the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote? if not, the yeas are 47, the nays are 51, and the amendment is not agreed to. the senator from indiana. mr. young: i call up my amendment 1383 and ask that it be reported by number.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report by number. the clerk: the senator from indiana, mr. young, proposes an amendment numbered 1383 to amendment number 891. mr. young: i ask unanimous consent for two minutes of debate equally divided. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. young: mr. president, in february i met with the president of the united states along with nine of my colleagues. the objective here was to find middle ground on a targeted covid relief package focused on vaccine distribution and getting americans back to work and school as quickly as possible. instead we've been offered a bloated and wasted spending bill of which only 10% goes to covid-related needs. the covid crisis has exacerbated the drug epidemic with synthetic opioids being the primary driver

in overdose deaths. we know illegal narcotics are coming through our southern border at ports of entry. so my unobjectionable amendment simply increases funding for customs and border protection by $300 million for technology to detect fentanyl and other drugs of lower purity levels. now, this funding is more than offset by reducing funding from a provision granting 600 hours of paid leave to federal employees. 600 hours. that's 15 weeks of paid leave. so if an employee took every day of starting today, that would be june 18 and by the way, we are all supposed to be vaccinate by the end of may, according to the president. thank you. mr. van hollen: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. van hollen: mr. president, i share my colleague's interest in supporting the men and women

at customs and border protection, but this amendment does the opposite. in fact, what it does is strip them of critical emergency support to them and other frontline federal employees who are working to protect our country. in fact, 8,000 of the federal employees at c.b.p. have tested positive for covid-19, 27 have died. your amendment would strip away emergency medical leave for these men and women who are protecting us while keeping the provisions in the bill that provide a 100% tax credit to private employers to provide up to $511 a day in sick leave, a provision i support. so here you are targeting the men and women who are protecting our country at the border and other places by stripping them of their ability to take sick leave and keeping in the

provision that allows our private sector neighbors to provide sick leave. so this is, unfortunately, just aimed at undermining the folks who are helping protect this country on the front lines, and i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. mr. young: i ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds to respond. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. young: only in washington, d.c., and in the greater washington, d.c., area does it make sense to offer paid leave in a $1.9 trillion spending bill at 5:15 a.m. in the morning to last until after a pandemic is projected to be over. how wasteful could we be with our constituents' spending? vote for my amendment. mr. van hollen: i ask for 15 seconds, unanimous consent to respond. i would just point -- first,. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. van hollen: if we want to prevent the spread of the virus,

we have to make sure those who get it can stay home and not spread it to their colleagues around the country. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. mr. young: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. 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 47, the nays are 50, and the amendment is not agreed to. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mrs. capito: thank you, mr. president. i have a motion to commit at the desk and i ask it be reported. the presiding officer: the clerk

will report. the clerk: the senator from west virginia, mrs. capito, moves to commit the bill of h.r. 1319 to the finance with instructions. mrs. capito: i ask unanimous consent for two minutes of debate equally divided. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. capito: thank you, mr. president. you know, one of our top priorities will be the surface transportation reauthorization bill. our e.p.w. committee kicked off bipartisan efforts to meet our nation's transportation needs. every state needs the certainty of a long-term reauthorization plan to complete projects. paying for infrastructure is a difficult challenge. a status quo reauthorization bill would require at least $70 billion in new funding for the highway trust fund, which we all know falls short around we all want to make sure we make robust investments in our roads and bridges. the bill on the floor provides $350 billion in state and local on top of the $150 billion

provided in the cares act. this motion instructs the finance committee to convert some of that $350 billion to pay forward for a bipartisan afghanistan transportation reauthorization bill. funds would still go to our states and localities, but the dollars would be better spent on road and bridge projects that create a safer transportation system. i urge my colleagues to support the motion to commit. mr. wyden: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, to speak in opposition. the capito motion instructs the committee to do two things. the first is to dedicate funds to pay for bipartisan transportation legislation. the other is to cut the funding currently provided in our bill to provide relief to state and local governments. and i would like to say that the reason we oppose this is that this, colleagues, is a false

choice. if we're talking about major legislation to improve our infrastructure, including roads, bridges, airports, broad babd and more, -- broadband and more, count us in. in fact, i think one of the first areas we ought it to focus on after we finish this bill is infrastructure, but this does not have to be at the expense of relief to state and local governments many these two are not mutually exclusive, colleagues. we can do both. we can address infrastructure and help our state and local frawks that have been hammered by covid and a struggling economy. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. wienld wyden i -- wind wind i urge -- mr. wyden: i urge opposition to the capito motion. mrs. capito: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chambers wishing to vote or to change his

or her vote? if not, the yeas are 48, the nays are 50, and the motion is not agreed to. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. scott: i call up my amendment numbered 1395 and ask it be reported. the presiding officer: the clerk will report by number. the clerk: the senator from florida, mr. scott, proposes amendment 1395 to amendment 891. mr. scott: i request for two minutes of debate equally divided. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. scott: mr. president, there's no reason this bill should include funding for amtrak's northeast corridor that benefits very ewe americans. my amendment will strengthen many of the core missions of our military for the u.s. coast guard that includes search and rescue, cargo and personnel transport.

the american taxpayers have spent this mission to support the defense and security of this nation than to have this in massachusetts or new york. my amendment would have the coast guard go to the her cue lease program, which will strengthen our national defense and border security. i urge my colleagues to join me in support of this amendment. ms. cantwell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: mr. president, the sun is coming up in washington, d.c., and we have spent all night debating policy and questions to arrive at an amendment that is literally robbing peter to pay paul. this isn't the idea of a debate. the amtrak and north corridor system has basically had to reallocate resources. the 457 corridor, which is one

of the busiest in the nation has over 750,000 people on that system but because of covid, it has lost revenue, it has 97% loss of revenue and now they are making drastic cuts to employees, to services that could become permanent. this simply helps amtrak and our busiest corridors stay in business. we will address the coast guard needs in other legislation. i ask my colleagues to vote no. stop paying peter to -- stop robbing peter to pay paul. 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:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 47. the nays are 51.

the amendment is not agreed to. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: i have a motion to commit at the desk and i ask that it be reported. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: the senator from arkansas, mr. cotton, moves to commit the bill h.r. 1319 to the committee on finance with instructions. mr. cotton: i ask unanimous consent for two minutes of debate equally divided. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cotton: mr. president, my motion to commit is to send this bill back to the finance committee to adopt the commonsense rule that should have been in there from the beginning that we are not going to give bailout money to sanctuary states and sanctuary cities. now to whom are those states and cities giving sanctuary? criminal, gleel aliens -- illegal aliens. where is the sanctuary for their victims? why should cities and states that refuse to cooperate with

federal law enforcement receive federal bailouts? they should not. i stemb my time. -- i reserve my time. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: the immigration law system in america is broken and if we are going to get beyond slogans and bummer stickers and do something about the problems we face in america, we have to talk about comprehensive immigration reform. the amendment offered by the senator from arkansas brings back another one of the old arguments about sanctuary cities. let me tell you what the police chief of houston had to say before the senate judiciary committee. if we're to be tough on crime we must not forget that it begins with trust and cooperation in our communities. he went on to say, if we want to be effective and work to disrupt the drug cartels, we cannot afford to alienate broad spectrums of our community. asking local law enforcement

officers to become involved in immigration enforcement is counterproductive. vote no on the cotton amendment. the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: the immigration system is broken because the democratic party will not enforce our borders. you can see it with the biden border crisis now. we can stop federal bailout daughters from going to -- bailout money from going to cities an states. 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:

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 48, the nays are 50, and the motion is not agreed to.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: i call up my amendment 1342. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kansas, mr. moran, for himself and others proposes an amendment numbered 1324 to amendment 891. mr. moran: i ask for two minutes of debate, equally divided. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: my colleagues, i rise here at a request of many veteran service organizations an veterans across the country who have called for a long time for us to protect our military an veteran students and close the 9010 loophole. what was once a partisan discussion is becoming bipartisan, while this closes the 9010 hoop hole, we need to -- loophole, we need to mick

the changes in the correct way and make sure we put the policy back in the perspective of not politics but the right answer. i'm thankful to senators carper, lankford, working on this amendment with me and i thank chairman murray and ranking member burr and their staff for their help in crafting this amendment by providing a six-month delay, congress now has time to work together with our veteran service organizations, the high whyer education -- the higher education community on a bipartisan plan to provide the protection for the veterans an taxpayers alike. i ask that you work with us on a path forward this congress. i yield to the senator from connecticut. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: colleagues, this is a special amendment. this may be the only bipartisan amendment we'll have a chance to vote on today and the really

good news, it will be a voice vote. mr. president, for the past decade our nation's veterans service organizations have called on congress to protect our military and veteran services in something called the 90-10 hoop hole. congress heeds that call by harnessing market forces to ensure better occasional opportunities -- educational opportunities for millions of veterans, those veterans use their hard-earned benefits at a variety of of institutions in our states, including the type of schools that my father used in world war ii, using the original g.i. bill. some for-profit schools in this country do a good job in working with our veterans, preparing them for lives and careers, unfortunately, we've seen way too many who do not. what we want to do with this legislation is to make sure that the veterans are protected from

the bad actors and the for-profit sector at lieses like i.t.t. -- places like i.t.t. tech and corinthian. i understand the -- we understand the need to make sure that we get this right. i'm grateful to my colleagues, jerry moran, and i'm proud to join with him along with senators cassidy and lankford in a naughtful approach to -- thoughtful approach to a contentious issue. our amendment gives congress time to work together with our veteran service organizations on a bipartisan plan to strengthen these protections for our veterans and taxpayers. we enjoy you, invoight you all -- invite you all in joining us. mr. moran: i believe this amendment can pass by voice vote and that the amendments that follow this follow the same precedent. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. all in favor say aye.

all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. and the amendment is agreed to. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: i call up my amendment number 996 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from tennessee mrs. blackburn for herself and others proposes amendment 996 to amendment numbered 891. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent for four minutes of debate equally divided. the presiding officer: without objection.

mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam president. this amendment strikes an unfair hospital wage index earmark that would benefit just three states -- rhode island, new jersey, and delaware. it would give preferential treatment to them for the consideration of the area wage index. the benefit comes at the expense of poor americans that are living in rural areas and make the payout disparities between rural and urban hospitals worse than they already are. if you have rural hospitals in your state and you vote against this amendment, what you are doing is taking money from those hospitals, you are making these disparities worse. it is a $1 billion earmark. get that? a $1 billion earmark.

it has nothing to do with covid relief and does not belong in this bill. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. a senator: i ask for one minute of the two minutes. mr. menendez: this provision is providing fundamental fairness so that hospitals in every state of this country have the resources they need to hire the best, most qualified provider. years ago c.m.s. came up with an arbitrary formula that excluded a series of states from a payment policy intended to benefit all hospitals, so we're not competing for labor unfairly. a bipartisan policy that began under president bush continued through multiple administrations until the trump administration ended it without justification. making matters worse, our states were at the epicenter of

the covid crisis. this provision would simply provide parity and it would do so, unlike what the gentlelady is saying, without decreasing payments for any other state. this is the fairest way to provide parity that our states need and to be able to deal with the challenges of getting people at a time in which we need them the most. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. a senator: madam president, for one minute. knowing how much my colleagues love unelected bureaucrats, i want to make sure it's clear this was a unilaterally decision made to change the way hospitals are compensated. mr. whitehouse: the results, at least in my state, is that our hospitals are paid 25 cents per dollar less than the hospital right across the border in massachusetts, and 30 cents per

dollar less than the hospital right across the border 20 minutes down the road in connecticut. dr. barrasso and dr. cassidy can understand that a 25% hit in hospitals that close together, a 30% hit between hospitals that close together is ridiculous. my friends on the finance committee will remember me showing this graph to every health and human services witness who showed up --. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. whitehouse: -- and none could defend it. i ask your support on this. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: to respond to this, i think what you just heard from my colleague from rhode island is what happens with too much government interference into health care. that is what he is complaining about, as we have been up all night long working on this bill. there is nothing that makes new

jersey, rhode island, and delaware more special than the other states in this country. if you have rural hospitals, if you vote no on this amendment, you are making the disparities worse. and i would urge a yes vote on the amendment. a senator: madam president, i ask for 15 additional seconds. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: there is nothing that makes any other state in this country more special than our states. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. mrs. blackburn: yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 49 and the nays are 50. the amendment is not agreed to.

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: i have a parliamentary inquiry before i begin. parliamentary inquiry. on page 225, line 23, it appears that the 7-b disaster loan program allocates $460 million, but only $70 million is for the actual disaster loans. the other $390 million appears to be allocated for administrative costs of the program. could the clerk please read page 225 line 20 through page 226 line 2 to confirm the administrative costs for this program is $390 million and the grant program itself is only $70 million. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the section of the amendment.

the clerk: $460 million to carry out the disaster loan program authorized by section 7-b of the small business act 15usc-636-b of which $70 million shall be for such section and $350 million shall be for administrative expenses to carry out such program. mr. lankford: i call up my amendment 1031 and ask it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report by number. the clerk: the senator from oklahoma, mr. lankford, for himself and mr. daines proposes an amendment numbered 1031 to amendment numbered 891. mr. lankford: i ask unanimous consent for three minutes of debate equally divided. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lankford: madam president, millions of americans see a sonogram and they see a child. they count ten fingers, they count ten toes, they watch that

little girl in the womb suck her thumb. they see a child. science notes that the d.n.a. of that child in the womb is different than the d.n.a. of the mom and different than the d.n.a. of the dad. it is both confirmed by science that that is a baby and it is self-evident by just looking at her in the womb. that's a child. millions of americans see that. because we have such a divide in this nation where some people see every child as valuable and some people see only some children as valuable, because we've had that divide that's unresolved in our nation, we have for decades in every appropriations bill had the hyde amendment that did not force americans to have to pay for abortion procedures for the death of children. we've also had that in all five covid bills that we have agreed together on in the last 12

months. this partisan bill mysteriously the hyde amendments disappear. and suddenly now for the first time americans who profoundly believe that children have great value and should be protected will be compelled with their tax dollars to pay for the destruction of life. this simple state is that we should maintain hyde protections in this bill as we have the previous five covid bills. mrs. murray: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: madam president, it is frustrating but not at all surprising that in the middle of a pandemic, as we are working to get urgently needed relief to our families, to our small businesses and our communities across the country, some republicans would rather spend time launching political attacks on reproductive health. that is exactly what this

amendment is, an effort to expand restrictions on abortion that already make it harder for women who have low incomes, often women of color, to exercise the constitutionally guaranteed right to make their own health care choices. i oppos amendment because it is completely unnecessary it is a harmful attempt to distract us from the work we are on tonight. madam president, i raise a point of order that the pending amendment produces budgetary changes that are merely incidental to the nonbudgetary components and violates the congressional budget office of 1974. mr. lankford: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: we shouldn't be dealing with abortion funding. i would say pursuant of 904 of the congressional budget office, i move to waive 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:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 52, the nays are 47. three-fifths of the senators 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 fails. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: madam president, i call up my amendment number 969 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from texas, mr. cruz, proposes amendment numbered 969. mr. cruz: i ask unanimous consent for two minutes of debate equally divided. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cruz: madam president, we are facing an absolute crisis with our schools. today only 40% of schoolkids in america are attending in-person school five days a week. it has been a year since these covid lockdowns began. millions of schoolkids are falling behind, and it's falling disproportionately on low-income kids, on african american kids, on hispanic kids. this bill spends billions of

dollars on schools and doesn't require that they open. my amendment does something very simple. it says if a school is open, it gets the new money that is in this bill. but if the school is not open five days a week, then that money goes to the parents, up to $10,000 per child, so they can get their kids an education. we have single moms with kids trapped in schools that are not open, and this crisis, this body can do about. those kids, if they fall behind, the science and the data tells us that they will be behind potentially for the rest of their lives. we should come together in a bipartisan way to say we're going to open the schools and we're going to give hope and relief to the kids who are being left behind. mrs. murray: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: madam president, this is yet another amendment that conditions funding for our public schools under the guise of wanting in-person learning

when in reality, withholding this funding is counter to everyone's goal. but this amendment goes a step further. it strips much-needed funds from our public schools that want to reopen for in-person learning and safety protocols that are aligned with local public health guidance in order to create a voucher program. that's right, this amendment takes money from public schools that serve 90% of our students and sends those funds to private schools. it's unclear to me if our colleagues' goals are really about reopening public schools or just about advancing long-term ideological goals. if we only proil funding to -- provide funding to schools that are physically open, schools in communities with high transmission rates of covid-19 will not receive the resources necessary to implement safety health protocols. conditioning funds undermines our ability to actually get our students back into the classroom. let's stop wasting time and pass

the american rescue plan so those resources can get to our schools and our students. mr. cruz: 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 yeas are 49. the nays are 50. and the amendment is not agreed to. mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: may we have some order, please, madam president. the presiding officer: there will be order. mr. schumer: thank you. good morning. now it looks like we have about 14 amendments left and one or two of those may be voice voted. so i would ask that we all stay in our seats so we can expedite

the process. i would ask that we try to accomplish these votes in no more than ten minutes so that we can move forward. and i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. a senator: i call up my amendment 1364 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report by number. the clerk: the senator from utah mr. romney proposes amendment numbered 1364 to amendment numbered 891. mr. romney: i ask unanimous consent for four minutes of debate equally divided. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. romney: madam president, i actually believe that we make better legislation if we have two parties work together on something. in this case we've crafted a piece of legislation that our party hasn't had any involvement in whatsoever. we tried. we went to the white house and the president was very gracious and welcoming us and listening to us, but did not accept any of our proposals. and so we have before us today a

piece of legislation that has the benefit only of one party. there's somer errors in that and things we have to look and try to fix. one is regard with states and localities. at the time the president put his bill out there, there was an assumption states had massive losses associated with the covid experience but the data that has come out since then shows the states did not have those kinds of losses. many states did not. 21 states are seeing a rise in revenue. states like florida don't need more money. oklahoma doesn't need more money. my state of utah doesn't need more money. california has record surpluses. billions of dollars in surplus. and yet under this legislation california itself at the state level gets $26 billion more. and in total with its localities, it gets $41 billion. this is on top of their already surplus year. think about that. we're going to be asking the american people to allow us to

borrow money from china and others, pass that on to our kids and grandkids so that we can send money to states like california and mine and others that don't need the money. this doesn't make any sense at all. so my amendment doesn't a very simple thing. it says look, you can spend all the money that the president's plan suggests in the way they suggested it but each state's amount is limited by the amount of their revenue loss, meaning the gap that they had from 2019 to 20 and 2021 as well as any covid experiences -- expenses as well as any medicaid expenses that grew. so just limit it by how much they need it. that's all it does. so i ask that people on both sides of the aisle just get behind this so we can save possibly at least $100 billion to keep money from going to states and localities that don't actually need it. thank you, madam president. a senator: madam president?

the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: i rise in opposition to the romney amendment. first, colleagues, this amendment would be a drastic cut to the relief in the bill. and specifically it would limit the number of firefighters, municipal workers and teachers who would actually get their jobs back in the coming weeks and months. second, the amendment doesn't take into account the full impact the pandemic has had on state budgets and the cost that they are going -- costs that they are going to continue to incur in the months ahead. our view is this is just the wrong time to start in hack be away at state and local funding because the job losses are stacking up and as we have heard again and again from independent

economists, those losses are going to continue if the senate doesn't go big as this bill does. saving jobs and rehiring laid off workers is what this portion of the bill is all about. so, colleagues, i would strongly urge a no vote on the romney amendment and i yield. mr. romney: madam president, may i respond. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. objection. mr. romney: first of all those states i described didn't laypeople off. they didn't lay off firefighters. they didn't lay off teachers. they've held their teachers. they've held their firefighters. my state has paid bonuses to teachers and state workers they have so much money coming in. the pandemic did not hit all the states in the same way. so states that need more money, give them more money. i'm happy to do that. but states like mine and florida and oklahoma, texas, california, they don't need more money. why are we borrowing more money

and sending on the burden of debt and interest payments to our kids and grandkids to send money to states that don't need it? by the way, we're talking about states that don't have deficits. they have surpluses. and all of their covid expenses would be reimbursed under the poem that i make. there's no covid expense that is not reimbursed. mr. wyden: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: could i have 30 seconds to briefly respond. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: first of all, we can't even really determine the formula that is used under the romney amendment. it's clear to us there are going to be costs to states as a result of this legislation. colleagues, the reality is the pandemic is a public health nightmare. and this provision is designed to specifically address the challenge of making sure that firefighters, municipal workers, and others who are responding

day in and day out at risk to themselves are going to be able to get their jobs back in the coming weeks and months. and the fact is this amendment is going to reduce the money that the states have to address these critical needs. i urge colleagues to vote no. mr. romney: i believe i have ten more seconds, madam president. the presiding officer: the senator does not have ten more seconds. mr. romney: all right. i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there 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 49. the nays are 50. and the amendment is not agreed to. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. tuberville: madam president, i call up my amendment number 1386 and ask it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report by the number. the clerk: the senator from alabama mr. tuberville proposes an amendment numbered 1386 to amendment numbered 891. mr. tuberville: madam president, i ask unanimous consent for two minutes evenly divided. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tuberville: madam president, i started my career coaching high school football girls and boys basketball 45 years ago. just a few years after title 9 was enacted, it ensured young women had the same opportunities as young men and the same access to funding, facilities, and

athletic scholarships. title 9 has given women the long denied platform that has always been afforded to men. today america's female athletes are routinely the best performing on the world stage. my amendment cosponsored by senators graham and marshall recognize its roll in protecting women in education and sports. under this amendment, educational institutions would prohibit from receiving funding if by logical males are allowed to compete in women's athletics. this amendment safeguards fairness for equality for women. this amendment will ensure that education, funding in the bill is properly directed to schools who are focused on covid response and recovery rather than pushing a liberal agenda. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: madam president, this amendment will undermine the goals of this bill. to provide assistance to all

educators, all students and families who have struggled through this pandemic. it is simply an attempt to discriminate against transgender students. all students including transgender students benefit from participating in sports, to challenge themselves, to improfitness, to be part of -- improve fitness, to be a part of a time. allowing transgender students to participate in athletic activities consistent with their gender identity in no way disadvantages their fellow students. for the love of god can't we just have a little bit of heart and compassion in this world for someone who doesn't look or live exactly like you. instead of focusing on discriminatory policies, we should be examining the real issues with gender in sports when it comes to funding and resources and pay equity. i oppose this amendment because it discriminates against transgender students. it is a harmful attempt to

undermine our work to help students and families. madam president, i raise a point of order -- i ask the chamber be in session. the presiding officer: be in order. mrs. murray: i raise a point of order that the pending amendment produces budgetary changes that are -- it violates section 313 b-1 d of the congressional budget act of 1974. mr. tuberville: section 904 of the congressional budget act, i move to waive and 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: