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 for americans who would strongly prefer to be back at work instead of attacking americans as lazy individuals who don't want to work, these are responsible adults with a strong work ethic who will help us build back better in the days to come. i strongly urge support for our amendment, and i yield. the presiding officer: who yields time? mr. portman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio is recognized. mr. portman: the republicans have offered a very generous unemployment system, including $300 per week, as is the current law. after march 15 when it otherwise would expire. and taking it to july 18. now, there is nobody in this chamber that doesn't see that the economy is improving. and the congressional budget office, which is a nonpartisan group here, has hold us that by the middle of the year we're going to be back to the prepandemic level according to our economy.

every economist says that unemployment is going down. my colleague from oregon said that claims were higher last week in terms of unemployment. the four-week average is actually down considerable bring. so let me tell you what happened today because i just looked it up. new york opened its movie theaters, virginia announced it is opening their schools. west virginia opened its bars, all businesses. connecticut, indoor dining. this is happening every day. the economy is getting better. and everybody says, including by the way larry summers, treasure secretary under president obama, that when you look at what happens with regard to unemployment insurance, if it's too high, it is a disincentive to work. i don't think larry summers is saying people are layscy. i think what he's saying is that you want to have a system that is where you encourage people to work. there are so many employers in our states who are looking for people right now. that's going to continue to happen as we open up more.

so, look ... our unemployment provision is very reasonable. it's very generous, taking it through july 18. they are taking their through september 6. they're adding a new element that's never been in unemployment before. where you don't have to pay taxes. but if you're working, do you have to pay taxes. how does that make sense? don't we want to encourage people to work? i think we d i hope my colleagues will vote down in amendment and continue to especially could the portman amendment in place which passedd this chamber only about an hour and a half ago. mr. wyden: mr. president, i'm going ask for 15 -- the presiding officer: senator wyden has 45 seconds remaining. mr. wyden: first of all, with respect to the facts about unemployment, every week, every week since last march, unemployment claims have been higher than the worst week of the great recession. and the fact is we've got

millions of americans who every single week are walking an economic tightrope. they're balancing the food bill against the fuel bill handle fuel bill against the rent bill and we want to give them a modest amount of tax relief for the typical working person and the party that claims to with aens to help workers on their taxes won't lift a finger. that's why it's so important this amendment pass. i yield. mr. portman: unanimous consent for 15 he could seconds to respond and then i'll stop. the presiding officer: the senator has time remaining. mr. portman: so, number one, the four-week average on unemployment claims are actually going the right way. why? because the economy is opening up, folks. if you don't see that, you're not going hope and -- home and talking to your employers. we have a situation here where the republicans are saying, we want to continue the $300 per week after march 15. but let's edit an july 18.

if things turn down -- which no one is predicting -- i know a the love us would be willing to work with the other side of the aisle to extend. but there is no reason to do that at this point. with regard to your tax cut, it is a tax increase on small businesses. the presiding officer: all time has expired. question is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change his or her vote? if not, the yeas are 50, the nays a 49. the amendment is agreed to. the senate will be in order. the senator from florida is recognized. mr. rubio: i call up my amendment 1026 and ask it be reported by number. the clerk: the senator from florida, mr. rubio, proposes amendment numbered 1026. mr. rubio: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent for two minutes of debate equally divided. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. rubio: i think we can all agree that we have kids in america that need to be in school, that haven't been in school for over a year now in some cases. the science is clear that you can open up schools safely. now, i know different districts have different challenges about opening up, and this bill provides money for everybody to open up. we don't want to change that. the presiding officer: the senator will suspend. senators will refrain from conversations on the floor.

the senator is recognized. mr. rubio: we want to help every district. so under my amendment, every district would get money. but -- but, the more days of the week you're open, the more money you will get, which makes all the sense in the world. if you are going to open four days a week, you shouldn't have as much money has a district that will open five days a week. the purpose of the money is so schools can fund the cost of opening safely. all this amendment tries to do is create an incentive for these districts to open up more days, because we do have unions, and to be fair, but not all, but we do have unions that say we're not going back until next year, even if a all the measures are put in place. we have seen now a surge in mental health problems with young people showing up at hospitals cross the country it's a terrible situation, not to mention the year of lost learning. so this amendment incentivizes us to get our kids back in school. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: the senate is not in order.

the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. the only way to safely reopen schools for in-person learning and keep them open is to provide the $125 billion that is included in the american rescue plan act for our k-12 schools. this federal funding will support schools in implementing safety protocols aligned with local public health guidance in order to safely reopen, stay open, and help students with learning recovery. our goal is clear, and let me make something else clear. the amendment offered today to conditioning funds on forced school reopening is simply a political show that will actually further disadvantage schools that have already suffered the most. if we only provide funding to schools that are physically open -- and, mr. president, the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. the senate is not in order.

the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. if we only provide funding to schools that are physically open, schools in communities with high rates of covid-19 can't receive the money they need to implement health safety protocols. but they will feel the pressure to reopen even if it is not safe. so conditioning funds actually undermines our ability to get students about a being in the classroom safely. let's prioritize student learning, safe in-person learning is paramount. let's pass this plan and get the schools the funds they need. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change his or her vote? the yeas are 48, the nays are 51. the amendment is not agreed to. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senator from new hampshire. ms. hassan: i call up an amendment adds ask that it be reported by number. the clerk: the senator from ms. hassan proposes an amendment numbered 1344 to amendment number 891. ms. hassan: and, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent for two minutes equally divided. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. hassan: mr. president, i

believe that every single member of this body agrees that remote learning is taking an enormous toll on our students, teachers, and our students' families and that we need to safely get students back into the classroom. this amendment would ensure that educational agencies receiving relief funds will within 30 days develop and make publicly available a plan for the safe return to in-person instruction. i urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting in commonsense amendment to support an objective we all share -- getting our students safely back in their classrooms. mr. blunt: mr. president, last year congress provided nearly $68 billion in emergency funding for schools, about ten percent of that has been used. this bill provides another $126 billion, with no requirement that we get kids back to school. we know they need to be back in school. i think this amendment actually,

if applied, almost ensures we won't get back to school this year. 30 days to come up with a plan. public comment on that plan. it's the middle of march before anybody even begins to make -- have the 30 days to make that plan. we need to get kids about a being to school. the unusual times understands that. -- "the new york times" understands that. many states are saying the suicide rates, the emergency room, mental health concerns demand that the kids get back to school. and not next year. they get back to school as quickly as they can this year. i think this amendment, while i'm sure offered in good intention, works against that, not for it. and i'd urge a no vote on the amendment. the presiding officer: question is on the amendment. ms. hassan: i 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:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change his or her vote? if not, the yea, are 51. the nays are 48. the amendment is agreed to.

mr. graham: mr. president, i'd like to call amendment 1369 as modified and ask that it be reported by number and that senator hagerty be added as a cosponsor. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina is recognized. the clerk will report the amendment by the number as modified. the clerk: senator from south carolina approaches amendment for himself and others approaches amendment number 1369 to amendment number 891. frame frame i ask for two -- mr. graham: i ask for two minutes equally divided. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. graham: there was a time when we worked together and passed a relief bill 96-0. what happened? you all got it all now. so here's what i want you to know. that cares formula, that bill we passed had an allocation for state and local funding that's been changed by our democratic

friends and the biggest winners are new york and california. so the formula they're using now, new york and california wins big. you need to check what you're doing because you're giving a lot of money to new york and california because they can do it. this is a big state bailout. you need to check and explain to people back in your state why they need more money than you do. you're rewarding people who have closed down the economy, won't reopen so i'm asking to go back to the bipartisan formula, reject this partisan formula that rewards democratic blue states at the expense of most everybody else in this building. so if you don't know how your state is doing, we know how your state is doing and you'll hear about it. mr. whitehouse: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: nobody on our

side likes this amendment. and we urge a no vote. it would tie the hands of local and state government. it would make it more difficult to rehire. it would interfere with the recovery in our capital city. so if we could all have a resounding no vote on the gramm amendment -- graham amendment, i would appreciate it. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change his or her vote? if not, the yeas are 48. the nays are 51. the amendment is not agreed to. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. a senator: thank you, mr. president. i would like to call up amendment 1197 and ask it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from montana mr. tester proposes amendment numbered 1197 to amendment number 891. mr. tester: i would ask unanimous consent for four minutes of debate equally divided. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: senator hoarve rch will -- hoeven will speak for a minute. ly speak for a minute and be asked that i be notified when i run out of my minute. mr. president, this is the most important vote of the night. it's 2:41. so pay attention here. the keystone pipeline would create good-paying jobs and bring much needed revenue in rural counties in eastern montana. these counties have been hit

hard by the pandemic and also hard hit by trade wars that have impacted our agriculture community so they need the tax base. and this xl pipeline would give them the tax base. look, there's no doubt the pipeline needs to be built responsibly with american steel, the highest safety standards, respect private property rights and includes significant consultation with native american tribes but the fact is we have many pipelines that go across the border between canada and the united states. this is just one. i would ask you to support this amendment. senator hoeven. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: i would like to thank the senator from montana for offering this amendment and speak strongly in support of the amendment. in 2015 senate bill 1 authorized the keystone pipeline. so we voted on this before and we have approved it. we need to do it again. look, whether you're for traditional sources of energy or renewable sources of energy or both, we need the infrastructure to move it around the country as safely as possible and in an

environmentally sound way on a dependable basis. that means we need transmission lines and we need pipelines. let's come together. let's continue to build our energy future not to mention the 11,000-plus jobs directly involved in working on this pipeline but for energy independence and energy security, for our country, for good-paying jobs, energy is foundational to everything we do in our economy. let's support this amendment. i yield back to senator tester. mr. tester: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that senator manchin be added to this amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: mr. president biden is right. he canceled the key stone pipeline because he is listening to the scientists and what the scientists are telling us is that we have a small number of years, five, six, seven years before this country and this

world face irreparable -- i underline the word irreparable harm because of climate change. my friends here talk about creating jobs. well, we all want to create jobs. you know where the jobs are? the jobs are in energy efficiency. the jobs are in sustainable energy. that's where the jobs of the future are. and if we love our kids and if we love our grandchildren and if we want to leave them a country and a planet that is healthy and is habitable, yes, this country is going to have to lead the world, work with the world in transforming our energy system away from fossil fuel. and i urge opposition to this amendment. mr. president, i raise a point of order. that the pending amendment is not germane and therefore violates section 305-b-2 of the congressional budget act of 1974. mr. tester: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: in accordance with

section 954 of the congressional budget act of 1974, and the waiver provisions of all applicable budget resolutions, i move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions for the purpose of amendment number 1197 and i would 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:

the presiding officer: have all voted to wish? anyone wish to change their vote? not, the yeas are 51 is the nays are 48. three fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the point of order is sustained and the amendment fails. a senator: i call up my amendment number 1161. the clerk: the senator from louisiana, mr. cassidy, proposes an amendment numbered 1161 to amendment number 891. mr. cassidy: i ask unanimous consent for two minutes of debate equally divided.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cassidy: on a bipartisan basis, the december covid relief bill included emergency assistance to private and parochial schools, reimpiousing for things such as disinfectants, technology, and p.p.e. guidelines prioritized schools serving low-income students. the current bill has money for private and par parochial schools but incredibly does not allow reimbursement for covid-related expenses. in a covid relief bill. it does allow arbitrary guidelines restricting which schools are eligible. my amendment goes back to the bipartisan language agreed to in december, prioritizing schools with low-income students and addressing covid expenses. i urge colleagues to support these schools serving 10% of america's children, 7% of children in poverty, to support their families. please support this amendment.

i reserve the balance of my time. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i oppose this amendment. it would strike two important improvements we made to the program that funds private schools. first, republicans are critiquing this bill for not being targeted enough. this would remove funds to private schools that serve significant percentages of low-income students. the american rescue plan provides and additional $2.75 billion for services to private schools and the bottom line is federal funds shouldn't be spent at expensive private schools. instead, they should be targeted to low-income students at private schools like all our other education investments. the pandemic is disproportionately harming sunday students of colors. while these students are already much more likely to attend public schools, we need to make sure that those that do attend

private schools are prioritized as well. secondly, this amendment strikes the limitation we placed on the funds be used for reimbursements at private schools, permitted with the first round of funding with this program were in order to cover past expenses incurred by private schools. those expenses should be reimbursed by that first round. these additional funds are intended to provide services for private schools in the future. i ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment. mr. cassidy: how many seconds do i have lowest? the presiding officer: i'm so, the senator has no time remaining. mr. cassidy: unanimous consent for ten seconds, please. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cassidy: this is the exact same language that we used in december. it targets children with private schools. to say that you're going to restrict it further than that is merely a way to keep the kids from having it. 7% of kids in poverty go to private schools.

about 7% of this money will go to private kids. we should support the children. the presiding officer: question is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change his or her vote? if not, the yeas a 49,s nays are 50. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i have a motion to commit at the desk and i ask that it be reported. the presiding officer: the

clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from iowa, mr. grassley, moves to commit the bill h.r. 1319 to the committee on finance with instructions, to report the same back to the senate in three days, not counting any day on which the senate is not in session, with changes that, one, are within the jurisdiction of such committee and, two, include reforms to protect taxpayers from perpetually subsidizing private-sector pension plans by ensuring the long-term solvescy of the multiemployer pension system. mr. grassley: i ask unanimous consent two minutes evenly divided. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: this bill includes $86 billion, no had of strings bailout of multiemployer pension plans. it does not belong in the current package. it has nothing to do with covid. the bailout is not coupled with any reforms and consequently there won't be any long-term

sustained ability. so it's just a blank check with no measures to hold plans accountable. senator alexander and i spent the last congress working on responsible proposals to rescue and reform failing multiemployer pension plans. without reforms included, the president will be that -- the precedent will be that taxpayers will be the ultimate guaranteer of private employer pensions. in that case, the burden is on the taxpayer. it will be for the $86 billion and it's endless how much the taxpayers are going to have to pay. so please vote in favor of my motion to commit to consider reforms necessary to protect the taxpayers and ensure the long-term sustainability. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa -- ohio.

mr. brown: mr. president, every time banks need help, every time large corporate interests need help, this body rises to the occasion. but a bunch of workers, a bunch of small businesses, we're going to turn our backs? unions, chamber of commerce, small businesses, pretty much everyone agrees we need to get this done. i've listened to my colleagues for years extolling the value of hard work, the virtues of small businesses. this is your chance, my friends, to live up to your own words and help these workers. collective bargaining, they negotiate at the bargaining table. they gave up money today to put money in mentions for the future. if you support working americans, vote no on this amendment. let's pass a solution that actually honors the dignity of work. vote no. mr. grassley: do i have any time remaining? the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. question is on the motion. all those in favor, say aye.

a senator: i 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:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or -- if not, the yeas are 49, the nays are 50. the motion is not agreed to. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: i call up my amendment number 1010 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment by number. the presiding officer: the the clerk: the senator from pennsylvania, mr. toomey, proposes amendment numbered 1010 to amendment numbered 891. mr. toomey: i ask unanimous consent for two minutes of debate equally divided and that senator daines be added as a cosponsor. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. toomey: thank you, mr. president. my amendment would simply strike the section that provides such sums as may be necessary to make payments of 120% of outstanding debts to socially disadvantaged

farmers and ranchers. there are only two retirements to get this money. one is to have a usda farm loan -- and there is billions of dollars worth out there -- and the other is you must be a member of a favored racial or ethnic group, including african american, hispanic, asian americans and some others. there is no income test, no asset test. it doesn't matter whether you are rich or poor. you don't have to have experienced any harm of any kind whatsoever including from covid. you just have to be the right race. the senior senator from michigan called this provision an important piece of reparations. this bill is supposed to be about covid relief and helping the people who are adversely affected by the economics of the lockdown. instead we're handing out money based exclusively on race. this is unconstitutional, it's outrageous. my amendment strikes the provision, and i urge its adoption. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the

senator from georgia. mr. warnock: this provision has everything to do about covid-19 relief. the terrible thing about this pandemic is it has both illuminated and exacerbated long-standing disparities rooted in our racial past, and for too long, farmers of color have been left to fend for themselves, not getting the support they deserve from the usda, making it even more difficult for them to recover from this pandemic. we have an opportunity here to lift all of our rural communities by aiming the aid where it is needed given our historic past. which is very much present. and so i urge all of my colleagues to oppose this amendment, to strip these communities that have been forgotten by our government of the relief that they so desperately deserve. it will have an adverse effect on the very relief that we're trying to provide to all rural

communities. the presiding officer: all time is expired. the question is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. 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, and the amendment is not agreed to. a senator: mr. president.

the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: i call up my amendment and ask that it be reported by number. the clerk: the senator from nebraska, mrs. fischer, proposes an amendment numbered 9442 to amendment numbered 891. mrs. fischer: i ask unanimous consent for two minutes of debate equally divided. speaker pro tempore without objection. mrs. fischer: my amendment would fix a formula that benefits new york at the expense of other states. the bill provides $30 billion for transit on top of the nearly $40 billion congress already gave transit in the cares act and the december covid bill. i oppose the extreme funding, but my amendment at least fixes one troubling detail. the bill directs $26 billion in transit to urbanized areas but gives 30% of that to new york city, nearly double of what it would receive under the norm formula. by voting for this bill, my colleagues from states like

arizona, georgia, and west virginia will lose out on transit money to new york. the bill also has $2.2 billion for f.t.a. to allocate based on another new formula that just happens to reward the largest urban transit systems. my amendment would reinstate the regular formula. it will ensure transit money is at least distributed fairly instead of benefiting one or two cities, and i urge my colleagues to support it. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i oppose the amendment. don't believe the false arguments most of the funding goes to new york. in new jersey, they get the same treatment as everyone else. the alternative formula offered by the amendment is indefensible. one small city would get 2,400 times their annual transit budget. and think about the workers, think about the drivers and the clerks. put themselves dealing with the public every single day and the anxiety coming home at night about potentially having covid. the way we treat essential workers is -- is crucial in this

bill. if you care about workers, if you care about the dignity of work, vote no on this amendment. mrs. fischer: mr. president, do i have time? the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mrs. fischer: could i ask for 15 more seconds, please? the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. fischer: new york would receive 30% more under this new formula compared to the 18% they have now. for example, reno, nevada, would lose $2 million, and other cities like that lose as well under this new formula. mr. brown: mr. president, could i ask for 15 seconds also? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: the transit formula of the american rescue plan act is the exact same formula developed with republicans, some of that coming out of the banking, housing, and urban affairs committee for the relief bill we passed in december. it uses data, not politics, to allocate funds. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment.

is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not, the yeas are 49, the nays are 50. the amendment is not agreed to. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: i call up my amendment 1014 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment by number. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. paul, proposes amendment numbered 1014 to

amendment numbered 891. mr. paul: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent for two minutes of debate equally divided. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. paul: mr. president, the paycheck protection program was created to help small businesses. we should all agree that an organization with thousands of employees working in dozens of cities across the country is not a small business, but this bill has a provision that would extend small business assistance to these kinds of large organizations. that means that an organization operating in 100 cities across america with thousands of employees will get money that was really intended for small businesses. my amendment would remove this provision, and i urge a yes vote. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: mr. president, i oppose this amendment. this is a matter of basic fairness. when we passed the paycheck protection program, we included nonprofits. we didn't have the cost

estimates for all to -- c's. we added the c-6's during the omnibus. this adds the other c's other than c-4's with protection against lobbying activities. the standards are the same as they are for the other nonprofits. this is just a matter of fairness. let me just point out, according to -- the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. mr. cardin: according to information we have received from a johns hopkins university study, we have lost over a million jobs in the nonprofit sector as a result of covid-19. this bill is needed and we need to be fair to all the nonprofits. i urge all my colleagues to reject the amendment. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: