the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: we are not in a quorum call, are we? the presiding officer: no, we are not, senator. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. president. i want to concur with my colleague from tennessee in his beautifully stated remarks. and the way he has brought forward the frustration that tennesseans have. you know, mr. president, i have had the opportunity to be at home yesterday. we have a great event going on in nashville this weekend. it is called the grand prix. i had the opportunity to be at the opening event with a lot of

women, small business owners. i had the opportunity later in the day to go cut the ribbon for a big county fair and see lots of families and talk to families that were there. and you know what, mr. president? they are completely confused with what is going on. see, tennesseans are really smart. they watch what is happening in washington, d.c. and they are so concerned about the future and about freedom and freedom's cause, and they continue to say, as my colleague from tennessee stated, they want the best for their children, for their grandchildren, because they appreciate the american dream. many of them have lived the

american dream. whether they are a farmer or a teacher, whether they are a lawyer, an accountant, a mom, a dad. somebody who owns a small business on main street in one of our 95 counties in our beautiful towns. they have lived it. they're living it every single day. blood, sweat, tears, working long hours, investing. and they look at what is happening here in washington, and they are saying why are you in such a rush to force us into bankruptcy? you know, july 6, 2010. i use this statement all the time, mr. president. someone you and i each know because of our work on armed

services, admiral mullen. july 6, 2010. he was asked a question, what keeps you up at night? what is the greatest threat to our nation's freedom, our democracy? do you know what he said? he said our nation's debt. now, let me walk you back through the history of that debt. if we were to go from the time that george washington became president, up until the time that george w. bush stepped out of office, our nation had accrued a total of $10.6 trillion in debt. too much for me. i used to -- when i would go to the white house with president bush, i would say, mr. president, there is two things that i think need to be addressed. number one is the out-of-control federal spending.

and number two is the issue of illegal immigration. well, he left office $10.6 trillion in debt, but still very mild compared to what we are facing today, i think we would have to say. now, president obama took office, and he and joe biden went to work, and do you know what they did in eight years? mr. president, they ended up just about doubling our nation's debt. doubled it. president trump came in, tried to pare back on regulations, cut the size of the federal government, and then we had covid. that added to the debt. and then here comes president biden. and it is as if the printing presses have cranked up on printing those dollar bills.

running them through as fast as they possibly can. because what the biden administration and chuck schumer and nancy pelosi have pushed through is $1.9 trillion, saying that was necessary for cares, even though all that money that had previously been spent had not been -- or had been appropriated had not been spent. and now here we have $1.2 trillion. and as my colleague said, it's become this bill of here is a little bit for infrastructure, but oh, by the way, over here, here is this great big down payment on the green new deal. don't worry that we don't generate enough electricity for an electric vehicle fleet. we'll figure that one out later. let's just put in subsidies for electric vehicles. don't worry about giving more

power to the federal government. we'll give you back authority, local governments, if we think you need it. $1.2 trillion in spending. and then we hear that the bonus round in this lol a pal ooze -- pollapalooza, it's going to be $3.5 trillion. but more likely the realistic view is it's going to be $5 trillion. so back to my point, mr. president, people in tennessee are saying what in the world could you possibly be thinking? what could you possibly be thinking? because they know the history of this nation's debt. and do you know what, mr. president? and this really relates to much of the work that we do at sask. they know there is a threat from

the people that own or hold our debt. japan, our friend and ally, they are at the top of the tier right now. the last time i checked last month on who owns our debt, you know number two is china. they own well over a trillion dollars, or hold over a trillion dollars of our debt. and if you put the opec nations together, and of course after the keystone pipeline, we are now dependent on opec and others for fuel. we were energy independent, thanks to president trump, and republicans in the house and senate. we were energy independent. but opec is there in that top five, all those opec countries grouped together. so people in tennessee are really quite -- they are miffed, they are put off about what is going on.

i was really surprised, had a text this morning from one of my county mayors. i am all for infrastructure. i'm for the cornyn amendment, but you know what? i'm not for this bill. because you have got less or about 25% of this for something that we would deem for infrastructure. tennesseans like to talk about infrastructure as four things. they talk about roads, rivers, railways, and runways. and of course we are a logistic state. everyone knows memphis has a big court and a rail hub, one of two cities where all five class-a railroads come into that city. they know that interstates are important. they crisscross our state, indeed nashville, where you have three major interstates that

crisscross right there in the middle of that city. they know that tennessee, so many businesses choose to locate there because we are within an eight-hour drive of a majority of the nation's population. so logistics require good roads and rivers and rail and runways. but you know what? they are not seeing it in this. when you in the name of infrastructure spend this amount of money. now, i have great respect for my colleagues on each side of the aisle that have worked to produce a product. to do it in a bipartisan way. that is dependable. it's -- that is commendable. it's commendable. for tennesseans, the result is something that is frustrating to them. you know, this is considered to be the world's greatest deliberative body. i always appreciated how our former colleague, senator alexander, would talk about the

cup and saucer. the hot coffee gets poured into the cup. it spills over into the saucer. it cools off. you add some sweetener, and you get something that you enjoy. people expect more. they expect better of this deliberative body. and tennesseans know that our nation's freedom has been well served by robust, respectful bipartisan debate. that's a good thing. it strengthens freedom. it brings people together. it brings them to the table to talk about what is their priority. now, unfortunately, most of us in this body have not had the opportunity to be at that table, and amendments that we have worked on that we felt like would have improved this bill are not going to be heard. not here, not in a hearing in a

committee. we are just not going to see that as a part of this process. that is unfortunate, and it is going to be an unfortunate -- it is going to be unfortunate if indeed that happens on the next bill, on the bill after that, or the bill after that. we should return to regular order and go through this process. now, i had about 30 amendments that i had offered as improvements for this bill. mr. president, rest assured, i'm not going to stand here and go through each and every one of those amendments, but there are some things i thought needed our attention in this bill. as many of my colleagues know, broadband is something that whether i was serving in the house or back in the state senate in tennessee or before that, going in and reorganizing a tennessee film entertainment

and music commission for our governor, broadband and moving from analogue to digital, making high-speed internet available all across our state, closing that digital divide. i have spent so many hours working on this. i filed three amendments that i felt like would really do some damage control on these and help close the divide, getting to our rural and unserved areas, people that had no internet. amendment 2327 would have prohibited the federal government from forcing municipal broadband provider programs into states that have outlawed them. now, tennessee is one of those states that says to municipalities, if you want to serve people within your city, that's great, you go ahead, but you can't go outside of your boundaries. and there are other states that have had this issue, and there

is a reason they say if you serve your constituents, great, but don't go outside that. it's because states that have allowed these schemes ended up banning them for a reason, and usually it's because these government-run systems would end up imploding, leaving the taxpayers with with a bill thaty were going to have to pay. now, another amendment, amendment 2377, would have prohibited the f.c.c., our federal communications commission, from implementing price-setting schemes on broadband providers. that -- allowing the f.c.c. to do that rate setting and price setting would destroy investment in rural broadband. it would destroy it. we know this. and it would actually

incentivize providers in avoiding these unserved areas. sometimes we talk about that as being that last mile that needs to get that fiber, that last mile that needs fixed wireless, that last mile that is needing some form of connectivity. and amendment 2328 -- and we do hope this one makes it in the bill -- would strike language permitting regulators to allow these broadband grant recipients to use the money for -- and i'm quoting the language in the bild necessary to facilitate the goals of the program. end quote. now, mr. president, this sounds vague, it is vague, and if there is one thing that we learned prior, when we put a lot of

money out during president obama's time is that sometimes this money ends up not being targeted to broadband but ends up as a slush fund. we also have an amendment that would deal with a shovel-ready infrastructure project on our southern border, amendment 2406 would redirect $1 billion from amtrak. by the way amtrak is getting many billions of dollars in this bill and it would send the money over to department of homeland security to finish the border construction wall. we know what's happening. record numbers of illegal aliens are coming in and we know they are ending up as are drugs, as are gangs in cities and towns

across the nation. until we secure the border, every towb is a border town and every state is a border state. thank you to those who are fighting this every day. i hear them and i understand the pressures that they are under and we also know that our communities are struggling trying to get back to work and really move forward with regrowing the economy. but inflation has gotten in the way. and one of the big problems is that people -- that people point to with the high cost of fuels and logistics and the packing materials is the killing of the keystone xl pipeline. so amendment 2298 would amend

section 4034 of the bill which would study the impact due to the permit of the keystone xl pipeline. my amendment says that if the report shows that killing the pipeline caused numerous job losses and an impact -- an impact on consumer energy costs, that the president should revoke, he shall revoke his executive order and get out of the way of the pipeline construction. get people back to work. and get the prices at the pump, get them down. get them down to where they were when president trump left office. i mean, what's the purpose of a report if it doesn't have any

teeth. so let's take an action on that. you know, mr. president, there is no bill that is ever perfect. they all have to be worked on. many times we come back a year or so later and we do technical corrections on a bill, we make changes, and this is no different. this bill needs time, it needs a thorough amendment process, it needs to go back to the committees of jurisdiction to work through these issues. are the american people for infrastructure? yes, they are for infrastructure. tennesseans are for infrastructure. i'm for infrastructure projects, yes indeed. am i for this piece of legislation, no because it's a document that has misplaced priorities. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll, please. quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. lee: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: i ask unanimous consent to suspend the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lee: mr. president, we're debating a bill that a number of us have spoken on on a number of indications. -- occasions. since my last address on this floor on this topic, we received a score regarding the bill from the congressional budget office. now, remember, it's the c.b.o. score -- the cobbe's role to put together a score on legislation we're considering. it's part of how the system works in washington so we can

assess what will and will not add to the deficit and how it will do so if it does. it's an important part of the process. when we finally received the c.b.o. score just about 48 hours ago, we discovered a few things. we discovered that despite the representations that we've heard by the bill's staunchest advocates to the effect that the bill would be paid for, that is, that it would not add to the debt and deficit and that it would not add to the debt and deficit in a way that also didn't involve raising taxes. as it turned out, the c.b.o. rejected the claim that this bill was paid for. in fact, the cobbe concluded -- the cobbe concluded -- c.b.o. cloold that 256 of the $550 billion in claimed pay fors didn't pay, that they're not pay

fors. and thus that they will considerably -- we're talking here about over a quarter of a trillion dollars that would go right on to the debt and deficit. they also concluded that in the long run, over the next ten years, we'll be looking at an additional $340 billion in costs to the federal government, a cost that by some estimates could reach as high as $400 billion because of the spillover effect that this bill is likely to have on future spending. contracting authority, and otherwise. so this bill is not paid for. the pay fors suggested by the bill's proponents don't get the job done. in fact, more than half of them simply don't get there. we do, however, see that there are some of the pay fors that

create significant policy concerns. so one of the pay fors that isn't fake is an extension of the so-called g fees. g fees being imposed by entities like fannie mae that will in-- that will inevitably increase the cost that home buyers will face when they go to buy a home. now why does that matter here? we've seen a startling uptick in inflation. inflation across the board. everything from gas to groceries, everything from health care to housing. we should that increasing stunningly in a way that a lot of people are pointing out correctly first-time home buyers are now finding it very difficult to get into a home. this is something that's going to end up affecting all poor and middle-class americans at a time when they can little afford it.

yet we're increasing these fees, fees that are in effect back door invisible tax on a lot of those who are at least in a position to pay it. some of the other nonfake pay fors that actually do bring something in include an increase in the fees paid by manufacturers and distributors of certain chemicals. the issue there is that this fee while labeled as not a tax because technically speaking it's not a tax will end up increasing the price of basically every consumer good purchased by the american people. the way these things end up working, to the tune of about $15 billion or so. americans will find pretty much everything they buy from apparel to electronics will get a little more expensive. they may not see it.

in fact, the overwhelming majority of them won't even know to attribute it to this piece f legislation. but it will have that effect. it will make all americans a little poorer. it will make all americans face a very stark reality in which there are already strapped dollars that they earned will go just a little bit less far. we have to remember that from one year to the next, we don't see dramatic fluctuations in the quantity of goods that the american people have access to, that they may buy. in other words, the u.s. economy is capable of producing a relatively foreseeable, predictable, somewhat finite supply of goods in a particular year. when that doesn't change dramatically from one year to the next as it almost every does but you dramatically increase the money supply in the u.s. economy. then what you see is that

everything gets a little bit more expensive. this ends up hurting in particular america's poor and middle class. it ends up hurting in particular those americans, including most americans who in one way or another live paycheck to paycheck, who in one way or another depend on the income that they have and the income that they have is relatively fixed. so, as a result of that, they don't get as far. you've got some americans, including the wealthiest and well-connected in our society, who may well figure out ways to get wealthy off of this bill. one way or another, they can play things to their advantage, and they may make lot of money off of it. you've got another category of very wealthy americans, maybe people in the tom 1% or -- in the top 1% or 2% of income earners -- who might notice things are getting more

expensive but it it doesn't bother them. then you've got another group of people who have a relatively finite amount of money to spend. remember, the federal government in recent years has been spending about $4 trillion a year. tragically even at the top of our cycle with record low unemployment and with record high growth, we were still spending a trillion dollars a year more than we were bringing in. bringing in about $3 trillion, spending about $4 trillion. we're making it much, much worse now. last year we took in about $3 trillion and we spent $3.6 trillion. borrowing and then printing close to $4 trillion additional dollars. what does this do? it makes all americans just a little bit poorer, especially those living on a relatively fixed income.

so this is troubling when we do that. we ought to be concerned when we do that. inflation numbers that are coming out all the time, including some that i've heard about the first time today, indicate that everything is getting more expensive. and what are we doing? well, we're on track to spend another $1.2 trillion, including $550 billion of new spending, which the bill's proponents claim is paid for when most of it isn't paid for, and that portion of it that is paid for is in one way or another often paid for in a way that will inure to the detriment of poor, middle-class americans. this is concerning. it's also concerning that one of the other pay-for provisions, the one focused on cryptocurrency, focuses on an industry that's rapidly developing, rapidly developing

within the united states, that depends on a lot of innovation happening in the united states. one of these pay-for provisions seeks to bring in more revenue to the federal government -- or at least to promise more revenue to the federal government -- with the promise of requiring those who spy and sell cryptocurrency to treat it the same way they would the exchange of securities. mr. president, this is very different than securities. these aren't just stocks. it's something very different. it's a medium of exchange that, if adopted more widely, could facilitate a lot of economic activity and a lot of innovation within united states of america. if in fact we pass this bill, mark my words, it's going to have a chilling effect on innovation within this sector. and what you'll see is the flight of innovation and investment related to innovation

to offshore locations around the globe, places outside the united states may well be the ones to reap the benefit associated with the loss here in the united states if we adopt an unproven, untest, unknown strategy for dealing withing is, trying to adopt many decades' old regulatory policies to a completely new form of exchange, one that, by the way, values very highly the privacy of hose who exchange -- of those who exchange it. so if you're going to take away that value by requiring it be publicly disclose and by giving the federal government the ability to peer into it it you're going to stifle innovation, make a lot of people up set and makes americans poorer. at the heart of a lot of this is a concern that the federal government, as it takes more and

more money, as it prints more and more money, as it requires americans to work weeks or months out of every year just to pay their federal taxes, only to be told that it's not nearly enough and hasn't been enough for many decades because we're nearly $30 trillion in debt, that it's still not enough because we're still going to borrow and print more. it's insulting to them, and it's especially insulting to them when you tell them that in connection with the same legislation that also includes other intrusions into their privacy. for example, there's a pilot program called for in this legislation -- it would be created by this legislation -- that would be designed specifically to monitor how many miles someone drives in a year. now, this has long been a fantasy of a number of people who would like to see the federal government tracking miles driven by every motorist in america. now, mr. president, we all know

that there's almost no way to achieve this that wouldn't excessively interfere with the privacy rights of every man, woman, and child in america. if the american people were fine with a government that makes sure that we're safe from foreign aggressors, that regulates interstate and foreign commerce, that coins money and regulates the value thereof, that adopts a uniform set of bankruptcy laws, immigration laws, that protects trademarks, copyrights and patents, what they do not want is a nanny. what they do not want is a snooping twice added to every car that will track them, that will track where they and their families are going. it's none of their darn business. keep the federal government out of this. look, whether you want more government spending or not, chances are, if if you're listening to this, you probably are concerned, regardless of what political hat you wear,

regardless of who you voted for. you probably don't want the federal government in your car monitoring your every move, going where you're going. we know when governments do that, bad things happen. it ends in tears and wars. that's none of the federal government's darn business. we don't want the federal government even developing technology to start snooping on every person's every move. which brings me to yet another intrusion on personal privacy and liberty in this legislation -- section 24220 calls for the development and within just a few years the formization and finalization -- formalization and finalization of regulations that would require passenger vehicles manufactured and sold within the united states to have a device that would pass civil measure the blood -- passively

measure the blood alcohol content of the driver and do so in a way that would inhibit or at least impair the ability of the vehicle to operate if the vehicle, in its infinite wisdom, was able to ascertain that the blood alcohol content of the driver was over .8. now, look, we are all for stopping drunk driving. it is terrible. it results in countless lives lost. but, mr. president, we can all see a lot of things that can go wrong with that. setting aside for a minute the constitutional implications of the intrusiveness of putting technology in every passenger vehicle that requires at the outset, without any finding that anyone has done anything wrong, that requires to you take a test mandated by the federal government every time you want to do something as simple as turn on your car, then let's

consider what happens when with such a technology, which to my knowledge doesn't yet exist, with such a technology, assuming it is able to come into existence because of these burdensome regulations in a few years, that technology, if they're able to develop it, is going to be costly. who does that hurt? you guessed it -- poor and middle-class america who will all of a sudden find that every passenger vehicle will become a lot more expensive. it's just the way it works, when we mandate the creation of new federal regulations, and those regulations apply to any new automobile sold in the united states, the price of new automobiles goes up. in the case of a particularly novel, particularly sophisticated technology like this one, i suspect it will go up a lot. this may not be troubling to the millionaires and billionaires out there who don't feel the pinch of that. but to everyone else, the 99% of all americans, more than that, i

suppose, this hurts. moreover, what happens when that technology malfunctions? not if, but when. we've all had cars that will malfunction for one reason or another and oftentimes it's basic security devices, something as simple as that annoying beeper that goes off until you put your seat belt on. sometimes some people will put their seat belt on and it still pings. it is a terribly annoying nuisance when that happens. the consequences are much more deeply felt and much more severe when somebody gets in the car, whether to go to work, to come home from work, to take loved one to the doctor or the hospital and it doesn't work. look -- glitches happen. if you are talking about adding an over-ride to the vehicle, ma maybe that override things it

mistake inly smells alcohol. maybe the whole thing stops working and your car stops working with it. this isn't one of those things where you can just open up the hood and find the presence of an on/off switch, as jerry seinfeld might have put it years ago. no, this is much more sophisticated technology that the average american isn't going to be able to fix quickly. they won't even be able to see it. there again they're going to face more costs as they take their vehicle into the shop to have it evaluated by a certified technician capable of dealing with that brand-new, very sophisticated, very expensive technology. so with each of these things, mr. president, we see something of a common theme -- the federal government, which already plays too prominent a role in too many people's lives, which is already taxing us too much, spying on us too much, and

considering everything under the sun its business, we're making even more things its business, from cryptocurrency to where and how far you drive your car, to whether you can operate your car at all. we're doing all of this so we can spend even more federal money on even more federal infrastructure projects which are even more expensive by virtue of the tax cut that we're dealing with -- by virtue of the fact that we're dealing with more federal dollars. compliance with all the federal regulations that accompany the expenditures of federal infrastructure dollars costs a lot of money. in many stated like mine it can cost 20%, 30%, even more, on top of what these were cost if they were just state revenues they were spending. one asks the question, is it worth it? i'd ask the question, do we want big brother knowing our every move? i'd ask the question, do we want a government that's already requiring you to work weeks or

months out of every year to pay your taxes, do you want them printing even more money making sure that the dollars that you spend, which are finite, limited and sacred, will go even less far? i suspect not. i urge my colleagues who support this legislation to reconsider.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senior senator from illinois is recognized. mr. durbin: for the information of members, we are planning to have a vote at 5:00 today on the confirmation of eunice lee to the second circuit court of appeals. i want members to make their plans accordingly. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senior senator from maryland is recognized.

mr. cardin: thank you, mr. president. i rise to speak about the restaurant revitalization fund, and then i will be asking unanimous consent to consider legislation. we included the restaurant revitalization fund in our march legislation on covid relief. we did that because of all of the industries affected by covid-19, restaurants have been some of the most difficult businesses to survive covid-19. they were ordered by government basically to shut down at the beginning of covid-19. then as we started to make progress, they were at much restricted operations. and into this day, restaurants are still not up to their full capacity. their revenues have been very much decimated as a result of covid-19. we came together in march with bipartisan legislation in order

to do something about that, and we included that in our legislation, $28.6 billion of relief for restaurants. what it did is cover some of their revenue loss as a result of covid-19. it gave them a lifeline to be able to survive this pandemic, and we projected that $28.6 billion would be the need, but we were wrong. we were wrong because covid-19 was more severe than we thought thought, restaurants were more badly damaged than we had anticipated, and there is a great deal of more demand and need than $28.6 billion. we are now being told by the small business administration that the right number was $71.3 billion, or an additional $42.7

billion that is needed. i've introduced bipartisan legislation to provide this additional authority to the s.b.a. to complete this program. it's bipartisan. my partner in this is senator wicker. we're joined by senator schumer, senator murkowski, senator cantwell, senator internists, senator stabenow, -- senator ernst and senator hyde-smith. there are many, many more senators on both sides of the aisle that very much support our efforts to live up to our commitment. why do we need to take this up right now? this is a matter of life or death for many restaurants in our community. there's also a matter of fairness. we have two restaurants side by side in the exact same circumstances submitting their applications on the same day, having the exact same need.

both were advised that they would get funding. one got funding before the $28.6 billion was exhausted. the other that was told that they were to get funding, they won't get funding unless we act. that's not right. there's a matter of the credibility of the united states senate and of congress and of government. we say we're going to do something, we should live up to our commitments. the urgency of getting this done is now. i don't think there's a senator in this chamber who hasn't heard from restaurants in their state about how badly they need these funds and how they thought these funds were going to be in their bank and they're no longer in this bank. i've heard from so many senators directly about this. the urgency is now. and let me just anticipate one other argument that i might hear, and that is, well, where are we getting this money from? well, mr. president,

legislation before us takes $36 billion, takes $36 billion out of the small business programs. $36 billion. so this is paid for by the rescissions that have been made in this legislation that we are considering that's before us today. so for all those reasons, this is a fiscally responsible thing to do. and then lastly, let me say before i yield the floor to the majority leader, let me say that we made a commitment to help our small businesses. we did that, democrats and republicans working together. in some cases we overestimated the dollars that we need. in some cases we underestimated the dollars that we need. but we always came back and provided the full funding for the programs we've authorized.

and in total, it's not much different than has previously been authorized. this is a matter of fairness and a matter of absolute need that we provide the extra money now for the restaurants. before i make my unanimous consent request, i would yield the floor so the majority leader can get the floor. the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. schumer: i thank my good friend from maryland for offering this u.c. and strongly and fervently support it. i've been proud to join senators cardin and sinema in leading the fight to provide direct relief to this industry. we all know restaurants were particularly hard hit during covid, and the idea that they have all recovered is just so far from the truth. you know, any, any business where people had to gather were hit hard, hit the hardest. restaurants at the very top of the list.

and they are a lifeblood to our cities and our communities. they are of course at a place where people get food, but they are community, they join together. they fill roots, whether it's a small town or large city, restaurants in neighborhood after neighborhood, community after community are often the glue that makes communities tick, and they were hurt. the funds that we provided provided a lifeline to 100,000 applicants across the country. in my state of new york, $3.6 billion went to 9,775 restaurants. but the job wasn't done. they ran out of money long before restaurants were helped. and anyone who thinks our restaurants are out of trouble, i just ate at one last night, a polish couple, green point -- lovely little restaurant. are you hurting? yes. we might go under. and this story could be repeated in restaurant after restaurant

after restaurant. in new york, 27,000 restaurants are waiting in desperation. these are hardworking people, very hardworking people. they struggle, they put their all, their whole heart and soul into the business and provide, as i said, often the glue for our communities. this legislation is fair, it is smart, it is right. we will get economic payback over and over and over again from keeping these restaurants going because they employ so many people, contract with so manied ned so -- contract with so many independents, suppliers, it makes so much sense. it seems cruel to tell these restaurants you're on your own now when through no l fault of their own they struggled through with covid-19. i strongly support this proposal by senator cardin. we're going to keep at it and

keep at it and keep at it because our restaurants so desperately need the help. it was bipartisan in the past. let's keep it bipartisan, but let's get the job done. our restaurants need help and our communities, our cities, our rural towns, our suburbs will be so rewarded when these restaurants are allowed to continue to stay open and to flourish. i thank the senator for his leadership. mr. cardin: thank you, mr. president. let me thank senator schumer for his comments. i agree completely with everything you said. i just make one additional point before i make my unanimous consent request. what i'm asking for now has been what be we have been following in regards to small business relief. let me remind our colleagues that we worked together, democrats and republicans, to craft the programs that help small business and save so many small businesses in our community. we misprojected the cost of the

paycheck protection program not by $30 billion or $40 billion. by over $300 billion when we set it up. and we came back, democrats and republicans, lived up to our commitment, and made the funds available that all small businesses could get fair treatment and equitable treatment under the paycheck protection program. i'm asking my colleagues to do the exact same thing we did for the paycheck protection program for the restaurant revitalization program. and as already pointed out, there's been funds taken away from the small business programs under the bill we're considering on the floor today to almost the same amount that we're asking in supplemental funds. and with that, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. 2675, introduced earlier today, that the bill be considered read three times and passed, and the motion to reconsider be

considered made and laid on the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the junior senator from kentucky is recognized. mr. paul: the treasury has been so thoroughly looted that we are incurring debt at a record-setting and alarming pace. never in the history of our country have we incurred so much debt so fast. our national debt now exceeds $28 trillion. it is now at 128% of our g.d.p. and we are asked by the democrat party to add $48 billion without so much as a could we have a debate in committee, so much as even a word spoken over this. we're just going to add $48 billion with no discussion. it's a huge mistake. now it has been alleged that, well, the thing is that the restaurants are suffering because of covid. no, they're suffering because

democrat governors locked them down. this is a man-made phenomenon. the economic disaster that restaurants are in is c completely and entirely caused by democrat governors. in my state, they're suing the democrat governor because he won't let them open up. this is a man-made phenomenon. if you reward a man-made phenomenon, you get more of it. you reward democrat governors who shut these restaurants down, guess what? they'll shut them down longer. the longer you give money to democrat governors for their lockdown policies, the more lockdowns you'll get. we need to open up the country. we need to learn to live with this disease. as tragic as it has been, we need to learn to live with it, but the lockdowns have not worked. closing the restaurants did not work, did not change the trajectory of this virus one iota. the only thing that is changing the trajectory of this virus now is the vaccine plus natural

immunity. closing restaurants did nothing. it is doing nothing except for devastating the bottom line of restaurants. so with that, mr. president, i would object to the unanimous consent. the presiding officer: objection is heard. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i regret the position of my colleague from kentucky. i just really want to point out we have had hearings in our committee, small business committee in which the restaurant revitalization act was very much brought up during the hearing. we've been receiving timely information about this program and how it's been implemented and the need for additional funds. so our committee has had ample opportunity to question how the program is being administered and the need for additional funds. i also regret that my colleague is holding the restaurants pretty much hostage and saying it's all right for us to give money to some but not others.

when the administration of this was compromised because of a court case and certain restaurants are now desperate as a result of not having adequate funds. i'm encouraged by the comments of the majority leader, senator schumer, that we will continue to focus on this issue. i can tell you it's urgent. we really need to deal with this immediately and we'll be looking for every available opportunity to treat our restaurants equitably and fairly and provide the money that's needed to implement the restaurant revitalization program. i regret that we're not able to act today because of the senator's objection. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the assistant majority leader is recognized. mr. durbin: i'd like to add a word and thank the senator from maryland for his leadership and the senator from new york for supporting this, and to reflect for a moment on the comments of the objecter, the senator from kentucky.

his exact words were, we've got to learn to live with this. unfortunately, people are not living with this. they're getting infected and dying. and to accept the status quo and to somehow make it a partisan issue that it's the democratic governors that are responsible for what's going on here is an oversimplification. in fact, it's tragic. we know what's happening. we have a new variant of this covid-19 virus that has -- and it is changing by the day. we think the delta variant is contagious, maybe dra dramatically morewe and we know -- we know that it has taken a deadly toll on 90% of the patients who were not

vaccinated or subjected to the illness that came about. i want to say in general, i couldn't agree more with senator schumer and senator cardin that restaurants are really the lifeblood, whether it's my home town springfield or chicago, restaurants are the lifeblood and as they struggle, the city struggles. the restaurant businesses, the ones that are our favorites bring us together. they've done their part, let's do our part to give them a helping hand. we will not say that we have to accept the delta variant is the natural course of things. more vaccinations and more careful use of masks and social distancing can make a real

difference in this country until we come to grips with that reality, with we're going to continue to face these devastating disappointments. again, thank you to the senator from maryland for bringing this to us. i yield the floor.

mr. heinrich: mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection,so ordered. mr. schumer: in a minute i'm going to ask to vote on confirmation for eunice lee to be the united states circuit judge on the second circuit. she's an amazing person. i interviewed her and recommended her to the president. she'll be the only public defender on the second circuit. we've had very, very few public defenders on that circuit and largely on our federal bench. they tend to be prosecutors, partners in big law firms. we're changing all that and taking, getting people who have different walks of life, like public defenders, like people from the aclu, like people from different organizations, so we

have a new perspective on the bench. she's a phenomenal person. i'm so proud that she will now get on the bench. so i ask that the senate now vote on confirmation of the lee nomination to be united states circuit judge. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, eunice c. lee of new york to be united states circuit judge for the second circuit. the presiding officer: the question is on the nomination. mr. schumer: 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:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 50. the nays are 47. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. and the senate will resume legislegislative session -- legislative session. the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the time during any recess, adjournment or period of morning business count postcloture. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, it is so ordered. mr. schumer: for the information of all senators, the senate will convene at noon tomorrow and for reconsideration of the infrastructure bill. i yield the floor. i note the be a -- mr. schumer: mr. president, we've been working hard all day on amendments and hopefully we can come to some agreement tomorrow, but the time is burning as we go forward so for the information of members, keep

working and we'll resume at 12:00 p.m. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call::

quorum call: