John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, it has been more than a year now since the first COVID-19 case was confirmed here in the United States. As the war against this virus has been fought, it has evolved over the last 12 months, and our country has been challenged like never before in my memory. Healthcare workers across the country have heroically battled this cruel virus, often with insufficient equipment and personnel. Frontline workers in delivery trucks, grocery stores, and other essential businesses have kept the cogs of society running. As a whole, we have hunkered down and tried to stop the spread of the virus until enough Americans could get vaccinated. We all have come to realize that is really the gold standard in defeating this virus. The Trump administration launched Operation Warp Speed to accelerate the research and development of therapeutics and vaccines to move us toward that goal as soon as possible. Just last summer, when President Trump predicted we would have an effective vaccine by the end of the year, there was some serious skepticism--and you might even call it blowback--from some of the critics. One media outlet published a fact check saying it would require nothing short of a ``medical miracle'' to have a vaccine by the end of last year. Thanks to the leadership on a bipartisan basis here and the marvels of science and human ingenuity, that so-called miracle came true not once but twice, and we are expecting more vaccines to eventually be approved in the near term. The world's brightest scientific minds used the foundation built by decades of vaccine research to craft lifesaving and, in fact, world-changing vaccines. Less than 11 months after the first COVID-19 case was discovered in the United States, the very first vaccine was administered after it was approved--11 months. The number of Americans who have been vaccinated against COVID-19 is growing every day, and so far, more than 24.5 million doses have been administered nationwide. Nearly 2 million of those doses have gone into the arms of my fellow Texans. Texas became the first State to administer 1 million doses--an accomplishment that underscores the hard work of our State and local leaders and our public health officials, our private partners and healthcare workers. Every day, our public health experts are evaluating the current distribution process to make improvements and speed up the vaccination process. The State has now set up mass vaccination hubs to expedite distribution and administer as many doses as they can as quickly as they can. While these sites are an efficient way to administer vaccines to Texans, we need to do more in rural parts of the country. I was glad to see in my State Governor Abbott's announcement that the State is launching a mobile vaccine pilot program to ramp up vaccination efforts in rural parts of the State. Those vaccinations kick off today, and with the support of our incredible Texas National Guardsmen, more at- risk Texans will be vaccinated against this virus. With currently two approved vaccines and potentially more on the way, we are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel, and it is getting bigger and brighter every day. But we can't take our foot off the gas--we all know that. Just as we led an aggressive effort to develop vaccines, it is time to redouble our efforts to distribute those vaccines. I worry we are not starting off on a strong footing. In December, President-Elect Biden announced his administration's goals to get 100 million shots in the arms of Americans within the first 100 days of his Presidency. That announcement came about a week before the first doses of the vaccine were distributed--before we had a real-world test of the processes that had been in planning for months. We are now several weeks into this nationwide vaccination campaign, and the Biden administration has stuck by this initial benchmark. The President has repeatedly described this as an ``ambitious goal''--a statement that has led to a fair amount of head-scratching, not because it is too aggressive, as some people thought President Trump's proposed vaccine delivery date was, but because it is too modest. One physician and public health expert described this as ``a disappointingly low bar.'' An Associated Press headline evaluated the situation pretty well when it said: ``Biden's early approach to virus: Underpromise, overdeliver.'' The truth is, we were largely on track to meet President Biden's ambitious goal even before he took the oath of office. On Inauguration Day, more than 1.6 million doses had been administered, and over the last week, the average number of vaccinations has exceeded 1.5 million a day. It is hard to really frame this as a goal when in reality you could throw the entire operation on cruise control and surpass it. On Monday evening, President Biden appeared to up the target to 150 million doses in the first 100 days, which would track with the 1.5 million doses we are currently seeing administered. But the White House Press Secretary walked back that claim the following day. One hundred million doses in 100 days is certainly catchy, and I have no doubt the administration has tried to underpromise so it can be seen as overdelivering. That is not altogether a bad strategy. But the goal here is not to set a target you are almost certain to meet. After all, we didn't see the previous administration set a target of a successful vaccine by the summer of 2021, which is what many experts believed to be the most feasible. So I would urge the administration and all of us to accede to a truly ambitious vaccination schedule and motivate the newly assembled team at the White House to achieve it and to provide the resources that they may need from Congress in order for them to execute that plan. There is no reason to stick to a goal we were on track to meet before President Biden was even sworn in. President Biden, of course, ran a campaign criticizing the previous administration's handling of the COVID-19 virus, and he campaigned on the promise to lead us out of that crisis. But this modest goal is not going to get us there fast enough. Researchers at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston say we need to be vaccinating 3 million people a day. That is double the pace we are seeing right now and triple the Biden administration's self-described ambitious plan. The past year has been full of scientific developments and bold action by Congress and the administration to develop and distribute vaccines to the American people. We simply can't afford to put it in cruise control now. Our only option is to mobilize every resource and to push as hard and as fast as we can to get the American people vaccinated and to finally bring an end to this pandemic. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, we know it has been the tradition of the Senate to prioritize nominees for national security positions, and there has never been a more critical time to ensure that President Biden is surrounded by an experienced and capable team. From the threats posed by an increasingly hostile Iran to those by an unpredictable North Korea, there are many, many challenges on the horizon. One of the first the administration must confront is the expiration of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, also known as New START. This is the only remaining bilateral strategic arms agreement between the United States and Russia, which are the world's most powerful nuclear states, and it is set to expire in a matter of days. Last fall, the Trump administration advocated for a 1-year extension of New START, with the condition that both countries would cap nuclear weapons--nuclear warheads during that period. Unsurprisingly, Russia preferred a clean, 5-year extension with no warhead limitations. President Putin delayed the final stages of talks in the hopes that the potential Biden administration would strike a deal more favorable to Russia. And it appears now, at least as things stand today, that President Putin has hedged his bets correctly. Following a call yesterday between President Biden and President Putin, the White House announced that the United States and Russia are set to extend New START for 5 years, with no conditions attached. This was President Biden's first major foreign policy test, and, unfortunately, he played right into Russia's hand. For starters, it is no secret that New START was deeply flawed from the beginning. And it is no secret that Russia cheats, which is why verification is so essential. The counting mechanisms in New START don't effectively keep our countries on a level playing field, which is the primary goal of any arms treaty because it promotes mutual deterrents. The treaty limits the number of bombers each nation could possess but places no limit on the number of warheads each bomber can support. Making matters worse, the limits only apply to strategic, not tactical, nuclear weapons. Russia has taken advantage of this loophole in New START, amassing some 2,000 tactical nuclear weapons compared to only 