vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 42, the nays are 58. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion to waive all applicable budgetary discipline with respect to the senator from vermont's amendment number 972 is not agreed to. the point of order is sustained, and the amendment falls. mr. schumer: mr. president.

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: mr. president, the agreement that's been reached will allow us to move forward with the american rescue plan and voting will resume shortly. senate democrats are completely united in our belief about how important this entire bill is for our fellow americans. for getting the vaccine to our people. for reopening our schools. for keeping american workers, families, and businesses afloat. and for putting our country on the road to a strong recovery. now that this agreement has been reached, we are going to power through the rest of the process and get this bill done. make no mistake, we are going to continue working until we get the job done. i yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: parliamentary inquiry. at what time did the previous vote on the sanders amendment begin? the presiding officer: the vote began at 11:03 a.m.

mr. mcconnell: how much total time elapsed here on the floor vote on the senator's amendment? the presiding officer: 11 hours and 50 minutes. mr. mcconnell: well, my goodness. that has been quite a start, quite a start to this fast-tack process. they were in a big hurry. we started voting on the first amendment, as the parliamentarian said, right after 11:00 a.m. the democratic leader held the vote open all day so they could try to figure out what was going on with their own legislation that they want to pass only with their votes. now, the last time we had a long string of amendment votes, just a couple of weeks ago, we considered about 40 amendments. so if you multiply 11 hours of scrambling times 40 amendments,

you'd land at about 440 hours. that's about 18 days with zero breaks. so look, the whole idea behind this, i gather from listening to them over the last few weeks, was to use the crisis to jam through what the white house chief of staff called the most progressive domestic legislation in a generation, a little tougher than they thought it was going to be, isn't it? it turns out to be a little bit tougher. well, what this proves is there are benefits to bipartisanship when you're dealing with an issue of this magnitude. we all remember that we did this five times last year. we did it together. i think there were no more than eight votes against any of these proposals. we spent about $4 trillion on

pandemic relief. everyone passed, as i said, with 90 or more votes. not a single spectacle like today, not one. exactly one year ago, instead of partisan scrambling, we were humming with bipartisan work, working on it together. we had a bipartisan task force, building the cares act from the bottom up. we passed the bill 96-0. we were prepared to do yet another bill on a bipartisan basis. several of our members went down to the white house, sat down with the president, laid out a proposal we thought made sense, given where we were now, but no, they wanted to do it the hard way. they wanted to do it the hard way.

so now they want to begin the vote-a-rama that could have been done at daylight because of their own confusion. and the challenges of getting together 50 people to agree on something when they could have been doing it quicker on a bipartisan basis. so rather than start the voting at five minutes to 11:00, i move to adjourn until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow and ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

mr. leahy: will the senate please come to order so the clerk can be heard. continue.

vote:

the president pro tempore: are there other senators wishing to vote?

the president pro tempore: are there other senators wishing to vote?

vote:

the president pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 49, the nays are 50. the motion is not agreed to. the senator from ohio. mr. portman: i call up my amendment -- the president pro tempore: the senator will withhold. could we have order. could we have order so the senator can be heard? mr. portman: i call up my amendment number 1092 and ask

that it be reported by number. the president pro tempore: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from ohio, mr. portman, for himself and others, proposes an amendment numbered 1092 to amendment numbered 891. mr. portman: i ask that there be six minutes of debate equally divided. the president pro tempore: is there objection? hearing none. so ordered. mr. portman: everybody around here agrees that the u.s. economy is getting better. there is no argument about that. and that workers are needed. and yet, in this massive partisan spending bill, a lot of which is not even about covid-19, democrats are insisting on a substantial increase to the already extraordinary federal government add-on to state unemployment payments, making it harder to get people who can go back to work. just this morning, we learned that the economy added 379,000 jobs in february and the unemployment rate dropped to 6.2%. the nonpartisan congressional budget office and the consensus of economists is that unemployment will continue to trend lower. it underscores what c.b.o. has

said recently, which is that without any additional stimulus, the economy will recover to pre-pandemic levels by midyear, this year. that's june 30. not in september as the democrats' approach would suggest. look at your own states. employers are looking to hire people. help wanted signs are up. as the economy starts to improve, we want to get people back to work. adding to the good news, president biden now tells us that vaccines will be available for all who want them by the end of may. that further kick-starts the economy. despite the better news, as we understand it, the democrat approach actually extends the generous federal supplement currently in place until september 6. by the way, even little beyond what's in the $1.9 trillion underlying bill. and i am just told that it has a $31 billion tax increase. that affects the so-called pass-throughs. that is primarily small businesses, to pay for a proposal to pay people more who

are on unemployment insurance. the democrats' proposal makes it even more advantageous to be on unemployment by changing retroactively a long-standing policy that says u.i. benefits are taxed as income. they make up to 10,000 bucks in benefits tax free, even if you have paid up to $150,000 a year. remember that at 600 bucks a week, federal supplement, which is what it was for a lot of last year when this would apply, about 70% of workers on u.i. made more than they would have at their jobs. even at $30,000 a week, 80% of workers are making more on u.i. than at their jobs. think of the truck driver makind you have to pay your taxes, but those who aren't working not only get the u.i. benefits, but now for the first time ever, some of that income is actually going to be tax free. so you have to pay your taxes, but they don't. that's not fair. the underlying bill in the

democrats' alternative are going to hurt the effort to get people back to work. our amendment would exend u.i. benefits in a responsible manner. at the current law level at $300 per week through july 18. according to c.b.o., this would save over $90 billion in outlays. and actually raises $600 million in revenue. why? because people will be working. that's a good thing. we should want that. i urge my colleagues to oppose unnecessarily lengthening the time of the federal u.i. supplement, making it even more advantageous to being on unemployment and slowing the job creation we all want. our amendment strikes the right balance. it helps those who truly need it, promotes better stewardship of our taxpayer dollars, and it encourages those who can return to work to do so. i urge its adoption. mr. wyden: madam president,

yesterday, the senate learned that there were 745,000 new unemployment claims, higher than the worse week of the great recession. yet, the portman amendment is a double whammy on workers. a much faster cutoff of benefits and absolutely no help with the nasty tax surprise millions of working families will find when they file their taxes in the next few weeks. for example, if you have been laid off from your job through no fault of your own and you are struggling to make ends meet, you do not have a thousand dollars to pay a surprise tax bill. and the party that claims to be for tax relief for working

families offers you absolutely nothing. the pandemic and senate republicans are pushing working families deeper into an economic hole. we have an alternative that doesn't hang working families out to dry, and we will be offering it shortly. working families deserve better than the portman amendment. don't shortchange those working families tonight, and i urge opposition to this very flawed amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. 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 50, the nays are 49. the portman amendment is not agreed to. the portman amendment is agreed to. ms. collins: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maine is recognized. ms. collins: mr. president, i call up my amendment numbered 1242 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report by number. the clerk: the senator from maine, ms. collins, for herself and others proposes an amendment numbered 1242 to amendment numbered 891. ms. collins: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent for two minutes of debate equally divided. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the senator will proceed. ms. collins: this amendment provides $650 billion of immediate relief to those americans who need it most.

it's focused on the covid crisis before us, not on future unrelated spending priorities. the amendment provides $160 billion to bolster vaccine production and delivery as well as testing and much-needed support for health care providers. it includes $1,400 checks for lower- and middle-income americans and extends unemployment insurance. it targets money to reopen schools, something that needs to happen as soon as possible. and to expand access to child care. it has funding for substance abuse programs to combat the opioid epidemic that has worsened. mr. president, this amendment would save tax dollars. it would save taxpayers more than $1.2 trillion while meeting immediate needs.

the emergency we're facing should not be an excuse for funding partisan priorities. instead -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. ms. collins: -- just as we have on the five previous bipartisan bills. the presiding officer: who yields time? a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont is recognized for two minutes -- for one minute. mr. sanders: given the unprecedented series of crises this country now faces, the republican amendment simply does not accomplish what the american people need or what they want. our bill would substantially expand the child tax credit and cut child poverty in this country in half. our bill provides a full $1,400 direct payment to every working-class adult and their kids. under the collins amendment, if you are a single parent earning $50,000, you get zero, nothing

at all, while millions of children would receive just $500 instead of the full $1 serks 400 payment. our bill provides $130 billion to public schools, so our kids can get back to school and get back safely. the republican alternative does not. our plan provides $40 billion to colleges and universities, which have already lost 650,000 jobs -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. sanders: the republican amendment simply does not do what the american people need right now. i ask for a no vote. -- oh, i got to raise a point of order here. i'm sorry. mr. president, i raise a point of order that the pending amendment reduces budgetary changes to the non-budgetary components of the amendment. therefore it violates section of the congressional budget act of 1974. ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

senator from maine is recognized. ms. collins: i move to waive and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there is a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 48, the nays are 51. three-fifths of the senator duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to, the point of order is sustained, and the amendment falls. mr. scott: mr. president. the presiding officer: senator scott is recognized. mr. scott: i call up my amendment 1030 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment by number. the clerk: the senator from south carolina, mr. scott, for himself and mr. barrasso proposes amendment numbered 1030 to amendment numbered 891. mr. scott: i ask unanimous consent for two minutes of debate equally divided.

the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. senator scott will proceed. mr. scott: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order to hear the senator from south carolina. mr. scott: thank you, mr. president. i have been doing some research as the ranking member of the aging committee. as of last month, 40% of covid-related deaths in this country were residents or staff of long-term care facilities. lawmakers are charged with the responsibility of protecting the most vulnerable populations in our country, and those numbers represent absolute failure. some states have underreported deaths in nursing homes, and some public officials made this move intentionally, a clear effort to deceive their populations into thinking the situation was not as dire. inaccurate information affects life-and-death decisions for communities. requiring states to provide accurate data is common sense

for anyone who believes, as i do, that we should have a science-based, fact-driven response to the pandemic. we should not offer more funding to states that have mismanaged and then covered up their pandemic response. it makes no sense. the presiding officer: the senator's time is expired. mr. scott: i urge my colleagues to do the right thing and vote in favor of this amendment. the presiding officer: who rises in opposition? mr. wyden: mr. president, i do. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon is recognized for one minute. mr. wyden: friends and colleagues, the number of covid-19 deaths among nursing home residents and staff is tragic. that is why president biden and democrats' plan prevents -- it goes forward with an investment in preventing nursing home inspections and deaths, including more p.p.e., strike teams to address infections, testing contact tracing, and more. we take a back seat to no one when it comes to timely and accurate reporting of covid-19 cases, and deaths will continue

to ensure such reporting. however, it would be a grave mistake to hold hostage the sadly needed support for strike teams to ensure residents and employees' safety in nursing home facilities. these funds are essential to helping ensure the safety of seniors and staff that are at the front lines of the covid-19 pandemic. this amendment, colleagues, is punitive, and it doesn't further the goal of transparency. it would hurt the very people we seek to protect. i urge a no vote on this amendment. i urge my colleagues to do the same. mr. scott: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to have 30 seconds to respond. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. scott: thank you, mr. president. i would simply say what my amendment does is say you can't lie about the numbers, bottom line. it simply says that it is very important for us to have accurate information about the deaths in nursing homes. the more accurate the information, the more likely we

are to have the best response. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon is recognized for 30 seconds. without objection. mr. wyden: mr. president, on this side of the aisle, we have led the fight for transparency with respect to the kind of information my colleague is talking about. that's not what this amendment is about. this amendment is about making sure that president biden and democrats can make necessary investments in these strike teams that are going to ensure more safety in these long-term care facilities. i urge a no vote. mr. scott: i ask for ten seconds to respond to my good friend. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. scott: i will just simply say that even president biden himself has suggested investigations are warranted into this issue. the presiding officer: all time is expired. the question is on the amendment. mr. scott: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: there appears to be a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote? if not, the yeas are 49, the nays are 50. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. wyden: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon is recognized. mr. wyden: i call up amendment 1378 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the senator will report the amendment by number. the clerk: the senator from oregon, mr. wyden, proposes an amendment numbered 1378 to amendment numbered 891. mr. wyden: mr. president, i ask for unanimous consent for six minutes evenly divided to

discuss this amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. so ordered. the senator from oregon is recognized. mr. wyden: mr. president, on this side, our goal has been to secure the strongest possible protections for jobless americans that could pass the senate. this amendment has two essential features that make it far better for working families than the portman amendment. it ensures that millions of working families get their benefits at least through september 6. it protects unemployed workers from being hit with a big surprise-packed bill with no way to pay for it. republicans have been standing in lockstep against tax relief for americans with a few hundred dollars in the bank after demanding billions in write-offs for wealthy investors. on the other hand, democrats have led the effort to add hundreds of dollars in weekly benefits and covering gig workers and the self-employed. this is the boldest action the

congress has ever taken, ever taken to support jobless americans during an economic crisis, and at every stage, democrats proposed that help for working families, senate republicans opposed it. this goes back, colleagues, to the cares act when republicans had just one amendment. that was to gut the jobless protections. finally, the whole process underscores the need to stop jumping from one economic cliff to another. there would be no need to predict the level of economic support needed six months from now if benefits were tailored to match economic conditions. we look forward to discussing this idea of triggers for economic support with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but tonight it is vital as the pandemic continues that the senate pass this amendment, an economic lifeline