Mike Crapo

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, along with my colleagues Senator Jim Risch and Representative Mike Simpson, I congratulate all those who worked on the completion of the Idaho Gold Star Memorial Monument to honor Idaho's fallen servicemembers and commemorate the enormous cost of our freedoms shouldered by their families. We commend the members of the Idaho Gold Star Families Memorial Monument Committee on their work to see this project through to completion. Bringing together the partners, volunteers, and many supporters to make the monument happen was no small undertaking. We extend a special thank you to the committee's chairperson, Gold Star mother Rebecca Webb, for leading the establishment of the memorial. You have turned your profound sorrow for the loss of your son, MSG Christopher Webb, and the grief of all Gold Star Families, into a profound tribute to the great strength and devotion of our Nation's servicemembers and their families.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, every year, the Senate unanimously passes a resolution honoring each law enforcement officer who died in the line of duty during the previous year. Their names are also added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Washington, DC. Currently, this memorial contains more than 21,000 names. This year, one more Idahoan will be added to this memorial. Wyatt Christopher Maser was born April 19, 1997, in Thermopolis, WY, to Christopher Michael Maser and Sandra Lorene Reid Arnold. After growing up in Casper, WY, Wyatt joined the U.S. Air Force, serving as a senior airman from 2015 to 2018. After returning to his home and marrying the love of his life, Paige, Wyatt began his career in law enforcement, moving to Idaho Falls, ID, and joining the Bonneville County Sheriff's Office and graduating from the Idaho Law Enforcement Academy in 2019. Shortly before graduating, he and Paige welcomed a beautiful baby daughter, Morgan Emily. He served as a sheriff's deputy with Bonneville County Sheriff's Office for 13 months. At the graveside service honoring his life, his career was characterized in two words: ``friendship'' and ``service.'' It takes a special person to serve in our Nation's Armed Forces and an even better one to continue to serve one's community after leaving the Air Force. By all accounts, Wyatt was that person, befriending everyone he met. On May 18, 2020, while attempting to help a woman in mental crisis in the middle of Bone Road, he was struck by another deputy's vehicle and was pronounced dead at Eastern Idaho Medical Center. Wyatt left behind his wife, Paige; his young daughter, Morgan; his mother and stepfather, Sandy and Bill Arnold; his father and stepmother, Chris and Cheryl Maser; his siblings, Cole, Taylor, Jesse, and Alexys; and grandparents, uncles, and pets galore. The Law Enforcement Officers Memorial preserves Wyatt's name in stone. Yet Deputy Maser was so much more than an Air Force veteran and a law enforcement officer. An avid waterfowl hunter, Wyatt and his fellow members of the Delta Waterfowl Snake River Chapter were building a hunting blind for disabled hunters to help those with limitations enjoy the pastime he loved so much. That blind is still being completed and will be named the ``Maser Blind'' in his memory. Deputy Maser, your memory will not be forgotten. To Paige and Morgan, I am so sorry for your loss, and thank you for the opportunity to join in honoring Wyatt. The Book of Isaiah, chapter 6, verse 8, states: And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, ``Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?'' Then I said, ``Here am I! Send me.'' Sheriff's Deputy Wyatt Christopher Maser answered that call with the ultimate sacrifice, and for that, we say thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we begin the vote now, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, first of all, I want to respond to Senator Kennedy. The first thing I want to say to Senator Kennedy is that I am impressed. He did this in only five pages. I wish we could all learn to write our legislation in five pages or less. I don't disagree with the history Senator Kennedy went through, with his powerful declaration, in that this is a critical issue that we must deal with, and I don't disagree with the fact that we have to have some serious pressure built here in the U.S. Congress to get this over the finish line. That being said, I think we just got this language last night, and what Senator Kennedy is asking us to do today is to bypass the committee and go immediately to the floor with his language. There are several reasons I am going to have to, ultimately, object to that. The first is that he is correct. I and a number of my colleagues who would be here if I were not standing here have a real problem with the solution, the mechanism, that Senator Kennedy has chosen--just outright price-fixing. Senator Kennedy doesn't even try to deny that. It goes beyond imposing government regulatory price controls in government-run programs by going through the private market as well. That is a solution mechanism that I have opposed and many of my colleagues oppose in terms of dealing with this issue. That is one of the key reasons for my objection. The other one, though, is that the Committee on Finance, of which I am the ranking member, is working on this. I know that this is not an answer, because the Committee on Finance has been working on this now for a year or 2 or more, but there is work underway in a number of different arenas to try to get a handle on how to solve this without having to take the drastic step of just having the government come in and take control over the private sector market. I will just point to, for example, what happened under the Trump administration in just the last couple of years. Through the Trump administration's effort to try to deal with this, a demonstration project has been operating under Medicare Part D in which the effort was to try to get the monthly cost of insulin down to $35 a month, and they have had some success in that program to demonstrate how it can be accomplished. Now, look. I get that Medicare Part D is different than private sector insurance and that it is different than Medicaid and that it is different than other pieces of our healthcare system; it is also different than CHIP, but in one sector, a pretty significant sector, we have some solutions that are starting to show real potential. In addition, as Senator Kennedy knows, I drafted legislation in the last Congress and am working on that legislation in this Congress that will deal not just with insulin but with many different other pieces of drug pricing in our system. I can tell you that Senator Wyden himself, my counterpart on the Democratic side on the Finance Committee, has been working on his own ideas, and he and I have been working hard to prioritize this to get to a solution in the committee. I know, as I talked to Senator Wyden just before I came to the floor, that Senator Wyden and I both welcome the opportunity to work with Senator Kennedy as we try to put together that bipartisan solution. I know that there would be other Senators on the other side of this issue who would stand here if I were not today and say they don't like this solution because they want it to go further in the other direction. They want to see a complete government takeover of the entire market and move to a single-payer system, that single payer being the government. That is another thing that some on my side have been working hard not to have happen. There is a lot of political controversy over what the mechanism must be, and that is the primary reason I want this to be able to be worked on in the committee, in the proper way that we manage legislation in the Senate. I commit to Senator Kennedy that he can be as engaged as he wants to be with us in that as we move forward, but it is not the time right now to come and bypass that whole process. I think Senator Kennedy would probably make a very powerful rejoinder that we have heard that we are working on it a lot and we need to now get to the point where we put solutions here on the floor for the entire Senate to consider, but today is not the day to do it by a unanimous consent request, and for that purpose I do object.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the rollcall vote scheduled for 11:45 begin now, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, along with my colleagues Senator Jim Risch, Representative Mike Simpson, and Representative Russ Fulcher, I rise today to honor the lives and service of CW4 Jesse Anderson, CW3 George ``Geoff'' Laubhan, and CW3 Matthew Peltzer. These three fallen Idaho Army National Guard personnel were participating in a routine training flight when their UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter crashed near Boise on February 2, 2021. Chief Warrant Officer 4 Anderson, Chief Warrant Officer 3 Laubhan, and Chief Warrant Officer 3 Peltzer answered the call of duty to serve our State and our Nation with honor, distinction, and courage. CW4 Jesse Anderson, of Boise, was a senior instructor pilot. He had served in the Idaho Army National Guard since 2008, and he first joined the U.S. Army as an aviation warrant officer candidate in 2000. Chief Warrant Officer 4 Anderson is survived by his wife and four children. While in the Idaho Army National Guard, CW4 Anderson served as a UH-60 A/L pilot in command, UH-60 A/L instructor pilot, C-12 fixed wing pilot, C-12 operations officer, company and battalion aviation standardization officer, and medical evacuation pilot. He served in multiple deployments, including two deployments to Afghanistan. He also participated in local search and rescue operations, wildland fire fighting missions in California, and civil support operations in Guatemala. Chief Warrant Officer 4 Anderson earned a long list of awards and decorations for his honorable service that include the Meritorious Service Medal, the Air Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, the Army Achievement Medal, the Army Reserve Component Achievement Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Armed Forces Reserve Medal, the NATO Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon, the Army Reserve Component Overseas Training Ribbon, the Master Aviator Badge, the Armed Forces Reserve Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Combat Action Badge, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal, the California Achievement Medal, the Idaho Emergency Duty Ribbon, and the Idaho Service Ribbon. Chief Warrant Officer 3 Laubhan, of Boise, was an instructor pilot, who is survived by his wife and two children. In January 2010, CW3 Laubhan enlisted in the Idaho Army National Guard as an AH-64 attack helicopter repairer with D Company, 1st Battalion of the 183rd Aviation Regiment. He went on to serve as an AH-64 Apache and UH-60 Black Hawk pilot, a UH-60 instructor pilot, and a medical evacuation pilot while with the battalion. His service included deploying in 2019 as a Black Hawk pilot to Guatemala in support of Operation Beyond the Horizon, and he is credited with flying a lifesaving mission in support of Idaho search and rescue operations. He also flew in support of wildland firefighting operations in California. The awards and decorations he earned for his admirable service include the Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Achievement Medal, the Army Reserve Component Achievement Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the Army Reserve Component Overseas Training Ribbon, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Aviation Badge, the Army Aviator Badge, the California Achievement Medal, and the Idaho Service Ribbon. CW3 Matthew Peltzer, a resident of Nampa, was a UH-60 A/L Black Hawk pilot, having served in the Idaho Army National Guard since 2005. Chief Warrant Officer 3 Peltzer is survived by his wife and two children. Chief Warrant Officer 3 Peltzer enlisted into the Idaho Army National Guard's 1st Battalion of the 183rd Aviation Regiment as an officer candidate in July 2005. Chief Warrant Officer 3 Peltzer served as an AH-64 Apache pilot in command, a UH-60 Black Hawk pilot, an aviation mission survivability officer, an aviation safety officer, and a medical evacuation helicopter pilot all while with the battalion. His service also included serving in Guatemala as a Black Hawk pilot in support of Operation Beyond the Horizon. The many recognitions he earned for his remarkable service include the Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Reserve Component Achievement Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Armed Forces Reserve Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the Army Reserve Component Overseas Training Ribbon, the Senior Aviator Badge, the Idaho Adjutant General's Outstanding Unit Award, and the Idaho Service Ribbon. Our citizen-soldiers embody a spirit of service and the best of American patriotism, and this loss is felt deeply throughout Idaho. All three were soldiers, husbands, and fathers who left an enduring legacy of service and strength. Chief Warrant Officer 4 Anderson's, Chief Warrant Officer 3 Laubhan's, and Chief Warrant Officer 3 Peltzer's service and sacrifices will not be forgotten, and their selflessness will continue to serve as an example for all of us. We extend our deepest condolences to the families and friends of these heroic men, including their fellow guardsmen. Our prayers are with their wives and children, friends and loved ones, and fellow soldiers in the Idaho National Guard as they grieve this tragic loss. Each of us owes a deep debt of gratitude to our Idaho Army National Guardsmen. Their service on behalf of Idaho and the Nation is second to none, and we thank them for their countless sacrifices to keep us safe. Our State and our country mourn the passing of three of our heroes. In closing, the following poem titled ``Above the Purple Sage'' was written by Major Andrew Whipple, retired, an Idaho veteran, to pay tribute to the pilots and help lift the hearts of those mourning their loss: ``From field and farm, From small town and large; Their dreams all the same, To answer the charge. They dreamed of the feel of wind in their faces, To roam the places of old story book Aces. Leaving the ground the Flying Knights rose, The city lights behind them, Their nerves so composed. Above the Purple Sage they soared; Their friendships and bonds not easily forged. While many lay dreaming and safe in their beds, The three Knights rose higher, From the ground they had shed. The Purple Sage below them, They flew higher and higher; The night sky around them, There was nothing so finer. These three Knights of the Air, Together they flew; But alas all was quiet, Except the coming of the dawning dew. Their journey to soar, To protect those behind; It came to an end, But forever entwined. Their journey continues, Their flight it goes on; With Aces and others dreamers, Fly on--Fly on!''

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I call up my amendment, No. 55, and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, this amendment simply makes permanent the individual and small business tax rate reductions and reforms from the TCJA. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the TCJA, gave American workers and families more cash in their pockets by significantly lowering individual tax rates, nearly doubling the standard deduction, and doubling the child tax credit. For American businesses, the TCJA lowered the tax rate and provided parity for small businesses operating in passthrough form. It also encouraged investment in the United States through the immediate expensing of property and equipment. From the beginning of the previous administration up to the beginning of the pandemic early last year, the economy added more than 7 million jobs. Every U.S. metropolitan area had enjoyed income gains in 2018. Low-income workers were experiencing the highest wage growth in nearly a decade. We need to give our economy its best shot at recovering to prepandemic levels. This means strengthening that pro-growth policy we have put into place by making permanent these expiring tax provisions from the TCJA.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, before joining with my colleagues in an important colloquy, concerning the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020, I want to applaud Senator Grassley's tireless efforts that spanned years of bipartisan work to establish the first whistleblower reward program at the Department of the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. Mr. Grassley. Mr. President, I would like to thank Chairman Crapo and Ranking Member Brown for their work on the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 division contained in this year's NDAA conference report, including the important new whistleblower protections provided in the measure. These whistleblower protections that all three of us agreed upon, were modelled after successful programs that were created through the Dodd Frank Act for the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity's and Exchange Commission. One key feature that makes these programs successful is that whistleblowers are guaranteed a minimum of 10 percent in awards for qualifying disclosures. These rewards cost taxpayers nothing because they are paid from fines and other monies collected as a result of the whistleblower's disclosures. To ensure whistleblowers always receive the money owed, both the SEC and CFTC, as well our original amendment to the NDAA, created a special fund that would be filled by the fines collected and then used to pay whistleblower awards. With that, I will be happy to begin the colloquy. Chairman Crapo, can you please describe your intent with respect to changes made in the whistleblower provisions in the conference agreement?

Mr. CRAPO. Certainly. The NDAA conference agreement provides for whistleblower rewards with a 30 percent maximum of certain monies collected in cases involving Bank Secrecy Act violations, but provides for no explicit minimum award requirement. The conferees agreed that updating the Bank Secrecy Act's whistleblower incentives and protections was necessary to protect individuals who provide original information which leads to any successful judicial or administrative Bank Secrecy Act action brought by the Secretary of the Treasury or Attorney General and results in monetary sanctions exceeding $1,000,000. To accomplish this and to avoid any direct spending complications, our intention is to authorize necessary resources and work with appropriators and the administration to ensure that necessary funding be made available on an ongoing basis, that is effectively offset by BSA penalties imposed in these cases. Such funding will enable the Secretary to provide, subject to available funds, substantial whistleblower awards based upon monetary penalties recovered in those whistleblower cases. It was always the intent of the conferees that these awards to individual whistleblowers are important and justified and that they be substantial, such that both a minimum and maximum percentage of such monetary sanction was contemplated. In this case, it is the intent of the conferees, in addition to the conference report providing for the stated maximum 30 percent award, to provide for a 10 prcent minimum award, as both reasonable and sensible. Finally, it is the intent of the conferees that no such award should be made available to either employees of the Treasury Department, the Department of Justice, or covered law enforcement agencies, if the original information that led to the successful enforcement action is acquired acting in the normal course of their job duties. We will work with Senator Grassley and with administration officials to provide for robust minimum awards which meet the 10 percent threshold wherever appropriate. We will work with the Senator in the next Congress to draft legislation that addresses the important concerns he has raised. Does Senator Brown agree?

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call be waived.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I rise today to highlight some meaningful progress underway on the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests to improve the health of these forests. These collaborative efforts are showing progress, and they are an example of where we can go nationally. Collaboration brings results. I have been a longtime champion of collaboration to address public lands management disputes, as collaborative processes are good for the environment and good for natural-resource based economies. Collaborative problem-solving is a key way to ensure that all voices are heard and long-term solutions are crafted. Working together through collaboration does not require a sacrifice of principles, but it does require earnest negotiations with respect for ideas from all perspectives and a willingness to work to understand each other's objectives. Inevitably, at several points along the collaborative path, there are strong disagreements. However, participants' refusal to quit is a key attribute of successful collaborative efforts. One of the greatest benefits of collaboration is that it enables the achievement of solutions that are better than the status quo for all stakeholders. Such solutions are better for the environment and the economy. Through collaboration, participants can actually achieve their objectives and in ways that benefit the entire community. The work on the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests is a great example of the benefits of collaborative efforts. The Clearwater Basin Collaborative, or CBC, as we call it, which was officially launched 12 years ago, has had an important role in furthering discussions about the management of the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests. Nez Perce Tribal representatives, representatives of Federal and State agencies, county commissioners, local communities, timber companies, conservation groups, and other stakeholders make up the CBC's Working Group, which accommodates a diverse array of viewpoints and objectives. I met with members of the predecessor group, called the Konkolville Collaborative, and welcomed the opportunity to be a part of the CBC's official launch in 2008. I track the group's progress through dedicating a member of my staff to being part of its discussions focused on resolving longstanding concerns and achieving land management decisions and fostering communication among different interest groups. The remarkable landscape it works to enhance encompasses forestlands providing habitat for treasured wildlife and anadromous fish species; resources for local communities, including timber, livestock grazing, and mining; and natural carbon sinks that help our planet. The Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests span 4 million acres. Three rivers flow through the forests, providing important water sources, outstanding fishing, and other recreational opportunities. It is truly a remarkable place, and the group's work is far from easy, as there is a lot at stake. The good news is that we are hearing reports of remarkable achievements being made on the Forests. The Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests have received three significant recognitions this year alone that highlight cooperative restoration work: a Regional Forester's Award for fostering partnership and volunteerism; a Chief's Award for delivering benefits to the public; and an Undersecretary's Award for customer service for the forests' Historic Routes Project. Through the Historic Routes Project, the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests dedicated approximately $1 million of retained receipts from stewardship contracts to improve water quality through historically sensitive maintenance along three historic roadways: the Lolo Motorway, the Elk City Wagon Road, and the Magruder Road, which attract visitors from all over the country. Project leaders, recognizing the importance of these routes to the local economy and historical significance, have partnered with local groups and the University of Idaho to include digital interpretation that is accessible even in locations without internet service. The project has also been supported through the Secure Rural Schools Resources Advisory Committee to assist with the maintenance. Stewardship contracts have also been used on the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests to enable the Forest Service to accomplish vegetation and watershed restoration. By leveraging this program with other partnerships and funding sources, the forests are able to have a truly integrated restoration program. Stewardship contracts have enabled fuels and weed treatment, watershed protection and restoration, road maintenance, and enhancements such as the removal of wire fencing to help wildlife A total of 536 miles of streams have been restored on the Nez Perce- Clearwater National Forests, resulting in the forests being ranked fourth nationwide in miles of streams restored. The forests have a strong partnership with the Nez Perce Tribe, which contributes greatly to its watershed accomplishments. At the same time, priorities of much needed restoration of landscapes, including water quality improvements, are also providing a supply of raw materials to our local mills. In fact, the forests are the fifth in the Nation in providing wood products for purchase. More work is underway to address significant challenges, but this is the direction we need to continue to go in delivering long-term results. I commend all those involved in this effort for their hard and exemplary work improving our treasured landscapes. Also, a Good Neighbor Authority program coordinated by the Nez Perce- Clearwater National Forests and the Idaho Department of Lands was recognized with the 2017 Regional Forester Awards. Through the program, forest management has supported fuels reduction and watershed restoration. Further, the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests recently signed a Good Neighbor Authority agreement with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. This will enable the forests and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game to work more seamlessly as they collaborate on projects to enhance wildlife habitat such as aspen restoration. Statewide, the Idaho Department of Lands reports that the agency is utilizing Good Neighbor Authority to partner with national forests in Idaho to expedite projects focused on fuels reduction, forest health improvements, and watershed health. According to an ILD summary from January of this year, the program has enabled the treatment of 4,800 acres through 50 service contracts, at a total value of over $3 million to the private sector, to treat weed infestation, reduce fuels, complete road repairs, and support project planning and monitoring. Other collaborative efforts have laid strong groundwork or follow in the footsteps of collaborative work such as this. In Idaho we have succeeded with public lands projects such as the Owyhee Initiative and are at hard at work in others, such as the Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative, the Payette Forest Coalition, the Boise Forest Coalition, and others, including our Governor's Shared Stewardship Task Force. I also look forward to the soon-to-be completed recommendations of the Governor's Salmon Workgroup. Federal policy must empower collaboration and forest health. As Senators and shared stewards of these natural resources, we must continuously work to ensure Federal statute and policy empower collaborative efforts and forest health projects. In 2003, I was proud to work with my congressional colleagues, including Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon and many others, to enact the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, or HFRA, to help provide the U.S. Forest Service with the tools needed to do the necessary work on the ground to restore our forests and help reduce the threat of a catastrophic wildfire to our communities and ecosystems. The HFRA was designed to encourage fuel reduction efforts, protect old-growth forests, enhance water quality, promote community-based land management and public involvement in forest management, and address insect and disease problems. The HFRA has promoted stewardship contracting projects which incorporate public- private partnerships, emphasizing more localized forest management. In the years since the enactment of the HFRA, Congress has enacted additional legislation to advance forest health. For example, in the 2014 farm bill we included permanent authority for stewardship contracting and the authorization of Good Neighbor Authority. Good Neighbor Authority expanded the Federal Government's ability to partner with State foresters on restoration projects, including bark beetle treatments across State and Federal boundaries. Subsequently, the 2018 farm bill included an expansion of Good Neighbor Authority, credited with increasing the pace and scale of forest restoration projects across Idaho. The 2018 farm bill also, importantly, included a 10-year reauthorization of the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program, which has enabled the expansion of active collaborative land- use groups in Idaho. The program encourages large-scale--that is 50,000-plus acres--collaborative, science-based forest restoration projects in a way that encourages environmental and economic sustainability. The U.S. Forest Service reported that in the first 10 years of the program, the CFLRP opportunities brought together more than 420 organizations to engage in local collaboratives, and CFLRP projects treated 3.8 million acres to reduce wildfire risk. The CFLRP has supported collaborative work of the Clearwater Basin Collaborative and the Nez Perce-Clearwater Forests to restore conditions within the 1.4 million-acre Selway-Middle Fork ecosystem through stream improvements, the replacement of culverts preventing fish passage, road and trail maintenance, and the reduction of wildfire fuel loads. Also, the reauthorized Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program has two newly approved projects in Idaho, with one in each region. Region 1 encompasses the Panhandle National Forest, and in Region 4, it encompasses the Payette and Boise National Forests. We cannot let up in making progress on wildfires. The severely smoke- clogged skies this fire season made the impacts of the fires that have decimated wildlands and communities for years nearly unescapable. As we think about the lives and livelihoods lost to wildfires, we must continue to work to enact bipartisan forest management reform to build on the progress made in recent years to ensure Federal land agencies have the tools they need to protect communities from deadly wildfires by improving the health of our forests. Bipartisan legislation pending in this Senate would increase the active management of Federal forests, cut redtape, reduce frivolous litigation, and advance fire risk reduction. Senators Steve Daines, of Montana, and Dianne Feinstein, of California, worked across party lines for months to negotiate the details of the bipartisan Emergency Wildfire and Public Safety Act. Enactment of sensible, bipartisan legislation such as this, which is also cosponsored by myself and my fellow colleague from Idaho, Senator Jim Risch, can better enable land managers to reduce wildfire risk and respond effectively to an increasingly virulent wildfire reality. This will build on the successful enactment of bipartisan legislation to enable Federal agencies to respond to wildfires as they would to other natural disasters and end the practice of fire borrowing. Forests make up 39 percent of the land in my home State of Idaho. They are key to air and water quality and sustain wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities. They support communities through wood and paper product jobs and recreation dollars. They are the backdrop and the means for an unparalleled quality of life. Their vitality hinges on their effective management. I am encouraged by the achievements on the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests, and I urge continued collaborative efforts to address often contentious but necessary natural resource challenges and the enactment of Federal law that bolsters these collaborative efforts for the betterment of all our communities. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this morning the Senate Judiciary Committee reported out Judge Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. I was proud to vote for her in committee. Unfortunately, my friends on the other side of the aisle decided to boycott the executive session. In addition, each day, the Democratic leader has attempted to adjourn the Senate. They say that the Senate should not be working on the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, and that it is delaying work on COVID relief. Now we hear today that we are delaying work and not even engaging in any response to the election interference that we knew 4 years ago occurred and which, as my colleague said, nobody should be surprised that we heard again that there are efforts on election interference by Russia, by Iran, and others. Yesterday, there were three different live unanimous consent requests like this to bypass committees and immediately pass legislation without debate or amendments. These motions to adjourn and take-it-or-leave-it requests are a fight over the Senate floor schedule rather than building the necessary bipartisan support to pass needed legislation. We are told that we haven't done anything for 4 years, turning to focus specifically on the question of election interference. The reality is that we have already signed into law the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act--or CAATSA--the BRINK Act; the Hong Kong Autonomy Act that substantially expanded sanctions on Russia, North Korea, and China; and the White House, in addition, has taken steps to use its IEEPA authority to impose additional targeted sanctions on those who attempted to interfere in the U.S. election. We are told we aren't doing anything to work on the COVID relief package. My colleague from Maryland mentioned that they tried to pass the Heroes Act here in the Senate through a similar tactic that we are seeing today with regard to the DETER Act. What he didn't point out was that twice we have tried to bring forward a $500 billion COVID relief package on the floor of this Senate only to have the effort to even move to the bill rejected by our colleagues on the other side. And we tried to bring forward the PPP Act just 2 days ago, only to have that act stopped by our colleagues on the other side of the Senate who now tell us that we aren't trying to pass legislation to help deal with COVID relief. The reality is that we won't accept--without debate or amendment-- their take-it-or-leave-it proposals, and we need to get a bill on the floor to start dealing with these things. Let's go back to election interference because I found it just remarkable that the claim is made that when we passed major legislation--with over 90 Senators on this floor voting for it--that put specific sanction authority and sanctions on Russia for election interference, for its aggression in Crimea, and for its other aggressive behavior around the globe--particularly its cyber security violations--and we have been implementing sanctions for that entire period of time. I just want to review a little bit of it. On top of it, as I indicated, the President has used his IEEPA authority for additional sanctions activity. The President signed an Executive order that allows for sanctions on any nation or individual who authorizes, directs, or sponsors interference in our elections. The National Defense Authorization Act, signed by the President last year, included numerous provisions designed to strengthen our deterrence against foreign interference. The President has taken a strong stand against Russia for its malign activities, including imposing sanctions on more than 300 separate Russian-related targets through 32 distinct actions; imposing sanctions against 7 Russian oligarchs, their 12 companies and 17 senior Russian government officials; establishing rolling designations to strengthen sanctions in response to Russian aggression against Ukraine and Russian efforts to evade sanctions on North Korea, Syria, Iran, and others; imposing sanctions against 16 entities and individuals, including affiliates of the Russian Internet Research Agency for their roles in Russian interference in our elections; imposing sanctions against three individuals and five entities in Sudan assisting the IRA financier, Prigozhin, in evading previously imposed sanctions; designating three additional IRA actors for supporting the IRA's crypto currency accounts; imposing sanctions on Russian-related oil brokers for their role in assisting the circumvention of sanctions against Venezuela; expelling 60 Russian intelligence officers from the United States. And the list goes on. The argument that this administration and this Senate have done nothing is simply false. Let's just talk a little more about election interference. The administration here, domestically, has taken unprecedented action to bolster the security of our elections and to counter foreign malign influence. President Trump signed into legislation passed by this Senate that spent more than $1.2 billion in the States for election security, infrastructure strengthening, and technological enhancements. The President funded the formation of the Election Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center, a center which helps share security information with elected officials across all 50 States and more than 2,400 local and territorial electoral offices. The administration has conducted hundreds of cyber security assessments at no cost to election officials and provides vulnerability reports on a weekly basis. The administration has traveled the country to hold exercises in training with State and local election officials and their private sector partners to improve and test their ability to prepare for and respond to cyber incidents The administration has held multiple national-level tabletop-to-vote exercises with thousands of State and local election officials and private sector partners nationwide. The administration has provided tailored security guidance to nearly 6,000 local election jurisdictions. Under President Trump, the administration has pushed to increase the security of elections through auditable paper ballots, and now more than 92 percent of the voters in the general election will cast their ballots with an auditable paper record. I could go on and on about this, but the bottom line is, yes, we do need to work and continue to be alert--and my colleague from Maryland knows that I am willing to work on these issues--but we can't just continue to have these take-it-or-leave-it, no-amendment, no- opportunity-for-change unanimous consent requests in the context of the obstruction effort being undertaken right now to try to delay and interfere with a vote on Amy Coney Barrett. We can work on all of these issues. I invite my colleagues on the other side to vote yes the next time we try to bring a COVID relief bill to the floor. Because of these reasons, I object.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, just to briefly respond.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, first of all, the notion that there has been blockage of a deal on this side is news to me. The notion that we did not accept the Heroes Act from the House is not news. Trying to put the Heroes Act on the floor of the Senate without the opportunity for debate or amendment is also not the right way to try to build bipartisan legislation for a deal. I also find it incredible that this administration's actions sanctioning Russia are considered to be a pinprick in comparison to whatever greater sledgehammer is supposedly needed. The CAATSA legislation that I referenced, which was passed in the first year following the election of President Trump, which President Trump signed and supported, was a massive increase in American sanction authority against Russia--and North Korea, by the way--and has been utilized more by this President than any sanction authority that any other President has ever had. The sanction regime that we are putting in place today against Russia is designed to go aggressively at election interference. The argument that nobody is doing anything is simply wrong. Now, I stand ready to work to build even stronger sanction regimes that can work without destroying our own economy or work without destroying our own industry in different sectors, which is part of the problem with the bill that is being proposed without amendment here today. But we need to recognize that the accusations that this administration and this Senate do not take election interference seriously when we passed the most significant, sweeping legislation that has ever been passed in this country to deal with it--and that there is no effort to try to work on the COVID relief package--is just part of, frankly, the political attack of the day. I am sorry. This is simply wrong. If we want to work together on either of these two issues or other issues, we can on this floor, but we can't do it by these kinds of motions to adjourn and unanimous consent requests to bring bills to the floor and pass them without amendment. It is just not the way. And my colleague knows this is the kind of thing that Republicans and Democrats do. They want to bring attention to their legislation. But that is not the way you build a bipartisan agreement that can actually become law.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, in reserving the right to object, it is remarkable that we see here a series of unanimous consent requests to pass legislation without debate and without the opportunity for amendment and improvement. It is just a few hours after a refusal to proceed to legislation by which we could have done just that-- legislation that had $500 billion of additional assistance going out to the American people. Legislation that did address these unemployment issues--and that has been discussed over the last 45 minutes on the floor--was objected to so that we couldn't even get on the bill. Following Nancy Pelosi's ``take it or leave it,'' ``my way or the highway'' approach, we are now here, seeing our colleagues on the other side pick up pieces of the legislation that Nancy Pelosi wants to pass without negotiating and without working through the legislative process to see if they can drive those through the Senate and object to not doing them in regular legislative order. We are ready to engage in major legislation. Yet a couple of hours after we tried for the second or third time to put it on the floor--and had that opportunity refused by my colleagues on the other side--we are accused of not working on these issues, and the ``take it or leave it'' proposals from the House-passed legislation are being thrown on the floor of the Senate. Let's talk about the current one--the proposal for rental assistance and eviction protection for those who need help in housing markets. I will say now that they need help. As I said the last time this effort was tried, they need help, and we need to work together instead of just trying to lob Nancy Pelosi's bill into the Senate when we can't get agreement to even put a major $500 billion relief package on the floor for debate and consideration. Six months ago, this body came together and unanimously passed a package that provided historic, unprecedented support to the housing market both for homeowners and renters alike. We gave the majority of homeowners in this country the option of hitting the pause button on their mortgage payments. We prohibited foreclosures and evictions across a wide swath of the marketplace, which was recently expanded by the CDC to cover an even broader portion of the market, and we have extended it through the end of 2020. President Trump, through his Executive orders, has extended this further. We have appropriated in excess of $12 billion in supplemental funding to specifically enhance Federal housing programs. We have provided $150 billion in funding to States and local governments through the coronavirus relief fund, or CRF, a significant portion of which has been used for rental assistance. We worked together in a bipartisan way on the CARES Act. I wish we could work on this next act the way we worked then, but, no, it is take it or leave it. And we are capable of doing the same in coming days if we can simply get on the legislation in the Senate. As I have said before on this floor, I agree that we can and should do more to help in rental markets, to help those who are most vulnerable and who are most at risk of eviction, but passing this bill--take it or leave it--that received no Republican support in the House, was just jammed through the House on a partisan vote, is not the way this body ought to do its work. The same thing goes for any blanket moratorium--that is what is being proposed right now--that would tie the hands of housing providers across this country and cause many of them to collapse, damaging the very industry and the very sector of our economy that we need to strengthen to deal with these critical issues. We still have time to reach a bipartisan solution. I believe a bipartisan solution is possible to help out the renters across our country, and I have been working to develop one. This is likely something, if we can get agreement to move on it, that provides targeted support to renters who have suffered COVID-19-related reduction in their income or job loss and who were current on their rent before the outbreak, avoids creating perverse incentives in our housing market by ensuring that those who are able to pay their rent continue to do so, and is limited to the length of the crisis and is delivered through a mechanism--contrary to what is being proposed here--delivered through a mechanism that is quick, responsible, and minimizes opportunities for fraud, waste, and abuse. We can do this if we will stop the ``my way or the highway'' approach to the House legislation and work together in the Senate to do what we did with the CARES Act in the first place. The argument has been made that we won't even re-up the unemployment insurance, when the Senator from South Dakota made it very clear the bill that our colleagues rejected just hours ago on the floor of the Senate had a 100-percent wage replacement formula--100 percent wage replacement. But the notion of trying to quickly advance the provision that we are talking about by unanimous consent, without the opportunity to properly debate it, is a concerning precedent and will only cause more long-term damage in the future. Accordingly, I object.

Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I know we have yet another UC request coming, and I want to give time for that to my colleague here in the Senate. I, too, appreciate working with the Senator from Ohio, and we worked in a bipartisan fashion when we put the first CARES Act on the floor, which, as you said, got a unanimous vote. I am hopeful we can do that again. I just want to respond to one thing, and that is it is constantly being said that Senator McConnell said there is not a sense of urgency. This was months and months and months ago before our first act had even had an opportunity to play out. But the urgency that you have seen from Senator McConnell and others today is reflective of the refusal or the inability--let me say the inability of both sides to come together on a deal. And his reaching out multiple times--most recently a few hours ago today--and I am hopeful that we will reach out again and give all of our Senate colleagues the opportunity to simply proceed to get a bill on the floor that we can work on. I totally disagree with the argument that what we have been trying to get--a $500 billion bill--I can't even remember the negative comments that were made at the time, the type of descriptive comments that were made about it. It is a very real, significant piece of legislation that itself can be enhanced. It could be enhanced with this rental assistance that we are talking about right now. I believe we need to get some legislation on the floor, stop the back-and-forth bantering between parties and between Houses in the Congress, and get serious discussion of serious legislation and move forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the resolution vacating the OCC's final rule on the Community Reinvestment Act, or CRA. Acting Comptroller of the Currency Brian Brooks has noted: ``The new Community Reinvestment Act rule was finalized for one reason--to promote more lending and investment in underserved areas--including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.'' The key changes the rule makes are these: It clarifies what counts for CRA credit, updates where activity is evaluated, evaluates CRA performance more objectively, and makes record-keeping and reporting timelier and more transparent. The OCC's efforts to improve the CRA framework began in 2017 with an extensive and deliberate process, engaging numerous stakeholders along the way. The OCC issued its advance notice of proposed rulemaking in 2018, and in December 2019, the OCC jointly issued a proposed rule with the FDIC, which received 7,500 comments. The OCC says those comments made it better and significantly different from the proposal. The status quo was failing. The OCC found that the regulatory status quo had failed to improve economic outcomes for underserved groups, including minorities and low- and moderate-income communities. The CRA regulatory process was broken. Acting Comptroller Brooks stated: In addition to not achieving the societal goals of the statute, the regulatory process around CRA was broken. Banks and stakeholders were uncertain of what activities would qualify for CRA consideration from exam to exam. The framework's lack of objectivity, transparency, consistency, and fairness left the whole process open to sweetheart deals and made it nearly impossible to assess the impact of billions of dollars that were spent each year. Stakeholders have voiced the need to update the CRA regulations now for more than a decade. What does the final rule do? The final rule establishes objective criteria for determining and an illustrative list of what qualifies for CRA credit, while also creating a preapproval process for banks. It updates and expands assessment areas to better reflect how banks serve customers today by adding deposit-based assessment areas. It also incentivizes CRA activity in new areas of need, including Indian Country and rural and distressed areas. The final rule establishes new general performance standards to more objectively evaluate a bank's CRA performance. Finally, the rule requires banks to report better data to improve the transparency and accountability of banks and their regulators to their communities. Importantly, the rule does not change the OCC's authority or obligation to fight discrimination and illegal practices. Several organizations have praised the final rule, including the Consumer Bankers Association, the National Disability Institute, the National Congress of American Indians, and the National Diversity Coalition. FDIC Chairman McWilliams noted: ``There are many provisions in the final rule that will greatly benefit low- and moderate-income communities, and provide greater clarity to banks on CRA expectations.'' Last month, the Federal Reserve issued its own advance notice of proposed rulemaking, and Acting Comptroller Brooks observed that ``there is a significant amount of overlap between what the Fed has proposed and what the OCC has finalized.'' The OCC issued this rule in May. Senate Democrats have waited until the end of the Congressional Review Act window to act, timing this vote to be most disruptive to the Senate's floor schedule. More importantly, this vote comes after the rule's effective date of October 1. Voiding it would create confusion and uncertainty for communities, industry, and other stakeholders, harming the very communities the CRA would help. Acting Comptroller Brooks said it well: Overturning the OCC's new CRA rule would roll back benefits to Native Americans, people with disabilities, American farmers, and small business owners. It would preserve a status quo that on its face has failed to make the progress promised 43 years ago. It would force banks, communities groups, and examiners to operate in the dark without the transparency, objectivity, and regulatory certainty that the new rule provides. It would also prevent future Comptrollers from taking up the rule to improve how CRA works in the future. Additionally, former Comptroller Joseph Otting wrote: The coronavirus pandemic has only made it more dire that communities--particularly low- and moderate-income communities--need more capital and better access to capital. And they need it now. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this resolution, to preserve this important modernization of our CRA regulations. Thank you. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote scheduled for 5:45 p.m. begin immediately.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, in honor of National POW/MIA Recognition Day this September 18, 2020, I join in raising awareness about the more than 81,900 Americans the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency, DPAA, reports remain missing from World War II, the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the Cold War, the Gulf wars and other conflicts. I also commend the members of the POW*MIA Awareness Rally Corp. of Pocatello, ID, and other similar groups that keep a spotlight on the immense service of our American servicemembers and the ongoing need to bring them all home. My heart goes out to the American families who have carried on through years, and even decades, waiting for answers to their questions. Those who see a loved one off to war but long after the war's end still await that loved one's return shoulder our country's sorrow. May all servicemembers' families get the resolution of knowing their lost family members have been returned to the country they served so admirably. Thank you to those who work for and assist the DPAA and related efforts to get needed answers and bring all American servicemembers home. Piecing together the circumstances, whereabouts, and lives of those lost cannot be easy, especially during a global pandemic, but bringing them home is critical to honoring their service. The DPAA reports that 75 percent of lost Americans are located in the Indo- Pacific, and more than 41,000 of the missing are presumed lost at sea. Despite the difficulty, the agency announced accounting for more than 70 missing servicemembers since March. Their locations included Germany, Laos, North Korea, Papua, Pearl Harbor, the Philippines, Romania, Saipan, South Korea, and Tarawa. To help with this effort, I have supported and introduced the bipartisan Bring Our Heroes Home Act, which would address obstacles preventing families and caseworkers from accessing the records needed for recovery efforts by putting one entity in charge of prioritizing and facilitating the declassification of records related to missing servicemembers. We cannot let up in bringing home all our Nation's heroes, including the 359 Idahoans, who have yet to be returned. Those who have served our Nation deserve no less than to rest at home, and we cannot rest until they do.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we have discussed this before on the floor, and I will not go through that entirely in my part of the discussion here. Four months ago with the CARES Act, we came together and unanimously passed a package that provided historic support, significant support, in the rental markets, as this request focuses on. I believe that in the coming days, we can come to that same kind of consensus and deal with this important issue. Because of that, I object.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, reserving the right to object. To date, Congress has appropriated nearly $3 trillion to protect, strengthen, and support Americans in all walks of life, to fight the COVID-19 pandemic and to stabilize the infrastructure and our economic system. Senator Brown and I worked on a big part of that package together on a team which was put together by Senator McConnell to try to make sure we addressed, in a bipartisan fashion, the way to respond to this pandemic. The CARES Act has been central to the effort and includes measures to help families directly, to provide aid to small businesses, to assist those in the medical field and on the frontlines of our response effort, and to stabilize our markets. Soon after, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act--or CARES Act--codifying and extending these protections and providing financial relief to renters--yes, to renters. Title IV of the CARES Act contains three housing provisions. Section 4022 imposes a 60-day eviction and foreclosure moratorium for single- family borrowers with federally backed mortgage loans. It allows struggling homeowners 1 year of loan forbearance. Section 4023 extends similar relief to multifamily borrowers who are current on their mortgage payments. They can request up to 90-days forbearance as long as they do not evict the tenant or charge late fees during the pandemic. Section 4024 imposes a 120-day moratorium on evictions, fees, and penalties. That moratorium will not expire until August 31. As with much of the CARES Act, the provisions dealing with stabilizing our economy and helping to support and sustain workers, small business owners, homeowners, and home renters are all playing out right now as we speak. Yet the real objection here is that Senator McConnell and the Republicans have said we want to work on looking at the next package of support, but we want to see how this one is playing out first and identify those places where we need to target the relief most. The objection is that there is a desire, once again, to go rapidly into passing the House bill and not having regular order follow in the Senate as we work to approach this issue as the existing CARES Act plays out. All of our housing agencies have extended this eviction and foreclosure moratorium and are working to help address the issues relating to tenants. HUD has expanded issuer assistance to include Pass-Through Assistance Program support, which allows servicers to apply for assistance in meeting principal and interest payments, and the FHFA has announced that no mortgage servicer will be responsible for advancing more than 4 months of missed principal and interest payments on a loan. All of these things have been done to stabilize the housing markets and to assist low-income home ownership and home construction and assistance. While I am open to looking at the question of whether additional assistance is needed for renters, homeowners, and others in our society, I am not willing to simply bypass the process in the Senate-- ignore the considerations that our leadership has called for as we look to see how our current support programs are playing out--and simply jam the House bill through the Senate without having any debate or process. This was the biggest rescue package in the history of Congress, and we included a variety of oversight mechanisms in the legislation to ensure that the dollars and programs associated with it reached their intended marks. Many of the provisions in the CARES Act and those appropriated dollars are still making their way to these individuals and families and businesses and markets across the country. So we must work together to address these critical issues rather than simply try to jam one party's or one side of this Congress's approach to the solution without going through regular order. I would say the arguments that are being made that we or any of us are somehow turning a blind eye to the problems that exist could not be further from the truth. As I said earlier, the reality is that we passed the largest relief program in the history of this country. We are working to provide liquidity, as well as actual dollar relief, in the amount of trillions of dollars, and those programs are still playing out. We need to work together rather than, by unanimous consent request after unanimous consent request after unanimous consent request, try to jam down one side's approach without looking to find the cooperative solutions that I know we can. Like I said, I am open to working on these very issues, but the way to do it is not to come to the floor with a unanimous consent request-- take it or leave it. We need to let proper, regular working order operate in the Senate, and we have time to do so. For that reason, I object.