500 for the United States. Russia's nuclear doctrine signals its increasing willingness to use those tactical nuclear weapons in a conflict, particularly in Europe, as it warily eyes NATO. Another 5 years under New START will allow Russia to continue growing its arsenal of tactical weapons and cement its advantage over the United States, perhaps permanently. Once that happens, the likelihood of Russia deploying and ultimately using these weapons goes higher. These treaties ought to make the world safer, not a more dangerous place due to imbalances, the potential for mistakes, or miscalculation. Beyond sheer numbers, there is also the question of trust or, I should say, of verification, because it is hardly controversial to say Russia isn't the most trustworthy partner. Last fall, the Kremlin attempted to poison a Putin opponent using a nerve agent. Russia has launched massive cyber attacks against private companies and government agencies here in the United States, the latest being the SolarWinds hack. And last year, it attempted to steal coronavirus vaccine data from the United States and some of our closest allies. In short, Russia does not play by the rules, and New START does little to prevent further cheating. By granting Putin's request for a clean 5-year extension of New START, the Biden administration will not only be rewarding Russia for its hostile actions against the United States and our allies but also enabling Russia and other nuclear states to continue growing their stockpiles while the United States plays by outdated rules: no cap on nuclear warheads, no enhanced verification measures--in short, no need for assurances for Russia to follow the rules laid out in New START. The expected treaty extension by the Biden administration wouldn't address any of those blinking red lights. The biggest failure of a clean, 5-year extension, though, is relinquishing the leverage we currently have to take a more comprehensive approach to nuclear disarmament. As I said, the United States and Russia are the most powerful nuclear states in the world, but together we account for only two of the five nuclear armed states recognized by the nonproliferation treaty. Two of the other countries, the United Kingdom and France--both of whom provide regular information about the size and makeup of their nuclear arsenal--are not a problem. The fifth and final power is China, one of the world's biggest secret keepers. It is a police state and opaque, as we learned once again when it came to the virus from Wuhan Province. As if we needed a reminder of the critical information China withheld from the rest of the world, all we need to do is look at the COVID-19 pandemic. The first cases of COVID-19 appeared in China as early as November of 2019, and the Communist Party of China willfully withheld the information from the rest of the world, and it sought to downplay the potential impact of the virus. China repeatedly silenced the brave men and women of its own country who tried to sound the alarm, and, as a result, countries around the world were ill-prepared for these critical early stages of the fight against COVID-19. Now, more than 2.1 million people have died from this virus, including more than 420,000 Americans. It is impossible to gauge how many of those lives could have been saved by earlier intervention, but this should serve as a cautionary tale when it comes to managing threats from China. We cannot allow China to continue sitting on the sidelines while the four other nuclear states play by the rules as we hope they will. The administration must push to get China to the negotiating table--at the negotiating table. The thick cloak of secrecy surrounding the Chinese Communist Party has made it nearly impossible to verify information about the breadth and the depth of China's nuclear capabilities. What we do know is that China continues to pursue a nuclear triad, and experts estimate China to have about 300 nuclear weapons. Assuming that figure is correct, it puts China slightly ahead of France and the United Kingdom in terms of raw numbers. That would make China the third most powerful nuclear state in the world, and we have every reason to believe that the size of its arsenal will continue to grow. In May of 2019, then-Director for the Defense Intelligence Agency, GEN Robert Ashley, said China is likely to at least double the size of its nuclear stockpile over the next decade. He referred to this effort as ``the most rapid expansion and diversification of its nuclear arsenal in China's history.'' Despite this already large and constantly growing nuclear threat, there are virtually no measures in place to hold China accountable or to bring them to the table. A simple extension of the New START leaves in place a framework in which the Russians cheat, the Chinese are not at the table, and the United States is playing by the rules of a bygone era. This must change. It must change. If you think about the fact that since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear weapons have not been used on this planet, it is a result of tough negotiations and a system of mutual deterrence because we know, were nuclear weapons to be used, that it could result in the extermination of the planet. So that is why deterrence is so important. That is why reciprocity and transparency are so important. The Cold War-era approach to nuclear disarmament does not make sense in the modern world. Rather than enter a 5-year extension of New START, the administration should use its leverage to convene multilateral talks. America should invite the other nuclear nonproliferation treaty states--Russia, China, France, and the UK--to the negotiating table and encourage multilateral talks aimed at limiting the growth of nuclear arsenals globally. There is far too much at stake to merely cave in to the demands of President Putin in Moscow and cave in as well to the recalcitrance of Beijing to come to the table. The administration must pursue a multilateral, comprehensive approach. It is the only practical and workable solution to the vast nuclear threats posed by both China and Russia. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, let me express my gratitude to the Senator from Alaska for his words. I could not have said it better than he did, and I am grateful to him for coming and articulating that important message so clearly and emphatically. Chris Wray, the FBI Director, is a pretty laid-back guy. As a matter of fact, I frequently tell people he reminds me of the typical G-man-- you know, not a lot of emotion, not a lot of animation. But the FBI Director, who I think is doing an outstanding job and has been doing an outstanding job, gets positively animated when it comes to China and the threats presented there. Of course, the FBI is principally in charge of the counterintelligence mission against foreign countries like China that try to steal our intellectual property, spy on our country using a number unconventional means. I just want to say to our friend from Alaska: Thank you for making that point. It is really, really important.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, yesterday afternoon we confirmed another one of President Biden's Cabinet nominees. Antony Blinken has led an impressive career in the public sector and is well versed in both the vast responsibilities of the State Department, as well as the diplomatic challenges we will face in the months and years ahead, the most important of which is China, but it is not China alone. While Mr. Blinken and I have policy differences--some of them very serious--I have confidence in his ability to represent our Nation on the global stage. It is important for a new President, whether they be a Republican or a Democrat, to have qualified, Senate-confirmed officials in their Cabinet without delay. Over the past week, we have worked to confirm nominees for some of the most critical Federal Departments and Agencies. The Secretaries of State, Defense, Treasury, as well as the Director of National Intelligence, have each been confirmed by the Senate with broad bipartisan support. And we will continue to process more of the President's nominees in the days ahead. Four years ago, our Democratic colleagues approached President Trump's nominees with a grab bag of antics, including everything from intentional delays to brazen theatrics. In most cases, this behavior wasn't a reflection on the nominee or their qualifications, but of our colleagues' antipathy toward President Trump. Clearly we are adopting a different approach, and I hope it is one that will deescalate these battles and one that will serve the national interest rather than harm it. Throughout my time in the Senate, I have tried to evaluate nominees based on their qualifications, their integrity, and their ability to carry out the responsibilities for the job they have been nominated for, and I will continue to either support or oppose nominees based on those merits and those criteria, not based on the party of the President

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, throughout the Presidential campaign, President Biden spoke often about the need to unify the country. He talked about the need for people across our great Nation to come together to empathize with one another and to mend the divisions that exist in our society. He echoed that same theme in his inaugural address, saying: Without unity, there is no peace, only bitterness and fury. No progress, only exhausting outrage. No nation, only a state of chaos. I agree with President Biden that there is an imperative to restore unity and civility throughout our country, but for all of the talk of uniting, compromising, and working together, the early pages of this new chapter read quite differently. For starters, there are the actions of our Democratic colleagues who are trying to eliminate the legislative filibuster. They have echoed and praised the President's call for unity and bipartisanship while threatening to tear down the very rules that force us to work together in a bipartisan way. We know that the filibuster, or the cloture requirement that requires 60 votes to close off debate, is designed to encourage a fulsome debate of the issues that confront 330 million Americans. It is what distinguishes the Senate from other legislative bodies. Unlike in the House of Representatives, where you need a simple majority in order to work your will, the Senate requires 60 votes to be in agreement in order to close off debate before a bill can be passed with 51 votes or more. It really forces us to do what sometimes we resist, which is to work together in a bipartisan way. The American people may believe that it is in our best interest for us to pass things on a partisan basis, but it is certainly not in their best interest. So the cloture requirement, or the filibuster rule, is designed to prevent either party from steamrolling the other, and that is a good thing The new majority leader, the Senator from New York, has threatened to blow up the filibuster and clear a path for a sweeping, radical agenda--this despite the fact that our Democratic friends have themselves relied on the filibuster over the last 6 years as the minority party and that President Biden himself, based on his 36 years of experience in the U.S. Senate, has affirmed the importance of this 60-vote requirement. I am glad that two of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle--one from West Virginia and one from Arizona--have offered their assurances that they will not vote to end the legislative filibuster, but I am disappointed that only two of our Democratic colleagues have done that. This should not be controversial or newsworthy to begin with. So far, the majority of Senate Democrats has made no legitimate effort to pursue President Biden's call for unity or bipartisanship. Unfortunately, it is not just the actions of our Democratic colleagues which have caused concern. President Biden himself has acted unilaterally, time and again, by issuing a lengthy list of Executive orders within hours of his inauguration. The policies that President Biden is addressing in his Executive orders should be addressed here in Congress with bipartisan legislation. One of those was a 100-day moratorium on enforcing bipartisan immigration laws, which was enjoined by a Federal judge in my State earlier today. It would be better for the country if our Democratic colleagues tried to legislate instead of litigate these Executive orders in court. I think the experience with DACA, or the experience with the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, is instructive. President Obama, back in 2012, decided to take it upon himself to enact this new policy. It has been tied up in the courts for the ensuing 8, now going on 9 years. I support providing a permanent solution for DACA recipients, but it has to be done here on a bipartisan basis, not just ordered unilaterally from the Oval Office, or else we are going to see these bogged down in lawsuit, after lawsuit, after lawsuit, which, I think, will be satisfying to virtually no one. On top of the DACA Program, President Biden has now been piling on additional immigration-related actions, and he is expected to issue more in the coming days, but some of the most aggressive and controversial moves we have seen so far have related to energy policy. Within hours of the inauguration, President Biden canceled the permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline. There is no question that one of the biggest losers from that decision is the energy worker who stood to benefit from the jobs being created by the pipeline construction, and lest anybody think this is going to stop the flow of oil from Canada to the United States, what is going to happen--and what previously happened--is that oil will be loaded into railroad car tankers and trucks and shipped to their destinations. So it is not really stopping the oil from flowing where it is needed for low-cost and reasonably cost energy. It is just providing a more expensive and, indeed, a more dangerous alternative. At a time when our energy industry is already suffering as a result of the pandemic, this project would have led to a positive, cascading economic impact. Good-paying jobs, tax revenues, and economic benefits to local communities will evaporate because of this move. I would note that, in the Rio Grande Valley, right along the U.S. Texas border with Mexico, that President Trump performed surprisingly well among Hispanic voters. People wrongly assume that Hispanic voters only care about immigration laws. The truth is they care about jobs and their families and their ability to pursue the American dream, which is why they overperformed what they typically would and why President Biden underperformed what he typically would in a largely Democratic stronghold there in the Rio Grande Valley, but the buck doesn't stop there. The same day, the Biden administration halted all new leasing permits on Federal lands and waters. Rather than harvest our natural resources, which is one of the greatest benefits that nature has conferred on our country, it appears the Biden administration is carrying out its campaign to transition from oil and gas. I am all for transitioning to cleaner forms of energy, but we have to deal with the reality--for example, the fact that there are 280 million cars with internal combustion engines on our roads. How are families going to get to work, take their kids to school or live their lives if, all of a sudden, the very natural resources they depend on for their cars is no longer available? This industry, according to one study, directly or indirectly supports one in six jobs in my State and is a pillar of our State's economy. Through higher tax revenue, high-paying jobs, and downstream economic gains, communities across my State reap the benefits of our thriving oil and gas industry every day. It is also what happens to finance higher education in Texas from a dedicated, permanent university fund. If, in fact, our ability to produce this oil and gas from the ground is going to be curtailed, that is going to have dramatic, unintended consequences, too. This also makes sure that folks across the country who don't produce this energy can get access to affordable and reliable energy. In November of 2019, for the first time on record, the United States exported more crude oil and fuel than we imported; that is, rather than being dependent on other countries, we exported more than we imported. Beyond the obvious economic benefits, this provides a serious boost to our national security and that of our allies. There is a reason we have been engaged in the Middle East for a long time. Ever since Winston Churchill, as the Lord of the Navy in Britain, decided to move from coal to oil to power the British Navy, we have been dependent on sources of oil and gas primarily from the Middle East. So this has not only economic consequences; it also has national security consequences. It also allows us to provide our friends and allies around the world with a dependable alternative. They no longer have to rely solely on the tender mercies of Vladimir Putin, for example, for their energy supplies, which can, obviously, be used as a weapon in and of itself. All of these gains are possible because of the hard-working men and women who work in the field and in the refineries in energy-producing States like Texas. While COVID-19 has had an impact on American energy producers because demand has dropped precipitously, we don't expect that downtick to last forever. Indeed, it is coming back already as the economy continues to open up and now that more and more people are being vaccinated for COVID-19. We have hope that, later this year, people will resume their daily commutes to work; that the lights in their office buildings will flicker back on; that nonessential travel will pick back up; and that energy producers will be running at full speed once again. Rather than laying the foundation for a strong recovery, the Biden administration is issuing Executive orders that will harm American energy and send more business to our international competitors. And the administration is carrying out these changes without any input from Congress. I understand the President's desire to bolster renewable energy, and I think he would find that if he explored energy policies with us in Congress, he would meet more friends than foes. I support the effort to drive down emissions, and, in fact, natural gas that transitions from coal-fired powerplants to natural gas has been a big driver of the progress we have made in doing just that. But we shouldn't stop there. We need to continue to invest in new clean energy technologies that will reduce emissions while providing low-cost access to electricity that the American people need to live and to work. The United States' energy-related emissions dropped by almost 3 percent in 2019, largely due to the use of natural gas for power generation. But I am a strong supporter of renewable energy too. We truly, in my State, believe in an ``all of the above'' energy policy. We are the No. 1 producer of electricity from wind turbines in the country. We produce one-quarter of all wind energy in the United States, and if Texas were a country, we would be the fifth largest wind energy producer in the world. But even the strongest supporters of renewable sources of energy can tell you that, right now, renewables alone are not feasible to fuel our economy. After all, there are some times when the Sun doesn't shine and when the wind doesn't blow, so we need a backup or baseload source of energy. Last year, renewables accounted for less than 18 percent of our total electricity generation, and I am all for having that number grow. For comparison, natural gas, though, currently accounts for double that. While the development and expansion of renewable sources like wind energy are important, we can't shut out our key sources of energy that we need today. We have been supporters of an ``all of the above'' energy strategy, like I said. My State, I think, is proof positive that you can support the oil and gas energy that is so important for our economy and for people's livelihoods; you can support renewables; and you can support innovative technologies that lower emissions, all while creating high-paying jobs and providing affordable and reliable energy. I would like to work with the administration and our Democratic colleagues in the Senate, as I have in the past, to enact lasting policies and deliver reliable energy to the American people and our friends and allies around the world while prioritizing conservation. This is not the time to implement unilateral, heavyhanded, shortsighted regulations. Our energy industry is still reeling from the effects of the pandemic, and the administration and Congress need to take action to support its recovery, not stand in its way. I agree with President Biden's call for unity, and I hope that the next 4 years will be filled with more bipartisan cooperation than the first days of this new administration have been. We have learned, time and time again, that the legislative process, which forces us to work together in a consensus-building exercise is far more durable--far better--than unilateral Executive actions. I admit that both parties, when they are in the White House, have used Executive actions, but, frankly, I would think as an institution, we here in Congress would be leery of encouraging more Executive action. That means most of the power here in Washington is exercised out of the White House and not done here in the people's House, here in Congress. I encourage the administration to lead by example and encourage all of us to do the same--to try to work together for our shared priorities and create real and lasting change for our country. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, last week, the country and the world watched as our Nation carried out one of its most sacred traditions-- the peaceful transfer of power, which is the hallmark of American democracy, that has defined our country since its earliest days. Between the pandemic and heightened security concerns, this inauguration looked far different than those of former Presidents, but the will of the people was carried out just as it has been following every Presidential election throughout our Nation's history. President Biden, in his inaugural address, stressed the importance of unifying our country. I agree, and I hope that the President and our Democratic colleagues in Congress lead by example.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I know Senator Toomey is delayed coming to the floor, and on his behalf, I will object.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. It was more of a rhetorical question.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, would the Senator from Illinois yield for a question?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Illinois would consider pairing their request for a $2,000 direct payment with a liability shield provision that would guard businesses that have been operating in good faith and following the guidelines put out by public health and government institutions, and preserve a right to sue for reckless and willful disregard of the rights for others? Would the Senator consider pairing those two together?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would say to our colleague from Vermont, I have no problem with providing assistance, whether it is to public health officials who are trying to struggle with this pandemic or to provide money for research for the therapeutics or vaccines which, fortunately, are now being distributed around the country. I have no objection to direct payments to individuals. I voted for the $1,200 direct payments contained in the CARES Act. I voted for the additional money that is provided for in the most recent COVID-19 legislation. But this legislation that the Senator from Vermont is advocating would benefit households with annual incomes of over $350,000. They would get this money. I would say that one way to deal with this--because, of course, we negotiated back and forth on the last COVID-19 bill, and nobody got everything they wanted--but if our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want an additional financial benefit for people making up to $350,000, why not couple it with liability protection for people who are acting in good faith? This isn't just about corporations, and our colleagues across the aisle know it. This is about schools. This is about churches, synagogues, and mosques. This is about every business that is worried that a game of ``gotcha'' is going to take place and they are going to end up paying the price. Even if they win the lawsuit, they will still have to pay for the cost of defense, potentially losing their businesses outright. Clearly, our colleagues across the aisle care more about trial lawyers and being able to bring litigation against businesses that have tried to do their best and have struggled with the evolving public health guidance provided by the CDC and other authorities. Clearly, if they are not interested in engaging in a negotiation where people, who through no fault of their own, find themselves victimized by frivolous litigation, then, we have no alternative but to continue to object to this request.

Mr. CORNYN. It is not targeted to people who have suffered financial losses. This money would go to members of your own staff if they meet the financial requirements and to other government employees who have suffered no financial loss during this pandemic. We have all suffered in different ways during the pandemic, to be sure, but, financially, this money is designed to help the people who need it the most. Why would you send money to government employees who have been receiving their full paycheck during this pandemic?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would say to our colleague from Vermont: This money is not targeted to people who have suffered financially.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wanted to come to the floor and talk about what strikes me as something akin to Groundhog Day. Groundhog Day is only the day I was born. It is something I feel like we are living through here as we debate the same points over and over and over again, forgetting what it is we have already done-- the good things we have done together on a bipartisan basis. We have already appropriated roughly $4 trillion in response to this pandemic, and it is appropriate that we have done so because this was a true public health crisis. But now this is--we are seeing politics creep back in in an attempt to send money in an untargeted and wasteful sort of way to people who have suffered no financial loss. These relief packages that we passed together have provided hundreds of billions of dollars to support our hospitals and healthcare workers who are on the frontlines. I voted for it, and I think we were right to do so. We have thrown small businesses and their employees a lifeline through the Paycheck Protection Program, and we were right to do so. We have invested in research, development, and manufacturing of therapeutics and vaccines that are currently being administered--thank goodness--throughout the country and, indeed, around the world. And we have sent unprecedented assistance to workers, families, and individuals whose livelihoods have been upended by this crisis. Thanks to President Trump's leadership, Congress has stepped up and met this unprecedented challenge to deliver relief bill after relief bill for the American people. If you had told me a year ago I would have voted this year alone for roughly $4 trillion worth of spending in this pandemic, I would not have believed you. But I do believe this is a domestic equivalent to World War II, where we have to do everything humanly possible to try to help our fellow man, woman, and child during this pandemic. The latest round of relief came, of course, just this week, when President Trump signed the $900 billion rescue package into law. While I am glad Congress was able to send more relief out the door at the end of the year, I am disappointed that it took so long to do so. It is amazing the sense of urgency our Democratic colleagues have today, since at least three times--maybe four times--they blocked our attempts to pass half-trillion-dollar relief bills during the course of the summer. In July, our colleagues introduced the HEALS Act, which would have provided just under a trillion dollars in relief, covering the same types of policies included in the most recent relief bill--direct payments, unemployment benefits, funding for schools, vaccines, and a host of other priorities. Our Democratic colleagues not only complained about the bill, but they called it weak, little, pathetic, and unserious. They refused to engage in the sorts of negotiations that are customary around here when you actually want to solve a problem or consider anything short of the House's multitrillion-dollar bill, which they knew had no chance of passing in the Senate because of things like tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, which had nothing to do with COVID. So our Democratic colleagues dragged their feet--July, August, September, October, November. Months went by, and the cases soared, and the economic squeeze tightened, and our Democratic colleagues refused to accept any sort of compromise. That was until a few weeks ago, when they finally changed their tune right after the election. I am sure it comes as no surprise that once the holdout agrees to negotiate, things can move pretty quickly, and that is what happened here after the election. Democrats, Republicans, and the administration agreed to a $900 billion package, which looks very similar to the one they dubbed pathetic just a few months ago. In recent days, the President has expressed an interest in doing more, and I have no doubt that we will do more in this area, but Speaker Pelosi's bill goes far beyond what the President is talking about. For one, it would dramatically widen the pool of recipients, enabling wealthy households to qualify for relief checks. This is unacceptable and wasteful. When Congress provided the first round of direct payments through the CARES Act, we did so in a way that sent relief to the hardest hit Americans. Individuals who made up to $75,000 received the full $1,200, and the amount gradually declined as income increased and completely phased out at $99,000. We kept the same formula for the $600 payments provided for under the omnibus and further targeted the relief. Once again, those who made up to $75,000 will receive the full amount, and the amount phases out completely at $87,000. Under the CARES Act, a family of four earning up to $150,000 received $3,400, and in the most recent rescue bill, the same family would receive an additional $2,400. This was the most effective and targeted way to ensure that assistance goes to those who actually need it while avoiding sending taxpayer dollars--borrowed, I might add--to those who don't. The House-passed legislation would provide $2,000 payments, but it doesn't have a similar structure to keep these payments targeted. Let me give you an example. If this bill were to become law, a person making $100,000 a year would receive a $750 check from the Federal Government, whether or not they lost income during the pandemic. This isn't someone who used to make that much but was laid off or had a reduction in their income. Someone who is currently earning a six-figure salary would receive an additional $750 from American taxpayers. For families, the income barrier goes higher. As I mentioned a moment ago, if you have a family of five with an annual household income of $350,000 a year, that family would receive a stimulus check under the House-passed bill. Now, that is not being smart with taxpayer dollars, and that is not targeted at the people who actually need it. That is a giveaway to people who have not suffered any financial losses during this pandemic and clearly not targeted at those who need the most help. I mentioned a moment ago that the median income for households in Texas is $60,000 a year, so this family of five is earning nearly six times as much and would still receive a check from taxpayers. That defies all common sense. Even the Washington Post editorial board dubbed this policy as wasteful because of the huge amounts destined for what they call ``perfectly comfortable families.'' Even though Congress has already provided roughly $4 trillion in relief to the American people, our Democratic colleagues are acting as though this is the first and only way to help our country. Like I said, for them, every day is Groundhog Day. They ignore everything we have done in the past and act like this is the only thing we have or could do. It is just not true This debate isn't about whether or not Congress should help families who are struggling. We have. And there is no question we will continue to do so where needed. That is why we provided $1,200 in direct payments to the hardest hit Americans through the CARES Act and an additional $600 through the most recent relief bill. That is why these bills also bolstered State unemployment benefits and expanded them to include independent contractors and the self-employed. That is why Congress passed legislation to provide food assistance to families, keep more hard-working Americans on payroll, and ensure our economy is on track for a strong recovery. Again, we did this thanks to the leadership of President Trump and by working together in a bipartisan way. Countless Texans have told me about the impact of this relief on their businesses and their families, and we can't lose sight of the progress that has already been made. But future relief must be targeted. We need to support those who need it and avoid sending hundreds of billions of dollars, as this proposal would, to those who don't need it. Throughout the year, I have been an advocate for an incremental approach to these relief bills because I think it is hard to spend $3 trillion and know exactly how that bill is going to work. And, indeed, we found out through the CARES Act that the mainstream lending facility, which we funded at roughly half a trillion dollars, wasn't as useful as we would have hoped. Conversely, the Paycheck Protection Program was more successful than our wildest dreams. So I think by seeing what works and what doesn't work, we can be better stewards of taxpayer dollars by spending the money more efficiently and in a more targeted way. This isn't like highway bills or farm bills or defense spending bills where we have an idea about what is needed for individual programs. There was no precedent for this pandemic, no handbook, and no clear way to gauge how long this crisis would go on or what would be needed to sustain our response. After the CARES Act passed, we knew it made the most sense to hit the pause button and see what worked well, what didn't, and where more help was needed. As I said, there were certain programs like the Paycheck Protection Program that almost immediately dried up. If I am not mistaken, in 2 weeks, roughly $350 billion was obligated under the Paycheck Protection Program--a strong indication that we really hit the sweet spot when it came to helping those small businesses. That is why we added more funding in April, another $320 billion, and we extended the program in July and reinvested in the Paycheck Protection Program again in the omnibus. As I said, there were other places where the money went unspent. But, fortunately, in the most recent bill we were able to repurpose hundreds of billions of dollars in unspent funds, again, to target it to where the need was greatest and where it could help the most. There is no question that tens of millions of workers and their families have been hurt by this virus. We all know that. And I think we have all acted together, by and large, responsibly, in trying to respond to that. No one will be left out if we have a means and method of targeting this to those people--whether it is direct payments, enhanced unemployment benefits, incentives to their employers to maintain them on payroll. And now that we have the beginning of the distribution of the vaccine, my hope is that in the coming months we will get back to, if not the new normal, whatever the next normal will be. But we are just a few days from kicking off the new Congress, and I have no reason to believe that our coronavirus relief work is finished here today. As a matter of fact, Vice President Biden said that he expects to send us an additional request for help once he assumes office. Once the legislation we have passed has a chance to benefit the American people, we will see if more relief is needed, and then, if it is needed, we should absolutely do more. I still believe in the wisdom of the incremental approach, and I believe our Democratic friends will join us in responding to the true needs of this crisis without monthlong delays or irresponsible spending. Countless Texans have told me about the importance of the relief we have provided through direct payments, unemployment benefits, food assistance, and other forms of support by the laws we passed throughout this year. I was proud to support each of those policies, which have eased the financial strains on millions of Texans and other Americans. I will continue to work with our colleagues to provide assistance as our war on COVID-19 rages on. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, Speaker Pelosi's second bite at the apple, just after we voted on a $900 billion bill that has now been signed into law by the President of the United States, is not the way to send relief to the hardest hit Americans. Under this legislation, a family of five with an annual income of $350,000 would receive a stimulus check. This is reminiscent of the Heroes Act that the House passed, which cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires. This isn't about helping the people that need it the most. This is about helping millionaires and billionaires and people who frankly have not suffered the hardships economically that others have during this pandemic. The median household in my State is $60,000, and the Speaker wants to send taxpayer-funded assistance to folks earning nearly six times that much. Even the Washington Post editorial board agrees this is bad policy. It doesn't differentiate between people who have been receiving a paycheck during this pandemic, such as government employees, and people who, simply by virtue of their job, have been put out of work and are not receiving any income or maybe at best unemployment compensation. The Speaker's bill isn't about targeting folks who have lost their jobs or have seen their income reduced. It is a far cry from the additional assistance President Trump requested for the hardest hit Americans. The reality is, this bill would spend roughly $300 billion more on folks who aren't even experiencing a financial strain from the pandemic. We need to focus on the people who have been hurt. That is what our COVID-19 relief bill, which was just recently signed into law, is designed to do, and I dare say this is not going to be the last time we visit this topic. If there is more we need to do, I am confident we will do it. But today, in this way, is not the right way to do it. I object.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, over the last several months, as the Senate has worked to support our country through this pandemic, we have kept an eagle eye on the other threats on the horizon, and we passed the National Defense Authorization Act to ensure that we are prepared for whatever comes at us. For our forces to continue fighting and defeating our adversaries in every corner of the world, they need funding. They need stability. They need to be able to plan, and they need the unwavering support of the U.S. Congress and all 330 million Americans. The 2021 NDAA provides that support from Congress. It will prepare our military and servicemembers to address the threats that exist today, while preparing for those that we will inevitably face tomorrow. Earlier this month, this legislation passed the House by a vote of 335 to 78 and the Senate by a vote of 84 to 13. Those are rare vote margins in Congress these days, and that alone is a testament to the importance of this legislation and its bipartisan support. We know the President has the constitutional authority to veto any bill for virtually any reason, and he has exercised that power with this legislation. The reasons the President has given I don't think are frivolous at all, but they just shouldn't be tagged to this particular piece of legislation. His concerns about section 230 under the Communication Decency Act and the power of these social media platforms that censure speech is troubling indeed. This is something we really haven't confronted before. We know that under the First Amendment, the government can't censure speech, but with smalltown newspapers and media outlets and other alternatives fading away, more and more the American people rely on Facebook and Google and other internet platforms to get their information, and they have, I believe, become de facto public forums. So I agree that we do need to address section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, as the President has pointed out. The President also has a point about the Commission to rename military bases that are part of the Defense Authorization Act. Unfortunately, the amendment that was adopted in the Armed Services Committee undermines the role of Congress, once the Commission makes its report, to do as Congress believes should be done. But the truth is, as we have learned from our friends across the pond in the UK, no Parliament can bind a future Parliament, and indeed no Congress can bind a future Congress. That is true. So if these are things the President believes we should address and that Members of Congress and the new administration believe we should address, we will address them, and we have an opportunity to do that, but we should not try to do that on this bill and risk the loss of this important piece of legislation now in its 60th year of adoption. The Defense Department is hands down the largest employer in the United States, with nearly 2.9 million employees, including both servicemembers and civilians. These men and women can be found in more than 160 countries around the world and on all seven continents. Supporting them is a Herculean task, and the NDAA is a significant way in which we do that. The Defense authorization bill also includes a 3-percent pay raise for our troops and additional support for their families, such as career support for military spouses and quality childcare on military bases. Given the fact that we have an All-Volunteer military, it is important we not only support our servicemembers who wear the uniform but the families who support them as well. I have heard it said, you can recruit a member of the U.S. military, but if you want to retain them, you have to take care of their family, and I believe that is absolutely true. This bill also ensures previous reforms to improve the quality of military housing and healthcare are implemented appropriately. Those who serve in our military have made tremendous sacrifices in order to safeguard our freedoms and our way of life. I regard our support for them and for our national defense the No. 1 priority of the Federal Government. Everything else pales in significance. So we should do everything in our power to ensure that they and their families are appropriately taken care of. Beyond pay and benefits, that means giving the military members the training, the facilities, and the equipment they need not only to succeed on the job but to return home safely. The NDAA authorizes military construction projects across the country, including $183 million in Texas, which will bring serious updates and improvements to our military bases. At Joint Base San Antonio, this funding will provide for a range of new facilities, including a barracks, a flight simulation system, and an F-16 Mission Training Center. At Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth, it will support an F-35 operations and maintenance facility, vehicle maintenance shop, and an aircraft maintenance hangar. It will also support fuel facilities at Fort Hood and provide additional funding for the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, which maintains a large portion of our nuclear stockpile. Maintained and modernized facilities are a critical component to military readiness, and this legislation makes tremendous investments in our facilities around the world. It will authorize 93 new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters that will be built by Texans in Fort Worth. As we work to counter increasingly sophisticated adversaries around the world, this investment in our military readiness could not be more important. In addition to supporting our members in uniform and ensuring they are ready for action when called upon, the NDAA helps our military take stock of the evolving threat landscape and ensures that our country is taking active steps to counter threats on the horizon. In recent years, China and Russia have risen to the top of the threats to our country and to world order, with China now assuming the No. 1 role. We remember the Cold War after World War II, where we sought to contain and counter Soviet expansionism, and, actually, the mutual deterrents that we have established during that time has worked. But China is a unique challenge, and none of the old rules apply to China. They are increasingly belligerent and well resourced and continue to demonstrate a lack of respect not only for the United States and our closest allies but for basic human rights. The Chinese Government continues its disturbing and unacceptable genocide against the Uighur people. The so-called political reeducation camps are nothing more than concentration camps where Uighurs are tortured. Recent reporting has found that the treatment in these camps often includes forced abortions, birth control, and sterilization. And China continues to chip away at the freedoms and autonomy of Hong Kong, notwithstanding its promises to the contrary, using a so-called national security law to extinguish opposition to the Chinese Communist Party and to deny the people of Hong Kong the freedoms that they were promised. As I mentioned, though, China doesn't stand alone as a threat to the world. Russia has become increasingly aggressive around the world in its effort to wreak chaos and sow discord. Since their attempts to interfere with the 2016 election, we have witnessed aggression after aggression from Russia, not just here in the cyber space but around the world. From Russia-backed mercenaries fighting in the Middle East to its attempt to steal the coronavirus vaccine research and, in the last few weeks, a massive cyber attack on U.S. Government agencies, Russia continues to undermine the United States and our allies and shows no signs of stopping. It has become increasingly clear, if it wasn't already, that China and Russia adhere to no rules and no principles but their own. As the national defense strategy outlined, the threats posed by these two countries are increasingly dangerous, and countering these growing threats requires a clear and concentrated effort from Congress. That is exactly why passing the NDAA--the National Defense Authorization Act-- is so important. This legislation prioritizes strategic competition with China and Russia and takes a strong approach to counter the threats posed by adversaries around the world. It will build on the progress we have made in recent years to strengthen our military after the draconian cuts during the Obama-Biden administration and achieve peace through strength. Over the last several decades, the NDAA has provided an annual opportunity for us to take stock of the evolving threat landscape and ensure that our national defense is prepared to meet the challenges not only of today but of tomorrow, and this year's Defense Authorization Act is no exception. It takes a strong approach to counter the threats posed by our adversaries around the world. It invests in modernized national defense that is critical to maintaining peace through strength, and it provides support for our servicemembers and their families. Above all, it sends a message to the world that our country is and will remain the global military leader. I have supported this legislation on the Senate floor many times, and I will do so once again when the opportunity to vote to override the veto presents itself. One of Congress's most critical responsibilities is to provide for the common defense, and the NDAA--the National Defense Authorization Act--is how we will deliver. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, we didn't expect to be in session this week, but we are. And, of course, as we all know, the theme for this entire year has been ``COVID-19 writ large.'' More than 330,000 Americans have died from the novel coronavirus. Tens of millions have lost their jobs, and every community across the country has felt the devastating blow dealt by this pandemic, but, as we know, the threats that existed long before this virus still are with us. Even though most of the world hit pause to battle COVID-19, our adversaries did not, and our brave servicemembers didn't pack their bags and not show up for work when everybody else shut down.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, here we are, the 21st of December, 4 days till Christmas, and Congress is finally getting around to doing its duty on COVID-19 relief, as well as the Omnibus appropriations bill, which will keep the government open and keep the lights on through the end of the fiscal year next September. I have to editorialize here that I think this is a terrible process. It is a terrible process. I just saw one of the Texas delegation House Members saying: I am expected to review thousands of pages of an appropriations bill and COVID-19 relief bill in the next couple of hours and then vote on it this evening? Well, we will be in the same posture. As terrible as this process is, it was intentionally created. I am sure that the Appropriations chairman, Richard Shelby, and Leader McConnell would have loved to have had a regular appropriations process to vote out each of the subcommittee appropriations and pass them using regular order, giving the Members of the Congress a chance to offer amendments and maybe improve the bill, but we weren't provided that opportunity because, essentially, the Democratic leader and the Speaker of the House of Representatives understand that this kind of broken process empowers them to the detriment of individual Members of the Congress and to the detriment of the people we represent. It empowers them, not the rank- and-file Members. So, I believe this is a--and the same thing is true on COVID-19, of course. We passed the CARES Act in March. We tried to come back and replenish some of those funds. We were successful in doing so, for example, in the Paycheck Protection Program, but it was obvious there was more need, and on at least three occasions--maybe four, but at least three--we offered another half trillion dollars in relief, only to be blocked by Democrats here in the Senate. Speaker Pelosi was candid. She basically said: Well, this is about politics. We don't want President Trump to get credit for Congress stepping up in a bipartisan way to provide relief to the American people in the runup to the election. So this is where we are. We know what we have to do. We have to prevent the government from shutting down. We know that there is genuine need across the country for more COVID-19 relief, so we need to do that. But I would also point out, we are going to do roughly $900 billion of an additional COVID-19 relief bill when Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leader in the Senate, Senator Schumer, turned down a $1.8 trillion offer from Secretary of the Treasury Mnuchin. So, rather than accept twice as much earlier because it didn't fit their political playbook, now they are accepting half when they realized they have run out of runway. Well, the monthslong stalemate has finally broken. Yesterday evening, the so-called ``four corners''--the Speaker, the Republican leader in the House, the Democratic minority leader here in the Senate, and Senator McConnell--they reached agreement on a bipartisan package of bills to support the American people through the continued fight against COVID-19. And despite my comments about the process and what brings us here with so little time and ability to affect some of the content, I hope this legislation will pass and reach the President's desk in a matter of hours. I think we could all agree that this bill could not have come soon enough. Since this summer, Republicans and Democrats have been miles apart on the size and shape of the next COVID-19 bill. Democrats, as I indicated, wanted a $3 trillion bill they called the Heroes Act, while we supported a more targeted approach. That is when Speaker Pelosi uttered those now famous words: Nothing is better than something. Well, I have always believed that something is better than nothing. But the big-picture disagreements prevented any progress from being made, even though we, by and large, agreed on about 80 percent of what needed to be done, and that is included in the bill that we will vote on here in the next few hours. Well, after the election, the Speaker and Democratic leader here in the Senate, I guess, decided that they no longer needed to hold the American people hostage because the election had now come and gone. So there were bipartisan negotiations that broke out, which have led to targeted package bills--to a targeted package that could earn the support of both parties and the signature of President Trump. It is safe to say there could not be a more urgent need for action from Congress. The last several days have proven that we are, indeed, at an inflection point--turning point--in our ongoing fight against the virus. One successful vaccine has already been administered to thousands of healthcare workers across the country. In my State alone, the Governor estimates that a million people will be vaccinated by the end of this month. That is something we should all be thankful for and applaud. On Friday evening, the FDA authorized a second safe and effective vaccine made by Moderna, meaning that millions more doses will be reaching Americans--in particular, our frontline heroes--in the coming days. These are developments that we have been waiting, hoping, investing, and praying for, but it is not a silver bullet. We are still battling this pandemic, and it is likely to be with us for the foreseeable future. But the good news is, people who are particularly vulnerable because of their age or underlying chronic illnesses will likely be able to get the vaccine no later than March. Dr. Fauci said that by June, anybody in America who wants the vaccine can get it. This next phase of our fight will determine how quickly we are able to defeat COVID-19 and regrow our economy. This legislation will clearly help us get there. First, it will provide the needed support for vaccine distribution. Not only has there been a modern-day medical miracle in developing these safe and effective vaccines, but now the logistics of getting it to 330 million people in America are completely daunting, but it is happening. Millions of doses have already been delivered to hospitals across the country, and in the coming months, tens of millions more will be distributed as we launch this massive vaccination campaign. While the cost of the vaccine has already been covered, the range of associated expenses that come with it has not been. For everything from transportation infrastructure to deliver the vaccines to ultra-low temperature freezers to store them, to personal protective equipment for our healthcare heroes to safely administer them, those costs have added up and need to be provided for in this legislation. This legislation will, in fact, provide billions of dollars to help cover these kinds of costs and to ensure the race to distribute these vaccines is as successful as the race to develop them. Part of that is through relief for airlines, which will transport the vaccines to communities across the country. This assistance will enable our airlines to carry out their important role in the vaccine relay race, all while keeping their employees on payroll and preparing for a strong postpandemic recovery. These two successful vaccines so far are moving us closer and closer to the end of this crisis, but we still have a ways to go, and the American people need and deserve our support in getting there. Millions of workers have no way to earn a paycheck. Food banks are experiencing Depression-era lines each week. Farmers and ranchers have lost their traditional markets. Small businesses are sinking, and parents and teachers are still worried about a safe return to in-person learning for our students. This targeted relief package will send desperately needed support to each of these groups for each of those causes. The workers who had the rug pulled out from them earlier this year will continue to receive the federally enhanced unemployment benefits under the CARES Act that would otherwise expire the day after Christmas. And State unemployment benefits will be bolstered, as I said, by $300 a week in Federal benefits through March 14 of next year. We will also provide a second, more targeted direct payment to the hardest hit Americans, with up to $600 per individual. That means that a family of four making up to $150,000 will receive $2,400 in the coming days. This bill will ensure that the basic needs of low-income households, schoolchildren, and those in long lines at food banks will be met. It also provides $13 billion for a time-limited Federal nutrition benefit increase, as well as at least $1.9 billion for the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program at food banks. Our farmers and ranchers and producers who have lost significant or all the value of their crops will also receive $13 billion in agricultural assistance to strengthen the farm safety net which benefits us all. This has been a difficult year for millions of families in Texas and across the country as parents have worried about how to pay bills and buy groceries, let alone Christmas gifts under their tree for their children. I know this will not erase all of the financial uncertainty, but it will go a long way to provide some help to those whose livelihoods have been thrown into chaos, and I hope it will also provide reassurance for the parents and teachers who have worried about a safe return to in- person learning. This legislation provides $82 billion for education and will help our K-12 students, colleges, and universities get their education programs back on track. This relief bill will also extend additional support to Texas small businesses. Our small businesses continue to struggle with the arrival of winter weather. That has been especially true for restaurants and other businesses that have relied on outdoor seating. Many of these businesses utilized the Paycheck Protection Program to help them cover payroll and other expenses earlier this year, but the program expired in August, and our hardest hit small businesses are in dire need of more support. This legislation will provide another $284 billion in the Paycheck Protection Program. This has been an enormously successful program in my State, with 414,000 loans that are convertible into grants under some circumstances worth some $41 billion. This has been a lifesaver for many of our small businesses and the workers they employ. The hardest hit businesses will be able to take a second draw of the PPP and provide for stability for their businesses and their employee until this crisis ends. I am glad this bill also includes language from a bill I introduced to clarify tax deductibility for business expenses paid with a forgiven PPP loan. The average PPP loan in Texas was $99,000, and without this change, those businesses that received that PPP loan and grant would face a $36,000 tax liability. That would start to show up in January with the estimated taxes being paid by many small businesses that pay on a quarterly basis. That sort of unexpected tax liability would be a slap in the face for those businesses that saw this life ring and decided to grab a hold of it. This change will ensure loan recipients aren't saddled with an unexpected tax liability that could absolutely sink their struggling businesses that have been hanging on by a thread. I appreciate Chairman Grassley of the Finance Committee, Ranking Member Wyden, and their staffs for fighting to include this change, which will clarify that these expenses should have been tax deductible all along. That is what Congress intended in March when we passed the CARES Act. I am also glad the Omnibus that is paired with this package includes other legislation that I introduced with our friend Amy Klobuchar, the Senator from Minnesota, called the Save Our Stages Act, designed to help our small independent entertainment venues across the country from closing their doors for good. These Main Street businesses were excluded from the original Paycheck Protection Program, even though they were among some of the hardest hit small businesses. Event venues were the first to close when COVID-19 hit, and they are likely to be the last to open once it is gone. This funding will help them stay afloat until that long-awaited day finally arrives I thank Senator Klobuchar, who has been my partner in this bipartisan effort, as well as Senator Rubio, who has been a champion for these venues during the final critical stages of negotiations. The government funding legislation includes a number of other bipartisan bills which have had nearly unanimous support in both the House and the Senate, including a bill I introduced with our colleague Bob Menendez from New Jersey. This legislation will finally, after 25 years or more, establish a National Museum of the American Latino, which will improve Latino representation within the Smithsonian Institution. This museum will honor the contributions of Latinos throughout our Nation's history and give their stories a brick-and-mortar home here in our Nation's Capital. I am thrilled that generations of Americans will be able to get a more accurate view of our Nation's history when they visit this new Smithsonian museum, and I can't wait to be among its first visitors. There is no question that there are additional measures I would have liked to have seen included in the coronavirus relief legislation, and I am sure that is true for every Member. But this targeted package includes critical funding and support for Texans and Americans at this watershed moment, and it will break the stalemate which has paralyzed Congress for months now. The American people are suffering. It is not time for politics as usual. It is a time to come together to compromise and to make good on our commitment to support them. I appreciate the work of our colleagues who fought for a deal that will give our country added strength during this next critical phase of our fight, and I look forward to voting for this legislation. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.