudden they have an expected tax bill, roughly, according to the "wall street journal," about $120 billion worth. we ultimately are going to have to fix that, so we might as well fix it on the front end rather than on the back end after -- after our constituents who have been the recipients of the p.p.p. grant rise up in outrage, really, that we haven't taken care of this now when we should. so i hope that in the negotiations on this covid-19 relief bill that we include the deductibility of ordinary business expenses from recipients -- for recipients of p.p.p. grants.

the funding we provided earlier this year for vaccine distribution has already been depleted and states are dipping into other sources of funding to ensure they have the capabilities to carry out the widespread vaccination effort. that's another reason why we need to pass this covid-19 relief bill as soon as possible. workers loss bolstered federal unemployment benefits at the end of july, and they are set to lose additional benefits the day after christmas. small businesses, as i said, are struggling to stay afloat, especially as the winter weather hampers outdoor dining and events. i saw the snow that hit new york where many of the restaurants, because they have been shut down, indoor dining has been shut down, they have tried to build up some infrastructure outside their restaurants, but even now those have been closed down because of the weather. people are hurting and need help. parents and teachers are wondering when their children will be able to return to in-person learning and how

schools will be able to keep them safe when they do. and the list goes on and on. earlier this year, we made a $3 trillion investment in our war against covid-19, and that funding has been critical not only to get us to where we are today in terms of therapeutics and vaccines, but also to keep our economy from tanking entirely, but these funds are drying up, programs are expiring, and the american people are counting on us once again to provide the support that they need. there appear to be a few remaining sticking points in the negotiations, but there is no reason why congress shouldn't be able to reach an agreement. the steady drip of information from congressional leaders is encouraging but progress doesn't pay the bills. enough time has been wasted this year on partisanship and political posturing. we have reached a make it or break it moment, and there is no

room for inaction. the american people are looking to us to protect their health and their livelihoods, and we cannot let them down. mr. president, i yield the floor and i'd note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i request that the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, i'm

going to be speaking in just a few minutes on another matter. i believe i will have time at 1:00. with nobody else on the floor at the moment, i would just add to what the distinguished senator from texas just said. i discussed this with him off the floor after he spoke. there is a concern about what might be in the omnibus bill and in the covid bill, and here on a saturday and tomorrow on sunday or whenever we finish rushing through. i would remind everybody that we were ready to bring up the appropriations bills that make up the omnibus in july.

the house of representatives had sent over in june, had sent over their covid bill. we could have brought it up then. we could have started having a series of votes. it might have taken us two or three votes of having votes every day on different parts of their proposal, democrats' proposals, republicans' proposals, the appropriations' proposals. and vote them up or down. i had urged that. the republicans had the jo of the in the u.s. senate. if they didn't like the proposals the democrats had, they could vote them down. but instead they seemed almost terrified to vote. ah, but there was a reason. we would have had to take two or three weeks to vote all this up or down, but we had to take instead the time to put through

lifetime judgeships of people who had been recommended by special interest groups. that's beneath the united states senate. but, unfortunately, while these people got lifetime jobs with high pay, hundreds of thousands -- millions of americans have lost their jobs, have lost their place to live, are unable to educate their children, and hundreds of thousands have lost their lives. this is not the u.s. senate's finest hour. we should have been doing our job and voting these things up or down. i know some may be afraid of what they had to vote. so what? i've cast over 16,000 votes. not all of them were easy. i never thought there was any

question when i would vote. now, madam president, the hour of 1:00 has arrived. i will claim my time and i'm going to speak about the department of justice and the office of the attorney general. william barr second tenure as attorney general is coming to an end. at that time, it is important for the senate to reflect upon his legacy and upon the challenges now facing the department of justice. as we all know, the office of attorney general fills a unique role within our system of government. it was created by the judiciary act of 1789. and in its creation, it was obvious the attorney general is not a traditional member of the president's cabinet.

supreme court justice james erdell observed in 1792 that the position is not called the attorney general of the president but the attorney general of the united states. this is because an attorney general's client is not the president. the attorney general's client is the american people. all of us -- all of us. the attorney general's duty is not to defend the president but to uphold the rule of law and do so with integrity and independence. now, we know that president trump has a very different view. he views the office of attorney general as an extension of his political power to be wielded like a weapon to further his agenda. he believes it exists to benefit him personally, to target his

opponents, to protect him and his friends. and his view stands in stark contrast to everything the attorney general is supposed to represent. it came as no surprise then that during his nomination hearing, mr. barr was questioned about which type of attorney general he would be. the president's lawyer or an impartial pursuer of justice. now, mr. barr was adamant in that hearing that while he may sympathize with the president's policy choices, his role as as policy advisor would be distinct from that of the nation's chief law enforcement officer. if confirmed, he assured all of us his job would not be to

protect the president. now, madam president, 30 years ago i voted for mr. barr to serve as attorney general to then-president george h.w. bush. i had my disagreements with him at that time -- in fact, several -- but when i heard -- but i voted for him. but when i heard in late-2018 that president trump intended to nominate him for a second tenure as attorney general, frankly, i was hopeful after the short, yet disastrous, tenure of a totally unqualified acting attorney general who eagerly bent to the will of president trump. i was hopeful that mr. barr would restore some independence to the office. but after careful consideration and listening to his testimony at his nomination hearing, i voted no for his confirmation.

mr. barr has long held expansive views of executive power. and prior to his nomination -- and he shares those views with -- this was prior to his nomination. he shared those views with the president in a bizarre 19-page memorandum making the case that the president can obstruct a criminal investigation with near impunity. it was clear to me that mr. barr's views would be weaponized by president trump, a man who derides any limits on his authority. the president, i said at that time, needs a much tighter leash. by any measure, the last two years have been worse than i feared. time and again, attorney general barr has acted in the best interests of donald trump, not in the best interests of the

country. he's intervened, he's overruled career prosecutors, only in cases to benefit the president and his friends. he's departed from department norms. he's misrepresented the department's work. he's ruined the public's trust in the department as a result, and i'll speak to just a handful of examples. in late-2019, a jury had overwhelming evidence convicted former trump campaign advisor roger stone for obstructing a bipartisan congressional investigation and lying under oath and witness tampering. evidence was overwhelming. the jury convicted him. so consistent with sentencing guidelines that apply to everybody, prosecutors recommended a seven to nine-year

sentence. president trump immediately took to twitter to criticize the prosecution, and just hours later, after he had tweeted his objections, attorney general barr intervened. he overruled the prosecutors. he disregarded the sentencing guidelines that are supposed to apply to anybody. what happened next reminded me of something judge michael mukasey said when he testified in support of mr. barr at his confirmation hearing. judge mukasey said, if mr. barr ever failed to serve with independence, he would find a mound of resignations on his desk. well, in this instance, all four career prosecutors withdrew from the case. in fact, two resigned from the justice department altogether.

in sentencing, judge amy berman jackson stated that it was true to their record, in accordance with law and department of justice policy. attorney general barr's intervention left me with just one question -- could anyone other than the president's close friend, a man who according to judge jackson broke the law and was prosecuted for covering up for the president, receive such leniency from the attorney general? i think the answer is pretty obvious. if you are a he a friend of the president -- if you're a friend of the president, the attorney general is going to try to cover for you. then there's former national security advisor michael flynn. the attorney general's

intervention in the flynn case went a step further. despite the fact that flynn had twice pled guilty -- pled guilty -- to lying to the f.b.i., mr. barr's justice department moved to dismiss the case altogether, prompting the lead prosecutors to withdraw. the judge sullivan entered a motionings to review the withdrawal of charges. he appointed a former judge to serve as an amicus curiae. well, judge gleason didn't mince words. he advised the court that mr. barr's grounds for seeking dismissal were conclusively disproven. an unconvincing effort to -- a

decision based solely on the fact that flynn is a political ally of president trump. not long afterward, president trump fully pardoned mr. flynn of his conviction. -- of the crime of lying. now, many of attorney general barr's departures from norm -- the special counsel's report on russian interference. the mueller report amounted to a presentment of misconduct that reached the highest levels of the trump campaign and administration. but the attorney general's summary of the report -- in fact, the only information he allowed the public to see for weeks -- left americans with the opposite impression, that the

report effectively exonerated the president even though it did not. special counsel mueller wrote to the attorney general at the time concerned that the attorney general failed to capture his conclusions and created confusion and undermined public confidence in the investigation. indeed, that appears to have been the attorney general's intent, many others agreed. it was written that the inconsistencies between his statement and the report cause the public to question whether he made an attempt to affect public. in favor of president trump despite findings in the redacted version of the mueller report to the contrary. this remarkable statement from a sitting federal judge about a sitting attorney general is about as damning as it gets.

soon after the attorney general began falsely claiming that the investigation was started without any basis and was politically motivated. that's despite the fact that an exhaustive inspector general report disputed both of his claims and the attorney general was not content with simply mischaracterizing the investigation, he launch ever launched a counter-investigation into the department's own investigation. he personally traveled to italy in a desperate attempt to dig up exculpatory evidence, ignoring department policies, he regularly commented on the ongoing investigation led by u.s. attorney john durham. in documents from the durham investigation were even shared with the white house, according to the president's chief of staff. then durham's top aide abristly resigned reportedly due to

pressure to release their findings before the election. in other words, they just broke all procedures because they wanted to help donald trump. and on top of that, the attorney general did all of this while he was ignoring a subpoena from the house of representatives to obtain an unredacted copy of the mueller report. in fact, attorney general barr has evaded transparency, impeded one standard congressional oversight no matter the topic. herefused to testify before the house. he was held in contempt for refusing to respond to house subpoenas related to the administration's pre-textual justification for adding a citizenship question to the census. he supported efforts to cover up president trump's ukraine scandal for which the president was impeached.

he supported the unprecedented purging of multiple independent inspectors general and he rebuffed congressional oversight at every turn. now, this may not bother some of my friends on the other side of the aisle now, but the political winds have already shifted and it harms all of us when congressional prerogatives are so blatantly disregarded. while attorney general barr has defended president trump at seemingly every turn, he went a step farther by defending the president. he dismissed a civil defamation case that alleged that president trump lied about a decades-old sexual assault and the federal court flatly rejected the

attempt. attorney general's barr extended to pr issues as well. at the height of a national reckoning on issues of racial injustice, the white house said it was the attorney general who ordered the clearing of peaceful protesters in lafayette square. barr denied he gave the order but did not deny encouraging it. peaceful protesters had -- in front of st. john's church. it was a grotesque display of unnecessary force. most recently the attorney general's obedience to the president resulted in him falsely claim that mail-in ballots have been used since the civil war and relied upon by millions of americans during

this pandemic, opened the floodgates to widespread fraud. voting experts described his claims as far as cal -- as far as kal and the attorney general revealed how little he knew about basic election laws and the safeguards in place. his apparent intent was not to inform the public but to slow down the public about the integrity of the vote. attorney general barr rewrote about -- prompting the election crimes branch to resign his post in protest. for each of these actions, attorney general barr was publicly badgered by president trump to act publicly badgered by president trump to act. now, maybe the attorney general

barr believes he with stood the pressure. there may have been some lines he declined to cross such as fabricating evidence of widespread voter frawfd. we can never excuse all the lines he did cross. when a president pressures an attorney general to serve their personal interest, it is all the more important on the nation's top law enforcement to avoid any appearance of impropriety and refuse to request to meet him half way. i have known attorney general barr for a long time, but he has failed in his duty to impartially and equally uphold the rule of law. the attorney general represents the united states, all the 330 million americans. too often the attorney general felt he was going to only

represent the interest of just one person. by serving as a yes man when the law and the country and the department needed him to say no, attorney general barr has damaged a hallowed office he's temporarily occupied. and now the hard work to repair the damage has to begin. in november the country voted, the american people voted to take the country in a different direction. i served alongside president-elect biden for decades in the senate and on the judiciary committee. he understands the unique role of the justice department. i am convinced that president-elect biden would never rely on the justice department to do his personal bidding the way president trump

has. no matter who the president-elect chooses as the next attorney general, i have no doubt that he or she will operate with the utmost integrity guided by the law and the facts. so as we begin to close the book on this dark chapter in our nation's history with a pandemic that has left more than 310,000 americans dead, the president's relentless attacks on the foundation of our democracy, i'm hopeful that better days are ahead. i'm confident we will again have government leaders focused on following the evidence and adhering to the rule of law, pursuing equal justice, acting in the best interest of the nation, all of us, not just the one person. but thousands of hardworking, dedicated men and women of the

justice department deserve at least this such, as do -- this much, as do all americans. indeed, the founding principles and traditions of the 230-year-old office with the attorney general demand nothing less. madam president, there's nobody else seeking the floor right at the moment, let me just mention a personal observation. as a young law student at georgetown i was invited along with three or four other law students from different leading law schools. we were invited to meet with the ten-attorney general -- the then-attorney general. we were probably diverse in our opinions but we were asked to be

there because of our academic standing in our classes. and i remember sitting there with the attorney general like it was yesterday. he talked about the meaning of the department of justice and how we have to represent the whole country, how it that's stand for the law. and one of us, and it may have been the young law student from vermont, asked the question, what if you had somebody who had broken the law but they were close to the president, what would you do? he said if they had broken the law, we would prosecute them. he said i might not be welcomed at family gatherings for a while

thereafter. he said that because the attorney general was robert kennedy. his brother was the president, and actually that happened. a man very close and important to his brother's election as president, a matter was brought to attorney general kennedy recommending his prosecution and, of course, he was prosecuted. that's what an attorney general should be. i declined his offer to join the department of justice because my wife marcel wanted to go back home to vermont, and i thought probably i would never be involved in law enforcement after that. a few years later i was the state's attorney of a county that had about a quarter of our

population, and was quickly faced with prosecuting leading democrats and leading republicans in our state. i remember attorney general kennedy said a prosecutor has to represent everybody. the prosecutor has to uphold the law, and i prosecuted those people. i've never regreted that. i've always been supportive of attorneys general who uphold the law -- uphold the law because they are there to represent all americans. and, madam president, as long as i'm in the senate, i will always speak out when an attorney general does not do the job they are supposed to do and when the attorney general does not apply the law equally and fairly to

all people, applying the law, not politics. madam president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. i ask to dispense -- i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. another congress is ending. the president's term is coming to a close. and yet, again, this senate, the president, washington has failed to address the pension crisis facing far too many workers. the american people are tired of waiting for us to do our jobs. they're tired of being told by leader mcconnell and president trump, you're on your own. the house has twice passed legislation that would address the multiemployer exception crisis, but under -- the mullly employer pension crisis, but copping has failed these americans u i don't think the president knows, much less cares

about the multiemployer pension crisis. we ought to be concerned and that should include the millions of americans in the multiemployer pension system. after a lifetime of hard work in service to our country, they've already waited too long for congress to do its job and to protect the benefits that these workers earned through a lifetime of work. we've been trying to solve this crisis for more -- for years. the house has done its part. they've passed a solution multiple times now. mitch mcconnell, the leader of the senate, is deliberately blocking it and his party and his members and the president support him in being belowing it. senate republicans said this week after a year of negotiating and talking to stakeholders they've made substantial progress toward a common ground. but then they released legislation that walked back all the progress that we had made. it's a betrayal of the people whom we serve.

this pension crisis affects retirees across the country of all political parties -- unions, the chambers of commerce, small businesses, pretty much all agree we need to get this done. unfortunately, mcconnell mcconnell doesn't. there's no excuse for senate republicans standing in the way of a deal. this only gets more expensive the longer we way. the longer we wait, the harder it will be to solve this. we've waited year after year after year while senator mcconnell has simply twiddled his thumbs. the public health crisis, the economic crisis we're facing right now are not happening in a vacuum. the damage caused by the pandemic and the president's failures is layered on top of all the existing problems in our country, including the crisis facing these workers and retirees who are in danger of losing the retirement security that they earned. i always emphasize "that they earned. requestings "these pension plans were already in danger.

now the economic emergency we're in has put them in a worse position. we're talking about retirees who did everything right. they spent years being working on ahe ssembly lines, bagging groceries, working on tax reduction, working hard to keep our economy going. money came out of every single one of their paychecks to earn these protections. people in this town don't understand the collectionive bargaining process. people give up dollars today at the bargaining table for the promise of a secure retirement. these workers sitting around a table with their representatives, bargaining -- collectively bargaining with management, saying, okay, we'll make take a smaller wage, a smaller hourly wage so that that the money will go into pensions and health care. yet, because this senate won't act, because senator mcconnell never calls us together to do this, to take care of workers, these workers are losing parts of their pension. this crisis in my state affects thousands of people. it affects the massive central

states pension plan, bricklayers local 7, ironworkers local 17, the house southwest competitors pension plan and on and often and on the one hand. and it touches every single state from mississippi to ohio, from massachusetts to california, every state in this country. we're talking about our entire multiemployer pension system. it collapses, it won'ting just retirees who feel the pain. current workers will be stuck paying into earnings pes they'll never see. small businesses will be left drowning in pension line they can't afford to pay. small businesses that have been in the family for generations and there are a number of them in ohio -- businesses people in this body will have heard of, that make products they use, small businesses, family businesses could face bankruptcy. workers will lose jobs as businesses are forced to close up shop. the effect will ripple cross the entire country at a time we

least can afford it. we knew this system could collapse, it is only more likely to fail now. that's why the senate must act. we know who will get hurt the most if the system collapses. it's not wall street. it's never wall street that gets hurt. it's small businesses. it's their employees, i.t. the people who make this un-- it's the people who make this country work. their lives and live layhoods -- -- their lives and livelihoods will be devastated. workers have rallied in the name of butch lewis, a great ohioan who helped lead this fight who passed away far too soon fighting for his fellow workers. his widow, rita, has become my friend. she's had become a leader and inspiration to so many of us. i brought her to the state of the union twice. she's made the trip here over and over along with so many workers and retirees. they've traveled all day and night on buses. they've rallied outside in the bitter cold in the wint, in the

hot d.c. summers. and still their government, their majority leader, their president refuse to listen and turn their backs. rita once told me the retirees and workers struggling with this crisis, she said they feel like they're invisible. they feel like they are invisible. to far too many people in washington, they are invisible. not to me, not to speaker pelosi or leader schumer or senator smith or senator peters or chairman neil or chairman scott, all of whom have joined with me on fighting with this and so many other colleagues who have worked for years now trying to find a bipartisan solution. we don't give up until these retirees' benefits are protected. it comes back, madam president, to the dignity of work, when work has dignity, we honor the security, the retirement security that -- again, sitting down at the bargaining table. workers give up wages today to put money aside matched by employers generally for the future for this retirement. so they made the right decision

back then. but we're not making the right decision right now as their pensions are in trouble. i urge my colleagues in this body, colleagues with health care and retirement plans paid for by taxpayers -- all of us who are in this body -- to think about these retired workers and the stress they're facing. join us, let's pass a solution that honors their work. let's honor their work. let's honor the dignity of work. let's, madam president, keep our promise to them. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: because of this pandemic. people are in need that was over $2 trillion in total. in terms of finance in relief.

my comments are not directed specifically

mrs. blackburn: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator for tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you,

madam president. are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mrs. blackburn: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. blackburn: isn't it interesting here we are, christmas week, the weekend before christmas, and we are talking about needing targeted relief. the democrats have spent their year pushing off targeted relief. they have had their opportunities to tackle this issue. they have chosen not to tackle this issue. they have chosen to play politics with this issue. and so on the saturday before christmas, when we should be home and visiting with our families, i would love to be home with my children and grandchildren, but here we are. and i honestly have decided that

my friends across the aisle must not be paying very much attention to what is going on back home, because in tennessee the people back home are very frustrated with them. they seem out of touch. they seem to not care. they don't seem to be interested in taking care of people with needs that have been adversely impacted by covid. they seem to be more interested in taking care of themselves. this year really did not have to end this way. as i said, our friends across the aisle could have addressed this back in the summer.

in july, the minority leader and his colleagues in the house immediately rejected our heals act proposal in favor of speaker pelosi's mega-trillion dollars, $3 trillion wish list that they had dubbed the heroes act. they always give such nice-sounding names to things. who could be against this? but they rejected the heals act proposal that was targeted specific relief and went with the heroes act. it was a very partisan bill. it contained provisions that had nothing to do with covid relief and that the house and the senate democrats were going to be stumbling blocks.

their bill was filled with things, nothing to do with taking care of people. but they had it full of poison pills. why? they wanted to make certain that relief didn't come. they wanted to make certain that they could run this out, get it past the election, and then we'd find out from speaker pelosi herself and from some of the other democrats that are in leadership, why did they do this? oh, politics. it helped them with the election, they thought. so they used, they used people as pawns. now that heroes act that they continued to talk about, it would have undermined state voter i.d. requirements and it gave the green light to some ballot harvesting schemes.

isn't it interesting? what are we talking about? what are tennesseans talking about so much? yes, you got it, ballots, elections, some of the harvesting, some of the tricks. now those items they had in the heroes act, they didn't have anything to do with targeted relief, but you know what? they were willing to play these games and to withhold that relief. why? they thought that it helped them in winning an election. so that was all back in july. then comes september 10. the democrats again blocked forward motion on another targeted bill, throwing a procedural hurdle in between the american people and desperately

needed relief. they got by with it in july, so september rolls along. it's about time for people to start getting ballots, mailing in ballots. what do they do? they decide to mess with it again, to play politics, to use people as pawns. they lowered the bar even further on october 21, throwing away $500 billion in targeted relief. they all voted no in an attempt to tear our focus away from another round of funding for small businesses, support for schools, and more money for covid-19 testing. now, think about this. time and again they say oh, we've got to have more p.p.p. we have to have more unemployment insurance.

we have to have more money for vaccines. we have to have more money for testing. we have to have more money for getting schools open. but they vote no. they have turned their back on the american people repeatedly. they did it in july, they did it in september, they did it in october. they have turned their back. think about what a plus-up of unemployment would have done for a family had they decided to vote yes and work with us in july. that would have been a lot of money if they had that plus-up every single through august, september, october, november, december.

now i mentioned the october 21 vote. one day earlier, on october 20, democrats had blocked senate action to extend the p.p.p. that is all of our small businesses. and, yes, indeed, they are hurting. we are hearing from them on the phone, through e-mail. they are begging for relief, but the minority leader through another possibility of compromise, out the window by again insisting that democrats would accept the full heroes act or nothing. isn't that amazing. that's what small businesses have gotten, is nothing. because my colleagues across the

aisle have basically said give us everything we want or we'll just vote no. we'll just leave people suffering. so it's not republicans that have voted no. republicans have consistently tried to help people, and my friends across the aisle are consistently trying to help themselves and use people as pawns. at the beginning of this month, the minority leader took to the floor again. he rejected targeted relief again, and he demanded that republicans come to the table. well, we've been at the table. they are the ones that reject proposal after proposal. don't let them move forward on

things where there is agreement agreement, want to hold out. they have not been paying attention to what is going on outside the four walls of this chamber, and they continue to say we have to have money to bail out cities and states. only they call it aid to cities and states, but it's bailouts for these big blue cities and states that were having problems long before lockdowns came along, and they have really made an uncomfortable spot for themselves because of irresponsible spending policies. and i know that tennesseans do not want to see their tax dollars going to bail out people who have chosen to waste their

taxpayers' dollars. and i can't help but wonder how much longer the democrats are going to allow industries and small businesses and individuals to twist in the wind because they feel like this is a great time to push their socialist agenda. get us on that fast-track. oh, that's what they would like to do. and still -- you know, mr. president, we had a hearing this week in commerce committee and had some of the venues and the live entertainment industry come before us, people that tend to these stages when the curtains go up, people that are working back stage. we heard from michael strikland

out of knoxville, whose company, banded lights, they light these stages, help these shows look great. and you've got millions of people that are in these support industries. we heard from the boater coach industry. we have heard from some of these smaller venues. they are totally shut down. they remember totally shut down -- they were totally shut down when the country went into lockdowns. they were the first to be totally closed, and they're going to be the last to reopen. these are people joined by small business retailers and restaurants that can't open their doors, and small business manufacturers that have got to wait for the supply chain to

kickback up so that they can reopen their production lines. and they are saying we need the help. they're asking us who is blocking it? who is holding out? and -- and we tell them repeatedly, they could have had relief in july or they could have had it back in september or a couple of times in october or november or earlier in december. and it is not republicans that have blocked that relief. time and again the democrats have blocked republican proposals to send funding where it is needed most.

they've rejected every single lifeline that we have tried to throw. i think it's become clear that the democrats in washington, d.c., never really saw getting assistance to the unemployed, getting help to small businesses as a priority. instead, they looked at this, they saw a crisis, they said, well, this is an opportunity, let's not let this crisis go to waste. they have used it so that they can push their message, their agenda, do what the federal government says or we will let you drown. so they know that their bills weren't meant to act as help.

maybe they were meant to be a push for their leftist agenda. they know that the emergency financial provisions of the cares act were never meant to replace private markets or be used as a mechanism to bail out state and local governments, but you know what, they are going to try to push to try to make it so to further a leftist agenda. crisis management is no substitute for fiscal policy so i would say to our friends on the left, these tactics have failed. it is time to stop using the american people as pawns. read your mail, listen to the phones. people want targeted relief that

will help them to get to recovery. i yield the floor. i yield the floor.

mr. toomey: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for pennsylvania. mr. toomey: thank you, mr. president. i want to address the ongoing debate over the content of a relief bill that i think we've made a lot of progress on and i am hopeful that we can get finished. many of our colleagues have been down here and have reminded all of us, quite rightly, of the terrible difficulties that many americans are facing. we are not in a full-blown financial crisis anymore, but we are experiencing a lot of economic hardship. it tends to be concentrated in certain sectors and industries, and we have a full-blown health care crisis. so it's a very, very serious moment and it demands a response. i'm hoping we can get that done

as soon as possible and i want to discuss one of the terms that i have advocated for in this legislation. the terms i've advocated for has been mischaracterized, including by the senate minority leader and others. and so i want to set the record straight on what this is all about and why i think this is so important. and to do that, i think it's worth remembering what brought us to this point. back in march when the coronavirus was first ripping across america and wreaking so much havoc, the response in many, many places was a complete economic shutdown, a complete who hib bition -- prohibition against going to work against earning a livelihood. i understand why that was done. we were in a health care crisis and that was the response that was believed to be most likely to prevent an overwhelming of

our health care capabilities that would have been absolutely horrific. and so we had this economic disaster and what we discovered in march was this shutdown brought us tort brink of a financial crisis as well. if you think about the financial markets where people are providing capital to businesses and municipalities and individual, they only do that if there is some confidence that they know, at least generally speaking, what the future looks like. we've never seen anything like the government shutting down our economy before. and so not really shockingly, the financial markets were on the verge of completely freezing up, shutting down and preventing even the most basic functioning of our economy. businesses -- we might well have gotten to a point where a business couldn't go to a bank to make payroll or issue a bond

that was due to pay another bond due and so that would require bankruptcy and lay everyone off. this would be been devastating had our financial system frozen up. mr. president, some believe it was in the process of freezing up. that's why the federal reserve board member came to the senate and said we need unprecedented facilities we can stand up very, very quickly and we can use them to be a backstop to restore confidence and to enable private credit to start flowing again. so that this economic recession that we're certainly going to go through back in march it was clear that was going to happen, but it was not clear that we had to suffer through a financial crisis that would create a depression. that was something we thought maybe we can avoid.

so these facilities were set up, as i say, to restore the normal functioning of private lending and private capital markets. not to replace those markets. not to pick winners and losers and decide who gets credit and who doesn't depending on who we like, not to subsidize, let's just give cut-rate loans to the people we like to give them to. none of that was the intention. none of that was the purpose. the purpose was to ensure that creditworthy borrowers could access credit through the normal channels. that was it. that was the purpose of what is widely described as the 13-3 lending facilities. there were several of these facilities. that was the intention for these facilities. and guess what. they worked. they worked amazingly well. remarkably well. within days, certainly weeks,

markets were again functioning, credit was flowing. and as a matter of fact, within a matter of months, credit was flowing at an all-time record pace. corporate bond issuance hit an all-time record high, municipal bonds all-time record high, businesses that wanted to keep their workers and keep their businesses survive until we got past the covid crisis. it worked. the creation of these facilities gave the confidence to our financial markets that restored the normal functioning of those markets. it was really quite extraordinary. now, that doesn't mean that the economy got perfect after that. certainly not. the economy is not perfect today. but it meant that a recovery would be possible. we'd be able to function. we'd be able to begin to pick up the pieces of a closed economy and, sure enough, we've made

tremendous progress. more than half of all the people who lost their jobs are back at work so that's not anywhere near where we need to end up, but we're on the right track in part because these facilities did exactly what they were designed to do. now, what is my language in this -- what my language does is it puts an end to these three programs that did their job, they functioned, they restored the private credit markets, and so they don't need to continue. what are these three programs? there's a corporate bond credit facility, there's a main street lending program and there's a municipal lending program. actually, they were lardly -- hardly used at all. so quickly did the private credit markets resume their normal functioning, that not

many borrowers took advantage of these. i'm pretty sure in the corporate market -- i should say the corporate credit facility that was set up under these 13-3 credit facilities, i don't think anything was done at all. main street lending, very little, municipal lending, two borrowers, that's it. these were programs funded by the cares act, were set up at the time of the cares act for this narrow, specific purpose, and now they've achieved their purpose. by the way, there's lots of other programs that have been set up over time. some were set up recently that my legislation doesn't touch in any way, shape, form, or fashion, the -- market liquidity, paycheck -- paycheck protection program, primary dealer facility, untouched. all of them untouched and quite contrary to what some suggested, this is no big rewrite of the

fed's 13-3 lending facilities. it couldn't be further from that. what it is is an acknowledgment that the three programs we created in march -- and which, by the way, we put an expiration date on them in march. we said they end on december 31, but now we have folks on the other side of the aisle who have a novel interpretation of the statute saying, they don't really have to end or if they do end, we can bring them back to life. we shouldn't even be having this conversation but we are because we have this interpretation that we have to deal with. my language simply follows the statute and calls for the end of this. how do we do this? there's three steps, one is rescind the money that never got used because as i said the markets responded so quickly we never needed to use this money and i think our democratic colleagues agree on this

provision. the legislation, my language that i'm trying to get in this package, reiterates these cares facilities end on december 31, as congress intended. i was in the room when we were writing this bill and nobody thought that any of these programs were going to last beyond the end of the year. but, as i said, because of this novel legal interpretation, we need to reiterate in an unambiguous way that they end on december 31, as congress intended, and, finally, we ensure they can't be simply restarted next year or sometime thereafter or duplicated without congressional consent. now, we have folks on the other side of the aisle who are raising all kinds of objections. they very upset about this. and it's fair to ask why would that be? well, certainly it isn't because the credit markets are back in turmoil and they think we need

to restore the flow of private credit. that would be ridiculous. the credit markets are functioning as well or better than they ever have. it's not even -- not even a close call. so it's not that. no, what it is is something very different, mr. chairman, and that is the problem that some of my colleagues want to morph these into what was not intended. they want to take them away from the liquidity to convert it away and instead to use them to implement fiscal policy and maybe social policy and certainly to allocate credit based on their political preferences. what is one of the ways that our

democratic colleagues would like to do that? one, they want to bail out irresponsible states. now, look, i get that there are some states across the union that have suffered financially because of covid. there's other states that haven't been harmed at all. they have more revenue coming in this year than last year. there is a category of state and municipalities that have suffered a loss of revenue and we can and should have an ongoing debate in this body about what to do about that, if anything. but that's our responsibility. if we are going to send money to states and municipalities, we should have a bill, appropriate the funds and have a vote in congress so that the american people can hold us accountable. that's what happened. we get held accountable. and so when an action like that is done through legislation, it's out in the open, it's transparent, it happens in the light of day, and the american

people know who to hold accountable. that's not what our democratic colleagues want to do. they want to force the fed to do this for them. how do we know that? because they passed a bill called the heroes act, h.r. 6800, that instructs the federal reserve to use the municipal facility for exactly this purpose. super long term, ultra low cost lofts to municipalities at one quarter of one percent interest rate and states can just show up and get it. so the fed couldn't be playing it's traditional role as the lender of last resort in a financial crisis. it would be the lender of first resort to their preferred constituency. there's the main street lending facility. if they could replicate that, who knows what kind of conditions they would impose on

low-interest loans there, whether it's climate or other policies that ought to be debated on this floor and ought to be determined through an accountable process. as i say, none of this is speculative. our democratic colleagues have talked about this. they passed a bill that actually does this. it's ironic that when we were developing the response to the financial, to the crisis of march or earlier in year -- this year, some of our colleagues describe this $500 billion fund that was intended to capitalize these vehicles that would lend and restore the liquidity, they call it a slush fund, one of many examples, senator warren said the cares act created, and i quote, $500 billion slush fund the trump administration could use to help

its political friends and punish its political enemies, and i think that's a bad thing. end quote. when others in the administration -- now they want to keep the slush fund. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to complete my remarks before the vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. toomey: thank you. so this is a very bad idea for many reasons, not the least of which is to put the fed in this position of being pressured to make these giveaway transactions based on a political pressure would completely politicize the fed, be the end of independence of the fed and why this has never been the role of our central bank, the fed. we've never asked the fed to engage in fiscal policy or promote social policy or to allocate credit based on

political standing. that's guaranteed to politicize the fed and undermine fed independence. fiscal and social policy is the rightful realm of the people who are accountable to the american people, and that's us. that's congress. i want to address another accusation that is completely false and totally unjustified and that is somehow this is an effort to hamstring the biden administration and prevent them from doing what they want to do. let me assure you, mr. president and my colleagues, my efforts to ensure that this would be a temporary facility began when we began discussing the facility. it was in march that i was arguing -- actually i argued that we should have this end as soon as the financial markets had restored their normal functioning and no later than september 30. i didn't win the argument. we ended up settling on december

31, but that's when i started pushing to have a finite period of time and a short period of time. there is nobody in the room who thought this was supposed to go on indefinitely. and once we started working on another covid-related bill in the summertime, and i became aware of this alternative interpretation of the language, we put it in our bill and we voted on that in september. so this language or substantively similar language has been public for many, many months now. i also want to stress that we're not making permanent changes to laws, and congress can always act again. the cares act already made these facilities temporary. they were supposed to end at the end of the year. and of course no change in law is ever permanent. any future congress can change

it. back in march when this crisis hit, the fed and treasury knew that they needed to come to congress for the tools to solve it. they came to congress, and we turned around in extraordinarily rapid fashion these massive new facilities that had never been imagined before. we responded quickly. and if there's some kind of future event that calls for future set of facilities of this particular sort, they can come back to congress. mr. president, it's three facilities, three facilities that are, were launched in conjunction with the cares act, funded by the cares act. and i'm saying they have achieved their purpose, they should come to an end, they should not be restarted, and a replica should not be created. that's all. some have suggested that the chairman of the federal reserve has got some opinion on this. i would challenge anyone to find a statement in the public record

that he has made in criticism of this. he's very well aware of what's going on. the last point i want to make, mr. president, some on the other side have suggested that our language may be too broad and maybe it captures potential facilities that shouldn't be captured. if that is the sincere concern of my colleagues on the other side, i urge them, give me a call. it's very easy to track me down. if you've got an objection to the way we've worded this and you want language that is narrower, i'm all ears. we could work this out. with that, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: all postcloture time is expired. the question is on the dietz nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

vote: