having an example right now of how that could happen. the democratic majority is trying to overturn a certified election result. i won't ask how many of our friends on the other side here just argued in the last month and the month before that certifying a state election was the goal, senator, it's over after certification. apparently not in the house. of course, the constitution gives the house to determine who will sit there, that doesn't mean they should. go against everything they were preaching in the last two months about the sanctity of state certification and ram through someone who lost the election according to officials in iowa. that's what happens, i would say to my democratic friends, that's what happens when you let partisan bodies regulate elections and that is certainly not what we need at the fec and

that's what among other things you ought to be ashamed about. >> the u.s. senate is about to gavel in on this thursday morning, lawmakers have four votes scheduled this morning on extending the paycheck protection program for two months until may 31st. and now live to the floor of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, who sends the rain that satisfies the parched earth, we honor your name.

today, give our lawmakers the wisdom to understand that you are their sure foundation. inspire them to seek your guidance as they strive to do your will. lead them by your truth and teach them, for you are the god who saves them. may their quest to fulfill your purpose motivate them to bring you their requests and to wait patiently for your response. lord, show them clearly what to do and which way to turn. surround them with the shield of

your love. we pray in your marvelous name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., march 25, 2021. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable jacky rosen, a senator from the state of nevada, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved.

mr. schumer: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: madam president, first i understand that there are two bills at the desk due for a a second reading en bloc. the presiding officer: the leader is correct. the clerk will read the titles

of the bill for a second time. the clerk: s. 963, a bill to authorize dedicated domestic terrorism offices within the department of homeland security and so forth and for other purposes. h.r. 1868, an act to prevent across-the-board spending cuts and for other purposes. mr. schumer: in order to is mr. the bills on the calendar, under the provisions of rule 14, i would object to further proceeding en bloc. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bills will be placed on the calendar. mr. schumer: thank you, madam president. now, madam president -- excuse me. mr. schumer: madam president, despite unprecedented obstacles,

the senate has had an extremely first period of business. it's been a little over 60 days since democrats assumed the majority in the senate and joe biden was sworn in as president. in that relatively short amount of time, the senate has confirmed every available cabinet secretary, a group filled with a bevy of historic firsts, vaster than under the prior two administrations. every single cabinet nominee has received a bipartisan vote of approval here on the floor, a tribute to their character, their qualifications, their caliber. the senate also conduct add fair and honest impeachment trial of the former president, resulting in the largest and most bipartisan conviction vote in the history -- in the history -- of presidential impeachments. and, of course, the democratic majority in the senate passed the most sweeping federal recovery effort in decades --

the american rescue plan. again, despite several unprecedented obstacles, not only did we get a late start on our work as a result of the runoff elections in georgia, we've had to contend with the aftermath of an armed insurrection in the capitol, an impeachment trial and the difficulty of navigating an evenly divided senate. let's ta -- take a quick look at the scoreboard. economists project that the american rescue plan could double economic growth while cutting child poverty in half. the biggest antipoverty effort in a generation. we have made the single largest investment in american education and native tribes ever. experts have called the american rescue plan the most significant legislation for black farmers since the civil rights act. the american rescue plan provides a lifeline to main street businesses from one end of the country to the other,

countries that are already scaling back layoffs. in less than 100 days, the biden administration and democratic majorities have helped deliver more than 100 million shots in people's arms, 100 million checks in people's pockets. as a result, the american people are more optimistic than at any time over the past year, and for the first time since the covid-19 pandemic began, a clear majority of americans believe our country is back on track. just this morning, the jobs report showed that applications for unemployment benefits fell by nearly 100,000 people, a sign that businesses are reopening and americans are optimistic about getting back to work. after one of the most difficult years in american history, the country is finally turning a corner, and the senate is off to a fantastic start. now looking forward, of course the job certainly isn't done

yet. now that we have passed the american rescue plan, the senate must continue to make progress on other issues facing the american people. when the senate returns to session, our agenda will be no less ambitious than it was over the past few months. we will focus on three areas. one, voting rights, civil rights. two, economic recovery and jobs with an emphasis on climate change and being back better. and three, health and gun safety. this senate will once again be the forum where civil rights are debated and historic action is taken to secure them for all americans. last week, the judiciary committee held a first-ever hearing on the equality act, landmark legislation that would enshrine as a matter of law that no american shall be denied justice based on their gender or sexual orientation. in the coming work period, the democratic majority will also seek to repeal a trump

administration rule that gives employers an unfair advantage over workers when settling discriminatory claims. at the same time, the judiciary and rules committees have started their work responding to the concerted nationwide despicable attack on voting rights. in one state after another, new restrictions on the franchise are taking aim at communities of color in ways we haven't seen since the days of jim crow. yesterday, i attended the rules committee hearing on s. 1, the for the people act, and i listened to my republican colleagues try to defend these outrageous voter suppression laws. one member on the committee told us not to worry about them because many are just proposals and won't become law. later that day, that same day, the montana state senate advanced the bill to end same-day voter registration.

another member of the committee defended limits to early voting on sundays, a day when many african americans go to vote after church by quoting the bible and the commandment to keep the sabbath holy. i don't know where to begin with that one, but i'll start by reminding my colleagues of the separation between church and state, and frankly, the commandment she -- the bible passage she talked about comes from the old testament when the sabbath was on saturday. this is getting beyond ridiculous. across the country, the republican party seems to believe that the best strategy for winning elections is not to win more voters but to try and prevent the other side from voting. as a result, -- excuse me. that's not america. that's not democracy, and this senate will take action to protect the voting rights of

tens of millions of americans. the senate will vote on the for the people act. we will also keep a laser focus on our economic recovery. in the coming months, the senate will consider legislation to rebuild our infrastructure and fight climate change, boost research and development and domestic manufacturing, reform our broken immigration system, and grow the power of american workers. finally, the senate will address health and gun safety. when the senate gavels back into session, we'll vote on senator hirono's covid hate crimes bill which my colleague grace mung has sponsored in the house. it will give the department of justice and our local police departments crucial tools to fight the wave of racist violence we have seen against asian americans. i've also committed to put a bill on expanded background checks on the floor of the senate. on the health front, we will take aim against the former

administration's decision to roll back limits on methane emissions from oil and gas production, gases that pack a much greater punch than carbon dioxide when it comes to climate. senators heinrich, king, and markey have been working very hard on this issue. i applaud them. the senate will take up a congressional review act measure to reinstate the commonsense regulation of methane emissions to fight climate change. so the bottom line is this -- the senate of the 117th congress has accomplished a lot in its first few months, but we have a lot of work left to do. the challenges our country still faces are immense, and there is no reason both sides cannot work together on issues that will affect our country and our children's future. we won't agree on everything, but we must agree that inaction is unacceptable. the senate must help the country finish the job against covid while continuing to build a more equal economy and a more just

society. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the pending business. the clerk: motion to proceed to h.r. 1799, an act to amend the small business act and the cares act, and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order, all postcloture time for the motion to proceed to h.r. 1799 is expired and the motion to proceed is agreed to. the clerk will report the bill. the clerk: calendar number 11, h.r. 1799, an act to amend the small business act and the cares act to extend the covered period for the paycheck protection program, and for other purposes.

mr. mcconnell: madam president. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: the crisis on our school board continues to escalate. c.b.p. is tracking the largest surge in migrant apprehensions in 20 years. unaccompanied children are literally piling up in close quarters. it turns out when politicians spend a two-year campaign advertising amnesty, people actually listen. as one senior c.b.p. official said, there is, quote, no end in sight. no end in sight. the administration still refuses

to even admit there's a crisis, much less address it. we keep hearing strange mixed messaging from the white house podium like now is not the time to come, as if there will be a good time to break the law and come illegally. and the white house will let us all know when that time is, i assume. "the washington post" put it gently, quote -- administration officials have been plagued by muddled messaging. boy, that's an understatement. but actually when you look at democrats' actions, the message isn't mixed at all. that's the problem. for months on the campaign trail, president biden spoke directly to potential migrants. at one point he said, quote, you want to flee? do you want to flee? you should come. that was president biden. president lopez himself of

mexico said president biden's campaign created expectations that, quote, caused central american migrants and also from our country wanting to cross the border, thinking that it's easy to do so. that was the president of mexico. on inauguration day, the president followed through. five executive orders to roll back immigration enforcement and open up the border. the administration wasted no time rolling back the policies from the prior administration that had guarded against this exact outcome. and south of the border, message received. some migrants are arriving with biden campaign flags and t-shirts. one arriving person said, quote, biden promised us that everything was going to change, end quote. so what about the democrats here in congress? are the house democrats rising to the occasion with solutions? well, not exactly. they prioritized passing another

amnesty bill. they doubled down on the wrong direction and the wrong incentives. the situation is raising eyebrows among democrats' own rank and file. as one texas democrat put, quote, when you create a system that incentivizes people to come across, that immediately sends a message. here in the senate our democratic colleagues decided together route of obstruction. yesterday republicans tried to pass serious proposals to help address parts of the immigration system. democrats rejected every single one of them. senator ernst had a proposal that would require detention for migrants charged with violent crimes, not exactly a radical idea. democrats blocked it. senator cruz had legislation to raise the stakes for repeated illegal entry, not exactly rocket science. democrats blocked that one too. senator blackburn and senator

lee tried to combat child trafficking within the asylum process, and democrats even blocked that. the farthest left ideology on these issues is keeping democrats from upholding basic responsibilities of government, ensuring the integrity of our borders and protecting our national security. now on another matter, madam president, yesterday the rules committee held a hearing on the democrats' proposal to tilt our entire political system on a partisan basis. it would forcibly rewrite every state's election laws in ways that defy common sense and are deeply unpopular with american voters. it would mandate nearly unrestricted same-day registration. it would mandate big loopholes that would render voter i.d. almost meaningless. it would make every state legalize ballot harvesting where paid operatives can turn in big piles of ballots with other people's names on them, zero chain of custody.

democrats want to hide behind the mantle of voting rights. what they're really proposing is less security, less integrity, and a grab bag of changes that are deeply, deeply unpopular. just look at the other changes with zero relationship to voting rights that democrats want to smuggle in behind that smoke screen. this bill would take the federal election commission from an evenly split bipartisan panel to a partisan body so that democrats could rule unilaterally over politics as well as citizens' speech. turn the neutral judge into a partisan prosecutor. it would send taxpayer money to fund political campaigns. it contains a massive attack on the privacy of citizens who engage in free speech, a massive and intentional gift to cancel culture that led even the left-wing aclu to oppose this bill two years ago and led

lawyers to torch it again in "the washington post" just recently. democrats are desperate to avoid talking about any of these things. they're desperate to convince the media that a partisan take over at the f.e.c. and assault on free speech and american privacy are all just, quote, voting rights. a shameless, shameless bait and switch. i noticed something funny yesterday. remember this is the same bill democrats were shopping around two years ago in response to the 2016 election which they said was a disaster. two years ago democrats were marketing this bill as a massive shakeup that our broken elections badly needed. our democracy was in shambles after they lost in 2016. it was broken. they said it was insecure, they said. and only the sweeping transformation could possibly

repair it. of course it didn't pass, and the 2020 election came and went without the liberal takeover. and yet, democrats say it was a huge success. democrats said the 2020 election was beyond reproach. they said the integrity and security were beyond question. they said only conspiracy theorists would complain about the last election. curiously enough they're now still pushing this very same bill. now instead of a sweeping transformation, they're trying to say it would just preserve our smoothly functioning system so state leches can't mess -- state legislatures can't mess it up. let's get this straight. two years ago in 2019 democrats suggested this bill was a bold, radical overhaul of a broken system. in the meantime, what happened was they got an election they liked. and now they claim the exact same legislation just does a few modest things to protect our

system just the way it is. what utter nonsense. utter nonsense. this legislation has but one goal, just one. it's only ever had one goal, just one. that goal was the same in 2019 as it is today. and that goal is to let washington democrats rig the rules of democracy from top-down to hide that partisan project behind the smoke screen, the smoke screen of voting rights. now, madam president, one final matter. senators will soon head home for the state work period. uighur -- we'll be seeing an easter recess of optimism and hope as the tide of the pandemic continues to turn. thanks to science and fueled by bipartisan bills we passed last

year vaccines were developed, approved and preordered in record time. america was delivering more than a million doses per day before the current administration even took office. and because of last year's bipartisan work, our economy was already poised for an historic comeback. i'm also going to be talking with kentuckians about their confusion and concerns surrounding the multitrillion-dollar partisan spending plan that democrats just rushed through congress recently. like why teachers unions got huge sums for schools, much of which won't be spent until years, years into the future, without any meaningful requirement to reopen, even though science says it's safe. concerns like why kentucky and other states whose budgets have come through the crisis intact will actually be subsidizing massive bailouts to other states for mismanagement that predates the pandemic. and confusion and concern about the radical last-minute provision that tries to prevent

states from implementing any policy, any policy that might be interpreted as a tax cut. that one could wreak havoc on the plans of local officials in my state and entire industries as they try to get the bluegrass growing again. this provision has the potential to shoot down a state law designed to help the commonwealth's small businesses deduct p.p.p. expenses from their state taxes and unwind planned waivers of hikes on their unemployment taxes. secretary yellen was asked about this huge uncertainty in a hearing yesterday, about how this will be defined or enforced. she essentially had no answers. so i'll be joining kentuckians to celebrate what's gone well, thanks to our bipartisan work just last year, to hear their concerns about all the consequences of the democrats go-it-alone effort, and to hear

what they think about the multimillion-dollar cousin of the green new deal that democrats are reportedly planning for a sequel. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: madam president, there is a problem with the paycheck protection program, passed with overwhelming bipartisan support last december, but the implementation has been botched. let me explain what i mean. if you're a small business owner, if you're an individual that is a sole proprietor of what's called a schedule c, you had major issues in trying to be able to cover your employment last year, you would turn in, make a request for the paycheck protection program. it was extended in december of

last year for only the hardest hit businesses, those that had a 25% loss or more. those businesses could not survive into the next year, so we extended it out and allowed them to be able to get additional time and an additional couple of months of payroll to be able to make sure they make it. for these extremely is small businesses, these sole proprietors, these individuals that are out there, this means just them or sometimes them and one other person that they're actually covering expenses for. these are not our megabusinesses. these are our backbone small businesses. this is the truck driver in oklahoma. this is the piano teacher in oklahoma. these are folks that are actually trying to be able to make a living the best way they know how. when it was passed in december, the small business administration interpreted that rule to say you could only use your net expenses for that. your net expenses. then in march the small business administration reinterpreted that and said, no, you could

use your gross expenses on that. for a lot of folks they would say what's the difference on that? the difference is usually about $5,000 or $10,000. that's an enormous difference, and for some folks in this room $5,000 or $10,000 may not be very much but it's a lot for that truck driver and piano teacher. the logical thing for the small business administration to do would be to say, okay, we changed the rule in march from what it was earlier, so let's make it retroactive that folks that applied early, the most desperate folks could actually still get the difference. but that's not what happened. the small business administration said, no, if you received the loan earlier, you received a smaller amount. if you waited and applied later, you'd get the larger amount. exact same type of business, exact same situation, but basically the small business administration said this is too complicated to go back and redo this, and so we'll just allow folks that applied early, the most desperate, to get the least and folks that applied

later to get more. we're bringing an amendment that would just fix that and would allow the folks that applied early, the most desperate folks, to be able to get the help, to be able to get the same level of help as the folks that applied later. so, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to offer my amendment 1402. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i don't know whether the -- does the gentleman from kansas want to be heard first? madam president, first, let me thank the senator from oklahoma for bringing this to the floor. here's our challenge. if it gets on to the bill that we have before us, it will delay the continuation of the paycheck protection program because it terminates on march 31. we're not going to have any program to modify, and the

house is not in session until the second week in april. so it's not possible to get this done before the program expires. so for that reason, we have to oppose any amendment on the underlying bill which is a clean extension of the p.p.p. but i want to thank my friend from oklahoma for bringing this forward because i agree with you. as chairman of the small business and entrepreneurship committee i support making the changes the administration made in regards to the termination for self-employed retroactive. i think that's a fair thing to do. i also support making sure that the business structure that is chosen by the s.b.a. also qualifies whether it be a partnership or traditional business arrangement. i think we need to make those changes. i know our staffs are working on the exact language. therethere is some challenge onw we draft the language. and you have my commitment that we will work during this recess

recess, and i assure you that i want to see this done, and i hope we can do it by a u.c. when we return, when the house is in session, and get this done as quickly as possible. the point you raise is very valid, but let me go back to the original bill for the self-employed that used, as you said, a formula that didn't work. in some cases it was $50 or $80 that they got on the p.p.p., which was ridiculous because a self-employed person doesn't have the same payroll expenses that traditional small business has. and we based the p.p.p. calculations on the payroll amount. that didn't apply to the self-employed. that's why the gross receipts are the right way to make those calculations. and that's what we want to do. that's what this administration did in its recalculation, but it made a per is speck alternative only it needs to be retroactive. i agree with the gentleman, but i cannot consent to agree to it today. and it's not going to delay the

senate consideration of it because the house is not in session for the next two weeks. so the first time we can really get this done is the second week in april, and you have my commitment that we will work together to get the provision made retroactive and to cover the legal structures that are used by some of our small businesses that are not currently covered under the current interpretation. i think this is a legal issue that we have to resolve. for all those reasons, madam president, i do be 0. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. lankford: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: i do want to thank my friend from maryland. this is an important issue. it has not had enough attention on this, as he and i have talked about this over the last several days. this deals with partnerships whether it be ag. this deals with individuals. my friend from kansas, he and i worked together on this to be

able to combine a piece of legislation to make sure we're dealing with all types of businesses that will be affected. i hope to get this through on unanimous consent on the days ahead to get this resolved as quickly as possible as well as continue to be able to reach out to the small business administration and to see what they can do to be able to communicate with those folks. a senator: i ask consent that i be arrowd to complete my remarks. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. without objection. mr. marshall: thank you, madam president. i thank the chairman for his cooperation. our amendment will allow farmers and ranchers categorized as a partnership, including llc's, "s" coppers -- "s" corpse to use gross income. our farmers have faced incredible difficulties through the pandemic when we couldn't pay people to get our cattle and hogs. in december, we made changes a

how farmers to use gross income in calculating their p.p.p. loan. before it passed, payments were based on farmers' net income. this number is often low or negative because of the amount of depreciation farmers claim on equipment. these changes were helpful and it provided assistance for much of the agriculture industry. unfortunately, certain farm and ranch partnerships, many of which are small family partnerships, were left out of changes made in the program in december. i believe congress intended to include partnerships. however, the s.b.a., interpret respecting the statute, did not. they made it clear they would not include partnerships. my amendment would let farmers use gross income rather than net income for the p.p.p. loan. i encourage all of my colleagues to support this amendment and help our farmers during this difficult time. i yield back to the gentleman from oklahoma. thank you. mr. cardin: madam president? the presiding officer: the

senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i would ask unanimous consent that there be two minutes of debate equally divided before each vote in today's series. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. kennedy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. kennedy: thank you, madam president. i apologize. madam president, without order there can be no justice. we all know that. without order, there can be no justice.

this past year we have seen felony rioting throughout the united states. it doesn't matter whether that felony rioting happened here at the capitol. it doesn't matter whether it happened in portland or chicago or atlanta or at any of our other wonderful communities throughout the united states. it is wrong. and we have all condemned it. and it should be punished, and it certainly shouldn't be rewarded. my amendment is very simple. it says that if you were one of those rioters and you have received due process, you have been convicted by a court of law of competent jurisdiction, and you have been adjudged to have committed a felony with respect to the riot or civil disorder,

in the past two years that you cannot participate in the p.p.p. program. we already have that law at the s.b.a. for disaster loans. this would extend it to the p.p.p. program. what you allow is what will continue. what you allow is what will continue. and that's why i would respectfully ask consideration of my amendment. mr. cardin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i rise in opposition to the kennedy amendment. let me be clear, any amendment that's put on this clean extension will mean that the program will terminate in less than one week, and hundreds of thousands of small businesses will not be able to get their p.p.p. loans.

these are newly eligible. we changed the calculations on how much you can apply for. those who have difficulty finding a financial institution to write these -- the forgivable loan, those in hard-to-serve communities, all are going to be deny. as the s.b.a. indicated, there are hundreds of thousands of eligible applicants that have not been able to get in the by the due date. in regards to the kennedy amendment, the s.b.a. covid-19 relief is for existing businesses and current business owners with proven reentry track recorded, anyone who has rebuilt their life after being i.n.s. cars rated should be celebrated and. there is no reason why someone with an unrelated criminal record should be treated differently. i would urge my colleague for sake of getting this bill to the president and signed so we can help our small businesses, to reject the kennedy amendment. mr. kennedy: madam president, how much time do i have lowest? the presiding officer: 0 no time remaining. mr. kennedy: could i ask for

consent for another 30 seconds. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kennedy: madam president, this is the third time i've brought this amendment. the third time. now, you either approve the rioting that happened this summer and at the capitol or you don't. the riots this summer killed 47 people, well over m.d. 1 billion worth of -- well over $1 billion worth of damage. i can't help it if speaker pelosi has decided to go home, which prevents us from offering amendments to make this bill better. we all support extension of the p.p.p. program. but this is not right. and it would be a lot more intellectually honest if my colleague said -- who opposed my amendment said, look, we just don't think if you rioted, you should be punished with respect to the p.p.p. program.

that's what a no vote is saying. mr. cardin: i ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds. ifer officer without objection. mr. cardin: the gentleman's amendment goes well beyond that. it goes back two years. it could be a civil on a college campus totally unrelated to any economic crime. it is just something that should not be in this law. i urge my colleagues to reject it. mr. kennedy: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. kennedy: i'd like to ask my colleague for 30 more seconds. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. kennedy: it says that you're proficient from getting a p.p.p. loan if you've been convicted of a felony in relation to a riot or a civil disorder in the past two years. you either support violence or you don't.

madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. kennedy: i'd like to ask moo -- ask that my amendment be called up. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from louisiana, mr. kennedy, proposes an amendment numbered 1401. at the appropriate place, insert the following -- section, prohibition on paycheck protection program loans and second-draw loans for applicants convicted of a felony in relation too a riot or civil disorder. mr. kennedy: madam president, i ask that we dispense with the reading, please. the presiding officer: without objection. the question occurs on the amendment. is there a sufficient second?

there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

: :

lopez. vote:

vote:

vote:

i

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change his vote, if not, the yeas are 48, the nays are 52 and the amendment is not greed to -- agreed to. mr. rubio: i call up my amendment numbered 1405. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will report by number. the clerk: mr. rubio, proposes amendment numbered 1405. mr. rubio: mr. president, the very reason -- the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: the reason we have to do an extension is because the new administration has unfairly and unnecessarily restricted nonprofits from applying. unless we put in more guardrails, there's little assurance that this is not going to continue. the one thing that would undermine the popular program is that people came to the

conclusion it was being used arbitrarily to give priority to politically favored groups. it prohibits the small business to set upset asides beyond what this congress created. last year when we passed this at the end of 2020. what were the priorities snt? smaller businesses, community financial institutions, if you want to change that, congress has to do it, not the small business administration. mr. cardin: i rise in opposition to the rubio amendment. mr. president, the policy that the -- senator rubio is objecting to was implemented by the small business administration to help the underserved community. during that 14-day period, 400,000 small businesses, 20

employees are or less were able at long last to get p.p.p. help. and almost half were first-time borrowers under the p.p.p. program, those that had been shut out in the past. but specifically the rubio amendment, if it were adopted, and it's wrong policy, would require the house to concur. the house is not in session for two weeks, that would take us beyond the march -- march 31, costing hundreds of thousands of small businesses the opportunity that some are now eligible for a first time, some are trying to figure out the calculations. so for all those reasons -- and one last point. the chamber of commerce of the united states urges all of us to vote in favor of the underlying bill and oppose any amendment that would derail the expeditious confirmation of this bill. 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:

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 48, the nays are 52, and the amendment is not agreed to. mr. paul: in 2010, congress passed what's known as pay-go. pay-go was signed into law and requires that if you want to spend new money, you have to pay for it, hence the name pay as you go. the presiding officer: the senator will suspend. mr. paul: the idea was that if you wanted to spend money on something, you would either need to cut spending or raise taxes, but you couldn't just simply borrow more money. and if you don't cut something, the cuts would be automatic.

except we have now waived pay-go 60 times since we passed pay-go. the debt has gone from $13.5 trillion to $30 trillion because congress continues to evade the rules they put in place. it brings us back to the $1.9 trillion spending bill the other side just passed. they want to now waive the pay-go rule. this will be the 61st time to waive pay-go. some will say the republicans didn't seem to care about the debt when they voted to cut taxes. however, honest observers will note that i also forced a vote on pay-go when we put taxes. interestingly, every democrat in this body at that time voted to evade the pay-go rules and add taxes to the deficit. as i'm sure they will today. so do deficits matter? the answer is a resounding yes. there is no free money. when we borrow or print new money, that money must be repaid.

we have racked up nearly $30 trillion in debt. that's almost 150% of our entire economy. we borrow $6.6 million every minute. get that. we borrow $6.6 million -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. paul: i ask unanimous consent to have one minute to conclude my remarks. the presiding officer: is there any objection? without objection. mr. paul: the deficit has gone from $3 trillion last year, it will be $3.5 trillion this year. in washington, every day is a good day to spend money. big spenders like to say the federal government is no different than a family budget. we have the federal reserve who can print money to buy our debt, but all that does is cause inflation. even with inflation not spiking, we have lost 17% of the dollar over the last several years. who's responsible for the $30 trillion debt? republicans, democrats? the answer is yes and yes. both parties are to blame. the vote i have called for is a

litmus test for fiscal responsibility. anyone who cares about the debt should vote to enforce the pay-go rule. mr. president, according to the c.b.o., the bill before us will increase the deficit by $15 billion in fiscal year 2021. therefore, i raise a point of order against the measure pursuant to section 404-a on senate conference resolution 13 of the 111th congress. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: mr. president, i have been advised by the administration there is an excess of $50 billion available at the end of this month for the extension. pursuant to section 904 of the congressional budget act of 1974, the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions in section 4-g-3 of the statutory pay as you go act of 2010, i move to waive all applicable sections of those acts and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of the pending measure 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:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 464, the nays -- 64, the nays are 36, three-fifths of the senators

duly sworn, the motion is agreed to. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the third time. the clerk: calendar number number 11, h.r. 1799, an act to amend the small business act and the cares act to extend the covered period for the paycheck protection program and for other purposes. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: since the -- since the implementation of p.p.p. last april, 38 planned parenthood affiliates -- could i have unanimous consent for six minutes, three minutes equally divided? the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. paul: since the implementation of p.p.p. last april, 38 planned parenthood affiliates received $83 million

meant for small business relief. pursuant to the long-standing affiliation rules which state that affiliated organizations are considered oranges, the -- organization, the small business administration found that planned parenthood was ineligible for p.p.p. funds and sent letters to the 38 organizations that wrongly received funds. s.b.a. revealed they have given secondary loans to planned parenthood organizations, these approvals come long after the initial ones were determined illegal, further extending the p.p.p. program could allow all 49 planned parenthood time to access the first or second draw of p.p.p. loans given the biden administration's recent as actions. -- recent actions. i ask that everyone who believes they should not receive this

benefit to vote no. mr. cardin: i want to thank senator collins for her leadership on this issue. i want to thank senator shaheen for her help in getting this done. this bill is widely supported, passed the house by 415-3, supported by the united states chamber of commerce, the nfib, and numerous other stakeholders and small business. mr. president, it will be one year sibs the passage of the cares act and the p.p.p. program has saved millions of small businesses from being shuttered. it has saved our unemployment system by keeping smaller -- employees on the payroll. it kept workforces together for small businesses, which is critically important to get through this pandemic. small businesses need additional time because we challenged the eligibility, we changed the

calculation and you have to find private banks that are willing to take on this loan and we're now into a second round. there's over $50 billion available at the end of this month to continue the program. i would urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and i would yield the remainder of our time to senator collins. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, i urge all of our colleagues to vote yes on this bill which will provide a crucial two-month extension for the paycheck protection program. this program has been a lifeline to countless small businesses and has saved more than 50 million jobs in this country. i salute my colleague, senator cardin and senator shaheen for their work on this extension, which was overwhelmingly passed by the house. so let's talk about briefly what

would happen if we do not act. if we do not act, there are 190,000 pending applications for loans that will be in limbo. these small businesses need this assistance now. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. ms. collins: in order to pay their employees and stay afloat during this pandemic. we cannot wait. the house has gone home. we cannot allow an interruption of this vital program that has made such a difference to our small businesses and their employees. i urge all of my colleagues to support this two-month extension with an additional month for s.b.a. to review the applications. the presiding officer: the question is on passage of the bill. is there a sufficient second?

there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote: