Kevin Cramer

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague Senator Hoeven in offering this amendment and urging our colleagues to support the amendment to strip the wind protection tax credit from this massive bill. I feel like I am living in an episode of the ``Twilight Zone,'' and I wish I could say that I am surprised. But I am not, because here we go again. Despite numerous requests and appeals and deals with the leader and the chairman of the Finance Committee to not jam this body with a 13th extension of the wind protection tax credit, here we are with another one in front of us. Since the credit's inception in 1992--and for a lot of those years I was a utility regulator--it has always been promised that it would be temporary and would expire. Last year, we got jammed at the last minute with another extension, and, rightfully, the people back home are really, really upset with us. And it didn't sit very well with me either. That is why, in April of this year, I led a letter to Leader McConnell with colleagues from West Virginia, Wyoming, and Georgia saying it was time to finally level the playing field and get rid of this market-distorting atrocity. In July, I led another letter to Chairman Grassley with even more colleagues--from West Virginia, Wyoming, Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania--with the same message: Let this credit expire. Yet here we are again. The requests have fallen on deaf ears, and we have simply been given another pill to swallow with the extension today. Some in this town have pointed to an extension in carbon sequestration credits like 45Q and 48A, as if they were an equal trade. They are not. Despite years of pleading, the Treasury Department--yes, this Treasury Department--still has not finalized regulations. So an extension of 45Q is moot if there is no way to actually monetize the credit. Of equal importance, financial investors have said if renewable credits are extended, they will absorb whatever tax appetite exists because they are predictable, and those deals have been done many times. Just to reiterate, they can't even utilize 45Q because Treasury hasn't finished the regulations 3 years after Congress expanded the credit. More to the point, while there are some great proposed carbon sequestration projects planned in North Dakota, their benefit is targeted, while in contrast, hundreds of miners and the local communities they have built are being hurt by the extension of the production tax credit. I strongly support carbon sequester projects, but to assume that the potential benefits of 45Q or 48A are equal to the unilateral harm of the wind credit is disingenuous at best. I have heard from utilities who actually use the wind PTC, but they said they don't need it because the market is so awash with wind credits, they can't even monetize them. It is completely upside down. In fact, the PTC credits are actually taking money away from other clean energy projects like nuclear clean coal, taking emissions-free energy right off the grid. Just a few days ago, POLITICO said this: The simplest option for tax extenders would be to let all 33 that are scheduled to expire at the end of the year to be renewed. I have a simpler plan. Let them all expire. K Street wouldn't like it, but it would be one less section in this giant package. One final point, in all of my time in Congress--and that has been 8 years now--the wind production tax credit has never been extended through regular order or an open discussion or even hearings. Despite our objections or promises from the wind industry that it should expire, in the 11th hour with the government shutdown looming, it gets dropped into the Members' laps. That alone should be a red flag that the only time it has enough chance to pass is when it rides the coattails of our national defense and the government operations. It is shameful. I support the amendment from Senator Hoeven, and I urge my colleagues to support it as well. Let the wind PTC expire I yield my time.

Mr. CRAMER

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

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, this has been a challenging year for millions of Americans impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Many organizations have stepped up to assist with delivering food, and I want to recognize one North Dakota organization that continues to expand its services to partner with other local organizations reaching out to those in need. The Great Plains Food Bank has served communities in North Dakota since 1983, regularly dispatching trucks to all 53 counties across the State. With USDA estimates that 27 percent of all food produced in the United States never makes it to the dinner table, the Great Plains Food Bank's mission is to get this surplus food from those who have it to those who need it. It has joined forces with hundreds of food industry partners to recover their surplus shelf-stable and perishable food products. These include local, regional and national growers, processors, manufacturers, retailers, Federal and State government food programs, food drives, and Feeding America, the Nation's food bank network. The Great Plains Food Bank took a significant step forward last month when it opened a second distribution center, this one in Bismarck, to better facilitate the delivery of food across western and central North Dakota, serving 100 soup kitchens, food pantries, and shelters. This new warehouse now has room for freezers and refrigerators, office space and facilities for volunteers. Opening the Bismarck distribution center is one of the goals of the food bank's ``Feed the Future'' campaign, which has been raising funds since 2015 and is also hoping to expand the Fargo headquarters and increase the total of meals it serves next year. This very timely expansion of food services across the State comes when more and more people are depending on these deliveries to feed themselves and their families. These services are possible because of a committed network of staff, volunteers, and corporate sponsors and partners, who provide the funds and workforce to continue the distribution every week throughout the year. In this holiday season during the end of a very difficult year, I congratulate the Great Plains Food Bank on its vision and ongoing success in delivering food across the State. On behalf of all North Dakotans, I thank all who work for and with the Great Plains Food Bank for their commitment to this cause. I wish them continued success and community support for years to come.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Madam President, reserving the right to object. Again, if the minority was serious about passing legislation, they would not have voted four times to adjourn until after the election, so it is a little hard to take this seriously, but it is especially difficult on this one because Federal law already prohibits violent felons from owning and purchasing firearms. Again, should I remind the Senate and the country that Democratic mayors and Governors all over this country have failed to protect their citizens. The last thing we would want to do at a time like this when citizens are left to defend themselves against violent crime is to prohibit law-abiding Americans or make it more difficult for law- abiding Americans to own firearms. For those reasons, I object.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Madam President, reserving the right to object. Can we just be a little more honest? This is not about childcare. What is going on here is not about childcare, for veterans, or for anybody else. This is another attempt to prevent us from talking about the outstanding qualifications of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to be on the Supreme Court of the United States. I will stand here all day and object if that is what it takes for my other colleagues to get to the floor and talk about the merits of this outstanding judge. With that, I object.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Madam President, reserving the right to object. This is yet one more obstructionist move to prevent us from taking up Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States, a highly- qualified nominee who deserves her time in the Chamber. She deserves her time in debate and not these other external matters that, by the way, if they were important to the Senate minority, they would not have voted four times this week to adjourn until after the election. For that reason and several others, I object.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Madam President, reserving the right to object. It is really time to move on and hear from other colleagues about the incredible, outstanding qualifications of President Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States, Judge Amy Coney Barrett. These distractions cannot prevent us from doing that. On this bill in particular, I think people should know that most of the documents that they are talking about are--in fact, almost all of them are online today. For that reason and others, I object.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Reserving the right to object. The Senate is currently considering the qualifications of an excellent nominee to be on the Supreme Court of the United States. That is why we are here. It is very important work. This request is nothing more than another form of procedural harassment by the minority to try and stop our process of considering Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court of the United States. It is certainly unfair to her. It is unbecoming of this Chamber. If this bill was so important to the Democrats in the Senate, they wouldn't have voted four times to adjourn until after the election. So, clearly, this is just a stunt. By the way, if that wasn't reason enough, the bill that the Senator is suggesting we get into would put onerous burdens on law-abiding Americans who just want to protect themselves at a time when Democratic mayors and Governors are overseeing all kinds of damage to life and health and property unchecked. In fact, calling off the law enforcement of their communities to protect our citizens, they now want to take away the rights of those citizens to be able to purchase arms or at least make it much more difficult. For these reasons and several others, I object.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Madam President, reserving the right to object. I will not allow the Senate to be diverted from the issue at hand, and that is the consideration and of Amy Coney Barrett to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. She is a highly-qualified nominee and deserves this debate. For that reason, I object.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Madam President, reserving the right to object. The only interference going on here is by Senate Democrats trying to interfere in our discussion about an outstanding nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States, Judge Amy Coney Barrett. For that reason, I object.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, 2 years ago, I was a candidate running for this job, running against a Democratic incumbent. The top issues of the race throughout the summer were things like the sanctity of human life, and most important in the minds of the voters--at least based on our polls--were law and order. The idea that a sanctuary city, much less several of them, could exist to protect violent criminals as long as they were here illegally was an absurd notion to Dakotans. They were good issues for me as a candidate. That all changed just a little over 2 years ago, when Senate Democrats waged an attack on President Trump's nominee to fill the vacancy that occurred by the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Kennedy. By ``attack,'' I don't mean engage in a vigorous debate about Brett Kavanaugh's political and judicial philosophy or his background. Rather, they waged an attack on Brett Kavanaugh himself, on his character, his reputation, and his family--and not with facts but with fabrications. My opponent, North Dakota's junior Senator, joined the smear campaign and changed the priorities of our campaign quickly from sanctuary cities to, suddenly, the Supreme Court of the United States. That happened just 2 years and a couple of weeks ago. As much as anything-- as much as any reason, as much as any issue--the Supreme Court is why I am here today. I do not mean just today. I mean it is why I am a U.S. Senator. So, when President Trump nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Bader Ginsburg, I knew there could be no amount of political harassment that would cause me to shrink from this obligation. The suggestion that I or my colleagues would squander this--the right and the responsibility under the Constitution--and consider waiting until after an election that may create an opportunity for someone with whom my constituents don't agree to be nominated to the Court would be a dereliction of my duty and would rightly enrage the people who sent me here for exactly this moment. I refuse to shrink. So let's talk about the nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett. By all accounts, she is a brilliant jurist. I don't think anybody has really questioned her scholarship, her intellect. Certainly, you couldn't argue as to her demeanor. She has, on national display, demonstrated a demeanor that we should probably all aspire to but, certainly, for somebody who aspires to be on the highest Court in the land. Oh, by the way, I love the fact that she was educated in middle America. With all due respect to my conservative jurist friends and acquaintances and even those I don't know from someplace other than middle America, it is awfully nice to see one get to the top. My conversations with Judge Barrett were like, I think, everybody's. They were pleasant, and they were serious. In some cases, they were, maybe, even a little bit intense, but my conversation didn't focus on hardly any of the things I have been hearing about with relation to her nomination--in fact, none of them have I heard about in this Chamber today, and we have heard about lots of them. Mine didn't even really focus on the hot-button issues of the day. My discussions focused on my inquiry of her--about her sense and her philosophy and her thoughts on federalism. What is the appropriate role of States in this cooperative federalism--this wonderful experiment that is the United States of America? This is a system designed by the States. The Federal Government was created by the States. The Federal Government didn't create the States. No, the States created the Federal Government. It is foundational. I, of course, like the Presiding Officer, was a State-elected official. I was never the Governor, but I was probably, in many respects, qualified in a way, today, that never occurred to me at the time, which was that I was a regulator. I was a State regulator who had been elected by the people of my State to regulate things like rates of gas and electrical utilities, to cite things like pipelines and transmission lines and powerplants and wind farms, and to oversee the Federal Communications Act and its application in North Dakota. From that perch as a State regulator for nearly 10 years, by far, the greatest problems and the greatest obstacles to doing my job were the mandates coming from Washington, DC, and its trying to impose its mediocrity on North Dakota's excellence. So, when I came to Washington, I set out to change some of that. I wanted to try to change our bureaucracy a little bit and find somebody in this place who understood and respected the role of the States in this cooperative federalism, because what I saw and what I continue to see is a big bureaucracy that is trying to run right over--roll right over--the States of this country. I think that the overriding issue of the role of States and of federalism gets to the heart of lots of these other smaller issues, of lots of these more granular issues. Now, whether it is the waters of the United States and what is a navigable water--that is one of the big ones, right? The Clean Power Plan and its imposition on local and State regulation is another, and how the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission deals with grid reliability. Maybe it is something even more granular like cross-State emissions. Who knows? There are lots of them--lots and lots of them--in areas where it has really been the courts themselves. Whether it is the Supreme Court or the appellate court or the district court, it has really been the courts--the judiciary--that have been the only thing standing between an overbearing Federal Government and the rights of States. So my discussions with Judge Barrett centered around her views on federalism. I gave her some examples, some North Dakota examples. I even laid the blame on Congress, and we deserve a lot of it, for sure. We have passed broad authorizations for the bureaucracy and then let them fill in the blanks. We have to stop doing that. We need to be more proscriptive. In the meantime, I want to be sure that we have a Supreme Court that understands the sovereignty of States. I mean, right now, North Dakota is engaged in several pieces of litigation with our own Federal Government, and this is under Trump's Department of Justice. I just wish the lawyers at the Department of Justice would take on the bad actors in the political class with the same zeal with which they take on my State. By the way, there are much bigger things they could be taking on when they take on the political class, if they would just do it, than the little things, where they should be negotiating settlements with the State of North Dakota. I just wish they had the same zeal for that. That would be much more worthy of the title of ``justice.'' Yes, I am very pleased with Judge Amy Coney Barrett's philosophy and demeanor, but I was really grateful for her answers on the issue of the role of States in a cooperative Federalist system like ours. Yet, at the end of the day, judicial philosophy, intellect, and where one went to college is all just shored up by the fact that she is a person of incredible virtue--yes, a virtue that is grounded in faith. That is, after all, where most virtue comes from. In fact, I suspect that some of those virtues that used to be more universal in our country are part of why the left despises her so much. As for me, I am just glad that she is willing to do it. I am glad that her family is willing to stand with her and do it. I am glad that she has the virtues of faith that underpin the intellect and the experience and the demeanor. In fact, perhaps, it is why she has all of those other things. For those reasons and several others, it is going to be a pleasure--it is even going to be an honor--to stay the night tomorrow night, if that is what we have to do, to cast the vote for Judge Amy Coney Barrett to become the next Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. I urge my colleagues to do the same I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Mr. President, for the recognition, and thank you also for your excellent tribute to Senator Mark Andrews and his amazing life of service to North Dakota and to our country. Also, thank you for switching places with me for a few minutes so I can spend some time remembering my friend and mentor and our predecessor. This COVID thing really kind of stinks, all in all. There are lots of things about COVID-19 that are awful, but one of the biggest things is so often, many people have been robbed of the opportunity to provide an appropriate sendoff to a hero, to the heroes whose lives are worthy of a more noble celebration than what social distancing and small crowds offer. As former Grand Forks Herald editor, publisher, and sometimes political commentator and observer, Mike Jacobs wrote in the Grand Forks Herald: ``Mark Andrews deserves better.'' I ask unanimous consent to have the Jacobs story printed in the Record, along with the official obituaries of both Mark and Mary Andrews

Mr. CRAMER. We are confined to watching funerals on the internet, leaving us with a sense that our expressions of gratitude and emotions are inadequate to the honor that is deserved. But fortunately for the Presiding Officer and me, the U.S. Senate does provide an opportunity, a venue, and an appropriate way to say goodbye to a friend and a mentor that is commensurate with the incredible quality of the life that we celebrate. Senator Andrews was a giant to me for lots of reasons, not just because he was 6 feet 4 inches. But from growing up in Kindred, just about 20 miles south of the Andrews farm just outside of the city village of Mapleton at the time, to working on his reelection campaign--the first real job I ever had out of college--to seeking his guidance as I followed in his footsteps, first in the House of Representatives and then to the Senate, Mark Andrews was always a larger-than-life figure and personality to me. Kris and I were grateful for the counsel he and Mary gave us my first year in this Chamber just last year. I am really grateful to Mark and Mary's daughter, Sarah, for facilitating a visit for Kris and me to come see her parents just last year. This picture will be important to me forever. It was an emotional time for me. I don't mind telling you that it was emotional for me to be able to go see Mark at the age of 93 and Mary at the age of 92 and say thank you for the opportunities and for the grace he afforded me when I didn't deserve it. I mean no disrespect to any of my colleagues today, but what made me the most emotional when I walked into Mark's apartment and saw him sitting in that recliner was that it hit me for the first time in a new way that the people of North Dakota had given me a responsibility that, at that time, as I looked at my giant, I didn't feel quite up to. There it was, with this job that he had and this giant from my youth who did big things, I suddenly felt, by comparison, quite small. But, as Mark often did, he encouraged me. He offered a word of encouragement--many of them. Likewise, Mary did the same. At the age of 92, she offered Kris encouragement that only another Senate spouse really had the credibility to offer. I was overwhelmed by the blessing of the moment. I was grateful beyond words for the opportunity to spend even 90 minutes with Fargo's most important power couple. It was pretty cool. Mark and Mary celebrated their 71st wedding anniversary just prior to her death earlier this year, as the Presiding Officer mentioned. They met while attending Agassiz Junior High in Fargo in 1939; then they became best friends for life. It is pretty cool. Pretty cool. I love that Mary Andrews was her husband's not-so-secret weapon in all of his successful campaigns. As the Presiding Officer said, Mark served a total of 23 years in Congress--17 in the House of Representatives and 6 here in the Senate. His hallmark was his fierce independence. Now, that fierce independence sometimes was to the chagrin of the Reagan administration. He served during a very, very difficult time in farm country, but he fought tirelessly with the government on behalf of the people. He always put the people ahead of the government. As the Presiding Officer mentioned, anyone who spent any time with Mark--and he and I did a lot in the last several years--knows that no computer hard drive in the world contains as much knowledge and information about water policy as Mark Andrews had in his brain, even to the end. Of the 90 minutes we talked last year, I am sure 60 of them were spent talking about water policy and water politics. He was passionate about the accomplishments, as the Presiding Officer said, and the shortcomings of the government's promise to distribute Missouri River water to the farms and communities of Eastern North Dakota. He fought and advocated for water justice for our farmers, and I think of him often as we engage in the very same fights today. He was also a strong, strong critic of government waste. You are right that he supported our military fiercely. There was a famous story about when he opposed the sale of AWACS to Saudi Arabia on behalf of our ally Israel, and it took a lot of, shall we say, gentle persuasion to convince him otherwise. He always looked out for the taxpayer. He cared more about the taxpayer than the tax spender. He demonstrated his commitment to fiscal restraint when he took on the Department of Defense in 1983, sponsoring a bill requiring defense contractors to guarantee their hardware. The bill passed and became law. He was also critical of what he called the ``incestuous relationship'' between the officers who made the weapons purchase decisions and the contractors who employed the officers after they retired. But, as the Presiding Officer pointed out in his remarks, Mark Andrews was first and foremost a farmer. Don't take our word for it. It is not just a couple of hayseeds from North Dakota who will make that claim. No, just look at the headlines surrounding his recent death. The New York Times, in an obituary written by Robert McFadden, carries the headline ``Mark Andrews, North Dakota Farmer-Politician, Dies at 94.'' Did you catch that? Farmer first, the dash of life, and politician last. McFadden writes this in his story: As his 23-year congressional career drew to a close, The New York Times said Mr. Andrews kept ``three items at the top of his priority list:''-- A lot like you, I might say to the Presiding Officer-- ``farmers, farmers and farmers.'' The headline for a story written by Mikkel Pates in Agweek--a friend of ours, a reporter; actually, an agricultural reporter--he described Senator Andrews' legacy: ``Andrews was a political `laser beam' for farm interests.'' I ask unanimous consent to have both the Agweek and the New York Times stories printed in the Record

Mr. CRAMER. ``Farmer,'' ``fiercely independent,'' ``fiscal hawk''-- all of the good things the Presiding Officer said about him--they describe a part of Senator Mark Andrews, but to me, he is still a giant. At his funeral, the Gospel text that was read was from an agrarian parable in Matthew 13--a very familiar one to most people--where Jesus talks about the teeny mustard seed. In verse 32, He is recorded as saying: ``Though it is the smallest of all seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree so that birds can come and perch in its branches.'' Mark Andrews was a really big tree with really big roots into the soil of the Red River Valley of North Dakota. I felt as though I had found a perch on his branches and stand on his shoulders. Mark and Mary also died with the Gospel promise that Christ has prepared a mansion for them in Heaven. I am pretty sure it is a farmhouse. Thank you, Senator Andrews. You served North Dakota well and will be missed. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAMER. Reserving the right to object, I served as an economic regulator of utilities for nearly 10 years before coming to Congress. This idea of a moratorium--a national moratorium--violates all kinds of things, not the least of which, by the way, seems to me to be, at the very least, the spirit, if not the literal Constitution that my colleague from Oregon says he is so proud of. Remember, the States created the Federal Government, not the other way around. As a State regulator of natural gas and electric utilities, I saw from time to time the attempted overreach of the Federal Government to mandate things. It violates the principles of the Constitution, and it violates, really, the best practices of States' rights, of communities' rights, of rural electric's rights because it assumes that somehow we here in these Chambers know better than the utility regulators who are appointed by Governors--the ones who are elected, like I was--the municipalities that set the rates for water and sewer; that somehow we are better equipped to make the decisions for a local utility and, yes, their consumers; that somehow we are better at doing that. It makes no sense. In fact, it would be very harmful to the very consumers the Senator from Oregon says he wants to look out for. Let's just take some examples. Utilities are not capitalized to provide services for free. That is what this bill would do. And guess what happens to a regulated utility, an investor-owned utility, when something like this happens, when the Federal Government throws a wrench into their local rate structure. Well, somebody eventually has to pay for that. And guess how the money is raised to pay for the moratorium? The rates go up. They have to. That is how rate structure is designed. If you are a utility--let's say a rural electric cooperative or a rural telephone cooperative that is providing broadband--that is even better yet because it is actually the consumers who are the board of directors. It is the most direct experiment of self-governance that we have. So let's please leave the regulation to the locals and to the States. If there is a need for a moratorium or a design for some different structure, they can do it in concert with the consumers, the regulators, and, of course, the utilities in a way that does the least harm. That makes all the sense in the world. But here is, in my mind, the richest irony of this moment. The Senator from Oregon talked about the high unemployment rate, the large unemployment numbers. Just today we had the opportunity on this floor, when Republicans brought a bill that would have provided $300 a week of federally funded supplement to unemployment insurance benefits to those unemployed people--$300 a week--do you know how many utility bills that would have helped pay without disrupting the utilities' rate structure? Just today we had that moment, and the Senator from Oregon and every one of his Democratic colleagues voted against it--not for the first time, by the way, but for the second time. And here we are tonight coming up with a piecemeal solution when the more comprehensive one was rejected. So for those reasons and several others I could think of, but the hour is getting late, I object.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, 6 months ago, our Nation's small businesses faced an existential crisis and unprecedented threat. Like the rest of us, they didn't truly know what this virus was, how hard it would hit us, how long it would last, or what the future would hold. But they did know that their businesses were preparing to close, that employees were being told to stay home, and they needed help, which is why I and every other colleague in this Chamber passed the CARES Act and created the Paycheck Protection Program. We gave money to the administration, which, in turn, gave that money to lenders, and those lenders, in turn, loaned that money to small businesses to use for employee retention. If they followed the rules, they were told they wouldn't have to return the money. That was the commitment we made to them while we strongly encouraged them--I emphasize ``strongly encouraged them''--to use the program, and it worked. We had nearly 5 million PPP loans worth $571 billion out the door and into the hands of our businesses that put it into the hands of their employees, which kept tens of millions of people, by some counts, on the payrolls instead of on the unemployment rolls. History will be the judge of the long-term success of the program, for sure, but it is unquestionable that in the short term, this program succeeded. It is time for us now to uphold our commitment. America's lenders and borrowers are ready to take that next step, proving that they have complied with the rules so they can receive forgiveness for these loans. Sadly for them, but not surprising to me, the forgiveness process designed by the agency is burdensome, complex, and already in need of reform. That is not just my opinion; that is the opinion of the Government Accountability Office. They said: ``Applying for loan forgiveness is more time consuming than applying for the PPP loan itself and requires more lender review.'' You see the trap that we have laid for borrowers and lenders. We, the Federal Government, spent weeks--months--telling our hurting, fragile small businesses: Take this money. Take this money. Just use it correctly, and it will be forgiven. Well, here we are. Our businesses are still struggling, still facing uncertainty, and the agency-prescribed solution appears to be creating a system more intense than any they have experienced during this pandemic just so they can prove to the right people that they didn't use their money incorrectly. That is a problem. We have known it was going to be a problem for a long time. That is why we have been working for months on bipartisan solutions to the problems in this bipartisan program. Over the summer, Senator Menendez and I brought together a bipartisan coalition and introduced the Paycheck Protection Small Business Forgiveness Act. Here is what it does. Of those 5 million PPP recipients, 4.2 million had loans of $150,000 or less. Remember, they could borrow up to $10 million. They account for around $132 billion of the PPP funds that we have spent. Think about that: 4.2 million of the 5 million--so 86 percent of the borrowers--account for $132 billion of the $571 billion that we have spent. That is only 27 percent. So what we did was separate the 86 percent of the loans, which account for 27 percent of the money, and said that if borrowers--small businesses--complete a simple, one-page forgiveness document to the lender--our banks, our credit unions--the loan will be forgiven. It is that simple. It eliminates the anxiety being felt by our businesses. It puts accountability on the borrowers and frees up enforcement efforts to focus on the 14 percent of the PPP recipients who took 73 percent of the funds. If this seems to be obvious common sense, it is because it is. Congress isn't known for working well together; I know that. But, here, a Republican from North Dakota has teamed up with a Democrat from New Jersey to find a plan that works for Members from Arizona to Alabama, from North Carolina to Nebraska. Nearly one-third of the Senate--with Members from both parties--has signed onto our bill. What has happened since? The Presiding Officer knows as well as anybody that our friends blocked us from considering a new relief package just a couple of weeks ago. Many of the provisions of our bipartisan bill were in that package. Many bipartisan plans from all Senators were in it, but politics prevailed, and we came up short. That happens around here. Just because our total package was blocked doesn't mean our small businesses and lenders who gave them PPP funds don't still need relief. That is what we have heard from our communities and hundreds of association leaders from all across the country. On their behalf--on behalf of the small businesses that need help and the lenders we encouraged to help them--I am going to ask for unanimous consent to pass S. 4117. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business be discharged from further consideration of S. 4117 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the Johnson amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Cardin's commitment to work together. We are all committed to that as well. I do struggle a little bit when the reasons to oppose something are all of the things that aren't in it. Sure, there is not support for State or local governments. There is not a new EIDL Program or a reformed PPP program or a microloan program or tax credits. Of course, tax credits are under a whole different jurisdiction. There is not nuclear modernization, and there is not unemployment insurance. There are lots of things that aren't in it. Yet politics is the art of the possible, and around here, big packages become very difficult, and politics gets in the way. I was hoping we could find an increment to help small businesses in a significant way that, frankly, wouldn't cost the government anything but, in fact, might save it some money in its just not hiring another large bureaucracy. I look forward to working with the Senator. I appreciate his work on the CARES Act and the PPP and his work with Chairman Rubio and Susan Collins in creating this program. I am just disappointed that we couldn't get it across the finish line today, but I hope we can soon. I yield the floor as I know that a couple of my colleagues want to speak on the same topic

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, today, as he is buried in the North Dakota Veterans Cemetery just outside of his hometown of Mandan, ND, I honor the life and patriotism of Navy Fireman 2nd Class Albert Renner. Like so many young men of this ``greatest generation,'' he answered the call to defend his country during World War II. On December 7, 1941, at the age of 24, he made the ultimate sacrifice along with 2,402 other soldiers and sailors during the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. He was serving on the USS West Virginia, which sank after being hit by at least seven torpedoes and two bombs. Last year, aided by a positive DNA sent by his surviving siblings several decades ago, Albert Renner's remains were finally positively identified. On Tuesday, his body arrived at the Minneapolis airport. A full military escort motorcade carrying his casket traveled the 400 miles home to Mandan. Many citizens, including veterans and fire and police men and women, stopped along the highway to solemnly pay their respects as the motorcade passed by. Attending today's funeral service and burial are members of his family who have traveled from across the Nation to pay their respects to this beloved member of their family. Even though many of them never met him, together they are mourning the lost blessings of Albert not being a part of their family for the past 79 years. Albert could have had a rewarding life on the family farm or in some other profession. He could have had a wife and family and home of his own. His burial service today is a poignant reminder of how the sacrifice of heroes defending our Nation have an impact far into the future on those who knew and loved them--and those who never will. Navy Fireman 2nd Class Albert Renner died so Americans could live in peace and prosperity. He is now back in his home State, lying in eternal rest with other North Dakota heroes. I thank the many patriots who are committed to identifying the remains of all unknown American service members and bringing them home. To the family of Navy Fireman 2nd Class Albert Renner, I join citizens across our State and Nation in sending our sincere condolences. It is heroes like Albert who have kept our communities, State, Nation, and world safe. His life made a difference in the lives of all of us. We are forever grateful.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, first of all, I want to associate myself with the message delivered just a little bit ago by my senior Senator from North Dakota, Senator Hoeven, and echo his words about the importance of farmers and ranchers, all of our agricultural producers-- those who produce the food and the fiber and the fuel for our country. They need assistance, and I am really grateful that Senator Hoeven has played such a lead role in getting them assistance in the HEALS Act. It is critical I want to join the rest of my colleagues today in discussing the HEALS Act and demonstrating our support for the merit of this important bill. The ultimate answer to the problems that we face as a result of this virus, of course, lies in the healthcare industry and in our healthcare in fighting against this enemy, the virus. That is why we are calling for more funding for testing and treatments and, ultimately, a vaccine, hopefully, and hopefully soon. As we do so, we also have to make sure that our economy is healthy, that our economy survives, and that our education system remains available and accessible to our students in the classroom. Jobs, kids, and healthcare, students, parents, and patients--these are what Senate Republicans are fighting for. I have introduced bipartisan legislation to further this goal. I believe we should include it in the HEALS Act in its entirety. Many pieces of it are in, but I think we can do more. The Paycheck Protection Small Business Forgiveness Act would offer streamlined forgiveness for any borrower of a Paycheck Protection Program loan of $150,000 or less who fills out a simple one-page form attesting that they spent the loan dollars the way they are supposed to. With the expected forgiveness guidance from the bureaucracy, businesses and lenders will have to spend billions of dollars to receive the forgiveness that was promised them. In fact, we estimate that each borrower would have to spend $2,000--and each lender $500 per loan--just to comply with what the bureaucracy comes up with. That doesn't even include the dollars we have to spend on the bureaucracy itself. We created the PPP to help small businesses and their employees survive, not to create a bureaucracy that will bury them in paperwork. So who are these borrowers of PPP loans of $150,000 or less? Well, loans of this size make up--listen to this--85 percent or 4.2 million of the loans but only 25 percent or $132 million of the loaned amount. Imagine that: 85 percent of the loans are in this category--4.2 million of roughly 5 million loans. So that means 15 percent of the authorized PPP loans make up 75 percent of the borrowed money. In North Dakota, the average loan was only $91,000, but under current law, the bureaucracy would, regardless of loan size, seek to indiscriminately verify and approve forgiveness applications, and they haven't even come up with the form to do it with yet. This would require a significant growth in the government and in the bureaucracy that we cannot afford, only to make small businesses and lenders spend time and money they can't afford to spend to comply with this bureaucracy. It makes no sense. Lest we forget, when the Senate unanimously passed the CARES Act, we made our intent clear: PPP loans would become grants for the businesses that spent the money properly, and the banks were there to help guide them. There was no caveat that the loan would come with unnecessary bureaucracy. In fact, quite the opposite was true. The implication was that it would not come with additional bureaucracy. The bipartisan bill that I introduced with Senators Menendez, Tillis, and Sinema--and now has 25 Senate sponsors--would fulfill our original intent and the promise we made to lenders and applicants by creating a simple, accountable process for loan forgiveness. Our bill also includes a provision which makes sure that the lenders will not be held responsible for improper actions of the borrowers, while still ensuring proper enforcement action can be taken if necessary. In fact, the accountability structure is intact. When we passed the CARES Act, we literally encouraged businesses to apply for PPP and urged the bureaucracy and the lenders to get the money out the door fast. We were in a crisis. We were trying to keep people from being laid off and let go. Largely, we were successful, but that success could be undone if we do not take the next steps properly. We shouldn't backtrack on the guidance we gave lenders by holding them accountable for the decisions the borrowers made. Fraud is a concern, for sure, which is why my proposal keeps all audit authorities intact. If a borrower falsely attests to using the funds correctly, the Federal Government is able to investigate and hold them accountable. If this sounds like a commonsense approach, that is because it is. This bipartisan measure was popular from the start, and it is gaining support still, with a quarter of the Senate, a sizable number in the House, and now close to 200 business associations and groups from the entire political spectrum supporting it. Why wouldn't it be popular? It aligns with the very same principles we are fighting for right here today--jobs, kids, and healthcare. No small business owner figuring out how to safely send their kid to school should have to worry about unnecessary red tape. No employee of a shop on Main Street should have to live in fear of being laid off because their employer might not perfectly comply with the arbitrary requirements put forth for them by a bureaucrat in Washington. No brother, sister, son, or daughter should have to sit down and crunch the numbers to make sure they have enough money to apply for loan forgiveness while supporting their family at home. The fear they face is real. ``Small business'' is not just an arbitrary designation. They are the backbone of America. They are the employers of the vast majority of people in our country, and their anxiety is our anxiety. Earlier this month, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin told the House committee that this is an idea we should consider, and I agree. We should consider it in bipartisan negotiations and add it to the HEALS Act in its entirety. It will give our small businesses the peace of mind they need, like the rest of us, while they fight for their livelihoods during this pandemic. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 662, submitted earlier today.

Mr. CRAMER. I know of no further debate on the measure.

Mr. CRAMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the preamble be agreed to and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Wednesday, July 29; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and morning business be closed; finally, that following leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Kan nomination under the previous order.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the provisions of S. Res. 660 as a further mark of respect for the late John Lewis, former Congressman for the State of Georgia.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 4346, introduced earlier today.