the international atomic energy agency chief which is highlighted in "the washington post" this morning. appeal to all sides of engage in constructive discussion as the vienna -based agency report iran enacted a law that restricted snap access for inspectors for surveillance cameras complaining it's not the reasoning of the economic award that was promised on the 2015 deal in exchange for. >> you can find all these segments online@c-span .org prayed we leave this chick you live now to the senate about to gavel in. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change shid or her vote. if not, the yeas are 84. under the previous order, the notion reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's actions. 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 executive calendar number 13, cecilia elena rouse of new jersey to be chairman of the council of economic advisers signed by 18 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 cecilia elena rouse of new jersey to be chairman of the council of economic advisers 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 senators in the chamber wishing to vote or to change his or her vote? if not the yeas are 94, the nays are 5, and the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, executive office of the president, cecilia elena rouse of new jersey to be chairman of the council of economic advisors.

mr. brown: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. a month after janet yellen made history as the first woman to serve as secretary of the treasury, today we're aboutor confirm another woman to step into a leading role in our economy, cecilia elena rouse. when she came before the banking committee, her knowledge about economy and her commitment to the people who make this country work were obvious to all of us, to the presiding officer, who is on the committee, to republicans, to democrats alike. after a year when black americans have endured so many painful reminders about the yawning gap of the difference in our -- our first nomination committee in the banking, housing, and urban affairs

committee considered the nomination of two outstanding black women who will take leading roles in our economic recovery, dr. rouse and my congresswoman in cleveland, marsha fudge. this matters on so many levels. it is important that for our future that black and brown girls see them as our leaders. it matters because of the perspectives and the life experiences these two women, these two black women bring to these jobs. dr. rouse has family ties in my state, roots steeped in youngstown and a real understanding of the people who make this country work, all people. the council of economic advisors will play a key role in helping our economy recover and in bidding a better economic system out of this pandemic. dr. rouse is exactly who we need at the helm. she will help direct our nation's economic policy to put

americans back to work at better jobs with higher wages. millions of americans are still out of work, those jobs -- those job losses have disproportionately fallen on low-wage workers, black and brown workers, women, three million women -- three million women have been pulled out -- forced out of the paid labor force, at the same time essential workers are risking their health to go to work while corporations still refuse in far too many cases to pay a living wage. the minimum wage hasn't been raised in 14 years. year after year republicans in this senate and the white house, they profess to care about working people in the heartland of this country but they refuse to give them a raise while they funnel tax cuts to c.e.o.'s. my first speech, madam president, my first speech in this body was in january 2007, sitting in the chair that senator sinema now sits in was

illinois freshman democrat barak obama. he was not even running for president then. since we last raised the minimum wage, he was president eight years and out of office more than four, that's how long. so while -- while republicans have refused to give races, they -- raises, they funneled huge tax cuts to c.e.o.'s, it is the same mind-set that treats workers as expendable. we've seen the results. the stock markets -- stock market goes up, executive compensation explodes and wages -- wages stagnate and the middle class continues to shrink. building back better, that's what joe biden is all about, that is what dr. rouse is about. it means creating a economy where hard work pays off for everyone no matter where you are or what kind of work you do with

a growing middle class that everyone can aspire to, everyone has a chance to join. this won't be the first time that dr. rouse helped us weather a crisis, she served on the council council of economic advisors in 2009 after the george bush recession, during the great recession. she spent her career focused on workers ensuring that this economy works for everyone. her expertise and leader will help us to not only recover from this pandemic but to build a better -- just a better economy for the future. for too long american workers haven't had anyone on their side in the white house. that ends now. we saw it on sunday night with the strongest statement from a president the united states in support of union organizing that we've seen in my lifetime. we see it in president biden's choice of dr. rouse to help guide our economy and guide this rescue. dr. rouse understands we have the power to change how the

economy works. it rewards work instead of rewarding wealth. we create more jobs at middle-class wages, we expand economic security and opportunity for everyone, madam president, and we create a better system that honors the dignity of all workers. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. lee: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: i ask unanimous consent to suspend the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lee: madam president, the minor consent for vaccinations amendment for 2020, is a measure adopted by the district of columbia would allow for children 11 years old and older to consent on their own without their parents' knowledge or acquiescence or consent to being

vaccinated. they could receive a vaccine, contrary to the wishes of their parents or without them even knowing. now, young children don't necessarily know they are on -- their own medical histories, their family's medical histories, potential allergies, nor do they have the adult judgment that is sometimes needed to make an informed decision, which is why parents make health care decisions on behalf of their own children. parents play the most important role in caring for the health of their children, moms and dads are at the heart of their children's education and care and it's crucial that they be able to make decisions about what kind of health care is best for them and about the timing of it. and certainly that they be not only able to make the decision

but also that they be aware of it in the first place. the d.c. legislation that i referenced a moment ago goes so far as to hide children's vaccinations from their own parents even after it's occurred, in other words. this information is withheld from the parents. it requires doctors, nurses, insurance companies, and even public schools to conceal their children's vaccinations from their parents. it would also fly in the face of parents who may have religious beliefs causing them to object to vaccinations or who have made the decision for their children to forego either on a long-term basis or for a particular period of time certain vaccinations like the hpv -- h.p.v. vaccine, for example. it would pave the way for

allowing children for other types of treatment without parental knowledge down the road. other treatments in other context that might have long-lasting significant impacts on their health. now, look, as a parent myself and as someone who as a parent believes in vaccinations, i think it's imperative to realize that regardless of how you in particular feel about vaccines, even if like me you support the idea of being -- being vaccinated and having your children vaccinated, remember that there are those who don't share shows views. and remember separate and apart from their views, there's some people whose personal medical experience might reveal some tendency toward a reaction a

reaction that could be harmful. in some circumstances the timing of a vaccine can also be important. these are all considerations that a parent ought to be able to make and in every jurisdiction that respects the independence of parental rights, these ought to be decisions that are made by parents and certainly ought not be decisions made by children as young as 11 years old without their parents' consent or even their knowledge. and so in light of these concerns, madam president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on homeland security and governmental affairs be discharged from further consideration of s.j. res. 7 and that the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. i further ask that the joint resolution 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: madam president. mr. carper: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: madam president, i respect the views of my colleague. irespect the -- i respect the views of this colleague in particular. i think it's important to find ways to disagree without being disagreeable. i understand the senator from utah disagrees with a particular policy. that is certainly his right. that's his prerogative. he's welcome to freely register his views as we all are. for instance, we heard our friend from utah defend the principle of limited government and federalism on this floor many times. i've heard him and others -- colleagues of ours argue passion that the federal government should not be in the business of interfering in state or local

matters and yet here we are as our republican colleagues try to tell a local government that once again what it can and cannot do. our friend from utah has introduced a resolution that seeks to overturn the law passed by the duly elected council of the district of columbia. and, madam president, i'm not here to debate the merits of this law. after all, i was not elected by the people living in the district of columbia. in fact, no one, as far as i know in this room was elected by the people of the district of columbia. but the reason that these senators have the ability to try to overturn a law passed by the local d.c. government is because the over 700,000 individuals who call the district of columbia home continue to be denied full representation in congress. in fact, are denied any representation here in the united states senate. under current law, congress

reviews all legislation passed by the d.c. council before it can become law. the district of columbia is not allowed to even control its own budget. the mayor of d.c. cannot even deploy the men and women of the national guard in case of emergency, a right that every other state executive can utilize. if this were the case for any other state or local government, there would rightfully be an outcome -- outcry, rather, an outcry from the citizens of that state or local government. i don't believe that our colleague from utah would take kindly to me or any of us in this body telling the city council in, say, salt lake city, a city with just under 200,000 residents what laws he could or could not pass, and he would be right. he would be right. luckily, the people of salt lake city have a senator who has come to washington, speaks his mind on the senate floor, and votes -- votes to advance the interests of not just salt lake city citizens but the rest of

utah as well. i think that's really at its essence all that the people of washington, d.c. are looking for. for me, the issue of d.c. statehood is not a democrat or republican issue. it's a simple issue of basic fairness. for a nation whose founding mantra no taxation without representation inspired the longest running experiment in democracy, we should all be concerned that today more than 700,000 tax-paying americans, over two-thirds of whom are people of color, continue to be denied a vote here in this body. our nation's capital is home to more than just monuments and museums. it is a home to american families who go to work, to americans who start businesses, to americans who pay their taxes, to americans who serve our country in times of war and

peace, and to americans who are still denied representation. again, it's a home to veterans and service members who have signed up to protect our freedoms who risk their lives for our country and are still denied the ability to have a say in our nation's future. it is home to the hundreds of capitol police officers who come to work every day in the nation's capitol to keep us safe and are still denied a vote in the very institution they protect. for generations, those who called the district of columbia home have been denied the right to fully participate in our democracy. and that's why we're here today. that's why my republican -- our republican colleagues can call this vote to silence the decision made by local leaders that d.c. residents have voted into office. and that's why they can exercise this federal outreach here today. i said at the beginning of my remarks, madam president, that my colleagues and i don't always

agree on everything, but we do agree on quite a bit. but i strongly agree and want to associate myself with the words of senator mike lee and i think it was 2018 just a couple of years ago. he said then, and i quote, we should allow each unique community to develop unique solutions according to the unique local preferences, and leave it at that. let me just repeat that. we should allow each unique community to develop unique solutions according to the unique local preferences, and leave it at that. i could not agree more. and i think it's cumbent upon -- incumbent upon all of us who care deeply for our democracy and the rights of all americans to take up the cause of our fellow citizens in the district of columbia and use our voices to call out this historic injustice and finally right this wrong. and with that, i stand opposed to the joint resolution, and i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. lee: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: madam president, i appreciate the thoughtful words of my friend and distinguished colleague, the senator from delaware, and i am grateful any time someone is willing to recognize that i have been a consistent champion of federalism and localism, self-rule. he and i agree that those principles are important. my friend from delaware being a former governor himself understands the sovereignty of the states and the need to respect their judgment. this is a different circumstance here than that. this would absolutely be inappropriate for us in any other circumstance for us to tell a state or any political subdivision of any state, a city, town, county, any other

sub unit of one of our 50 sovereign states, it would be inappropriate for us to weigh in on a local policy issue like this. it is, in fact, part of our constitutional design that each state and each community within each state needs to be able to express itself and make its own decisions based on its own unique preferences. there is a very significant difference with respect to the district of columbia. it has its own provision of the constitution. in fact, its own clause in article 1, section 8. known as the enclave clause, this provision is found in article 1, section 8, clause 17, and gives congress exclusive legislative jurisdiction over what we now call the district of columbia. it wasn't called that in 1787 when they wrote this. it hadn't yet been designed or

created. but it described the area to be created out of land donated by one or more states, no more than ten miles square that would serve as the seat of our national government. there was an understanding that our founding fathers had that the seat of government ought not be under the control of any single state but it rather ought to be in a special status. to that end, the founding fathers put ultimate legislative jurisdiction in the hands of congress, not in that district itself, not in the hands of the states that donated the land to create it, but in congress. now, the d.c. home rule act of course gives substantial authority to the d.c. city council and mayor. as it relates to this

legislation, it gives the d.c. government 30 business days after the passage and enrollment of this legislation, and in that 30 business-day period, congress has the ability to disapprove of that legislation which would stop it from being implemented when it's set to take effect on march 18. let's remember what we're talking about here. we're talking about the most basic fundamental choice that a parent has relative to his or her child. the authority and the discretion to decide when, whether, how, under what circumstances, and at what time certain medical procedures may be performed on the child. you might disagree with the medical judgment of a particular

parent at a particular moment, but i'm not aware of any state that would make the decision on a statewide basis to take this choice away from parents, and to say that a child as young as 11 years old could make his or her own choice and not only deprive a child's parents from being able to make that decision but also being able to deprive that child's parents from ever even learning about it. things are sometimes not without consequence. imagine, for example, a circumstance in which the parents are aware of some particular medical condition, a medical procedure that the child has recently had. imagine circumstances in which the child's siblings or the child him or herself have previously reacted to a particular vaccination in a

particular way. or imagine a circumstance in which religious considerations come into play. do we really want to deprive parents of the ability to make that decision? i'm not aware of any distinct legislature that would make that choice. i certainly hope they would. but regardless -- and even though this would not be our choice, this would not be within our authority, if it were not within the district of columbia and therefore within our plenary legislative jurisdiction under the enclave clause to make this decision from congress, it is our decision here because at the end of the day, the d.c. government itself is acting on authority delegated to it by the congress. so whether you like it or not, whether you like in the abstract the idea of localism, either as embodied in federalism or even

more generally than that, you can't escape the fact that under our constitutional system, we are the lawmaker for d.c. no less than any state's legislature is the legislative body for that state. if you choose not to decide here, you still have made a choice. you still have made a choice to approve of that legislative body, stripping away critical protections, critical rights that parents have. we've made that decision not just because it sounds like the right thing to do, but anyone who's ever been a parent understands that it's got to be the parent's choice. the parent has to be in a position of making these decisions. and at least, for crying out loud, being made aware of it. this takes away not only their authority and their rights, but

even their awareness of what's happened to their child. so yes, i -- i understand the concerns of localism. they simply don't apply here under our constitutional system. under the constitution itself, a document to which we have all sworn an oath to uphold, protect, and defend. this is not a state decision. to the extent it's a decision for the d.c. government, for the d.c. city council and mayor, that's authority that we've delegated to the district and it's authority that is ultimately ours. we are ultimately answerable to the people, to those would have elected us, to make sure that's exercised responsibly. so if you don't like the fact that we're doing this, for that matter if you don't like the policy in this, if you as a state lawmaker wouldn't be comfortable with this policy

being adopted in your state, you have not only have every right and every authority, but i believe you've got a moral obligation to stand up for this piece of legislation. do not let this kick in on march 18. this is wrong. it's not something we have to accept. and it's certainly not something that the constitution even allows much less compels. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mrs. capito: thank you, mr. president. today i rise to speak on a couple of topics. first, i want to take this

opportunity to thank a really icon in our state, and that is west virginia state senate president pro tempore donna. she's a good friend of mine and is in now her tenth term. she is the longest continuous serving member in our state's senate. at one point in history, donna bali was the only republican, and the lead republican as she was the only one in the early 1990's. i want to thank her for her service, for her service to our state which began in 1985 and wish her all the best as she presides over this year's -- over today, she's presiding today over the west virginia state senate. donna, way to go. i'm really proud of you. you're a role model for every woman who's watching and certainly young girls as well. so, mr. president, i also rise to join my colleagues to discuss the democrats' so-called

covid-19 relief package. prior to this past round, congress had been delivering much-needed relief, as you know, five times since the beginning of this pandemic with bipartisan support. and the last -- in this last month, my republican colleagues and i put forth a targeted proposal presented to president biden in the oval office. he invited ten of us over and we had a great discussion. it wasn't just a plan but it was a plan to work together, to be united and move forward on an area that we've had great bipartisan consensus. let's be clear. we don't disagree on the need for continued relief and resources, but it needs to be done in a targeted way. throwing money randomly will not fix it, especially when some of these funds that are still being spent that we speak of right now that haven't been spent yet. and taking the opportunity to spend on favorite projects is not the intention of covid relief -- of a covid relief

package. in december 2020 -- that wasn't that long ago. two months ago -- we passed the most recent recovery effort which amounted to approximately $900 billion in relief funds. president biden's relief plan takes none of that into consideration. they don't take into full account the sufficient understanding, the impacts of that bill from just two months ago have yet to be felt. instead it force feeds funds and radical policy ideas into a prime work -- framework under the guise of covid relief. let's just take our schools, for example. everybody is frustrated because our schools aren't open and our schools are not fully -- and our students are falling behind. congress last year appropriated $68 billion for k-12 schools but of this amount, only $5 billion of that, $5 billion of the $68 billion has been spent so far.

and according to the congressional budget office, of the almost $129 billion for k-12 schools included in this biden covid relief plan, only $6.4 billion of that is planned to be distributed through september of this year. the remaining $122 billion will not go to schools until the fiscal years 2022 through 2028. now, we're being sold this program because it's an emergency. well, i don't know how you predict an emergency in the year 2028. this cannot possibly qualify as emergency spending. here are some of the other areas where funds have yet to be spent. of the $13 billion provided in our december plan for our agriculture community, only $11.5 billion -- no, excuse me -- $11.5 billion of the $13 billion has yet to be obligated.

that's not even spent. that's obligated. roughly $14 billion in appropriated funding for covid testing has not yet been obligated, and that is an extremely important part. and that's less than 10% of this plan are things like testing, vaccines, therapeutics. 21 states have actually experienced revenue growth compared to 2019-2020. yet this bill expends $350 billion to states. this money needs to be targeted. the parameters created in this category alone reward states that were more restrictive in their economic decisions and heavily weighted towards highly populated states. that's not my state. that's not my friend here from montana. that's not his state. and the parameters of this are so loose that i can't imagine what projects will be dreamed up to be spent on.

and as of january 19, none of the $27 billion provided by the depadepartment of transportation december, two months ago, under the consolidated appropriations act has been obligated. yet there's more money in there for this as well. also important to note is that the president's plan includes many provisions that really have nothing to do with covid relief, nothing. but this is a covid relief package. so from an $86 billion bailout of union pensions to $100 million -- over a hundred million actually for a subway project in california to funds provided to advance portions of president biden's recent climate executive order and environmental justice priorities. these are some of the items in here that have nothing to do, nothing to do with coronavirus relief. these extra wish list items make his plan more expensive and more partisan.

to make matters worse, my friends on the other side of the aisle have decided to do this in the most partisan way possible, reconciliation. using this process, risks wasting millions of dollars without the standard procedures that we go through on the appropriations committees and other committees. of this bill hasn't even touched a committee over here in the senate. but it goes without the standard policy guard rails and provisions that when we work together, we ensure that the money is put to its intended use. we're creating slush funds in the name of covid relief. bottom line, this will be a fiscally wasteful product. there's good things in here that we all agreed on, that the ten of us went to the white house to talk about and many of us have provided in the last five bills. many americans will be getting checks. and while i agree with this, all of this would be better in a bill that we agreed on and that we negotiated. we are risking a potential economic recovery with continued

massive spending. and as i've said time and time again in my five-minute speech and all over the state of west virginia, we all agree on continued covid relief. however, we need to do this in a targeted, fiscally responsible, and working together like we have the last five times. doing to allows us to effectively help individuals, families, and businesses that need help the most, and there are many out there that do. and they need it yesterday. we know that. we'll -- while also considering what other impacts might be happening as we throw over a trillion extra dollars to unrelated covid relief items. so with that, i'm in opposition to the bill in case you couldn't tell and now i see my friend from montana is here but i want to thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. daines: i want to thank my colleague from west virginia, senator capito, for her concerns

with this covid package. i think about where we were a year ago, right here in this chamber. it was march of 2020. as we were debating, working together in a bipartisan fashion to come up with a major, over $2 trillion covid relief package. in fact, you look back over the course of the last 12 months, congress passed five, five bipartisan covid-19 packages, five of them. and during that time as we know, the republicans were in the majority in the senate. and we believed it was very important. we're dealing with covid challenges in our country, that we came in a bipartisan way to address this horrible pandemic. it didn't stop us from working with our colleagues across the aisle, to reach a compromise in order to get needed relief for montanans and the american people who are struggling because of the pandemic. bipartisanship, it takes work.

it takes both sides coming together. it takes a little more time as well. but for the good of montanans and for the good of the american people, they expect that of us here in the united states. unfortunately what we're witnessing today is bipartisanship is no longer in the vocabulary of president biden and the democrats. they've taken this bipartisan process that we have had over the course of the last 12 months and they've taken it hostage. it's become their way or the high way. take it or leave it. they're trying to jam through a hyper partisan, not a bipartisan but a hyper partisan $1.9 trillion covid-19 package. we shouldn't even call this a covid-19 relief package. and here's why. 90% of what's in it has nothing to do with the core health needs of combating covid-19, nothing. this nearly $2 trillion package

is nothing more than a pelosi payoff, a liberal wish list that gives president biden, nancy pelosi, and chuck schumer billions of dollars for these partisan pet projects. this covid-19 relief package includes a laundry list of liberal priorities. now i'm not making this up. what i'm about to share was actually included in the most recently passed package of this covid legislation out of the united states house which, by the way, it passed in the wee hours of the morning this past weekend, on saturday, when the american people were asleep and it was not supported by a single republican member. by the way, contrast that to where we were a year ago. we passed a huge covid package here in the united states senate, 96-0. you can't get any more bipartisan than that. and yet when they jammed this package in the house saturday

morning, not a single republican supported it. in fact, a couple of democrats opposed it. here's what's in that so-called relief package for covid-19. $100 million for nancy pelosi's train to nowhere. it's a silicon valley underground rail project to help big tech. you tell me what that has to do with covid-19. $350 billion to bail out blue states that had financial problems before the pandemic. now, montana should not be footing the bill to bail out states like new york, california, illinois, especially when we've seen reports that states are actually doing much better than projected. we look at revenues coming in in 2020. in fact -- listen to this -- california is projecting a $25 billion surplus in 2020. there's $50 million in this package for climate justice. there's millions in bailouts for planned parenthood.

it also makes planned parenthood eligible for taxpayer dollars through the paycheck protection program. now, there's $130 billion in there for schools. now hear this. 95% of it won't be spent this year. in fact, 95% of it is spent in years 2022 through 2028. you tell me what that has to do with this immediate rush to have to get this package passed when most of the spending is in the years out to 2028 even. this is ironic, as president biden and the democrats are bowing to political pressure from the teachers' unions to keep kids out of the classroom. i cannot tell you how many parents we're hearing from that want to see the schools opened up, want to see the kids back in school, back in the classroom. they support opening the southern border for illegal immigrants over opening schools for american students.

as i've laid out, president biden, nancy pelosi, and chuck schumer's covid-19 package is not about covid-19 relief at all. in fact, the white house chief of staff ron klain said this, and i quote, this is the most progressive domestic legislation in a generation, end quote. i believe that. this is all about political favors for the democrats. it's about cashing in on campaign promises, and it's outrageousous while the democrats are trying to further their liberal agenda under the guise of passing covid-19 relief, we are sitting on $1 trillion of unspent, already allocated covid-19 relief dollars from the prior five packages. in fact, the last package we passed in december -- $900 billion -- only about 50% of that allocated dollars is out the door.

so shoveling almost $2 trillion -- now, how much is $2 trillion? the entire annual federal discretionary budget of the u.s. government is the about $1.4 trillion, the entire discretionary budget. the democrats want to push another $2 trillion into this economy that is poised to rebound as businesses reopen. it's deeply irresponsible. it will needlessly cause our debt to soar to new heights and could harm our economic recovery by sparking inflation. and its partisanship is exceeded only by its recklessness. mr. president, the american comeback is well under way. our economy is rebounding. g.d.p. is expected to grow 10% by the end of the first quarter. personalty savings rates are way up. 20.5% this past january compared to 7.6% in prepandemic january of 2020.

manufacturing is at its highest growth level since august of 2018. vaccines, they're being distributed. hospitalizations are going down. in fact, hospitalizations are down nearly 20% this week versus last week looking across the country. in fact, more than 40% of those over the age of 65 are vaccinated with at least one dose. that's good news. and on vaccines, i want to recognize our governor back home in montana for his outstanding leadership on getting vaccines distributed across montana. i also want to thank montana's health care heroes for their dedication to getting the vaccines out and keeping our communities and our families safe. in fact, just last week, montana was recognized as the most efficient state in the nation. number one out of 50 for administering vaccines received from the federal government. but in montana we're in need of

more vaccines. that's why i joined forces with the governor and the congressman rose endale requesting them from -- rosendale requesting them from president biden. i am pleased to see it was' a nnounced just this week that montana will be receiving over 8,000 doses of the j & j vaccine in the coming days. vaccines, distribution is what we should be focusing on now. they will help us get life back to normal. they are what will end this pandemic. yet, sadly, only one percent of biden and pelosi's covid-19 package goes to vaccines. that's unacceptable. it's unacceptable that the partisan pelosi-schumer bill lacks foresight and badly misdiagnoses what america needs now. because we are seeing the light at the end of this tunnel. we must keep moving in this direction. any future relief must be targeted and focused on vaccine

distribution. let's just start by retargeting the trillion dollars that's not even yet out the door. why don't we start there? but instead the democrats are choosing to go their own way in a purely partisan piece of legislation to spend another $1.9 trillion, most of which does not address anything related to the covid-19 pandemic. it must be directed instead towards ending the pandemic, helping the american people, not supporting the liberal dreams of nancy pelosi and chuck schumer. i yield back my time. mr. hoeven: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to discuss the $1.9 trillion spending bill that we

expect to be considering probably starting tomorrow. the covid-19 pandemic has deeply impacted our communities, causing heartbreak and grief for hundreds of thousands of families who've lost loved ones and at the same time it's turned our economy upside down. it's shuttered small businesses as well as schools and churches. a lot of doubt -- without a doubt, it's during a pandemic that we here in congress should be coming together and working to provide relief for those who are struggling. and it's for that very reason that i'm proud that republicans and democrats have worked together. we've worked together over the past year on a very bipartisan basis, bipartisan basis to pass five different pieces of legislation to address the pandemic. in march of 2020, we passed the coronavirus preparedness and response supplemental appropriations act by a vote of

96-1. we passed the families first coronavirus response act by a vote of 90-8 and the landmark coronavirus relief and economic relief or the cares act that provided $2.2 trillion. and it passed the senate unanimously. got every republican, every democrat vote. last summer we unanimously passed legislation making adjustments to the paycheck protection program providing further support for our small businesses and additional funding for hospitals, for health care providers, as well as for covid-19 testing. passed it unanimously. in late december, just over two months ago, we provided an additional $900 billion in relief, including direct payment to individuals, $120 billion in additional unemployment insurance, $25 billion in rental

assistance, $25 billion in nutrition and ag assistance for our farmers, and $325 billion in additional support for small businesses. again, with an overwhelming bipartisan vote. bipartisan. all five of these were passed with big bipartisan votes. some of them unanimously. and much of that money has yet to be spent. now democrats in congress and the administration want to pass on a partisan basis, with only democrat votes, a massive $1.9 trillion bill with no input from republicans, unlike the previous covid-19 bills that we worked together on to pass. to respond to this covid epidemic. in the house, the bill passed didn't get any republican votes

and it didn't get all the democrat votes. it was passed solely with democrat votes, no republican votes and some democrats voting against it as well. and again we haven't even spent the $900 billion we just passed on a bipartisan basis in december. also the bill includes billions in spending for non-pandemic-related programs, including $480 million for the national endowment of the arts, the national endowment for humanities, the institute of museum and library services. as a matter of fact, there's -- here's just some of the things in here that don't relate to covid. $50 million for, quote, climate justice, end quote. $50 million for family planning funding without the hyde protections. $112 million for speaker pelosi's silicon valley subway. $135 million for the national endowment for the humanities.

$135 million for the national endowment for the arts. $200 million for the institute of museum and library services. $12 billion in foreign aid. $30 billion for public transit, of which $4.5 billion is for new york city's subway system. how does that relate to addressing covid? and, again, like i say, we just passed $900 billion in december, which is yet to be spent, that does address covid. so we need to focus on spending the money that we've already provided. we need to make sure it gets to the needs. we need to get our economy opened up. we need to get our kids back in school. so those are the priorities right now. and then when we look at this bill, in addition to spending on

things that aren't related to covid, let's also look at how the funding is allocated. the bill provides $350 billion in funding to states, territories, and localities, but it's not based on population. instead, it's based on unemployment. well, that unfairly rewards the states that shut down over those that stayed open. and the reality is what we need to do is get the vaccine out so again we can open up our businesses, make sure we get our kids in schools. that's got to be the priority. now, but how do you -- how do you go forward with that kind of formula that isn't fairly delivered as well? under this flawed methodology in this bill, the city of new york would receive about $4.3 billion. that's actually more than 36

states would get. also the city of chicago would receive $1.98 billion. there's 20 states that wouldn't get that amount. los angeles would receive $1.3 5 billion, which is more than 13 different states would receive. in addition, l.a. county would receive $1.95 billion, bringing the valley's total to nearly $3.3 billion. why is that the allocation formula? republicans stand ready to work with our democrat colleagues to provide the necessary support to fill in any remaining gaps and provide targeted covid-19 relief to our health care workers, continue vaccine distribution, safely reopen our schools, and provide help for those in our communities who are struggling the most. but we cannot support this $1.9

trillion partisan bill which will add to our national debt on the backs of hardworking americans. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. marshall: mr. president, i rise today to keep fighting for those who are still hurting from this plague. i am fighting for those who have yet to receive the vaccine. i am fighting for those who are not yet back to work. i am fighting to protect medicare dollars. but you know who i am here to speak for today, to speak for? my three grandsons. i received a phone call today, actually a facetime, and they wanted to share a story with me of a fish they caught last night. i am here to protect their

future, so some day their grandkids can call them and talk about a great moment in their lives. you know what i believe is the largest threat to their future, to their dreams, and to their success? it's the national debt. it's not just the threat to our education -- to their education. it is a threat to the infrastructure they will be using as well as a threat to their families. i am here to fight for those who need the help now but i am here to protect the future of our children. we've already borrowed $4 trillion from our grandchildren to fight this virus. but over $1 trillion remains on the sideline yet to be spent. my suggestion? why don't we start by repurposing those dollars and target them where they're needed the most, which is exactly what we would do in the business

world from which i came very recently. look, this great american economy is coming back. the long, dark, cold winter is almost over. unemployment is under 4% in kansas and many other states and it looks like we're going to have a strong first quarter g.d.p. number. now, as an aside i have to l highlight the way this partisan bill is written, it rewards those states who overreacted and totally shut down their economies and their schools. bailing out mismanaged states at the expense of taxpayers is simply not american. if this administration and our governors do their job, we can have nationwide herd immunity by april or may and by summer our economy can be back to pre-pandemic levels, all without borrowing another $2 trillion from our grandchildren. that comes after $6,000 to each child, to each one of your grandchildren, $6,000 we want to borrow. so walk up to your children, your grandchildren and say hey, we want to borrow $6,000 to help

bail out some mismanaged governments. so listen, we truly want to help those who need the help, and i ask my colleagues across the aisle why do you want to borrow another $2 trillion from our grandchildren and only spend 9% on direct covid relief. we cannot print enough money to solve these problems long term unless we press in on the real challenges. this is what we must do to defeat the virus and it's very simple -- get shots to arms, get people back to work and get people back in school. if we do these three things our economy and republic will come booming back. call this bill in front of us what you want, a boondoggle, a christmas tree, a christmas tree decorated with earmarks as ornaments and full of so much pork it's dripping grease. my friends across the aisle focused 91% of their attention in this bill to pay for things like a bridge from new york to

canada and a railroad project in silicon valley, money for planned parenthood and stimulus checks for illegal immigrants and violent criminals. now you can argue for this loan from our grandchildren if you'd like, and if you don't care about their future, but at the end of the day trierg to borrow -- trying to borrow $2 trillion from our grandchildren to spend on partisan pet projects, and i'll never agree to that. let me stress once more what i'm for -- getting vaccines into arms, getting people back to work and getting kids back to school. thank you, mr. president, and i yield back. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. a senator: thank you, mr. president. i join my colleagues in a discussion on the relief package we're going to be voting on later this week but we need to go back to last year and recognize what happened in these chambers on fiech different occasions -- on five different

occasions. thoolz thoolz i've been in the -- l. mr. tillis: i've been in the chamber for six years. we had an historic pandemic, first time in 100 years. covid hit our shores. what did we do? we spent days and weeks but over the course of those days and weeks we came together with five bipartisan packages that really addressed the root problems, the challenges created by covid. we passed the paycheck protection program, something that i think was extraordinary. the banking community got together even before we had the rules on how the loans should be underwritten and how they would be forgiven, and they decided to mobilize and provide desperately needed capital and liquidity to businesses and they saved many, many businesses in north carolina. we passed operation warp speed, a program that for the first time in this nation's history or any nation's history, we went from a known virus to two

multiple vaccines with high degrees of efficacy that are now being put into the arms of americans at a rate of almost two million a day. we did that because we focused on a problem and we fixed it, and we continue to evolve it, five different bipartisan bills. now the sixth one is before us. it's called the covid relief package, but, mr. president, we all know that much of what's in this bill has nothing to do with the covid impacts and nothing to do with immediate spending in this coming year. now i understand elections have consequences. it's been said by president obama and others, and we have a change of leadership here in the senate, a change of leadership in the white house, but i really hate that we're going to leave a mark probably and hopefully the last covid, the last bill that would have some covid relief in it that's going to go down as probably one of the most partisan fights that we're going to have this year on this floor later this week.

my colleagues on the other side of the aisle decided to go it alone. that's exactly what you're going to see in full display come thursday this week when we go into what we call vote-a-rama. i feel like we have to be intellectually honest with the american people. we know that we have to provide more relief. we know that people are struggling, businesses are struggling, individuals are struggling. i get all that. and that's why i wish so much that we were going to have another bill laid down on the floor that was going to to get strong bipartisan support. but to call this bill that's coming before us this week a covid relief package i think is being dishonest with the american people. this chart probably best illustrates what the american people need to understand. that's how much is in this bill that is legitimately focused on the crisis that we're trying to continue to manage through very targeted, focused dollars, american taxpayer dollars that in this case, as some of my

colleagues have said, they're not even dollars we've collected yet. we're going to collect them from my two granddaughters and future generations. a $1.9 trillion package with about 9% going to something that you could reasonably argue has a nexus with the impact of covid, whether it's on individuals, whether it's people out of work, whether it's businesses that are trying to make payroll. that's a fact. 9%. now, i feel like at some point we need to get back to what we did on five different occasions before. we knew businesses were failing, they needed relief. we gave them the paycheck protection program. we knew that people were out of work because of business closures. maybe you had to take off work because you didn't have day care because your school was closed. all of those are legitimate reasons to provide additional relief. that's what we should be voting on this week, and in small part we are. but in large part we're not.

i think it was someone in the obama administration who was famously quoted for saying never waste a crisis. and it looks like to me that this crisis is being used to advance policy discussions that we should have a debate on the floor. but we're not going to have that. we're going to have a vote with a simple majority not rising to the gold standard in this institution for 60 votes, and we're going to pass things that have virtually nothing, and in most cases absolutely nothing to do with covid. how on earth can you provide education funding and say that you're doing it for covid impacts? and much of that money, the majority of that money is not even going to be spent until beginning in 2022 and then play it out in 2028. how can you say that has anything to do with the immediate crisis of getting kids back in school, making sure teemps are -- teachers are safe, making sure from

irreparable damages for students never able to go back to school. when we talk about the economic slus payments there's -- stimulus payments there's a lot people that need help and need a check but the proposal we've going to vote on this week is giving money to people who would like it. i can understand why it's very popular. who wouldn't in this chamber want to think they're going to get a $3,000 or $4,000 check in the mail whether you were out of work at all, whether your combined impact is $150,000 and you're still working. i understand it's popular, but is it fair? there's a trailer park in antioch tennessee. i ride there when i go visit my family. i go back and visit with people who live in that trailer park. my guess is almost every single one of them need help. my guess is many of them who work in the service industry have been out of work for the better part of the last year. we should tell them, you're

going to get some help, but that neighborhood that's about a mile down the road from that trailer park i grew up in, where you've got combined household incomes of $150,000, both the husband and wife are working, the kids have day care options, they're going to get it too. is it fair for the people struggling the most? is it fair to say we're providing education relief and it's not going to spent until i would have to run for reelection again? 2028. i think we need to be honest with the american people. if we want to have a debate about all of the red, all of the money that's going to be committed this week that has nothing to do with covid relief, let's be honest with the american people. what we're doing this week i think is dishonest. what we're doing this week is bailing out states, like my state of north carolina, a $4 billion surplus this year. the state of north carolina, new york, illinois, california. instead of trying to use that

money, which we don't have but if we need to spend it, let's spend it on those folks that grew up like i did. let's spend it on the businesses that may shutter their doors. let's do that. let's let that be the sixth bipartisan covid relief package that we put together. not what we're going to to be forced to vote on this week. mr. president, i hope the american people know we recognize, we republicans recognize people are hurting and we want to give them help. we've proven that because we voted in five different instances on a bipartisan basis to do that. what the leadership of this chamber is doing this week is taking us down a course to where we'll probably never have a chance to come back together and have that kind of bipartisan result for this crisis or future ones. so, mr. president, i'm going to work hard on amendments to potentially tailor and remove some of the red. in the meantime, i think anybody who supports the bill is coming over from the house should seriously consider whether we're being honest to the american people and their

constituents. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. ms. ernst: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, with a one-party monopoly of washington,d.c., democrats are back to their old spending habits. most of the $1.9 trillion within

the democrats', quote, covid package has absolutely nothing to do with covid. unlike the previous five pandemic relief bills that were approved with overwhelming bipartisan support, democrats have shown no interest in working with republicans and are instead fast-tracking this highly partisan bill through congress. now the bulk of this budget-busting bill is devoted to fulfilling a wish list of longtime liberal priorities, including billion-dollar bailouts, progressive program expansions, and pricey partisan pet projects. and let's talk about a few of

those. look at this right here, a new york bridge to canada. that's $1.5 million for a bridge connecting the state of new york to, yes, another country -- canada. or how about this one? the cleverly worded provision that earmarks -- yes, i said it, folks. earmarking is already happening right here. $140 million to a subway in silicon valley in california.

what does that have to do with covid? and a whopping $350 billion blue state bailout that rewards the states that have imposed the strictest lockdowns. folks, we should be rewarding the states that demonstrated leadership by finding ways to safely stay open, not those that shut down our schools, closed our businesses, and killed our american jobs. but most importantly, covid relief should stay focused on covid. there's still about $1 trillion of covid funding that congress

previously approved that hasn't even been spent yet. yes, folks, $1 trillion. so why in the world are we looking at spending yet another $2 trillion, of course on things that are not even related to covid? that isn't to say that there aren't needs because there are. we know that. all across our country. but instead of bridges and bailouts, the money should be focused on immediate help to get our moms and dads back to work, and to do that, we need to do a few things. one, let's safely reopen our schools. number two, expand access to

quality affordable child care. and number three, distribute the vaccine as quickly as possible. and while the bill does actually provide some assistance for these purposes, even here the democrats show how -- how out of touch they are with what's actually happening on the ground. for example, nearly $15 billion is included for the child care and development block grant. you would think that's a good thing because it's needed, but at a time when so many moms are being forced to choose between their careers and children as a

result of school closures, the support is needed. but a loophole in the bill that is coming over from the house allows millionaires to use up this program which was created to make quality child care affordable for working parents who are struggling to make ends meet. yes, millionaires qualify for this assistance, not just our struggling families. and while additional funding will certainly help many expanding eligibility to those millionaires who have the financial means to afford their own nannies will not. while the bill also extends the enhanced unemployment

opportunity, the unemployment benefit and it does provide an extra $400 per week for those who are out of work because of the pandemic, there again another loophole, there is no limit placed on the eligibility. that means someone who may be out of work but is still earning a million dollars or more qualifies for these bonus payments. now you might laugh. you might laugh and ask how many people would apply for unemployment assistance if they were making a million dollars? well, folks, the answer is thousands. during the great recession just a decade ago more than 3,000 individuals with adjusted gross incomes of $1 million collected

unemployment benefits. because this bill doesn't cap who may receive support, jobless millionaires may end up collecting as much as $1 million in enhanced unemployment assistance every week. this is like a reverse millionaire's tax. the democrats are paying millionaires not to work with taxes paid by lower-income workers. how do you like that socialist scheme? so if you're a coastal elite living in california or new york and maybe making a million bucks despite being out of work, this bill is especially generous for you. but, folks, this isn't monopoly money. this is the real deal and

someone has to eventually pick up the tab. sadly it is going to be paid out the pockets -- out of the pockets of essential workers and others who are continuing to work. those that pay taxes and keep america running. now, as an eternal optimist, i am hopeful that when this bill comes before the senate, my democratic colleagues will actually work with us to cut the pork and refocus the bill on what it should be focused on, the immediate needs of the covid pandemic, not a fancy subway, not a bridge to canada and certainly not wealthy state

bailouts. focus on the immediate needs of the covid pandemic, and if not, i'm afraid the democrats will just keep passing go and collecting hundreds of dollars from hardworking taxpayers across this country only to pay for their pricey partisan pet projects and wish list items that have nothing to do with covid. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. young: i don't rise today, mr. president, in opposition to covid relief, nor do i rise today to oppose money for vaccine distribution or testing, nor do i rise to oppose stimulus spending for knows who really need it, hard-hit businesses, rank and file fellow americans and i certainly don't oppose additional grants and loans for

other enterprises out there that are just not going to be make it through this, like the not-for-profits that are essential to all of our communities. but i rise today instead, mr. president, to oppose this partisan, pork-filled american rescue plan. you know, i'm not known for histrionics this in this -- in this body and i'm not engaging in it. this is a partisan bill full of a liberal wish list of the items that, frankly, aren't popular with hoosiers and they won't be popular with the american people the more they get to know about what is loaded up in this $1.9 trillion package of goodies. in the last year, during a time of political division and strife, this congress came together around covid relief. we rose to the challenge

presented to us by this global pandemic. we didn't bring it on by most accounts it came from china. but we came together to address this -- this foreign threat that came to our shores, that decimated our economy, that threatens lives and livelihoods and we passed five relief measures with well more than 90 votes in every instance. the total, nearly $3.5 trillion, and i make no apologies for those investments. those were investments in public health, those were investments in our communities, those were investments in our employers. those were investments in our loved ones to provide them safety and security and a measure of comfort, but to save

their very lives. those were investments in our frontline workers. we did all of that in a bipartisan fashion with very little opposition -- very little opposition. unity, that's what this country needs. i heard that coming from the lips of republicans and democrats alike at the highest levels weeks ago and that's what i -- that's what i pine for. i want our country to be unified. i believe we can be unified, but this is not a step in the right direction. even though much of the money that we have allocated to address the many consequences of this global pandemic has not been spent yet, we republicans

have tried to work with the biden administration on a sixth relief package over the past month. in fact, i was one of ten republicans who -- i say this commendably toward the biden administration and specifically i commend the president for inviting myself and nine other republicans into the oval office to discuss our counterproposal. i have to say this -- this $600 billion proposal that we were providing was for this united states senator a bit of a stretch. so much money was still in the pipeline, it wasn't even clear thatch was needed -- that much was needed but we certainly didn't need $1.9 trillion and we all greed upon that -- agreed upon that. unfortunately we sort of left that meeting with a supposition

which has been substantiated that there was an intention to move forward regardless of the respectful and fact-based exchange we had about the wastefulness about the $1.9 trillion package and the extent to which the $600 billion package more than met the needs of getting people vaccinated, getting people back to work and getting kids back to school as quickly and safely as possible. here we are, though, instead of a targeted covid relief package, we've seen our democratic leaders load up a $1.9 trillion bill with wish list items and so here's what i'm going to have to educate hoosiers on in coming months because i believe they think this is mostly about vaccinations and getting kids back to school and people back to work. i wish that were the case. but, no, it's about borrowing

money about what can be fairly characterized as a blue state bailout to the tune of $350 billion. you see, a lot of states aren't like the state of indiana. the state of indiana, over the years, has balanced our budget and come up with a rainy day fund and we were criticized at times not spending the money out of the rainy day fund but the rainiest days hit andeanian was ready -- andeanian was ready. not many sphaits did that. many -- states did that. many made unfillable promises to constituents over the years related to their retirements and so forth and so now in this package is $$350 billion going towards those states to be used for purposes other than the pandemic relief. also in this bill, $1.9 trillion package is a silicon valley subway. i'm not sure how it got in

there. i do know that speaker pelosi hails from the area. the national endowment for the arts, the national endowment for the humanities. i love arts, i love the humanities. we can debate the proper role of government in funding these -- these public cultural goods, but let's do it some other time. let's not do it in the course of pandemic relief legislation. expansion of the paycheck protection program to provide loans to planned parenthood, forcing certain taxpayers, like myself, to violate our conscience. much, much more. it's full of waste. it's fat with waste. this body passed a $1.9 trillion cares act in march of 2020. one year later, democrats, along

party lines, are poised to jam through another $1.9 trillion package. to give you some sense of how much a trillion dollars is, these numberses can be abstract. but try to visualize $1 bills stacked from the ground halfway up to the moon. that's a trillion dollars, i was told earlier today. that's a lot of money. and we're borrowing every cent of it. i think it's important we consider the difference between what we passed a year ago and what we are now considering as likely to pass along party-line votes. when the cares act went into effect, the nation was shut down. only so-called essential businesses, businesses that could operate safely, were open. indiana's unemployment rate then

was 17.5%. we've done a great job managing this crisis in the state of indiana. most businesses are reopened. the unemployment rate is 4.3% in our state. we don't have the same public health challenges of other place who is have shut everything down. i will let others try and define why that is. when the cares act became law, not a single school in indiana was open. in indiana today, most schools are open to in-person learning, in-person instruction, many full time. and let me take this opportunity to commend our administrators and our teachers in the state of indiana for showing up for work. we don't see that all around the country. last week, in more than 2,000 schools in indiana, there were

only 62 teacher cases. i told you, basically all the schools have opened up. only 62 teacher cases in indiana. that's one case for every 33 schools. i'd say we're doing a pretty good job managing the risk. following the science. when the cares act became law, a vaccine was a faroff dream. i can remember president trump indicating there would be a vaccine by year's end. people laughed. democrats scoffed. mocked. members of the media mocked him. not only do we have one vaccine, but then comes vaccine number two and vaccine number three. all in the pipeline because of operation warp speed that the trump administration implemented to at once streamline the regulatory process for approval and also begin manufacturing in parallel.

it's good that the biden administration is building on those successes. so look, there is no doubt that some hoosiers and many americans are still hurting. we can and we will and we must help those people. but president biden and the national democrats' so-called american rescue plan is not the way to do it. it just is not responsible. we're better than that. so we who oppose this, we who happen to be republican united states senators who oppose this partisan effort to use this crisis to advance initiatives like arts funding and a subway next to speaker pelosi's district along partisan lines, we're not going to just let this pass and allow the national

democrats to cram unrelated policies into what should be a bill squarely targeted at this crisis. we need a bill just like the five bills that we passed in a strongly bipartisan fashion just last year. so today we have more than a million hoosiers who have received their first dose of vaccine, including more than 70% of hoosiers age 70 and older. there's no doubt that some hoosiers are still hurting. again, we'll be helping those folks. so this is really quite simple, mr. president. we need to work together, republicans and democrats, for the good of the country. this does indeed remain a national crisis. we had negative economic growth last year because a global pandemic interrupted the

greatest period of economic growth in my lifetime. we need to recover. we're poised for recovery this year. but we need to do it in a targeted, in a fiscally responsible way, and in a fashion that doesn't undermine trust among one another and one that doesn't break trust with the american people by spending their money irresponsibly. i regret that that probably won't happen in the next few days, but i resolve to continue fighting for hoosiers, for fiscal responsibility, and to constructively work with this administration however we can moving forward. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: mr. president, last week, we paused as a congress to recognize half a million people that have died in the united states due to covid. unfortunately, that number is still climbing. half a million. that's a lot of families that are affected, a lot of lives lost, a lot of pain that we have experienced as a nation. obviously, that's a global pain that is being experienced. for the last now 11 months, this congress has gathered in a bipartisan way five times, with wide bipartisan majorities to be able to address the issue of covid-19. we have allocated $4 trillion, all of it borrowed, all of it. none of this was budgeted money. all of that borrowed money, with a common agreement that this is

a pandemic in a crisis and to be able to stabilize the american economy. we have to do what we have to do, but we should not do more than we have to knowing that every dollar of spending is borrowed. last year, at almost this exact same day, this congress gathered together and put together a $2 trillion cares act package. it is an aggressive package because we saw the shutdown of the american economy. quite frankly, we saw the shutdown of the world's economy in that period. literally, the world seems to stop by the end of march, and we all went into seclusion. we saw dramatic spikes in unemployment, in desperate need around the country, but we all knew this was a crisis moment, and we will get through it and we'll get out of it. now almost a year later where we saw unemployment soaring to 15% plus across the country, we're

now at 6.7% unemployment. every state is open at some stages and some states completely open. many schools are open. some schools continue to stay closed and say they are afraid and that they are not going to reengage, while thousands and thousands of other schools around the country are open and taking care of their kids in person. we have seen this patchwork of response, but one thing is very true about right now versus 11 months ago. we're in a very different place now as an economy and as a nation than what we were 11 months ago, but the strange thing is now 11 months later, my democratic colleagues are putting forward a $1.9 trillion package, almost the exact same size of what we had at the beginning of this, they are doing it as just about everyone sees we're at the end, they want to borrow another $2 trillion.

and it's not just $2 trillion to be able to spend towards covid. i wish that was so. 1% of this package actually goes towards vaccines. 5% of this package actually goes toward public health. in the school funding portion of it, 95% of the funding in the school funding portion of it, which is $170 billion of school funding won't even be spent this year at all. at all. let me run that past you again. 95% of the $170 billion allocated for funding for schools won't be spent in the year of the pandemic at all. it's future spending. and to give you a picture of how big $170 billion is towards education, the total united states education budget for the entire department of education this year is $66 billion. for the entire year, for all of education in the whole country, it's $66 billion, and my democratic colleagues say but we

need to spend $170 billion just for covid, which, by the way, we're not going to even start spending until next year. do you know why? because this bill is not about covid. i wish it was, because there is real need out there. i wish it was. this is for things like $350 billion to go to cities and states to be able to bail out some of their pension funds and other things that are there. why do i say that? because when you look at the statistics of what the revenue loss for the states across the entire united states, the revenue loss for all states is .1% from last year. .1%. not 1%. .1% change, because almost every state is dependent on property tax. and as people that pay property tax know, you're still going to have to pay your property tax. so the revenue, quite frankly, continues to stay strong.

in many of the cities that i have in oklahoma, -- in fact, one of the cities in my state just last week reported their revenue, sales tax revenue is up 20%. 20%. in their revenue. because people are staying home and shopping more. they're doing more shopping ammo, so the tax revenue is actually coming back into their states and their cities even more in many of these communities. but there is $350 billion allocated to these cities. you think well, there will be some fair distribution. actually, that would be nice, but it's not true. they have set up an unemployment formula that's based on those states that shut down the longest and kept everything closed the longest, they are the ones that actually get the most money. so, in other words, if you reopened your economy and you worked to get your schools open and you worked to get jobs open, you get a chance to have very little support. if you stay closed and kept your

schools closed and kept your businesses closed, well, then you will get additional dollars coming in. regardless of what the revenue is. even for big states like california that their revenue actually went up last year. california's revenue went up last year. they get $27 billion out of this. after their revenue went up. remembering that in the cares act last march, this congress added $150 billion to cities and states. $150 billion and spread that around the country to be able to cover it. and then because there was a panic to think there is going to be major losses, but at the end of it, .1% off of the previous year. this as additional funding for planned parenthood and i'm not sure why abortion is needed for covid relief but they have additional money for planned parenthood. they have a tunnel for san francisco which clearly is not

covid related. a bridge for new york state. $50 million for climate justice grants. there is on and on and on all these additional things that are just stuck into the process. and i would say this congress has been active to be able to do what it takes to be able to help in every moment, but we have also tried to be wise in the process to say let's spend what needs to be spent, when it needs to be spent. let me give you an example of that. as i mentioned for vaccines, in this particular bill, 1% is set aside for vaccine. but that would be interesting except for the fact in vaccines, the c.d.c. has distributed only $3 billion of the almost $9 billion that congress has allocated to the c.d.c. for vaccine distribution. they still have almost $6 billion remaining for vaccines right now. they have only spent $20 billion of the $37 billion allocated for the vaccine treatment and development and testing. only $20 billion of the $37 billion for the actual

development, treatment, still another $6 billion remaining for distribution. and on top of all of that, today the biden administration said they have struck new deals with the vaccine folks so they can get vaccines to every single american by the end of may. they already have all that they need for vaccine distribution, development, and purchasing, yet this particular bill asks for billions more in vaccine because that sounds like a good idea. except when you check the facts. they already have all they need for the vaccine purchase, development, distribution. but it sounds good. kind of like we need more money for education. sounds good when you say you need more money for education, except for the vast majority of the education funds like around $86 billion is still unspent from the previous bills in education money that was sent. for the ag money that has been allocated, $26 billion for ag

just done in december, only $24 billion remains of that $26 billion. in other words, ample funds are still sitting there for ag, for assistance, for schools, for vaccines, for testing. there is $14 billion still remaining in the fund for testing untapped. but my democratic colleagues can go to the microphone and say we need money for schools and vaccines and testing. oh, my gosh, certainly you do until you check the facts and find out this is not about vaccines and testing in schools at all. it's about all the pet programs that go with it and it's about allocating billions and billions and billions of dollars to agencies so they can hold them and use them for other things. that's what this is about. and it hides under the cloak of covid. and it hides behind the pain of half a million americans who

have lost friend, and family members. -- friends and family members. don't use their pain to be able to amp up government. let's have the debate about issues that we need to have on government. but don't abuse the pain of americans and pretend you're trying to fix something that we're not trying to fix. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president, i would like to join my friend and colleague from oklahoma as well as the senator from indiana in opposing the democrats $1.9 trillion spending bill. the democrats want to call it the sixth coronavirus bill. in fact, that's false. it's not a true statement. because only about one out of every $11 being spent on this monstrosity is really focused on coronavirus health. the rest is a partisan liberal

wish list that the democrats have wanted to pass for a long, long time, long before the pandemic, long before anyone in this country had ever even heard of coronavirus. i remember president obama's chief of staff, rahm emanuel said never let a good crisis go to waste. well, mr. president, that's what they did under president obama. they saw a crisis. they passed laws that had nothing to do with what had caused it and now here we are a dozen years later, president biden is in the white house, and he is using that playbook once again. president biden's chief of staff calls this bill, the one on the -- coming to the floor right now, he described this on msnbc the other day as the most progressive domestic legislation in a generation. the most progressive domestic legislation in a generation.

more progressive than obamacare. more progressive than the obama-biden stimulus. doesn't sound like a coronavirus relief bill to me. the white house chief of staff admits this isn't mainstream. this is radical. and he's absolutely right about that. in the house not a single republican voted for this bill. actually, democrats joined every republican in opposing it. president biden ran for president as being mainstream, as being a unifier. that's how he got to the oval office. but ever since then, it's been scorched earth partisanship every day since that time. last week president biden gave a speech about the bill. he talked about senate republicans, those of us who are on the floor today and coming up

next. he said what would they cut? i'm very glad he asked. president biden could start by cutting $350 billion of bailing out for states and local governments. state tax revenues are down less than one-tenth of a percent. we just heard from the senator from oklahoma. most states actually have more tax revenue than before the pandemic. actually, 44 states more tax revenue than before the pandemic. president biden could cut the $85 billion that's earmarked for union pension funds, to bail them out. nothing to do with coronavirus. unions have been mismanaging their members' money for dec decades. president biden could cut the $4.5 billion for the new york city subway system. he could cut $111 million for a subway system in silicon valley for nancy pelosi, $270 million in funding for the arts and humanities. key cut $200 million from

museums and libraries. that's not coronavirus. he could cut $12 billion in foreign aid. could cut $36 billion in subsidized health insurance for people making over $100,000 a year. it's a lot of income to additionally get health insurance subsidies. we all know president biden loves amtrak. well, he could cut $1.5 billion in funding for amtrak in this bill. nothing to do with coronavirus. he could cut $1.5 million for the funding for the bridge from new york to canada. probably a pet project of the majority leader. to answer the president's question what could we cut, we could cut a lot. thankfully, the senate parliamentarians already cut $67 billion from the bill. that's how much democrats' national wage mandate was getting to cost. yet there's still a lot we can

cut. here's the bottom line. the people of wyoming who i visit with every weekend when i'm at home, they don't want a liberal wish list. they want to make sure they can stay at work, that their kids can stay in school and they get the virus behind them. the kids in wyoming have been in school since last august. seems like only half of the kids in america are back in school. the people in wyoming wanted to get to yes when it came to getting kids back in school. what we see president biden doing is saying yes to the teachers unions. he's paid the ransom note. and in is the bunny being paid to them. not to get our kids to school but to keep the teachers happy. i think teachers want to get back to school. teachers want to teach, but not the unions who pull the strings and are certainly pulling the strings of joe biden in the

white house. working families don't want politicians to exploit a crisis for political gains. they want to protect their physical health and their financial health and well-being. so it's time to stop trying to exploit a crisis which is what i see every democrat doing. let's give the american people what they really need all across the country. getting back to work, getting kids back to school who aren't there already, and putting the disease behind us. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: before i speak, i ask unanimous consent that myself, senator braun, and senator hirono be able to complete our remarks before the vote. the presiding officer: is there objection? so ordered -- without objection. mr. grassley: i want to compliment that the commodity futures trading commission

operates a highly successful whistle-blower program. as one of the senators who led the effort to establish that whistle-blower program back in 2010, i'm proud of what this program has accomplished. since the commission issued its first whistle-blower award in 2014, whistle-blowers have helped the agency root out waste, fraud, and abuse in the commodities trading industry and has recovered nearly $950 million. that's a very good reason to compliment the commodity futures trading commission. that's a lot of restitution for harmed investors. it's also a lot of money going to the u.s. treasury and to the american taxpayers.

now if congress doesn't act quickly, all of that progress could come to a swift and sudden halt. several months ago the commission contacted my office to tell me that its whistle-blower program is facing the prospect of a sudden cash shortage, one that could require it to furlough staff and even close down its operations. the reason for this potential shortage isn't that the whistle-blower program has wasted or mismanaged funds or that it hasn't been doing its job. it's just the exact opposite. whistle-blowers have been approaching the commission to report claims of wrong doing in far greater numbers than before and the whistle-blower program

has grown at a much faster rate than congress expected when we created it in 2010. last year the commission issued a single whistle-blower award for approximately $9 million. in the past it has given out awards as much as $30 million. remember, this is money given out to find out about fraud so people can be punished bringing money into the federal treasury. as a result of these successes, in the near future the commission faces the possibility of having a payout -- to pay out several large whistle-blower awards in close succession. now, if that happens, the whistle-blower program could run short of having the cash on hand that it needs to pay these awards and other office

operating expenses. again, this is not an issue of bad management. it just means that the program works better than we thought when we enacted it in 2010. by law, the commission is only allowed to keep a certain amount of cash on hand to pay out awards, and that amount is capped under existing law at $100 million. because congress expected the program to remain relatively small, which it has not, it set the cap for the super protection fund lower than the cap it has set for larger whistle-blower programs, such as the one at the securities and exchange commission. the consumer protection fund is also used to pay the operating

expenses of the whistle-blower office. in other words, the employees that determine who -- and follows up on these fraudulent claims. increasing the cap will ensure that the commission can keep enough of the proceeds from the finds it collects on hand to pay whistle-blower awards and also ensure that the program itself doesn't run out of money. in 2019 i introduced the whistle-blower program improvement act which increased the cap on the fund and made several additional improvements to the program, including provisions that would allow the commission greater flexibility to share information with law enforcement. now, i did this because i realize that as the awards

became bigger and more frequent, it was only a matter of time before the commission would run into trouble. a year later my prediction came true, and the commission itself notified me of their impending money problems, those same money problems i'm talking about. so i introduced a bipartisan bill along with senators hassan, ernst, and baldwin. in december, just a few months ago, to quickly address this problem. i worked with then-chairman roberts and then-ranking member stabenow to include language that would have made the most critical updates for the program in last year's omnibus. these updates would have ensured that the whistle-blower office could keep enough funds on hand

to pay upcoming whistle-blower awards and continue to fund the operation and to pay for staff. now what often happens around here is that this effort unfortunately also hit a roadblock and the language wasn't included by the house of representatives. now two months have passed since then, and a matter that was already urgent in december has become even more critical right now. the commission told my office they've now completely stopped work on four cases. and these four cases potentially would have large awards. and if they get these large awards, it could bankrupt the fund. it's now a conflict of interest

for staff who are still paid to even work on those cases because they know if they work to approve the large awards, it could be -- it could mean putting themselves out of a job. that's totally unacceptable. whistle-blowers shouldn't have to wait just because congress has been dragging its feet on this issue. that's why i reintroduced my bill and asked my colleagues to support this legislation to fix the cap and to protect this very successful whistle-blower program. this is a stand-alone bill, a very short and simple bill. it increases the cap on customer protection fund from $100 million to $150 million and requires that funds needed for

the operating expenses of the whistle-blowers office be held in a separate account to enshould you are that the whistle-blowers office -- to ensure that the whistle-blowers office will have the resources it needs for the employment of staff while the amount in the customer protection fund builds to a higher level. allowing this office to close simply because it's doing its job, a job well-done, is unacceptable to me, and i hope it's unacceptable to the other 99 members of this congress, and we ought to be able to get this bill passed quickly so that we can keep this successful whistle-blower program going. -- to protect the customers. it ought to be unacceptable then to every member of this

congress. it's important that we act now to ensure that this doesn't happen. that's why i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bipartisan legislation. i yield. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. braun: today i rise to ask that the senate grant unanimous consent to pass a bill which restores parents' rights to be part of medical decisions for their children. more than 70% of americans agree that parents should have the legal right to stop an abortion from being performed on their minor child. consequently, more than half of the states have laws on the books which require some form of parental notification. unfortunately, these state laws cannot be fully enforced when

children travel over state lines or abortion providers assist minors in circumventing state laws. more troubling, evidence has surfaced in recent years that abortion clinic staff deliberately fail to report suspected cases of statutory rape, as required by federal law. in some cases, staff even help to hide these crimes from parents and law enforcement. an undercover operation revealed that a disturbing 91% of planned parenthood employees agreed to help conceal an instance of statutory rape when a caller posing as a 13-year-old girl indicated she wanted to conceal a relationship with a

22-year-old boyfriend by getting an abortion. this too often means that children seeking abortions are left alone, invullable, when -- invulnerable, when making a very difficult decision. my bill, the parental notification and intervention act, would combat the troubling trend which cuts parents out of medical decision-making. the bill prohibits an abortion provider from performing an abortion on an unemancipated child without written notification to parents. this creates legal protections for parents and ensures that children are not left alone or unsupported when making difficult medical decisions with

long-lasting consequences. as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on judiciary be discharged from further consideration of s. 294 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. further, i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? ms. hirono: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: mr. president, reserving the right to object, the majority of the minors who become pregnant tell their parents about the pregnancy even when they plan to seek an abortion. but it's not always possible or even advisable that a parent be informed. for some minors, telling their parents that they are sexually

active, let alone pregnant, can lead to physical abuse. it can lead to these minors being thrown out of their homes. one study found that 45% of young people who did not seek advice from their parents about a pregnancy experienced significant negative consequences, such as punishment, abuse, being forced out of their home when their parents found out. by requiring that parents of minors seeking an abortion be notified and setting the bar for an exception to this rule at a nearly insurmountable level, this bill ignores this reality of what might happen to these young people. in doing so, it turns an already difficult decision for a young person into an almost impossible one. it puts minors' health and safety at risk while doing nothing to strengthen families. this is made clear by the fact

that all of the major medical organizations, including the american medical association, the american academy of pediatrics, the society for adolescent medicine, the american college of obstetricians and gynecologists, and the american public health association -- all of these groups oppose laws like this one that mandate parental involvement in minors' abortion decisions. so let's be clear. this is yet another partisan -- mainly partisan attack on a woman's constitutionally protected right to choose. it is completely unnecessary and distracts from the important work the senate is doing right now to deliver urgently needed covid relief. for these reasons, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard.

all postcloture time has expired. the question is on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote: vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 95, the nays are 4. the nomination is confirmed. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. now, i ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor, say aye. those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. schumer: mr. president, i understand that there are two bills at the desk and i ask for their first reading en bloc. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the titles of the bills for the first time. the clerk: h.r. 5, an act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity and sexual orientation and for other purposes. h.r. 1319, an act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title 2 of s. con. res. 5. mr. schumer: i now ask for a second reading and i object to my own request, all en bloc. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bills will receive their second reading on the next legislative day. mr. schumer: i move to adjourn until 7:08 -- 7:09 p.m. today.

the presiding officer: question is on the motion. all those in favor, say aye. those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the senate stands adjourned until 7:09 p.m. today. you are watching cspan2 your unfiltered view of government. cspan2 is treated by cable-television come and today were brought to by these television companies who provide cspan2 to viewers as a public service. ♪ ♪ event tomorrow the senate is expected to work on the house passed $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief bill.

this afternoon group of republican senators came to the floor to explain their opposition to the bill. here is a look at what they had to stay starting with senator shelley capitol of westth virginia. >> it west virginia. thank you, mr. president. today i rise to speak on a couple of topics. the first i want to take this opportunity toni thank really icon in our stapler that is west virginia state senate pro tem for a bully. she is a good friend of mine she's now in her tenth term. she is the longest. d.c., march 2, 2021 is under the provisions of standing rules of the senate, i herein appoint the honorable john where hickenlooper, a senator from the state of colorado, to perform the duties of the chair. signed patrick leahy, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of

proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the senate be in a period of morning business were senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i understand there are two bills at the desk due for a second reading en bloc. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the titles of the bills for the second time. the clerk: h.r. 5, an act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity and for other purposes. an act to provide for reconciliation purr unit student to title 2 of s. con. res. 5. mr. schumer: in order to place the bills on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i would object to further proceedings en bloc. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bills will be placed on the calendar. mr. schumer: mr. president, i

ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 12:00 noon on wednesday, march 3. further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the senate be in a period of morning business with with senas permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: if there is to further business do to come before the senate i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate? senate? today the senate confirmed to be commerce secretary by vote of 84 -- 15. another of president biden's cabinet post for the also confirm cecelia routes to be the chair of the white house council of economic advisers. tomorrow the senate is expected to begin work on

$1.9 trillion coronavirus relief bill. live of the senate when they return here in cspan2. >> you're watching c-span's to your unfiltered view of government. cspan2 is crated by america's cable television companies and today were brought to by these television companies who provide cspan2 to viewers as a public service. ♪ ♪ >> tomorrow the senate is expected to work on the house passed a $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief bill. this afternoon a group of republican senators came to the floor to explain their opposition to the bill. here's a look at what they had to stay starting with senator shelley capitol of west virginia. west virginia. >> vegaco mr. president. today i