Congressional Record, Volume 167 Issue 145 (Tuesday, August 10, 2021)

[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 145 (Tuesday, August 10, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6204-S6249]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

SETTING FORTH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022 AND SETTING FORTH THE APPROPRIATE BUDGETARY LEVELS
FOR FISCAL YEARS 2023 THROUGH 2031

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Peters). The clerk will report the
resolution by title.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 14) setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for
fiscal year 2022 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary
levels for fiscal years 2023 through 2031.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

Order of Business

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that for the
duration of the Senate's consideration of S. Con. Res. 14, the budget
resolution for fiscal year 2021, the majority and the Republican
managers of the resolution, while seated or standing at the managers'
desks, be permitted to deliver floor remarks, retrieve, review, and
edit documents, and send email and other data communications from text
displayed on wireless personal digital assistant devices and tablet
devices.
I further ask unanimous consent that the use of calculators be
permitted on the floor during consideration of the budget resolution;
further, that the staff be permitted to make technical and conforming
changes to the resolution, if necessary, consistent with the amendments
adopted during Senate consideration, including calculating the
associated change in the net interest function and incorporating the
effect of such adopted amendments on the budgetary aggregates for
Federal revenues, the amount by which the Federal revenue should be
changed, new budget authority, budget outlays, deficits, public debt,
and debt held by the public.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2
minutes for debate, equally divided, prior to each vote during
consideration of S. Con. Res. 14.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me begin by thanking President Biden
and Majority Leader Schumer for their leadership in the arduous process
which has gotten us to where we are right now.
I do understand that many of my Republican colleagues are in a bit of
shock. They are in a bit of shock now. They are finding it hard to
believe that the President and the Democratic Caucus are prepared to go
forward in addressing the long, neglected needs of working families and
not just the 1 percent and wealthy campaign contributors. That is not
the way things usually happen around here.
Usually, it is the big money interests, the campaign contributors,
and the lobbyists who call the tunes. But not today. Today, we move
this country in a very different direction.
The American people are sick and tired of growing income and wealth
inequality in our country, where two people now own more wealth than
the bottom 40 percent, where the top 1 percent owns more wealth than
the bottom 92 percent, and where 45 percent of all new income has gone
to the top 1 percent since 2009.
In other words, the people on top are doing phenomenally well.
Meanwhile, while the very rich have become much richer, the gross
unfairness of our current tax system has allowed, in a given year, some
of the wealthiest people in our country and some of the largest and
most profitable corporations to not pay a nickel in a given year in
Federal income tax--not one penny.
Well, that is about to change. The American people want a government
which represents all of us and not just the few. And this legislation
is going to ask the wealthiest people in our country to start paying
their fair share of taxes so that we can address the needs of working
families, the elderly, the children, the sick, and the poor.
And despite what some of my Republican colleagues may be saying, no
one in America who makes less than $400,000 a year will pay a nickel
more in Federal taxes. In fact, what we are looking at in this budget
proposal is a historic tax cut for working families and the middle
class.
Further, and importantly, at a time when California is on fire, when
Oregon is on fire, when Greece is burning, and when countries
throughout the world are experiencing unprecedented drought, which will
clearly impact food production, this legislation begins the process of
combating climate change so that our kids and grandchildren can live in
a country and on a planet which is healthy and habitable. It would be
immoral and an absolute dereliction of our responsibilities as elected
officials to do anything less. We cannot ignore climate change any
longer. Now is the time for our great country to lead the world out of
this existential crisis.
And, by the way, as we address the long neglected needs of working
families and as we combat climate change, we are going to create
millions of good-paying jobs, many of them union jobs.
Let me very briefly take this opportunity to describe some of what is
in this budget proposal. First, we are going to address the disgrace of
the United States having the highest rate of childhood poverty of
almost any major country on Earth. This is the wealthiest country on
Earth, and we should not have millions of our children living in
poverty.
This budget is going to provide the long-awaited-for help that
working parents all over this country desperately need, and when we do
that, we will substantially reduce childhood poverty in America. And we
are going to do that by extending the child tax credit so that families
continue to receive monthly direct payments of up to $300 per child.
We began that process in the American Rescue Plan. It has been
enormously successful in Vermont and all over this country as parents
finally get the help that they need to raise their kids, and, in fact,
it has helped reduce childhood poverty in our country by 61 percent.
And we are going to extend those child tax credits.
Further, we are going to help working parents by addressing the
crisis in childcare by making sure that no working family in our
country pays more than 7 percent of their income for childcare. And all
over this country, in talking to parents in Vermont and elsewhere,
people are paying 20 percent, 25 percent of their income for childcare
so that they can go to work. That makes no sense at all. Under our
proposal, no working family will pay more than 7 percent. And when we
do that, when we make childcare more affordable and accessible, it will
allow over a million women who are now home with their kids to reenter
the workforce and improve our economy.
Further, in terms of addressing the needs of our working parents and
their kids, we will expand public education by providing universal pre-
K to every 3- and 4-year-old in the country.
This budget proposal is going to end the international disgrace of
the United States being the only major country on Earth not to
guarantee paid family and medical leave as a right. Somebody who is
sick today should not be forced to go to work and maybe, by expanding
their illness by contagion,

[[Page S6205]]

make other people sick. Parents should be able to stay home with their
sick children. When a woman has a baby, she should not be forced back
into work a week after giving birth simply because she has no income to
stay home.
Yes, in America, we will join every other major country and guarantee
paid family and medical leave.
We will begin to address the crisis in higher education by making
community colleges in America tuition-free, and this will give millions
of young people and working people the opportunity to get the education
they need to acquire the skills so they can go out and get the good-
paying jobs that are out there. It will also give people the
opportunity to transfer the 2 years of credits earned at a community
college to a 4-year school. Now, I hope in years to come we will go
further, but 2 years of free community college is no small thing.
This budget proposal begins the process of taking on the greed of the
pharmaceutical industry and saving taxpayers hundreds of billions of
dollars by requiring that Medicare negotiate prescription drug prices
with the pharmaceutical industry. It is not acceptable to me and to the
American people that we continue to pay, by far, the highest prices in
the world for prescription drugs. Medicare must negotiate prescription
drug prices, and this budget sets the stage for that to happen.

And we will use the savings acquired by negotiating prescription drug
prices in Medicare by expanding Medicare. We are going to use those
savings to expand Medicare to cover the dental care, the hearing aids,
and the eyeglasses that seniors desperately need. This is the
wealthiest country on Earth, and yet we have millions of senior
citizens who lack teeth in their mouth. They need dentures; they can't
afford to get them. They need hearing aids in order to communicate with
their grandkids; can't afford to do that. They need a decent pair of
glasses; can't afford that.
And in terms of healthcare, we will also substantially increase the
number of doctors, nurses, and dentists who practice in underserved
areas and expand the Community Health Centers Program into new areas as
well.
This budget proposal will combat homelessness in America and address
the reality that nearly 18 million households are paying over 50
percent of their limited incomes for housing through an unprecedented
investment in affordable housing. We will ensure, further, that people
in an aging society--we are getting older as a society, and we will
ensure that those people can receive the healthcare they need in their
own homes instead of being forced into expensive and inadequate nursing
homes and that the workers who provide that important care to the
elderly and the disabled are not forced to exist on starvation wages.
This is such important work and such emotionally draining work; those
folks deserve a decent paycheck.
We will bring undocumented people out of the shadows and provide them
with a pathway to citizenship, including those very brave workers who
have courageously kept our economy going in the middle of a deadly
pandemic.
As I mentioned earlier, we will take on the existential threat of
climate change by transforming our energy system toward renewable
energy and energy efficiency. Among many other provisions in terms of
climate change, we will establish a Civilian Climate Corps which will
give hundreds of thousands of young people good-paying jobs and
educational benefits as they roll up their sleeves and get to work to
help us save the planet.
This budget proposal will make it easier, not harder, for workers to
join unions in America.
My Republican colleagues are upset that we are using the
reconciliation process and only 50 votes to pass this budget. They are
very upset about that. But let us be clear. This idea of using
reconciliation is certainly not a new idea. When Republicans controlled
the Senate, they used reconciliation to pass trillions of dollars in
tax breaks to the top 1 percent and large corporations.
When Republicans controlled the Senate, they used reconciliation to
make climate change worse by opening up the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge for oil drilling.
When Republicans controlled the Senate, they tried to use
reconciliation to repeal the Affordable Care Act and throw 32 million
Americans off of the healthcare they had.
Well, today, it is true we will also use reconciliation, but we will
do it in a different way. We will use it to help the working families
of our country and not just the wealthy and the powerful.
It is no great secret that millions of Americans are giving up on
democracy, are moving toward authoritarianism, and are losing faith in
their government. Many of those people are working longer hours for
lower wages; they can't afford healthcare; they can't afford to send
their kids to college; and they worry very much about the future of
their kids and the future of this country.
This legislation will not only provide enormous support--
unprecedented in recent American history--to the children in our
country, to the parents in our country, to the elderly people in our
country, to the working families of our country, but it will also, I
hope, restore the faith of the American people in the belief that we
can have a government that works for all of us and not just the few.
Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Sinema). The Senator from South Carolina.
Good to see you back.
Mr. GRAHAM. It is good to be back. Thank you for the inquiries about
my well-being.
To all my colleagues, I appreciate the good wishes and the phone
calls and the food.
I made it. I think the worst is behind me.
I want to reinforce a simple message: If you haven't been vaccinated
regarding the COVID problem, get vaccinated. I have been vaccinated,
and I got COVID anyway; a couple of really bad days, but I am doing
better and I feel on the mend. And I am confident that, if I hadn't had
the vaccine, it would have been a lot worse.
So in my State, about 50 percent of the people are still
unvaccinated. Just for your own good and the good of our State, I would
urge you to consider getting vaccinated. I think the vaccine is safe,
and it works. I am glad I had it. And the sooner we can get to herd
immunity through vaccinations and other means, the better off we will
be.
To all my colleagues and people back home, thank you for the kind
words and inquiries.
We are back at work, and I am glad I was able to make this debate. I
think this debate is worth having. We just passed a $1 trillion
infrastructure bill. The Presiding Officer, Senator Sinema, from
Arizona, was one of the architects of the bill.
Congratulations.
I voted for it because it made sense to me. We have been talking
about infrastructure here for 5 or 10 years. In this $1 trillion
package, 550 of new spending, which I believe will be paid for, goes
into ports, roads, and bridges, and rural broadband; and 19 Republicans
voted for it.
I am hoping we can make it reality and get it to President Biden's
desk because I think infrastructure is much-needed, and we were finding
bipartisanship in that space.
Now we are moving on to something completely different--I dare say
radical. Right after the majority was seized by the Democratic Party,
they pushed through a $1.9 trillion package that had a lot of talk
about COVID--but most of it wasn't related to COVID as we know it--
after we had worked together on $4 trillion of spending.
Now, this budget resolution is proposing $3\1/2\ trillion of
additional spending, and we will talk about how that affects you, the
public, here in a minute. But the first thing I want you to know is it
is not $3\1/2\ trillion. That is not accurate.
When you look at the increase in public debt and the authorization of
new discretionary spending, it is at least $4.2 trillion. So it is not
$3\1/2\ trillion; it is over $4 trillion. The first thing you have to
do is be honest with the product you are selling. This will cost well
over $4 trillion if fully implemented.
What else does this bill do that people in this body need to know
about?
It changes the rule regarding emergency spending. Right now, we can
spend, through an emergency, basically, unlimited money and not have to
worry about offsets and all that good stuff because there is truly an
emergency. But you need 60 votes to declare

[[Page S6206]]

something an emergency. This budget resolution will change that rule so
that a simple majority of Senators can determine anything they would
like to be an emergency and spend without any accountability.
I think that is a bad idea for the body because anything you can do,
we can do, and it really is an assault on the idea of minority rights.
I think it is the biggest blow to the institution yet. It is buried in
this bill, but it eliminates the 60-vote requirement to declare items
emergency spending, replace it with a simple majority, allowing a
majority--a single party--to spend without restriction in the name of
emergency.
So to my friends on the other side, you need to look at what is in
this bill, and I hope you will find that to be an unacceptable change
to the U.S. Senate because, when it comes to spending, it guts the idea
that the minority matters because all you have to do, if this budget
resolution is implemented the way they have written it, is to declare
something an emergency, get 50 votes, and spend. Very bad idea. We are
going to try to change that, and we are hoping we can find some
bipartisan support.
Let me tell you about this bill. I am going to ask some questions. On
the immigration side, Senator Sanders said that this bill creates
millions of new green cards for people here illegally.
So here is a question: If we told the world that in the budget
reconciliation we are going to increase millions of green cards for
people here illegally, do you think that would entice more people to
come here illegally?
Here is what I think. I think that is the dumbest idea I could think
of. In the middle of an invasion of this country by illegal immigrants,
the Democratic Party, through budget reconciliation, is going to
authorize millions of new green cards for people here illegally. It is
in your document. Senator Sanders admitted that.
Here is what is happening as I speak: These statements are being
translated into Spanish and every other language, and human traffickers
all over the world are going to let the word get out that, Hey, the
Senate is about to increase the number of green cards available for
illegal immigrants; why don't you go and get in line?
Nobody has asked the Border Patrol: How do you think this would
affect our illegal immigration problem?
Have you spent 15 minutes talking to anybody at the border about what
this policy change would do to a broken immigration system?
I guarantee you haven't, because if you talked to anybody with common
sense on the border, they would tell you the last thing you need to do
right now is incentivize more illegal immigration by allocating green
cards to people who are here already illegally
What has happened in the last 6 months?
A 262-percent increase compared to last year.
Does any Democrat have any idea what is happening here? Have any of
you come to the floor to explain to the American people what the hell
is going on at the border?
You don't have a clue; you don't care.
The same people who are writing this budget resolution to spend $4
trillion on liberal wish lists are the same people in charge of the
border. They haven't asked one Border Patrol professional the effect of
this bill on a broken immigration system.
We have had 1.2 million people come to the country illegally already.
Let's compare that to last year--a 262-percent increase.
Illegal crossings by unaccompanied minors have surged 186 percent
compared to last year. Why? The Biden administration has kept the COVID
deportation title 42 law in place, but it has made exception by
unaccompanied minors. If you are a certain age, you can stay. Guess
what. The human traffickers have found that out, and word is out all
over the Northern Triangle countries--but, really, the world.
And we have had a 186-percent increase in unaccompanied minors
because of policy changes made by the Biden administration. Twenty-
seven percent of unaccompanied minors recently deported tested positive
for COVID-19.
How many of the unaccompanied minors have been released into the
country? Of the 1.2 million people who have come here illegally: How
many of them have been released? How many have them been tested? How
many are positive for COVID?
Nobody knows these numbers because nobody seems to have a clue of
what to do about it.
So what are the trends?
Look at this chart. Look at 2020 compared to `18, `19, and `20--an
explosion of illegal immigrants, 1.2 million, almost. Year to date, in
2020, we had 458,000. A 260-percent increase in illegal crossings at
the border because the Biden administration did away with the ``Remain
in Mexico'' policy.
So asylum claims went through the roof. We are allowing unaccompanied
children to stay as an exception to title 42, along with families. And
guess what. You have an explosion of illegal immigrant crossings in
this country.
If you pass this budget resolution the way Senator Sanders described,
you are going to throw jet fuel on this. This number will go through
the friggin' roof.
Every human trafficker in the world is going to get the word out
throughout the world that they are increasing the number of green cards
made available to illegal immigrants to America: Come now, the time is
right.
What a dangerous idea, but it is part of this grand, new vision for
America. Let me tell you about this vision for America: open borders;
dropping people by the thousands off into the interior of the United
States, not adequately tested; enticing young people to take a very
dangerous journey; destroying all of the gains we had; stopping a wall
that was almost built. That is the vision being created by the budget
resolution and then some.
The idea of increasing green cards for illegal immigrants already
here will make these numbers explode beyond what they already exploded.
Only God knows.
Has anyone told you the price at the pump? Has anybody mentioned to
you on the other side what is the cost of this bill when we implement
change reforms to you as a consumer?
Senator Markey, who is a very passionate believer in climate change,
said the Green New Deal is part of the DNA of this bill.
Senator Sanders is an avowed socialist, one of the most honest people
in this building. Senator Sanders' vision for the last 20 and 30 years
is in this budget resolution. This budget resolution is a dream for
those who want to socialize America; it is a nightmare for working
people.
How much have gas prices gone up in the last 6 months?
A dollar.
Here is what I think: If you implement the provisions of this budget
resolution regarding climate change, you are declaring war on the
internal combustion engine; you are going to shut out coal-fired plants
in rural America.
The question I have for my Democratic colleagues: How much will gas
prices go up if this bill becomes reality? How much will your heating
bill go up because you shut down supply? How has there been an increase
of a dollar at the pump? Policy matters.
I dare say that, if this bill is ever implemented, you are going to
double gas prices.
I hope you are listening out there, America. If they implement this
radical transformation of our energy economy, you are going to have a
dramatic increase of gas prices and heating prices.
This is the worst thought-out idea I have ever seen. They are just
throwing every liberal idea and hope it sticks to the wall, and their
whole reason for being on the left is in this bill.
There is a border-adjusted carbon tax proposal floating around out
there. What does that mean to you? What the hell is a border-adjusted
carbon tax?
The best I can understand is it is going to be a tax on products
coming into the country because the way the product was made is not
sufficiently green enough. So they are going to charge for that
product, put a tax on it at the border. Guess what. That is going to
increase the cost of whatever good we are talking about.
And where do you think that cost goes?
It goes to you.
This is the most inflationary idea I have ever seen. We have had 5.4-
percent increase in inflation recently, wiping out all the gains in the
economy.

[[Page S6207]]

How could that be?
You are spending money like drunken sailors. And if this bill ever
becomes law, if it is ever implemented and there is a border-adjusted
carbon tax, it is going to be passed onto the consumer.
If you are on a fixed income, this whole idea is a nightmare for you
because your gas prices are going to go up, your heating bill is going
to go up, and all of the things that they are going to make for free
will create an inflationary effect.
The size of the government is going to increase dramatically.
Interest rates will have to go up. So if you own a home, you drive a
car, you breathe air, get ready for more taxes and more spending.
All I can say is that I believe in climate change, and I would like
to have a rational approach to solving the problem. But this is not
rational; this is partisan. And this $4.2 trillion bill--it is not
three and a half--is going to lead a wave of illegal immigration, the
likes of which you have never seen before; a 262-percent increase in
the last 6 months. If this bill, this idea, ever becomes reality, you
can double that. If this bill ever becomes reality, a dollar increase
in gas prices is going to be the good old days.

If they shut down all the coal-fired plants without any way to
replace them, other than a bunch of BS, good luck with the heating
bill.
They are going to change your country. It is going to be more like
Venezuela and less like America.
This idea that it is going to be paid for by taxing the rich is a
bunch of BS. If you took the entire wealth of the 1 percent, including
their cars and their dogs, it is less than half of what we need to deal
with the entitlement problems we already have.
And you are growing exponentially the size of government--more
government to pay for. Eventually interest rates are going to have to
go up.
You are putting in motion, I think, the demise of America as we know
it. You are putting in motion a government that nobody's grandchild
could ever afford to pay. You are putting in motion the destruction of
energy independence. You have declared war on the fossil fuel industry
in this country, and you have not done a damn thing about China, India,
Russia, or Iran.
The bottom line here is, if you believe in energy independence, then
you need to vote against this budget resolution because we will lose
it. If you believe that inflation is the death blow to the middle
class, you need to vote against this budget resolution. If you don't
know how much gas prices are going to be increased, they owe you an
answer.
So I am going to ask this question for the next 15 hours: Do you have
any idea, if all this becomes reality, how much increase at the pump
will be affected by the average consumer the next year? How much will
our heating bills go up? As to the border-adjusted carbon tax, will it
be inflationary? Where does the money go from the tax? Who gets it?
Little details like this.
All I can say is that everybody has a dream in America. There is the
American dream and the American socialist dream for America. This
budget resolution sets in motion an assault on free enterprise, the
destruction of energy independence, incentivizing illegal immigration
at a time we can afford it the least.
If you don't believe these things, then you haven't read what is in
this blueprint. Have you ever asked yourself the question: What the
hell has happened in the last 6 months; why are we up $1 a gallon at
the pump? Because they declared a war on fossil fuels made in America.
Why do we have a 262-percent increase in illegal immigration? Because
they changed all the policies that worked at the border.
Why is inflation rising? Because the fiscal policies of the Biden
administration and our friends on the left are driving up prices.
The worst is yet to come. If this budget resolution becomes a
reality, God help the American middle class. We will be less energy
independent. Our money will go not nearly as far.
You are going to have to automatically raise taxes if you intend to
pay for this monstrosity. And some Democrats say it has to be paid for.
There is no way in hell to pay for this bill unless you fundamentally
raise taxes across the board--at a time when we are struggling to get
back on our feet.
This is why we have elections. In 2022, this idea will be on the
ballot. My goal and my Republican colleagues' is to fight like hell to
stop the increase at the pump, stop the increase of the heating bills,
and to stop an invasion in our country by illegal immigrants all driven
by bad policy choices.
But everything they have done in the last 6 months pales in
comparison with what they are going to do to this country if this
budget resolution ever becomes a reality.
Yes, sir, we are going to have one hell of a fight. I don't know how
long we are going to be here, but as long as it takes. America is worth
fighting for. And America, we know, is at risk with this budget
resolution.
Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in
order to call up the following amendments, that they be reported by
number, and that the Senate vote in relation to the amendments in the
order listed with no amendments in order prior to a vote: Barrasso No.
3055, Carper No. 3330, Thune No. 3106, and Cortez Masto No. 3317.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAHAM. I yield the remaining Republican time on the resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
Mr. SANDERS. I yield the majority's remaining time on the resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
All time on the resolution has been yielded back.
The Senator from Wyoming.

Amendment No. 3055

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 3055 and
ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Barrasso] proposes an
amendment numbered 3055.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To prohibit enactment of the Green New Deal)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO PROHIBIT THE GREEN
NEW DEAL.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally
divided.
The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I am offering this amendment to spare
the Country from the so-called Green New Deal. The Green New Deal is
not about protecting the environment. It is about making Big Government
even bigger.
This socialist scheme would destroy jobs. It will reduce the quality
of life for the American people. Millions and millions of Americans
will suffer. It would worsen already high inflation. It will drive a
stake through the economy and eventually bankrupt the Nation.
Senate Democrats have made it clear that they want to use this
reckless tax-and-spending spree to implement the Green New Deal. Just
last night, Senator Markey of Massachusetts made this statement, he
said: ``Without question, the Green New Deal is in the DNA of this
budget resolution.''
Let me repeat. He said: ``Without question, the Green New Deal is in
the DNA of this budget resolution.''
Instead of raising the costs of energy, we should be working to lower
the costs of alternative technologies and

[[Page S6208]]

fuels through innovation, not taxation and resolution.
I would encourage a ``yes'' vote on the Barrasso amendment and reject
the job-killing Green New Deal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, Mr. Barrasso's amendment is
interesting, when he talks about the Green New Deal. The only problem
is what he is talking about has nothing to do with the Green New Deal.
Despite what Senator Barrasso says, the Green New Deal would not ship
jobs overseas. In fact, it will create millions of good-paying jobs in
the United States of America. It will not raise electricity prices. It
will not make the United States dependent on dirty sources of energy
from other countries.
In case the Senator from Wyoming has missed it, Oregon is burning,
California is burning, Greece is burning. There is a drought hitting
virtually every country on Earth. News flash: Climate change is real
and the United States and other countries have got to address it.
Madam President, as a supporter of the Green New Deal, I have no
problem voting for this amendment because it has nothing to do with the
Green New Deal.

Vote on Amendment No. 3055

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. BARRASSO. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 316 Leg.]

YEAS--99

Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Braun
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kaine
Kelly
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Lujan
Lummis
Manchin
Markey
Marshall
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Paul
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rubio
Sanders
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young

NOT VOTING--1

Rounds

The amendment (No. 3055) was agreed to
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.

Amendment No. 3330

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 3330 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Carper] proposes an
amendment numbered 3330.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To establish a reserve fund relating to addressing the crisis
of climate change)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. RESERVE FUND RELATING TO ADDRESSING THE CRISIS OF
CLIMATE CHANGE.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes of debate equally
divided.
The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Madam President, the amendment that I have called up is
clear, it is simple, and it is straightforward. It makes clear that we
are going to address the climate crisis. We are going to do it through
policies that do several things: one, create jobs; two, create jobs
here in the United States; policies that strengthen our economy--all
while reducing the pollution that hurts our health and our environment.
We are in a code red situation. This is all hands on deck when it
comes to the climate crisis. We don't have a moment to waste. We need
to put politics aside and act now on climate change.
The budget resolution should allow us to develop legislation that can
respond to the urgent challenge of climate change.
I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I rise to oppose the Carper amendment.
Let's be clear. We all want to address climate change, period. Now,
this amendment does much more than that. Just because you say you want
to address climate change does not mean every policy that you propose
is a good idea. There can be disagreement. And I disagree strongly with
the Green New Deal policies in this $4.2 trillion bill that wastes
taxpayer dollars. It costs hundreds of jobs, and it hurts our economy.
Our economy should be a priority here. It should be the priority. We
can protect the environment without punishing the economy, and this
bill and amendment fail that test.
I yield the floor.

Vote on Amendment No. 3330

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 48, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 317 Leg.]

YEAS--51

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--48

Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NOT VOTING--1

Rounds

The amendment (No. 3330) was agreed to
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.

Amendment No. 3106

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I rise in support of amendment No. 3106,
which would preserve the longstanding step-up in basis for family-owned
businesses, farms, and ranches.
For decades, the Tax Code has allowed family-run businesses to be
handed down without imposing capital gains taxes on the appreciation in
value from the prior generation.

[[Page S6209]]

Changing this would hit generationally owned enterprises hard,
particularly in rural communities. And it could force families to sell
off part of the farm or business just to pay the new tax.
Congress tried something similar before and had to repeal the tax
before it took effect because it was unworkable.
Unlike amendment No. 3317, which is a side-by-side the Democrats will
be offering here temporarily, which would simply delay the tax, my
amendment would provide permanent relief by preserving step-up in basis
for all family-owned businesses, farms, and ranches.
I encourage my colleagues to support it and would add that I have
letters of support from the National Association of Manufacturers,
NFIB, Family Business Estate Tax Coalition, Taxpayers Protection
Alliance, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, Americans for
Tax Reform, National Taxpayers Union, Center for a Free Economy, Family
Business Coalition, Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, and
CASE.
Madam President, I urge the adoption of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator wish to call up his
amendment?
Mr. THUNE. I call up amendment No. 3106 and ask unanimous consent it
be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] proposes an
amendment numbered 3106.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To protect owners of generationally-owned businesses, farms,
and ranches so that they may continue to transfer ownership or
operations to family members or others based upon the same tax
principles that existed when they began operations and under which they
currently operate, including the full benefit of the step-up in basis)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
SUPPORTING PRIVATELY-HELD BUSINESSES, FARMS,
AND RANCHES.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, Senate Democrats take a backseat to no
one in standing up for family farmers, ranchers, and small businesses.
In fact, President Biden has made it clear that any changes to stepped-
up basis will provide durable protection for family farmers, ranchers,
and small businesses.
Speaking for myself, Senator Cortez Masto and Senator Tester, we are
following through on that Biden pledge because it is both fair and
common sense.
Now, capital gains reform is about ensuring that the wealthiest pay
their fair share. On our watch, multibillionaires cannot plant a few
tomatoes and call themselves a family farmer.
I will vote for the Thune amendment as well as the important Cortez
Masto-Tester-Wyden amendment that will be taken up next.

Vote on Amendment No. 3106

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to
amendment No. 3106.
Mr. THUNE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
(Mrs. GILLIBRAND assumed the Chair.)
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 318 Leg.]

YEAS--99

NOT VOTING--1

Rounds

The amendment (No. 3106) was agreed to
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Sinema). The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following
the Cortez Masto amendment the following amendments be in order and
that the amendments be reported by number with no amendments in order
prior to a vote in relation to the amendment: Lummis, No. 3104; Hassan-
Young, No. 3278, Crapo, No. 3099; Wyden, No. 3365; Cramer, No. 3105;
Scott, No. 3073; and Rubio, No. 3097
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Nevada.

Amendment No. 3317

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Madam President, I call up my amendment, No. 3317,
and ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Ms. Cortez Masto], for herself and
others, proposes an amendment numbered 3317.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a reserve fund relating to protecting family
farms, ranches, and small businesses while ensuring the wealthy pay
their fair share)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. RESERVE FUND RELATING TO PROTECTING FAMILY FARMS,
RANCHES, AND SMALL BUSINESSES.

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Madam President, I am joined on this amendment by
Senators Tester, Wyden, and Warnock.
Our amendment will protect family farms, ranches, and small
businesses while ensuring that the wealthy pay their fair share.
Family-owned businesses, farms, and ranches are the backbone of the
American economy. Many of these family-owned businesses have held their
assets for generations and have a deep connection to the land they
inherit. They are essential for feeding America.
Congress should protect these multigenerational, hard-working
families who have spent a lifetime creating jobs, building businesses,
and serving their communities. We are committed to protecting these
family-owned businesses while ensuring that the top 1

[[Page S6210]]

percent of corporations pay their fair share.
Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I appreciate the support of my colleagues
in acknowledging the full benefit of step-up in basis for all
businesses.
This amendment proposed by the Senator from Nevada dilutes that
support.
As I previously described, the administration's proposal would end
the existing step-up in basis tax treatment that protects
generationally owned businesses from tax liability when a business is
passed on to the next generation.
And I might add--I said this earlier--this was tried once in the
1970s. Chuck Grassley was here, and he was the guy who helped end this
because it was unworkable. So here we are trying to do this all over
again.
The administration suggested it might include arbitrary exemptions to
this ill-advised idea, which I think is what the Cortez Masto amendment
speaks to. But, unfortunately, these so-called protections for family-
owned operations would not provide sustained relief and, in practice,
would be incredibly difficult to implement--the reason they didn't do
it in the 1970s.
We have never taxed unrealized gains in this country. This proposal
is a half measure that would still punish hard-working families and
businesses in this country, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Vote on Amendment No. 3317

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 319 Leg.]

YEAS--49

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--50

Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sinema
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NOT VOTING--1

Rounds

The amendment (No. 3317) was rejected
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.

Amendment No. 3104

Ms. LUMMIS. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 3104 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Wyoming [Ms. Lummis] proposes an amendment
numbered 3104.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To cancel the Biden Administration's ban on oil and gas
leasing on Federal land to help lower gasoline prices and reduce energy
dependence on the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries)

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO OIL AND
GAS LEASING ON FEDERAL LAND.

Ms. LUMMIS. Madam President, as Americans are trying to enjoy their
last month of summer vacation before the kids go back to school, they
are facing gasoline prices at a near 7-year high.
What is the Biden administration doing about this? They are begging
Russia and the OPEC oil cartels to pump more oil so that U.S. gasoline
prices don't rise any more than they already have under his watch.
Meanwhile, through various Executive actions, such as the Biden ban on
new oil and gas industry drilling and development and canceling
pipelines, this President is attacking American workers and American
energy independence.
The oil and natural gas industry supports 11.3 million jobs across
the country and contributes nearly $1.7 trillion to the American
economy. It makes no sense to send production to other countries when
we could be doing it here, produced cleaner, more efficiently.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Ms. LUMMIS. I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, Senator Lummis's amendment targets new
oil and gas leases that the administration instituted while the
Department of Interior reviews our Federal and oil gas leasing program.
I, too, am eager to see the results of that review and was hoping we
would have received it by now.
I will continue to be vocal on my advocacy for American energy
independence and addressing climate change through innovation, not
elimination. However, drilling continued on existing leases throughout
the time, and Secretary Haaland testified before the Energy Committee
that the Department is in compliance with the recent court order, which
still allows leasing.
I believe the administration has the responsibility to evaluate these
programs and to make sure that we are getting a reasonable return for
the taxpayers, while using our abundant resources in the most
responsible way. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to reject the
amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 3104

Mr. THUNE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 320 Leg.]

YEAS--49

Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--50

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly

[[Page S6211]]

King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Rounds

The amendment (No. 3104) was rejected
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.

Amendment No. 3278

Ms. HASSAN. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 3278 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Hampshire [Ms. Hassan], for herself
and Mr. Young, proposes an amendment numbered 3278.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
promoting US competitiveness and innovation by supporting research and
development)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO PROMOTING
US COMPETITIVENESS AND INNOVATION BY SUPPORTING
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,
and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or
more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between
the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to
supporting United States economic competitiveness and
innovation, which may include expanding the research and
development tax credit for small businesses and preserving
full expensing for research and development investments, by
the amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes,
provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2022
through 2026 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2022
through 2031.
Ms. HASSAN. Madam President, I rise today to offer a bipartisan
amendment to promote U.S. competitiveness and support American
innovation.
The R&D tax credit provides critical support and tax relief to the
small businesses and startups that power our economy. These businesses
are job creators, helping spur innovation in New Hampshire and across
the country.
This bipartisan amendment with Senator Young would build on efforts
to expand the R&D tax credit for startups, while protecting the tax
incentives that allow U.S. companies, startups, and small businesses to
stay competitive in our global marketplace and out compete China.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and yield my time to
the Senator from Indiana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. YOUNG. Madam President, now more than ever, we must find
bipartisan solutions wherever possible to stimulate our economy, get
Americans back to work, and ensure we maintain our position on the
world stage as the leader in scientific and technological innovation.
This amendment would preserve funding related to U.S. competitiveness
and innovation by retaining the full expensing for research and
development and expanding tax incentives for small businesses.
Immediate R&D expensing incentivizes long-term investments in
innovation and technological breakthroughs.
By passing this amendment, we can make sure that the United States
continues to be the world leader in this space.
I understand we are prepared to pass this by voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). If there is no further debate,
the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3278) was passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.

Amendment No. 3099

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3099 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] proposes an amendment
numbered 3099.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
preventing the monitoring and reporting of sensitive American taxpayer
information to the Internal Revenue Service by financial institutions
about deposits and withdrawals made by any individual or business in
savings, checking, or other accounts of as little as $600)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
PREVENTING MONITORING AND REPORTING OF
SENSITIVE AMERICAN TAXPAYER INFORMATION TO THE
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE BY FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,
and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or
more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between
the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to
strengthening Federal tax administration, which may include
prohibiting the Internal Revenue Service from using funds to
monitor inflows and outflows of deposits or withdrawals in
financial accounts of American taxpayers, as well as other
protections to ensure the privacy of taxpayer information, by
the amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes,
provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2022
through 2026 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2022
through 2031.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, the IRS financial institution reporting
requirement forces financial institutions to turn over detailed bank
account information to the IRS based on vague and flexible criteria,
such as a $600-threshold, and account inflows and outflows would be
covered--this all to be determined by the IRS.
Think about that. It subjects every law-abiding American who has a
bank account or a credit union account in which they transact more than
$600 worth of transactions to have that information monitored and
reported to the IRS.
This is an outrageous violation of the privacy of American citizens,
and we should reject it.
The community banks and credit unions support this amendment, and I
thank the ICBA, CUNA, the ABA, and the NAFCU for their support, as well
as the Americans for Tax Reform and the Center for a Free Economy.
My amendment prevents the undue monitoring and reporting of sensitive
financial information on law-abiding Americans.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Colleagues, a decade of Republican budget cuts to the IRS
has resulted in rampant tax cheating at the top. Tax enforcement is
going to require new resources and new tools to crack down on the high-
flying tax cheats.
The Crapo amendment would, for all practical purposes, preserve the
status quo--the status quo that has contributed to the trillion-dollar
tax cap mushrooming and growing bigger.
This amendment would make it harder to root out tax cheating, and it
is unfair to working Americans who pay their taxes automatically out of
each paycheck.
Shortly--and we are going to reject the Crapo amendment--I will offer
an alternative that will protect the little guy without forfeiting the
chance to go after the big tax cheats, the wealthiest.
I urge the vote.

Vote on Amendment No. 3099

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 321 Leg.]

YEAS--49

Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins

[[Page S6212]]

Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--50

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Rounds

The amendment (No. 3099) was rejected

Amendment No. 3365

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. I call up my amendment No. 3365 and ask that it be
reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] proposes an amendment
numbered 3365.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To establish a reserve fund relating to protecting the
privacy of American taxpayer and small business tax information while
only reporting large financial account balances to the Internal Revenue
Service, to ensure those evading the tax system pay what they owe)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. RESERVE FUND RELATING TO PROTECTING TAXPAYER
PRIVACY WHILE ENSURING THOSE EVADING THE TAX
SYSTEM PAY WHAT THEY OWE.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the IRS Commissioner told the Senate
Finance Committee that, in his judgment, the tax gap--the difference
between taxes paid and taxes owed--is as much as $1 trillion a year.
Current tax gap estimates likely miss a large number of the high flyers
who clearly are driving this tax gap up and up.
Taxpayers acting to conceal this income from tax authorities are
going to have a much tougher time if the Congress requires that
financial institutions take practical and reasonable steps to require
that financial institutions report on financial accounts.
Our interest on our side is to go after the big guys who generate
significant inflows and outflows of cash and other assets, and we do it
in a way that protects privacy and sensitive taxpayer and small
business tax information. And this privacy issue has been one of the
most important issues in my time in public service. And we are going to
make sure that you can get the high flyers, the wealthy tax cheats,
without forfeiting the rights of the little guy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, this is one of the biggest violations of
the privacy of American citizens to come to the floor of the Senate in
a long time.
This amendment would require reporting of--and I quote--``large''
financial account balances to the IRS. So now, instead of $600, they
are going to say that whatever the IRS says is large is what they will
require every single American, whether they are an individual, a small
business, or a corporation owner. Everyone is going to be subject to
reporting on whatever the IRS says is ``large.''
And this comes after another proposal that is coming down the pike to
double or triple the funding to the IRS, so they can monitor the
financial transactions of American citizens.
This amendment should be rejected.

Vote on Amendment No. 3365

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. WYDEN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 322 Leg.]

YEAS--50

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--49

Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NOT VOTING--1

Rounds

The amendment (No. 3365) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.

Amendment No. 3105

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I call up Cramer amendment No. 3105 and
ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Cramer], for himself and
Mr. Braun, proposes an amendment numbered 3105.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To prohibit the Council on Environmental Quality and the
Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating rules or guidance
that bans hydraulic fracturing in the United States)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO PROHIBIT THE
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY FROM
PROMULGATING RULES OR GUIDANCE THAT BANS
FRACKING IN THE UNITED STATES.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, this amendment would simply prohibit any
ban on hydraulic fracturing. Such a ban would raise Americans' cost of
living, weaken our national security, and, of course, actually enhance
greenhouse gas emissions.
Thanks to the technology of fracking, since 2007, U.S. oil production

[[Page S6213]]

has doubled, and natural gas production has increased by 60 percent.
That is helping States like Colorado, New Mexico, Pennsylvania. And it
rids us of our reliance on nations like Saudi Arabia and Russia.
And, by the way, banning fracking would lead to triple-digit oil
prices and possible global economic shock as per the University of
Chicago.
Ironically, a ban on fracking would also increase global greenhouse
gas emissions. Energy Secretary Granholm just recently said that the
Russian gas is ``the dirtiest form of natural gas on Earth.'' And she
is right. Emissions from Russian natural gas are over 40 percent higher
than ours.
Democrats' fracking ban would be bad for North Dakota and our Nation
and the environment, and I urge my colleagues to vote yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I would urge my Republican colleagues to
read the recent IPCC report. And if they did, they would find that it
is now unequivocal that climate change is caused by human activity.
We are seeing what climate change is doing with our own eyes. We can
no longer be blind to this reality. We are seeing the intensity and the
increase in forest fires. We are seeing more extreme weather
disturbances. We are seeing rising sea levels that will soon threaten
the habitability of great American cities like Miami, New York, and
Charleston. We are seeing the acidification of the oceans that threaten
fishing and marine life. And we are seeing an increase in disease.
We have got to move away from fossil fuel. We have got to end
fracking.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 3105

Mr. THUNE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 42, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 323 Leg.]

YEAS--57

Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
King
Lankford
Lee
Lujan
Lummis
Manchin
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--42

Baldwin
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Klobuchar
Leahy
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Rounds

The amendment (No. 3105) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following
the Rubio amendment, the following amendments be in order; that the
amendments be reported by number, with no amendments in order prior to
a vote in relation to the amendment: Shelby, No. 3293; Grassley, No.
3251; Wyden, No. 3569; Mr. Tuberville, No. 3113; Ms. Klobuchar, No.
3731.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from South Carolina.

Amendment No. 3073

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, I call up my amendment
No. 3073 and ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Scott] proposes an
amendment numbered 3073.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
helping students, particularly students who are low-income or
minorities or who have special needs, that suffered from school
closures pushed by teacher labor organizations that ignored the science
and ensuring that all schools should be open for in-person learning 5
days a week for the 2021-2022 school year)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, in over a year of
uncertainty and the pain of living through a pandemic, I have to admit
I am shocked that I have to come down here to talk about the importance
of quality, in-person education.
Today, we are debating a $4 trillion tax-and-spending bill, and that
is on top of the $2 trillion we spent in March and the $4 trillion we
spent last year. How insane is it that with all that spending, there is
still no guarantee that our kids will be back in school this fall?
The sad reality is, more than 1 million kids did not enroll in their
local schools during the pandemic. Thanks to labor union bosses and
their unneeded and damaging school shutdowns, kids have been kept out
of school, and many--far too many--have suffered psychologically.
For our children's sake, I urge all my colleagues to vote yes on my
amendment and to join me in ensuring our children are no longer
confined to virtual learning.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment. We all agree that in-person learning is a top priority this
school year. Democrats actually passed the American Rescue Plan without
a single Republican vote so schools have the resources to make safe,
in-person learning possible. The CDC also updated its guidance on
reopening, and State school districts and schools are working towards
that goal.
But in addition to ensuring in-person learning, we need to encourage
adherence to public health guidance, especially as this Delta variant
is surging. We also need to support learning and the mental health
needs of our students and much more. There is no disagreement on in-
person learning, but the Scott amendment falls short on these very
important points.
By the way, we need to stop politicizing this issue.
So I encourage a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I agree with my colleague that we should
stop politicizing this issue. All we have done for the last several
months of this year is politicize this issue and every other major
issue.

Vote on Amendment No. 3073

I would like to ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

[[Page S6214]]

The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 324 Leg.]

YEAS--49

Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--50

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Rounds

The amendment (No. 3073) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.

Amendment No. 3097

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3097 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Florida [Mr. Rubio], for himself and the
Senator from Florida, Mr. Scott, proposes an amendment
numbered 3097.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
facilitating the provision of internet service to the citizens of Cuba,
who have been deprived of the free flow of information by the
illegitimate communist Cuban regime)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
FACILITATING IMPROVED INTERNET SERVICE FOR
CUBAN CITIZENS.

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, we witnessed about a month ago historic and
unprecedented protests in Cuba as the people took to the streets. One
of the things that has been untold and I think now is a greater
realization is that one of the reasons that is now possible is because
Cubans had a limited access to the internet, which allowed them to then
go on social media, communicate with each other and communicate with
the world. As a result, they were able also to share with the world the
true brutality of that regime by posting videos of what was happening.
It was the first time that people had ever seen it.
What this amendment does is it creates a reserve fund within the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration to help
ensure that we are doing all we can to provide internet access that is
unfettered, uncontrolled by the regime in Cuba, which actually cuts off
that access, as it did in the middle of these protests--by the way,
using Chinese technology.
So this would allow us to pursue how we can provide unfettered
internet access to the people of Cuba. It is something that I
understand has broad support in this Chamber, even in the
administration, and I hope we can pass this.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I strongly support the gentleman's
amendment. In fact, the Biden administration is in the midst of trying
to find out what is the greatest technological ability to create
internet access for the people of Cuba and limiting the ability of the
regime to jam that internet access, and I hope that we will see this
shortly.
This reserve fund would be in good order and in line with what the
administration is seeking to do as well.

Vote on Amendment No. 3097

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3097) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request, if I
might----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator from Alabama would withhold,
the Senator from Vermont is recognized
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I voted for the Rubio amendment because,
like others here and in Cuba, I believe the Cuban people have as much
right to access to the internet as anyone else. No government should
prevent that access, or access to other sources of information, whether
in Cuba or any other country. It is a universal right.
However, we have only the vaguest idea of what this amendment
envisions, how it would be implemented without violating Cuba's
territorial sovereignty, or how much it would cost. These are important
questions that need answers.
I also note that the ``purpose'' of the amendment refers to the
``illegitimate communist Cuba regime.'' We are all familiar with that
kind of rhetoric, and no one who believes in democracy would argue that
the Cuban Government is legitimate, since its leaders were not elected
in a free and fair multi-party election. Cuba is a one-party state
where political opposition is not tolerated. Presumably, that is
because the Cuban authorities are afraid that if they allowed political
opposition parties to operate and a free and fair election were held,
they might be voted out of office. In that sense, it is similar to
pariah states like Iran and Syria, as well as U.S. allies and partners
like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, neither of which permits opposition
parties to operate and both of which engage in repression on a scale
far larger than in Cuba.
I mention this because when it comes to principles of freedom of
speech and association, we should at least try to be consistent. We
have an economic embargo against Cuba, a tiny impoverished country that
poses no credible threat to us, while we sell billions of dollars in
weapons to Saudi Arabia, home to most of the 9/11 terrorists, and the
perpetrators of the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi and the disastrous
war in Yemen. Saudi women are routinely discriminated against and
imprisoned for acts that are protected by international law. The death
penalty is carried out after sham trials.
None of this is to excuse or justify the actions of the Cuban
Government. But it is interesting that many of those who focus their
wrath on Cuba and support a policy of sweeping sanctions that is
contributing to the misery of the Cuban people, support a very
different approach toward other repressive governments when it suits
them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.

Amendment No. 3293

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3293 and ask
that it be reported by number. This is an amendment by Shelby, Inhofe,
Wicker, and others, dealing with defense infrastructure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby], for himself and
others, proposes an amendment numbered 3293.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To provide funds available to the Department of Defense to
implement the 2018 National Defense Strategy)

=========================== NOTE ===========================

On page S6214, August 10, 2021, third column, the following
appears: The amendment is as follows: (Purpose: To provide funds
available to the Department of Defense to implement the 2018
National Strategy)

The online Record has been corrected to read: The amendment is
as follows: (Purpose: To provide funds available to the Department
of Defense to implement the 2018 National Defense Strategy)

========================= END NOTE =========================

On page 48, strike line 6 and insert the following:
(m) Committee on Armed Services.--The Committee on Armed
Services of the Senate shall report changes in laws within
its jurisdiction that increase the deficit by not more than
$50,200,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2022 through
2031.

[[Page S6215]]

(n) Submissions.--In the Senate, not later than

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, this amendment provides $50.2 billion to
meet defense infrastructure needs across this Nation. I believe we need
to modernize our shipyards, our test ranges, our depots, ammunition
plants, install 5G technology at military bases, support our nuclear
defense infrastructure, and so much more.
These infrastructure projects are absolutely critical to our national
security. They impact millions of jobs across the country, both
military and civilian. We are talking about projects not just in my
home State of Alabama but in Arizona, Georgia, Virginia, Rhode Island,
Connecticut, Maine, California, Hawaii, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico,
and many more--actually, all of us.
My Democratic colleagues inexplicably blocked a vote on a related
amendment in the infrastructure bill that just passed the Senate. Now
it is time, I believe, to stand up and be counted for America, for
national security.
Will my Democratic colleagues now support this multitrillion-dollar
social spending binge while continuing to turn a blind eye to the
military infrastructure needs in their own States? I certainly hope
not.
This reflected neglect of our national security and the millions of
jobs that support it is reckless. It must stop. I urge my colleagues to
support our military and vote yes on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, this is well-intended because there are
always needs for national defense, but I would like to point out that
the Armed Services Committee, on a bipartisan basis, raised the top
line of the Defense bill this year by $25 billion, allowing us to cover
the unfunded requirements of the Department of Defense. This was not
only a bipartisan effort; it was overwhelmingly approved by the
committee. So we are not reneging on a commitment to fully fund the
Department of Defense.
I know this amendment originated as an attempt to amend the
infrastructure bill, but as it is written, this amendment would provide
over $50 billion in funding for unspecified uses--it could be
infrastructure; it could be military platforms; it could be a host of
things--and the fund would extend from 2022 to 2031, which is beyond
this Congress and beyond the current administration.
I think we should adhere to the rules, the regular order, which has
been conducted in the Armed Services Committee. I think we have well-
positioned ourselves for an adequate budget and determination of
spending this year.
For that reason, I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 3293

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 53, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 325 Leg.]

YEAS--46

Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--53

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Braun
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lee
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Paul
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Rounds

The amendment (No. 3293) was rejected.

Amendment No. 3251

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Peters). The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I call up amendment No. 3251, and ask that it be
reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Iowa, [Mr. Grassley] proposes an amendment
numbered 3251.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To prevent changes to the State and local tax (SALT)
deduction that mainly benefit the wealthy)

On page 52, strike lines 2 through 12 and insert the
following:

SEC. 3001. RESERVE FUND FOR LEGISLATION THAT WON'T RAISE
TAXES ON PEOPLE MAKING LESS THAN $400,000 AND
WON'T MAKE CHANGES TO THE STATE AND LOCAL TAX
DEDUCTION THAT MAINLY BENEFIT THE WEALTHY IN
THE SENATE.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Now hear me. You will be shocked what the Democrats
want to do in their budget. They want to use reconciliation to provide
a $120 billion tax cut to the wealthy through SALT relief. The
nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimates 51 percent of the
benefit from that repeal would go to those making over $1 million,
while those with incomes under $50,000 wouldn't see any benefit.
The liberal Tax Policy Center says the top one-tenth of 1 percent of
households would receive an average tax cut of $144,000 a year.
Democrats cry the wealthy are not paying their fair share, at the
same time proposing to give billionaires six-figure tax cuts. If my
Democratic colleagues are genuine in their concern about the wealthy
paying too little taxes, their budget is not the way to do it.
So vote to support my amendment to impose restrictions on repealing
and modifying the SALT cap that would result in tax cuts for the
wealthy.
I reserve my time.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, colleagues, our tax bill will be
progressive, even though my friend from Iowa told you just the
opposite.
Now, the 2017 Trump tax laws specifically targeted families in the
middle with tax hikes to pay for some of the handouts that Republican
colleagues wanted to give corporations and the megawealthy.
Over here, on our side, we want to fix that mistake, but my friend
from Iowa is offering an amendment to lock in those tax hikes on
families in the middle.
Democrats are proposing very substantial tax cuts for working-class
folks, for the middle class, and what we are going to be doing in our
tax bill is working to make the Tax Code more progressive by ensuring
that the megawealthy pay their fair share.
I mean, we have all seen--and this has been documented for quite some
time--and my colleague from Iowa knows that we have exposed these mega-
IRAs that billionaires have.
So I just hope my colleagues will reject the Grassley amendment, and
when we do, I will offer what is truly a progressive alternative.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Do I have any time left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time remaining.

Vote on Amendment No. 3251

Mr. THUNE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

[[Page S6216]]

There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 326 Leg.]

YEAS--48

Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--51

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Paul
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Rounds

The amendment (No. 3251) was rejected
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.

Amendment No. 3569

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3569 and ask it
be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] proposes an amendment
numbered 3569.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To establish a reserve fund relating to increasing the
progressivity of the tax code)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. RESERVE FUND RELATING TO INCREASING THE
PROGRESSIVITY OF THE TAX CODE.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it takes extraordinary chutzpah for Senate
Republicans to claim the Democrats want to make the Federal Tax Code
less progressive. The Trump 2017 tax law was a huge giveaway to the
biggest corporations and the wealthiest individuals.
Senate Democrats are going to fix that in our tax bill. We are going
to have tax cuts for working people. For example, we are going to have
tax cuts for middle-income people with kids, and we are going to make
sure that those at the top, those multinational corporations and the
wealthiest individuals, are going to pay their fair share.
That is going to make the Tax Code more progressive and fairer. To
vote for a progressive fair tax system, you have got to support our
amendment 3569.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Senator from Oregon should have read
the 2017 tax bill, and he wouldn't give a speech like that. The Wyden
amendment is an example of Democrats on the one hand complaining the
wealthy pay too little tax while supporting massive tax cuts for the
rich.
Nothing in my amendment prevents changes to the Tax Code that would
make it more progressive. Capping the SALT deduction as part of the
2017 tax bill increases the progressivity of the Tax Code and allowed
for larger tax cuts to the middle class. Undoing the SALT cap would
make the Tax Code less progressive and jeopardize middle-class tax cuts
that it helped enable.
Anyone who supports the wealthy paying their fair share should have
supported my amendment and vote no on the Wyden amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 3569

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. WYDEN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
Rounds).
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 51, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 327 Leg.]

YEAS--47

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--51

Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NOT VOTING--2

Cramer
Rounds

The amendment (No. 3569) was rejected
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hassan). The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following
the Klobuchar amendment, the following amendments be in order and that
the amendments be reported by number, with no amendments in order prior
to a vote in relation to the amendment: Capito, No. 3284; Boozman, No.
3103; and Braun, No. 3114.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Alabama.

Amendment No. 3113

Mr. TUBERVILLE. Madam President, I call up my amendment, No. 3113,
and ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Tuberville] proposes an
amendment numbered 3113.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
decreasing Federal funding for local jurisdictions that defund the
police)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO ADJUSTING
FEDERAL FUNDING FOR LOCAL JURISDICTIONS.

[[Page S6217]]

Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10151 et seq.) (commonly known as the
``Byrne JAG grant program'') or section 1701 of title I of
such Act (34 U.S.C. 10381) (commonly known as the ``COPS
grant program''), to local governments that defund the
police, by the amounts provided in such legislation for those
purposes, provided that such legislation would not increase
the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal
years 2022 through 2026 or the period of the total of fiscal
years 2022 through 2031.

Mr. TUBERVILLE. Madam President, believe it or not, people back home
actually listen sometimes to what we say here.
To some local leaders across the country, the far-left rally cry of
``defund the police'' is not just DC rhetoric; they are actually acting
on it.
More than 80 percent of law enforcement in America is conducted by
State and local police departments--80 percent. These men and women are
community heroes. We should invest in all of them. But local leaders
across the country have decided the ``woke'' thing to do is cancel
their city's police force.
My amendment is pretty simple. If your city council wants to defund
their police, don't expect the Federal Government to make up the
difference.
The American taxpayers in Alabama shouldn't have to pick up the tab
for local leaders in Oregon and Minnesota who value the ``woke''
``defund the police'' movement over their own community's safety.
I call on my colleagues to support our law enforcement by voting yes
for this amendment. Opposing my amendment is a vote in support of
defunding the police and against the men and women in blue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. BOOKER. Madam President, I am so excited. This is perhaps the
highlight of this long and painful and tortuous night.
Again, if it wasn't complete abdication of Senate procedures and
esteem, I would walk over there and hug my colleague from Alabama.
And I will tell you right now--thank God--because there are some
people who have said that there are Members of this deliberative body
that want to defund the police, to my horror. And now this Member has
given us the gift that finally--once and for all--we can put to bed
this scurrilous accusation that somebody in this great, esteemed body
would want to defund the police.
So let's all of us--100 people--not walk but sashay down there and
vote for this amendment and put to rest the lies. I am sure I will see
no political ads attacking anybody here over ``defund the police.''
And I would ask unanimous consent to add something else to this
obvious bill. Can we add also that every Senator here wants to fund the
police, believes in God, country, and apple pie. Thank you.
(Applause.)
Mr. BENNET. Here, here.
Mr. BOOKER. Voice vote. Voice vote.

Vote on Amendment No. 3113

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. TUBERVILLE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 328 Leg.]

YEAS--99

NOT VOTING--1

Rounds

The amendment (No. 3113) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.

Amendment No. 3731

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 3731 and
ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Minnesota, [Ms. Klobuchar], for herself and others,
proposes an amendment numbered 3731.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To establish a reserve fund relating to honoring the United
States Capitol Police, the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police,
and all other first responders, who fought and died protecting Congress
and the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. RESERVE FUND RELATING TO HONORING THE CAPITOL
POLICE, DC METROPOLITAN POLICE, AND FIRST
RESPONDERS.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, this amendment, which I am
introducing with Senators Booker, Warnock, and Schatz, would allow the
Budget Committee to reallocate funding for the Capitol Police;
Washington, DC; and Metropolitan Police and all first responders who
defended the Capitol on January 6.
The insurrection at the Capitol was more than an assault on
democracy; it was an actual life-or-death situation for the many brave
law enforcement officers who show up here to work every single day.
Last week, we unanimously passed legislation, which Senator Blunt and
I led, to award the Congressional Gold Medal to honor these officers. I
was proud to stand with President Biden when he signed it into law.
This amendment shows our continued commitment to remembering the
heroism and the sacrifice of the first responders who risk their lives
to protect this Capitol.
Before I came to the Senate, I saw firsthand the vital role that law
enforcement officers play in keeping our citizens safe. That is why I
am not surprised by the last vote and the nature of the last vote.
I thank Senator Booker for his response to Senator Tuberville's
amendment. We also must ensure that the officers in this place have the
resources they need to do their jobs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. And we took an important path forward in passing the
funding for the police.
I want to thank my colleagues who join me in introducing this
amendment. I ask all my colleagues to join us in voting for it.

Vote on Amendment No. 3731

I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
Who yields time in opposition?
Mr. TILLIS. I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.

[[Page S6218]]

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 329 Leg.]

YEAS--99

NOT VOTING--1

Rounds

The amendment (No. 3731) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that, following
the Braun amendment, the following amendments be in order, that the
amendments be reported by number, with no amendments in order, prior to
a vote in relation to the amendment: Fischer 3128, Ernst 3115, Scott of
Florida 3383, Young 3444, and Lankford 3792.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from West Virginia.

Amendment No. 3284

Mrs. CAPITO. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 3284 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from West Virginia [Mrs. Capito] proposes an
amendment numbered 3284.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
supporting or expediting the deployment of carbon capture, utilization,
and sequestration technologies)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
SUPPORTING OR EXPEDITING THE DEPLOYMENT OF
CARBON CAPTURE, UTILIZATION, AND SEQUESTRATION
TECHNOLOGIES.

Mrs. CAPITO. Madam President, I am a strong supporter of carbon
capture, utilization, and sequestration, otherwise known as CCUS.
This technology allows us to turn carbon dioxide into a valuable
product. Some anti-fossil fuel, ``keep it in the ground'' advocates
only support CCUS when it has nothing to do with fossil fuels, and I
believe that is a misguided approach.
If we are serious about supporting and increasing the number of CCUS
projects, which I am and many of us are, we need to support projects of
all types of facilities, including on our coal- and gas-fired
powerplants. We also need to support the use of carbon dioxide to
produce oil through a process called enhanced oil recovery.
I encourage my colleagues to vote yes on amendment No. 3284 and
recognize that smart CCUS policies and fossil fuel use can go hand in
hand.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I rise also in support of my
colleague's amendment.
Climate change is a global issue. We need to deploy all the climate
solutions that we can if we are going to meet our global climate goals.
That includes coupling the use of our abundant resources with
technologies like CCUS that will ensure that we can use them in the
cleanest way possible. We need to continue to do more to bring down the
cost of these critical technologies and expedite the wide-scale
deployment both domestically and abroad, including in countries like
China and India, that are aggressively expanding their fossil fuel
fleets as we speak.
If the United States of America gets out of fossil fuels, I will
guarantee you there won't be another country to step up to the plate to
do the research and development it takes to combat climate change. So I
urge all my colleagues to support this legislation.
(Chorus of ``voice vote.'')

Vote on Amendment No. 3284

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3284) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
following rollcall votes be 10-minute rollcalls.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
(Applause.)
The Senator from Arkansas.

Amendment No. 3103

Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 3103 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Boozman] proposes an
amendment numbered 3103.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
policies or legislation to prohibit the Department of Agriculture from
making ineligible for financing fossil fuel-burning power plants)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO POLICIES
OR LEGISLATION TO PROHIBIT THE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE FROM MAKING INELIGIBLE FOR
FINANCING FOSSIL FUEL-BURNING POWER PLANTS.

Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam President, my amendment will establish a deficit-
neutral reserve fund to ensure rural electric cooperatives remain
eligible for USDA financing for the construction, maintenance, or
improvement of fossil fuel burning plants.
I ask my colleagues to support this commonsense approach to ensure
that the electricity needs of rural America continue to be met and, in
the future, are affordable and reliable.
The amendment ensures that rural Americans continue to have
accessible, affordable, reliable energy to power their farms, their
businesses, and broadband networks in the 21st-century economy.
In order to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, the Department of
Agriculture has proposed the retirement of fossil fuel-burning
powerplants in rural America.
So this amendment would protect rural America and make sure they have
reliable and affordable energy.

[[Page S6219]]

I ask my colleagues for a ``yea'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, unfortunately, I cannot support the
amendment offered by my good friend and ranking member.
This amendment would restrict the USDA's ability to support a
transition to clean fuel economies. Rural communities, especially rural
utilities and rural electric co-ops, can help lead the transition to
clean energy and create good-paying, clean energy jobs at the same
time. We know that. We need to provide the USDA with the tools and the
resources and the flexibility to make that happen.
It is important to know that our rural partners are asking to be a
part of this transition. They don't want an amendment that locks them
from being able to do that.
We all know that tackling the climate crisis is imperative. Just
yesterday, the U.N. put out another report showing that the climate
crisis is spiraling out of control.
Our budget will ensure that the United States will not only compete
but lead the world's race toward a clean energy future, and certainly
rural America is an important part of that.
So I would urge a ``no'' vote.

Vote on Amendment No. 3103

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. DAINES. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 46, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 330 Leg.]

YEAS--53

Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kelly
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Manchin
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sinema
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--46

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Smith
Stabenow
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Rounds

The amendment (No. 3103) was agreed to
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). The Senator from Indiana.

Amendment No. 3114

Mr. BRAUN. I call up my amendment No. 3114 and ask that it be
reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Braun] proposes an amendment
numbered 3114.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
removing the prohibition on States and territories against lowering
their taxes)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT.

Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President, in the 11th hour, Democrats added a
provision in the American Rescue Plan that this body did not have time
to vet. Under this provision, if States took the money, they cannot
lower their taxes in any way through 2024.
Six Federal lawsuits have already been filed, including States like
Louisiana, Ohio, and Arizona. West Virginia is leading a lawsuit with
an additional 13 States, including New Hampshire and Montana.
States are not happy with this overreach. We can fix this mistake
now. States have the right to cut their own taxes, and we have no right
to get in their way.
I introduced the Let States Cut Taxes Act with Dan Bishop, of North
Carolina, to repeal this overstep in the American Rescue Plan. A vote
for this amendment is a vote to protect States' power to impose or cut
their own taxes.
Please join me on this bill across the board, and I ask for the yeas
and the nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I will be very brief.
Democratic and Republican Governors want this. Certainly, on the
Democratic side, they have expressed an interest in expanding tax cuts
for working families and vulnerable people who are still feeling the
economic pain. Some are interested in expanding low-income housing.
This helps accomplish the goals.
I support this, and if it is acceptable, maybe we can even do it by
voice vote.
(Chorus of ``No''.)
Mr. BRAUN. No. It is a rollcall vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays were previously ordered.
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition.
This makes no sense whatsoever. First of all, our friends--no one
voted on that side for the ARP. Next of all, this was done to help
people with the programs that were going, who needed help. It was not
intended to use people's tax dollars to regive them to the States so
the States could look like they were reducing the taxes by not using
the money. That's ridiculous. We should not be supporting this
whatsoever. It makes no sense at all.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.

Vote on Amendment No. 3114

The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
The result was announced--yeas 86, nays 13, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 331 Leg.]

YEAS--86

Baldwin
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Braun
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Hawley
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kaine
Kelly
Kennedy
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Lujan
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Paul
Peters
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rubio
Sasse
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Warner
Warnock
Wicker
Wyden
Young

NAYS--13

Bennet
Cardin
Carper
Heinrich
King
Manchin
Markey

[[Page S6220]]

Reed
Sanders
Schatz
Van Hollen
Warren
Whitehouse

NOT VOTING--1

Rounds

The amendment (No. 3114) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.

Amendment No. 3128

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3128, and I
ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nebraska [Mrs. Fischer] proposes an
amendment numbered 3128.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To means-test electric vechicle tax credits to ensure high-
income individuals do not get government subsidies to buy expensive
luxury cars)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO MEANS-
TESTING ELECTRIC VEHICLE TAX CREDITS.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, Americans making over $100,000 a year
claimed nearly 80 percent of electric vehicle tax credits in 2016.
According to the National Resource Defense Council, a leftwing
environmental advocacy group, EVs cost $19,000 more than gas-powered
vehicles.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to say wealthy
Americans should pay their fair share in taxes. Yet they want to expand
the tax credit to disproportionately benefit even more people with six-
figure salaries.
Everyday Americans are living paycheck to paycheck because of the
sharp rise in costs due to inflation, but my colleagues on the other
side want to subsidize luxury vehicles only the rich can afford using
money from hard-working taxpayers, and my amendment would put a stop to
that.
It simply prohibits individuals from claiming the tax credit if they
make over $100,000 a year or if the car they are buying costs over
$40,000. There is nothing wrong with the well-off buying fancy cars. I
just don't think America's hard-earned taxpayer dollars should help to
pay for it.
While I question why we are subsidizing this industry at all, the
least we can do is to show bipartisan support for denying taxpayer
subsidies for the rich.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, we are strongly opposed. Senator Stabenow
will speak for us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first, this amendment is just plain
anti-pickup trucks. Let's start there. When our farmers and small
businesses and families are buying their next pickup truck or SUV, we
want them to have the incentive to purchase a new all-electric truck
like we have seen now being produced by the companies.
With the price ceiling in this amendment--there is a price ceiling--
they would not be allowed to receive the incentive that consumers
buying small cars would receive.
The fact is, more people buy pickup trucks and large vehicles than
people who buy small vehicles. So we eliminate more carbon pollution
when people who drive trucks and SUVs choose all-electric vehicles like
the great ones that are now coming out into the marketplace.
So I would ask you to vote no and stand with pickup truck owners
across the country.
(Applause.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, we have a pickup truck.

Vote on Amendment No. 3128

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mrs. FISCHER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 48, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 332 Leg.]

YEAS--51

Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kelly
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Manchin
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sinema
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--48

Baldwin
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Rounds

The amendment (No. 3128) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). The Senator from Iowa.

Amendment No. 3115

Ms. ERNST. Madam President, I call up my amendment, No. 3115, and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Iowa [Ms. Ernst], for herself and Mr.
Thune, proposes an amendment numbered 3115.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
prohibiting or limiting the issuance of costly Clean Air Act permit
requirements on farmers and ranchers in the United States or the
imposition of new Federal methane requirements on livestock)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
PROHIBITING OR LIMITING THE ISSUANCE OF COSTLY
CLEAN AIR ACT PERMIT REQUIREMENTS ON FARMERS
AND RANCHERS IN THE UNITED STATES OR THE
IMPOSITION OF NEW FEDERAL METHANE REQUIREMENTS
ON LIVESTOCK.

Ms. ERNST. Madam President, I grew up on a farm in Southwest Iowa,
where we took extraordinary pride in the work we did and the livestock
and crops we raised.
Our hard-working livestock producers should not have to worry about
being subject to onerous regulations and increased production costs due
to Federal permits or regulations.
My amendment would prohibit or limit any new Federal methane
requirements on livestock that would increase the cost of beef or other
critical

[[Page S6221]]

products. This ``cow tax'' will just result in higher food costs for
Americans at the grocery store at a time when inflation has already
caused prices to skyrocket.
This ``cow tax'' could put our local farms out of business. They
could devastate our rural communities, which are continuing to feed and
fuel the world.
I won't stand by while the Democrats force Iowa farmers and ranchers
and American consumers to pay for their over-the-top regulations.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and keep America's
farming and ranching operations going and food prices affordable for
our hard-working families.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I would like to speak in opposition to
the amendment. Let me be clear. Colleagues, let me be clear. Let me be
clear.
The EPA is not acting to regulate methane from cows or any other farm
animals. This amendment is designed as a messaging amendment to suggest
that the Agency is undertaking actions that it is not considering.
Democrats are working to advance policies that assist farmers and
ranchers in participating in efforts to address greenhouse gas
emissions in ways that inure to their bottom line.
Methane is a super climate pollutant. It is at least 80 times more
powerful than carbon dioxide in terms of global warming. In order to
stem the tide of climate change, we must reduce methane emissions.
The Biden administration and my Democratic colleagues are laser-
focused on making sure our Nation's largest source of methane--the oil
and gas sector--is doing all it can to reduce or eliminate methane
emissions.
The American people should rest assured that no one is focused on
regulating cow emissions, as this amendment would suggest.
I recommend a ``no'' vote. Thank you.

Vote on Amendment No. 3115

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. THUNE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 33, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 333 Leg.]

YEAS--66

Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Brown
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kelly
Kennedy
Klobuchar
Lankford
Lee
Lujan
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Peters
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rubio
Sasse
Schatz
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Warnock
Wicker
Young

NAYS--33

Blumenthal
Booker
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
King
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Reed
Sanders
Schumer
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Rounds

The amendment (No. 3115) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.

Amendment No. 3383

Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 3383
and ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Florida [Mr. Scott] proposes an amendment
numbered 3383.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
preventing terrorist actions against the United States and its allies,
and to ensure that United States tax dollars do not benefit terrorist
organizations such as Hamas or the Palestinian Islamic Jihad)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3004. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO FUNDING
OF THE OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL.

Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Madam President, earlier this year, we saw
Hamas rockets rain down on Israel for 11 straight days. Children, like
5-year-old Ido Avigal, died in these attacks.
Following these attacks on Israel, President Biden's State Department
said it couldn't guarantee that funding wouldn't go to Hamas. That is
unacceptable.
We have seen horrible anti-Israel sentiment permeate the Halls of
Congress. But we cannot, and I will not, accept the ignorance of some
of my colleagues to the evil and devastation Hamas terrorists bring to
Israel.
My amendment will ensure that any money authorized to the territory
of Gaza will not end up in the hands of Hamas terrorists and allows for
further sanctions against these terrorist groups.
This amendment is a commonsense way to protect American tax dollars,
stand with our great ally Israel, and to continue our fight against the
evils of Hamas terrorism.
I hope all of my colleagues will vote for this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, the U.S. Government already has laws in
place to prevent U.S. taxpayer dollars from going to terrorist
organizations and laws that specifically prevent funds from going to
Hamas and Palestinian Jihad.
So this is purely a messaging amendment that does absolutely nothing
in practice, but it is a message we can all get behind. And because
Democrats stand against terrorist organizations that threaten innocent
civilians in Israel and anywhere else in the world, we support the
amendment, and we would urge the Senator to take a voice vote.

Vote on Amendment No. 3383

Mr. SCOTT of Florida. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 334 Leg.]

YEAS--99

[[Page S6222]]

Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Paul
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rubio
Sanders
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young

NOT VOTING--1

Rounds

The amendment (No. 3383) was agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.

Amendment No. 3444

Mr. YOUNG. Madam President, I call up Young amendment No. 3444 and
ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Young] proposes an amendment
numbered 3444.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To prevent tax increases that would violate President Biden's
repeated promise to not impose a single penny in tax increases on
people making less than $400,000 per year)

On page 53, line 8, strike the period and insert ``, except
that no adjustment shall be made pursuant to this subsection
if such legislation raises taxes on people making less than
$400,000.''.

Mr. YOUNG. Madam President, over 60 times during their campaign and
since taking office, President Biden and Vice President Harris have
pledged not to raise one single penny in taxes--not one single penny--
on anyone making less than $400,000 a year.
Today, my Democratic colleagues are using this budget to try to pull
a fast one on the American taxpayers by giving lip service to this
pledge while proposing tax hikes that will largely be borne by middle-
and working-class Americans. For example, it is well-understood that a
significant portion of corporate tax hikes are borne by American
workers in the form of fewer job opportunities and reduced wage growth.
Now, while my colleagues included a nominal mention of the tax pledge
in the underlying budget, importantly, the budget's reserve fund for
the upcoming $3\1/2\ trillion reckless tax-and-spend bill is not
conditioned on that pledge. So this amendment will prevent Congress
from breaking the Biden-Harris tax promise to pay for reconciliation.
As President Biden said:

Not one penny. It's a guarantee.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, President Biden did, in fact, make it
clear there would be no tax increase for anybody who makes up to
$400,000 a year, and Democrats are going to stand by that commitment.
In fact, Democrats are proposing tax cuts for working-class and middle-
class families, along with changes to make sure that corporations and
the very wealthy finally pay their fair share. This amendment is in
line with that approach.
I am voting aye.
(Chorus of ``voice vote.'')

Vote on Amendment No. 3444

Mr. YOUNG. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: The Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 1, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 335 Leg.]

YEAS--98

Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Braun
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kaine
Kelly
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Lujan
Lummis
Manchin
Markey
Marshall
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Paul
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rubio
Sanders
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young

NAYS--1

Carper

NOT VOTING--1

Rounds

The amendment (No. 3444) was agreed to
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King). The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following
the Lankford amendment, the following amendments be in order; that the
amendments be reported by number, with no amendments in order prior to
a vote in relation to the amendment: Sullivan, No. 3627; Paul, No.
3150.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Oklahoma.

Amendment No. 3792

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3792 and ask
it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Lankford], for himself and
others, proposes an amendment numbered 3792.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
abortion funding)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO ABORTION
FUNDING.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, this amendment would add language to
prohibit funding for abortions consistent with the longstanding Hyde
amendment, which has been the law of the land since 1976.
The Hyde amendment has enjoyed decades of bipartisan support,
including from then-Senator Joe Biden, and it has been signed into law
by Democratic and Republican Presidents alike.
The Hyde amendment reflects a decades-long consensus that millions of
Americans who are profoundly opposed to abortion should not be forced
to pay for the taking of human lives of children or incentivize it with
their taxpayer dollars. A 2020 Marist poll found that 60 percent of
Americans, including 37 percent of people who identify as pro-choice,
oppose the use of their taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions.
Similarly, the Weldon amendment has been in law since 2004. It
protects individuals from being forced to participate in abortion if it
would violate their conscience.
Millions of Americans of faith and of no faith know that the only
difference between a child in the womb and outside the womb is time.
Just because they are smaller people doesn't mean they should be any
less protected by law.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this amendment is a serious threat to
women's safety that would allow someone else's personal beliefs rather
than a patient's best interests determine a patient's care.

[[Page S6223]]

No healthcare provider should be able to refuse to give lifesaving
information about where to get care to someone who is miscarrying. No
healthcare provider should be able to refuse to transfer a patient who
needs an abortion. No healthcare provider should be able to turn
patients away in an emergency situation for purely ideological reasons.
Everyone should be able to make their own choices about pregnancy and
parenting and exercise their constitutionally protected right to an
abortion.
This amendment would vastly expand abortion restrictions on Federal
funding.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

Vote on Amendment No. 3792

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I would ask for the yeas and nays and
remind everyone these amendments have been in place since 1976 and
2004. It doesn't expand anything.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 336 Leg.]

YEAS--50

Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Manchin
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--49

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Rounds

The amendment (No. 3792) was agreed to
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following
the Sullivan amendment, the following amendments be in order; that the
amendments be reported by number, with no amendments in order prior to
a vote in relation to the amendments: Wyden, No. 3805; Paul, No. 3150.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.

Amendment No. 3627

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3627 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Sullivan] proposes an
amendment numbered 3627.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
prohibiting renewable energy projects receiving Federal funds and
subsidies from purchasing materials, technology, and critical minerals
produced in China)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO ENSURING
ROBUST, SECURE, AND HUMANE SUPPLY CHAINS,
SOURCED BY THE UNITED STATES AND ALLIES OF THE
UNITED STATES, FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY MATERIALS,
TECHNOLOGY, AND CRITICAL MINERALS.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, my amendment would ensure that Federal
funds used toward the technology and materials we need to advance our
renewable energy sector is made and mined in the United States and by
our allies, not by the Chinese Communists.
We are currently dangerously reliant on China for roughly 80 percent
of materials and minerals vital to the U.S. renewable energy sector and
to our national security.
It is not only dangerous to our national security to be so reliant on
China, but it is also inhumane. China is using Uyghur forced labor to
source many of America's alternative energy imports.
We have these resources right here in the United States, and by
developing our national supply chains, we can create thousands of good-
paying jobs, protect our national interests, and deny support to the
Chinese Communist Party.
However, far too often, extreme environmental groups seek to block
domestic critical mineral production right here at home.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SULLIVAN. We need to produce these materials here, not in China,
and I ask my colleagues to vote yes for this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this is a challenging amendment that deals
with unfair competition from China.
I am going to vote yes, and when we are done with this amendment, I
will offer a more targeted approach to restrict the purchase with
Federal funds from any country of products produced with forced labor.

Vote on Amendment No. 3627

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. SULLIVAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 9, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 337 Leg.]

YEAS--90

Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kaine
Kelly
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Lujan
Lummis
Manchin
Marshall
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Paul
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rubio
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Wicker
Wyden
Young

NAYS--9

Blumenthal
Booker
Carper
Gillibrand
Markey
Murphy
Sanders
Toomey
Whitehouse

NOT VOTING--1

Rounds

The amendment (No. 3627) was agreed to
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

[[Page S6224]]

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following
the Paul amendment, the following amendments be in order, the
amendments be reported by number with no amendments in order prior to a
vote in relation to the amendment: Baldwin 3648, Romney 3652, Moran
3795.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.

Amendment No. 3805

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3805 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] proposes an amendment
numbered 3805.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a reserve fund relating to ensuring robust,
secure, and humane supply chains by prohibiting the use of Federal
funds to purchase materials, technology, and critical minerals
produced, manufactured, or mined with forced labor)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. RESERVE FUND RELATING TO ENSURING ROBUST, SECURE,
AND HUMANE SUPPLY CHAINS BY PROHIBITING THE USE
OF FEDERAL FUNDS TO PURCHASE MATERIALS,
TECHNOLOGY, AND CRITICAL MINERALS PRODUCED,
MANUFACTURED, OR MINED WITH FORCED LABOR.

Mr. WYDEN. Colleagues, I am going to be very brief.
This amendment prohibits the use of Federal funds to purchase
materials, technology, and critical minerals produced, manufactured, or
mined with forced labor from any country.
All supply chains need to be robust, secure, and free from these
horrendous labor practices, like the genocidal forced labor practices
in the Uighur region of China.
It is not enough, colleagues, to ban China alone, while forced labor
continues to be a problem in many nations around the world. For this
reason, I urge the support of this amendment to ensure that our supply
chains align with these American values.
And I am willing to do a voice vote, Mr. President.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I also urge adoption of the Wyden
amendment, when he is talking about forced labor. But I want to point
out one important issue.
The amendment that we just voted on, my amendment, which bans the use
of Federal funds on renewable projects, critical minerals from all of
China, was opposed by the vast majority of the far-left environmental
groups in America.
They want to be able to import these products from China, even though
we have them and we have the minerals. So there is a difference between
the Wyden amendment and the Sullivan amendment. I urge its adoption,
but let's not be fooled here. The far-left, green agenda is to import
products from China and not allow mining and critical mineral
production in America. That is wrong.
I am glad my amendment just passed, but I urge adoption of the Wyden
amendment as well.

Vote on Amendment No. 3805

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The sponsor of the amendment has asked for a
voice vote.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3805) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.

Amendment No. 3150

(Purpose: In the nature of a substitute.)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I call up my amendment 3150 and ask that it
be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Paul] proposes an amendment
numbered 3150.

(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.''
Mr. PAUL. Isn't it ironic that during today's long debate, we have
not heard a word of the actual subject at hand: the budget?
The budget presented by the Democrats has been entirely ignored by
both parties. But if you read it, the Democrat budget before us is a
blueprint for bankruptcy. The Democrat budget never balances and spends
and borrows $15 trillion over 10 years. Already, our national debt
exceeds $28 trillion. We borrow $2 million a minute.
Now, Republicans have largely been united in believing in a
constitutional amendment to balance our amendment in 5 years. In fact,
many of the Members have voted for that.
What I have presented today is an alternative to the Democrat budget.
This is a budget that balances in 5 years, and I recommend a ``yes''
vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, Senator Paul's amendment would slash
Federal spending by trillions of dollars. It would mean massive cuts to
Medicare, to Medicaid, to food stamps, to virtually every Federal
program that impacts working people and low-income people. It would
cause massive suffering.
I urge a ``no'' vote.

Vote on Amendment No. 3150

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. PAUL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
The result was announced--yeas 28, nays 71, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 338 Leg.]

YEAS--28

Barrasso
Blackburn
Braun
Cassidy
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Grassley
Hagerty
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
Moran
Paul
Portman
Risch
Rubio
Scott (SC)
Thune
Toomey
Tuberville

NAYS--71

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Graham
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Romney
Rosen
Sanders
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Tillis
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young

NOT VOTING--1

Rounds

The amendment (No. 3150) was rejected
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.

Amendment No. 3648

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3648 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Wisconsin [Ms. Baldwin], for herself and
others, proposes an amendment numbered 3648.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To establish a reserve fund relating to Great Lakes ice
breaking operational improvements)

At the end of title III, add the following:

[[Page S6225]]

SEC. 3004. RESERVE FUND RELATING TO GREAT LAKES ICE BREAKING
OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS.

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the
Baldwin, Smith, Gillibrand, Peters, and Durbin amendment that will help
support good-paying union jobs, address the impacts of climate change
on the Great Lakes, and support billions of dollars in revenue and
wages.
The U.S. Great Lakes waterborne commerce supports more than 147,000
jobs in eight Great Lakes States. This is made possible by the Coast
Guard's Great Lakes icebreakers that ensure ships can safely transit in
and out of our ports in the winter. Unfortunately, the number of
icebreaking vessels on the Great Lakes has declined, resulting in
economic loss, including an estimated 5,400 jobs in the 2018-2019
winter season.
Additionally, climate change is resulting in more heavy-ice winters
and increasing intensity and frequency of extreme storms that are
impacting ice cover thickness and unpredictable ice floes.
My amendment would ensure that the Great Lakes has sufficient
icebreaking capacity and keep our Nation's economy moving forward.
Chair Cantwell supports the Great Lakes icebreaker, and I urge my
colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment and ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Baldwin
amendment. I appreciate Senator Baldwin's interest in making sure that
the Coast Guard has adequate icebreaking in the Great Lakes.
I will note that there is currently no funding for the Coast Guard in
the Democrats' budget resolution, and I hope that the vote we are about
to have will show support for icebreakers. And perhaps Democrats will
regret their decision to exclude the Coast Guard from the Commerce
Committee's allocation of over $80 billion.
But I do support the amendment. The ranking member of the Budget
Committee also supports the amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 3648

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The sponsor of the amendment?
Ms. BALDWIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs.
Shaheen) is necessarily absent.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
The result was announced--yeas 85, nays 13, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 339 Leg.]

YEAS--85

Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Braun
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Cruz
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Portman
Reed
Romney
Rosen
Rubio
Sanders
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young

NAYS--13

Crapo
Daines
Hawley
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
Murkowski
Paul
Risch
Scott (SC)
Tuberville

NOT VOTING--2

Rounds
Shaheen

The amendment (No. 3648) was agreed to
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ossoff). The Senator from Utah.

Amendment No. 3652

Mr. ROMNEY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3652 and ask that
it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Utah [Mr. Romney] proposes an amendment
numbered 3652.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To prevent reconciliation legislation from including
trillions of dollars in job-killing tax hikes)

On page 46, strike lines 17 through 21.

Mr. ROMNEY. Mr. President, my amendment is very simple. It eliminates
the instruction to the Senate Finance Committee whereupon people would
be able to have their taxes increased.
If you want to have taxes go up in this country on corporations or
people, vote against my amendment. If, instead, you want to make sure
taxes are not raised on corporations or people, vote for my amendment.
Simple as that.
I ask people in this audience who want to keep taxes down, vote yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. This amendment strikes the Finance Committee's entire
reconciliation instructions from the budget resolution.
Colleagues, this would prevent the Senate from lowering the cost of
prescription medicine for all Americans. It would prevent fighting the
climate crisis with clean energy tax cuts, providing home and
community-based services for the elderly and disabled, prevent us from
creating a national paid leave program, and cutting taxes for working
families. It would also make it impossible for the subsequent
reconciliation bill to be paid for.
I will just wrap up. I urge strongly that we oppose this measure
because it would stop cold the effort to support policies crucial to
the American family, and I urge its rejection.

Vote on Amendment No. 3652

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. ROMNEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 340 Leg.]

YEAS--49

Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--50

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

[[Page S6226]]

NOT VOTING--1

Rounds

The amendment (No. 3652) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.

Amendment No. 3795

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3795, and I ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Moran] proposes an amendment
numbered 3795.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
immigration enforcement and addressing the humanitarian crisis at the
southern border)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT AND ADDRESSING THE
HUMANITARIAN CRISIS AT THE SOUTHERN BORDER.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, there is no denying that we have a
humanitarian crisis at the southern border. I have witnessed this
personally. Just last month, Customs encountered 200,000 individuals
attempting the dangerous and deadly trek across the southern border. At
least tens of thousands of these individuals have been released into
our country without an official court date.
The Biden administration's rollback of immigration laws has not only
magnified the humanitarian crisis, but it has left our law enforcement
with the impossible task of trying to slow the flow of illegal
crossings while also attempting to stop drugs, weapons, and human
trafficking entering our country.
My amendment simply states that we must enforce our existing
immigration laws to address the humanitarian crisis and to increase
resources for smart and effective border security, improve asylum
processing, and reduce immigration court backlogs.
Voting no on this amendment signals a refusal to acknowledge we have
a humanitarian crisis on our southern border and an unwillingness to
support our existing immigration laws.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this straightforward amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, at my request this amendment incorporates
language reflecting Democratic priorities funded by the budget
resolution, including smart and effective border security measures like
nonintrusive inspection systems, hiring additional Customs officers for
screening at lawful ports of entry, hiring additional immigration
judges and asylum officers to reduce backlogs and enhance the
efficiency and fairness of the asylum system.
I thank the Senator from Kansas for accepting these changes, and I
support his amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 3795

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
The result was announced--yeas 76, nays 23, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 341 Leg.]

YEAS--76

Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Brown
Burr
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Hawley
Hickenlooper
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kaine
Kelly
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Manchin
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Ossoff
Paul
Peters
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Wicker
Young

NAYS--23

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Cantwell
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Hirono
Leahy
Lujan
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murray
Padilla
Reed
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Smith
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Rounds

The amendment (No. 3795) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Padilla). The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
following amendments be in order; that the amendments be reported by
number, with no amendments in order prior to a vote in relation to the
amendment: Cotton, No. 3680; Blackburn, No. 3062; Cruz, No. 3781.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Arkansas.

Amendment No. 3680

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3680 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Cotton] proposes an
amendment numbered 3680.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
prohibiting the teaching of critical race theory in prekindergarten
programs and elementary and secondary schools)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO PROVIDING
QUALITY EDUCATION FOR CHILDREN.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, growing up I was taught, as I suspect most
of you were, that America is a great, noble nation, in large part
because, as Lincoln put it, it is ``dedicated to the proposition that
all men are created equal.''
In America, our rights have no color, our law and society should be
colorblind, and as Dr. Martin Luther King said, we should not be judged
by the color of our skin, but by the content of our character.
Sadly, today, some want to replace our founding principles with an
un-American ideology called critical race theory. They want to teach
our children that America is not a good nation but a racist nation.
Those teachings are wrong, and our tax dollars should not support them.
My amendment will ensure that Federal funds are not used to
indoctrinate kids as young as pre-K to hate America. Our future depends
on the next generation of kids loving America and loving each other as
fellow citizens, no matter their race.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the amendment.

[[Page S6227]]

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, you know, this amendment is simply an
attempt to force the Federal Government to interfere with local school
district decisions about curriculum and academic instruction.
There are several longstanding provisions in Federal education law
that prohibit the Federal Government from mandating or directing school
curriculum. This amendment would contradict that bipartisan consensus
and allow the Federal Government to have a say over what schools can
and cannot teach our children.
I oppose this amendment because I believe States, local school
districts, and educators should be in the driver's seat when making
decisions about curriculum, and I urge my colleagues to vote no.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.

Vote on Amendment No. 3680

Mr. COTTON. Let's vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. COTTON. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 342 Leg.]

YEAS--50

Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Manchin
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--49

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Rounds

The amendment (No. 3680) was agreed to
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following
the Cruz amendment, the following amendments be in order, that the
amendments be reported by number with no amendments in order prior to a
vote in relation to the amendment: Hawley 2734; Booker 3823; Hoeven
3243; Marshall 3797; Kennedy 3758.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.

Amendment No. 3062

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my
amendment No. 3062 be called up and reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Tennessee [Mrs. Blackburn] proposes an
amendment numbered 3062.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To strike the Senate emergency legislation provision)

On page 55, strike line 24 and all that follows through
page 58, line 13.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, this amendment maintains what has been
the existing right of any Senator to weigh in on the special treatment
we give to designated funds.
As it stands, this current budget resolution would destroy that right
and allow a simple majority of Senators free rein to declare anything
and everything an emergency. Without this amendment, fiscal discipline
will go out the window, along with the rules laid out in the Budget Act
and any chance of countering the Biden administration's reckless
socialist agenda.
The existing rule worked for bipartisan COVID relief, and it will
continue to work for this body. There is nothing broken here to fix.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment
that makes it more difficult for Congress to respond to an emergency
when one occurs.
Let us be clear. There is no reason to hold up Federal dollars to
help people recover from a natural disaster while Congress searches for
revenue or spending cuts to pay for emergency assistance.
This amendment would create a supermajority hurdle for the Senate to
declare something an emergency. When people are suffering after a
hurricane or a wildfire, we should not be creating additional barriers
to them getting the help they need.
Congress has provided exemptions for emergency spending ever since
the budget process started a pay-as-you-go system. This helps Federal
dollars respond to emergencies in a more timely manner.
Importantly, the 60-vote threshold still exists for emergency
legislation, meaning any bill that includes emergency spending will
still face a 60-vote hurdle. There is simply no need to make getting
urgently needed money out of the door one step harder. I urge my
colleagues to vote no on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.

Vote on Amendment No. 3062

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the
amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 343 Leg.]

YEAS--49

Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--50

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Rounds

The amendment (No. 3062) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

Amendment No. 3781

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3781 and ask that
it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.

[[Page S6228]]

The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cruz] proposes an amendment
numbered 3781.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
ensuring that the Department of Homeland Security, pursuant to title
42, United States Code, conducts expulsions of illegal immigrants who
may contribute to the spread of COVID-19, including any of the
dangerous variants originating overseas, in order to protect the public
health of the American people, save American lives, and assist in
eradicating the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3004__.DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO SECURING
THE BORDER, INCLUDING BY PREVENTING OR LIMITING
THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FROM
DEPARTING FROM THE MARCH 20, 2020, ORDER ISSUED
BY THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
support my amendment ensuring that the Department of Homeland Security
continues to have the legal authority to expel illegal immigrants who
may have COVID-19 under title 42 of the U.S. Code to protect Americans
from the spread of this deadly pandemic.
There is a crisis at our border caused by this administration's
policies, and the fact is that our open borders and unlimited illegal
immigration coming into this country are contributing to the spread of
COVID-19 and to the dangerous Delta variant. For example, McAllen, TX,
one city in the Rio Grande Valley, has a population of 141,000 people.
But this year alone, the Biden administration has released more than
7,000 illegal aliens who have been positive for COVID-19. In fact, this
week alone, 1,315 illegal aliens were released positive with COVID-19.
This is a serious public health crisis. Title 42 gives the
administration the authority to protect public health against this
pandemic.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, the Biden administration inherited both
the COVID-19 public health crisis and the dismantling of the
immigration system from the previous administration.
This amendment would tie the Biden administration's hands in
addressing arrivals at our southern border. It would prevent adapting
to changes in public health needs and making security-based decisions
related to protecting our homeland.
Forcing the indefinite preservation of title 42 authorities raises
both security and humanitarian concerns. This would prevent the
imposition of the consequence-delivery system that cracks down on
individuals who attempt to cross the border repeatedly. We should not
have to expel the same person for illegally crossing the border six or
seven times. We need to expel them once and use tools like removal and
prosecution to limit their ability to keep crossing the border
illegally.
This amendment also reduces the administration's ability to
appropriately care for unaccompanied minors.
We need to ensure that the administration has every tool at their
disposal as they work to tackle the pandemic and keep our Nation
secure.
I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 3781

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. CRUZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 344 Leg.]

YEAS--49

Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--50

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Rounds

The amendment (No. 3781) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). The Senator from Missouri.

Amendment No. 2734

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I ask that my amendment be called up, No.
2734, and that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Hawley] proposes an
amendment numbered 2734.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
hiring 100,000 new police officers nationwide to combat the crime wave
in the United States)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO HIRING
100,000 NEW POLICE OFFICERS.

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of hiring more law
enforcement officers across this country--100,000 more, to be precise.
And here is why. We are in the midst of an unprecedented crime wave in
this country, a crime wave of violent crime, and our families and our
children are in the crosshairs.
This past year, the murder rate in this country rose, year over year,
higher than anytime in six decades. This past year, the FBI reports
that fatal felony attacks on law enforcement officers spiked by over 50
percent. In St. Louis, MO, my home State, 262 residents were killed in
2020. That is the highest number in over half a century.
Cops are being targeted. Families are being targeted. Children aren't
safe on the streets. We need to take action now to put more law
enforcement officers on our streets to protect our families.
Now, I recognize that my friends across the aisle say they don't want
to defund the police. That is outstanding. Let's go a step further.
Let's fund them. Let's put 100,000 new cops on the streets right now to
protect our families, to protect our children.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

[[Page S6229]]

There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this has been a historic day in the U.S.
Senate. We started by passing a bipartisan infrastructure bill that
made history, and now the Senator from Missouri is finally coming
around to supporting the COPS Hiring Program that was created by
Senator Joe Biden in 1994.
Since its creation, the COPS Program--listen to this--has helped over
13,000 local police departments hire over 134,000 officers. We believe
in it on the Democratic side. We are glad you have come around.
We sent a letter to the Appropriations Committee, signed by 37
Democrats, for the COPS Program. Do you know how many Republicans
signed the letter? None. But with your amendment tonight, clearly you
have come around. The Republicans are joining the Democrats in
supporting Joe Biden's COPS Program. You are right: We need 100,000
more police. And we stand with Joe Biden's program and are glad that
you have joined us.

Vote on Amendment No. 2734

Mr. HAWLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kentucky (Mr. Paul) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
Rounds).
The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 3, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 345 Leg.]

YEAS--95

Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Braun
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kaine
Kelly
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lujan
Lummis
Manchin
Markey
Marshall
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rubio
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young

NAYS--3

Lee
Sanders
Toomey

NOT VOTING--2

Paul
Rounds

The amendment (No. 2734) was agreed to
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.

Amendment No. 3243

Mr. HOEVEN. I call up my amendment No. 3243 and ask that it be
reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Hoeven] proposes an
amendment numbered 3243.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
preventing electricity blackouts and improving electricity reliability)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
PREVENTING ELECTRICITY BLACKOUTS AND IMPROVING
ELECTRICITY RELIABILITY.

Mr. HOEVEN. This amendment ensures we continue to support policies
that make our country an economic powerhouse, as well as keeping
heating and cooling costs low for Americans, and that means protecting
access to reliable, affordable energy.
The North American Electric Reliability Corporation recently warned
that numerous areas of the country are at an elevated or high risk of
experiencing blackouts or brownouts. This warning is not limited only
to California and Texas; it also included most of the West, New
England, and the upper Midwest.
My amendment promotes more baseload power, specifically from coal-
fired and natural gas power plants with carbon capture, as well as
nuclear power.
Instead of new taxes or the Green New Deal, we should be expanding
access to power generation from resources available 24/7, regardless of
weather conditions.
We are the world's leading economy with vast energy resources, and
blackouts and brownouts are simply not acceptable.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment to keep the lights
on, energy costs low, and harness our abundant baseload resources with
improved environmental stewardship.
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, just yesterday, the world's scientists
offered an unequivocal warning to us about the condition of our planet.
Every single one of us has a home State university that teaches climate
science, and if we ask them, they will confirm that warning; and yet we
relentlessly subsidize the fossil fuel industry, which floats already
on a $600 billion annual subsidy in this country, according to the
International Monetary Fund.
Enough is enough. Our grid operators almost everywhere do a good job
with reliability, and we have just added billions of dollars to improve
grid reliability.
There is no reason whatsoever to put another thumb on the scales for
this already heavily subsidized industry when most of these blackouts
and brownouts are driven by extreme weather caused by the climate
change from their pollution.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I would note that I referenced carbon
capture, as well as other environmental practices that we are taking,
to lead the world in producing not only abundant, affordable baseload
energy, but also with the latest, greatest technology in an
environmentally friendly way. I would note the good Senator has joined
with me on legislation to do that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired.
Mr. HOEVEN. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 3243

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 47, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 346 Leg.]

YEAS--52

Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kelly
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Manchin
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sinema

[[Page S6230]]

Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--47

NOT VOTING--1

Rounds

The amendment (No. 3243) was agreed to
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.

Amendment No. 3797

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3797 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Marshall], for himself and
others, proposes an amendment numbered 3797.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
protecting migrants and local communities against COVID-19)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
PROTECTING MIGRANTS AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES
AGAINST COVID-19.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, as we all work to address vaccine
hesitancy and anxiously await full approval of the COVID-19 vaccines,
open border policies undermine these efforts. Americans can travel to
Mexico City but not return to America without a COVID test, while an
illegal immigrant has no test requirements, and in just a few days, it
will be easier to illegally cross our southern border than go to a
restaurant or a bar in New York City.
Some estimates would suggest hundreds or, perhaps, even thousands of
COVID-positive illegal immigrants enter our Republic every day. That
means we have a superspreader event at our southern border every single
day, and Americans are watching this public healthcare crisis. In
McAllen, TX, almost 1,500 new infected migrants were released into
their communities this past week alone.
There is a healthcare crisis at our southern border, and it is
unacceptable for the government to be transporting illegal migrants who
pose a grave risk of transmitting COVID across our Nation.
My amendment would ensure resources are provided for testing and
treatment of migrants at the border and for quarantining those who test
positive for COVID as well as prohibiting the transportation of
migrants who have not received a negative test.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, imagine it is 3 in the morning, in a
desert, on our border, and the Border Patrol is out there and finds a
family--a mother and a father and two small children.
What do they do when they are 50 miles away from a port of entry?
They obviously take them to that port of entry, but according to the
Marshall amendment, they can't do it.
Listen to his language: ``[p]rohibiting migrants who have not
received a negative COVID-19 test from being transported.''
They can't be transported out of the desert because they don't have a
negative COVID-19 test? And what if they show up at the detention
center--and I have mentioned this to Dr. Marshall already--and there is
a new person walking in who happens to be a mother who is in labor and
needs to go to a hospital immediately?
According to your language, they cannot be transported unless they
have a negative COVID-19 test.
I would say to you, Doctor, that is not good medicine; that is not
humane. I asked you to change those provisions. I gave you language to
do that. I am sorry you didn't.

Vote on Amendment No. 3797

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
The result was announced--yeas 88, nays 11, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 347 Leg.]

YEAS--88

Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Hawley
Hickenlooper
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kaine
Kelly
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Lummis
Manchin
Marshall
McConnell
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murray
Padilla
Paul
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rubio
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young

NAYS--11

Booker
Heinrich
Hirono
Lujan
Markey
Menendez
Murphy
Ossoff
Sanders
Smith
Warren

NOT VOTING--1

Rounds

The amendment (No. 3797) was agreed to
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). The majority leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Now, Mr. President, we have come to an agreement here. I
am going to read it in a minute, and I just want to say that we are
going to try to have everyone sit in their seat. There are 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 amendments. If we all sit in our seats and try to
stick to the 10 minutes or as close as we can get to it, we can finish
in 10 minutes. We can get this done quickly. If we all finish voting by
5, he can bang the gavel and get us to do it quicker than 10. OK?
(Applause.)
Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you. That is the most Republican applause I have
gotten in a little while. OK.
I ask unanimous consent that following the Kennedy amendment, the
following amendments be the only amendments remaining in order; that
the amendments be reported by number and the Senate vote in relation to
the amendments in the order listed: Lee, 3141--Lee, the clerk; Inhofe,
3331; Daines, 3292; Hagerty, 3742; Hyde-Smith, 3568; Grassley, 3650;
Sullivan, 3626; Cruz, 3681; Lee, 3815; Kennedy, 3753; further, that on
the disposition of the Kennedy amendment, the last Kennedy amendment,
the Senate vote on the adoption of S. Con. Res. 14, as amended, with no
further intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President.
Thank you, my colleagues. Let's cooperate and finish this up.

[[Page S6231]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Louisiana seek
recognition?

Amendment No. 3758

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment 3758 and ask that
it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Kennedy], for himself and
others, proposes an amendment numbered 3758.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
improving health care by establishing penalties for providers
performing elective abortions when the post-fertilization age of the
unborn child is 20 weeks or greater)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO IMPROVING
HEALTH PROGRAMS.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, after 20 weeks of gestation, medical
science has determined that children in their mother's womb feel pain.
To channel my good friend and the distinguished Senator from Rhode
Island, you can go to the appropriate professor at any of the
universities in your State, and they will tell you that is so.
This amendment will allow for penalties for those who perform
elective--elective--abortions on unborn children who are at least 20
weeks in gestation. This amendment would not apply to abortions in the
case of rape, of incest, or when the life of the mother is in danger.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, even in the midst of a pandemic, a
climate crisis, a childcare crisis, so many issues facing our working
families, it is so disappointing but not surprising that Republicans
continue to focus on restricting access to abortion care.
Let's be perfectly clear about this amendment. It is a clear attempt
to undermine Roe v. Wade. It would impose a 20-week abortion ban with
no exception for rape or incest, and it would harm women and families
across the country.
In fact, leading medical groups like the American Medical Association
and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists oppose
policies like this because they interfere with doctors' and patients'
ability to make decisions based on science and based on what is best
for their patients' healthcare.
Everyone has the right to make their own decisions about their own
reproductive healthcare.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President.

Vote on Amendment No. 3758

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Do I have additional time, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, you do not. No time remains.
Mr. SCHUMER. Question.
Mr. KENNEDY. I ask for the yeas and nays, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 348 Leg.]

YEAS--48

Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Manchin
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--51

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Rounds

The amendment (No. 3758) was rejected
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.

Amendment No. 3141

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3141 and ask that
it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Utah [Mr. Lee] proposes an amendment
numbered 3141.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
studying and providing for tax equivalency under the payments in lieu
of taxes program)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO STUDYING
AND PROVIDING FOR TAX EQUIVALENCY UNDER THE
PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES PROGRAM.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, States and localities are not allowed to tax
land held by the Federal Government. As a result of this, Congress
created the PILT Program to reimburse States for that lost revenue.
Now, PILT payments are determined by a complex formula, a formula
that unfortunately is far lower than it would be under a tax
equivalency. Twenty-one years ago, the USDA concluded that PILT
payments needed to be increased by 3\1/2\ times. On certain Federal
lands, the number is much larger. A Utah study showed that for lands
held in Utah cities, it needed to be 262 times larger.
My amendment would help correct this inaccuracy. It would direct the
Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study on the true taxable value
of PILT land and treat it as if it were owned by anyone else other than
the Federal Government and therefore subject to taxation. It would
reform the program to more accurately compensate States for the revenue
that they lose simply by virtue of the fact that they have Federal land
in them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, Senator Lee's amendment sets up a
deficit-neutral reserve fund to change the payment formula for the
Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program.
While I share a desire to revisit the PILT formula and to ensure that
payments to counties are fair, I have concerns with this amendment.
The administration has testified that trying to incorporate a system
into the PILT formula that involves appraising every parcel of Federal
land and tracking every local tax rate would prove nearly impossible to
administer.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.

[[Page S6232]]

Vote on AmendmentNo. 3141

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to
amendment No. 3141.
Mr. LEE. I call for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 48, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 349 Leg.]

YEAS--51

Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--48

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Rounds

The amendment (No. 3141) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

Amendment No. 3331

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3331 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe], for himself and
others, proposes an amendment numbered 3331.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
relating to improving health programs, which may include prohibiting
funding for abortions of unborn children with Down syndrome or other
chromosomal conditions)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
PROTECTING UNBORN CHILDREN FROM ABORTION ON THE
BASIS OF DOWN SYNDROME.

Mr. INHOFE. My friends, the amendment--my amendment--is designed to
protect a very small population but a very significant population: the
babies with Down syndrome.
Over two-thirds of the unborn babies diagnosed with Down syndrome in
the United States are aborted. Some countries, like Iceland, are
eradicating their entire population of individuals with Down syndrome
through abortion.
Now, I think we agree that an individual should not be discriminated
against due to his or her chromosome count.
This is not partisan. It is not extreme. Seventy percent of
Americans, including 56 percent of pro-choice Americans, oppose
abortion on the basis of a Down syndrome diagnosis.
This amendment uses the budget mechanism to help protect the most
vulnerable among us and who are being systematically targeted through
abortion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. INHOFE. I urge my colleagues to lay aside their party differences
and think about the lives and the lives--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Who seeks time?
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, the stated purpose of this amendment
is a pretext. It is a pretext for restricting reproductive rights and
interfering with women's decisions about whether to have an abortion.
For all of us who care about people with Down syndrome, we ought to
listen to the National Down Syndrome Society and devote more resources
to research at NIH, to funding better settings and care for people with
Down syndrome, and better opportunities for their employment. There are
ways to serve that community without this pretextual restriction of
reproductive rights.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 3331

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. INHOFE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 350 Leg.]

YEAS--49

Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Manchin
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--50

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Rounds

The amendment (No. 3331) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.

Amendment No. 3292

Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3292 and ask
that it be called up by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Montana [Mr. Daines] proposes an amendment
numbered 3292.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
prohibiting tax increases on small businesses, as defined by the Small
Business Administration but generally 500 employees or less)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
PREVENTING TAX INCREASES ON SMALL BUSINESSES.

[[Page S6233]]

the period of the total of fiscal years 2022 through 2031.

Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, Montana small businesses are critically
important for our jobs; for local economies; and, really, to bring our
communities together. And through no fault of their own, many were hit
very hard by the pandemic.
Unfortunately, some Members on the other side of the aisle have put
forth some very misguided efforts to raise taxes on these small
businesses, attempting to redefine what constitutes a small business.
Thankfully, we already have an agreed-upon definition that was set by
the Small Business Administration, which defines a small business as
one with fewer than 500 employees.
Efforts to end tax relief, such as to limit the 20-percent small
business tax deduction passed in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act based on
arbitrary income thresholds, should be called out for what they are:
These are small business tax hikes.
For this reason, I am offering an amendment to create a deficit-
neutral reserve against prohibiting tax increases on small businesses,
as defined by the Small Business Administration.
I urge my colleagues who believe in the importance of small
businesses--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired.
Mr. DAINES.--to join me in voting for this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, our core belief is that taxes should not be
raised on small businesses and that the wealthiest and the biggest
corporations should pay their fair share.
This amendment is consistent with that. I am going to support it.
I hope we can do this on a voice vote.

Vote on Amendment No. 3292

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3292) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The majority leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, for my colleagues, the clerk is no
longer going to recount, to save us a little time. I just urge my
colleagues to please stay in your seats so we can move this along. Oh,
and speak up when you are called. Is that what you mean? I have no
trouble speaking loudly, as everyone knows here.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Tennessee.

Amendment No. 3742

Mr. HAGERTY. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 3742 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Hagerty] proposes an
amendment numbered 3742.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
providing sufficient resources to detain and deport a higher number of
illegal aliens who have been convicted of a crime)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO PROVIDING
SUFFICIENT RESOURCES TO DETAIN AND DEPORT A
HIGHER NUMBER OF ALIENS WHO HAVE BEEN CONVICTED
OF A CRIME.

Mr. HAGERTY. Madam President, my amendment provides for ensuring that
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is charged by Congress
with enforcing immigration laws in the United States, has sufficient
resources to deport illegal aliens who have been convicted of crimes in
the United States.
According to ICE's website, 92 percent of the illegal aliens that ICE
deports have been convicted or charged with crimes. Yet despite the
border crisis and record border crossings, the Biden administration has
drastically reduced deportations to roughly one-quarter of what they
were last fiscal year, reaching the lowest levels on record this
spring, from over 28,000 in October of 2019 to less than 3,000 in April
of 2021.
That means the administration is allowing thousands of criminal
illegal aliens per month to remain in American communities and
potentially commit more crimes.
I ask for your support for enforcing our immigration laws and
deterring illegal immigration and criminal activity by providing the
resources necessary to remove criminal illegal aliens from our streets.
Thank you, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
The Democratic whip.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, we all agree on one basic thing: No one
who is dangerous to the United States should be allowed to come to this
country. And those who are here and not citizens who are guilty of a
serious crime should be removed from this country.
That is the highest law enforcement priority not only of those
gathered here but also of the Biden administration.
The Hagerty amendment, though, makes it clear that he is seeking to
increase funding for detention and deportation of more undocumented
immigrants who have been convicted of any crime in the United States--
not a serious crime, not a violent crime, any crime--including
nonviolent misdemeanors.
The ICE Agency has sufficient funds to carry out its law enforcement
function, with a total budget of over $8 billion. This overly broad
amendment does not distinguish between the crimes committed by
individuals, the serious ones versus those that are not.
It would divert ICE from focusing its resources on the truly serious
public safety and national security threats. I urge my colleagues to
vote against this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

Vote on Amendment No. 3742

The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The yeas and nays were previously ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 46, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 351 Leg.]

YEAS--53

Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kelly
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--46

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Rounds

The amendment (No. 3742) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Mississippi

Amendment No. 3568

Mrs. HYDE-SMITH. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 3568 and
ask that it be reported by number.

[[Page S6234]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Mississippi [Mrs. Hyde-Smith] proposes an
amendment numbered 3568.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
adjustments to Federal funds for certain local jurisdictions)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
ADJUSTMENTS TO FEDERAL FUNDS FOR CERTAIN LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS.

Mrs. HYDE-SMITH. Madam President, our Nation's communities and small
businesses have had it rough these past 18 months as they struggle with
the lasting effects of the pandemic. Today, they are also being
victimized amid surging violent crime rates and progressive prosecutors
who adopt nonprosecution policies. And, as a result, small businesses
are left vulnerable and unassisted as they are burglarized, defaced,
and destroyed.
It is understandable for victimized small businesses, law
enforcement, and the public to be dispirited as they are left to pick
up the pieces while rogue prosecutors ignore their constitutional duty
by refusing to prosecute violent crimes that affect the health, safety,
or economy of our communities.
Defying the rule of law and endangering the public has Mississippians
and Americans across the country saying enough is enough.
My amendment is simple and straightforward. Any city that purposely
obstructs the rule of law by refusing to prosecute--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mrs. HYDE-SMITH.--certain violent crimes will not be subsidized by
the American taxpayers.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the Senator from Mississippi has stated
her case explicitly: If a prosecutor fails to prosecute a case, the
town or community that he represents as prosecutor--the town or
community--will be denied Federal funds. Think about this. Under the
Senator's amendment, if a district attorney decides not to charge a
certain property offense, even in just one case, the whole town will
lose its eligibility for Federal funding under programs like the
Violence Against Women Act--we know what that is; it is certainly a
refuge for many people who are victims of domestic violence--or the
Bulletproof Vest Grant Act to protect law enforcement in that same
community. They would lose their opportunity for Federal grants under
the Senator's amendment that she is offering.
I think we ought to think carefully about this. Prosecutors decide
whether to proceed with a case or not proceed based on the amount of
evidence, the likelihood of conviction, the possibility of securing a
plea bargain for a lesser offense. To deny a community Federal funds--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. DURBIN.--or the police--I hope all of my colleagues would oppose
this amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 3568

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mrs. HYDE-SMITH. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 352 Leg.]

YEAS--47

Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--52

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Romney
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Rounds

The amendment (No. 3568) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Iowa.

Amendment No. 3650

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 3650 and
ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley] proposes an amendment
numbered 3650.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
prohibiting illegal aliens with criminal records from receiving
conditional or lawful permanent resident status in the United States)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO THE
ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS.

Mr. GRASSLEY. This amendment creates a deficit-neutral reserve fund
for legislation that would prevent illegal immigrants with criminal
records from obtaining lawful permanent resident status in our country.
It is pretty simple. Prohibiting illegal immigrants with criminal
convictions or pending criminal charges from receiving legal status in
the United States should be a very easy call and shouldn't be very
controversial. I urge my colleagues to support it.
I reserve my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the Grassley amendment would exclude
from a path to citizenship any undocumented immigrant who has been
convicted of any crime or who has been merely charged with a crime.
This is a broad exclusion, applies to any criminal conviction no matter
how long ago it took place, how minor the crime, and to any criminal
charge even if the individual is ultimately exonerated.

[[Page S6235]]

This exclusion is also unnecessary because every legalization bill
pending in the Senate requires a criminal background check and excludes
individuals convicted of a serious crime. For example, the bipartisan
House-passed Dream and Promise Act would bar an immigrant from
receiving legal status if they have been convicted of any felony, any
drug offense, or any crime of domestic violence.
Also, we have to accept the obvious: Crossing the border illegally
can be a crime, if one wants to be charged with that. This amendment is
inconsistent with due process and does nothing to increase public
safety.
I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Vote on Amendment No. 3650

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 353 Leg.]

YEAS--49

Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--50

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Rounds

The amendment (No. 3650) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.

Amendment No. 3626

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I call up my amendment 3626 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Sullivan] proposes an
amendment numbered 3626.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
restricting United States funding to international organizations, such
as the United Nations Human Rights Council, until the Department of
State certifies that no members of the organization are state sponsors
of terrorism, which may include a report from the Department of the
Treasury on the prevalence of sanctioned entities in the organization)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3004. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
RESTRICTING UNITED STATES FUNDING TO
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, SUCH AS THE UNITED
NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL, UNTIL THE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE CERTIFIES THAT NO MEMBERS
OF THE ORGANIZATION ARE STATE SPONSORS OF
TERRORISM, WHICH MAY INCLUDE A REPORT FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY ON THE PREVALENCE OF
SANCTIONED ENTITIES IN THE ORGANIZATION.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, my amendment would withhold American
taxpayers' support to the United Nations Human Rights Council until the
Department of State certifies that no members of the organization are
state sponsors of terrorism and the Treasury Department reports on the
prevalence of American sanctioned countries within the organization.
Right now, Cuba, which is designated by the State Department as a
state sponsor of terrorism, serves on the U.N. Human Rights Council
alongside authoritarian regimes and human rights abusers, Russia, and
Communist China.
Recently, the Biden administration asked this very flawed
international organization to investigate our own country's record on
human rights. This is an outrage, and the Congress should respond by
defunding the Human Rights Council until all of its member countries
actually respect human rights.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, it is past 3 a.m., and we are dealing
with another messaging amendment. Like the junior Senator from Alaska,
we all oppose terrorism; we condemn state sponsors of it. But this
amendment goes well beyond that and is drafted so broadly, whether
intentionally or not, that it signals a cutoff of funding to every
international organization--every single one--including the United
Nations because some members are bad actors.
Now, our Republican colleagues are well aware that adversaries such
as China are expanding their influence at some of the most important
international organizations. They are calling the shots because we are
not there. This amendment would cede the field to the Chinese so we can
sit on the sidelines and watch them make the rules.
When Israel is wrongly signaled out at the U.N. Human Rights
Commission, we will not be there to defend her. And when international
standards are being created for high-tech issues, we will not lead the
world, as we should. That is why this amendment should be defeated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, do I have any time to respond?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time remaining.

Vote on Amendment No. 3626

The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. SULLIVAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 354 Leg.]

YEAS--49

Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--50

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy

[[Page S6236]]

Lujan
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Rounds

The amendment (No. 3626) as rejected
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

Amendment No. 3681

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 3681 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cruz] proposes an amendment
numbered 3681.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To create a point of order against legislation that would
provide funding or subsidize the import from the Xinjiang Uyghur
Autonomous Region of the People's Republic of China of items relating
to electric cars)

At the appropriate place in title IV, add the following:

SEC. 4___. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST PROVIDING FUNDING OR
SUBSIDIZING THE IMPORT FROM THE XINJIANG UYGHUR
AUTONOMOUS REGION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF
CHINA OF ITEMS RELATING TO ELECTRIC CARS.

(a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate
to consider any bill, joint resolution, motion, amendment,
amendment between the Houses, or conference report that would
provide funding to or subsidize the import of--
(1) significant goods, wares, articles, or merchandise
mined, produced, or manufactured wholly, or in part, in the
Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of the People's Republic of
China to be used for the production of electric vehicles; and
(2) electric vehicles that incorporate or are otherwise
produced using goods, wares, articles, or merchandise
described in paragraph (1).
(b) Waiver and Appeal.--Subsection (a) may be waived or
suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-
fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative
vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly
chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of
the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under
subsection (a).

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
support this amendment to create a point of order against any
legislation that would fund or subsidize the import of electric
vehicles with supply lines that run through Xinjiang.
Right now, the Chinese Communist Party is committing genocide against
millions of Uighurs in Xinjiang. They are being tortured, murdered, and
forced into slave labor. The CCP has exploited that slave labor to
ensure that much of the world's EVs are made in Xinjiang and have parts
produced in Xinjiang.
Our Nation is in perilous risk of becoming complicit in these
atrocities as part of the massive rush to import EVs. This amendment
would prohibit our bringing in EVs that are made with slave labor. We
cannot and should not fund slave labor in communist China.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I have been advised that inclusion of
this amendment in the budget resolution would be corrosive to the
privileged status of the resolution. Since this amendment contains
material inappropriate for inclusion in the budget resolution, its
adoption could jeopardize the privilege of this resolution, which would
completely halt our efforts to consider a reconciliation bill later
this year.
Additionally, this amendment is not germane as required by law.
Accordingly, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment
violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and
I would urge a vote against a motion to waive.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Texas.

Motion to Waive

Mr. CRUZ. Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act, I
move to waive, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 355 Leg.]

YEAS--50

Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Manchin
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--49

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Rounds

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 50, the nays are
49.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected and the amendment falls.
The motion was rejected.
The senior Senator from Utah.

Amendment No. 3815

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 3815 and ask it
be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Utah [Mr. Lee] proposes an amendment
numbered 3815.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To create a point of order against legislation that would
cause a net increase in outlays unless the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office certifies that inflation is below 3
percent)

At the appropriate place in title IV, add the following:

SEC. 4___. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST LEGISLATION THAT WOULD
CAUSE A NET INCREASE IN OUTLAYS UNLESS THE
DIRECTOR OF THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
CERTIFIES THAT INFLATION IS BELOW 3 PERCENT.

(a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate
to consider any bill, joint resolution, motion, amendment,
amendment between the Houses, or conference report that would
cause a net increase in outlays relative to the most recently
published Congressional Budget Office baseline unless the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office certifies (based
on the most recent data available to the Director) that
inflation, as measured in either the average of the
annualized changes in the 3 most recently published monthly
reports on the consumer price index for all-urban consumers
published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department
of Labor, or the previous year's unadjusted annual change in
that index, is below 3 percent.
(b) Waiver and Appeal.--Subsection (a) may be waived or
suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-
fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative
vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly
chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of
the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under
subsection (a).

Mr. LEE. Madam President, inflation is out of control. Very few seem
to be willing to talk about it, much less address it.
Now, look, it hasn't been this bad since the great recession. Even
then, only two of the months out of that entire crisis were as bad or
worse than inflation is right now, and it is showing up in every
consumer product Americans buy. Everything from groceries to gasoline,
to housing, to healthcare is getting more expensive. Every dollar that
we churn into the economy, that we print out when we don't have it,
makes these and all other products more expensive.
Let's be clear. The spending is facilitated by this budget
resolution, and that same spending will exacerbate inflation. It will
worsen the pain that

[[Page S6237]]

Americans are feeling as they are filling their gas tanks and stocking
their pantries and refrigerators.
When inflation is surging, we can't be piling onto the problem. We
are not elected to make life worse. We need to get inflation back under
our control.
This simple amendment would empower Congress to do that by making it
harder for Congress to increase spending whenever inflation is above 3
percent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, this amendment is a poison pill that
would defeat everything that many of us are trying to accomplish
tonight in this historic budget: no reduction in childhood poverty; no
expansion in childcare, pre-K, or Medicare; no investment in affordable
housing or home healthcare; no paid family and medical leave; no effort
to combat the existential threat of climate change; no creation of
millions of good-paying jobs. Using an arbitrary inflation number, it
would end all of that. This amendment must be defeated.

Vote on Amendment No. 3815

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 356 Leg.]

YEAS--49

Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--50

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Rounds

The amendment (No. 3815) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Louisiana.

Amendment No. 3753

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 3753 and ask
that it be reported by number and, while they are doing that, for
someone to check on Senator Tillis.
(Laughter.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an
amendment numbered 3753.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
maintaining the current law tax treatment of like kind exchanges)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
MAINTAINING THE CURRENT LAW TAX TREATMENT OF
LIKE KIND EXCHANGES.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, this amendment will prohibit any
changes to the tax treatment of like-kind exchanges.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, it is my understanding that, after 15
hours or so, this is the last amendment of the night, and I recommend
we do it by voice vote.
(Chorus of ``ayes.'')

Vote on Amendment No. 3753

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3753) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

Order of Procedure

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, we are about to vote on the budget
resolution.
I remind my colleagues that we will have a vote very shortly
thereafter on voting rights.
I thank the Presiding Officer.

Vote on S. Con. Res. 14, as Amended

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to S. Con. Res.
14, as amended.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 357 Leg.]

YEAS--50

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--49

Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NOT VOTING--1

Rounds

The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 14), as amended, was agreed
to, as follows:

S. Con. Res. 14

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2022.

(a) Declaration.--Congress declares that this resolution is
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2022
and that this resolution sets forth the appropriate budgetary
levels for fiscal years 2023 through 2031.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this
concurrent resolution is as follows:

Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2022.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

Subtitle A--Budgetary Levels in Both Houses

Sec. 1101. Recommended levels and amounts.
Sec. 1102. Major functional categories.

Subtitle B--Levels and Amounts in the Senate

Sec. 1201. Social Security in the Senate.
Sec. 1202. Postal Service discretionary administrative expenses in the
Senate.

TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

Sec. 2001. Reconciliation in the Senate.
Sec. 2002. Reconciliation in the House of Representatives.

[[Page S6238]]

TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS

Sec. 3001. Reserve fund for legislation that won't raise taxes on
people making less than $400,000 in the Senate.
Sec. 3002. Reserve fund for reconciliation legislation.
Sec. 3003. Reserve fund.
Sec. 3004. Deficit-neutral reserve fund to prohibit the Green New Deal.
Sec. 3005. Reserve fund relating to addressing the crisis of climate
change.
Sec. 3006. Deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to supporting
privately-held businesses, farms, and ranches.
Sec. 3007. Deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to promoting US
competitiveness and innovation by supporting research and
development.
Sec. 3008. Reserve fund relating to protecting taxpayer privacy while
ensuring those evading the tax system pay what they owe.
Sec. 3009. Deficit-neutral reserve fund to prohibit the Council on
Environmental Quality and Environmental Protection Agency
from promulgating rules or guidance that bans fracking in
the United States.
Sec. 3010. Deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to facilitating
improved internet service for Cuban citizens.
Sec. 3011. Deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to adjusting Federal
funding for local jurisdictions.
Sec. 3012. Reserve fund relating to honoring the Capitol Police, DC
Metropolitan Police, and first responders.
Sec. 3013. Deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to supporting or
expediting the deployment of carbon capture, utilization,
and sequestration technologies.
Sec. 3014. Deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to policies or
legislation to prohibit the Department of Agriculture
from making ineligible for financing fossil fuel-burning
power plants.
Sec. 3015. Deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to the provisions of
the American Rescue Plan Act.
Sec. 3016. Deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to means-testing
electric vehicle tax credits.
Sec. 3017. Deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to prohibiting or
limiting the issuance of costly Clean Air Act permit
requirements on farmers and ranchers in the United States
or the imposition of new Federal methane requirements on
livestock.
Sec. 3018. Deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to funding of the
Office of Foreign Assets Control.
Sec. 3019. Deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to abortion funding.
Sec. 3020. Deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to ensuring robust,
secure, and humane supply chains, sourced by the United
States and allies of the United States, for renewable
energy materials, technology, and critical minerals.
Sec. 3021. Reserve fund relating to ensuring robust, secure, and humane
supply chains by prohibiting the use of Federal funds to
purchase materials, technology, and critical minerals
produced, manufactured, or mined with forced labor.
Sec. 3022. Reserve fund relating to Great Lakes ice breaking
operational improvements.
Sec. 3023. Deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to immigration
enforcement and addressing the humanitarian crisis at the
southern border.
Sec. 3024. Deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to providing quality
education for children.
Sec. 3025. Deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to hiring 100,000 new
police officers.
Sec. 3026. Deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to preventing
electricity blackouts and improving electricity
reliability.
Sec. 3027. Deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to protecting migrants
and local communities against COVID-19.
Sec. 3028. Deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to studying and
providing for tax equivalency under the payments in lieu
of taxes program.
Sec. 3029. Deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to preventing tax
increases on small businesses.
Sec. 3030. Deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to providing
sufficient resources to detain and deport a higher number
of aliens who have been convicted of a crime.
Sec. 3031. Deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to maintaining the
current law tax treatment of like kind exchanges.

TITLE IV--OTHER MATTERS

Sec. 4001. Emergency legislation.
Sec. 4002. Point of order against advance appropriations in the Senate.
Sec. 4003. Point of order against advance appropriations in the House
of Representatives.
Sec. 4004. Program integrity initiatives and other adjustments in the
Senate.
Sec. 4005. Program integrity initiatives and other adjustments in the
House of Representatives.
Sec. 4006. Enforcement filing.
Sec. 4007. Application and effect of changes in allocations,
aggregates, and other budgetary levels.
Sec. 4008. Adjustments to reflect changes in concepts and definitions.
Sec. 4009. Adjustment for bipartisan infrastructure legislation in the
Senate.
Sec. 4010. Adjustment for infrastructure legislation in the House of
Representatives.
Sec. 4011. Applicability of adjustments to discretionary spending
limits.
Sec. 4012. Budgetary treatment of administrative expenses.
Sec. 4013. Appropriate budgetary adjustments in the House of
Representatives.
Sec. 4014. Adjustment for changes in the baseline in the House of
Representatives.
Sec. 4015. Scoring rule in the Senate for child care and pre-
kindergarten legislation.
Sec. 4016. Exercise of rulemaking powers.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

Subtitle A--Budgetary Levels in Both Houses

SEC. 1101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of
fiscal years 2022 through 2031:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2022: $3,401,380,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $3,512,947,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024: $3,542,298,000,000.
Fiscal year 2025: $3,565,871,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026: $3,773,174,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027: $3,995,160,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028: $4,090,582,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029: $4,218,130,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030: $4,352,218,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031: $4,505,614,000,000.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be changed are as follows:
Fiscal year 2022: $0.
Fiscal year 2023: $0.
Fiscal year 2024: $0.
Fiscal year 2025: $0.
Fiscal year 2026: $0.
Fiscal year 2027: $0.
Fiscal year 2028: $0.
Fiscal year 2029: $0.
Fiscal year 2030: $0.
Fiscal year 2031: $0.
(2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new
budget authority are as follows:
Fiscal year 2022: $4,417,362,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $4,579,359,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024: $4,699,353,000,000.
Fiscal year 2025: $4,940,084,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026: $5,107,577,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027: $5,311,640,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028: $5,633,086,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029: $5,722,075,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030: $6,064,522,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031: $6,365,907,000,000.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2022: $4,698,391,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $4,671,457,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024: $4,714,709,000,000.
Fiscal year 2025: $4,936,110,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026: $5,087,789,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027: $5,288,850,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028: $5,635,713,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029: $5,667,301,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030: $6,024,068,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031: $6,322,190,000,000.
(4) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this
resolution, the amounts of the deficits are as follows:
Fiscal year 2022: $1,297,011,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $1,158,510,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024: $1,172,411,000,000.
Fiscal year 2025: $1,370,239,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026: $1,314,615,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027: $1,293,690,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028: $1,545,131,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029: $1,449,171,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030: $1,671,850,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031: $1,816,576,000,000.
(5) Public debt.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 632(a)(5)), the
appropriate levels of the public debt are as follows:
Fiscal year 2022: $30,789,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $32,141,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024: $33,526,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2025: $35,059,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026: $36,570,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027: $37,952,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028: $39,733,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029: $41,296,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030: $43,188,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031: $45,150,000,000,000.
(6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of
debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2022: $24,622,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $25,826,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024: $27,153,000,000,000.

[[Page S6239]]

Fiscal year 2025: $28,678,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026: $30,219,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027: $31,776,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028: $33,737,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029: $35,521,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030: $37,692,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031: $39,987,000,000,000.

SEC. 1102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years
2022 through 2031 for each major functional category are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $765,704,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $763,985,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $782,245,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $770,192,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024:
(A) New budget authority, $799,520,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $776,297,000,000.
Fiscal year 2025:
(A) New budget authority, $817,214,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $794,946,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $835,351,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $810,367,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $843,873,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $821,610,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $852,499,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $836,561,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $861,191,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $834,592,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $870,003,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $848,928,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $880,156,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $858,990,000,000.
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $68,740,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $68,368,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $66,170,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $64,121,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024:
(A) New budget authority, $67,128,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $65,429,000,000.
Fiscal year 2025:
(A) New budget authority, $68,621,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $66,231,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $70,182,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $67,113,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $71,840,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $68,304,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $73,526,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $69,474,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $75,221,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $71,071,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $76,918,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $72,602,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $78,648,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $74,169,000,000.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $43,582,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,492,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $46,345,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024:
(A) New budget authority, $48,435,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,597,000,000.
Fiscal year 2025:
(A) New budget authority, $50,286,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $48,830,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $51,492,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $50,050,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $51,839,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $50,449,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $51,169,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $49,783,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $50,735,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $49,415,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $50,898,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $49,548,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $51,324,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $49,936,000,000.
(4) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $14,240,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $10,032,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $59,665,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $57,248,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024:
(A) New budget authority, $55,348,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $53,858,000,000.
Fiscal year 2025:
(A) New budget authority, $67,729,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $66,867,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $78,038,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $77,647,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $79,617,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $79,511,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $74,543,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $74,164,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $68,781,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $68,174,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $63,620,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $62,932,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $55,974,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $55,198,000,000.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $60,969,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $54,889,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $70,319,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $67,072,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024:
(A) New budget authority, $78,314,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $75,927,000,000.
Fiscal year 2025:
(A) New budget authority, $85,585,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $84,140,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $88,203,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $89,292,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $85,995,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $88,010,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $79,575,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $81,370,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $72,930,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $74,272,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $68,352,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $69,251,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $68,666,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $68,676,000,000.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $23,063,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,334,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $21,368,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,442,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024:
(A) New budget authority, $19,240,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,187,000,000.
Fiscal year 2025:
(A) New budget authority, $21,860,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,614,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $23,761,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,151,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $25,501,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,471,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $26,186,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,499,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $25,629,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,874,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $25,159,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,989,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $28,515,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,284,000,000.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $18,105,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $42,495,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $19,284,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,411,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024:
(A) New budget authority, $25,017,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,592,000,000.
Fiscal year 2025:
(A) New budget authority, $24,785,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,146,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $23,609,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,045,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $21,752,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,248,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $21,992,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,894,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $23,789,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,250,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $22,410,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $10,462,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $17,548,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,105,000,000.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $112,406,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $133,738,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $113,887,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $118,957,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024:
(A) New budget authority, $115,061,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $112,082,000,000.
Fiscal year 2025:
(A) New budget authority, $115,757,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $114,226,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $116,887,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $116,667,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $109,698,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $119,447,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $110,385,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $121,240,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $110,874,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $122,515,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $106,173,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $117,702,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $107,256,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $118,633,000,000.

[[Page S6240]]

(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $43,543,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $47,318,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $27,007,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,380,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024:
(A) New budget authority, $28,430,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,603,000,000.
Fiscal year 2025:
(A) New budget authority, $27,461,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,658,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $27,839,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,338,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $27,744,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,238,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $28,136,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,738,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $28,524,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,097,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $28,943,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,452,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $33,429,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,014,000,000.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $159,805,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $208,172,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $180,462,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $225,204,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024:
(A) New budget authority, $200,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $249,029,000,000.
Fiscal year 2025:
(A) New budget authority, $211,940,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $243,908,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $212,123,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $226,623,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $214,568,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $218,916,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $217,422,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $218,221,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $220,255,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $219,079,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $229,691,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $228,404,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $244,488,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $242,537,000,000.
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $853,696,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $952,919,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $804,345,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $827,269,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024:
(A) New budget authority, $800,361,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $809,731,000,000.
Fiscal year 2025:
(A) New budget authority, $830,330,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $830,449,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $855,834,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $849,147,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $876,704,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $869,791,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $908,063,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $906,081,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $940,898,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $939,318,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $982,028,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $970,863,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $1,018,845,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,017,586,000,000.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $772,277,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $771,930,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $882,348,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $882,065,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024:
(A) New budget authority, $902,102,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $901,899,000,000.
Fiscal year 2025:
(A) New budget authority, $1,018,540,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,018,302,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $1,091,095,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,090,814,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $1,168,909,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,168,581,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $1,326,565,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,326,191,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $1,262,774,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,262,367,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $1,425,734,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,425,284,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $1,509,905,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,509,433,000,000.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $830,063,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $867,038,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $820,620,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $836,905,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024:
(A) New budget authority, $821,754,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $811,159,000,000.
Fiscal year 2025:
(A) New budget authority, $792,146,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $780,347,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $730,424,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $725,612,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $733,601,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $724,726,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $752,515,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $749,719,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $764,277,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $749,137,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $781,991,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $772,369,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $802,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $792,858,000,000.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $47,020,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $47,020,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $50,129,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $50,129,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024:
(A) New budget authority, $53,591,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $53,591,000,000.
Fiscal year 2025:
(A) New budget authority, $57,355,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $57,355,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $67,932,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $67,932,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $74,299,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $74,299,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $79,053,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $79,053,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $84,197,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $84,197,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $89,406,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $89,406,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $93,932,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $93,932,000,000.
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $274,340,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $282,071,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $279,810,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $279,868,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024:
(A) New budget authority, $288,676,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $276,026,000,000.
Fiscal year 2025:
(A) New budget authority, $297,105,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $299,907,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $305,075,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $307,739,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $313,512,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $316,417,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $322,020,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $336,852,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $331,220,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $315,456,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $340,439,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $338,867,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $350,829,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $349,032,000,000.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $80,614,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $78,094,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $77,444,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $77,431,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024:
(A) New budget authority, $78,904,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $78,533,000,000.
Fiscal year 2025:
(A) New budget authority, $79,626,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $78,861,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $81,223,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $80,382,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $82,849,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $81,809,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $84,495,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $83,423,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $86,184,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $85,004,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $87,881,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $86,642,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $96,549,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $94,529,000,000.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $48,565,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $111,629,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $29,912,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,642,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024:
(A) New budget authority, $30,382,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,557,000,000.
Fiscal year 2025:
(A) New budget authority, $30,935,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,585,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026:

[[Page S6241]]

(A) New budget authority, $31,538,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,016,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $32,168,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,540,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $32,798,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,807,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $33,432,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,024,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $34,103,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,539,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $35,123,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,544,000,000.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $373,011,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $373,011,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $378,542,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $378,542,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024:
(A) New budget authority, $407,539,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $407,539,000,000.
Fiscal year 2025:
(A) New budget authority, $464,069,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $464,069,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $541,134,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $541,134,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $623,392,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $623,392,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $719,805,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $719,805,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $813,280,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $813,280,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $918,333,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $918,333,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $1,025,810,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,025,810,000,000.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $11,507,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,129,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, -$14,188,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$2,706,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024:
(A) New budget authority, -$11,538,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$6,811,000,000.
Fiscal year 2025:
(A) New budget authority, -$9,499,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$7,389,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, -$8,979,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$7,646,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, -$7,240,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$6,478,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, -$5,238,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$4,559,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, -$5,126,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$3,651,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, -$5,898,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$3,393,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $2,530,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,034,000,000.
(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, -$183,888,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$191,273,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, -$116,355,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$123,615,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024:
(A) New budget authority, -$109,511,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$109,116,000,000.
Fiscal year 2025:
(A) New budget authority, -$111,761,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$116,941,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, -$115,184,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$113,634,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, -$118,981,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$117,431,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, -$122,423,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$120,603,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, -$126,990,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$125,170,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, -$131,662,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$130,112,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, -$136,520,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$135,110,000,000.

Subtitle B--Levels and Amounts in the Senate

SEC. 1201. SOCIAL SECURITY IN THE SENATE.

(a) Social Security Revenues.--For purposes of Senate
enforcement under sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633 and 642), the amounts of
revenues of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust
Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2022: $989,019,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $1,084,547,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024: $1,128,287,000,000.
Fiscal year 2025: $1,167,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026: $1,211,081,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027: $1,257,670,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028: $1,305,822,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029: $1,354,109,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030: $1,401,701,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031: $1,451,146,000,000.
(b) Social Security Outlays.--For purposes of Senate
enforcement under sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633 and 642), the amounts of
outlays of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust
Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2022: $1,073,387,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $1,153,424,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024: $1,231,164,000,000.
Fiscal year 2025: $1,311,894,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026: $1,389,018,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027: $1,472,602,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028: $1,566,258,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029: $1,662,981,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030: $1,764,408,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031: $1,868,859,000,000.
(c) Social Security Administrative Expenses.--In the
Senate, the amounts of new budget authority and budget
outlays of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust
Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund for
administrative expenses are as follows:
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $6,339,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,311,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $6,541,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,490,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024:
(A) New budget authority, $6,757,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2025:
(A) New budget authority, $6,969,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,912,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $7,185,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,128,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $7,405,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,347,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $7,631,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,571,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $7,862,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $8,098,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $8,035,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $8,343,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $8,278,000,000.

SEC. 1202. POSTAL SERVICE DISCRETIONARY ADMINISTRATIVE
EXPENSES IN THE SENATE.

In the Senate, the amounts of new budget authority and
budget outlays of the Postal Service for discretionary
administrative expenses are as follows:
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $278,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $278,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $287,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $287,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024:
(A) New budget authority, $299,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $298,000,000.
Fiscal year 2025:
(A) New budget authority, $310,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $310,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $321,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $320,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $332,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $332,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $344,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $343,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $356,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $355,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $368,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $367,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $381,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $380,000,000.

TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

SEC. 2001. RECONCILIATION IN THE SENATE.

(a) Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.--The
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the
Senate shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction
that increase the deficit by not more than $135,000,000,000
for the period of fiscal years 2022 through 2031.
(b) Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.--The
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the
Senate shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction
that increase the deficit by not more than $332,000,000,000
for the period of fiscal years 2022 through 2031.
(c) Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.--
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction
that increase the deficit by not more than $83,076,000,000
for the period of fiscal years 2022 through 2031.
(d) Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.--The
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate shall
report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that increase
the deficit by not more than $198,000,000,000 for the period
of fiscal years 2022 through 2031.

[[Page S6242]]

(e) Committee on Environment and Public Works.--The
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate shall
report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that increase
the deficit by not more than $67,264,000,000 for the period
of fiscal years 2022 through 2031.
(f) Committee on Finance.--The Committee on Finance of the
Senate shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction
that reduce the deficit by not less than $1,000,000,000 for
the period of fiscal years 2022 through 2031.
(g) Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.--
The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of
the Senate shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction that increase the deficit by not more than
$726,380,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2022 through
2031.
(h) Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.--The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs of the Senate shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction that increase the deficit by not more than
$37,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2022 through
2031.
(i) Committee on Indian Affairs.--The Committee on Indian
Affairs of the Senate shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction that increase the deficit by not more than
$20,500,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2022 through
2031.
(j) Committee on the Judiciary.--The Committee on the
Judiciary of the Senate shall report changes in laws within
its jurisdiction that increase the deficit by not more than
$107,500,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2022 through
2031.
(k) Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.--The
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the
Senate shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction
that increase the deficit by not more than $25,000,000,000
for the period of fiscal years 2022 through 2031.
(l) Committee on Veterans' Affairs.--The Committee on
Veterans' Affairs of the Senate shall report changes in laws
within its jurisdiction that increase the deficit by not more
than $18,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2022
through 2031.
(m) Submissions.--In the Senate, not later than September
15, 2021, the Committees named in the subsections of this
section shall submit their recommendations to the Committee
on the Budget of the Senate. Upon receiving all such
recommendations, the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
shall report to the Senate a reconciliation bill carrying out
all such recommendations without any substantive revision.

SEC. 2002. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

(a) Committee on Agriculture.--The Committee on Agriculture
of the House of Representatives shall report changes in laws
within its jurisdiction that increase the deficit by not more
than $89,100,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2022
through 2031.
(b) Committee on Education and Labor.--The Committee on
Education and Labor of the House of Representatives shall
report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that increase
the deficit by not more than $779,500,000,000 for the period
of fiscal years 2022 through 2031.
(c) Committee on Energy and Commerce.--The Committee on
Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives shall
report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that increase
the deficit by not more than $486,500,000,000 for the period
of fiscal years 2022 through 2031.
(d) Committee on Financial Services.--The Committee on
Financial Services of the House of Representatives shall
report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that increase
the deficit by not more than $339,000,000,000 for the period
of fiscal years 2022 through 2031.
(e) Committee on Homeland Security.--The Committee on
Homeland Security of the House of Representatives shall
report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that increase
the deficit by not more than $500,000,000 for the period of
fiscal years 2022 through 2031.
(f) Committee on the Judiciary.--The Committee on the
Judiciary of the House of Representatives shall report
changes in laws within its jurisdiction that increase the
deficit by not more than $107,500,000,000 for the period of
fiscal years 2022 through 2031.
(g) Committee on Natural Resources.--The Committee on
Natural Resources of the House of Representatives shall
report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that increase
the deficit by not more than $25,600,000,000 for the period
of fiscal years 2022 through 2031.
(h) Committee on Oversight and Reform.--The Committee on
Oversight and Reform of the House of Representatives shall
report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that increase
the deficit by not more than $7,500,000,000 for the period of
fiscal years 2022 through 2031.
(i) Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.--The
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of
Representatives shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction that increase the deficit by not more than
$45,510,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2022 through
2031.
(j) Committee on Small Business.--The Committee on Small
Business of the House of Representatives shall report changes
in laws within its jurisdiction that increase the deficit by
not more than $17,500,000,000 for the period of fiscal years
2022 through 2031.
(k) Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.--The
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction that increase the deficit by not more than
$60,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2022 through
2031.
(l) Committee on Veterans' Affairs.--The Committee on
Veterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives shall
report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that increase
the deficit by not more than $18,000,000,000 for the period
of fiscal years 2022 through 2031.
(m) Committee on Ways and Means.--The Committee on Ways and
Means of the House of Representatives shall report changes in
laws within its jurisdiction that reduce the deficit by not
less than $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2022
through 2031.
(n) Submissions.--In the House of Representatives, not
later than September 15, 2021, the committees named in the
subsections of this section shall submit their
recommendations to the Committee on the Budget of the House
of Representatives to carry out this section.

TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS

SEC. 3001. RESERVE FUND FOR LEGISLATION THAT WON'T RAISE
TAXES ON PEOPLE MAKING LESS THAN $400,000 IN
THE SENATE.

SEC. 3002. RESERVE FUND FOR RECONCILIATION LEGISLATION.

(a) Senate.--
(1) In general.--The Chairman of the Committee on the
Budget of the Senate may revise the allocations of a
committee or committees, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution, and make adjustments to the pay-
as-you-go ledger, for any bill or joint resolution considered
pursuant to section 2001 containing the recommendations of
one or more committees, or for one or more amendments to, a
conference report on, or an amendment between the Houses in
relation to such a bill or joint resolution, by the amounts
necessary to accommodate the budgetary effects of the
legislation, if the budgetary effects of the legislation
comply with the reconciliation instructions under this
concurrent resolution, except that no adjustment shall be
made pursuant to this subsection if such legislation raises
taxes on people making less than $400,000.
(2) Determination of compliance.--For purposes of this
subsection, compliance with the reconciliation instructions
under this concurrent resolution shall be determined by the
Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate.
(3) Exceptions for legislation.--
(A) Short-term.--Section 404 of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2010, as amended by section 3201(b)(2) of S. Con. Res.
11 (114th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget
for fiscal year 2016, shall not apply to legislation for
which the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the
Senate has exercised the authority under paragraph (1).
(B) Long-term.--Section 3101 of S. Con. Res. 11 (114th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2016, shall not apply to legislation for which the
Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate has
exercised the authority under paragraph (1).
(b) House of Representatives.--
(1) In general.--In the House of the Representatives, the
chair of the Committee on the Budget may revise the
allocations of a committee or committees, aggregates, and
other appropriate levels in this concurrent resolution for
any bill or joint resolution considered pursuant to this
concurrent resolution containing the recommendations of one
or more committees, or for one or more amendments to, a
conference report on, or an amendment between the Houses in
relation to such a bill or joint resolution, by the amounts
necessary to accommodate the budgetary effects of the
legislation.
(2) Exception for legislation.--The point of order set
forth in clause 10 of rule XXI of the House of
Representatives shall not apply to reconciliation legislation
reported by the Committee on the Budget pursuant to
submissions under this concurrent resolution.

SEC. 3003. RESERVE FUND.

(a) Senate.--The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of
the Senate may revise the allocations of a committee or
committees, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this
resolution, and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger,
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports
by the amounts provided in such legislation, provided that
such legislation would not increase the deficit for the time
period of fiscal year 2022 to fiscal year 2031.
(b) House of Representatives.--The chair of the Committee
on the Budget of the House

[[Page S6243]]

of Representatives may revise the allocations of a committee
or committees, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in
this concurrent resolution for one or more bills, joint
resolutions, amendments, or conference reports by the amounts
provided in such legislation, provided that such legislation
would not increase the deficit for the following time
periods: fiscal year 2022 to fiscal year 2026 and fiscal year
2022 to fiscal year 2031.

SEC. 3004. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO PROHIBIT THE GREEN
NEW DEAL.

SEC. 3005. RESERVE FUND RELATING TO ADDRESSING THE CRISIS OF
CLIMATE CHANGE.

SEC. 3006. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
SUPPORTING PRIVATELY-HELD BUSINESSES, FARMS,
AND RANCHES.

provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2022
through 2026 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2022
through 2031.

SEC. 3007. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO PROMOTING
US COMPETITIVENESS AND INNOVATION BY SUPPORTING
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

SEC. 3008. RESERVE FUND RELATING TO PROTECTING TAXPAYER
PRIVACY WHILE ENSURING THOSE EVADING THE TAX
SYSTEM PAY WHAT THEY OWE.

SEC. 3009. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO PROHIBIT THE
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY FROM
PROMULGATING RULES OR GUIDANCE THAT BANS
FRACKING IN THE UNITED STATES.

SEC. 3010. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
FACILITATING IMPROVED INTERNET SERVICE FOR
CUBAN CITIZENS.

SEC. 3011. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO ADJUSTING
FEDERAL FUNDING FOR LOCAL JURISDICTIONS.

SEC. 3012. RESERVE FUND RELATING TO HONORING THE CAPITOL
POLICE, DC METROPOLITAN POLICE, AND FIRST
RESPONDERS.

SEC. 3013. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
SUPPORTING OR EXPEDITING THE DEPLOYMENT OF
CARBON CAPTURE, UTILIZATION, AND SEQUESTRATION
TECHNOLOGIES.

[[Page S6244]]

carbon dioxide for valuable products and enhanced oil
recovery, by the amounts provided in such legislation for
those purposes, provided that such legislation would not
increase the deficit over either the period of the total of
fiscal years 2022 through 2026 or the period of the total of
fiscal years 2022 through 2031.

SEC. 3014. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO POLICIES
OR LEGISLATION TO PROHIBIT THE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE FROM MAKING INELIGIBLE FOR
FINANCING FOSSIL FUEL-BURNING POWER PLANTS.

SEC. 3015. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT.

SEC. 3016. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO MEANS-
TESTING ELECTRIC VEHICLE TAX CREDITS.

SEC. 3017. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
PROHIBITING OR LIMITING THE ISSUANCE OF COSTLY
CLEAN AIR ACT PERMIT REQUIREMENTS ON FARMERS
AND RANCHERS IN THE UNITED STATES OR THE
IMPOSITION OF NEW FEDERAL METHANE REQUIREMENTS
ON LIVESTOCK.

SEC. 3018. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO FUNDING
OF THE OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL.

SEC. 3019. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO ABORTION
FUNDING.

SEC. 3020. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO ENSURING
ROBUST, SECURE, AND HUMANE SUPPLY CHAINS,
SOURCED BY THE UNITED STATES AND ALLIES OF THE
UNITED STATES, FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY MATERIALS,
TECHNOLOGY, AND CRITICAL MINERALS.

SEC. 3021. RESERVE FUND RELATING TO ENSURING ROBUST, SECURE,
AND HUMANE SUPPLY CHAINS BY PROHIBITING THE USE
OF FEDERAL FUNDS TO PURCHASE MATERIALS,
TECHNOLOGY, AND CRITICAL MINERALS PRODUCED,
MANUFACTURED, OR MINED WITH FORCED LABOR.

SEC. 3022. RESERVE FUND RELATING TO GREAT LAKES ICE BREAKING
OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS.

SEC. 3023. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT AND ADDRESSING THE
HUMANITARIAN CRISIS AT THE SOUTHERN BORDER.

SEC. 3024. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO PROVIDING
QUALITY EDUCATION FOR CHILDREN.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this

[[Page S6245]]

resolution, and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger,
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports
relating to providing quality education for the children of
the United States, which may include prohibiting or limiting
Federal funding from being used to promote critical race
theory or compel teachers or students to affirm critical race
theory in prekindergarten programs, elementary schools, and
secondary schools, by the amounts provided in such
legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2022 through 2026 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2022 through 2031.

SEC. 3025. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO HIRING
100,000 NEW POLICE OFFICERS.

SEC. 3026. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
PREVENTING ELECTRICITY BLACKOUTS AND IMPROVING
ELECTRICITY RELIABILITY.

SEC. 3027. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
PROTECTING MIGRANTS AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES
AGAINST COVID-19.

SEC. 3028. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO STUDYING
AND PROVIDING FOR TAX EQUIVALENCY UNDER THE
PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES PROGRAM.

SEC. 3029. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
PREVENTING TAX INCREASES ON SMALL BUSINESSES.

SEC. 3030. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO PROVIDING
SUFFICIENT RESOURCES TO DETAIN AND DEPORT A
HIGHER NUMBER OF ALIENS WHO HAVE BEEN CONVICTED
OF A CRIME.

SEC. 3031. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
MAINTAINING THE CURRENT LAW TAX TREATMENT OF
LIKE KIND EXCHANGES.

TITLE IV--OTHER MATTERS

SEC. 4001. EMERGENCY LEGISLATION.

(a) Senate.--
(1) Authority to designate.--In the Senate, with respect to
a provision of direct spending or receipts legislation or
appropriations for discretionary accounts that Congress
designates as an emergency requirement in such measure, the
amounts of new budget authority, outlays, and receipts in all
fiscal years resulting from that provision shall be treated
as an emergency requirement for the purpose of this
subsection.
(2) Exemption of emergency provisions.--Any new budget
authority, outlays, and receipts resulting from any provision
designated as an emergency requirement, pursuant to this
subsection, in any bill, joint resolution, amendment,
amendment between the Houses, or conference report shall not
count for purposes of sections 302 and 311 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633, 642), section
404(a) of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010, section 3101
of S. Con. Res. 11 (114th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2016, and section
4106 of H. Con. Res. 71 (115th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018.
(3) Designations.--If a provision of legislation is
designated as an emergency requirement under this subsection,
the committee report and any statement of managers
accompanying that legislation shall include an explanation of
the manner in which the provision meets the criteria in
paragraph (5).
(4) Definitions.--In this subsection, the terms ``direct
spending'', ``receipts'', and ``appropriations for
discretionary accounts'' mean any provision of a bill, joint
resolution, amendment, motion, amendment between the Houses,
or conference report that affects direct spending, receipts,
or appropriations as those terms have been defined and
interpreted for purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900 et seq.).
(5) Criteria.--
(A) In general.--For purposes of this subsection, any
provision is an emergency requirement if the situation
addressed by such provision is--
(i) necessary, essential, or vital (not merely useful or
beneficial);
(ii) sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up
over time;
(iii) an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring
immediate action;
(iv) subject to subparagraph (B), unforeseen,
unpredictable, and unanticipated; and
(v) not permanent, temporary in nature.
(B) Unforeseen.--An emergency that is part of an aggregate
level of anticipated emergencies, particularly when normally
estimated in advance, is not unforeseen.
(6) Repeal.--In the Senate, section 4112 of H. Con. Res. 71
(115th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 2018, shall no longer apply.
(b) House of Representatives.--
(1) In general.--In the House of Representatives, if a
bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report
contains a provision providing new budget authority and
outlays or reducing revenue, and a designation of such
provision as emergency requirement, the chair of the
Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives shall
not count the budgetary effects of such provision for any
purpose in the House of Representatives.
(2) Proposal to strike.--A proposal to strike a designation
under paragraph (1)

[[Page S6246]]

shall be excluded from an evaluation of budgetary effects for
any purpose in the House of Representatives.
(3) Amendment to reduce amounts.--An amendment offered
under paragraph (2) that also proposes to reduce each amount
appropriated or otherwise made available by the pending
measure that is not required to be appropriated or otherwise
made available shall be in order at any point in the reading
of the pending measure.
(4) References.--
(A) In general.--All references to section 1(f) of H. Res.
467 (117th Congress) in any bill or joint resolution, or an
amendment thereto or conference report thereon, shall be
treated for all purposes in the House of Representatives as
references to this subsection of this concurrent resolution.
(B) BBEDCA.--All references to a designation by the
Congress for an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(b)) for amounts for fiscal year
2022 or succeeding fiscal years in any legislation
implementing a bipartisan infrastructure agreement shall be
treated for all purposes in the House of Representatives as
references to this subsection of this concurrent resolution.

SEC. 4002. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS IN
THE SENATE.

(a) In General.--
(1) Point of order.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
it shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any bill,
joint resolution, motion, amendment, amendment between the
Houses, or conference report that would provide an advance
appropriation for a discretionary account.
(2) Definition.--In this section, the term ``advance
appropriation'' means any new budget authority provided in a
bill or joint resolution making appropriations for fiscal
year 2022 that first becomes available for any fiscal year
after 2022, or any new budget authority provided in a bill or
joint resolution making appropriations for fiscal year 2023,
that first becomes available for any fiscal year after 2023.
(b) Exceptions.--Advance appropriations may be provided--
(1) for fiscal years 2023 and 2024 for programs, projects,
activities, or accounts identified in the joint explanatory
statement of managers accompanying this resolution under the
heading ``Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations'' in
an aggregate amount not to exceed $28,852,000,000 in new
budget authority in each fiscal year;
(2) for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting;
(3) for the Department of Veterans Affairs for the Medical
Services, Medical Community Care, Medical Support and
Compliance, and Medical Facilities accounts of the Veterans
Health Administration;
(4) for legislation implementing a bipartisan
infrastructure agreement, as determined by the Chairman of
the Committee on the Budget of the Senate; and
(5) for the Department of Health and Human Services for the
Indian Health Services and Indian Health Facilities
accounts--
(A) in an amount that is not more than the amount provided
for fiscal year 2022 in a bill or joint resolution making
appropriations for fiscal year 2022; and
(B) in an amount that is not more than the amount provided
for fiscal year 2023 in a bill or joint resolution making
appropriations for fiscal year 2023.
(c) Supermajority Waiver and Appeal.--
(1) Waiver.--In the Senate, subsection (a) may be waived or
suspended only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(2) Appeal.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be
required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a
point of order raised under subsection (a).
(d) Form of Point of Order.--A point of order under
subsection (a) may be raised by a Senator as provided in
section 313(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2
U.S.C. 644(e)).
(e) Conference Reports.--When the Senate is considering a
conference report on, or an amendment between the Houses in
relation to, a bill or joint resolution, upon a point of
order being made by any Senator pursuant to this section, and
such point of order being sustained, such material contained
in such conference report or House amendment shall be
stricken, and the Senate shall proceed to consider the
question of whether the Senate shall recede from its
amendment and concur with a further amendment, or concur in
the House amendment with a further amendment, as the case may
be, which further amendment shall consist of only that
portion of the conference report or House amendment, as the
case may be, not so stricken. Any such motion in the Senate
shall be debatable. In any case in which such point of order
is sustained against a conference report (or Senate amendment
derived from such conference report by operation of this
subsection), no further amendment shall be in order.

SEC. 4003. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS IN
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

(a) In General.--In the House of Representatives, except as
provided in subsection (b), any general appropriation bill or
bill or joint resolution continuing appropriations, or an
amendment thereto or conference report thereon, may not
provide an advance appropriation.
(b) Exceptions.--An advance appropriation may be provided
for programs, activities, or accounts identified in lists
submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the
chair of the Committee on the Budget--
(1) for fiscal year 2023, under the heading ``Accounts
Identified for Advance Appropriations'' in an aggregate
amount not to exceed $28,852,000,000 in new budget authority,
and for fiscal year 2024, accounts separately identified
under the same heading; and
(2) for fiscal year 2023, under the heading ``Veterans
Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations''.
(c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``advance
appropriation'' means any new discretionary budget authority
provided in a general appropriation bill or bill or joint
resolution continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2022, or
an amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that first
becomes available following fiscal year 2022.

SEC. 4004. PROGRAM INTEGRITY INITIATIVES AND OTHER
ADJUSTMENTS IN THE SENATE.

(a) In General.--In the Senate, after the reporting of a
bill or joint resolution relating to any matter described in
subsection (b) or the adoption of a motion to proceed to, the
offering of an amendment to, the laying before the Senate of
an amendment between the Houses to, or the submission of a
conference report on such a bill or joint resolution--
(1) the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the
Senate may adjust the budgetary aggregates and allocations
pursuant to section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 (2 U.S.C. 633(a)) by the amount of new budget authority
in that measure for that purpose and the outlays flowing
therefrom; and
(2) following any adjustment under paragraph (1), the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate may report
appropriately revised suballocations pursuant to section
302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C.
633(b)) to carry out this section.
(b) Matters Described.--Matters referred to in subsection
(a) are as follows:
(1) Continuing disability reviews and redeterminations.--
(A) In general.--If a bill, joint resolution, amendment,
amendment between the Houses, or conference report making
discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2022 specifies
an amount for continuing disability reviews under titles II
and XVI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et seq.,
1381 et seq.), for the cost associated with conducting
redeterminations of eligibility under title XVI of the Social
Security Act, for the cost of co-operative disability
investigation units, and for the cost associated with the
prosecution of fraud in the programs and operations of the
Social Security Administration by Special Assistant United
States Attorneys, then the adjustment shall be the additional
new budget authority specified in such measure for such costs
for fiscal year 2022, but shall not exceed $1,435,000,000.
(B) Definitions.--As used in this paragraph--
(i) the term ``additional new budget authority'' means the
amount provided for fiscal year 2022, in excess of
$273,000,000, in a bill, joint resolution, amendment,
amendment between the Houses, or conference report making
discretionary appropriations and specified to pay for the
costs of continuing disability reviews, redeterminations,
cooperative disability investigation units, and the
prosecution of fraud in the programs and operations of the
Social Security Administration by Special Assistant United
States Attorneys under the heading ``Limitation on
Administrative Expenses'' for the Social Security
Administration;
(ii) the term ``continuing disability reviews'' means
continuing disability reviews under sections 221(i) and
1614(a)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 421(i),
1382c(a)(4)), including work-related continuing disability
reviews to determine whether earnings derived from services
demonstrate an individual's ability to engage in substantial
gainful activity; and
(iii) the term ``redetermination'' means redetermination of
eligibility under sections 1611(c)(1) and 1614(a)(3)(H) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1382(c)(1),
1382c(a)(3)(H)).
(2) Internal revenue service enforcement.--
(A) In general.--If a bill, joint resolution, amendment,
amendment between the Houses, or conference report making
discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2022 specifies
an amount for tax enforcement activities, including tax
compliance to address the Federal tax gap (including an
amount for Internal Revenue Service Enforcement (account 020-
0913), for Internal Revenue Service Operations Support
(account 020-0919), for Internal Revenue Service Business
Systems Modernization (account 020-0921), or for Internal
Revenue Service Taxpayer Services (account 020-0912)), then
the adjustment shall be the additional new budget authority
specified in such measure for fiscal year 2022, but shall not
exceed $417,000,000.
(B) Definition.--In this paragraph, the term ``additional
new budget authority'' means the amount provided for fiscal
year 2022, in excess of $11,919,000,000, in a bill, joint
resolution, amendment, amendment between the Houses, or
conference report making discretionary appropriations and
specified to pay for tax enforcement activities, including
tax compliance to address the Federal tax gap, for Internal
Revenue Service Enforcement (account 020-0913), Internal

[[Page S6247]]

Revenue Service Operations Support (account 020-0919),
Internal Revenue Service Business Systems Modernization
(account 020-0921), or Internal Revenue Service Taxpayer
Services (account 020-0912).
(3) Health care fraud and abuse control.--
(A) In general.--If a bill, joint resolution, amendment,
amendment between the Houses, or conference report making
discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2022 specifies
an amount for the health care fraud abuse control program at
the Department of Health and Human Services (75-8393-0-7-
571), then the adjustment shall be the additional new budget
authority specified in such measure for such program for
fiscal year 2022, but shall not exceed $556,000,000.
(B) Definition.--As used in this paragraph, the term
``additional new budget authority'' means the amount provided
for fiscal year 2022, in excess of $317,000,000, in a bill,
joint resolution, amendment, amendment between the Houses, or
conference report making discretionary appropriations and
specified to pay for the health care fraud abuse control
program at the Department of Health and Human Services (75-
8393-0-7-571).
(4) Reemployment services and eligibility assessments.--
(A) In general.--If a bill, joint resolution, amendment,
amendment between the Houses, or conference report making
discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2022 specifies
an amount for grants to States under section 306 of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 506) for claimants of regular
compensation, as defined in such section, including those who
are profiled as most likely to exhaust their benefits, then
the adjustment shall be the additional new budget authority
specified in such measure for such grants for fiscal year
2022, but shall not exceed $133,000,000.
(B) Definition.--As used in this paragraph, the term
``additional new budget authority'' means the amount provided
for fiscal year 2022, in excess of $117,000,000, in a bill,
joint resolution, amendment, amendment between the Houses, or
conference report making discretionary appropriations and
specified to pay for grants to States under section 306 of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 506) for claimants of
regular compensation, as defined in such section, including
those who are profiled as most likely to exhaust their
benefits.
(5) Wildfire suppression.--
(A) Additional new budget authority.--If, for any of fiscal
years 2022 through 2027, a bill, joint resolution, amendment,
amendment between the Houses, or conference report making
discretionary appropriations for such a fiscal year provides
an amount for wildfire suppression operations in the Wildland
Fire Management accounts at the Department of Agriculture or
the Department of the Interior, then the adjustments for that
fiscal year shall be the amount of additional new budget
authority provided in that measure for wildfire suppression
operations for that fiscal year, but shall not exceed the
amount for that fiscal year specified in section
251(b)(2)(F)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(b)(2)(F)(i)).
(B) Definitions.--As used in this paragraph, the terms
``additional new budget authority'' and ``wildfire
suppression operations'' have the meanings given those terms
in section 251(b)(2)(F)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C.
901(b)(2)(F)(ii)).
(6) Disaster relief.--
(A) Additional new budget authority.--If a bill, joint
resolution, amendment, amendment between the Houses, or
conference report making discretionary appropriations for
fiscal year 2022 provides an amount for disaster relief, the
adjustment for fiscal year 2022 shall be the total of such
appropriations for fiscal year 2022 designated as being for
disaster relief, but not to exceed the amount equal to the
total amount calculated for fiscal year 2022 in accordance
with the formula in section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C.
901(b)(2)(D)(i)), except that such formula shall be applied
by substituting ``fiscal years 2012 through 2022'' for
``fiscal years 2012 through 2021''.
(B) Definition.--As used in this paragraph, the term
``disaster relief'' means activities carried out pursuant to
a determination under section 102(2) of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5122(2)).
(7) Veterans medical care.--
(A) In general.--If a bill, joint resolution, amendment,
amendment between the Houses, or conference report making
discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2022 specifies
an amount for veterans medical care (in the Medical Services,
Medical Community Care, Medical Support and Compliance, and
Medical Facilities accounts of the Veterans Health
Administration), then the adjustment shall be the additional
new budget authority specified in such measure for such
medical care for fiscal year 2022, but shall not exceed
$7,602,000,000.
(B) Definition.--As used in this paragraph, the term
``additional new budget authority'' means the amount provided
for fiscal year 2022, in excess of $89,849,000,000, in a
bill, joint resolution, amendment, amendment between the
Houses, or conference report making discretionary
appropriations and specified to pay for veterans medical
care.
(c) Application of Adjustments.--The adjustments made
pursuant to subsection (a) for legislation shall--
(1) apply while that legislation is under consideration;
(2) take effect upon the enactment of that legislation; and
(3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as
practicable.

SEC. 4005. PROGRAM INTEGRITY INITIATIVES AND OTHER
ADJUSTMENTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

(a) Adjustment for Continuing Disability Reviews and
Redeterminations.--In the House of Representatives, the chair
of the Committee on the Budget may adjust the allocations,
aggregates, and other budgetary levels included in this
concurrent resolution to reflect changes as follows:
(1) In general.--If a bill, joint resolution, amendment, or
conference report making discretionary appropriations for
fiscal year 2022 specifies an amount for continuing
disability reviews under titles II and XVI of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et seq., 1381 et seq.), for the
cost associated with conducting redeterminations of
eligibility under title XVI of the Social Security Act, for
the cost of co-operative disability investigation units, and
for the cost associated with the prosecution of fraud in the
programs and operations of the Social Security Administration
by Special Assistant United States Attorneys, then the
adjustment shall be the additional new budget authority
specified in such measure for such purpose, but shall not
exceed $1,435,000,000.
(2) Definitions.--As used in this subsection--
(A) the term ``additional new budget authority'' means the
amount provided for fiscal year 2022, in excess of
$273,000,000, in a bill, joint resolution, amendment, or
conference report and specified to pay for the costs of
continuing disability reviews, redeterminations, co-operative
disability investigation units, and fraud prosecutions under
the heading ``Limitation on Administrative Expenses'' for the
Social Security Administration;
(B) the term ``continuing disability reviews'' means
continuing disability reviews under sections 221(i) and
1614(a)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 421(i),
1382c(a)(4)), including work related continuing disability
reviews to determine whether earnings derived from services
demonstrate an individual's ability to engage in substantial
gainful activity; and
(C) the term ``redetermination'' means redetermination of
eligibility under sections 1611(c)(1) and 1614(a)(3)(H) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1382(c)(1),
1382c(a)(3)(H)).
(3) References.--All references to section 1(k) of H. Res.
467 (117th Congress) in any bill or joint resolution, or
amendment thereto or conference report thereon shall be
treated for all purposes in the House of Representatives as
references to this subsection of this concurrent resolution.
(b) Adjustment for Internal Revenue Service Tax
Enforcement.--In the House of Representatives, the chair of
the Committee on the Budget may adjust the allocations,
aggregates, and other budgetary levels included in this
concurrent resolution to reflect changes as follows:
(1) In general.--If a bill, joint resolution, amendment, or
conference report making discretionary appropriations for
fiscal year 2022 specifies an amount for tax enforcement
activities, including tax compliance to address the Federal
tax gap, in the Enforcement account and the Operations
Support account of the Internal Revenue Service of the
Department of the Treasury, then the adjustment shall be the
additional new budget authority provided in such measure for
such purpose, but shall not exceed $417,000,000.
(2) Definition.--As used in this subsection, the term
``additional new budget authority'' means the amount provided
for fiscal year 2022, in excess of $9,141,000,000, in a bill,
joint resolution, amendment, or conference report and
specified for tax enforcement activities, including tax
compliance to address the Federal tax gap, of the Internal
Revenue Service.
(3) References.--All references to section 1(i) of H. Res.
467 (117th Congress) in any bill or joint resolution, or
amendment thereto or conference report thereon shall be
treated for all purposes in the House of Representatives as
references to this subsection of this concurrent resolution.
(c) Adjustment for Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control.--In
the House of Representatives, the chair of the Committee on
the Budget may adjust the allocations, aggregates, and other
budgetary levels included in this concurrent resolution to
reflect changes as follows:
(1) In general.--If a bill, joint resolution, amendment, or
conference report making discretionary appropriations for
fiscal year 2022 specifies an amount for the health care
fraud abuse control program at the Department of Health and
Human Services (75-8393-0-7-571), then the adjustment shall
be the additional new budget authority specified in such
measure for such purpose for fiscal year 2022, but shall not
exceed $556,000,000.
(2) Definition.--As used in this subsection the term
``additional new budget authority'' means the amount provided
fiscal year 2022, in excess of $317,000,000, in a bill, joint
resolution, amendment, or conference report and specified to
pay for the costs of the health care fraud and abuse control
program.
(3) References.--All references to section 1(j) of H. Res.
467 (117th Congress) in any bill or joint resolution, or
amendment thereto or conference report thereon shall be
treated

[[Page S6248]]

for all purposes in the House of Representatives as
references to this subsection of this concurrent resolution.
(d) Reemployment Services and Eligibility Assessments.--In
the House of Representatives, the chair of the Committee on
the Budget may adjust the allocations, aggregates, and other
budgetary levels included in this concurrent resolution to
reflect changes as follows:
(1) In general.--If a bill, joint resolution, amendment, or
conference report making discretionary appropriations for
fiscal year 2022 specifies an amount for grants to States
under section 306 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 506)
for claimants of regular compensation, as defined in such
section, including those who are profiled as most likely to
exhaust their benefits, then the adjustment shall be the
additional new budget authority specified in such measure for
such grants for fiscal year 2022, but shall not exceed
$133,000,000.
(2) Definition.--As used in this subsection, the term
``additional new budget authority'' means the amount provided
for fiscal year 2022, in excess of $117,000,000, in a bill,
joint resolution, amendment, or conference report making
discretionary appropriations and specified to pay for grants
to States under section 306 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 506) for claimants of regular compensation, as defined
in such section, including those who are profiled as most
likely to exhaust their benefits.
(e) Adjustment for Wildfire Suppression.--In the House of
Representatives, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may
adjust the allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary
levels in this concurrent resolution to reflect changes as
follows:
(1) In general.--If a bill, joint resolution, amendment, or
conference report making discretionary appropriations for
fiscal year 2022 specifies an amount for wildfire suppression
operations in the Wildland Fire Management accounts at the
Department of Agriculture or the Department of the Interior,
then the adjustment shall be the amount of additional new
budget authority specified in such measure as being for
wildfire suppression operations for fiscal year 2022, but
shall not exceed $2,450,000,000.
(2) Definitions.--As used in this subsection--
(A) the term ``additional new budget authority'' means the
amount provided for a fiscal year in an appropriation Act
that is in excess of the average costs for wildfire
suppression operations as reported in the budget of the
President submitted under section 1105(a) of title 31, United
States Code, for fiscal year 2015 and are specified to pay
for the costs of wildfire suppression operations; and
(B) the term ``wildfire suppression operations'' means the
emergency and unpredictable aspects of wildland firefighting,
including--
(i) support, response, and emergency stabilization
activities;
(ii) other emergency management activities; and
(iii) the funds necessary to repay any transfers needed for
the costs of wildfire suppression operations.
(3) References.--All references to section 1(h) of H. Res.
467 (117th Congress) in any bill or joint resolution, or
amendment thereto or conference report thereon shall be
treated for all purposes in the House of Representatives as
references to this subsection of this concurrent resolution.
(f) Adjustment for Disaster Relief.--In the House of
Representatives, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may
adjust the allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary
levels included in this concurrent resolution to reflect
changes as follows:
(1) In general.--If a bill, joint resolution, amendment, or
conference report making discretionary appropriations
specifies an amount that Congress designates as being for
disaster relief, the adjustment for fiscal year 2022 shall be
the total of such appropriations for fiscal year 2022
designated as being for disaster relief, but not to exceed
the total of--
(A) the average over the previous 10 fiscal years
(excluding the highest and lowest fiscal years) of the sum of
the funding provided for disaster relief (as that term is
defined on the date immediately before March 23, 2018);
(B) 5 percent of the total appropriations provided in the
previous 10 fiscal years, net of any rescissions of budget
authority enacted in the same period, with respect to amounts
provided for major disasters declared pursuant to the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) and designated by the Congress as an
emergency; and
(C) the cumulative net total of the unused carryover for
fiscal year 2018 and all subsequent fiscal years, where the
unused carryover for each fiscal year is calculated as the
sum of the amounts in subparagraphs (A) and (B) less the
enacted appropriations for that fiscal year that have been
designated as being for disaster relief.
(2) Definition.--As used in this subsection, the term
``disaster relief'' means activities carried out pursuant to
a determination under section 102(2) of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5122(2)).
(3) References.--All references to section 1(g) of H. Res.
467 (117th Congress) in any bill or joint resolution, or
amendment thereto or conference report thereon shall be
treated for all purposes in the House of Representatives as
references to this subsection of this concurrent resolution.
(g) Veterans Medical Care.--In the House of
Representatives, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may
adjust the allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary
levels included in this concurrent resolution to reflect
changes as follows:
(1) In general.--If a bill, joint resolution, amendment, or
conference report making discretionary appropriations for
fiscal year 2022 specifies an amount for veterans medical
care (in the Medical Services, Medical Community Care,
Medical Support and Compliance, and Medical Facilities
accounts of the Veterans Health Administration), then the
adjustment shall be the additional new budget authority
specified in such measure for such medical care for fiscal
year 2022, but shall not exceed $7,602,000,000.
(2) Definition.--As used in this subsection, the term
``additional new budget authority'' means the amount provided
for fiscal year 2022, in excess of $89,849,000,000, in a
bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report
making discretionary appropriations and specified to pay for
veterans medical care.

SEC. 4006. ENFORCEMENT FILING.

(a) Senate.--In the Senate, if this concurrent resolution
on the budget is agreed to by the Senate and House of
Representatives without the appointment of a committee of
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, the
Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may
submit a statement for publication in the Congressional
Record containing--
(1) for the Committee on Appropriations, committee
allocations for fiscal year 2022 consistent with the levels
in title I for the purpose of enforcing section 302 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633); and
(2) for all committees other than the Committee on
Appropriations, committee allocations for fiscal years 2022,
2022 through 2026, and 2022 through 2031 consistent with the
levels in title I for the purpose of enforcing section 302 of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633).
(b) House of Representatives.--In the House of
Representatives, if a concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 2022 is adopted without the appointment of a
committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses with respect to this concurrent resolution on the
budget, for the purpose of enforcing the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 621 et seq.) and applicable rules and
requirements set forth in the concurrent resolution on the
budget, the allocations provided for in this subsection shall
apply in the House of Representatives in the same manner as
if such allocations were in a joint explanatory statement
accompanying a conference report on the budget for fiscal
year 2022. The chair of the Committee on the Budget of the
House of Representatives shall submit a statement for
publication in the Congressional Record containing--
(1) for the Committee on Appropriations, committee
allocations for fiscal year 2022 consistent with title I for
the purpose of enforcing section 302 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633); and
(2) for all committees other than the Committee on
Appropriations, committee allocations consistent with title I
for fiscal year 2022 and for the period of fiscal years 2022
through 2031 for the purpose of enforcing 302 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633).

SEC. 4007. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS,
AGGREGATES, AND OTHER BUDGETARY LEVELS.

(a) Application.--Any adjustments of allocations,
aggregates, and other budgetary levels made pursuant to this
concurrent resolution shall--
(1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
(2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
(3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as
practicable.
(b) Effect of Changed Allocations, Aggregates, and Other
Budgetary Levels.--Revised allocations, aggregates, and other
budgetary levels resulting from these adjustments shall be
considered for the purposes of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 621 et seq.) as the allocations,
aggregates, and other budgetary levels contained in this
concurrent resolution.
(c) Budget Committee Determinations.--For purposes of this
concurrent resolution, the levels of new budget authority,
outlays, direct spending, new entitlement authority,
revenues, deficits, and surpluses for a fiscal year or period
of fiscal years shall be determined on the basis of estimates
made by the chair of the Committee on the Budget of the
applicable House of Congress.

SEC. 4008. ADJUSTMENTS TO REFLECT CHANGES IN CONCEPTS AND
DEFINITIONS.

(a) Senate.--In the Senate, upon the enactment of a bill or
joint resolution providing for a change in concepts or
definitions, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of
the Senate may make adjustments to the levels and allocations
in this resolution in accordance with section 251(b) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2
U.S.C. 901(b)).
(b) House of Representatives.--In the House of
Representatives, upon the enactment of a bill or joint
resolution providing for a change in concepts or definitions,
the chair of the Committee on the Budget of the House of
Representatives may adjust the allocations, aggregates, and
other budgetary

[[Page S6249]]

levels in this concurrent resolution accordingly.

SEC. 4009. ADJUSTMENT FOR BIPARTISAN INFRASTRUCTURE
LEGISLATION IN THE SENATE.

(a) Adjustments.--In the Senate, upon the enactment of an
infrastructure bill or joint resolution, including
legislation implementing a bipartisan infrastructure
agreement, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the
Senate may make adjustments to the levels and allocations in
this resolution to reflect changes resulting from the
enactment of such bill or joint resolution.
(b) Determinations.--For purposes of this section, the
levels of budget authority and outlays shall be determined on
the basis of estimates submitted by the Chairman of the
Committee on the Budget of the Senate.

SEC. 4010. ADJUSTMENT FOR INFRASTRUCTURE LEGISLATION IN THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

In the House of Representatives, the chair of the Committee
on the Budget may adjust the allocations, aggregates, and
other budgetary levels included in this concurrent resolution
to reflect changes resulting from the enactment of an
infrastructure bill or joint resolution, including
legislation implementing the INVEST in America Act or a
bipartisan infrastructure agreement.

SEC. 4011. APPLICABILITY OF ADJUSTMENTS TO DISCRETIONARY
SPENDING LIMITS.

Except as expressly provided otherwise, the adjustments
provided by section 251(b) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(b)) shall
not apply to allocations, aggregates, or other budgetary
levels established pursuant to this concurrent resolution.

SEC. 4012. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

(a) Senate.--
(1) In general.--In the Senate, notwithstanding section
302(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C.
633(a)(1)), section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of
1990 (2 U.S.C. 632 note), and section 2009a of title 39,
United States Code, the report or the joint explanatory
statement accompanying this concurrent resolution on the
budget or the statement filed pursuant to section 4006(a), as
applicable, shall include in an allocation under section
302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C.
633(a)) to the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate of
amounts for the discretionary administrative expenses of the
Social Security Administration and the United States Postal
Service.
(2) Special rule.--In the Senate, for purposes of enforcing
section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2
U.S.C. 633(f)), estimates of the level of total new budget
authority and total outlays provided by a measure shall
include any discretionary amounts described in paragraph (1).
(b) House of Representatives.--
(1) In general.--In the House of Representatives,
notwithstanding section 302(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633(a)(1)), section 13301 of the Budget
Enforcement Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 632 note), and section
2009a of title 39, United States Code, the report or the
joint explanatory statement accompanying this concurrent
resolution on the budget or the statement filed pursuant to
section 4006(b), as applicable, shall include in an
allocation under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633(a)) to the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives of amounts for
the discretionary administrative expenses of the Social
Security Administration and the United States Postal Service.
(2) Special rule.--In the House of Representatives, for
purposes of enforcing section 302(f) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633(f)), estimates of the level
of total new budget authority and total outlays provided by a
measure shall include any discretionary amounts described in
paragraph (1).

SEC. 4013. APPROPRIATE BUDGETARY ADJUSTMENTS IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.

In the House of Representatives, the chair of the Committee
on the Budget of the House of Representatives may make
appropriate budgetary adjustments of new budget authority and
the outlays flowing therefrom pursuant to the adjustment
authorities provided by this concurrent resolution.

SEC. 4014. ADJUSTMENT FOR CHANGES IN THE BASELINE IN THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

In the House of Representatives, the chair of the Committee
on the Budget of the House of Representatives may adjust the
allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate budgetary
levels in this concurrent resolution to reflect changes
resulting from the Congressional Budget Office's updates to
its baseline for fiscal years 2022 through 2031.

SEC. 4015. SCORING RULE IN THE SENATE FOR CHILD CARE AND PRE-
KINDERGARTEN LEGISLATION.

(a) In General.--In the Senate, for the purposes of
estimates with respect to any child care or pre-kindergarten
legislation during the 117th Congress, the Congressional
Budget Office shall consider funding for programs under the
Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.) to continue at
baseline levels.
(b) Exception.--This section shall not apply to any bill or
joint resolution making appropriations for discretionary
accounts.

SEC. 4016. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

Congress adopts the provisions of this title--
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate
and the House of Representatives, and as such they shall be
considered as part of the rules of each House or of that
House to which they specifically apply, and such rules shall
supersede other rules only to the extent that they are
inconsistent with such other rules; and
(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of
either the Senate or the House of Representatives to change
those rules (insofar as they relate to that House) at any
time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as is the
case of any other rule of the Senate or House of
Representatives.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, now, Senate Democrats have just taken a
massive step toward restoring the middle class in the 21st century,
giving more Americans the chance to get there.
Teddy Roosevelt said:

Nothing in [the] world is . . . worth doing unless it means
effort, pain, [and] difficulty.

What we are doing here is not easy. Democrats have labored for months
to reach this point, and there are many labors to come, but I can say
with absolute certainty that it will be worth doing.
The Democratic budget will bring a generational transformation to how
our economy works for average Americans. It will cut taxes for American
families; it will lower costs for everyone; it will create good-paying
jobs while tackling climate change; and it will be paid for by making
our Tax Code more progressive and more fair: asking corporations and
the wealthy to pay their fair share; it will help middle-class
Americans stay in the middle class; and it will build ladders into the
middle class.
It will restore the basic social contract in America: If you work
hard, you can do better and pass on even greater opportunities for your
children.
And, in doing so, my friends, it will restore something in the
American character that we have nearly lost: that hopeful optimism;
that can-do attitude; that frontier spirit--eyes fixed on the horizons;
the kindness and decency and faith in the future that is fundamental
not only to the American spirit but to American democracy. I can think
of no more worthy pursuit.

____________________